Posted on 04/29/2013 8:13:56 AM PDT by kimtom
"... A recent discovery by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, however, has given reason for all but committed evolutionists to question this assumption. Bone slices from the fossilized thigh bone (femur) of a Tyrannosaurus rex found in the Hell Creek formation of Montana were studied under the microscope by Schweitzer. To her amazement, the bone showed what appeared to be blood vessels of the type seen in bone and marrow, and these contained what appeared to be red blood cells with nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals). The vessels even appeared to be lined with specialized endothelial cells found in all blood vessels.
Amazingly, the bone marrow contained what appeared to be flexible tissue. Initially, some skeptical scientists suggested that bacterial biofilms (dead bacteria aggregated in a slime) formed what only appear to be blood vessels and bone cells. Recently Schweitzer and coworkers found biochemical evidence for intact fragments of the protein collagen, which is the building block of connective tissue. This is important because collagen is a highly distinctive protein not made by bacteria. (See Schweitzer’s review article in Scientific American [December 2010, pp. 62–69] titled “Blood from Stone.”)
Some evolutionists have strongly criticized Schweitzer’s conclusions because they are understandably reluctant to concede the existence of blood vessels, cells with nuclei, tissue elasticity, and intact protein fragments in a dinosaur bone dated at 68 million years old. Other evolutionists, who find Schweitzer’s evidence too compelling to ignore, simply conclude that there is some previously unrecognized form of fossilization that preserves cells and protein fragments over tens of millions of years. Needless to say, no evolutionist has publically considered the possibility that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old. ....."
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
Creo equivalent of greenhouse gas
Evolution is Evil
Well, you are wrong.
If you take presumptuous conclusions, you will
always be wrong.
Every example you gave uses basic assumptions.
(bias)
Every scientist is biased.
(Fact)
Everyone is going to take evidence and sift it thru their world view.
(Bias)
Yes, I am Biased. I prefer to accept God's explanation.
And I will Disagree in most of what you said.
The evidence can support Creationist claims.
(yes, some things are difficult to explain, with our limited knowledge, but Atheist admit the same).
Of course, you are 100% entitled to believe whatsoever you wish on this subject, just so long as you don't pretend your views are scientific when they are not.
Of course, science is "biased" -- because it attempts to explain reality from a human perspective, meaning in terms that ordinary humans can comprehend.
This human perspective on reality is necessarily not the same as God's perspective, which is reality-as-it-is.
God has no need for human models or short-cuts, no need for words or statistics to summarize reality-as-it-is.
To God, reality is real -- every vibrating sub-atomic particle is as real to God as the entire Universe.
But there's no possible way for humans to comprehend all that, and so we create (or better: discover) models, mathematical formulas and scientific theories to summarize God's work.
But to be "scientific", all of these models & theories must begin with confirmed data, and go where that evidence leads.
As soon as you begin with some other doctrine -- regardless of how divinely inspired it may or may-not have been -- you could well be right, but you are not being scientific.
To be scientific, you have to start with evidence, and not just those items which support your hoped-for results.
where did I say this??? “always” “quickly”?
Bias and assumptions.
we all make them.
However, again 1000 years+ is a long time.
It doesn’t take long for fossilization.
The longer it did take (in a given case) the less likely soft tissue will remain. (bio-degradation).
The chances there is more “soft tissue” within most fossils can indeed exist. But who is going to test to see?
Although evolutionist will poo poo the implications, soft tissue argues a more “recent” event. (supports that hypothesis better). It is Bias to assumme a fossil is millions and hundreds of millions of yrs old.
evoulutionist scientist have been known to alter, fabricate, or destroy evidence that contradicts their beliefs. (notice I did not say all)
Evolution is science, and your religious doctrines are not.
If you consider science "Evil", that is your choice, but such a choice is without biblical, theological or rational justifications.
That's why most Christians believe otherwise.
It would be fun to list out the logical fallacies in your post...
BJK post #117: "...So your basic assumption — that organic material must always fossilize or quickly decompose — is, well, unwarranted....”"
kimtom post #125: "where did I say this??? “always” “quickly”?
Bias and assumptions..."
But your argument -- that soft dino-tissue "proves" a young-earth -- can only possibly be valid if all organic tissues fossilize or quickly decompose.
Since that is not the case, your argument is necessarily, well, unwarranted, FRiend.
;-)
In my experience of most claims of supposed "logical fallacies": I'd call those claims religious doctrine, having little or nothing to do with actual scientific logic.
How did Sherlock Holmes say it?
Minute amounts of some types of soft organic tissues surviving under certain circumstances for millions of years has not been, and cannot be, eliminated as "impossible."
Therefore, your conclusions are, well, unwarranted.
kimtom: "It is Bias to assumme a fossil is millions and hundreds of millions of yrs old."
No fossils are "assumed" to be any age until their age is scientifically established by examining their geological strata, by comparing them to other known fossils, and/or by radio-metric dating techniques.
kimtom: "evoulutionist scientist have been known to alter, fabricate, or destroy evidence that contradicts their beliefs. (notice I did not say all)"
The basic idea of science is: you start with evidence and work up from there to form hypotheses which can be tested and confirmed into theories.
Because humans are imperfect and sinful (surprise! the Bible is right about that), we sometimes do the wrong thing.
But science tries to prevent wrong ideas from being accepted by requiring especially controversial findings to be repeated and confirmed.
As of today there are no repeated & confirmed findings to justify a "young earth" hypothesis.
Okay, claim as you will, the Father of Lies remains.
“..examining their geological strata, by comparing them to other known fossils, and/or by radio-metric dating techniques....”
Why do you use erroneous proof??? Determining the conditions present when a rock first formed can only be studied through historical science. Determining how the environment might have affected a rock also falls under historical science. Neither condition is directly observable. Since radioisotope dating uses both types of science, we can’t directly measure the age of something. We can use scientific techniques in the present, combined with assumptions about historical events, to estimate the age. Therefore, there are several assumptions that must be made in radioisotope dating. Three critical assumptions can affect the results during radioisotope dating:
1.The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known. 2.The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay. 3.The decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.
-M. Riddle
"...But science tries to prevent wrong ideas from being accepted by requiring especially controversial findings to be repeated and confirmed...."
Only the Honest ones, but Fraud does exist.The motives have to do with rejection of God, not proving evolution.
"....As of today there are no repeated & confirmed findings to justify a "young earth" hypothesis...."
That is not a Fact, but opinion (your opinion)
Had to laugh at the “geological strata” dating technique -
because they date the strata by the fossils found in it.
“Evolution is science, and your religious doctrines are not...”
That is YOUR opinion.
“..If you consider science “Evil”, that ..”
I did not say that. You use a False arguement; (If Then)
Evolution is Your Religion (seems to be) and The Bible (Christianity) is mine...so your point is?...
You use twisted Logic and straw men.
because they date the strata by the fossils found in it.
..”
Yes Sir,
that is called circular reasoning, False Logic.
It has been debunked LONG ago.
The arguments For evolution is weak, while the claim that evidence of YE is “unwarranted”Is a matter of opinion.
I have many quotes from evolutionist themselves, that bewail their weakness. (at least they are Honest).
Of course 'kind' has meaning: mankind, for instance. Or, an illustration Jesus gave: an olive branch doesn't bear figs, but olives.
Even in the pure science, mathematics, there's a whole field dealing with the properties of 'kinds' of numbers: number theory; your argument is akin to saying that because there's only one number 3 there's no such thing as 'integer'.
You cannot use False Logic. (If Then)
Your whole argument is from the standpoint that evolution is true, therefore, soft tissue does not cast a doubt on “millions” of year “theology”.
it may be perplexing, but evolutionist (aside from science) will explain this away (sweep aside- as you are attempting to do).
I do not claim that soft tissue (itself) proves YE. But I do say That it Supports a YE model over a Billion YO model.
Of course you are guilty too!! But your conclusion is still Your opinion, and opinion Only!
I accept science Fact. I chose to interpret the evidence differently than you. You do not "own" science (the word or the discipline). Your claim that Creation Science (or your words religion) is not science, is only again opinion. God believing scientist choose to look for and find scientific evidence to prove their belief (or theory as you may call it) is as valid as your claims. As to the rest of your post, I would agree to most of it;
However: (you said)
"...As soon as you begin with some other doctrine -- regardless of how divinely inspired it may or may-not have been -- you could well be right, but you are not being scientific.
In this case? I'd rather be Right!! You can be scientific but still be wrong! (as per your point)
To be scientific, you have to start with evidence, and not just those items which support your hoped-for results. ..."
Those who ascribe to evolutional Bias will so interpret the data likewise. To say differently would be terrible dishonest.
Men were painting on cave walls in France 30,000 years ago.
Translations:
I do not understand the virile distaste (hate may be too strong) for KJV.
I am not including you in that statement
Being it was the only English translation that that reigned for 300+ years. My wonder is why God would allow it if it was bad.
Outside the old English (archaic) words , with the exception of the ASV 1901, I found modern translation as not accurate in at least one or two critical verses. (this to me, it may not bother anyone else) The Greek shows these word uses, but newer translation change or omit some words; Does it mean the same? to me, no, but to my (estranged) Greek scholar buddy it does.
But I am Bias.
Dates are contrived.
Men have been living in caves even to modern times.
(men carry spears use crude weapons while jets fly overhead- in New Guinea)
Not to say, The paintings are not old, even pre- civilization, at least in that area.
I don't accept the dates because of the assumption made.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.