English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Hi folks, I am interested to give this question I asked a week ago another lease of life, just to hear more answers. Please see my earlier link below and I would love to hear your answers. Again I would like to see how the millions of years can be scientifically reconciled with the fact that red blood cells and soft tissue CANNOT last that long.

http://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/?qid=20060809231333AAAAS9u&r=w

2006-08-16 14:40:52 · 8 answers · asked by Seraph 4 in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

To Sage B, the link you posted is again outdated as it was written in May 05. I have posted the link in the earlier thread that is dated 2006. Any suggestion that what was found was not red blood cells or that Carl Wieland was distorting anything has been fully refuted by the scientist's own admission that they are red cells.

2006-08-16 21:19:24 · update #1

8 answers

Of course its a threat-but it will be swept under the rug like most others. Anything that places doubt on the holy theory of evolution, even when evolutionist discover it, somehow just fades away. Evolutionist are fighting to keep the theory 'evolution' on life support. There are now just too many scientific discoveries that remove the support for it. No way could red blood cells survive 65 million years, its impossible. You know, even a thick leg bone could not last that long, 65 million years! All these bones being unearthed were covered up in the flood about 4400 years ago. It has to be a short period, if we still have bones. Red blood cells surviving says -short time period and very cold. And that's all there is to it.
By the way- did you hear that T-Rex was a herbivore?

2006-08-16 14:59:47 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Evolutionist are burying their heads in the sand on this one. They are doing whatever it takes to keep from looking at the evidence. Following good scientific principles would require that they consider all possibilities. But, they are not even considering the possibility that they could be wrong about the age of these dinosaurs. So they are violating their own principles. That is bad science. They had already determined that soft tissue could last only 100,000 yrs at the most. And that # was padded to make sure they could never be wrong. OOPS.
An interesting aspect of this is that it is common practice to date bones based not on testing the bones but by testing the surrounding ground. Why is this important? Because the have also tested lava flows from 1954 and the testing results showed the they were 5 billion years old. From 52 years to 5 billion years. Just a little off, wouldn't you say.

2006-08-16 21:58:35 · answer #2 · answered by unicorn 4 · 0 1

If you look at the actual findings this is yet another discovery that creationists have grossly distorted to fit their view. It doesn't do anything to evolution. Just adds to the knowledge of dinosaurs.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html

2006-08-16 23:58:17 · answer #3 · answered by Sage Bluestorm 6 · 0 0

Thanks for trying...but realize that no matter what you believe or present it will be rebuked and not recognized. Many mainstream scientists have presented good evidence (Michael Behe) to rebuke popular theory. But it won't be recognized, because popular science has made millions and millions of years to explain all and everything.... that thousands of years flies over the tops of educated heads....

2006-08-16 21:52:21 · answer #4 · answered by cypress9silver 2 · 0 0

i believe that god used "evolution" as a tool to guide life, and the "big bang" to start the universe> both are very well proven scientific theories that don't have to conflict w/ the 7 day creation story> we don't know how long the 7 "days" really were, or how long ago god created the earth. maybe he created it millions of years ago, and adam and eve were the first homo sapiens>

2006-08-16 21:46:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

A fossil's not really a bone, it's calcium is steadily wiped out and replaced by other minerals, making it a rock.

2006-08-16 21:47:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Congratulations on being an expert on carbon dating. Now how about a rousing rendition of the second law of thermodynamics?

2006-08-16 21:46:11 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

Im not sure youll get anyone to read it, but I did.

Can I make a side point? It is fascinating, it is awesome, and as a point, it was discovered by a Christian! Feels maybe like God has his hand in it to me!!! Im glad you passed that along, at least to me, I think its cool, and yes, I read it all!

2006-08-16 21:51:34 · answer #8 · answered by sweetie_baby 6 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers