xBlackPantherx wrote:Classical science bashing. What you obviously don't get is the processes by which science and scientists derive certain things. Which is something I recommend you and any other dumbass looks into before stating something stupid. Something like this wasn't necessarily preserved as soft tissue for 68 million years, although as proven at the time of discovery, in a case like this the mammoth was completely frozen over and sealed off from everything that could decompose it/destroy its tissue. But they also have bone marrow from a dinosaur fossil bone (forget what species) that was completely dried out obviously, but when some liquid was added the tissue became resilient again.
My example wasn't a mammoth. This "soft tissue" was found from the femur of a T-Rex in Montana.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … issue.html
"Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this [soft-tissue preservation]," Schweitzer said.
Typical dinosaur fossilization is premineralization, the complete replacement of the original matters with minerals. Finding flesh and fur from a frozen mammoth is one thing (from humanoid history), but finding the original tissue from a 68 million year old dinosaur? That's some preservation. I don't deny the existance of dinosaurs. I just don't believe this find was from 68 million years ago.
Science is an ever "evolving" field, and prior thoughts and beliefs are constantly challenged, disapproved, and re-approved. Just because 99.999999999% of people believe something doesn't make it so. At one point, people didn't know the existence of quarks, or Quantum Physics for that matter.
Last edited by Ilocano (2009-05-20 14:25:19)