oh.. that was easy :-). I guess i just figured it was saurons all-seing eye or something.
Why Won't They Carbon Date This?
That is it, Jeff. That is the crux of the issue. How did mankind kill the dinosaurs. There weren't many of them, apperantly.
"Looks like spears to me. What do you think true one? ..."
Looks like they're either chasing a large chicken, or they're hunting ostriches....
Maybe that's their "Thanksgiving" turkey!!
That would be one hell of a feast! Thank god they didn't hunt buffalo - I'm glad the cave-men, er, um, ancient humans didn't kill all them. buffalo burgers are deslish! :D
There is a reason why you are the only one arguing this point
I stand corrected. I was basing my comment on the link to the fossil that shows a remarkable imprint of skin. There was another link, but it didn't work for me. They may or may not have been posted by you. And if I'm wrong, I really want to know. I'm also excited that we are going to collect new data on exactly how fossilzation works. With this new information there is a theory that perhaps even more soft tissue is preserverved within fossils, and who wouldn't get excited about that? I found this following quote interesting when I read about that tissue.
Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html#ixzz1TijRRVBP
It's interesting that the immediate conclusion for some would be that soft tissue can't survive 65 million years, when scientists take it as an opportunity to revisit their understanding of fossilization and tissue preservation. But you have already made your conclusion. I'm more interested in how this is possible.
*Zid thinks about a large haunch of ostrich - a drumstick, marinated in a smooth barbecue sause and cooked slowly in a big oven, and DROOOOOOOLS... *
You know what really pisses me off right now? I could be having a f**king T-Rex burger. I mean, really, how AWESOME would that be? " Yes, I'll have the T-Rex burger, and a pint of Guiness please. "
I think Fred Flinstone proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bronto Burgers are vastly superior to T-Rex burgers.
This is THE best thread of 2011 - Thank you Perry; THANK YOU
Well, Shamus, just go to KFC...
One paleontologist has been quoted as stating that the leg bones of a chicken are a close match in structure to those of a T-Rex...
But moving on...
Here's a quote from the Smithsonian article linked above by New Chapter - thanks, New Chapter!!
"...has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. ..."
This isn't the first time I've heard of this new data. It was mentioned in "Scientific American" around 3-5 years ago, if I recall correctly. And you'll notice - what is shown in that photo is a MICROSCOPIC bit of "soft" tissue...