Post by snafui on Aug 14, 2007 16:52:10 GMT -5
I came across a few articles about the T-Rex "soft tissue" find by Mary Schweitzer. These are two links:
www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i7n.htm
news.ncsu.edu/releases/2007/april/065.html
Article one is a bunch of crap. They are flat out lying about the "find." They make it sound as if they dug up the fossil and it already had soft tissue structures. This of course is refuted in the second article where they specifically state that they demineralized the fossil to "find" the tissue.
My science education is crap but I know when I see a lie. Creationists will say anything to try and promote their myth; this is just another attempt in a series of failed misrepresentations of science. I have yet to see a Creationist's argument that was not refuted or explained. (And it is not an argument to try and state that since we haven't discovered a certain aspect that therefore it must be a Creator - this is not science!)
Dragon, if you read this one have at it, please!
ps how does the possibility of a fossil having soft tissue refute evolution theory when 4,000 years would have been more than enough time for it to no longer be "soft tissue?"
www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i7n.htm
news.ncsu.edu/releases/2007/april/065.html
Article one is a bunch of crap. They are flat out lying about the "find." They make it sound as if they dug up the fossil and it already had soft tissue structures. This of course is refuted in the second article where they specifically state that they demineralized the fossil to "find" the tissue.
My science education is crap but I know when I see a lie. Creationists will say anything to try and promote their myth; this is just another attempt in a series of failed misrepresentations of science. I have yet to see a Creationist's argument that was not refuted or explained. (And it is not an argument to try and state that since we haven't discovered a certain aspect that therefore it must be a Creator - this is not science!)
Dragon, if you read this one have at it, please!
ps how does the possibility of a fossil having soft tissue refute evolution theory when 4,000 years would have been more than enough time for it to no longer be "soft tissue?"