Dinosaur soft tissue and protein—even more confirmation! (more evidence for young earth creation!!!)

CMI ^ | May 6, 2009 | Carl Wieland

[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...

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

it’s NOT the fact that they use ‘big words’

This started with my response to a specific post by WondrousCreation. In that post, he explicitly said that evo scientists were attempting to confuse creation scientists with "big words." That's what he said. He even said evo scientists sit around making up big words and keeping them secret from creation scientists. Really.

I get that for you this isn't about big words. It's about some as-yet-unspecified aspect of those words that you think embodies some as-yet-unspecified assumptions. But all I was talking about was the scary big words.

[CottShop]

[[It’s about some as-yet-unspecified aspect of those words that you think embodies some as-yet-unspecified assumptions.]]

Oh those assumptions aren’t ‘as yet undetermined’- the writer of the TO article made it very clear that ‘Christians were wrong’ because the assumptions made of the appearances of material ‘made it so’- they weren’t coy abotu hteir intent

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed, that sounds like a suspension of time.

Thank you so much for the ping and for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!

[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

the writer of the TO article made it very clear that ‘Christians were wrong’ because the assumptions made of the appearances of material ‘made it so’

That is an unfortunately typical distortion of what the TO article said.

[CottShop]

[[[That is an unfortunately typical distortion of what the TO article said.]]

Really? Hmmm- I must have ‘misinterpreted’ the term “APPEARS TO BE” in the article then? Perhaps you can itnerpret it then for me as apparently I’m not able to spot obvious projections of faith such as that?

[Jaime2099]

"Explain to us how dating is done and how it’s “phony”. Please try to do it without the words god and flood."

Well, lets see. The fossils are 80 millions years old, yet have soft tissue in them. What more needs to be said.

[Wacka]

Total avoidance.
You said that the dating of the rocks the fossil was in was “phony”. Well, show me proof of that.
This has nothing to do with the presence of soft tissue. To say the dating is phony you should have knowledge of how they determine the age of the rocks and how their methodology is incorrect.

Also, tell me how you would determine that the rock is young as you say it is.

[DBCJR]

“If its intra-species, it isn’t evolution.”

Yes, it is, and it is fact. Inter-species evolution cannot be proven. This was the attempt by Darwin to explain the origin of the species. Even if they could prove and incidence of inter-species evolution, the mathmatical probability that it would produce intelligent life from amino acids is miraculous, i.e., a mathmatical impossibility.

[editor-surveyor]

No, intra species adaptations are built in at creation, and represent no change from the original instructions.

There simply is no evolution of any kind - pipe dreams, and scams.