.
What is total nonsense are your inane replies.
.
The impossibility is more biological than mathematical. math is neutral to the magnitude of numbers.
“It’s simply a mathematical impossibility that you are going to find preserved soft tissue remains in something 75 million years old.”
I’m sorry, I obviously haven’t seen the math that proves this. Please link so I can learn more about it.
This article references this one from 2006:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/?no-ist
Where a 65 million year old T-rex fossilized bone was dissolved in acid to see what remained. They found stretchy remains. Tissue. Actual soft tissue. A chunk of it. Red blood cells too.
Here’s my beef. By any reasonable rules of decay, there should simply be no chance in a million that pliable soft tissue and red blood cells would remain intact no matter how they became fossilized for 60+ million years.
Here is my point. You can make the argument both ways on this.
1) It’s amazing that something carbon dated at 65 million years has soft tissue in it! Remarkable!!!
2) It’s amazing that carbon dating placed something at 65 million years old when it clearly has soft tissue in it. We had better check the validity of carbon dating!!!
Either statement is potentially valid about the results, unless you want to scream, “The science is settled.” And shut everyone down.