In fact, if you read a more recent paper by the same author (which made quite a splash in the media), you'll see that when they analyzed the soft tissue, they found that while some proteins had been preserved, no DNA could be sequenced - it had all degraded, indicative of a very old biological sample. They also provided an explanation for how such substances could be preserved for such a long time.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...

<SwitchingQuylthulg: Why is it, then, that reasonably well-preserved mammoths outnumber reasonably well-preserved dinosaurs loads to zero?>

If ________ really existed only a few thousand years ago, that would make them coeval with mammoths, no? Why is it, then, that reasonably well-preserved mammoths outnumber reasonably well-preserved _______ loads to zero?

How many fill in the blanks do you want me to provide?

If blood vessels are present, then Science will invent a new idea on why blood vessels last that long. If blood cells are present, then Science will invent a new idea on why blood cells can last that long. If heme compounds are found, then Science will invent a new idea why heme compounds can last that long. If DNA isn't found, then Science concludes that proves DNA breaks down quicker and the sample must be much older. Such self serving logic isn't real persuasive. FWIW, this paper did cite extracted DNA:

But only because of all the corroborating evidence to confirm the age of the sample. You seem to have a muddle-headed (and to a scientist, pretty insulting) idea of how scientists actually operate. I don't understand how the logic is "self-serving". If the scientific evidence suggested the Earth were 20,000 years old, or 40 trillion years old, it would not matter. It doesn't serve anyone to know that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and that figure was only arrived at through incredible scrutiny and debate. The only important thing is to find a consensus between the various pieces of evidence. Literalist creationists on the other hand are starting with an a priori assumption of the Earth's age - an assumption that is not supported by anything outside of the Bible.

<Is there no other plausible reason why a mammoth might generally be found in different sedimentary levels?>

Well, not that I can see. Different layers were laid down in different eras, like the rings of bark on a tree.

<FWIW, this paper did cite extracted DNA:

<In 1994, Scott Woodward and his colleagues wrote an article titled: “DNA sequences from Cretaceous Period Bone Fragments” (266:1229-1232). In their report, the authors remarked: “DNA was extracted from 80-million-year-old bone fragments found in strata of the Upper Cretaceous Blackhawk Formation in the roof of an underground coal mine in eastern Utah (p. 1229). >>

Exactly. In the main, scientists devote much of their lives to education and hard work just for the love and satisfaction of nudging the human understanding of nature a bit forward. It's a huge leap of faith to suppose that they are so preoccupied with opposing the Bible that they will deliberately distort this understanding of nature just to avoid agreement with the Bible.

In truth, some scientists love the Bible, some hate the Bible, and others (maybe most) hardly ever even think about the Bible.

It is *SO* much more sensible to accept the possibility that the simplistic literal interpretation of Genesis might not be right.

<Literalist creationists on the other hand are starting with an a priori assumption of the Earth's age - an assumption that is not supported by anything outside of the Bible.>

I don't see how I am having something both ways. Let me explain:

My statement earlier about how "scientists don't really know for sure" is a fundamental principle to understanding what a scientific theory is (or what it isn't, for that matter).

A theory is an attempt to explain the observed facts in a manner that is testable, and it has successfully passed all known tests.

*However*, one can never rule out the possibility that a new observation will be discovered that will challenge that theory, and perhaps force that theory to be revised or scrapped.

For example, this interesting discovery of the well-preserved T-Rex might force a revision of some theory -- e.g. the theory concerning fossil preservation.

And as far as I'm concerned, this fundamental principle applies to both the theories of evolution and gravity.

What about this: We found this fossil in a very old rock formation. We know the rock formation is very old because it is under lots and lots of other rock formations, and older rock formations are practically always at the bottom because usually only the top layer changes significantly, as in, is renewed. While the bottom layers also still undergo some changes, we don't really see how they could switch places with the top layers! We have good reason to think this rock formation is quite a lot older even than the rock formation directly on top of it, partly because the fossils in this rock formation are consistent with each other, quite different from the fossils in the next rock formation and pretty much completely different from the fossils in the one after that. (Very similar things with many of the same fossils occur in many other places, heavily suggesting this is no coincidence.) We also have other reasons to think this rock formation is very old. For instance, radiometric dating tells us this layer is not only extremely old, but also much older than any of the layers on top of it. While such dating methods are not always completely reliable or accurate, they also don't contradict each other or any other evidence, and other datings by other people for similar rock formations are pretty much in line with ours. We therefore don't currently have much reason to suspect our conclusion. Since people will probably be interested, we'll give them the date our measurements indicated, 70.0 1.57 million years ago. We could probably further improve on the accuracy if we wanted to, but for now we're happy with just knowing this rock is very old.

In fact, there are many events that have been suggested as the possible origin of the mythology. Here's another:

The issue in part is the extent of how much older. And the circular reasoning I suggested previously is about the extent of the argument. As for the older formations always being on top, I guess we need to exclude thrust faults and so we have to invent some new explanation for them.

That is interesting, thanks.

I wonder if an event like that might also produce huge amounts of steam to rise into the atmosphere causing a prolonged rainy period (say, 40 days and 40 nights). ;-)

I suppose literalists will object because it didn't flood the *whole* earth.

So that flood hit and the first layer of the fossil record is marine life. And you'd probably find some grouping of marine life per density etc, which would sort of look like they were "consistent" with one another. And the less mobile of the land animals would generally show up in the next layer and I guess that would appear to be a "consistent" grouping of fossils. And then the more mobile of the land animals, who tried to avoid the rising flood waters would be the next layer. And amazingly enough, that too would be a "consistent" grouping of fossils. I guess that's sort of predictable. Of course, there'd be much mixing of fossils and appearances out of order if there was a flood, which create great turmoil for the evolutionists, who have to invent another idea to explain that one away.