Originally Posted by LinearAq
Originally Posted by Russ
Amazingly, your entire theme seems to contradict the statements made in the article. It is as if you have some secret inside information that even the professional evolutionists giving their professional opinions don't have access to.

You are a king-spinner indeed.

I personally don't like people who spin information because I consider spinning the same as lying.

Quote
None of that contradicts the idea that the bones are 65 or so million years old.


I would ask that people carefully read the original article. Again, your conclusions are completely disconnected from the original material.

Quote
This discovery pushes back the known length of preservation but that’s all it does.


It does a whole lot more than that.

Honestly, you are an expert spin doctor. As for me, I believe in intellectual honesty.

Let the reader beware.

If you really believe in intellectual honesty, why don't you produce true rebuttals with evidence that supports your view? Instead, we see articles from anti-evolution web sites that use other anti-evolution web sites as their quoted references for quotes from scientists.

None of the scientists involved in the original testing of the T-rex bone, has stated that the bone is less than millions of years old.

I could be wrong though. All you have to do is produce any part of the original reasearch that states otherwise. Even an opinion/conclusion by a scientist trained in relevent fields of study would do a lot to support your point of view.


I haven't like Russ T's approach either, but, I don't necessarily put total stock into the "learning of man" so to speak. Not on something like this. I doubt scientists who already think what they do would be open to something that would seem to blow what has already been established in their opinions.