it's a far far leap to suggest that dinos without birds unique flight capabilities and anatomical structures could take to the air.
No one has suggested that dinosaurs such as T. rex flew.
I'm sorry, but this is wisdhful thinkin- As the article stated, there would have had to be extraordinary circumstances at play in Montana to preserve this material- we can have all the 'sensitive analytical methods' in the world, but we've only found a few instances of such material and this does infact indicate natural biological laws at work. You state Mary has a hypothesis, which may or may not hold true, but you didn't mention that these are extremely difficult to preserve through the supposedly endless climate and natural dissaster events this world would have experienced if it were billions of years old.
Suppositions, suppositions. Please provide evidence that such samples have been exhaustively searched for and not found. Please review the process of chemical degradation that occurs in fossilization and provide a scientific explanation why such preservation is impossible (review Schweitzer's recent work). Please provide evidence that undamaged fossils such as this femur found in sandstone inevitably suffer "endless climate and natural dissaster events" while buried. Your objections are based on handwaving and wishful thinking.
I just find it odd that the Creation model is so vehemently ostracized and dismissed as 'apologetics' and accused of 'fitting the evidences' when it's quite clear that instances like this tissue issue are clearly trying to fit it to a hypothesis that supports the evolution stance.
I was forced to leave the ranks of the young earth creationists several years ago when it became amply clear that the evidence did not support this notion. An ancient universe and earth are supported through a variety of different lines of evidence (here's a good book that summarizes them in a relatively easy-to-read manner), and evolution as an active process is supported by multitudes more. Meanwhile I can't even get two different creationists to agree upon a definition of "kind", nor how much genetic change is allowed to occur within a kind (I almost got one creationist to agree that it is possible that dogs and cats could once have been one kind, others won't even say dogs and foxes are in the same kind). I was disappointed in college as it became more and more clear to me that creationist apologetics were not about putting together a coherent model that fits the evidence, but about nitpicking mainstream science.
In the same manner, you are attempting to say that preservation of this sort means that this T. rex can't possibly be 68 million years old. So how about this--if this T. rex is 4000 (Flood death) to 6000 (pre-Flood) years old, why is the preservation so abyssmal when other fossils 4000-6000 years old have comparatively excellent preservation? Why has every dinosaur fossil examined shown poor molecular preservation? If the majority of fossils on earth originated in the Flood, certainly some of the dinosaur fossils we have should appear quite young. For creationists it should be more important to provide positive explanations supporting a young earth than to try to chip holes in evolutionary theory. That's the fallback position for when the evidence isn't really going your way.
[Wow, you are dramatically oversimplifying the rationale for an evolutionary link between birds and dinosaurs. Unsurprising.]
Lol- ‘oversimplifying’ lol- of course ‘Dinos evolved into birds’ isn’t based on oversimplified sketchy similarities. Here’s a thought- Dinos and birds had similiar designs- that’s it. A wolf and lion have similiar designs too.
[Please review the process of chemical degradation that occurs in fossilization and provide a scientific explanation why such preservation is impossible (review Schweitzer’s recent work]
I never claimed it was impossible, I stated that most evidence for ‘old specimens’ shows clearly that tissue can not be preserved for millions of years. Tissue that has survived has two possible explanations- either they are not as old as we’re told, or there is a miraculous preservation system at play.
[nor how much genetic change is allowed to occur within a kind]
You never did address the other thread in which I explained macro-evolution includes ‘creation’ of new organs needed for KINDS to become other KINDS. Yuo say you left creationism, for what? For assumptions of evolution devoid of evidence?
[I was disappointed in college as it became more and more clear to me that creationist apologetics were not about putting together a coherent model that fits the evidence]
That ‘fit the evidence? Don’t you mean ‘that fit the evolution assumptions and apologetics’? Tell me again how amino acids became protiens, or how DNA ‘evolved’ without first having evolved DNA repair genes? or how the process of evolution was so perfect that left hand amino acids wouldn’t contaminate right hand amino acids and kill them off before they could move on in their million year scenario to make the impossible leap to protiens? ‘Nitpicking’? Call it what you want- but the truth is, these are serious problems, as are the built in protection levels at the molecular level that prevent perversion beyond species specific caps. To think that ‘an accumulation of small mutations’ could ‘result in macro-evolution’ is nothing but unscientificly supported apologetics.
[In the same manner, you are attempting to say that preservation of this sort means that this T. rex can’t possibly be 68 million years old]
No sir, that is a misrepresentation of what I’m saying- I’m suggesting that it is however strong support for the plausibility that dinos might not be as old as we’re told. Did you know that webbing between dino’s toes have been found intact? Or that skin has been found?
[Why has every dinosaur fossil examined shown poor molecular preservation?]
Why? Because even Susan’s mentor told her to ‘try to disprove’ the fact that cells were present. Even secular scientists opposed Susan (Yet incredibly, she only whined about the big bad creationists who raised concerns lol) Why? Because as you well know, scientists never looked for the molecular material because of the faith bound beleif that bones simply could not contain molecular material. (Despite creationists discovering material from many locations and presenting it to hostile reviews- now however, they’ll have to take a SERIOUS look at the evidences now that one of their own has come out with like-mannered material. Bias in the scientific comunity? Oh heck no- must be just our imagination)
[For creationists it should be more important to provide positive explanations supporting a young earth than to try to chip holes in evolutionary theory.]
Oh we do- yet the incredible bias that believes in old earth poo poo’s anything proposed. Radio-Halos have stood up to scrutiny for over 15 years now, yet there is fierce vehemence toward Gish and others who have declared that they show a valid plausibility for a young earth. Seems when the evidence is strong, the messengers character gets attacked rather than the evidence. “Chip holes’? I’m sorry- but pointing out obvious biological impossibilities that get covered up isn’t ‘chipping holes’, it’s demanding a less subjective- one-sided science.
Coyote- Ah- so the fact that they aren’t your field means they must be invalid along with all the other scientific material presented simply because the scientists have opinions. Perfectly reasonable- sigh.