You know, the more I think about this, the more puzzled I am by what the author is trying to say. When it comes to fossilization, 70 million years or 4.5 thousand years wouldn't make a difference. The point is that the skin fossilized very quickly, the time after that is immaterial. I know he's trying to spin this around so he can use it to push his own agenda but I cannot figure out the angle at all. There isn't even a shred of logic in his argument. Maybe he thinks the members of his intended audience aren't really the brightest candles at the altar?

damn thought it will be a good article but then it wasn't what i expected and the opposite of good...

Cool find.

The creationist spin is both annoying and entertaining at the same time.

I was so excited...then I read the article beginning to question the age of dinosaurs...then I scrolled down and saw creation.com.

It's amazing how skilled some of these people have become at misleading the reader and slowly trying to work in their own whacked out opinions on what should be an exciting piece of SCIENCE, not an argument for creationist dogma.

In any case, the idea that we've actually identified skin, that we could actually find out what color a hadrosaur is....just blows me away. I wonder what other wonders lie in wait for science...

How does linking me to more Creationist nonsense at all address my annoyance over being tricked into reading creationist dogma?

The earth isn't 6,000 years old. Dinosaurs did not co-exist with humans. In order for creationism to be right, all of scientific understanding would have to be wrong.

And how did we even come to the idea of 6,000 years? By some guys studying the Bible, a metaphorical text, half of which (Old Testament/Torah) wasn't even meant to be taken literally by its creators (the Jews). Yeah, I think I'll take radiometric dating based on the decay of carbon-14 (which goes back to around 60,000 years) and Uranium-lead dating (which goes back 4.5 billion) over metaphorical text written meant to teach the belief system of the first two monotheistic religions thousands of years ago, thanks.

I am not particularly well versed in science OR religion, mind you, but I have a passing interest in one and a decent amount of exposure to the other thanks to a few orthodox Jewish relatives. But until there is some genuine consensus within the scientific community the creationists MAY have a point, it is just fringe, unfounded science meant to justify the existence of God, thinly veiled as "scientific" research.

And no, I did not read the article, and if you still want to know why, just read the above again.

Besides the point, the author seems kinda shady. A plant physiologist? Writing about dinosaur skin? What?

....yes!

So you did not mean to link a creationist site? Darn, one annoyed rant wasted...(saves to word for future use)

You guys are ridiculous. Stop focusing on the article. No one reads articles on VGChartz.

Also, Jurassic Park needs to happen. I'm waiting...

Clearly, yes, we do need a Jurassic Park.

I remember some guy saying basically most of the DNA in a bird has still majority of Dinosaur DNA because of it's lineage. (Sort of like how human grow through a fish/tadpole/amphibian stage in the womb.)  They were trying to figure out which switches would make a current large bird (like an Emu or Ostrich) and turn them more like Dinosaurs.

They we would make a park and people would come and have fun.  I wish some of those super rich people would do that instead of building giant unneeded buildings or buying up all the media.