Jump to content


Photo

Schweitzer Does It Again....


  • Please log in to reply
126 replies to this topic

#41 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 05 May 2009 - 11:40 PM

Thanks for the sources wombatty.

I was going to mention the Tapeats Sandstone,but you beat me to it.

The majority of young earth evidence,which is at least twice the evidence for an old earth,are derived from emperical measurements.To refute those measurements is to shoot ones self in the foot and say "Uniformitairianism is flawed",which is what we have been saying all along.

You can see many of the independent lines of evidence at this thread.

www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1969 - 144k -

I would like to see the old earther's present a list half that long.

#42 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 06 May 2009 - 05:47 AM

You are a bit disengenous by saying that you ar not implying that God did it. By claiming a young age for the earth/universe you are indeed implying a 6000year old biblically create world i.e. God.

View Post


Two things:

First - He doesn’t have to believe God did it, to believe in a young Earth. He just has to believe the evidence for a young earth is better substantiated than that of an old earth. So your claim doesn’t hold water. Especially when he said; “No, I am not saying therefore GOD must have done it. I am saying, therefore, these objects are not billions of years old. Remember, the subject here is the age of the system. Further, I am saying that science has a perfectly good answer: these bodies are not billions of years old.”.

Second- Based on your analogy, aren’t you being disingenuous if you imply God didn’t do it?

#43 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 May 2009 - 05:49 AM

I would like to see the old earther's present a list half that long.

View Post

Well, they'll just tell you to shut up and go take a college course. You obviously are an uneducated and dangerous boob. :huh:

#44 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 06 May 2009 - 05:50 AM

Then why does the vast majority of the scientific community consider YEC pseudoscience? If there is no evidence to support an old earth, why did people start theorizing about the possibility?

View Post


The “vast majority” of the Supreme Court believed the Dredd Scott decision was correct… Does this make them correct? The “vast majority” of the Nazi political leadership believed it was ok to murder over six million Jews… Does this make them correct?

#45 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 06 May 2009 - 06:11 AM

Well, they'll just tell you to shut up and go take a college course. You obviously are an uneducated and dangerous boob. :D

View Post


The only difference is i admit it.I only claim to know how to add and figure that 90% usualy leads to the correct answer. :)



God Bless.

#46 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 May 2009 - 06:11 AM

The “vast majority” of the Supreme Court believed the Dredd Scott decision was correct… Does this make them correct? The “vast majority” of the Nazi political leadership believed it was ok to murder over six million Jews… Does this make them correct?

View Post

De_skudd,

Look at what Overture said again and than look at his signature. You see, he doesn't want his question answered. He just wants to ask it because it makes him feel victorious to think he is on the popular side, whether he understands a single scrap of the science or not.

#47 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 06 May 2009 - 06:23 AM

Here is a quote from the Smithsonian
http://www.smithsoni...html?c=y&page=3


The article says Schweitzer is working with NASA to search for life on mars,and she has the nerve to call us crazy?

Sorry,but the wrong starting point leads to the wrong conclusions.She has no right to be upset at anybody but herself.



Thanks.

#48 Guest_Overture_*

Guest_Overture_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 May 2009 - 12:32 PM

Actually I know it is true, the majority of people YOU would consider christians are not christians.  They only profess to be christians.  If those percentages were correct then AMERICA would not be a LIBERAL ATHEISTICAL MINDSET NATION.  Have you been outside lately??? Apparently not.


As evidenced by my information, I don't live in America. I can't judge the mindset of the nation, though I must say I am encouraged by your recent elections.

Atheist consider YEC psuedoscience, and evo theist who can't quite NOT be apart of the fashion trend of atheism.  Yes it's a big herd... it really is. 


Working scientists consider YEC pseudoscience, not just atheists. I sincerely doubt you spend much time working with, talking to, or sitting in the classrooms of working scientists and I think you have no idea what you're talking about, but are grabbing common creationist talking points without thinking about them critically, or even bothering to do a minimum of self-investigation. You simply parrot what you hear others say.

I think that you are probably genuinely interested in logical thought, intellectual inquiry and scientific endeavour, otherwise you wouldn't spend time posting on a site like this. I imagine, though, that you live in an environment where you associate mostly with people who share your worldview and you find yourself experiencing cognitive dissonance when you start recognizing the flaws and problems in their, and by extension, your own arguments. This is natural, and it's also natural to be scared about what that means. You're still quite young and have plenty of time to come to grips with this fear and recognize that there is so much more to the universe than mindless study of a fictional book and repenting for being human.

#49 Guest_Overture_*

Guest_Overture_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 May 2009 - 12:46 PM

The “vast majority” of the Supreme Court believed the Dredd Scott decision was correct… Does this make them correct? The “vast majority” of the Nazi political leadership believed it was ok to murder over six million Jews… Does this make them correct?

View Post


Thanks for the first instance of Godwin's Law I've seen on EFT! I've been waiting for that one.

The examples you cite are not relevant to the discussion, as one was a legal case and the other a political decision, neither of which was based on concerted study of evidence by literally millions of people over hundreds of years.

Also, in both cases the prevailing attitude prior to the 'decsision' was held to be correct, whereas western scientists began from a place of accepting the veracity of the biblical account, but did not find evidence supporting it - indeed the evidence soundly refutes it - and subsequently came up with alternatives which better explain the found data.

And Adam:

He just wants to ask it because it makes him feel victorious to think he is on the popular side, whether he understands a single scrap of the science or not.


Considering that you are a moderator on this board, I think it's particularly inappropriate of you to make public judgments on any other board members' character. Though it's become clear to me that evolutionists are held to a higher standard of behaviour than are the creationists here - something I think is perfectly acceptable, given the nature of the board - as a moderator you should make the smallest effort to remain at least polite.

#50 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 May 2009 - 12:56 PM

Considering that you are a moderator on this board, I think it's particularly inappropriate of you to make public judgments on any other board members' character. Though it's become clear to me that evolutionists are held to a higher standard of behaviour than are the creationists here - something I think is perfectly acceptable, given the nature of the board - as a moderator you should make the smallest effort to remain at least polite.

View Post

I'm looking at your own pronouncements and I'll thank you not to presume how I should do my job.

Your signature says: "For entertainment purposes only"

I'm demonstrating that you aren't serious. Also, your worldview says "theistic evolutionist" which you have not addressed but has been evidently shown to be false.

Overture, I don't have to judge you, you're making it clear that truth takes a back seat when you sign in here.

#51 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 06 May 2009 - 08:00 PM

As evidenced by my information, I don't live in America. I can't judge the mindset of the nation, though I must say I am encouraged by your recent elections.
Working scientists consider YEC pseudoscience, not just atheists. I sincerely doubt you spend much time working with, talking to, or sitting in the classrooms of working scientists and I think you have no idea what you're talking about, but are grabbing common creationist talking points without thinking about them critically, or even bothering to do a minimum of self-investigation. You simply parrot what you hear others say.

I think that you are probably genuinely interested in logical thought, intellectual inquiry and scientific endeavour, otherwise you wouldn't spend time posting on a site like this. I imagine, though, that you live in an environment where you associate mostly with people who share your worldview and you find yourself experiencing cognitive dissonance when you start recognizing the flaws and problems in their, and by extension, your own arguments. This is natural, and it's also natural to be scared about what that means. You're still quite young and have plenty of time to come to grips with this fear and recognize that there is so much more to the universe than mindless study of a fictional book and repenting for being human.

View Post


Actually you'd be wrong, I've spent most of time in a shop, with drug dealers, ex-convicts and a very very none christian environment. I don't parrot what others say, because what others say around me does not apply to my beliefs.

I'm not scarred to be a creationist, and go out and actually fossil hunt. I may be 19, but I've been into the Evolution vs Creation debate since I was 12. I see no reason to convert to evolutionism, or atheism because quite frankly I have not found any evidence whatsoever for it.

For some time I really started to believe in evolution, but after a very very close examination of Evolution, I found that not only did it not have any evidence going in its favour, but that it did not even exist at all.

Also, evolution is not demonstratable, or repeatable, as in testing. Therefore Evolution is also not even a theory, but a mere hypothesis. The only test that evolutionist can come up with are bacteria breeding... which they themselves don't know much about, and then claim that it truly is evolution when it is NOT.

Evolution must pass the breeding test, and so far it has not. Just go to your local farm and you will figure this out. Gregor Mendel was right, and Charles Darwin was wrong.

#52 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 06 May 2009 - 08:20 PM

Hi Wombatty,
The point of my post was to show Schweitzer's views on this topic since she certainly does not see this work as supporting a young earth model. I personally find it quite interesting that she is an evangelical Christian and has no trouble with evolutionary theory and an old earth. I think this work also demonstrates that a highly controversial bit of data can be published in a major journal by an evangelical Christian. If it is good science, it just doesn't matter who is publishing it.


Since when did she get a monoply on the interpretation of the evidence? We are not 'twisting' her findings, we are just interpreting them differently.

View Post

As she mentioned she is not afraid of the scientific battles. She seems to have a thick enough skin for that. What she finds offensive are those that "twist" her words into making it look like she believes the work supports a young earth model and those that attack her Christianity. She has a solid education, so I am sure she could mention 50 reasons why a young earth model does not fit with the data. She would probably described the other 100 animals that are found in the Hell Creek formation with this T-Rex along along with the plant life and environmental conditions at the time the T-rex died. I believe this T-rex was female and was pregnant. She will likely tell you the evidence that allows us to know the age quite precisely and explain how multiple lines of evidence support this date.

There are some people here that treat any form of education as brainwashing. That is sad in my view. An education does not require that you agree with any point of view, but knowing the facts and why theories are believed by the scientific majority is very important in any scientific debate. Without this knowledge one is likely to propose theories that go directly against the known facts and be quite oblivious - or believe it is all some form of conspiracy. It would be odd to find someone that thought they could prove Einstein wrong without an education in physics. So it also seems odd when when anyone claims some radical theory in paleontology without knowing any more than what they have seen on a creationist video.

Schweitzer's work is still not accepted. That takes time and it will need to be replicated by a number of labs. Once it is accepted scientists will begin to explore why the bone did not completely fossilize. There are no scientific laws or rules that say that material MUST fossilize. It was simply assumed. Schweitzer questioned this assumption. And now the scientific established will test this new idea.


Second, it is interesting that, while she insists that God will not 'allow Himself to be proven by scientific methodologies', she apparently thinks that He will allow His Word to be reinterpreted by scientific methodologies.

Further, who is she to determine how God will allow himself to be proved?

View Post


Yes, there are many ways to interpret the bible. The Vatican takes an old earth point of view as many (most?) Christians do. In the 19th century Christian scientists were quite open minded and allowed the data to guide their scientific theories. They allowed for the possibility that their interpretations of the Bible and their scientific theories could be flawed. And that allowed great scientific progress.

Today the greatest accolades in science go to those that overturn the standard theories. That is what gets tenure, Professorships, Nobel prizes etc. But you need to have the data to support your view. Schweitzer is confident that she can show that bone material may not completely mineralize even after 68 million years. It will be interesting to see if turns out to be right.

#53 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 06 May 2009 - 11:09 PM

Thanks James,

I don't understand why you think "Darwin of the gaps" are facts and a proper scientific education.I also don't understand why you think all of us that don't agree with you only do so because were uneducated.We have been through every topic on this forum that you could possibly imagine (at least twice) and have seen the evidence from both sides.How could only educating yourself in one possible explantion be more educating than exploring all possibilities?How could obviously flawed dogma be educating?

It's nothing more than competition for tenure,in which case the best liars win,even though the latest polls show that only 39% of americans believe in evolution.And i doubt if it's because education is declining in america it's because the evidence for evolution is declining.



Thanks.

#54 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 07 May 2009 - 03:46 AM

And i doubt if it's because education is declining in america it's because the evidence for evolution is declining.

View Post

Wow. I wonder how many evolutionists will take that seriously? I guess some will, since people see the light every day. I would take that one step further and say that not only is the evidence for evolution in decline but the evidence 'for' evolution betrays evolution, upon critical examination.

#55 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 08 May 2009 - 06:01 PM

Also, in both cases the prevailing attitude prior to the 'decsision' was held to be correct, whereas western scientists began from a place of accepting the veracity of the biblical account, but did not find evidence supporting it - indeed the evidence soundly refutes it - and subsequently came up with alternatives which better explain the found data.

View Post

False. That's nothing but antihistory. Let's see you name 3 scientists prior to 1900 who were history-accepting creationists and gave it up for evolutionism based upon scientific evidence. The people who founded modern evolutionism had already abandoned the written accounts - every last one I've ever heard about, and I have looked a little. "Evidenced based conversion" is an invented myth. It never happened.

#56 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 08 May 2009 - 09:17 PM

False. That's nothing but antihistory. Let's see you name 3 scientists prior to 1900 who were history-accepting creationists and gave it up for evolutionism based upon scientific evidence. The people who founded modern evolutionism had already abandoned the written accounts - every last one I've ever heard about, and I have looked a little. "Evidenced based conversion" is an invented myth. It never happened.

View Post


Your correct,CTD.

The only OE Christian scientists i'm aware of was Georges Cuvier the father of paleoentology,but i've never heard any source claim that he ever believed in a young earth,so even he is irrelevant.

#57 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,540 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 09 May 2009 - 08:39 AM

In the interest of balance, I found this on Todd Wood's blog. He offers a different creationist perspective that we should keep in mind:

The latest issue of Science has some good stuff. Mary Schweitzer is back with evidence of hadrosaur collagen. I know lots of creationists that get charged up by this sort of thing, since this is supposed to be evidence that the fossils must be younger than conventional claims by millions of years. I've never been very excited about this, mainly because the Flood throws a real monkey wrench into these arguments. A major source of degradation of biomolecules is water. So anything that died in the Flood and floated in water for a year shouldn't really have many biomolecules left, right? Seems like if you believe fossils are millions of years old or are the remains of carcasses from the Flood, the outcome is the same: very little preservation of biomolecules. In this case, Schweitzer is finding collagen, which is pretty tough, so I guess it makes sense that it might be preserved in some extraordinary cases. In any case, finding the rare, hardy biomolecule from dinosaurs is nothing to get excited about, since the conventional model and the Flood model both predict the same thing: this should be very, very unusual.


He has a good point. I would still give the edge to creationism here, but it's not quite a slam dunk - we still have some questions to answer ourselves.

View Post


I believe Wood’s comments in his blog (not just on the dino find) are both incredibly lame, and also ignorant of the field of creation. I’m not sure if it is because he is trying too hard to appease the evolutionists by sounding ‘balanced’ and open-minded’, or if it is because he is heading the way of Glen Morton. Creation Ministries International’s lead article this week refutes Wood’s blog:

http://www.creation.com

http://creation.com/...they-a-big-deal

Here is even more disturbing ignorance from Wood in his blog:

To be clear: This paper from Tirosh et al. does not invalidate the neodarwinian model. It actually confirms an important part of that model, namely that variations in the DNA "account for most of the expression divergence." In other words, the main reason that S. cerevisiae and S. paradoxus are phenotypically different is because they have different DNA sequences (duh). They also found that novel gene expression patterns in the S. cerevisiae x paradoxus hybrid are often the result of complex interactions between regulatory proteins and the environment. So as often happens in genetics, the combined expression of two genes is not additive, it's synergistic. Unexpected things happen.

What does that have to do with speciation (or creation for that matter)? I think we creationists need to stop thinking as if the gene is everything, as if a change in a gene sequence or regulatory sequence is "the" problem.


Like his position on dino collagen, he is pretty much alone among creationists in such as assesment. I personally know of no creationist scientist who has a problem with undetected genomic complexity in producing genetic variety and phenotypic responses to the environment. Hence Wood has erected a big stawman. He also says that “expression divergence” is an important part of neodarwinism. This is no different than saying “adaptation” or “microevolution” is an important part of neodarwinism, which of course is baloney and plays right into the hands of the evolutionist’s illusion of equivocating on what evolution is (see first bullet in forum FAQand my articles on this). The only ones who believe “expression divergence” is an important part of neodarwinism are evolutionists who have maneuvered their theory into a smorgasbord to explain everything. The only important aspects of neodarwinism, when you get right down to it as far as how it separates itself from creation, are two main tenets: random mutation culled by natural selection. “Expression divergence” actually plays right into the hands of creationists and is completely expected (and actually poses a PROBLEM for evolutionists – as discussed on our radio show of last week). Such complex mechanisms make it that much harder to imagine how it all happened by mistakes in the DNA.

Fred

#58 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 15 May 2009 - 05:42 AM

I believe Wood’s comments in his blog (not just on the dino find) are both incredibly lame, and also ignorant of the field of creation. I’m not sure if it is because he is trying too hard to appease the evolutionists by sounding ‘balanced’ and open-minded’, or if it is because he is heading the way of Glen Morton. Creation Ministries International’s lead article this week refutes Wood’s blog:

http://www.creation.com

http://creation.com/...they-a-big-deal


Fred

View Post

That post on CMI's site was a reply to my e-mail to them :lol:

Not know much about organic chemistry, I thought I'd ask them. Seems Wood's point wasn't as important as I thought it might be.

#59 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Location:Warsaw, Indiana
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Warsaw, Indiana

Posted 15 May 2009 - 06:13 AM

Hi Wombatty,
    The point of my post was to show Schweitzer's views on this topic since she certainly does not see this work as supporting a young earth model. I personally find it quite interesting that she is an evangelical Christian and has no trouble with evolutionary theory and an old earth.

View Post

This isn't exactly uncommon - among scientists (or theologians). Look at Hugh Ross and Francis Collins for just two examples.

I think this work also demonstrates that a highly controversial bit of data can be published in a major journal by an evangelical Christian. If it is good science, it just doesn't matter who is publishing it.

View Post

I'd be willing to bet serious money that she wouldn't have gotten it published if she had instead concluded that her findings throw serious doubt on the billions-of-years paradigm. Which just goes to show you it isn't about the evidence, it's about the interpretation (and the paradigm from which it flows).

As she mentioned she is not afraid of the scientific battles. She seems to have a thick enough skin for that. What she finds offensive are those that "twist" her words into making it look like she believes the work supports a young earth model and those that attack her Christianity.

View Post

I have yet to see a YEC twist her words this way. All of the mainstream YEC organizations (AiG, CMI, ICR, etc.) that I have seen comment on this do no such thing. They all acknowledge that she is a 'long-ager' who believes in evolution. At 'worst', they point out that her beliefs are inconsistent with her professed faith - which is an entirely reasonable point and not at all hostile.

There are some people here that treat any form of education as brainwashing. That is sad in my view. An education does not require that you agree with any point of view, but knowing the facts and why theories are believed by the scientific majority is very important in any scientific debate. Without this knowledge one is likely to propose theories that go directly against the known facts and be quite oblivious - or believe it is all some form of conspiracy.

View Post

First, who here regards education is such a way? Secondly, it is brainwashing to only teach one side of an issue and refuse to teach the other side (or mete out punishment if one does so). For example, all of the mainstream creationist & ID organizations oppose mandating the teaching of creationism or ID in public schools. What they do want is for both the strengths and weaknesses of evolution to be taught. These are the same problems that are discussed in mainstream evolutionary journals. Yet evolutionists rabidly oppose exposing students to this material. Why? Because they want to avoid, at all costs, sowing any seeds of doubt about evolution in the minds of students. This is brainwashing.

You'll find no such desire on the part of mainstream creationists who understand the importance of competently engaging the culture.

It would be odd to find someone that thought they could prove Einstein wrong without an education in physics. So it also seems odd when when anyone claims some radical theory in paleontology without knowing any more than what they have seen on a creationist video.

View Post

Your point might be valid, except that when a creationist with impeccable credentials 'claims some radical theory in paleontology' (e.g. Kurt Wise), he is dismissed all the same - and he certainly knows more than one will find on a creationist video. Again, it's about the interpretation, not the evidence or credentials.

It is also interesting that you'll find many evolutionary critiques of creationism without even know what one learn about modern creationism from a contemporary video. Many such current books cite creationist references no more recent that the early work of Morris.

Schweitzer's work is still not accepted. That takes time and it will need to be replicated by a number of labs. Once it is accepted scientists will begin to explore why the bone did not completely fossilize. There are no scientific laws or rules that say that material MUST fossilize. It was simply assumed. Schweitzer questioned this assumption. And now the scientific established will test this new idea.

View Post

I'm not so much interested in why the material didn't fossilize as in why it did not decay into nothing. These are two different issues. And as far as I am aware, we do have data and pretty solid ideas on how long it takes biological material (e.g. proteins, collagen, etc.) to decay - and it is far less than millions of years. That is only being questioned now because of threat to the billions-of-years paradigm. I bet that if someone had given sample of this material to labs without telling them the source and asked for a general analysis and age estimate, not one would have replied with '80 million years' or anything close to it. They would have likely used the current understanding (based on empirical studies) of decay rates of biological material to come to their conclusion.

 
Yes, there are many ways to interpret the bible. The Vatican takes an old earth point of view as many (most?) Christians do. In the 19th century Christian scientists were quite open minded and allowed the data to guide their scientific theories. They allowed for the possibility that their interpretations of the Bible and their scientific theories could be flawed. And that allowed great scientific progress.

View Post

The whole scientific enterprise was launched by men who, in the vast majority, believed in the YEC interpretation of Genesis, including the flood and conducting their science accordingly. Out of that philosophy, science was birthed.

Today the greatest accolades in science go to those that overturn the standard theories. That is what gets tenure, Professorships, Nobel prizes etc. But you need to have the data to support your view. Schweitzer is confident that she can show that bone material may not completely mineralize even after 68 million years. It will be interesting to see if turns out to be right.

View Post


Standard theories, perhaps, but not a foundational paradigm. There is no tolerance for scientists or theories that deign to threaten to fundamental paradigm of materialism. The likes of Francis Collins don't qualify here because the work of God, in his view, is wholly undetectable.

#60 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 15 May 2009 - 09:28 AM

Great post, Wombatty, it's good to have you back.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users