Evolution? How?

I think it makes it very difficult to suppose that these bones are 60-80 million years old.

real life wrote:

I think it makes it very difficult to suppose that these bones are 60-80 million years old.

Or it means that soft tissue can survive that amont of time under certain conditions.

Or it means that the "soft tissue" is actually some sort of "soft material" which has leeched into the bones and replaced the "soft tissue". In other words, a previously unknown type of fossil.

Either of those possibilities are far more likely than the bones being much younger.

The other possibility is that god poofed everything into existence yesterday and that our ability to understand the true nature of the world around us is just wishful thinking. But if that's the case, then there's no sense thinking about anything at all.

I don't know Setanta... I can't imagine what kind of answer he could possibly have for that one!

I see the point yet escapes you rl. That Schweitzer was surprised by her findings, such findings were neither new nor unique to her research; she and her team simply were unaware of similar, related findings, findings which corroborated their work and which their work expanded and further corroborated.........

That the soft tissue is some type of formless 'soft material' that seeped into the bone is very unlikely since it closely resembled the blood vessels, structures, etc that you would expect to find in a bone.

Lightwizard wrote:

Two brontosaurs on an ark -- must have been a really large ark. Noah would have to keep them on either side or we'd have had an ancient Poseidon Adventure.

Why do you assume that they had to be full grown?

For many practical reasons (space, food, managability, cleanup, breeding ), it would have been possible and reasonable to have younger, immature representatives of the larger species on board.

Is this a banner ad selling the thongs? Craven and Jespah, and the staff, were having a lot of fun with us for Bacon Fool's Day, now something to stretch over our privates to advertise A2K. Now who's going to read that!

real life wrote:

Lightwizard wrote:

Two brontosaurs on an ark -- must have been a really large ark. Noah would have to keep them on either side or we'd have had an ancient Poseidon Adventure.

Why do you assume that they had to be full grown?

For many practical reasons (space, food, managability, cleanup, breeding ), it would have been possible and reasonable to have younger, immature representatives of the larger species on board.

Acanthopholis Acrocanthosaurus Aegyptosaurus Aetonyx Afrovenator Alamosaurus Albertosaurus Alectrosaurus Aliwalia Allosaurus Alvarezsaurus Alxasaurus Amargasaurus Ammosaurus Amphilocoelias Amphisaurus Anatotitan Anchiceratops Anchisaurus Ankylosaurus Anodontosaurus Antarctosaurus Antrodemus Apatosaurus Archaeornithomimus Argyrosaurus Aristosaurus Aublysodon Avimimus
Bactrosaurus Bagaceratops Bahariasaurus Barapasaurus Barosaurus Baryonyx Bothriospondylus Brachiosaurus Brachyceratops Brachyrhopus Brontosaurus
Caenagnathus Camarasaurus Camelotia Camptosaurus Carnotaurus Caulodon Centrosaurus Ceratosaurus Cetiosaurus Chasmosaurus Chialingosaurus Chirostenotes Chubutisaurus Chungkingosaurus Claosaurus Coelophysis Coelurus Compsognathus Corythosaurus Creosaurus Cumnoria

Dacentrurus Daspletosaurus Deinocheirus Deinonychus Denversaurus Diceratops Dicraeosaurus Dilophosaurus Dimodosaurus Dinacodon Dinodocus Dinosaurus Diplodocus Diracodon Doryphorosaurus Dromaeosaurus Dromiceiomimus Dromicosaurus Dryosaurus Dryptosaurus Dynamosaurus Dyoplosaurus Dysalotosaurus

Echinodon Edmontonia Edmontosaurus Elaphrosaurus Elosaurus Emausaurus Eoceratops Epanterias Erectopus Eucentrosaurus Eucercosaurus Euhelopus Euoplocephalus Euskelosaurus Eustreptospondylus

We're only up to the E's and your boat has sunk.
P