Dinosaurs co-existed with man.

[Wiintendo]

zarx said:

OoSnap said:

zarx said:

sorry this was debunked, the supposed "flesh" was just bacterial bio-films that have formed in the microscopic cavities that formed by the cells during fossilisation, a mistake that has been made before.

http://bacteriality.com/2008/08/26/dino/

 The other videos from what I have seen are full of incorrect statements and bad science, sorry.

Liar. It wasn't "debunked". You apparently didn't read the webpage you provided a link to.

From your link:

"The finding sparked a strong response from the researchers who originally claimed to have found ancient dinosaur tissue. Schweitzer argues that there are significant holes in Kaye’s study, namely an explanation for why the protein in the tissue looks like that expected for a dinosaur. She added that her group has considered biofilms but has found no evidence for their presence. Errors in the current study “seem to underlie a fundamental misunderstanding of our work, our data and our interpretations,” Schweitzer commented to the press."

"Other researchers seem hesitant to make a definitive statement about the controversy. “It’s actually quite common to find biofilms in areas where fossils would be formed,” said Frank Corsetti, an earth scientist at USC who was not involved in the research. “It’s an interesting idea, but the jury is still out.”"

From DiscoveryMagazine.com

"When Schweitzer showed Horner the slide, she recalls, "Jack said, 'Prove to me they're not red blood cells.' That was what I got my Ph.D. doing." She first ruled out contaminants and mineral structures. Then she analyzed the putative cells using a half-dozen techniques involving chemical analysis and immunology. In one test, a colleague injected rats with the dinosaur fossil extract; the rodents produced antibodies that responded to turkey and rabbit hemoglobins. All the data supported the conclusion that the T. rex fossil contained fragments of hemoglobin molecules. "The most likely source of these proteins is the once-living cells of the dinosaur," she wrote in a 1997 paper."

I just chose that link because it showed both sides of the argument, and as I said that explanation has been accepted for other similar situations, and was proven to be true. There are other theories that explain the findings as well. 

And even if the samples are of real T-rex blood and cells that still doesn't mean that Dinosaurs co-existed with man. There are currently theories of fossilisation that would explain the cells lasting 65 million years, but those theories haven't yet been accepted yet as they have problems. But the T-rex cells could lead to those theories gaining ground. Even the scientists that made the discovery don't think that dinosaurs co-existed with man, they are just claiming that a form of fossilisation that was previously unknown had occurred preserving the cell structure for millions of years. Even they dated the samples to be millions of years old. 

Mary, one of the leading scientists making the discoveries of soft tissue from multiple dinosaurs, including the t-rex soft tissue, rejects the notion of them biofilms.

Researchers Debate: Is It Preserved Dinosaur Tissue, or Bacterial Slime?

Schweitzer says her team considered the hypothesis that the material they found in the original thigh bone was a bacterial biofilm, and rejected the possibility. She says there’s no reported evidence that biofilms can produce branching, hollow tubes like those noted in her study [Science News].

 

 

I don't agree with Mary that the soft tissue is 68 million years old or anything close.  I don't think such things could be preserved for so long.  I believe in a young earth.