Blood in dino bones

You said Do you have any evidence for this? I think there might just be evidence againstthis. For example, woolly mammoths, polar bears and penguins to name three. If it was tropical, where did Noah find his two polar bears and his two pengiuns?I think if you want to use tropical heat, you first have to provide evidence that the tropical heat existed before you use it as your tool for racemising amino acids.

You said Simple said, and I quoted Would you like to explain why semi-tropical and tropical are the same. Simple saw the point I was making. I drew his attention to a flaw in his reasoning, without making any comment on the validity of his main idea.As has been pointed out, polar bears are not albino bears and certain species of penguins exist only in colder climates. I suppose you'll explain that by "microevolution" and artificial term used to create a distinction between changes within a species and changes from one species to another. The only reason that the term "microevolution" had to be invented by creationists was because the penny finally dropped that we can actually see genetic changes within a population taking place in front of our eyes. Creationists could no longer deny the reality of it. So, they invented this term to allow for genetic change to take place without having to accept evolution. Hell, I could call it "Blue Smartyism", wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. Genetic change is genetic change, selection is selection. How long is a piece of string?So we have evidence that the world was warmer than it is now. We also have evidence that the world was colder than it is now. How can this be? How can it be warmer and colder? How about considering the possibility that at some times it was colder and some times it was warmer. I think the problem you'll have with this is the time frame you have to allow for all this temperature change to happen. It tends to go against the idea of a young Earth and for the idea of a much older Earth.As for the preservation of soft tissue, remember that the original article doesn't claim that the soft tissue survived, but in a dehydrated state. Fossilisation depends on the replacement of organic molecules with minerals. There may be residual organics left, but it isn't being claimed that the soft tissue itself survived intact.