[tomzz]

That's what Schweitzer means by 'they...manipulate your data'. What you posted is fraud.

I remember reading several accounts of the story at the time and there were no descripancies in the details from one version to the next. What I'd suggest you do is to read the account at that url I posted:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

and then sue Bill Gates, MSNBC, and Reuters for fraud if you care to. Again, here's some of what they say:

WASHINGTON - A 70-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex fossil dug out of a hunk of sandstone has yielded soft tissue, including blood vessels and perhaps even whole cells, U.S. researchers reported on Thursday.

Paleontologists forced to break the creature's massive thighbone to get it on a helicopter found not a solid piece of fossilized bone, but instead something looking a bit less like a rock.

When they got it into a lab and chemically removed the hard minerals, they found what looked like blood vessels, bone cells and perhaps even blood cells.

"They are transparent, they are flexible," said Mary Higby Schweitzer of North Carolina State University and Montana State University, who conducted the study.

She said the vessels were flexible and in some cases their contents could be squeezed out.

"The microstructures that look like cells are preserved in every way," added Schweitzer, whose findings were published in the journal Science.

"Preservation of this extent, where you still have this flexibility and transparency, has never been seen in a dinosaur before." Feathers, hair and fossilized egg contents yes, but not truly soft tissue...

[Right Wing Professor]

I don't see the term 'Tyrannosaur meat' in NBC's account, sensationalized though it is. I don't see you mention that the picture is actually demineralized bone, not 'meat'. I don't see you mentioning what you posted are actually photomicrographs, not photographs.

[andysandmikesmom]

I suggest you read the info that is provided by Almagests link in post #232...its a long read, but it discusses in great detail, the whole of the circumstances surrounding this issue about 'dinosaur blood cells'...

[grey_whiskers]

Tom, Hate to kick in my two cents worth here, but perhaps you have noticed that the MSM is not always entirely accurate with other issues; say Abu Gharib?

Often they have mixed motives; whether liberal bias, ignorance, or "just getting a good story" (as in the case of the newsbabe riding a canoe in a flooded street in only one or two feet of water).

Have you considered the possibility that the MSNBC, etc. themselves either misunderstood or glossed over important details?

One of the biggest beefs scientists have with Creationist types is a marked tendency to rely *on authority* for things, even when empirical evidence, and the opportunity for fact-checking, is readily available.

Yes, there is a time for trust, and faith, etc.; but there are also times when they aren't the right tools for the job.

The difficulty is in deciding how much baby to throw out with which bathwater--and depending on one's philosphical underpinnings, people will tend to come up with quite different choices on that.

Full Disclosure: Dilbert once had a good series of strips about running into one of the fanatical ECREE "professional skeptic" types.

Cheers!