Blood in dino bones

Could the creationists please explain the magical mechanism which would have made this soft tissue rot away after 65 million years, but would have left them preserved for 4000 years after the flood?Hint: there isn't one. Either there were bacteria present able to rot the soft tissue, in which case it would have rotted away in 4000 years, or there weren't, in which case it wouldn't have rotted away at all.Your pick.

Well, I did refer to the soft tissues, but you're right, I should have done the "a few weeks" bit, that's good.I notice, by the way, that my dilemma has shut up the creationists good and proper.

They aren't.So, you ask, why do I argue against the loons who pretend that (non-avian) dinosaurs are still roaming the earth?There are two reasons.The first is that I am not just opposed to halfwitted lies that oppose the theory of evolution --- I am opposed to all halfwitted lies. If I see someone telling a halfwitted lie, I respond by telling him the truth, whether or not it has anything to do with evolution.The second reason is that evolution and creationism are in opposition, so every time I expose a creationist liar as a liar, I gain a rhetorical advantage. If his lie is irrelevant to the debate, then I have still exposed the creationist as a liar. If, as in this case, his lie has no relation to the debate, then I score twice, because I can then expose him as being, not just a liar, but a stupid liar, since he expended his credibility on telling a lie that doesn't actually help his cause.And this is how I do treat the living-dinosaur people. Not only are they lying, but they are dumb enough to believe that their stupid lies support their cause. The fact that their lies wouldn't support their cause even if those lies were true does not deprive me of the rhetorical advantage of being able to point out that creationists are stupid liars. On the contrary, the fact that their lie is irrelevant proves that their lie is stupid.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Er ... given that it doesn't exist, what about it? You know, writing the words "Dragons/Dinosaurs" doesn't magically turn dragons into dinosaurs any more than writing "Horses/Unicorns" magically turns horses into unicorns.The / character does not have magical properties.

According to the report you quoted, it is near the bottom of an exposed cliff face. Here's a word for you. E-ro-sion. I guess that you think that you know what you mean when you say this, but for the benefit of those of us who don't live in your fantasy world, could you please expand on this statement? Here is a picture of a Chinese dragon. Please tell us which dinosaur you believe that it "looks so much like"? The fact that we have never, ever, found such a skeleton surely also has some bearing on the question.You might as well say that the question of whether pigs have wings "will be resolved if we find winged pigs". Well, yes it would. But the fact that we have never found any winged pigs is surely also relevant, and helps us to resolve this question.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

What of it? The word "invetebrate" didn't exist until the 18th century, but that would not excuse someone who wrote "Dragon/Invertebrate" as though they were two different terms for the same thing.

Or, to put it another way, there is evidence of oarfish existing, and oarfish do actually exist.And your point would be what? We evolutionists have no problem whatsoever with saying that things that exist exist. In order to argue against evolution, you need to say something that is false. The existence of oarfish is true.

Because you are a creationist. What about it?It is a dinosaur fossil that actually exists. How do you suppose that that will help you?