Electron microscope image of three soft bone cells from a dinosaur fossil
Posted on 10/04/2016 12:52:05 PM PDT by fishtank
Electron microscope image of three soft bone cells from a dinosaur fossil
I met Dr. Wile (the author) once; can’t recall where. He is a nice man.
Follow the evidence. If it points toward a young earth, then perhaps the earth is indeed “younger” than many say. Follow the evidence.
Evidence? From the field? Why, science has advanced far from the paleolithic days of field work. Now, we just create models that fit our theories, and render the results we want, right in our very own offices!
Go back to sleep.
Years ago, I seem to remember one of the Messianic Jewish
teachers talking about the way time & eternity appears to
the Lord as opposed to how it appears to us. The way he
described it was defining the Creator as viewing his
creation from a viewpoint that is in a sort of “fanning
out” reality, so that what is to us thousands of years is
from his vantage point just a very short time.
I beg your pardon?
Yup, exactly what ICR et al is about: prove the theory at all costs.
There have already been a number of occasions that species that were shown to have died out long long ago by fossil records, were found to still be around. So, it seems on the cards that a species that was thought to be extinct a long time ago by fossil records may have become extinct much more recently than we thought.
I am not sure how well this horn makes the case that the triceratops is more recently extinct than thought. But I do know its ridiculous to always make these kinds of questions about more than what they are about.
this is not the first time that soft tissue/blood cells have been found on dinosaur fossils in Montana.
I’m not commenting beyond that.
I’m just pointing out that...nothing more nothing less. :)
Anyone have a scientific explanation for cells in a fossil?
Ummm...at the risk of sounding ignorant - why doesn’t (didn’t) Armitage simply make the sample(s) available for others to study?
Regardless of his conclusions, the sample(s) should stand on there own.
You don’t have to agree with someone but you certainly don’t need to be rude.
Maybe the person was on the wrong thread?
;-)
But in this case, we’re talking scientific evidence. Not religious theories.
The scientific evidence indicates that creatures thought to have gone extinct millions of years ago may in fact have been alive on earth just a few thousands of years ago.
Let’s allow the evidence to inform our understanding of the world, even if it takes us to places that shake our worldviews.
“So, it seems on the cards that a species that was thought to be extinct a long time ago by fossil records may have become extinct much more recently than we thought.”
Well, that might be a possibility if the triceratops were found in strata that correspond to only a few thousand years ago (according to standard geologic interpretation), but that is not what we are looking at. We are looking at unfossilized cells from strata that geologists date at tens of millions of years old. The only possibilities are:
a) There is some unknown process that allows biological matter to survive without decaying for tens of millions of years
or
b) The standard interpretations of geologists and evolutionary biologists are wrong.
Those are really the only options.
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.