Peter Henderson
Posts: 298
Joined: Aug. 2007
|
The yecs have been going hammer and tongs at this one over the last few days:
From CMI's Carl Weiland a few days ago:
http://creation.com/muscle-and-blood-in-fossil
From AiG. a "peer reviewed" article by Vera Everett ????:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article....ization
on the fossilised octopus with preserved inc sacs.
The salamander story was also covered by AiG's so called "News to note" yesterday:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/article....1142009
Yet again, more from AiG today on a CBS programme that was broadcast on sunday evening:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2009/11/15/60-minutes-missing
| Quote | The segment was hosted by a gushing CBS-TV correspondent Lesley Stahl, who, while enraptured by the T. rex’s preserved soft tissue (including elastic blood vessels, with red blood cells, in its thigh bone) right in front of her, never thought to ask the question (at least on camera): why isn’t such preservation actually highly compelling evidence that dinosaurs have been around in recent times? If dinosaurs perished 65 million years ago, how in the world could the soft tissue have possibly survived and not have dried out 64 million years ago?
60 Minutes is a Peabody-winning investigative news program. Its awards are largely a tribute to the hard-charging efforts of its former executive producer, the late Don Hewitt. Hewitt was known as someone who was a critical thinker and a good “baloney detector.” One might think that had Hewitt still been at the helm of 60 Minutes, he would have insisted that the program dive right into a staring-them-right-in-the-face controversy: that dinosaurs may have lived much more recently than evolutionists have been dogmatically proclaiming for decades. That should have been the real story on 60 Minutes Sunday night, but one that the producers and correspondent ignored. (They could have at least tried to offer an explanation as to how the tissue could have been preserved for so long.)
60 Minutes did allude to one controversy over what was really found in the T. rex’s thigh bone, but it had nothing to do with the creation/evolution debate. Some evolutionists have been trying to cast doubt on the validity of the tissue discovery. For example, they say that perhaps what has been declared as tissue is really mineral spheres (containing iron). As for the material that is “elastic” as the TV program stated (identified by the first researchers as collagen), these same detractors say that it might be “bacterial biofilm” instead, meaning that where the T. rex’s blood vessels once were, bacteria produced biofilm in its place. Ultimately, though, 60 Minutes stated that they looked just like “flexible blood vessels.” |
Is CBS at fault here ? Still, talk about lying to the faithful.
|
