So the tissue shouldn't be there, even after 10,000 years, tissue and blood doesn't survive that long. OK I see. So that could only be explained by the fact its preserved so well. And a massive flood would explain this, because of all the mud that would set a round the animals, instantly at death. Is that right?
Couldn't the fossils be millions of years old, but because they are preserved they appear more recent? If so, that would explain soft tissue blood cells. So it could still be millions of years old. This doesnt explain carbon14 decay to nitrogen, which estimates its age to 10's of 1000's years old. Carbon dating is pretty reliable I believe.
This has to mean dinosaurs still lived within million years ago.
I don't see what's at dispute? It seems clear dinosaurs didnt die 65mill years ago. How do they still defend this old hypothesis? What am I missing?
Oddbean new post about login | logout