>The “debate” is settled every time a company hires a
>SCIENTISTS who understand the age of the Earth and
>evolution to do geology and biomedical research. Science
>produces results. Creation “science” produces nothing but
>a ‘critique’ of science.
Your comparison of laboratory science to creation science is disingenuous. A small part of Origins Science is staring at bones and trying to figure out where they belong in the family of animals. Laboratory Science is using the scientific method to prove things. A small part of Creation Science is staring at bones and trying to figure our what God created them to be.
You should compare Origins Science to Creation Science. Both are useless for scientific advances, and are only for debates like this.
Laboratory Science gives us results.
“avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:”
1 Timothy six verse twenty
Origins Science masquerading as and comparing itself favorably to Laboratory Science rather than Creation Science is “science falsely so called” in it’s purest form. Atheist evolutionists do this all the time in the name of “science” against “God”.
I will make a list of all the handwaving you engaged in, just in case you missed it:
1) not “some protein sequences” but actual collagen per one of the links I already gave
2) the Biblical/historical proof for evolution being contradictory to Genesis, and thus not something Christians should ever approve of or promote in any way shape or form
3) no response to Jeremiah speaking against oceans rising as a result of anything, to say nothing of global warming
4) You say I “sound like a fool” but offer no evidence of an evolutionist soundly defeating a creationist in actual debate. When did it happen?
5) Lastly, Dr. Schweitzer the non creationist said, “it was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. … The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?”
See how she said, “how could blood cells survive that long” and that “it was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone”.
You said, “You said blood cells inside T-rex bone. Nothing can support that assertion.”
I just gave you a nice long non creationist quote, certifying it’s not “nothing.”
Now’s your chance to actually CITE A SOURCE newer than http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0306AAAS.asp to show my error, and avoid insults in your reply, like the adult you are.
Have a nice day!
Scientists base their understanding of biology and the Earth on the theories of great age. When drilling for oil or looking for medicines, people hire scientists who understand that the Earth is not six thousand years old. It is not disingenuous to show that in the FREE MARKET OF IDEAS one has clearly surpassed the other.
Here is Dr. Schweitzer explaining that it was NOT blood cells, but blood cell structure. It was also not T-rex bone, but the mineralized fossil of a T-rex bone.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/01-ask.html
: It looks as if the T. rex may have nucleated red cells. Is this so?
Judith Chester, Santa Fe, New Mexico
A: Well, there are small, red structures within the vessels that look like nucleated red cells. So on the surface, this is a case of “if it looks like a duck….” But after 70 million years, just because something looks familiar doesn't mean that that is what it is. The fossil record can mimic many things, so without doing the chemistry to show that there are similarities to blood cells at the molecular level, I do not make any claims that they are cells.
However, we do know that, except for mammals, all living vertebrates (fish, frogs, birds, and reptiles) have nucleated red blood cells in circulation. Mammals are unique in having their blood cells “spit out” the nucleus before they go into circulation (unless there is a disease). So, because dinosaurs’ closest relatives are crocodiles and birds, it makes sense that their blood cells would have been nucleated.
Dr. Schweitzers learned opinion on this nonsense about a young Earth.....
Actually, my work doesn’t say anything at all about the age of the Earth. As a scientist I can only speak to the data that exist. Having reviewed a great deal of data from many different disciplines, I see no reason at all to doubt the general scientific consensus that the Earth is about five or six billion years old. We deal with testable hypotheses in science, and many of the arguments made for a young Earth are not testable, nor is there any valid data to support a young Earth that stands up to peer review or scientific scrutiny. However, the fields of geology, nuclear physics, astronomy, paleontology, genetics, and evolutionary biology all speak to an ancient Earth. Our discoveries may make people reevaluate the longevity of molecules and the presumed pathways of molecular degradation, but they do not really deal at all with the age of the Earth.