Ping!
Conclusions must never be reconsidered. All we can do is re-think how to portray the evidence in such a way as to continue to prop up the old established conclusions.
Note: Challenging a time scale or reconsidering the age of fossils would not (necessarily) be an attack Evolution, nor would it (necessarily) be a defense of Creationism. It would merely show that new evidence makes people re-check their old conclusions. That's all.
[[Were the scientists at University College Dublin surprised by their discovery of this fossil in southern Spain? Yes and no;]]
They are settign hte stage to later declare ‘We once thought that 50 million year old tissue coudl not be preseved, but after many discoveries, it is now clear that nature was somehow able to preserve soft tissue far logner than we ever dared dream it could- this is a fascinating discovery, and just proves how elastic science needs to be, and how scientists need to keep an open mind because hte evidences quite often conflict with current theories. we now know that what was ocne htought to be ‘extremely rare’, is now quite a normal occurance, and we now have the evidence to investigate further millions of years old soft tissue. We don’t know how nature was able to preserve the tissue, but we assure you that ‘one day’ we will discover hte answers IF we just keep an open mind”
You know, you guys are right.
Just the other day, I’d swear I saw a Dinosaur crossing the road. (Sarcasm)
Wow, that’s some well aged meat!
You're quoting from an editorial comment (for all we know, not even written by a scientist), not a scientific article.
I look at some of these “keywords” and it makes me chuckle:
antiscienceevos; atomsdonotexist; ...electricityisfire; ....ravityisahoax;
Soft tissue preservation is actually quite common. I have a twinkie that is almost as old as those fossils, and I’m pretty sure it’s still edible.
“Dinosaur blood cells, blood vessels and proteins: have they been found, and how could they have survived the alleged millions of years?”
They survived because they’re FOSSILIZED! They’re rock. They’re not soft anymore, and haven’t been soft for 18 m years.
“”We noticed that there had been very little degradation since it was originally fossilised about 18 million years ago,
Ping (for obvious reasons)
One must marvel at the depth of the faith of these scientists.
More FOSSILIZED “soft tissue structures” being passed off as “soft muscle tissue” , I see.
Move along folks, this is not the “soft tissue” you are being told it is....this is FOSSILIZED soft tissue STRUCTURE, nothing more.
....bet they don’t even know WTH “soft tissue” is....and it has nothing to do with being “soft.”
“...a salamander said to be 18 million years old.”
The Medicare costs alone.....
How old does the Bible claim it to be?
Every single story I have read on FR about soft tissue being found in ancient fossils comes from a Creationist site.
This means one of two things.
1. The creationists are the only ones willing to share raw data and let the chips fall where they may.
2. The creationist sites are batsh** crazy.
I’m honestly not sure which is true, but I am tending to lean towards number one at this point.
There is a third option: Other sources are just not being reported on FR.
I watched a program (one of an endless series, it seems) on the Science channel about the purported asteroid that destroyed the dinosaurs.
According to the graphics within hours of the hit firestorms spread around the earth burning everything into a layer of charcoal found just above the KT layer.
But, But what happened to the birds and feathery things, and insects? No trees, no food, so what happened to them?
This didn’t seem to a question that merited consideration, unlike the supposed burrowing mammals.
And damn it, it really HURT when they hacked that sample outta my left @ss cheek!
[ban pit paleontologists!]
Clone the suckers.
I want a real Jurassic Park to visit.