RE: paleonet New creationist allegation

["John Huntley" <huntley_john@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Oops, that was Science not Nature.

John



***************************************
John Warren Huntley
PhD Candidate, Department of Geosciences
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
***************************************





>From: "John Huntley" <huntley_john@hotmail.com>
>Reply-To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
>To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
>Subject: RE: paleonet New creationist allegation
>Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 16:34:29 -0500
>
>Schweitzer et al.  2005.  Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in 
>Tyrannosaurus rex.  Nature, 307:1952-1955.
>
>It's good to see the creationists are staying current with their 
>cherry-picking and taking the literature out of context.
>
>John
>
>
>***************************************
>John Warren Huntley
>PhD Candidate, Department of Geosciences
>Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
>***************************************
>
>
>
>
>
>>From: "Michael Kishel" <mike@houseofshred.net>
>>Reply-To: paleonet@nhm.ac.uk
>>To: <paleonet@nhm.ac.uk>
>>Subject: paleonet New creationist allegation
>>Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 12:57:48 -0700
>>
>>Hello all-
>>
>>I just finished reading an article produced by the Creation Studies 
>>Institute in which they allege "the most recent findings of soft tissue in 
>>what is supposedly a 65-million year old dinosaur."  Does anybody have any 
>>idea what the hell they are talking about?  According to the article the 
>>creationists are now fighting among themselves as to whether the earth is 
>>6000-10000 years old with literal 24 hour days from get go or whether it 
>>is billions of years old and one day in Genesis equals eons.  They are now 
>>hosting public debates with "expert" presenters to examine the "evidence." 
>>  Anybody know anything about this juicy dinosaur?
>>
>>
>>Michael J. Kishel
>
>
>