Mummified Brachylophosaurus holds secrets millions of years old

Great Falls Tribune | June 21, 2006 | KIM SKORNOGOSKI

[Sopater]

Link only to "Great Falls Tribune"

[dynoman]

What about it?

Is it soft unfossilized tissue or not?

The duckbill didn't have soft tissue but apparently this t rex had tissue that retained its "original flexibility and transparency".

That is the real point of this thread isn't it?

[Lee'sGhost]

Excellent clarification.

[dynoman]

maybe there is, read posts 22&23

[colorado tanker]

Oh, goody. A T-Rex would be much more fun to have around, wouldn't it?

[webboy45]

It's interesting that the article says that the dinosaur's beak was narrow and sharp like a machete.

The book of Job indicates an animal like this dinosaur. See Job 40:15-24 "Behold now behemoth ... his nose pierceth through snares."

[Junior]

First off, we aren't dealing with the T-Rex tissue with this article. Secondly, from your quotes it appears you get your data from creationist web sites, and they are not renowned for telling the whole truth.

BTW, why do you insist on going off on a tangent like this? Are you unable to discuss the subject of the thread?

[Sopater]

There is no t rex soft tissue. It's fossilized. Think about it. Soft tissue somehow "preserved" for millions of years just laying out in the elements? Then again, some people will believe anything.

Circular reasoning alert. How do you know that it is "millions of years" old? Even if it's fossilized, it could not have been "just laying out in the elements", or would not have been fossilized, it would have been consumed.

[theFIRMbss]

>The absolute latest in technology is helping solve a forensics mystery that is 77 million years old

"I was in love with that brachylophosaurus. It was very sad it accidently died when I smashed its head in with my flashlight, but there are many ways a man can express his love for a dinosaur . . ."

[dynoman]

There is no t rex soft tissue. It's fossilized. Think about it. Soft tissue somehow "preserved" for millions of years just laying out in the elements? Then again, some people will believe anything.

Quote;"To my knowledge, preservation to this extent—where you still have original flexibility and transparency—has not been noted in dinosaurs before, so we're pretty excited by the find," said Mary H. Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University in Raleigh."

It is pretty amazing this t rex tissue could retain its "original flexibility and transparency" for 70 million years, that is to believe. There has to be some explaination how it could sit for 70 million years and not mineralize. That it mightnot be 70 million years old is too bizarre to believe.

[dynoman]

Creationist web sites????

The article linked in post 22 is from National Geographic!!

[dynoman]

BTW, why do you insist on going off on a tangent like this? Are you unable to discuss the subject of the thread?

The reason the original article was posted was to cast doubt on the age of the duckbill by implying it had soft tissue. That is the subject of the thread right? So I linked a similar article that pertains to T rex soft tissue which some will use to imply dinosaurs are not 70 million years old. Like I said in post 49 the idea these remains might not be 70 million years old is too bizarre to believe.

[evets]

Brachylophosaurus? Looks like Beluga to me.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Creationist web sites???? The article linked in post 22 is from National Geographic!!

But if it is linked with approval from a "creationist website", it automatically becomes suspect, doncha know?

[naturalized]

More like this:

[Sopater]

The reason the original article was posted was to cast doubt on the age of the duckbill by implying it had soft tissue. That is the subject of the thread right?

Actually, the reason that the original article was posted was to expose the common fallacy that it takes thousands (or millions) of years for fossils to form, and that a great deal of scientific (looking) articles are in fact, very poorly written, implying something that is not really true (i.e. presence of actual soft tissue).

[dynoman]

What about the accuracy of the National Geographic article I posted then?

What does "where you still have original flexibility and transparency" mean?

We know it can't mean the t rex was less than 70 million years old right?

[Sopater]

You can go here and ask those questions...

Dinosaur Shocker (YEC say dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years)

The scrambling continues (Fallout over T-rex bone tissue continues)

And some additional "soft tissue" discussion here -

Fossil frogs yield 'soft tissues'. Marrow from the bones of amphibians that died 10 M years ago

[ahayes]

You may be interested in my letter on this topic to Answers in Genesis. It's on my profile page.

[dynoman]

Could you give me a condensed version of that first link?

The last page of posts is just andrewc and carolinaguitarman in a childish argument.

[doc30]

To me, it sounds like the beast was naturally mummified after death, like the bodies we find in peat bogs today. Once mummified, the soft tissues would not decay like regular tissue and the process of fossilization of the mummified soft tissue would be possible. The mummification process would have given the fossilization qualities of bone to the soft tissue. This must be indeed a very rare find!