Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."

[Kev]

OK, I looked into the "famous" case of the Trex with apparent red blood cells found in the bone marrow cavity. The original research, published in 2005, is found here.

Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex -- Schweitzer et al. 307 (5717): 1952 -- Science.

This is very interesting, if true it does in fact shake things up a bit. This original research did not make any claims as to the age of the earth or the age of the dinosaurs that I can see. The only such claims that I can find are those made on websites dedicated to the "proving" of Genesis. For example this site,

Sensational dinosaur blood report! ,

says that this discovery supports claims that dinosaurs are only a few thousand years old.

Usually when there is this kind of discovery, it gets a lot of attention from other scientists, who do their own research, on the same materials and other materials, in an attempt to verify what has happened. In fact subsequent research has been done. Research published in 2008 points to an entirely different conclusion, something quite different from red blood cells. This 2008 research can be found here.

PLoS ONE: Dinosaurian Soft Tissues Interpreted as Bacterial Biofilms

Ok, so at the very least the jury is still out, but as it stand it looks like something other than red blood cells and soft tissue.

OK, moving on to the bathtub example. I do indeed understand your point, more specifically it seems to be an analogy to what you referred to earlier as uniformitarionism.

I also understand what you say about the age of dinosaur bones being determined by the age of the strata in which the bones are found.

I really don't have a lot to say about these last two points at the present time, I intend to do a little more research into scientific dating methods first.

Yeah I never suggested for a second that evolutionary scientists regard the T rex with blood cells as being a few thousand years old.

Instead they believe they have discovered an entirely new form of preservation which has preserved these materials for 70 million years longer than previously thought possible.

Ok let's stay on topic. Forget Australopithicus (sp) for now, you're changing the subject.

You're the one who raised the issue of soft tissue, all I did was follow up and take a look at the available research. I don't think you even looked at the research, you didn't give yourself nearly enough time.

No, in fact the original scientists did not say that they believed they had discovered a new form of preservation.

Where exactly are you getting your info. You know, the occasional reference might be helpful here.

The subsequent research, which you seem to have ignored, did not make statements about these apparent conclusions about preservation, what this new research did do was dispute what the first group thought they had found.

See the difference?

lol I've been following the debate for the last 3 years or so. Seriously I have read countless books on evolution both for and against.

The T Rex soft tissue is a sensational new find. It's been being debated for the past few years with many different opinions on both sides.

What you have to remember is that creationists will always see things one way and evolutionists will always see things another way.

Any examples presented will be interpereted according to the belief system of the person writing the article, it's up to you to decide (after a good few years of research ideally) which worldview makes more sense to you.

The T Rex blood cell debate is an excellent case in point.

If you research Mary Scheiwtzer directly (the discover) you'll see she and her team believe in some form of miraculous preservation going on.