Volbrigade wrote:
This is to provide compliance in regard to the website that I pasted the text of, without providing a link.
It is one that will be rejected out of hand by many posters on here -- which is why I posted only the evidence itself, not the attribution from which it came.
Whether anyone chooses to review the evidence posited is their own affair. It is, however, not "opinion", as was mischaracterized by Danmark -- but over a 100 observable scientific facts that are the same for evolutionists and creationist alike, and which present problems for those holding the view that microbes somehow morphed into men.
That Dr. Schweitzer herself disputes the claim that her discovery of soft tissue in a T. Rex fossil is an indication of "recent" fossilization, does not change the fact or the evidence. THAT is merely an opinion (hers), which indicates how deeply ingrained the m2m evolutionary bias is, within the secular scientific community (the objection that Dr. S. herself claims to be a "Christian" is irrelevant in that regard. Many Christians are compromisers on this issue).
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is a proof against all argument, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance – that principle is condemnation before investigation." -- Herbert Spencer
http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth
This silliness of Batten's is the same nonsense peddled by Ken Ham and Kent Hovind, who is now in Federal prison for lying and fraud. All the 'reasons' listed have been refuted on this forum and other websites by real scientists.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/101_eviden ... e_universe for example. But it is not enough to simply paste in a URL and call it a day.
The scatter gun approach of people like Batten simply masks the fact that none of his poor logic and misstated facts are valid.
The better approach is to stick to one issue at a time and debate it:
For example, Dr. Schweitzer did not find viable soft tissue in dinosaur bones millions of years old. Essentially what she and her team discovered after taking samples of the fossilized tissue, grinding it up, applying acid and analyzing the powder they made was evidence in of heme structures from what millions of years ago was soft tissue. You can read the actual study here:
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6291.full
This story got 'dumbed down' for inclusion in popular articles for the layman and were completely misunderstood and misused by creationists like Carl Wieland.
'Carl Wieland is the major creationist "dino-blood" source and has presented his distorted interpretations of dinosaur biomolecule research through the Answers in Genesis Ministry: Creation Ex Nihilo (Wieland 1997) Creation (Wieland 1999) and the Answers in Genesis Ministry Webpages (Wieland 2002). His first article we will consider in detail, Sensational dinosaur blood report, opens with the following:
"ACTUAL red blood cells in fossil bones from a Tyrannosaurus rex? With traces of the blood protein hemoglobin (which makes blood red and carries oxygen)? It sounds preposterous to those who believe that these dinosaur remains are at least 65 million years old.
It is of course much less of a surprise to those who believe Genesis, in which case dinosaur remains are at most only a few thousands of years old."
And he ends with
"Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable shapes of red blood cells, in unfossilized dinosaur bone is powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible's account of a recent creation." [Wieland 1997]
These sentences are quite revealing. In barely two text pages, Wieland has shifted from "fossil bones" to "unfossilized dinosaur bone" and claims that a popularized account of one paleontological study is reason enough to abandon the sciences. What possible basis for these wild claims could Wieland have had?
His entire claim of cellular preservation in dinosaur age fossils originated from a selective misrepresentation of a popular magazine account of research by Mary Schweitzer titled "The Real Jurassic Park" (Schweitzer and Staedter 1997). This article was published in 1997 by a magazine called Earth, a for-profit magazine focused on geology and paleontology for the general public. The magazine folded after three volumes. The former Editor, Josh Flishman, has personally acknowledged to me that Earth was a popularization, and not a scientific journal. But in 1997, the popularity of Steven Speilberg's film "Jurassic Park" prompted a tie-in theme at Earth magazine featuring Mary Schweitzer's preliminary analysis of an exceptionallywell preserved portion of a bone from a remarkably well preserved skeleton of a Tyrannosaurus rex.
There were no red blood cells present, and this speaks volumes for the respect for truth shown at Answers in Genesis Ministry.'
“The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,� says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.� The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosau ... retal1997a
To summarize, what Wieland and other creationists have done is spread a lie.
'
The basic lie that red blood cells had been observed in the bone of a T. rex now spread through the creationist literature, with the major vector coming within the
Answers in Genesis publications. Jonathan Sarfati, a former chemist employed by
Answers in Genesis, wrote in his 1999 book Refuting Evolution -
"Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years -- certainly not the 65 million years from when evolutionists think that the last dinosaur lived." [pg. 112, citing Wieland 1997]
This bizarre claim was presented as one of six evidences that the Earth was young. Three significant scientific publications in 1997 and one in 1999 by real scientists are ignored by Sarfati, who not only misrepresented this primary research, but incompetently paraphrased Wieland 1997 to boot. More interesting, the position is hardened that somehow the Schweitzer and Staedter 1997 publication now demonstrated that this fossil was less than a few thousand years old, and this was support for the YEC position. The illogic of this assertion is entirely contained in Sarfati's statement implying that he and his associates know how long organic molecules can survive. This is of course absurd.'
ibid
As the
Smithsonian article put it:
'Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth� creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.� On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,� declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.�'
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... EZ53i42.99
)
