t rex

Red Blood Cells in T-Rex Fossil a Threat to Evolution?

Hi folks, I am interested to give this question I asked a week ago another lease of life, just to hear more answers. Please see my earlier link below and I would love to hear your answers. Again I would like to see how the millions of years can be scientifically reconciled with the fact that red blood cells and soft tissue CANNOT last that long.

http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20060809231333AAAAS9u&r=w
To Sage B, the link you posted is again outdated as it was written in May 05. I have posted the link in the earlier thread that is dated 2006. Any suggestion that what was found was not red blood cells or that Carl Wieland was distorting anything has been fully refuted by the scientist's own admission that they are red cells.

Are Red Blood Cells found in T-Rex Bone a Threat to Evolution?

Recently scientists dissected a T-Rex bone and found soft tissues and even what seems to be red blood cells (see http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7195). What are the implications of this? Can such things last 65 million years, honestly and realistically speaking? Does it call the "millions of years" idea into question? Why or why not?
Please note that your answers should address the issue of whether soft tissue and/or red blood cells can still remain in a dead organism AFTER 65 million years. I repeat it is 65 MILLION YEARS, which is a very very long time. How long does it take to turn something into a fossil, bearing in mind that it needs to be rapidly covered or buried to be preserved as a fossil? Also, if the right conditions are necessary for fossilization, then how can the "perfect" conditions fail to fully fossilize the T-Rex bone to ensure that everything is fossilized?
To William. Thanks for answering. Yes, I am a young-earth creationist, and so? What has my belief in a young earth got to do with the discovery of red blood cells in a T-Rex bone? They either found red blood cells or did not. End of argument. We have the same facts. You said that Carl Wieland was twisting the facts. You are wrong. Perhaps you should update yourself on this issue because the article from talkorigins is clearly outdated! May I direct you to this link http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/may/dinosaur.php and see for yourself what the admission is. You will find that Mary said CLEARLY that those were red blood cells. Again that's the end of the argument as to what she found. Though Mary takes a swipe at YEC and accuses them of twisting her words she NEVER said what was being twisted. YEC never said that Mary was a believer in a young earth or that she is questioning evolution, at least not that I know of. Or do you have other information to add?
Hi Don, your statement "Contrary to your assertion that soft tissue can not last for so long - if we find it that way then it must - and science will discover the reason" is not dealing with the issue I raised. Yes, the facts are that the soft tissue and blood cells are there. Question is, what is the reason for it being there after supposedly 65 million years? Fact is such red cells or soft tissue CANNOT last thousands of years, not to say millions of years! So how do you reconcile this fact with the "fact" of evolution that requires millions of years?

Since T Rex femurs had been found with red meat and blood cells - 4400 years or 65 million years old?

probabilistically speaking... Which of the two scenarios is the more likely... red meat and blood cells form something >>>65million years or something 4400 years old

does it make sense we would have red meat and blood cells from something 65 million years ago.
The femur was too large to fit on the helicopter so they chopped the bone to transport it and in side was osme rather unexpected red meat... mmm .. mmm... I don't recommend eating it

does one take it by faith that dinos are 65million years old and set aside the data
or does one take it by faith they are 4400 years old and set aside the data... or is it in how one looks and interprets the data

DOes anyone in school recall a discussion in biology class about the T Rex bones with the red meat in them?

Since in the northwest US, a T Rex bones were found around 2003 and the femur was so large it could not be loaded on the helicopter so they cut it and there was red meat and stretchy blood vessel like structures with blood cells... I am curious how the discussions went pertaining to this in high sochol and college biology class since it does sound relatively interesting. No? Was it discussed, played down or avoided entirely?
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/jan/paleontology
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp