BTMS* nonsense strikes again. Writing a new story about the same thing you've written about multiple times must be sooooo difficult for a "science" writer.
Uh oh....a TELEVISION corespondant says "changing the whole dino ballgame"....wipe out entire fields of science with that one. Unquesitonable scientific proof that Man walked with dinosaurs and they were all killed in some big flood.
In a field test demonstration to determine whether a dinosaur fossil was real bone, and not bone replaced by minerals, Stahl touched her tongue to it. It stuck like Velcro. She then asked paleontologist Mary Schweitzer, “This is 80 million years old and it can do that?” “Yes,” Schweitzer said confidently.
BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.....this is "science" in BTMS* world? The scientific determination of "bone or rock" is determined with a tongue-stick test. That's "science"....
In demonstrating that dinosaur bones still somehow contained soft, bendable tissues
They didn't find that in any manner. They de-mineralized a fossil in a weak EDTA solution and discovered soft-tissue structures AFTER the rock was dissolved. Keep up the misinformation and selectively quoting 2-word phrases and filling the rest in with your nonsense, BTMS*.
60 Minutes reported, “It looked like the soft tissue she would have expected to find if it had been modern bone.
More tidbits of wisdom from a TELEVISION CORESPONDENT....Earth to "60 minutes"....a modern bone would not need to be de-mineralized to find soft-tissue structures.
All further editorial comments by Stahl are to be ignored as uneducated filler.
But it is not some arbitrary “rule of science” that dictates that flesh usually rots quickly. It is extremely well established by common observation, as well as by decades of easily repeatable experiments, such as those measuring protein decay that occurs in mere days.2
BTMS* here is mixing experiments and rightly believing that you will not know the difference between a dead thing out in the open and a dead thing in conditions that promote fossilization.....because you buy into this nonsense.
Instead, the “science” being challenged is perhaps the deep-time evolutionary dogma that remains widely held despite contradictory evidence.3
The discovery of soft-tissue structures in a fossil hardly challenges one single notion of the Theory of Evolution. See, BTMS*, if you were a scientist, you'd know that.
By removing the unscientific interpretive filter of “millions of years” placed on it, the conundrum created by this soft evidence evaporates.
Yes, by removing entire fields of science, Man can live in the land of 100+ species of large meat eating dinosaurs.
If these dinosaurs were buried during a recent and major watery catastrophe, then the discovery of their still-soft tissues is much easier to explain.
Too bad they weren't "still-soft" tissues, BTMS*....they were fossilized tissue that had to be demineralized to get to soft-tissue structures.....that they are not wholly mineralized is a new concept that most certainly does not prove that man walked with dinosaurs.
If these dinosaurs were killed and buried in the Flood, there would've been representatives of them on the Ark and they would not have been conveniently all placed in specific and orderly strata.....would've been a mish-mash of all living things......including the rest of the humans.
Didn't you ever wonder, BTMS*, why no humans have been found in the extinct dinosaur strata?
This guy died recently.....right?
