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...

[Renderofveils]

You also don't see any evidence from the Young Earth camp supporting the actual age of the Earth, merely the age of animals upon it.

The catastrophic plate tectonics model is an excellent example of this. It is a theory postulated first, then "facts" conjoined to support the original theory. Not unlike the Anthopogenic Global Warming crowd.

Facts of the Catastrophic Tectonics model: 1. Radiometric dating is an untrustworthy science. We must disallow its use.
2. The rate of subduction of plates during the 40 day flood would be 3 ft/second.
3. Guyots were eroded by mysterious forces in an amazingly short period of time before sinking back under the sea post-flood.
4. There are marine fossils on Mt Everest. (One of the largest failures of ommissions in the Young Earth theory. This supposes that marine animals were thrust to the top of the mountain during the violent plate shifting that formed the new mountain ranges. However, the rock (and fossils contained therein) were already metamorphosed before being thrust in the air. Sediment colliding with sediment makes a big hill. Rock colliding with rock makes mountains.)

[Nathan Zachary]

"You misunderstand evolution if you believe it is random. Evolution is not a random process. There is nothing random about natural selection."

Really? And you have PROOF that "natural selection" even happens, right? What's that? No, you don't?

Didn't think so.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

2). Calculations based on operational (observational) science indicate that no collagen should survive anywhere near that long.

Well obviously this is special magical collagen, so that doesn't count.

[RegulatorCountry]

The find of T-Rex soft tissue in no way supports a young earth.

Really? Please elaborate. It's rather counterintuitive to claim that the presence of soft tissue refutes a more recent origin.

In fact, when you consider the fact that we should find much more soft tissue in all large dinosaur bones, it actually supports an old earth even better!”

So, there's a factual basis that much more soft tissue should be found in large dinosaur bones? Please cite these facts. Would there be more soft tissue in a 6,000 to 10,000 year old dinosaur bone? At what point does complete fossilization occur? How does dead soft tissue survive for millions of years?

[GodGunsGuts]

Darwood’s natural selection god produces nothing, it mere weeds out what has been created by so-called random mutations.

[editor-surveyor]

"The find of T-Rex soft tissue in no way supports a young earth. In fact, when you consider the fact that we should find much more soft tissue in all large dinosaur bones, it actually supports an old earth even better!"

A perfect example of the evo's total loss of contact with reality!

Do they even have a concept of what a billion is? or even a million? Do they have the faintest understanding of the tenacity, and effectiveness of bacteria?

Evolutionists hate science, and have set out to destroy it

[GodGunsGuts]

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...

[ClearCase_guy]

I agree with your post. I know that both sides occasionally engage in derogatory behavior. It's a shame. Hopefully I won't conttribute to that problem.

My personal feeling is that finding soft tissue from a dinosaur is a surprising thing. Often, when science finds something surprising, scientists will step back and ask, "Why are we surprised? What don't we know? What do we know that isn't, in fact, true?"

One of my issues with Evolution is that anything surprising that comes up is immediately met with: "What do we know? Well, we know Evolution is true. We know dinosaurs died out millions and millions of years ago. And we know the Bible is a fairy tale. Now, based on what we know, let's examine this surprising finding and squeeze it into our existing theory."

I don't really like science when it's done that way.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Evolution is not a random process. There is nothing random about natural selection.

Indeed, some evolutionists seem to think that natural selection is downright teleological.

[DBCJR]

“Bible literalists (Hagee, et al, peg the earth’s age to be 6,000). A lot of FReepers believe that too...’course, a lot of them also believed George Bush was a great president.”

You are probably right, Kerry would have been a lot better! [sarc]

The predisposition to believe the Bible as inerrant does not require Hagee, et al, to believe an actual 6 day Creation. Sometimes I think that is a form of grand standing to display just how much “faith” they have in God’s Word. The problem is that I am not sure the intent behind such passages was to take them as literally as we might other passages. There are all sorts of examples that even Hagee would agree to that. However, traditional Creation interpretation is a trumped up Maginot Line that “Bible believers” have said they cannot cross. I’m not sure the Lord intended that.

[Nathan Zachary]

"You misunderstand evolution if you believe it is random. Evolution is not a random process. There is nothing random about natural selection."

Another way to interpret this statement:

There is nothing random about natural selection, it proceeds as it was DESIGNED to, Although, we don't have any proof whatsoever that there is such a thing as "natural selection"

[Boxen]

Who’s Darwood?

[mdmathis6]

They should investigate the chemical make up of these collagen and vessel structures closely. If they haven’t rotted after all this time, they may have amazing antibacterial properties that might be beneficial for human healing!

[GodGunsGuts]

He is the one who taught the Temple of Darwinistic Materialism the following mantra: “There is not god except the braindead natural selection god, and darwood is its prophet.”

[CottShop]

per usual, NOONE discusses the actual evidences discussed in the article- apparently because al lthey have to defend agaisnt it is “We ‘should be seeing’ soft tissue” Lol- Yep- everyone knows soft tissue remains in bones for millions of years- lol Sorry- but ‘We ‘should see’ soft tissue’ isn’t a scientific arguement supporting long ages- I remember reading the macroevolutionists ‘scientific explanations’ for hte soft tissue, and they were equally as lame, claiming AFTER the fact (once again- but apparently noone minds ‘scientists’ being armchair hidnsighters) ‘we predicted this’- Bull! They gave absolutely NO explanation for how soft tissue could have survived for millions of years- all they gave were improbable just so stories DEVOID of actual fact and evidence to support their fairytails

[count-your-change]

For it to prove anything about the age of the earth one would have to believe that the earth and the dinosaurs are close to the same age, which the YEC do.

Myself, I think there is good reason from the Scriptures to believe the earth went through a longer period of shaping and preparation before there was any life on it and that life's existence can be measured in the thousands of years, contra claims of millions or hundreds of millions of years.

So I don't think whatever the final determination of whether blood, etc. has actually been found (it appears it has) can help in determining the age of the earth one way or another but speaks volumes about the dinosaurs.

[Boxen]

Really? Where did he write this? And where can I find this “Temple of Darwinistic Materialism”?

[editor-surveyor]

"Actually, some Creationists believe that the Bible reads that there was a creation then a “replenishing” that is accounted for in Genesis 2, the Garden of Eden account. This would allow for a much earlier creation event."

Using God's stated plan as presented in the Bible, the illogic of this Star Wars fantasy is mind boggling.

" Evolution cannot explain the creation of all life forms that exist and creation does not rule out the theory of evolution."

Who's 'creation' are we talking about?

God's word completely rules out evolution in over 100 places. One has to throw out almost every book of the Bible to accept that idea.

[mel]

Great

[Nathan Zachary]

"The true age of the planet is anybody's guess. As a collection of rocks...."

What makes you think it's a collection of rocks? Have you discovered the mysteries of the inner earth? So far, man has only been able to study the very outer surface, which is the equivalent of one hair- thin layer of an onion.

We only have theories of what the inner earth is made of, and we don't even have a decent explanation for what causes the magnetic field.