Nature Journal article wrt dinosaur remains

Notice that the authors still insist that the materials are millions of years old. But this is the first time any sort of an official science organ has acknowledged the existence and legitimacy of these materials.

No thats incorrect. (You arent aware of the literature in this subject )e. There have been several reports re: chemicals preserved in other kinds of fossils in recent years. Even Dr Shweitzers T rex discovery was reported in the real scientific literature in 2005. Later , in 2007 had been other such dicoveries and then a whole batch of papers re: the "Mechanisms" of preservation (possible surface chem reactions and chelation of iron porphorins in dino blood ). There was even a report
regarding porphirins in mosquito fossils preserved in Eocen "amber". Yes, the blood of mosquito victims was preserved in amber just as Creighton theorized in "Jurassic Park"
erNothing beyond the iron porphyrins was preserved, no DNA or greater.


What e iweve got here is a new method of fossilization that involves prganic chemicals. Its not a basis to "believe" that all fossil dates are wrong.

The evidence on the Hell Creek Formation is very robust. The ash beds,(where all these theropod fossils were found), have been dated to 67 to 66 m.y. dates.

I realize your wacky worldview embraces Creationism, but the real evidence says youre full of crap.

Youve gotta get over this belief that "soft tissue" means "young"

Also, the peptides associated with bird proteins were isolated from the collagen that was ppreserved in Schweitzer's T rex fossils.

20 amino acids associated with birds (not amphibians) were isolated . These further demonstrate the evolutionary relationship between birds and dinos