Replies

Velikovsky, with whatever illustrations he chose to use, tendered the radical idea that the earth was shaped through agents of catastrophe rather than uniformitarian processes. I don't disagree with that and the thread article echoes it. You seem to reject anything the man said and we simply won't reach consensus. 'Nuff said.

Now, regarding the T-Rex issue...

I don't have access to the cited article, but here is the synopsis from the website:

"Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of microstructures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience."

This, at 68 million years, is close enough to meat to abandon rhetorical pretense and parsing - you know exactly what I mean. This find is, at the core, beyond comprehension, man. 68 million years! New stories will have to be tendered - and soon. Paraphrasing Dr. Schweitzer, it stands current explanations on their ears. Then again, it wouldn't be the first time that science had pull new explanations out of their butts so I'm certain that they'll know just how to do it.

A pleasant evening to you, Sir!

"Velikovsky, with whatever illustrations he chose to use, tendered the radical idea that the earth was shaped through agents of catastrophe rather than uniformitarian processes."

He was wrong in every detail.

"I don't disagree with that and the thread article echoes it. You seem to reject anything the man said and we simply won't reach consensus. 'Nuff said."

I reject what he said because nothing he said was right.

"This, at 68 million years, is close enough to meat to abandon rhetorical pretense and parsing - you know exactly what I mean."

You are wrong. It was not at all like *meat*. It was a 3mm in diamter section of the fossil that under chemical treatment showed remnants of cells, maybe.

"This find is, at the core, beyond comprehension, man. 68 million years! New stories will have to be tendered - and soon. Paraphrasing Dr. Schweitzer, it stands current explanations on their ears. Then again, it wouldn't be the first time that science had pull new explanations out of their butts so I'm certain that they'll know just how to do it."

She also said that the creationists who have taken her discovery to mean that raw meat was found were dead wrong.

Again, your bringing up this study, totally unrelated to anything about Velikovsky, shows your desperation and inability to counter what I have said.

This, at 68 million years, is close enough to meat to abandon rhetorical pretense and parsing

No, it really isn't. Calling it "meat" is both grossly inaccurate and grossly misleading.

you know exactly what I mean.

Yes we do, and what you say is wrong.