Soft tissue in hadrosaur remains

Bone isn't the most porous stuff in the world but it IS porous and it seems sufficiently obvious to me that even one million years is longer than soft tissue inside bone could last without being petrified.

For that stuff to be 70M years old it would have to have never rained in Montana or the Dakotas in all that time.

Ultimately the thing which kills off many if not most of these
seemingly unkillable shibboleths is simple human laughter.
The tale of the emperor who walked down the street butt naked at high noon
is well known.

She identified herself as a Catholic.
I did not know that Catholics had problems with those issues.

Nobody argues against microevolution.

...The problem is this: all direct measurements of the degeneration of biomolecules suggest timescales of hundreds or thousands of years (depending on environmental conditions). Indirect measurements, based on detecting biomolecules in artefacts of known age, suggest that the upper limit is less than a million years. Yet, the biomolecules detected in dinosaurs are considered to be 80 million years old. Two orders of magnitude justifies considerable skepticism!...

http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2009/05/04/collagen_fibres_and_degraded_blood_from_


Multiple hadrosaur red blood "cells" surrounded by white...

Quote:

...The problem is this: all direct measurements of the degeneration of biomolecules suggest timescales of hundreds or thousands of years (depending on environmental conditions). Indirect measurements, based on detecting biomolecules in artefacts of known age, suggest that the upper limit is less than a million years. Yet, the biomolecules detected in dinosaurs are considered to be 80 million years old. Two orders of magnitude justifies considerable skepticism!...

Aside from any questions about proving a negative in general the idea of proving that hemoglobin and soft tissue can't last 70M years has obviously never occurred to anybody. Kind of like proving that the sky is generally blue and not green or purple. But you can bet that the guys at the ICR and what not are working on it.....

Most people will find the proposition obvious enough without formal proofs.[/b]

You might could make such a case if there were no other pieces to the puzzle and assuming it wasn't possible to disprove the idea of soft tissue surviving 70M years under any circumstances and, apparently, most scientists would assume that hemoglobin would disintegrate in less than a million years whether it was encased in anything impervious or not.

But the hell of it is that there actually is a bigger picture which includes Ica stones, Amerind petroglyphs, Amerind oral traditions and an assortment of other things, all of which say that there were leftover dinosaurs walking around just prior to the flood and that the true main age of dinosaurs was a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of years back, and not millions.

That's all assertion Dave.

Do you not realise that?

You shouldn't believe everything you see on TV you know.

There are some pretty sharp cookies out there.

One doesn't always feel the need to address oneself to what some Mary said.

What we need is a scientific explanation of the process
and not simply the bald statement that it has taken place
in now you see it now you don't exegesis.

I bet when you wring the wahing out Dave it is bone dry.

But the hell of it is that there actually is a bigger picture which includes Ica stones, Amerind petroglyphs, Amerind oral traditions and an assortment of other things, all of which say that there were leftover dinosaurs walking around just prior to the flood and that the true main age of dinosaurs was a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of years back, and not millions.

We have always had some portion of the planet high and dry.