Originally posted by Lasheic
reply to post by rocmonkey
The presence of soft tissue in fossils does not negate the established age of the fossil, it merely means our understanding of the fossilization process may be incomplete. One of the major problems thus far is that each bone recovered is generally well preserved and handled carefully. In the case of the T.Rex bone (if I'm not mistaken) it was either broken in transport or had to be cut down for transport, wherein they found the soft tissue. It should also be noted that the soft tissue inside wasn't perfectly preserved - it was rather sparse and highly degraded. To the best of my knowledge, they can't even find a long enough chain of intact DNA to fully sequence - but from the sparse protines we have been able to analyze, it confirms the suspicion that modern birds are descended from Dinosaurs. I'm not sure if further study on other bones have turned up similar soft tissue deposits, or if there has been any further study on other bones as of yet. Other bones have been broken accidentally in the past - and this is the first time soft tissue has shown up, making this a very odd exception... but likely not the rule. Conditions during fossilization likely have a very large part to play - wherein bones that are fossilized in arid environments may preserve soft tissues better than those in moist environments.
[edit on 26-6-2009 by Lasheic]
Actually, the soft tissue was veins and such. It was not (repeat- was not) bone tissue. And, yes, fossils tissue does negate the age of the thing- especially when its supposed to be 70 - 75 Million years old. For example, when something dies it immediately begins to deteriorate. Or, its eaten by other animals. Fossils can only form when the animal is immediately covered. For proof just throw a piece of raw meat out in the sun on the ground. It will rot or be eaten or, over a very short period of time (days to weeks at most) deteriorate to an unrecognizable state. Soft tissues in the form of veins and muscle cannot last 75 Million years. The facts (if you follow truth) is clear science is wrong, the Bible is right.
The point is "proof" is dependent upon what you are willing to accept as proof.
