Skip to comments.
Dinosaur Shocker (YEC say dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years)
Smithsonian Magazine ^
| May 1, 2006
| Helen Fields
Posted on 05/01/2006 8:29:14 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 1,701 next last
To: SirLinksalot
Key paragraph for your focus :
-----------------------------------
Meanwhile, Schweitzers research has been hijacked by young earth creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldnt possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, its not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzers data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as a complete and total Christian. On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
To: SirLinksalot
Creationists cherry-picking and misrepresenting the scientific research of others? A shocking development.
3
posted on
05/01/2006 8:32:25 AM PDT
by
Sols
To: SirLinksalot
Meanwhile, Schweitzers research has been hijacked by young earth creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldnt possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old.
Goofballs.
Nice article. Fascinating science.
4
posted on
05/01/2006 8:33:52 AM PDT
by
dead
(I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
To: SirLinksalot
>>>dinosaur soft tissue couldnt possibly survive millions of years.
Then explain how there is a Helen Thomas.
To: SirLinksalot
I remember when capri's were clamdiggers and I thought that was prehistoric.
6
posted on
05/01/2006 8:34:33 AM PDT
by
printhead
To: SirLinksalot
Soft Tissues can't exist in fossils over a million years old, they should all be completely turned to rock over that period of time.
How is this explained? Is her research suspect?
7
posted on
05/01/2006 8:35:08 AM PDT
by
sr4402
To: SirLinksalot
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. Shes horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. They treat you really bad, she says. They twist your words and they manipulate your data. Gee what a shock... ID is a cult like scientology. Only difference is Scientology has this cool dude named Xenu to look out for.
8
posted on
05/01/2006 8:36:00 AM PDT
by
trashcanbred
(Anti-social and anti-socialist)
To: SirLinksalot
Missing headline:
What About Bob?
9
posted on
05/01/2006 8:39:55 AM PDT
by
sine_nomine
(No more RINO presidents. We need another Reagan.)
To: trashcanbred
I find Darwinism to be more of a cult. No room for any arguments against it. Not that it matters really - students for the most part still believe God created us.
10
posted on
05/01/2006 8:42:59 AM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: SirLinksalot
briefly taught remedial biology to high schoolers.Sex education class?
11
posted on
05/01/2006 8:43:47 AM PDT
by
Onelifetogive
(* Sarcasm tag ALWAYS required. For some FReepers, sarcasm can NEVER be obvious enough.)
To: mlc9852
No room for any arguments against it. No room from arguments based on belief.
Bring data and you will be listened to.
12
posted on
05/01/2006 8:44:34 AM PDT
by
Coyoteman
(Tagline change in progress!)
To: SirLinksalot
I saw a Discovery Channel show on this subject. Ms Schweitzer, when encountering the Hell's Creek fossil for the first time said something like, "This thing smells like a cadaver."
The response was, "All Hell's Creek fossils smell like that."
So, even when faced with olfactory evidence that these fossils aren't 68 million years old, the 'scientific' paradigm must be protected at all costs.
What exactly is the misrepresentation?
To: sr4402
It might be more accurate to say that we have thought, due to lack of contrary evidence, soft tissues were not preserved.
The current data indicates that they might be.
To: SirLinksalot
This is wonderful! Who would have believed that soft tissue could survive for so long?
To: SirLinksalot
Another key paragraph:
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. Shes horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. They treat you really bad, she says. They twist your words and they manipulate your data. For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you dont need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that wed never be able to prove his existence. And I think thats really cool.
Also a key quote in that paragraph.
I think a lot of YECers and IDers around here and elsewhere who seem to want to cram science and religion together into some bizarre amalgam could take a lesson from that.
To: SirLinksalot
Meanwhile, Schweitzers research has been hijacked by young earth creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldnt possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old.
In other words, let's set aside the obvious conclusion drawn from the empirical data because we're slaves to old-earth evolution and all data must be fit into our hypothesis of origin. If it does not, it must imply that dinosaurs had magic blood vessels.
17
posted on
05/01/2006 8:46:55 AM PDT
by
Old_Mil
(http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
To: Coyoteman
Any data not embracing evolution is automatically rejected so why bother? What happened to the scientist at the Smithsonian whose article was published?
18
posted on
05/01/2006 8:47:54 AM PDT
by
mlc9852
Comment #19 Removed by Moderator
To: wallcrawlr
20
posted on
05/01/2006 8:49:08 AM PDT
by
Manic_Episode
(Some mornings, it's just not worth chewing through the leather straps...)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 1,701 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson