634
edits
Changes
T-Rex soft tissue?
Thanks. Just going back to my last question for a moment, I accept that you don't know the answer, but would you agree that the two possibilities I mentioned seem to be about the ''only'' two possibilities, and that both seem rather unlikely (even within the evolutionary paradigm)? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
Thanks. Just going back to my last question for a moment, I accept that you don't know the answer, but would you agree that the two possibilities I mentioned seem to be about the ''only'' two possibilities, and that both seem rather unlikely (even within the evolutionary paradigm)? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:58, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
== T-Rex soft tissue? ==
I am a little concerned about the soft tissue reference.
The source is a creationist site. I do not mean to imply that creationist sites are necessarily unreliable - but isn't there some other additional source? It sounds like a sensational find. I would have expected it to make the front cover of New Scientist.
Also, when you look at the site a couple of things stand out for me. Firstly the story says that the tissue was found in a T-Rex bone that they had to break in order to transport it by helicopter. Does that sound right to you? Breaking a T-Rex bone to transport it? Not to me either.
Second, if the flesh was not fossilized why hasn't it been carbon dated? That would settle a few arguments wouldn't it?
The whole thing sounds a bit suspicious. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] <sup>[[Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop]]</sup> 20:46, 24 April 2007 (EDT)