The ICR article has more images on their site.
Posted on 12/11/2013 8:10:28 AM PST by fishtank
The ICR article has more images on their site.
.
ping
read later
On the contrary, I am sure that most paleontologists, biologists, and what have you would be in favor of continuing this research.
As long as the scientific method is consistently employed, and enough evidence is subjected to it, any scientist worth his salt should embrace the resultant findings.
Regards,
While I agree with the author that science may be “reaching” to explain the anomalies of of million year old soft tissue fossils...The same anomalies still stand for a young earth...in this case six thousands years or 6 million years is the same problem...soft tissue should not survive that long....so both sides have to explain the mechanism preserving it
These scientists should be embarrashed to promote this theory with such weak evidence. They think preservation is due to radical formation but do not test whether radicals are being formed. They didnt check for characteristic molecules produced by radical reactions. They used conditions that were inappropriate for the test. The formation of radicals formed by iron requires oxygen and water, they ran tests in an oxygen free environment and water is incompatible with fossilization. The iron molecules in the tissue would eventually react with oxygen and become oxidized (rust) and become inactive thereby allowing decay. IMO their theory doesnt stand up to even even cursory examination.
Grasping at straws ping.
How about the assumptions through which they interpret their findings?
Will they question those? Will they “embrace” any conclusion that refutes their assumptions?
And how Evolutionists have to twist and bend that research to meet their preconceptions. I doubt it will be close to whatever "twist (if any)" Creationists have to do.
Thomas has written well and often on the subject of what scientific evidence shows and does not show about dino tissue preservation but he too makes hos own leaps of logic and interpretation. That dino tissue might under very rare circumstances be preserved for thousands of years it does not follow that the earth can thus be only thousands of years old or show that the earth could not have existed without life for some long period of time.
Proving the evolutionists are in error does not prove the young earth creationists correct.
Some people just don’t grasp what a million years is.
Just by looking at soil erosion rates, were the Earth just 10,000 years old, we would no longer be able to farm due to the near total loss of soil.
farm due to the near total loss of soil.....”
you mean soil is not being created or replaced, but eroded away??
interesting
Barry Setterfield has done the heavy cosmological work of showing that the Earth has to be approximately 6000 years old based on the expansion of the universe and the observed ‘quantized’ red shifts.
http://www.setterfield.org/index.html
His site is a pleasure to those without bias.
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, including ones known as collagen and elastin. Amazingly, once the minerals are chemically stripped away from the soft tissue, the researchers were even able to squeeze round, dark red, microscopic structures from what was thought to be dinosaur blood vessels. However, since, according to evolutionists, “proteins in tissue normally degrade quickly after an animal dies,” this research has remained “controversial.”
Since Dr. Mary Schweitzer published her findings in 2005 and 2007 about “68-million-year-old”T. rex soft tissue, a much more thorough study has been done on a so-called “80-million-year-old fossil from a duck-billed dinosaur.” What did researchers find? This time they found “an even larger number of protein fragments.” After using “chemicals to dissolve away the minerals,” scientists have seen what appears to be “a network of soft, transparent vessels” and cells.
Any strong, marathon-running, dark-haired, fair-skinned, wrinkle-free, 20-year-old-looking, modern man who claims to be 130 years old would be discredited immediately. Science and common sense would demand that the 130-year date be rejected. But what about the dates evolutionists give us for this “young looking” dinosaur tissue—tissue that evolutionists have called “miraculously preserved”? Now that the once “controversial” dinosaur proteins have been confirmed, are evolutionists reconsidering the age of dinosaur fossils? Are evolutionists considering the possibility that dinosaurs may have lived hundreds or thousands of years ago rather than 65+ million years ago? Apparently not—at least not in their writings.
-Eric Lyons AP
Yeppers, and it could be 60-600 years.
by Kyle Butt, M.A.
In the 1930s, a man named Dr. Javier Cabrera started collecting strange stones that an ancient Indian culture had carved. Today, there are about 11,000 of these stones. They are called Ica stones because they were found in and around the city of Ica, Peru. The stones have caused quite a stir because of the carvings on some of them. They are covered with pictures of an ancient Indian culture. Many of the carved stones show ordinary, everyday scenes. But some of the carvings portray humans in close contact with dinosaurs. There are scenes of men hunting dinosaurs, riding dinosaurs, and leading them by ropes around their necks.
These stones present a big problem for the theory of evolution. According to evolution, humans and dinosaurs were separated by millions of years. Because of the dinosaur carvings on the stones, some people say that they could not have been carved by ancient Indians. Of course, that is exactly what would be expected. If evolutionists admit that the stones are really from an ancient Indian culture, that would prove that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time. And it would disprove a whole lot of evolutionary teaching that has been done in the name of “science.”
There are several things about the Ica stones that help prove they are real. First, the stones show scenes from an early Indian culture. There is no other culture that anyone has studied that these scenes copy. Second, many of the stones show signs of being carved long ago. They have dirt build-up on them and look like other ancient Indian artifacts. Third, just like the Julsrud collection, many of the Sauropod dinosaurs on the stones show a row of spines or spikes on their backs. Yet modern scientists did not know these dinosaurs had spikes on their backs until the year 1992.
There is a good chance that the information about the Julsrud collection and Ica stones will never get into popular textbooks. It is not because the information is wrong. It is because it goes against evolution. If we understand the Bible, and look at all the scientific and historic evidence, then carvings like those found on the Ica stones are exactly what we would expect.
I’ve read a bit of what he has written and it is far from compelling.
Unless he was a strong, marathon-running, dark-haired, fair-skinned, wrinkle-free, 20-year-old-looking, modern man who claimed to be 20 years old.
PS: I agree with your post.
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.