What's the creationists thought on this?

I think that Pressie's incredulity comes from the fact that anyone reading about those fossils should have read her name several times.It is a little like me talking about evolution and then saying: "Who's Darwin?".

Can it be?!
Did you reference an article that you didn't read??Oh yes.
It appears that you did.Here is a direct quote from that article:

quote:

---

Then a chemical process must have mineralized the tissue before bacteria ate it.

---

(Emphasis mine)So, to clarify:
No. A dinosaur was most certainly NOT found with tissue and bones intact.Time and again I see this kind of dishonest quote-mining and intentional misrepresentation of evidence from anti-evolutionists.
Is your god really so very weak that you have to lie to support his existence?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

You provided 3 links in Message 114.
None of them contain the text you are quoting above.But the three links you provided DO explain that it was mineralised tissue:

quote:

---

Then a chemical process must have mineralized the tissue before bacteria ate it.

---

I am left wondering why you had to find a 4th web-site to support your assertions, but then claim "that is also not my fault. I can only speak to the information that is available."
There WAS information available: YOU provided it.
But when it failed to support your claims, you went looking elsewhere.You can't claim ignorance of the evidence when YOU have linked information refuting your own position.