Posted on 10/04/2013 7:15:37 AM PDT by kimtom
Imagine watching an interview on television and hearing a bald, blind, deaf, wrinkled, hunched-back, bedridden man claim that he is 130 years old. Although you might doubt such a claim, if ever there was a man in modern times to live 130 years on Earth, he likely would have looked as worn out as this man appeared. Imagine, however, if a quick-witted, muscular, marathon runner with fair skin, thick, dark hair, low blood pressure, and a good memory, claimed to be 130 years old. What reasonable person would believe such a claim? Everyone would doubt the statement, especially the doctors, who had found the man’s overall health to be comparable to that of a 20-year-old.
Now take a step into the world of evolutionary science. According to evolution’s geologic timetable, since dinosaurs supposedly became extinct 65 million years ago, any dinosaur fossil found in the ground must be at least 65 million years old. But what if the fossils don’t “appear” to be that old? What if, when inspected by scientists, various dinosaur bones around the world are discovered with “highly fibrous,” “flexible,” and elastic bone tissue that “when stretched, returns to its original shape”? What if fibrous proteins such as collagen were found, along with “cell-like structures resembling blood and bone cells”? Would evolutionists come to a similar conclusion as most everyone would about a marathon-running, 130-year-old? Apparently not.
In the last few years, scientists have found a variety of dinosaur bones from around the world that are not completely fossilized. They actually contain intact protein fragments,.......
(Excerpt) Read more at apologeticspress.org ...
Evolutionists will believe anything except the possibility that they could be wrong.
OMG, the Earth is flat!
Some folks look at the Grand Canyon and say, "It's old. How can you not see it?"
I look at dinosaur tissue and say, "It's not that old. How can you not see it?"
ping
His name would be Lazarus Long.................. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_Long
Why does everyone believe that ALL dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago?
Isn’t it possible that since alligators and others of their type existed then, that some dinos may have actually survived up until near modern times, albeit several thousands of years ago? ...................
True Bro
“Why does everyone believe ...... albeit several thousands of years ago?..”
a logical question.
but the answer is ; the fossil record does not support that theory.
unless, fossil record (age) is misunderstood...?
Proteins do not degrade all by themselves. They are degraded by the environment. There are bacteria that eat it, oxygen that oxidizes it, water that gets into its nooks and crannies and unfolds it, and a whole slew of natural enzymes that cut it into pieces just because that’s what the body has to do to keep such junk from clogging everything.
Likewise, bones do not become hard and brittle just from age. Over time, as you use them, the body puts calcium in the bones to make them hard and brittle so they’ll be able to support your weight. The body doesn’t have any mechanism of stopping this process, so it just keeps turning your bones into limestone. If you die young, your bones will not calcify in the grave. This is why you normally find bones and teeth as fossils - they were already mineralized at the time of death.
Additional mineralization can replace soft tissue when it rots and mineral-rich water evaporates from the resulting cavity. If the soft tissue is completely enclosed by calcified bone in an airtight and watertight fashion, then it will not decay with time. There would be nothing in there to degrade it.
So no, it is not really surprizing to find soft tissue 65 million years old. It is rare merely because soft tissue is never fully enclosed. Even bone marrow has blood vessels going into it. To preserve it you’d have to have these holes plugged quickly after death, before the decay sets in. This does not occur often, making soft tissue finds very rare.
“..I don’t think the author understands just ..”
disagree
How can the soft tissue survive 65 million years?
a fair question
Relying solely on fossils can be misleading.
Assume that some dinos did actually survive up until at least the paleolithic era. They may have been hunted to extinction and eaten by early humans and their bones left to turn to dust. Even small animal bones that were eaten by humans or other animals are only preserved in caves or burial sites. Those left to the open, decay and are never seen since they returned to the soil.
Fossils are very old, but assuming that the animals all died out because of that is not logical..............
Your right! Evolution is junk science and has too many flaws. Seen fossilized cowboy boots, fishing reel, other items that didn’t exist “millions” of years ago. Once again they will do anything to push their view on those that are to stupid to understand anything else.
“...So no, it is not really surprizing to find soft tissue 65 million years old....”
How about a few thousand..?
Read title and thought this was about Harry Reed.
It is a fair question - too bad Lyons didn’t look for any answers. Basically you are citing as a source a fellow with a degree in theology who apparently, because he can’t fathom the science, disagrees with the scientists who actually study and experiment with the material in question. Why didn’t he bother to ask Schweitzer about how old her discovery is? Why didn’t he explore the literature that seeks to answer the questions surround this material like “Dinosaurian Soft Tissues Interpreted as Bacterial Biofilms” Kaye, et al, or Schweitzer’s own paper, “Dinosaur Peptides Suggest Mechanisms of Protein Survival”? Lyons is simply unqualified to intelligently comment on the subject - he doesn’t understand the processes involved and apparently hasn’t sought information that will counter his preconceived notions of Earth’s biological and geological history. Typical apologetics - long on rhetoric, short on fact.
For those convinced in the existence of God and every word in the Bible being completely true, that is fine as they have the faith to believe it with all their heart.
For those convinced in evolution as a scientific fact, that is also fine as they have the faith to believe it with all their heart.
Those that believe in God can also believe in evolution.
Or they can be atheist and believe in evolution.
When any of those above try to make their version the ONLY VERSION I can believe, that is when we split the blanket--
and you are???
attacking the author shows your colors......
not interested in truth
you made my day...
good one..!!
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.