# Dinosaur Mummy found



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=3954224&affil=waay

This was on the news last night, and since there was another thread about dinosaur's - I thought the schooler's would find it interesting.

It has skin and tendons, etc.

Angie


----------



## Cheryl in SD (Apr 22, 2005)

Thanks, that is really cool. (quoting my dd)


----------



## zealot (Feb 6, 2006)

It just goes to show that these critters aren't 65 million years old, like the evolutionists say.


----------



## Guest (Dec 9, 2007)

zealot said:


> It just goes to show that these critters aren't 65 million years old, like the evolutionists say.


 One must admit, it's hard to believe that skin and tendons could survive for millions of years.


----------



## Key (Apr 2, 2005)

Thanks for sharing!


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

zealot said:


> It just goes to show that these critters aren't 65 million years old, like the evolutionists say.


Not a mummy like an Egyptian with wrappings etc....
but fossilized in such a way as to preserve the skin, tendons etc...
Similar in nature to the bogmen "mummies" that were preserved by the heavy muds etc.. with their skin and hair and clothing..

no, not dinosaurs wrapped up by man...


----------



## zealot (Feb 6, 2006)

That's not what I meant. I simply was saying that soft tissues don't last like that for millions of years.


----------



## TwoAcresAndAGoat (Jul 19, 2003)

Mummy is a poor word choice for the fossil found.

While they call it a mummy, the 1999 North Dakota dinosaur find is not really a mummy preserved like King Tut was. The dinosaur body has been fossilized into stone.

Soft parts of dead animals normally decompose rapidly after death. Because of chemical conditions where this animal died, fossilization -- replacement of tissues by minerals -- took place faster than the decomposition, leaving mineralized portions of the tissue.

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2007/12/03/dinosaur-mummy-run.html?dcitc=w19-506-ak-0003


----------



## hillsidedigger (Sep 19, 2006)

Its just goes to show that under the right conditions skin and tendons might be preserved for 65 million years or more.


----------



## DaleK (Sep 23, 2004)

hillsidedigger said:


> Its just goes to show that under the right conditions skin and tendons might be preserved for 65 million years or more.


Thought Keith Richards was already proof of that?


----------



## Oggie (May 29, 2003)

hillsidedigger said:


> Its just goes to show that under the right conditions skin and tendons might be preserved for 65 million years or more.


Wouldn't that be the imprint or form of such tissue and not the actual tissues themselves?


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Think of it like petrified wood. The cellulose and lignin is replaced by hard insoluble minerals and the whole thing turns to stone. 

However, this find proves nothing in any argument. It's just an interesting specimen. For either side of the debate to use it is flimsy science at best.


----------

