OFF TOPIC!!
PLEASE DO NOT RESPOND!!
quote:
The fossil record is determined on superficial traits and not on DNA because we are hard pressed to find any flesh that have survived decay. And whenever flesh is present and red blood cells can be viewed underneath the microscope, it brings ToE into disrepute. (Take for example the two cases of T-Rex having soft tissue still attached to bone).
And just how does finding soft tissue in a large bone bring the ToE into disrepute? At worst it makes us re-evaluate our understanding of the fossilization process. Although it seems scientists predicted we'd find soft tissue before the event.
Schweitzer makes a point that a possible reason more soft tissue has not been found is because people are reluctant to saw open large fossils to look for it. The first bone had to be broken to fit it on a helicopter; but since then soft tissue has been found in two other T-rex bones and in a hadrasaur bone.
Or are you suggesting that T-rex DNA was somehow extracted? So far the only thing I know of is a superficial comparison with de-mineralized bone tissue of an ostrich. I'm sure there's more but I haven't had a chance to read it.
Edited by AdminNosy, : No reason given.
When science and the Bible differ, science has obviously misinterpreted its data.- Henry Morris, Head of Institute for Creation Research
™ Version 4.2