CMI article image.
Posted on 05/27/2014 8:50:59 AM PDT by fishtank
Blinkered scientists look past the obvious
Published: 24 May 2014 (GMT+10)
We recently received this fascinating account from a UK correspondent, prompted by David Catchpoole’s recent article Double decade dinosaur disquiet in Creation magazine:
Dear Dr Catchpoole,
I was pleased to read your article “Double decade dinosaur disquiet” in the 2014 Vol 36 No.1 of Creation Magazine. What particularly interested me was your mentioning how a T. rex skeleton had a distinctly cadaverous odour. Also the later quote, “Oh yeah, all Hell Creek bones smell.”
...more at link ...
CMI article image.
Science via AP (From www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/)
A. The arrow points to a tissue fragment that is still elastic. It beggars belief that elastic tissue like this could have lasted for 65 million years.
B. Another instance of ‘fresh appearance’ which similarly makes it hard to believe in the ‘millions of years’.
C. Regions of bone showing where the fibrous structure is still present, compared to most fossil bones which lack this structure. But these bones are claimed to be 65 million years old, yet they manage to retain this structure.
CMI article captions and image.
From the article:
“”It’s worthwhile going back over some of the developments since Dr Schweitzer’s initial findings in the 1990s which shocked evolutionists because the ‘shocks’ have kept coming.
In 2005, flexible ligaments and blood vessels. See Dinosaur soft-tissue find—a stunning rebuttal of ‘millions of years’.
In 2009, the fragile proteins elastin and laminin, and further confirmation of the presence of collagen (an important protein in bone). The protein evidence was inescapably building up against long-age ideas, adding to the 2003 finding of osteocalcin in dinosaur bone. If the dinosaur fossils really were tens of millions of years old as claimed, none of these proteins should have been present. See Dinosaur soft tissue and protein—even more confirmation!
In 2012, bone cells (osteocytes), the proteins actin and tubulin, and even DNA! Under measured rates of decomposition, these proteins, and especially DNA, could not have lasted for the presumed 65 million years since dinosaur extinction. This is dramatic support for the Bible’s timeline, with its maximum age of the earth of 6,000 years. See DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone.
In 2012, radiocarbon in dinosaur bones. But carbon-14 decays so quickly that if the remains were even 100,000 years old, none should be detectable! See Radiocarbon in dino bones—international conference censored.
When some of Dr Schweitzer’s comments about her discoveries are considered in relation to the improbability of it all, it’s as though she’s leaning right on the ‘obvious’ when she says:
When you think about it, the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it should be gone, it should be degraded completely.1In one of her papers, Dr Schweitzer also noted:
The presence of original molecular components is not predicted for fossils older than a million years, and the discovery of collagen in this well-preserved dinosaur supports the use of actualistic conditions to formulate molecular degradation rates and models, rather than relying on theoretical or experimental extrapolations derived from conditions that do not occur in nature.2
As well, after Dr Schweitzer found elastic blood vessels and other soft tissue, she checked and rechecked her data and concluded: “It was totally shocking. I didn’t believe it until we’d done it 17 times.”3
But nothing, of course, will shake Dr Schweitzer’s commitment to the long-age paradigm:
It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: ‘The bones are, after all, 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’4
The obvious ought to be obvious—and open-minded people can see it. When is the evolutionary fraternity going to wake up? ….””
Maybe they really are millions of years old. It could be that the decay models are flawed.
But it’s still elastic after 4,000 years?
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Evidence doesn't care what you believe.
Went to the site and got a really creepy video...
Somehow I knew you’d be chiming in on this one, Tacticalogic.
***Evidence doesn’t care what you believe.***
No, it doesn’t...... but in this case it sure looks like the 65 million years side of the argument has a pretty big hill to climb in explaining this one.
I read about flexible tissue from fossils 10 years ago.
I had to try the method they used. I soaked a $5 museum gift shop fossil (mosasaur tooth) in a weak acid solution until all the mineral content was gone (about 2 weeks). I then washed what was left and obtained the amber colored stretchy flexible stuff that they always show in the articles. I can’t be sure but it seems that you can probably resurrect flexible tissue from any fossil.
I expect it'll do a better job than the 4 thousand years side does in explaining all the rest.
Your comment is rather ironic.
The belief is that the fossils are >60,000,000 years old. The evidence is what is pointing the other direction.
I’m an old earth guy, but these soft tissue residues are extremely compelling.
This evidence does. What are you going to do about all the other evidence?
The controversial discovery of 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex finally has a physical explanation. According to new research, iron in the dinosaur's body preserved the tissue before it could decay.
I’m going to continue being very intrigued.
Like I said, I’m not a young Earth guy so I don’t have to argue with you and choose not to argue with people who do believe in young Earth.
Can I ask what it is that makes this "extremely compelling", while the vast body of contradictory evidence is just "intriguing"?
I haven’t gone back to see my exact wording but I think I may not have communicated my thoughts well.
This is both intriguing and compelling. Some aspect of established science is going to have to give way. Either it’s 65 million years old and our understanding of protein entropy is flawed or it’s younger and our timeline is flawed.
You don’t find that terribly interesting, compelling, intriguing? This is the kind of stuff that makes science fun.
The article doesn't seem to consider any possibility that something happened that the protein entropy models didn't account for. By their account the only possible explanation is that the timeline is wrong.
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.