Posted on 10/04/2013 7:15:37 AM PDT by kimtom
Imagine watching an interview on television and hearing a bald, blind, deaf, wrinkled, hunched-back, bedridden man claim that he is 130 years old. Although you might doubt such a claim, if ever there was a man in modern times to live 130 years on Earth, he likely would have looked as worn out as this man appeared. Imagine, however, if a quick-witted, muscular, marathon runner with fair skin, thick, dark hair, low blood pressure, and a good memory, claimed to be 130 years old. What reasonable person would believe such a claim? Everyone would doubt the statement, especially the doctors, who had found the man’s overall health to be comparable to that of a 20-year-old.
Now take a step into the world of evolutionary science. According to evolution’s geologic timetable, since dinosaurs supposedly became extinct 65 million years ago, any dinosaur fossil found in the ground must be at least 65 million years old. But what if the fossils don’t “appear” to be that old? What if, when inspected by scientists, various dinosaur bones around the world are discovered with “highly fibrous,” “flexible,” and elastic bone tissue that “when stretched, returns to its original shape”? What if fibrous proteins such as collagen were found, along with “cell-like structures resembling blood and bone cells”? Would evolutionists come to a similar conclusion as most everyone would about a marathon-running, 130-year-old? Apparently not.
In the last few years, scientists have found a variety of dinosaur bones from around the world that are not completely fossilized. They actually contain intact protein fragments,.......
(Excerpt) Read more at apologeticspress.org ...
I’m not surprised when the ptb [powers that be] decide to spike stories that don’t agree with their agenda or those that just plain embarrass them due to lack of scientific reasoning and logic.
Have not seen much on the 65 million year old coalecanthe and it’s living releative in South America fish markets lately either...
Below from creationscience.com
” 25. Out-of-Sequence Fossils
Frequently, fossils are not vertically sequenced in the assumed evolutionary order.a For example, in Uzbekistan, 86 consecutive hoofprints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs.b A leading authority on the Grand Canyon published photographs of horselike hoofprints visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate hoofed animals by more than 100 million years.c Dinosaur and humanlike footprints were found together in Turkmenistand and Arizona.e Sometimes, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side-by-side in the same rock.f Dinosaur, whale, elephant, horse, and other fossils, plus crude human tools, have reportedly been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina.g Coal beds contain round, black lumps called coal balls, some of which contain flowering plants that allegedly evolved 100 million years after the coal bed was formed.h Amber, found in Illinois coal beds, contain chemical signatures showing that the amber came from flowering plants, but flowering plants supposedly evolved 170 million years after the coal formed.i In the Grand Canyon, in Venezuela, in Kashmir, and in Guyana, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in Cambrianj rocks—rocks supposedly deposited before flowering plants evolved. Pollen has also been found in Precambriank rocks deposited before life allegedly evolved.
Petrified trees in Arizona’s Petrified Forest National Park contain fossilized nests of bees and cocoons of wasps. The petrified forests are reputedly 220 million years old, while bees (and flowering plants, which bees require) supposedly evolved almost 100 million years later.l Pollinating insects and fossil flies, with long, well-developed tubes for sucking nectar from flowers, are dated 25 million years before flowers are assumed to have evolved.m Most evolutionists and textbooks systematically ignore discoveries which conflict with the evolutionary time scale. “
I believe the article is about the question , not the find. I think the author assumed knowledge of the fact.
They don't seem to be doing a very good job of spiking it if it's "been reported for almost 10 years".
Honest scientist like questions, and if shown inconsistencies will explore other hypotheses.
I have found even honest evolutionist will do this, however they refuse to except sometimes the obvious answer.
except those (scientist) that change and become Creationist.
Of course then, they (in the eyes of evolutionist)cease to be scientist.
What I’m getting at is how many other studies this one article must have spawned and yet I am hard-pressed to find much in the way of similar reports [prsumably b/c it does not fit the approved agnda of the ptb].
Just like so many creation questions and assertions go unanswered by the pro-evo crowd on these threads.
The author is attacking scientists for their reaction to a discovery that has never been made. How is that helping?
For the most part, the dinos began to die off about 1000 years ago, judging by the cultural evidence we have, both written and physical.
Have you ever considered the possibility that the presumtion is flawed?
Well, I would agree
How old is the sample in discussion?
How do you arrive at that?
Does the evidence support it?
I do not think to author is “attacking”, but I will look into it.
Maybe define attack??
questioning a hypothesis is not attacking
Not when there is an overwhelming amount of facts, scientific reasoning and logic indicating otherwise.
My profession is software engineer and I can tell you random changes do not improve the code. And making continued random changes will eventually render the code useless [for physical life forms ~ extinction].
The author constucted a premise about a hypothetical discovery, then posed the question about whether the scientists would arrive at an logical conclusion based on that evidence, and then stated that they would not.
You'd be OK with it if I did that to you?
Have you ever seen a software glitch be described as (and at the time appear to be "random") and then find out it wasn't really "random" after you ran some diagnostic traces and got more information?
YES. We might as well be OK with it since it’s been par for the course [both sides] in these FR CREVO debates.
I do try to avoid constructing my own strawmen though b/c there’s such a wealth of creation information and research from which one can form endless unanswered questions by the evo experts.
So what is your scientific field of study again please?
Soft tissue, made of protein, does no undergo thermal degradation at 13C, which is what the typical soil temperature is near the surface, where the fossils end up. All natural protein decay you see in your kitchen is done by bacteria and fungi. To degrade protein thermally you normally have to go past water boiling point; in other words, cook it. Cooked meat is the natural result of this degradation. To cook a fossil, it would have to be buried something like a kilometer deep, where no paleontologist would ever find it.
Waiting to see if kimtom is OK with having BrandtMichaels answer for him...
I’ve seen both [maybe you think random implies someone just didn’t fess up] types of errors. Certainly human errors are the vast majority but there are plenty of examples otherwise where no human had an opportunity to intervene.
Surely you don’t mean that?
“To cook a fossil, it would have to be buried something like a kilometer deep, where no paleontologist would ever find it.”
The premise laid out in the article looks very much like a strawman argument. Do you figure as long as you just use somebody else's strawman, but don't build one of your own your hands are clean?
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.