To: dynoman
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?
46 posted on
08/29/2006 10:51:46 AM PDT by
Junior
(Identical fecal matter, alternate diurnal period)
To: Junior
Creationist web sites????
The article linked in post 22 is from National Geographic!!
50 posted on
08/29/2006 10:58:41 AM PDT by
dynoman
(Objectivity is the essence of intelligence. - Marylin vos Savant)
To: Junior
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.
51 posted on
08/29/2006 11:05:55 AM PDT by
dynoman
(Objectivity is the essence of intelligence. - Marylin vos Savant)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson