In other words, intact soft tissue should be an indicator that maybe 67 million years might be wrong.
“In other words, intact soft tissue should be an indicator that maybe 67 million years might be wrong.”
Bump!!!!
I’m under the impression that soft tissue can’t last as
long as 67 million years. When Mary Schweitzer recently
found the soft tissue of a dinosaur, the scientists
were agog at how the tisssue could survive, since it is
widely believed that it cannot survive and stay “friable”.
Well, here is perhaps another anamoly. But since
dinosaurs had to die out about 65 million years ago, it
is now concluded that tissue CAN stay friable for 65 million
years.
Reminds me of the story of the man who went to his doctor
cause he believed he was dead, and needed confirmaton.
The doctor tried to convince the patient that the patient
is alive.
“Do dead men bleed?” asked the doctor.
“Why, no they don’t” said the patient.
Whereupon the doctor quickly jabbed a sterile needle into
the patients arm, blood quickly flowed from the wound.
“Well”, said the patient, “dead men bleed after all.”
So if you believe the dinosaurs died 65 million years ago,
then you must refute the idea that tissue cannot last that
long, even though it would be hard to prove.
They should carbon date the tissue, to see if it shows
any C-14 age at all. Theoretically, carbon dating at ages
> 20-50 thousand years is supposed to unreliable, but it would
be interesting if an “anamolous” age is reported.
They discovered the tissue when the fossil was run through an MRI machine. It was soft at one time, but it’s still fossilized rock hard just like every other 60-70 million year old dinosaur discovered.