Jump to content


Photo

Schweitzer Does It Again....


  • Please log in to reply
126 replies to this topic

#1 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

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

Posted 01 May 2009 - 06:49 AM

...and even better. More dinosaur blood & protien found and it's even 'older' than the T-Rex stuff. This time from an '80-million year old' hadrosaur and they have all but ruled out the bacterical film hyphothesis. Courtesy of Creation-Evolution Headlines:

Dinosaur Blood Protein, Cells Recovered  04/30/2009
 
April 30, 2009 — It’s official: soft tissue, including blood vessel proteins and structures resembling cells, have been recovered from dinosaur bone.  Mary Schweitzer’s amazing claim in 2005 (03/24/2005) was subsequently disputed as possible contamination from biofilms (07/30/2008).  Now, Schweitzer and her team took exceptional precautions to avoid contamination by excavating hadrosaur bone from sandstone said to be 80 million years old.  A short description of her findings, and a picture of the tissue, was announced today by New Scientist.  The paper followed shortly after in the May 1 issue of Science.1  A press release from Schweitzer’s institution, North Carolina State University, says that the preservation of soft tissue in this duck-billed dinosaur fossil was even better than the material from the T. rex bone analyzed in 2005.
    Robert F. Service commented on the finding in the same issue of Science.2  He was a little cautious, putting the word ‘protein” in quotes, but said this:

A controversial finding that protein fragments can be recovered from dinosaur fossils has been replicated for the first time.  Two years ago, Mary Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, and colleagues stunned the paleontology community when they reported discovering intact protein fragments in a fossil from a Tyrannosaurus rex that died 68 million years ago.  The claim has remained contentious, because proteins in tissue normally degrade quickly after an animal dies.  On page 626, however, Schweitzer and colleagues report finding an even larger number of protein fragments from an 80-million-year-old fossil from a duck-billed dinosaur, or hadrosaur, known as Brachylophosaurus canadensis.
    “This will either be nothing or the biggest revolution in paleontology ever,” says Tom Kaye, a paleontologist at the Burke Museum in Seattle, Washington, and a critic of the original T. rex study.


Service went on to say that “Collagen, the principal protein in connective tissue, is rarely found in fossils more than a few hundred thousand years old.” Taking five as a few, that means this discovery would require believing it has lasted 160 times as long.
In response to criticisms of the 2005 paper, Schweitzer’s team took extra care in the extraction and analysis of the specimen. They used sterilized instruments to extract the bone samples and rushed them to the lab in sealed jars. Two independent groups analyzed the samples. “Both groups then independently performed biochemical and antibody-binding studies that showed evidence of collagen as well as laminin and elastin, two proteins found in blood vessels,” Service reported. In addition, two independent teams used better mass spectrometry methods, and both confirmed the presence of collagen. One of the specialists, John Asara of Harvard Medical School, said, “This proves the first study was not a one-hit wonder.”
What will critics say now? Service ended by quoting Martin McIntosh of Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, a critic of the first study. McIntosh appeared uneasy with the implications. “I’m not saying it’s true,” he said, holding out hope for an alternate explanation. “But I cannot right now make a plausible argument that it’s not true.” He added, “The door is closing on plausible alternatives.”
The original paper primarily documented the details of the extraction and analysis. Chris Organ (Harvard) also performed a phylogenetic analysis, indicating enough primary material was available for comparison. Despite the press release’s confidence that the proteins showed a link to birds, the data presented in the paper was more ambiguous and required some tweaking to produce a tree.3 That, however, is what Science seemed to emphasize, stating in the summary that “Analysis of well-preserved tissues from an 80-million-year-old hadrosaur supports the dinosaur-bird relationship.”
Here’s how the original paper ended its announcement of replicated results that show the material is endogenous (original with the bone). With appropriate scientific caution, they listed the evidence pointing to the confirmation of the hypothesis that the protein fragments once were part of a living dinosaur:

The hypothesis that endogenous proteins can persist across geological time, as first reported for T. rex (MOR 1125), was met with appropriate skepticism.  However, the inclusion of additional sequence data from extant reptiles and B. canadensis strengthens the hypothesis that the molecular signal is preserved at least to the Late Cretaceous.
    The submicron differences in texture (Fig. 1 and fig. S1), elemental differentiation, sub-“cellular” inclusions in osteocytes and vessels, identification of the posttranslational Pro-OH modification not produced by microbes, differential binding of antibodies by both in situ and immunoblot studies, collagen protein sequences, and phylogenetic analyses do not support a microbial origin for either these microstructures or peptide fragments.  Coupled with evidence for cross-linking and unusual chemical modifications, the congruence of evidence strongly supports an endogenous origin for this material.  The most parsimonious explanation, thus far unfalsified, is that original molecules persist in some Cretaceous dinosaur fossils.  Still unknown is the chemistry behind such preservation.


The paper also includes photographs of structures that resemble cells. While they were cautious not to call them cells, they sure look like the real thing. They used various lines of evidence to rule out bacterial contamination.4 This indicates the protein studied with mass spectrometry was not relegated to isolated fragments, but was retained in original cellular structures. Were these cells really 80 million years old?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Schweitzer, Zheng, Organ, Avci, Sui, Freimark, Lebleu, Duncan, Vander Heiden, Neveu, Lane, Cottrell, Horner, Cantley, Kalluri and Asara, “Biomolecular Characterization and Protein Sequences of the Campanian Hadrosaur B. canadensis,” Science, 1 May 2009: Vol. 324. no. 5927, pp. 626-631, DOI: 10.1126/science.1165069c.
2. Robert F. Service, “Paleontology: ‘Protein’ in 80-Million-Year-Old Fossil Bolsters Controversial T. rex Claim,” Science, 1 May 2009: Vol. 324. no. 5927, p. 578, DOI: 10.1126/science.324_578.
3. Excerpt from (1): “Under a majority-rule criterion to building a consensus tree, Dinosauria (the group containing the two extinct dinosaurs and the two birds) collapsed into a three-way polytomy. Removing T. rex from the phylogeny resulted in a three-way polytomy as well. The amount of missing data in B. canadensis and T. rex sequences relative to extant samples resulted in relatively low resolution within Dinosauria, but even so, the phylogenetic relationship of recovered B. canadensis sequences supports the species’ placement within Archosauria, closer to birds than Alligator. However, on the basis of well-established morphological analyses, we predict that T. rex is more closely related to birds than it is to the ornithischian hadrosaur B. canadensis. Despite ambiguity within Dinosauria, obvious phylogenetic signal resides within recovered collagen sequences, supporting endogeneity (fig. S11).”
4. “Ovoid red ‘cells’ with long filipodia, similar in morphology to extant osteocytes, were embedded in or associated with white matrix (Fig. 1J and fig. S1) or vessels (Fig. 1H). In some cases, these were attached by their filipodia to adjacent cells (Fig. 1J, inset), forming an interconnecting network as in extant bone. The cells contain internal microstructures suggestive of nuclei. Red filipodia extend from cell bodies into the white fibrous matrix (Fig. 1J and fig. S1), reflecting original chemical differences at submicron levels between cells and matrix and inconsistent with recent microbial invasion (7). Under FESEM (10), B. canadensis osteocytes and filipodia (Fig. 1K) are similar in morphology, surface texture, and size to extant ostrich osteocytes isolated from bone digests (Fig. 1L) (1, 2, 13, 14).”

It sounds like this will clinch the case. There’s no way this blood protein could be 80 million years old. The evolutionists are just saying it is because they cannot bear the thought of recent dinosaurs causing their millions of years scenario to come crashing down. Without the millions of years, Darwinism is dead, dead, dead.
Notice that it is not the creationists making these announcements but a secular research team and secular, anti-creationist news sources. Combine this announcement with the next entry below, and it appears that two centuries of scientific doubts about the Bible’s timescale are over. What are you waiting for?

The noose seems to be tightening, though it will just be rationalized as was the Coelacanth, the Wollemi Pine, and others.

#2 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 01 May 2009 - 01:42 PM

Hey wombatty,

Great stuff. How familiar are you with this issue? How many times have they confirmed that Dino blood and/or soft tissue has been found? I know evos make excuses but do you know if this is making a good dent?

Thanks for posting the update. You're one of the originals. How have you been?

#3 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 01 May 2009 - 01:49 PM

The noose seems to be tightening, though it will just be rationalized as was the Coelacanth, the Wollemi Pine, and others.

View Post

This reminds me of what Fred said here:

http://www.evolution...indpost&p=17214

Evolution is instead a malleable smorgasbord hypothesis that, as ReMine once quiped, adapts to data like fog adapts to the landscape.

View Post



#4 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 01 May 2009 - 02:33 PM

Heres some pics. of the tissues they found.

Posted Image

The sad part is,the evolutionists are only convinced that it proves dinosaurs evolved into birds because the DNA is chickenlike.The true implications went right over their head.

Dinosaur-Bird Link: Ancient Proteins Preserved In Soft Tissue From 80 Million-Year-Old Hadrosaur

ScienceDaily (May 1, 2009) — Ancient protein dating back 80 million years to the Cretaceous geologic period has been preserved in bone fragments and soft tissues of a hadrosaur, or duck-billed dinosaur, according to a study in the May 1 issue of Science.

Led by scientists at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC) and North Carolina State University (NCSU), the research support earlier results from analyses suggesting that collagen protein survived in the bones of a well preserved Tyrannosaurus rex, and offer robust new evidence supporting previous conclusions that birds and dinosaurs are evolutionarily related.

In April 2007 John Asara, PhD, Director of the Mass Spectrometry Core at BIDMC, together with NCSU paleontologist Mary Schweitzer, PhD, published two papers in Science describing their discovery that collagen extracted from bone fragments of a 68-million-year-old T. rex closely matched the amino acid sequences of modern day chickens. Not surprisingly, the widely publicized findings created a great deal of controversy.


http://www.scienceda...90430144528.htm

How comical.Solid evidence that refutes evolution only proves evolution. :o

#5 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

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

Posted 03 May 2009 - 08:57 AM

Hey wombatty,

Great stuff. How familiar are you with this issue? How many times have they confirmed that Dino blood and/or soft tissue has been found? I know evos make excuses but do you know if this is making a good dent?

Thanks for posting the update. You're one of the originals. How have you been?

View Post


I've followed the issue since Schweitzer's first find with the T-Rex bone. I don't know how many times exactly, but it's been a few. I think the more they look for it, the more they are going to find. Until recently, no one thought to look for it because it was assumed to not be in the realm of possibility due to evolutionary presuppositions.

I don't think it's going to make a big dent because it will just be rationalized and evo theory will just be tweaked to accomodate it. I think the same thing would happen if they found a living dino somewhere.

I've been doing fine, nothing exciting though :P Thanks for asking. Yourself?

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.

#6 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 03 May 2009 - 11:44 PM

That's not much of a problem for the flood models. Water won't destroy the evidence merely on contact with a corpse. The limes and stuff that cause rock to harden absorb water, and rock will harden underwater if the right chemicals are present. So something buried in such stone could be protected from water.

#7 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

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

Posted 04 May 2009 - 03:39 AM

That's not much of a problem for the flood models. Water won't destroy the evidence merely on contact with a corpse. The limes and stuff that cause rock to harden absorb water, and rock will harden underwater if the right chemicals are present. So something buried in such stone could be protected from water.

View Post


That general idea is why I give the edge to we creationists here. If a dino was quickly entombed in a wave of sludgey sediment and hardened in a reasonable time, it would all but seal out any more water. But I think it is an issue that we should not and cannot ignore.

#8 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 04 May 2009 - 04:00 AM

Interesting......

Has anyone got a link to the actual article/paper published in "Science"? The only link I can find is a summary from the http://creationsafaris.com/ website.

Sorry, please ignore my stupidity....found it!

#9 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 04 May 2009 - 04:32 AM

Surely all this potentially proves is that current understanding about fossil preservation rates is wrong.

The evidence for an old earth is independantly verified from numerous sources and comprises hundrededs if not thoasands of bits of data. If any one of these throws up potentially contrary result, we do not simply throw out the entire old earth model (and with It I assume one also implies evolution?).

I see nothing in this article that PROVES a Young Earth Model. On the contrary, if the data is true then the statement:

"collagen extracted from bone fragments of a 68-million-year-old T. rex closely matched the amino acid sequences of modern day chickens."

simply confirms the modern thinking that Dinosaurs are indeed closely related to birds.

#10 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 04 May 2009 - 05:19 AM

"collagen extracted from bone fragments of a 68-million-year-old T. rex closely matched the amino acid sequences of modern day chickens."

simply confirms the modern thinking that Dinosaurs are indeed closely related to birds.


So are cabbages,but theres no conceivable way to preserve soft tissue in a cabbage,or anything else,for 80 million years.

It alone does'nt prove a young earth,but it does confirm that dinosaurs lived in the age of man by the known rates of tissue and protein decay.

#11 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7048 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 May 2009 - 05:37 AM

The evidence for an old earth is independantly verified from numerous sources and comprises hundrededs if not thoasands of bits of data.

View Post

What's more convincing to you? ...one hundred bits of assumption ridden, fallacious data or one thousand bits of assumption ridden, fallacious data? ...I'm gonna guess the more merrier, huh? ;)

#12 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 04 May 2009 - 06:42 AM

Surely all this potentially proves is that current understanding about fossil preservation rates is wrong.

View Post


Or it helps in proving that current understanding about fossil dates are wrong… How could blood vessel proteins survive eighty-million years?

“Collagen, the principal protein in connective tissue, is rarely found in fossils more than a few hundred thousand years old.” 

View Post



#13 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 04 May 2009 - 06:43 AM

Heres some pics. of the tissues they found.

Posted Image

The sad part is,the evolutionists are only convinced that it proves dinosaurs evolved into birds because the DNA is chickenlike.The true implications went right over their head.

Dinosaur-Bird Link: Ancient Proteins Preserved In Soft Tissue From 80 Million-Year-Old Hadrosaur
http://www.scienceda...90430144528.htm

How comical.Solid evidence that refutes evolution only proves evolution. ;)

View Post


Thanks for the pictures Jason

#14 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

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

Posted 04 May 2009 - 08:49 AM

Surely all this potentially proves is that current understanding about fossil preservation rates is wrong.


This is a 'darwin of the gaps' argument.

The evidence for an old earth is independantly verified from numerous sources and comprises hundrededs if not thoasands of bits of data. If any one of these throws up potentially contrary result, we do not simply throw out the entire old earth model (and with It I assume one also implies evolution?).


There are also many independently verified data points that indicate an earth much younger than supposed by evolution; sea salt accumulation, sea sediment accumulation, moon recession, persistence of comets, etc.

I see nothing in this article that PROVES a Young Earth Model.


No one is saying this proves a young earth. It certainly does, however, make room for that conclusion and thus throws doubt on any security one might have in an 'old' earth.

On the contrary, if the data is true then the statement:

"collagen extracted from bone fragments of a 68-million-year-old T. rex closely matched the amino acid sequences of modern day chickens."

simply confirms the modern thinking that Dinosaurs are indeed closely related to birds.

View Post


Of course, let's accept as solid the evidence that can be construed as supporting evolution, but let's forestall making any conclusions on the evidence that does not so solidly support evoultion by appealing to future discoveries (i.e. vaporware).

#15 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 04 May 2009 - 09:25 AM

People are being too quick to interpret these results. There is a clear case to made that we do not fully understand the presevation potential of collagen.

New Scientest:
"The protein discovery is exciting, but palaeontologists will have to work harder to uncover fossils that preserve it better, says Jack Horner of Montana State University in the US, who was involved in the analysis. Most fossils have been found near the surface where degradation is more likely, he explains. "

"The protein was garnered from a bone buried nearly 20 metres down. "If we can get as deep as possible into sediment where there has been little contamination, I think we'll find many specimens like this," Horner said. Eager for the quest, this summer he will send more than 100 people to field sites to dig for protein-rich fossils."

Even Schweitzer's herself is trying to answer the question as to how original proteins can be preserved at least since the late Cretaceous period.

"Well that's the real interesting question, isn't it?", agrees Schweitzer. "According to all of our models and all bench-top experiments exposing proteins to artificial conditions, it [shouldn't be possible]. That is an area of active research in my lab. We're in the process of testing that very question through actualistic experiments and other means. We have some ideas about the chemistry that might allow such preservation, but we're still in the process of working it out. Stay tuned!"

Science first tries to accomodate new data into an existing model rather than blindly creating far more improbable models with little or no supporting evidence.

This result currently means NOTHING with regards to a young earth model.

#16 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 04 May 2009 - 10:56 AM

Oh no, it shows EVERYTHING for a young earth model. I'm not going to believe for one second that soft tissue was preserved for millions of years. Millions of years has not even be witnessed or obsereved... it has been assumed.

Just because you don't understand how soft tissue could be preserved for billions upon bagillions of years does not mean that it can in the first place.

#17 wombatty

wombatty

    Member

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

Posted 04 May 2009 - 11:08 AM

People are being too quick to interpret these results. There is a clear case to made that we do not fully understand the presevation potential of collagen.

[...]

Science first tries to accomodate new data into an existing model rather than blindly creating far more improbable models with little or no supporting evidence.

This result currently means NOTHING with regards to a young earth model.

View Post


Interesting that you offer no substantive reasons for your conclusion - other than that evolutionists are currently trying to reconcile the results with their model (that should, under no circumstances, be challenged). You do realize, don't you, that you are appealing to ignorance to forestall a challenge to the long ages model?

Your concern that 'people are being too quick to interpret these results' applies equally to the evolutionists who simply assume that the 'x-factor' is collagen preservation, as opposed to, say, the purported age of the specimen.

Imagine for a moment we were talking about Coelacanth or Wollemi Pine fossils/remains before live specimens were discovered. Having found organic tissue in the specimen, I am sure the reaction among the evolutionary faithful such as yourself would be the same.

Claims of ignorance concerning the preservation processes involved would abound. Pleas that we forestall any conclusions contrary to the reigning paradigm would be urged upon us.

Then…

…live specimens of each are found. All of the theorizing and such looking for heretofore unknown processes of preservation would have all been for naught. While not necessarily ruling out such an unknown process, the discovery of live specimens would make such theories unnecessary to explain the organic tissue preservation and the principal of parsimony would suggest that we tentatively conclude that the former specimens are not as old as first thought. Regardless of the ruling paradigm.

If these results currently mean NOTHING to a young earth model, they certainly cannot be marshalled in support of the old earth model, all of the confident pronouncements of the evolutionary priesthood notwithstanding.

#18 pdw709

pdw709

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Age: 36
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 05 May 2009 - 03:56 AM

Oh no, it shows EVERYTHING for a young earth model.  I'm not going to believe for one second that soft tissue was preserved for millions of years.  Millions of years has not even be witnessed or obsereved... it has been assumed.

Just because you don't understand how soft tissue could be preserved  for billions upon bagillions of years does not mean that it can in the first place.

View Post


Okay, so if 100 bits of evidence point to an Old earth and 1 new bit potentially (and at this stage still unproven) points to a Young earth then you say we should ignore the 100bits?

You must realise that any theory/model, in your case a Young earth model, must be able to account for all/vast majority of evidence/data. You cannot simply ignore the Old Earth Data just because you do not like it's conclusions (i.e. you are pre-judging based on a previous belief/assumption - this is NOT how sciece works).

If (and a big if) this is indeed true soft tissue preservation, then Science WILL NOT simply sweep it under the carpet/ignore it. It will be studied, explained and incorporated into a unified theory. That is how Science works.

#19 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 05 May 2009 - 04:15 AM

If (and a big if) this is indeed true soft tissue preservation, then Science WILL NOT simply sweep it under the carpet/ignore it. It will be studied, explained and incorporated into a unified theory. That is how Science works.

View Post

Now there's a statement of faith if there ever was one.

#20 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 05 May 2009 - 06:53 AM

Okay, so if 100 bits of evidence point to an Old earth and 1 new bit potentially (and at this stage still unproven) points to a Young earth then you say we should ignore the 100bits?

You must realise that any theory/model, in your case a Young earth model, must be able to account for all/vast majority of evidence/data. You cannot simply ignore the Old Earth Data just because you do not like it's conclusions (i.e. you are pre-judging based on a previous belief/assumption - this is NOT how sciece works).

If (and a big if) this is indeed true soft tissue preservation, then Science WILL NOT simply sweep it under the carpet/ignore it. It will be studied, explained and incorporated into a unified theory. That is how Science works.

View Post


You must also understand that evolution has no evidence, you must go fossil hunting sometime, you need to go. I'll provide you with a pick, shovel, and a map. I'm not ignoring Old Earth Data, I cannot ignore something that doesn't exist. All evidence points to a young earth. The only time it points to an old earth is when some atheistic evolution worshipper decides they have to label something bagillions of years old.

Science hasn't swept soft fossilization under the rug, Evolutionist have, because evolutionist are having an extremely hard time getting people who are not gullible to believe that tissue will survive bagillions of years. Evolutionist are the majority, the majority are atheist. The majority hate God. The majority rule this world. The majority is not in the right, nor in the truth. Turn toward Jesus, your wasting your time being an atheist.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users