More on the Dino Blood

Here is another story about the recent find of soft tissue in a T-Rex bone. I also found this when searching for more information. It looks like finding the remains of dino blood had happend before. The T-Rex bone does seem more remarkable in that they are saying they found actual preserved soft tissue and not just a mineralized replacement. To give you and idea of how finding actual soft tissue could affect the general understanding here is a snipit from wikipedia about fomation...

Although the original chemical composition of the organism has entirely vanished, the mineralization process proceeds differently for different kinds of tissues, and microscopic details of internal bone structure may be preserved. (wiki)

This also causes problems with Hurd's discourse on chastising the Young Earth proponents. Now I don't buy the young earth stuff. I think we can safely say the earth is quite a bit older than 5000 some odd years years. For a taste of the other side of the argument check out this article. Both this one and the Hurd take are a tad extreme in their stances but if you keep looking around the net you find these polarized arguments with a rare few that fall anywhere in the middle. And in my experience where there is smoke there is fire. People don't get that polemaic unless they don't have clear proof to fall back on. In the end there is alot of interpretation of many variables that do not always add up to the same answer. Personally in the end I just wish people, scientists in particular, were just a little bit more willing to openly admit there are still many questions unanswered about seemingly established issues. I am interested to see if the try radio carbon dating a sample of the tissue. That would really throw a kink in things if they found some and there was no way to suggest contamination.