Replies

BerianBrain: "Are you reading my posts? t’s not science vs anti-science. It’s the definition of WHAT is Science."

Sorry, FRiend, but you are an anti-science poser -- pretending you love science, you just want to change it to suit your own beliefs.
You'd like to get rid of everything that smacks of "historical science" and consign that all to the category of "modern atheistic myth-making".

Of course you are entitled to believe whatsoever you wish, but you cannot call your anti-science beliefs "science".
They're not, they're the opposite of science.

BerianBrain: "SCIENCE is repeatable, observable, and explainable. Science deals in facts. Not accusations and attacks on people’s characters."

Nobody is making personal attacks, except to the degree that you are lying about who you are and what you are up to.
The fact of this matter is that you oppose science, and hope to discredit it.

BerianBrain: "In particular, if you simply google dinosaur blood you will find lots of articles, even published in peer reviewed journals.
In particular, a recent find has viable tissue and blood from the remains of a T-Rex.
I doubt T-Rex hung around for 70 million years hiding under rocks and such."

I have read numerous articles on alleged dinosaur tissues -- collagen, i.e.:

"When the fossilized bone was treated over several weeks to remove mineral content from the fossilized bone-marrow cavity (a process called demineralization), Schweitzer found evidence of intact structures such as blood vessels, bone matrix, and connective tissue (bone fibers).
Scrutiny under the microscope further revealed that the putative dinosaur soft tissue had retained fine structures (microstructures) even at the cellular level.
The exact nature and composition of this material, and the implications of Schweitzer's discovery, are not yet clear; study and interpretation of the material is ongoing.[52]
"In 2009, a team including Schweitzer announced that, using even more careful methodology, they had duplicated their results by finding similar soft tissue in a duck-billed dinosaur, Brachylophosaurus canadensis, found in the Judith River Formation of Montana.
This included even more detailed tissue, down to preserved bone cells that seem even to have visible remnants of nuclei and what seem to be red blood cells.
Among other materials found in the bone was collagen, as in the Tyrannosaurus bone mentioned above.
The type of collagen an animal has in its bones varies according to its DNA and, in both cases, this collagen was of the same type found in modern chickens and ostriches.[176]

"The successful extraction of ancient DNA from dinosaur fossils has been reported on two separate occasions; upon further inspection and peer review, however, neither of these reports could be confirmed.[177]"

So I'll repeat what I said before: these reports are not confirmed, but it does now seem that under rare conditions some basic organic material can survive intact for very long times indeed.

BerianBrain: "What SCIENCE is doing now is trying to explain how protein can survive 70-100 Million years."

No, science is still working to discover exactly what survived millions of years -- just collagen, or other material too?
As to how it survived, the answer is simple: some organic material which is dried and protected from the environment can remain stable indefinitely.

BerianBrain: "Also, radiometric dating assumes a constant rate of decay over millions of years, which although it is an assumption, may be correct."

Not an "assumption", it's a logical conclusion, based on masses of data and the absence of anything seriously contradicting it.

BerianBrain: "And yes, ancient DNA has been sequenced from the Ice Age - in particular Mammoth DNA."

In fact, there is evidence (not undisputed) of DNA in bacteria buried in salt, hundreds of millions of years old.

Other DNA from humans (or pre-humans) certainly dates back 40,000 years and maybe hundreds of thousands of years -- those reports seem uncertain to me.

Bottom line is: while you are absolutely entitled to believe what you wish, you do not get to define what is, or is not, "science".
That's because your definition of "science" is equivalent to, say, Democrats' definition of Conservatives: they call us "knuckle-dragging Neanderthals".
That is no more fair or accurate than your definition of "science".

Real scientists, not anti-scientists, define what "science" is or is not.