Posted on 07/09/2015 9:48:38 AM PDT by Jan_Sobieski
LONDON – The discovery of well-preserved blood and proteins in a supposedly 75-million-year-old dinosaur fossil has stumped secular scientists and led one Christian apologist to herald the findings as evidence of a young Earth.
A team of scientists at the U.K.’s Imperial College London carefully examined eight Cretaceous dinosaur bones discovered in North America, scrutinizing the bones’ interiors with an electron microscope. The researchers were stunned when they discovered what appeared to be red blood cells in one of the specimens.
Upon closer examination, the British scientists identified an internal structure within the dinosaur cells, complete with nuclei and amino acids. Then, in addition to the blood cells, the scientists discovered excellently-preserved collagen, which is a common soft tissue.
The scientists published their findings last week in “Nature Communications,” emphasizing that the dinosaur bones they studied were “not exceptionally preserved.”
“It has long been accepted that protein molecules decay in relatively short periods of time and cannot be preserved for longer than 4 million years,” the researchers noted. They described the discovery of preserved blood cells and soft tissue as unprecedented and “very exciting...”
(Excerpt) Read more at christiannews.net ...
I know.
As such, Noah would not have brought a full size 80 foot 40 ton Brachiosaurus on board, but would have opted for a <5 foot pair of specimens that would serve the re-population purpose just fine and have more time in their reproductive years to be fruitful. ............................................ Considering all the species of extinct reptiles, the Ark must have had a huge incubator to hold all those dinosaur eggs, and lets not forget all those snakes on board who loved eggs. To fit all the species that are now alleged to have existed, the Ark would have to had been the size of Manhattan. All I can think of is how the small crew managed to feed all those animals and clean up after them. (I hope Noah had room for the barrels of Renuzit that was needed?)
It is the assumptions that those dear scientists make that need to be re-examined. A lifetime of scientific method developed from faulty assumptions does not make one wiser.
Nothing in science is “settled”, otherwise it is no longer science.
I’m not sure what your familiarity with the scientific method is, but it doesn’t include reinventing the wheel.
There are several studies regarding the number and size of animals required to repopulate the earth to the diversity we see today, and how they coul fit on the ark with room to spare. I could reccomended a couple, but you would dismiss them out of hand. Regardless, the best evidence for a global flood is the vast fossil beds found worldwide, and I am convinced only an event so cataclysmic can explain what we unearth.
It's a creation myth parallel with what people knew at the time, which wasn't much.
Cœlacanth?............. When I was a kid, they found one in Madagascar, that was around 1948, a few years back they found another. Some ole fossils managed to stick around. (like me) Finding fish on a mountain range doesn’t necessarily mean a great flood, it could mean the ocean bottom was pushed up during the continental shifts. The Ark that is on display in Holland/Denmark?? which is a replica made from the biblical measurements would not be able to carry anything close to a pair of each mammal and reptile that may have been on the planet in Noah’s time. Of course God created everything and it was in his power to make all the animals shrink into 35MM miniature size, but I don’t believe that part is written anywhere. In all those fossils, where are all those humans that were drowned? (Rhet.) In all those biblical readings, did they realize that just over the horizon there were other civilizations that were not affected? Do we go onto to Jonah next? What difference does it make if it was 1 million or 100 million years ago? The dinosaurs were extinct, if they weren’t, mammals would be part of their menu, and we as humans can be thankful they weren’t around. They have enough problems dealing with Crocodiles in the Nile Region, just think what it would be like, having to run and hide from roving raptors and Tyrannosauruses higher than your average house.
: )
Re-examined, or just replaced with different ones?
Can you please provide an operational definition of a dinosaur?
There are roughly 25,000 species of animals (8,240 reptiles, 9,800 birds, and 5,416 mammals) today, and many of those can interbreed, thus reducing the number of species required. Nevertheless, let's assume there were 50,008 animals on the ark.
The ark was 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 feet high. Let assume those were similar to the interior dimensions, and also assume the ark was rectangular. Thus, the are would have had ~1.5 million cubic feet in volume, let assume 1/3 of that space was set aside for the animals, and the rest was set aside for food, aisles, etc. That gives every animal on board 10 cubic feet of living space, or roughly a 2.2 foot square box.
However, if we assume the average reptile and bird only needed 2ft^3,that means the average mammal could have 39 ft^3. Granted, some are larger and smaller than the average, but the point is, it is quite feasible.
FWIW, many assert that today's observed speciation could be accomplished with 1/3 as many animals..
Knowledge is always becoming. Being remains the same. Evolutionists confuse the two.
Yes, there is plenty of data to tell us what the assumptions should be.
Darwin has been shown to be a total and utter fraud. Life as we know it is many orders of magnitude more complex than his stupid little world.
Everything points to an agent cause, every piece of code we find in nature is so perfect, and by the Law of Entropy every scoundrel who preaches that information can arise out of chaos stands condemned by his own conscience.
Who can run from God? He is everywhere. Christ in front of me, Christ behind me, Christ on my left, Christ on my right, Christ below me, Christ above me...
Actually Light was the first thing made...
Yes.
This is what is posited by the theory of Intelligent Design.
ToE posits a process while ID posits an underlying cause, and they are not mutually exclusive.
Can't have earth without stars first, end of story.
Can’t have stars without a place to put them, I.e. the heavens, or, space.
Space wasn’t the beginning either, so another error in addition to mixing up the order of stars and Earth.
No it isn’t. As St Augustine comments, those early lines are talking about the creation of angels and men (heaven and earth). The “darkness” was not good, the only thing in His creation that was not good. It was the fall of the angels.
No one says “end of story” when interpreting the mysteries bound up in the book of Genesis. Rather it is the ‘beginning of story”, the story of God’s love.
That He would create intelligence first, that of angels and the souls of Adam and Eve, before creating the first natural thing, light, is very fitting. Whether it is “first” in order of time, or first in order of conception should not matter to us. For example, the builder of a great skyscraper has the image of the final product in his mind first, and the trenched foundation maybe last, but it is the foundation that is dug first. As Aristotle puts it, “what is first in mind is last in execution and what is last in mind is first in execution.”
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.