Not surprising given finding proof dinosaurs existed 6,000 years ago would be worthy of a Nobel Prize and elevate the finder to superstar status. What is interesting is I have never seen a YEC actually try to find some proof. Perhaps they actually know such proof doesn’t exist.
2 Likes
Unless any of us are used to living as seminomadic herders or subsistence farmers.
Is it possible that perhaps they don’t know how to date the remains ? (because they feel no need to bother to learn on how to date remains, at most the age will certainly 6000 yo).
1 Like
First they would have to find the remains, which would be a major scientific discovery in itself. Second, they have plenty of PhD’s that would know how to date said remains.
2 Likes
Hi Ron,
thank you for your post.
I certainly do not subscribe to the uniformitarian mythology that was clearly debunked when Mount St.Helens erupted in Washington State in May 1980.
You are of course correct, “Nobody has stared at organic matter for hundreds of millions of years.” because the hundreds of millions of years never happened, that belief is nothing more than uniformitarian dogma and mythology.
i encourage you to read the article at: Dino DNA bone cells
Rather than make unsubstantiated claims, I encourage you to check the references for yourself if you don’t believe.
I expect you would already be familiar with the information below regarding the Mary Schweitzer finds, they are quite remarkable and have been checked and rechecked by many researchers now, so I would expect are reliable!
"The presence of original molecular components is not predicted for fossils older than a million years, and the discovery of collagen in this well-preserved dinosaur supports the use of actualistic conditions to formulate molecular degradation rates and models, rather than relying on theoretical or experimental extrapolations derived from conditions that do not occur in nature."
The above quote in ‘Science’ is by:
Schweitzer, M.H., et al., Analyses of soft tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex suggest the presence of protein, Science 316(5822):277–280, 2007
As a careful scientist, after Dr Schweitzer found elastic blood vessels and other soft tissue, she rechecked her data thoroughly. The report quoted her as follows:
“It was totally shocking,” Schweitzer says. “I didn’t believe it until we’d done it 17 times."
Schweitzer, cited in Science 307:1852, 25 Mar 2005.
*Some evolutionists saw the baneful implications to their long-age dogma, and claimed that the blood vessels were really bacterial biofilms, and the blood cells were iron-rich spheres called framboids.
Kaye, T.G. et al., Dinosaurian soft tissues interpreted as bacterial biofilms, PLoS ONE 3(7):e2808, 2008 | doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0002808.
Yet this ignores the wide range of evidence Schweitzer adduced, and she has answered this claim in detail. Researchers debate: Is it preserved dinosaur tissue, or bacterial slime? blogs.discovermagazine.com, 30 Jul 2008.
Schweitzer’s more recent research makes long ages even harder to believe. Here, she analyzed bone from two dinosaurs, the famous Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 11251) and a large duck-billed dinosaur called Brachylophosaurus canadensis (MOR 2598)
Schweitzer, M.H. et al. Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules, Bone, 17 Oct 2012 | doi:10.1016/j.bone.2012.10.010.
Bone is an amazing structure with the ability to re-work in response to stress, and uses the finely designed protein osteocalcin, which has been found in the best known duck-billed dinosaur, Iguanadon, ‘dated’ to 120 Ma
Embery G., Milner A.C., Waddington R.J., Hall R.C., Langley M.S., Milan A.M., Identification of proteinaceous material in the bone of the dinosaur Iguanodon, Connect Tissue Res. 44 Suppl 1:41–6, 2003. The abstract says: “an early eluting fraction was immunoreactive with an antibody against osteocalcin.”
The problem for long-agers is even more acute with their discovery of DNA. Estimates of DNA stability put its upper limit of survival at 125,000 years at 0°C, 17,500 years at 10°C and 2,500 years at 20°C.2 One recent report said:
"There is a general belief that DNA is ‘rock solid’—extremely stable,” says Brandt Eichman, associate professor of biological sciences at Vanderbilt, who directed the project. “Actually DNA is highly reactive.”
“On a good day about one million bases in the DNA in a human cell are damaged. These lesions are caused by a combination of normal chemical activity within the cell and exposure to radiation and toxins coming from environmental sources including cigarette smoke, grilled foods and industrial wastes”
Newly discovered DNA repair mechanism, Science News, sciencedaily.com, 5 Oct 2010; see also Sarfati, J., New DNA repair enzyme discovered, DNA repair enzyme,
A recent paper on DNA shows that DNA might be able to last as much as 400 times longer in bone.
Allentoft, M.E. et al., The half-life of DNA in bone: measuring decay kinetics in 158 dated fossils, Proc. Royal Society B 279(1748):4724–4733, 7 Dec 2012 | doi:10.1098/rspb.2012.1745.
Yet Schweitzer’s team detected DNA in three independent ways. Indeed, one of these chemical tests and specific antibodies specifically detect DNA in its double–stranded form. This shows that it was quite well preserved, since short strands of DNA less than about 10 bp don’t form stable duplexes. The fluorescent molecular probe DAPI lodges in the minor groove of a stable double helix, which requires even more bp, and the stain Propidium iodide (C27H34I2N4), a fluorescent stain. is also an intercalation test.
4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole, a fluorescent stain. DAPI can bind to a 12-bp piece of DNA, as long as there are 4 A-T pairs, according to Larsen, T.A. et al., The structure of DAPI bound to DNA, Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics 7(3):477–491, 1989 | doi:10.1080/07391102.1989.10508505.
Again, the first possible response by long-agers is “contamination”. But the DNA was not found everywhere, but only in certain internal regions of the ‘cells’. This pattern was just like in ostrich cells, but nothing like biofilm taken from other sources and exposed to the same DNA-detecting pattern. This is enough to rule out bacteria, because in more complex cells (such as ours and dinos), the DNA is stored in a small part of the cell—the nucleus.
Schweitzer’s team detected a special protein called histone H4. Not only is yet another protein a big problem for millions of years, but this is a specific protein for DNA. (DNA is Deoxy-riboNucleic Acid, so is negatively charged, while histones are alkaline so positively charged, so they attract DNA). In more complex organisms, the histones are tiny spools around which the DNA is wrapped
Segal, E. et al., A genomic code for nucleosome positioning, Nature 442(7104):772–778, 17 Aug 2006; DOI: 10.1038/nature04979. – AND – Schweitzer, M.H., Montana State University Museum of the Rockies; cited on p. 160 of Morell, V., Dino DNA: The hunt and the hype, Science 261(5118):160–162, 9 Jul 1993.
And so following on from the above cited reference, But histones are not found in bacteria. So, as Schweitzer et al. say, “These data support the presence of non-microbial DNA in these dinosaur cells.”
Schweitzer, M.H. et al. Molecular analyses of dinosaur osteocytes support the presence of endogenous molecules, Bone, 17 Oct 2012 | doi:10.1016/j.bone.2012.10.010. See also Thomas, B., Did scientists find T. Rex DNA? Did Scientists Find T. Rex DNA? | The Institute for Creation Research, 7 Nov 2012.
A paper published in early 2020, Schweitzer was a co-author, the claims are more explicit as to the presence of intact dinosaur DNA
Bailleul, A.M., Zheng, W., Horner, J.R., Hall, B.K., Holliday, C.M., and Schweitzer, M.H., Evidence of proteins, chromosomes and chemical markers of DNA in exceptionally preserved dinosaur cartilage, National Science Review nwz206, 12 Jan 2020 | doi:10.1093/nsr/nwz206.
In an earlier paper, they claim that to interact with the probe molecules like DAPI, double-stranded piece of DNA of at least 6 base pairs required, based on a 1995 paper, although an earlier paper suggested that DAPI can bind to a minimum 12-bp piece of DNA, as long as there are 4 A-T pairs, since DAPI intercalates into “the minor groove of A-T rich sequences of DNA.”
4′,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole, a fluorescent stain. DAPI can bind to a 12-bp piece of DNA, as long as there are 4 A-T pairs, according to Larsen, T.A. et al., The structure of DAPI bound to DNA, Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics 7(3):477–491, 1989 | doi:10.1080/07391102.1989.10508505.
That paper says:
This study provides the first clear chemical and molecular demonstration of calcified cartilage preservation in Mesozoic skeletal material, and suggests that in addition to cartilage-specific collagen II, DNA, or at least the chemical markers of DNA (for example, chemically altered base pairs that can still react to PI and DAPI), may preserve for millions of years.
Bailleul, A.M., Zheng, W., Horner, J.R., Hall, B.K., Holliday, C.M., and Schweitzer, M.H., Evidence of proteins, chromosomes and chemical markers of DNA in exceptionally preserved dinosaur cartilage, National Science Review nwz206, 12 Jan 2020 | doi:10.1093/nsr/nwz206.
Mary Schweitzer’s said:
"It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones are, after all, 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?”
Schweitzer, M.H., Montana State University Museum of the Rockies; cited on p. 160 of Morell, V., Dino DNA: The hunt and the hype, Science 261(5118):160–162, 9 Jul 1993.
But this just shows the grip of the long-age paradigm. A more reasonable and indeed scientific question would be:
This looks like modern bone; I have seen blood cells [and blood vessels] and detected hemoglobin [and now actin, tubulin, collagen, histones, and DNA], and real chemistry shows they can’t survive for 65 million years. What I don’t see is the claimed millions of years. So we should abandon this doctrine. The above references adapted from an article by Jonathan D Sarfati.
I wish you well and we will have to agree to disagree on this.
God Bless,
jon
You do realize that your above statements contradict?
You can safely assume that I am familiar with Schweitzer’s work and the YEC spin on it. Mary Schweitzer has published on pathways for soft tissue breakdown products to be preserved over millions of years.
2 Likes
It is now 31 years later, and we really are not much further along. A few molecules and microscopic structures detected here and there. Quite unlike mammoths found frozen that are largely intact. Good interview with Dr. Schweitzer first hand: Not So Dry Bones: An interview with Mary Schweitzer - BioLogos
3 Likes
Hi Ron,
thank you for your post.
In answer: Not at all!
There is absolutely no contradiction whatsoever.
I can only assume that it is your dogmatic attachment to uniformitarian philosophy and belief in evolution and its corollary of ‘billions of years of deep time’ that has lead you to this invalid conclusion.
Do those millions of years match the alleged age of Dinosaur samples tested from 65+ million years?
God Bless,
jon
Thanks Phil, I’ll check it out.
God Bless,
jon
From Wikipedia
Uniformitarianism… is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.
When you claim “real chemistry shows they can’t survive for 65 million years”, you are asserting that a present measurement can be extrapolated to the past.
You claim not to subscribe to uniformitarianism, but assert a uniformitarian claim.
The issue is that you cannot just sweep aside evidence for an ancient earth by labeling it as uniformitarian. Processes where the rates are well understood, such are radioactive decay, are based on solid, observational science.
Soft tissue was a surprising find, but the amounts involved are minuscule and altered, and they are not evidence of recent burial. The absence of far more intact preservation negates any possibility that dinosaurs were alive at any recent time.
Philip J. Senter - Soft tissues in fossil bone
this review corrects misconceptions and links studies of archaeological bone to studies of fossil bone, to elucidate the mechanisms by which cells and soft tissues are preserved in bones for hundreds, then thousands, then millions of years.
1 Like
For starters reading it as ancient literature tells us exactly what “the image of God” means.
Perhaps the densest amount of items comes from recognizing that the Genesis writer took the Egyptian creation story as his starting point; that makes Genesis 1 into a whole series of slams against not just individual Egyptian gods but their entire cosmology.
Then there’s the fact that as a 'royal chronicle" the opening Creation account does in fact depict a conflict between Yahweh and chaos – which also serves as polemic against the Egyptians.
And the temple inauguration aspect gives guidance for understanding the second Creation story, plus making sense of the “days” motif; additionally it makes better sense of the progression of the content of the various days (including the difference between “Let light be!” and setting up light sources).
Essentially, reading the first Creation story as the ancient literature it is provides theology upon theology and more theology. Reading it the YEC way is like playing with toy farm animals.
2 Likes
Why do you insist that the Bible teaches science?
And unless the world is understood as flat, then a literal reading of Genesis 1 makes no sense.
In one course we tackled ancient Egyptian texts. I remember when we hit a pair of tablets of complaints that sounded like they could have been editorials in our newspaper: a lament for how the younger generation was turning out so badly, and a complaint that civilization was being dragged down by the multitude of lawyers.
Yeah, going that route ends up in the same situation as Roman Catholics in the Middle Ages who believed that being born of a woman made a person unclean from the start, so Mary had to be miraculously conceived, and her mother also, and her mother, and so on all the way back to the Garden: if humans have been degrading all along, then God must have miraculously preserved one genetic line for Jesus to be born from.
The amount of geological ignorance behind that statement is mind-boggling.
I have read a couple of dozen claims from YECists about what things at Mount St. Helens supposedly prove, and not a one would have passed basic college introductory science – none. It is both saddening and sickening to hear Christians making such foolish claims that cause the world to laugh at God.
She has also commented on what the YEC folks have said about her work – and she was politer than I would be able to be.
You mean the uniformitarian philosophy that comes from believing that Yahweh is trustworthy and dependable and does not change the rules in the middle of the game?
That’s exactly what we should conclude about Creation from reading the old covenant scriptures: Yahweh doesn’t change the rules He established and is not capricious about His doings.
1 Like
Young earthists don’t just reject uniformitarianism; they take their rejection of uniformitarianism to levels so extreme as to be deep into the realms of very soft science fiction if not outright fantasy. Accelerated nuclear decay is just one example.
There are some things that it is perfectly reasonable to assume were the same in the distant unobservable past as they are today. There are some things that it is completely unreasonable to suggest could have been different in the distant unobservable past from what they are today. For example, it is not reasonable to suggest that the Earth was originally flat and covered by a solid dome, only to assume the spherical shape that it has today during the time of Noah’s Flood. Even young earthists will admit that much.
In the same way, it is not reasonable to assume that the basic laws of mathematics and measurement could have been different in the past. Furthermore, some hypotheses of non-uniformity make testable predictions. For example, if the fundamental constants of physics (the speed of light, the fine structure constant, the strength of the electromagnetic force, the mass ratios of the elementary particles and so on) had ever been different in the past, then life as we know it would not have been possible. This is because just about everything else in nature depends on these fundamental constants, and so to change them would have all sorts of knock on effects that would be extremely far reaching.
This is why nuclear decay rates could not have been different in the past from what they are today. It is also why zircon crystals could not have been created containing lead in the quantities that we see today either. These things require changes to the most fundamental constants of nature such as these in order to happen.
The problem, of course, is that the Mount St Helens claims by young earthists violate two of the most fundamental rules of accurate and honest measurement.
- Unreliability must be quantified.
- Unreliability is specific to the context in which the measurements are taken.
The Mount St Helens study took freshly erupted samples and had them dated using an obsolete form of uranium-lead potassium-argon dating by a laboratory that specifically said on its website that it didn’t have the high precision equipment needed to date samples less than 2 million years old. This being the case, it was no surprise to anyone that the results came back ranging up to about 2.8 million years. However, young earthists repeatedly tout these examples as “evidence” that more modern techniques with better precision, on samples a hundred times older, must also be so out of whack that they could easily have been formed just yesterday for all we know.
This is like taking an old, rusty set of mechanical bathroom scales and seeing that it reads a couple of kilograms when you’re not standing on it, then when you stand on a new set of electronic bathroom scales and see a reading of 90 kilograms, concluding that you could quite plausibly weigh nothing. It simply doesn’t follow.
In a nutshell: the soft tissue findings all have perfectly reasonable and credible explanations that are fully consistent with the known laws of physics and chemistry, and hand-waving them away as “rescuing devices” won’t change that fact. Nothing has been found that doesn’t.
Young earth rescuing devices, on the other hand, require the invention of new laws of fantasy physics that, by their own admission, would have vaporised the Earth’s crust many times over if they had any basis in reality.
3 Likes
Reminds me on the book :the Manifold Beauty of Genesis One by Davidson and Turner
2 Likes
Welcome to the Biologos Forum. I think it would help you to realize that your question has no definitive answer. The Creationist view of Genesis is to make a purely imaginary story into a historical reality. Trying to establish the actual start of the first day by connecting our knowledge of the universe to a literal meaning of Genesis is like figuring out how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. What your imagination tells you is as good as anything someone else might tell you. There is no objective ‘reality’ to it. When I say that the creation account in Genesis is a purely imaginary story, I am referring to a strict literal understanding that does not apply any knowledge to it that we obtain from current observation of the universe. The Creationist view includes the complete remaking of the universe as a result of Noah’s Flood. What we experience of the universe now is not what it was like before the Flood. You don’t need to agree with that understanding, but it is essential to realize it if you want to comprehend a Creationist view.
1 Like
Hi Ron,
thank you for your comment and stating what you believe to be true.
“Uniformitarianism, also known as the Doctrine of Uniformity or the Uniformitarian Principle, is the assumption that the same natural laws and processes that operate in our present-day scientific observations have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.”
And there it is in your quote, the word assumption.
In a similar vein, my understanding of uniformitarian philosophy, for what its worth, is that it originated from James Hutton who said, “The result therefore of our present inquiry is, that we find no vestige of a beginning - no prospect of an end.” That belief was championed by Charles Lyell who strenuously argued at the Royal Society, London in the mid nineteenth century that the formation of Earth’s crust took place through countless small changes occurring over vast periods of time, all according to known natural laws. His “uniformitarian” proposal was that the forces molding the planet today have operated continuously throughout its history. Of course I strenuously disagree with the whole uniformitarian concept and see it as a belief system that has deceived many since it was first pushed on academia about one and a half centuries ago.
Since the mid nineteenth century, of course the definition has been expanded to include more than just geology, but at it’s core, whether you agree or disagree, it is an assumption and the basic thrust remains the same.
But you claim that the two statements of mine that you quoted contradict each other, which I refute as clearly nonsense, and yet another baseless claim.
I do not consider uniformitarian philosophy to be at all valid because uniformitarian philosophy makes absolutely no allowance for the catastrophic events that took place such as the global flood as reliably and faithfully recorded in the Bible.
The magnitude of the flood completely reshaped the surface of the planet, and is clearly evidenced by the geology that screams out of vast continental scale catastrophism.
Repeatable, empirical science that doesn’t rely on assumptions about what happened in the distant past as practiced in the lab by millions of honest scientists who have no other agenda except to test samples and hypotheses and draw conclusions from their results is absolutely valid and calls the alleged ages of dinosaur bone and soft tissue into question!
The findings from that same empirical science in chemistry and physics doesn’t permit the types of organic matter found in the dinosaur bones to exist for 65 to 300 million years, unless (wittingly or unwittingly), the scientist/s doing the research already have a ‘deep time’ worldview that influences how they see the world. Having that worldview is not at all surprising as it is constantly rammed into everyone in western cultures, on the media, in the educational institutions and faithfully not questioning it can be the difference between getting a job position or a research grant, such is the power play these days.
What do you think of the following statements from leading secular scientists:
Dr Marcelo Gleiser, an agnostic theoretical physicist and cosmologist who won the 2019 Templeton Prize, admits, “When you hear very famous scientists making pronouncements like … cosmology has explained the origin of the universe and the whole, and we don’t need God anymore. That’s complete nonsense,” he added. “Because we have not explained the origin of the universe at all.”
Reference: Couronne, I., Physicist Marcelo Gleiser: ‘Science does not kill God’, news.yahoo.com, 19 March 2019.
And they never will for it was a miracle of God (Genesis 1:1)
We are all one race, one family
The front page of the April 2018 National Geographic showed a blue-eyed, fair-skinned, blonde-haired girl standing alongside her brown-eyed, medium-brown skinned, dark-haired sister, with the caption, “Black and white: These twin sisters make us rethink everything we know about race”. Editor Susan Goldberg admitted that, “some of the magazine’s archive material left her ‘speechless’, including a 1916 photo of Australian Aborigines with the caption ‘South Australian Blackfellows: These savages rank lowest in intelligence of all human beings’.”
Goldberg, S., For decades, our coverage was racist. To rise above our past, we must acknowledge it, nationalgeographic.com, April 2018
As the late Stephen Jay Gould once wrote, “Biological arguments for racism … increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.” The NG magazine cover and caption confirms that we are indeed all “one” race (Acts 17:26)
Gould, S.J., Ontogeny and Phylogeny, Belknap-Harvard Press, pp. 127–128, 1977.
A fossil ichthyosaur from Germany’s famous Holzmaden quarry has been found with “fossilised blubber” and skin remains. Called Stenopterygius, this extinct marine reptile is said to be 180 million years old. Dr Johan Lindgren of Lund University in Sweden says, “the still-flexible skin meant the specimen must have been fossilised so fast that organic molecules were trapped inside the mineral component of the fossil."
indgren, J. et al, Soft-tissue evidence for homeothermy and crypsis in a Jurassic ichthyosaur, Nature 564:359–365, 5 December 2018.
Recent fossil finds by Chinese scientists revealed such an astonishing level of preservation that slow-n-gradual burial is not an option. Found along the Danshui river in China’s Hubei province, thousands of fossilised jellyfish, sponges, anemones, worms, arthropods and algae are said to have been “entombed in an ancient underwater mudslide.” Dr Martin Smith, a palaeontologist at Durham University excitedly said, “[The] preservational quality is mindblowing … If you sent a time traveller back to the Cambrian period armed with a camera and an x-ray machine, the images they’d come back with would be nothing compared to these fossils, which preserve detail finer than a human hair.”
Sample, I., ‘Mindblowing’ haul of fossils over 500m years old unearthed in China, The Guardian, 21 March 2019.
In their paper the scientists make clear that the exquisite preservation of the fossils is due to a sudden mud flow that swept the animals into cold, deep water, thus slowing decay.
Fu, D. et al, The Qingjiang biota—A Burgess Shale–type fossil Lagerstätte from the early Cambrian of South China, Science 363(6433):1338–1342, 22 March 2019.
Fossil evidence that is wonderfully compatible with the Noahic Flood was reported in the prestigious journal Science.
Wang, X. et al, Egg accumulation with 3D embryos provides insight into the life history of a pterosaur, Science 358(6367):1197–1201, 1 December 2017
Over 215 eggs (maybe up to 300) were found in a sandstone block, assigned to a species of pterosaur called Hamipterus tianshanensis. Some had embryonic remains, but what really caught popular attention was that the “pterosaur eggs had soft parchment-like shells”.
Authors Xiaolin Wang (Institute of Vertebrate Palaeontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing) and Alexander Kellner (National Museum of Brazil in Rio de Janeiro) write, “This sedimentological data, associated with the exceptional quantity of eggs and bones, indicate that events of high energy such as storms have passed over a nesting site, causing the eggs to be moved inside the lake where they floated for a short period of time, becoming concentrated and eventually buried along with disarticulated skeletons.”
That is quite imaginative, but what is certain is the conclusion that a high energy watery event is needed to explain such preservation.
Briggs, H., Fossilised eggs shed light on reign of pterosaurs, Home - BBC News, 30 November 2017.
In recent years, Dr Mary Schweitzer, famous for publications of genuine unfossilised soft tissue in dinosaur bones, has been experimenting to see whether iron-rich fluids could explain how their tissues, proteins and DNA could have lasted for millions of years. But Prof Matthew Collins, a world authority on biogeochemistry and biomolecular archaeology at University of York (UK), is very sceptical that iron from haemoglobin could have done the magic required: “I have yet to hear a plausible explanation for how soft tissues can be preserved for this long … for me they’re defying basic chemistry and physics. … Iron may slow down the decay process but it’s not clear how it could be arrested altogether.”
Prof Matthew Collins quoted in: Morton, M.C., Cretaceous collagen: Can molecular paleontology glean soft tissue from dinosaurs? Earth, 16 October 2017; earthmagazine.org.
And finally, back to Mary Schweitzer, since the discoveries she made were interpreted within the uniformitarian dogma, that Theistic evolutionists believe, she was extremely sceptical at first, e.g. the pioneer Dr Mary Schweitzer:
“When you think about it, the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it should be gone, it should be degraded completely.”
Schweitzer, M., Nova Science Now, May 2009, cross.tv - Dinosaur Soft Tissue Troubles Evolutionists.
I am well aware that Mary Schweitzer has tried to explain the results away, but most unconvincing from the viewpoint of known empirical chemistry. The presence of detectable proteins such as collagen, haemoglobin, osteocalcin, actin, and tubulin that are complex molecules that continually tend to break down to simpler ones.
Thus, it is obvious to anyone who has eyes to see and a mind to reason that the utterly preserved cells of dinosaur soft tissue, that are most definitely NOT remnants, that they must be relatively recent in age or they simply would not exist. The belief that scores of different dinosaur soft tissue from all over the Earth are 65 to 300 million years old merely serves to show the high degree of indoctrination that many have assimilated in there absolute obedience to the ruling paradigm that controls academia and the media in the word today.
The very fact that people actually believe that examples of exquisitely preserved dinosaur soft tissue CELLS in some cases are hundreds of millions of years of years old demonstrates an inability to think for themselves, and instead dogmatically hold to the powerful ruling paradigm! This clear fact is multiplied further when we consider precisely where many of the dinosaur bone and soft tissue were found in environments where climatic conditions are most unfavourable for preservation.
Around four and a half thousand years is a very long time, however, the incessant indoctrination of deep time in academia and the media, has believers in evolution think of it as a mere blink of the eye, such is their absolute adherence to interpreting everything within a uniformitarian ‘deep time’ paradigm framework.
God Bless,
jon
There’s something you need to understand about the word “assumption”, Jon.
It is not a get-out-of-jail-free card to let you reject anything and everything about science that you don’t like.
In order to challenge a scientific theory by challenging its assumptions, there are three things that you must do.
- State exactly what the assumptions are, giving precise technical details.
- Make sure that the theory really does make the assumptions that you are claiming that it makes, and that scientists haven’t come up with new methods that manage to test or work around those assumptions.
- Provide a credible explanation for how those assumptions could have been violated in a way that is consistent with both your alternative explanation and the raw evidence, right down to the precise measurements and the correlations between them.
And the word you are using incorrectly here, Jon, is philosophy.
This is a point that I’ve made before on these forums. Before you can address the philosophy of science, you must first make sure you are getting your facts straight about the mechanics of science.
The mechanics of science are the basic rules and principles by which science operates, that do not depend on anybody’s worldviews, and that are the same for everyone, whether they are a Christian or an atheist or a tractor worshipper from Tauri-Hessia.
It is the mechanics of science, not the philosophy of science, that tells us that the world we live in is 4.5 billion years old and not six thousand.
OK Jon, let’s assume you have a point here and that the cells of dinosaur soft tissue isn’t entirely the ultimately stable final breakdown products. If we didn’t have radiometric dating and thousands of other different lines of evidence that tightly constrain the fossils’ ages to >65 million years, then you might be able to make a case for arguing them down as low as about one or two million years, but no younger.
Why? Because, as I said, at six thousand years, we would expect to find whole carcasses with sufficient intact DNA to sequence the entire T-Rex genome.
I’ve already pointed out to you what soft tissue looks like after a few thousand years. Twice. The stuff we find in dinosaur bones, fully decayed or not, doesn’t come anywhere close.
4 Likes
But don’t you see, those methods were designed within the uniformitarian ‘deep time’ paradigm framework, thus it should be obvious and to be expected they produce results consistent with the paradigm within which they were drafted.
Why?
God Bless,
jon
No they weren’t. They were designed to test the “uniformitarian ‘deep time’ paradigm framework.”
The claim that radiometric dating only gives deep time results because it assumes deep time results is total nonsense told by people who flat-out lie about how radiometric dating actually works, and mindlessly regurgitated by people who don’t know what a mass spectrometer is.
Because we already have carcasses of other things that are known to be that old. I included pictures of two examples – Ötzi the Iceman and Tollund Man. There are dozens and dozens of others that I could cite.
3 Likes