Dinosaur tissue found

[FlyingAngel]

It is said the their flesh is still ... flesh

Many Unfossilized Dinosaur Bones Carbon Date from 16,000 – 24,000 years old. Unfossilized dinosaur bones have been found in Alaska, 1 Canada, 2 and the Lower 48 States. 3 Some have been Carbon dated to 9,800 years old; many others (along with wood from dino strata) date between 16,000 to 24,000 years old. 4, 5

http://www.earthage....f_years_old.htm

Probing a 68-million-year-old T. rex, Mary Schweitzer stumbled upon astonishing signs of life that may radically change our view of the beasts that once ruled the earth

After 68 million years in the ground, a Tyrannosaurus rex found in Montana was dug up, its leg bone was broken in pieces, and fragments were dissolved in acid in Schweitzer’s laboratory at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. “Cool beans,” she says, looking at the image on the screen.

http://www.smithsoni...e/dinosaur.html

[freetoroam]

it looks like something you get in a KFC bucket.

[xYlvax]

Wow.. I can't wait to hear if there will be any more information on this.

[RockabyeBillie]

I find it fascinating that they've discovered soft tissue but I don't get why religion is being dragged into it in the comments.

[Dark_Grey]

Starting to save for a ticket to Jurassic Park. Can't wait!

[Mr.United_Nations]

Haahhaa yes!!

[questionmark]

I find it fascinating that they've discovered soft tissue but I don't get why religion is being dragged into it in the comments.

Quite simple my dear, quite simple: They hold on every straw that indicates that the Earth was created 6000 years ago by a bungler who placed quadruped inter-vertebral disks into bipeds, what else?

[Mr.United_Nations]

Old news, this is from 2006..

[questionmark]

Old news, this is from 2006..

Oh yes, and by now it is pretty certain that the "tissue" was pretty useless for dating. Does not stop any interested party in warming it up... like that story where somebody (who certainly knew what he was doing) was carbon dating a "dino tusk"....

[Swede]

I find it fascinating that they've discovered soft tissue but I don't get why religion is being dragged into it in the comments.

The reason may be that certain religious elements have (apparently quite deliberately) distorted the actual findings of Schweitzer et al (1997). The utilization of the term "soft tissue" is not truly accurate. You may find the actual paper to be of interest:

http://www.pnas.org/...1.full.pdf html

Can assist with interpretation if desired.

.