Or is it just another issue, like polystrate fossils, human artifacts in coal, and level of helium in earth's atmosphere, that macro-evolutionists will one day resolve? In case you haven't read about it, just search "soft dinosaur tissue". The T-Rex blood vessels are described as squeezable.
2006-11-01 03:42:20 · 10 answers · asked by John 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Not really,but how quickly they were buried to preserve the tissue is.
2006-11-01 05:59:45 · answer #1 · answered by Derek B 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, "soft" dinosaur tissue is not evidence for creation (and it wasn't soft tissue, it was a residue rehydrated during the cleaning of the fossil). The only indication that such material couldn't survive millions of years was the fact that none that age had been noticed before. So finding some is evidence of..... Nothing (logic). There is no evidence for human artifacts in coal that I am aware of (and I'm a geologist), sounds like another desperate "darwin recanted on his death-bed" myth. The same for polystrate fossils, other than tree-trunks, which are perfectly consistent with the science of geology (you might try cracking a book...). And it may have escaped your notice but helium is very light. It escapes the atmosphere all the time, especially as it is ionized due to the earths magnetic field.
Now on the other side of the coin we have a whole vast science of geology that millions of geologists in capitalist companies use to find all the oil, gas and metals. (Are these the "macro-evolutionists" you're talking about??) Ask yourself, if the science was wrong would the capitalist companies use it in such fine detail?? Or is the whole world in a conspiracy against you.
I'm sure you'll take the later option and believe, in ignorance, the propaganda you have lapped up that somehow there are flaws that disprove the whole vast science you know completely nothing about. The sad thing is that the age of the earth and evolution say absolutely nothing about God. But denying the reality of how our world came to be today is surely denying God.
2006-11-01 04:33:02 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Wow. I looked up the subject on the net and found it to be true. Funny the site I saw is still trying to make the dinosaurs 70 million years old. I don't know what they will discover, but it shows hat scientist do not know everything and that we need to keep our minds open about science - it is a world of discovery - not absolutes. I always used to wonder how they knew for example the skin color or skin covering of something , just from a few bones. I think they will have to revise their story about a comet killing all the dinosaurs - a story that always sounded shaky to me- and maybe they will revise their dates.
I think most will never want to admit to the ever mounting evidence of creation, because they don't want to be responsible to a creator.
2006-11-01 07:18:38 · answer #3 · answered by linniepooh 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't think we have to invoke a supreme being to get a little plasm in the bone. It is possible we don't fully understand how fossilization works. If it is evidence for creation, does that mean the dinos walked the earth 6000 years ago? Or does it mean that god in all his wisdom created the earth with the fossils already in place waiting to be dug up to mislead the unfaithful?
2006-11-01 03:52:55 · answer #4 · answered by jambo 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no evidence for a young Earth. Nada. Nothing.
The reason why we came after the dinosaurs, and why the only mammals found contemporaneously with Tyrannosaurs are cat-sized and smaller is....well... not to put too fine a point on it:
Dinosaurs would have eaten us all.
2006-11-01 03:51:37 · answer #5 · answered by evolver 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's not evidence for creation. It's just edivence. No one knew soft tissues could be preserved for 70 million years, and now they do. This will change the approach to long bones in future finds, and science will continue to advance.
I'm not afraid to conceal sources.
2006-11-01 04:45:04 · answer #6 · answered by novangelis 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It is another nail in the coffin for non young earth - it is just a very big coffin to nail shut.
Add in the Mount Saint Helen's eruption of 1984 has been dated that the rock dome is 2 million years old.
The facts are there if the eyes are open
2006-11-01 03:56:38 · answer #7 · answered by Slave to JC 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Possibly. However, you still have to factor in that possibly just the scientists' theories about soft tissue are wrong. So, as is typical in creation/evolution discussions, things can go either way. I'd love to find a smoking gun either way, but I don't expect we'll find one in our lifetime.
2006-11-01 03:55:31 · answer #8 · answered by MikeG 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yawn.... this one again. Can't you come up with anything new ?
And btw exactly how many times has the ark been "found" at this stage. I've lost count.
2006-11-01 03:45:59 · answer #9 · answered by Cindy 2 · 3⤊ 1⤋
polystyrene fossils?!?
Sure.
2006-11-01 03:44:53 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋