Posted on 05/06/2009 8:49:01 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Dinosaur soft tissue and protein—even more confirmation!
Mary Schweitzer announces even stronger evidence, this time from a duckbilled dino fossil, of even more proteins—and the same amazingly preserved vessel and cell structures as before...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
It also proves that Earth is not 6000 years old..
I’m a strong believer, but methinks that creationism is a bit loony. Quit trying to use old texts to determine how we got here and use the brains that God gave you...along with the clues He gave.
Let’s face it, how believable would the bible have been had the authors used the true numbers for ages and times?
They told a simple story.... complex enough for the times.
There also have been many finds of buried mammoths with some tissue still un fossilized in the Bay Area.
Correct, it is actually only 5769 years old.
Personally I thought it was 10000 years old..
I guess I miss the connection. Could you please expand upon it?
Oh no, how will they explain this to the the kids at the “progressive left wing radical institutions”....errrr...ummmm, I mean the public school system?
Shhhh, don’t tell anyone! I hope that crappy “right wing” Fox News does not find this story!
“...There also have been many finds of buried mammoths with some tissue still un fossilized in the Bay Area....”
Were they gay Mammoths? They were born that way....
Yes, a simple story, but with deep, and extreme detail of the entire geneology from the first man to our Savior. Complex enough for all times!
The most straightforward fit to the evidence is that the time of burial of these dinosaurs was not millions of years ago at all, but only thousands of years ago at most. As the evidence continues to mount that dinosaur fossils do indeed contain well-preserved soft tissue structures and identifiable proteins, the assumption that will increasingly be made is that “we now know that such tissue components can last that long, after all.”
Not many will see this as the paradigm-rescuing assumption that it is. Consider the line of reasoning:
1). We know that this dinosaur fossil is 80 million years old.
2). Calculations based on operational (observational) science indicate that no collagen should survive anywhere near that long.
3). Collagen has been identified in these dinosaur fossils. Therefore:
4). There must be a mistaken assumption in the calculations mentioned in Point 2)—though we don’t know for sure how, collagen must be able to survive for 80 million years. How do we know that? Because
5). We know that this dinosaur fossil is 80 million years old.
Notice how points 1) and 5) are identical, revealing the circularity. The following chain of reasoning is far more science-based:
1). This dinosaur fossil is claimed to be 80 million years old.
2). Calculations based on operational (observational) science indicate that no collagen should survive anywhere near that long.
3). Collagen has been identified in these dinosaur fossils. Therefore:
4). The claim in point 1) is wrong. The fossil cannot be anywhere near that old. This matches the expectations of a worldview based on the history given to us in the book of Genesis.
See reply #13
Only the Pink ones.
You don't see much talk about them in EVO circles. They'd rather they didn't exist. Or they try convince people that they were "woolly mammoths" that could survive in the arctic weather without the tons of food and fresh water elephants need daily. (even though they are found with tropical vegetation in their mouths and stomachs) They also have normal exposed trunks like ordinary elephants, which if exposed to sub zero weather, would kill them. The "woolly Mammoth" wool isn't wool at all, it's just hair which has no insulating value at all, plus the hair around their feet would quickly become balled up with snow, causing their feet to freeze. But the heck with facts, right?
Give him time. In order to answer your question, he's looking for someone else's words he can cut & paste.
Achtung! English persons—and not listening to Michael Savage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&hl=en-GB&v=19IqwU3itFk
Simple enough. The people telling us the Earth is 4B years old are the same mental midgets still trying to tell us that dinosaurs died out 70M years ago even in the face of this new and overwhelming evidence.
Aside from that, Robert Bass once redid Lord Kelvin's heat equations for the planet WITH a maximal possible figure for radioactive elements included and got an upper bound of around 200M years.
The true age of the planet is anybody's guess. As a collection of rocks it may be a few hundred thousand or a couple of million years old. Midrashim and Amerind oral traditions describe dinosaurs which were probably leftovers, walking around just prior to the flood. The true main age of dinosaurs was almost certainly a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of years back, and not millions or tens of millions. The planet's living world in its present form more or less is probably aroun d 6K years old as the Bible indicates.
A strong believer in what?
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.