>So where DID you cut and past all that from? I noticed you
>didn’t answer, did you type all that yourself?
Thought it was a rhetorical question. www.answersingenesis.com where they have creationist scientists with advanced science degrees, unlike me. Also they have something atheists don’t have: A healthy fear of God. Do you have an advanced science degree?
>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.
Total Red Herring: Whether the earth is 6 thousand or 5 billion years old, is a question for Origins Science and Creation Scientists, and has nothing to do with the Laboratory Science needed to do the jobs scientists are hired for.
>It is not disingenuous to show that in the FREE MARKET OF
>IDEAS one has clearly surpassed the other.
Jesus said that WIDE and BROAD is the way to destruction, and many go in that way. That the “free market” of ideas would reflect this by pushing Evolution against the testimony of Genesis (the word of God) as I have already demonstrated, is no surprise.
>Dr. Schweitzers learned opinion on this nonsense about a
>young Earth.....
Nonsense eh? So where is your logical, fact filled, rigorous case for why I was mistaken in that three step case for why the Evolutionary narrative I posted before is opposed to the clear testimony of Genesis? Is that forthcoming anytime soon? I don’t care what you, the Pope, or a fleet of Laboratory Scientists think. I care what God thinks, and so far, I don’t see why I should believe anything else.
>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
PBS. No fear of God. No reason they won’t tuck tail at any evidence for a young earth. Nevertheless let’s examine the question asked, and what was answered.
1) Dr. Schweitzer was asked if NUCLEATED red blood cells were discovered in the T.Rex specimen.
2) She says they look nucleated, answering the question.
3) She says they have NOT run chemical tests on them to know whether they are blood cells or not, thus not answering the exact question asked.
4) She’s guessing that they might be nucleated based on the fact that only mammals have nucleated cells.
The whole crux of the question asked whose answer you quoted is whether they were nucleated red blood cells, or not. She spent half her answer regarding whether they were nucleated or not, and the other half on whether they were blood cells or not. In any case, she’s holding off until chemical testing is done.
Here’s the original question to the answer you posted:
>Q: It looks as if the T. rex may have nucleated red cells.
>Is this so?
Have a great day. I hope your time in the Bible is fruitful and happy and edifying in the faith.
Yes, I have an advanced degree in Molecular Biology. I am a laboratory scientist who produces results based upon my understanding of biology informed by evolution and common descent of species, as well as my understanding of God and his glory.
Being a scientist is not synonymous with being an atheist,and rejection of your young Earth creationism doesn’t make one an atheist either - but nice red herring, the boogeyman of atheists, as if the mere fact that there are atheists discounts the opinions and work of the many thousands of scientists who are, like me, people of faith in Jesus Christ our Lord.
My knowledge of evolution has, contrary to your assertion otherwise, contributed to my knowledge in laboratory science. As would an understanding of the the actual ages of the Earth for a geologist exploring for resources.
The free marked of ideas did not reject your young Earth creationism because society is ungodly; but because your YE creationism produces no results.
Do I have to repeat again how wrong you are about ‘blood cells in T rex bone’? The scientist herself saying that the claim was unsubstantiated isn’t a “logical, fact filled, rigorous case”? Delusional.
And it is mammals who do NOT have nucleated blood cells, you got it mixed up. Dinosaurs wouldn’t be expected to share that trait, and apparently, from the preserved STRUCTURE (not actual cells) of red blood cells (if that is what it is, and it looks like it is)they may have had nucleated blood cells.