Based on all the data I have absorbed, there have been numerous other finds like this, now that the scientific community have dared to begin breaking many of these larger bones to see if this holds true. It does… In the past, every POSSIBLE care was taken never to break these larger bones when they were found… They’re simply FAR too valuable whole and un-damaged (since most fossils are found pre-shattered)… This is why the breaking of the T-Rex bone was such a big deal in the first place (due to the fact they had incredible difficulty getting it out of the remote location it was discovered in)… It’s super-rare to have one of the larger dinosaur fossil skeletons discovered with most of it’s bones un-cracked,…and when they do find them completely whole and intact,…it’s even RARER to break them considering how careful they are excavating and transporting them… The T-Rex one got broken during a bad helicopter ride…

Such finds, by the way, are VERY rare… The events surrounding fossilization itself is rare enough that we have only discovered a very, very tiny fraction of all the types of life that have existed on Earth… Conditions have to be super perfect for fossilization to even be a possibility in the first place,….which means there is a HUGE probability that there are thousands of “missing links” that are yet to be found,…and millions more that never even became fossils…

Most folks who want to believe that the Earth is much younger, however, or want to believe that dinosaurs existed contemporaneously with man, seek to dismiss the information I have given above, merely because it would displease them…

I ascribe to a difference between Religion & Organized Religion, in that any Organization created by Men operates more on the Politics of Power, whereas Religion itself is something like a study in Humanities Sciences (ie: The Nature of Man). In my readings of history, Organized Religion has harbored more out-right hatred of sciences than the other way around.

Colin Patterson’s quote is taken out of context. His quote was specifically about a single book he had written in regard to a specific line of fossil fish. He was asked about why no transitional fossils of this particular species was included in his particular book. And his response that, “There is not one such fossil for which one might make a watertight argument.” Was never intended to be an answer to another question other than the one he was asked which was “In such a scholarly book as yours about this particular species why were there no transitional fossils included.” Patterson himself has been quoted many times that this was not a quote about the general case he was asked a specific question about a specific species.

BTW in regards to the T-Rex marrow at least one case was positively proven to be a laboratory contamination of fossil bone with the DNA of present day living thing. The problem comes when you mine quotes out of data out of context and attempt to use them to prove something else completely. The problem then becomes the data was never collected with that specific purpose in mind. If you’re not planning on testing a fossil for DNA then you don’t take steps during collection to prevent DNA contamination. And if you don’t take those steps and then you use those samples in a completely different way you may get bad results. This all comes out in the wash as careful checks are done after the fact to try and account for anomalies in data. A formal paper only gets written up when the input data is controlled and repeatable. That’s why you don’t see a journal like Science or Nature printing up some of these wild conclusions. It’s not that scientists are ignoring what they don’t like it’s that they are controlling variables to arrive at a supportable conclusion. No controls, then they don’t make the claims. You might see someone saying “we’re looking into this and if it is true then it would be very exciting”. When you don’t see anything else you don’t need to go any further than “guess it wasn’t true or at least unsupportable” no need to break out the tinfoil hats and disparage scientists for hiding evidence.

You can point the arrow either way you want. But look up what the people you are quoting say their remarks mean. What they are willing to stand behind. If they don’t come to the same point as you do based on their data then there’s a pretty good chance you shouldn’t be using them as part of your argument.