“The personal comments in this thread are getting a bit above and beyond even their normal churlish nature, so, barring any further comments of an intellectual nature, the jester is leaving the building.”
I agree with you. I do have a comment about this article. I find it amazing that when intact protein is found in follized bones, which previous “scientific opinion” said was impossible, they just say, “well we need to rethink the “impossbile statement.” What occurs to me, is that they should at least consider that it is indeed “impossible” and draw the possible resulting conclusion that those bones may not be millions of years old as thought. But that would upset the paradigm and therefore is not even considered.
Bottom line is that anything that messes with basic evolutionary assumptions will be tossed. The bones must be millions of years old in order for the theorized evolution of dinosaurs to birds to have occurred. So, the prefectly reasonable thought that protein should not last millions of years is tossed out. Patterns of thought, both evolutionary and creationist (et. al.) are both rigid. I must ask if the evolutionary theorist is really that much less biased in his approach that the stereotypical “Bible believing creationist”? It is my opinion the ET is just as biased as the BBC he/she calls silly.
The bottom actually is that science consists of many interrelated theories accounting for millions and millions of observations.
For one observation to switch from "protein can't last millions of years" to "protein can last millions of years" is not sufficient to overturn all of the theories and observations leading to the conclusion that the earth is billions of years old.
This is particularly true as there is currently no good evidence for a young earth (ca. 6,000-10,000 years). That age estimate is a religious belief, not something based on science.
That would be amazing, but they just found sad little scraps of collagen. It was not intact. Fortunately, enough little scraps can provide valuable information!