Since T Rex femurs had been found with red meat and blood cells - 4400 years or 65 million years old?

Question

probabilistically speaking... Which of the two scenarios is the more likely... red meat and blood cells form something >>>65million years or something 4400 years old

does it make sense we would have red meat and blood cells from something 65 million years ago.
The femur was too large to fit on the helicopter so they chopped the bone to transport it and in side was osme rather unexpected red meat... mmm .. mmm... I don't recommend eating it

does one take it by faith that dinos are 65million years old and set aside the data
or does one take it by faith they are 4400 years old and set aside the data... or is it in how one looks and interprets the data

Answer 1

You see, this is the problem with creationist thinking.

What they found was *trace* amounts of soft-tissue, and you describe it as if they found hunks of "red meat" packing the interior of the bone.

And from those trace amounts of soft tissue, rather than this indicating that soft tissue can survive *indefinitely* given the right circumstances, you think the more "likely" explanation is that all the fields of biology, paleontology, geology, radiometry, physics, astronomy, anthropology, archaeology, and even the speed of light are all wrong about the ages of fossils, rocks, the earth and the stars, and instead it's all just only a few thousand years after all.

Others are correct ... the fact that this soft tissue would survive 65 million years is no more and no less surprising than the idea that it would survive 4400 years.

Answer 2

You are completely mis-representing the facts. If you are any more familiar with the "data" surrounding this discovery why don't you provide the reference? I have the article in front of me open on my desk.

It suggests you are completely ignorant of the facts.

Bone marrow was discover inside the bone.. not "red meat"
Soft tissue, if exposed to the environment would be long gone in 4400 years too. The existance of the tissue says NOTHING about the age of the earth.. until they carbon-13 date it.

So really the only thing that this discovery proves is that the bone marrow of this Dino MUST have come in contact with Jesus and as such was preserved like so many other saints. Oh WAIT that's CRAP nevermind.

You people are SO much better off locked in your little churches.

Answer 3

Has nothing to do with your interpretation. Science is fact based. You either except the facts or deny them. Which is a fact? The sun rises in the east or west. Well, we all know the answer. But hey, you can interpret east and west anyway you want.

“Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex”
Authors: Mary H. Schweitzer and Jennifer L. Wittmeyer, North Carolina State University; John R. Horner, Montana State University; Jan B. Toporski, Carnegie Institution of Washington Geophysical Laboratory
Published: March 25, 2005, in Science

Abstract: Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of microstructures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity and resilience.

For those of you that know little about what journal a paper gets published. Science is one of the best. Some will say the best.

Answer 4

It's completely in how one interprets the data. Since red meat being preserved for 4400 years is totally unlikely in the first place, it's not necessarily more unlikely that, the bone having falling into the unusual circumstances that might have preserved the red meat for 4400 years, it would have remained preserved for 65 million years. I mean, preserved is preserved.

Answer 5

It sounds like you are suggesting that the earth is only 6000 years old. And that you are suggesting all of the evidence that it is 4 or so billion years old is faith-based. It is not faith-based.

The belief that the earth is 6000 years old is faith-based and not evidence-based.

The people who wrote the stories in the Old Testament of the Bible thought the earth was flat.

Answer 6

well here's you're answer

there's no meat on bones my friend!
maybe you are referring to bone marrow.

another thing even if its 4400 years old or even 65 millions away i think that "red meat" you are saying is not suppose to be there. even bones are porous so bacteria can eat away whats inside... hmmm

Answer 7

It is a lot of nonsense ( of course) I refer you to the link below :- Anyway, you do not want to believe these loony creationist websites. They are run by pseuds and crooks like Kent Hovind ( Dr. Dino ) who just has been sentenced to 10 years in Jail for Tax fraud! (Thou Shalt not steal? ) would you believe him now if he told you dinosaurs were 3000 years old?

Answer 8

it wasn't exactly red meat..........some soft tissue was found after the rest of 'rock'hard bone had cracked open.....there could be more out there