#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth

www.answersingenesis.org ^ | September 11, 2012 | David Menton

[kimtom]

"... A recent discovery by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, however, has given reason for all but committed evolutionists to question this assumption. Bone slices from the fossilized thigh bone (femur) of a Tyrannosaurus rex found in the Hell Creek formation of Montana were studied under the microscope by Schweitzer. To her amazement, the bone showed what appeared to be blood vessels of the type seen in bone and marrow, and these contained what appeared to be red blood cells with nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals). The vessels even appeared to be lined with specialized endothelial cells found in all blood vessels.

Amazingly, the bone marrow contained what appeared to be flexible tissue. Initially, some skeptical scientists suggested that bacterial biofilms (dead bacteria aggregated in a slime) formed what only appear to be blood vessels and bone cells. Recently Schweitzer and coworkers found biochemical evidence for intact fragments of the protein collagen, which is the building block of connective tissue. This is important because collagen is a highly distinctive protein not made by bacteria. (See Schweitzer’s review article in Scientific American [December 2010, pp. 62–69] titled “Blood from Stone.”)

Some evolutionists have strongly criticized Schweitzer’s conclusions because they are understandably reluctant to concede the existence of blood vessels, cells with nuclei, tissue elasticity, and intact protein fragments in a dinosaur bone dated at 68 million years old. Other evolutionists, who find Schweitzer’s evidence too compelling to ignore, simply conclude that there is some previously unrecognized form of fossilization that preserves cells and protein fragments over tens of millions of years. Needless to say, no evolutionist has publically considered the possibility that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old. ....."

[brent13a]

Science and Religion are not incompatible, the only folks that find them incompatible are the folks who subscribe to literal reading of every line of the old testament, particularly the pre-history parts, which of course flies in the face of all serious Theology.
The “young earth” theory, that the earth is just a few thousand years old is not supported by any basis, theological or scientific, its nonsense.
This very article is a bit silly, the evidence suggest tissue was found in the fossil, great, the supposition by the young earth theory is the fossile can’t possibly be millions of years old because of this, without any real evidence to support that, other than a theory, the opposite proposition is that soft tissue under the right circumstances could indeed survive millions of years.
Its not suprising the young earth theory folks are arguing a non bending proposal, and the sceintific folks are arguing hmmm perhaps there are things we don’t quite know... Yet, the “religious” and I do use that term very loosely here, are claiming that the other side is being unyeilding and absolute.
According to first mover theory, change in and of itself is proof of God’s existance, yet there are so many incredibly ignorant folks claiming that theories around change are an attack or affront to God that its nonsense.
ANyone so utterly ignorant of theological teachings, then trying to argue someone else’s theories are an affront to them is foolhearty on both fronts.
The Holes in the “Young Earth” theory are massive, let alone the very idea that the bible tells the age of the earth to begin with, which when read literally or figuratively it clearly makes no such offering.

There are many reasons that incompatibilities exist, when they don't have to.
The biggest reason for almost all modern incompatibilities of everything from science to the supernatural is due to the paradigm shift in interpretation that happened in the first 4 centuries of christianity. We went from Jesus' 2nd Temple interpretations of Scripture to the Greek interpretations of christianity.
There is a clear and distinct separation between what was believed during the age of Jesus (and what he taught) and what was taught throughout the Diaspora after the age of Jesus.
These deficiencies in interpretation have caused so much harm that there are volumes of books that try to explain why the chasm exists between what was and what is.
Regarding this whole "Young Earth" stuff I spend a lot of time researching the 2nd Temple Period of Ancient Judaism/Israel/Galilee and I know of no interpretation from the time of Jesus that postulated a "Young Earth" theory of creation.

[OneVike]

I do not find it ODD, that a Catholic would deny that God created everything in the exact way the Scriptures say He did.

You basically deny the Scriptures are Gods words.

Thus you claim that Paul lied when he wrote,

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" 2Tomothy 3:16

[SengirV]

And the means by which God created everything is broken down in precise detail in the bible?

Let me put this way. In pool, can God get all the balls to go into the holes on the break of the rake? I think all would say yes. Do the balls have to go in instantaneously and simultaneously? Of course not. Now take that example and ramp it up a little bit to the scale of the universe. The goal is still the same, have a specific event occur - creation of Man. Does it really matter that it is done instantaneously and simultaneously? Just like the pool balls, they take their own path to get to the final outcome.

Arguing about the path and duration of the ball’s movements are meaningless, if the intent is the final event - Creation of man.

It doesn’t flipping matter HOW God created man, but that God did.

P.S - Can someone tell me the special biblical exception that allows for an old universe, but young earth? Genesis 1:13-17 doesn’t seem to lend much wiggle room, IMHO. There is TONS of scientific evidence to allow for an old universe.

[OneWingedShark]

Time is just another of God's creations. "Before Abraham was I Am". So to try to trap God into a prison of 7 days and 6000 years is so so foolish.
Science is struggling to get a grip on exactly what time is.

We are in full agreement.
(And trying to make God a liar by saying they aren't days could be just as foolish: "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God." [1 Cor 3:19])

We are foolish, and ignorant, and arrogant -- and that's where God has to start (because He's the one that starts).

[OneVike]

I do not condemn anyone, their words condemn themselves.

I am but defending God’s word against those who claim God does not tell the truth.

God cannot lie, because He is perfect, and to lie is to sin.

God is flawless so He does not sin.

[HamiltonJay]

Okay, clearly you believe in young earth, so I ask you this simple quesiton...

How old do you believe the Earth is, and what evidence do you cite to make that claim?

Are you suggesting that Geneisis in its original Hebrew gives the creation date?

Secondly are you suggesting, and with what evidence are you mounting for this, that animals and beasts found to live on the earth and believed by the hethens not to co-exist in time with Humanity did indeed do so?

Third, The great rusting of the oceans of the earth, that hethens believe happened for millions of years, and is evidenced by the massive iron deposits currently being mined, did not happen, how do you suggest they occurred?

None of these suggested things which counter the “young earth” hypothesis disprove God, and no theologian worth their salt has ever suggested that science is at odds with God.

The literal reading of the prehistory of the Bible is an ignorant philosophy that flies in the face of thousands of years of Theology.

[brent13a]

Science and Religion are very compatible, the only folks that find them to be otherwise are the folks who subscribe to the outdated and unproven Darwinianism.

The “young earth” theory, that the earth is just a few thousand years old has more evidence than evolution has, yet the flat earth evolutionists refuse to even consider the facts.

Someone left a book at my work once detailing a "Young Earth" theory. It included the postulation that things like the Grand Canyon were created by lightning strikes barely a couple thousand years ago, and things of that nature.It didn't even take into account the movement of land masses and continents and such. I guess those things happen really really fast too.
Also, why does no one ever take into context things outside of our planet? The creation scriptures are regarding the whole Universe and not just our planet. How our planet interacts with the solar system and vice versa, within the context of time, and distance, and age of the universe says that the Young Earth theory is bullcrap also.
What's the explanation of the universe's age in the "Young Earth" theory? Or does the theory just make claims about earth and ignore the creation of the Universe by God?
Shouldn't it be the "Young Universe" theory?

[MeganC]

>>>The main problem, as I see it, is that evolution is violation of God creating things and declaring they reproduce “after its own kind.”<<<

IMHO all the talk about evolution does is it might reveal some of how God brought about humanity. Even if evolution becomes a proven fact all it does for me is to reveal the mechanism God used to bring about His will. No one will ever convince me that humanity is a mere accident of chance.

[OneWingedShark]

It doesn’t flipping matter HOW God created man, but that God did.

Actually it does matter: man was a special creation -- taken from the dust of the Earth and having life breathed into him by God Himself.
To say that man evolved from other animals is to deny that man is special; this is even distinct from saying that evolution is the method for God's creation of animal-life.

Being made in God's own image is a big deal.

P.S - Can someone tell me the special biblical exception that allows for an old universe, but young earth? Genesis 1:13-17 doesn’t seem to lend much wiggle room, IMHO. There is TONS of scientific evidence to allow for an old universe.

2 Pet 3:8 -- But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day.
IOW, God is not bound by mere time. -- Also consider that a day is one revolution of the Earth WRT the sun... if there is no sun and no Earth, that is an undefined period.

[OneVike]

You obviously do not understand how the moder day bibles are put together.

Modern day bibles like the NKJV and NASV are the most accurate bibles on the planet.

They authors used the best original manuscripts available from Hebrew and Greek

You need to study and learn about what you know before you write what you think.

[DManA]

God cannot lie

Exactly. So he cannot create a universe that LOOKS like it's 16 billion years old but in reality is only 6000 years old.

[HamiltonJay]

Actually you can only find that odd if you are ignorant of Theology.

The notion of “Sola Scripture” is another idea that denies all serious Theology.

The Catholic Church has never ever ever (nor has any serious theologian) argued that the Bible should be read in its entirety, particularly in the prehistory portions, absolute literally.

All serious Theology has always recognized the Bible speaks and teaches in Alegory as much as literal, just as Christ himself taught in parable.

The 100% literal translation of the bible only came about from the ignorant masses much much later, and no serious theologian has ever proposed such a view.

[brent13a]

2 Pet 3:8 -- But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day. IOW, God is not bound by mere time. -- Also consider that a day is one revolution of the Earth WRT the sun... if there is no sun and no Earth, that is an undefined period.

We're not in disagreement at this juncture. My only complaint is that knowledge of the age of the earth or universe isn't dependent on the greek scriptures of the NT.
The Jews/Israelis etc of Jesus' age and before understood such things from the Hebrew Scriptures.
What intrigues me is that I can't seem to find many adherents to the "Young Earth" theory in Judaism whereas all the people arguing for it seem to be christian.
If such an interpretation was easily gleaned from the Scriptures that Jesus read and interpreted from, logic would dictate that there would be some sort of ancient "Young Earth" belief within the Judaism of Jesus' age....and like I stated above, in my research of the 2nd Temple period I know of no ancient Jewish theory postulating Hebrew Scripture support of a "Young Earth".

[brent13a]

Modern day bibles like the NKJV and NASV are the most accurate bibles on the planet.

I'm sorry, but that is not true. There is so much historical record when it comes to the creation of the christian bible, the political influences to the religio-political influences that man had when man put the christian bible together......there is no "perfect" christian bible. The only "perfect" bible is the one Jesus used: the Hebrew Scriptures. That was Jesus' Proof-Text and it should be our Proof-text.
In the vacuum of faith only, where history and reason are forced out of the equation, then perhaps that might be true.
The christian doctrine of Fideism sounds to be one of the basis of the "Young Earth" theory.
What Jesus did and what the Judaism of his age did was exegetical reading of the Hebrew Scriptures Jesus TOOK OUT meaning from the scriptures
What happens now, after the supersession of christianity is that christianity uses eisegesis on scripture christianity FORCES IN meanings to the scripture

[count-your-change]

I was presenting the argument...that the fossils might not not confirm a young earth and what they might confirm instead.

What’s still too young? Me or the fossils?

[brent13a]

You need to study and learn about what you know before you write what you think.

I can assure you I know what I know because I know how to do independent theological research.
Faith does not have to be void of history, historic context, nor reason. Do you think Jesus made up stuff on the spot? No. He knew his history of Israel intimately and the Jewish peoples and his teachings drew from knowing that history and historic context.
In fact, true faith is knowing all history, the historic context of everything, and putting it all together using reason.
Since my faith includes such things I don't need to ignore historical facts or ignore huge gaping errors to try to just "make things work".
When you can use reason and all of history to understand something then finding the truth about that thing is generally really easy.

For instance, I know the agreed upon theories about the canonization of the Hebrew Scriptures in addition to the seedy dark history of how the christian bible was put together. I also know what Scriptures Jesus taught from, and I know all of this in historical context (just like Jesus knew his historical context) so I don't look like an idiot when I'm having a discussion with someone who isn't a theological homunculus.

[kimtom]

fossils

[count-your-change]

How old do you suppose these tissue containing fossils are?

[kimtom]

“...follow the evidence, and you can design and construct experiments that prove or disprove a theory....”

Whistle blowers have pointed to “data selection” used by geologist in determining age. (False)

while I agree the article alone does not prove YE. It supports that view better.

Thanks

[kimtom]

“..How old do you suppose these tissue containing fossils are?...”

A loaded question and a trap!!

neither geology nor carbon dating will give an accurate measure.
I can safely say much younger than 60 million years.