Did science just take a big step towards proving creation?

Question

Scientists just removed dna from dinosaur bones ...
Now first of all, let's think about this. Most molecular biologists will tell you that DNA could not possibly exist for more than 10,000 years," he notes. So, since evolutionists believe DNA does not last millions of years, he says the discovery of DNA in a dinosaur bone is consistent with the biblical account of creation.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/04/biblical_creationist_disputes.php

I read the book of books the HOLY BIBLE.
Carbon dating is totally inaccurate..

Answer 1

Creation has already been proven... it's just the the Atheists can't accept it because they believe there is no god

Answer 2

I heard about this as well a few weeks ago. Something about the 2 different ways they test for age in objects was what I was looking up and somehow came across this.

When they found the dna, they said it's unheard of because worms and such each the parts of the skeletons that have it. Something about the way the bones were buried and where kept it there. I dont remember the details on it, but many think it's a bogus claim and will likely try to refute it. Kind of like all science does. If it's not where they think it should be, they throw it out as "tainted" or "flawed" and rework it to fit what they want. It's why they still ask "what time period is it from?" before they do carbon dating. Kind of silly. They ask what time period they think it's from before the testing begins to find out. Anyone else find that kind of silly? You want to know the date so your results match up?

I personally don't care which way people think it should go, science or creation. It doesn't matter. Why? Because in the next 50 years, things will make the arguement mean nothing and the truth will be known. Things are in motion that can only have 1 outcome. Are you prepared?

Answer 3

I believe you'll find, if you study the issues objectively, that the 80 million-year-old T-Rex DNA recently recovered actually proves the molecular biologist's 10,000 year upper limit was in error. While the dinosaur DNA was severely degraded, it was just possible to prove that birds descended from dinosaurs. To imagine that the recovery of DNA from a dinosaur bone proves that dinosaurs existed 10,000 years ago amounts to blatantly manipulating the facts to promote a particular agenda. Whoever made that claim is certainly not a scientist.

Answer 4

No.

The soft tissue was enough to make me question the dating methods. I can't fathom soft tissue surviving seventy million years, but I'm not a scientist either.

The problem is, however, that the creation of the world is a supernatural event. It is *super*natural, that is, above the natural. Science deals exclusively in the natural. When did the rules for DNA come in? How reliable are your sources (creation scientists are notorious liars, which bodes ill for your doctor)? How reliable are the models used in the testing?

When we deal with the supernatural, science can say almost nothing at all, and when information comes from a group of people noted for lying, then it can say even less. As a Christian, evolution and some scientific theorems can, on occasion, cause me consternation where they collide with empirically verifiable fact, but I will not listen to the charlatans in creation science to resolve it. Any sound answer must come from Truth, and liars will not give me that. You would be wise to avoid them.

Answer 5

OK in the references you'll find a link to the original article on this find. Your tabloid link states in the first paragraph that protein was found in the fossil, then from the 2nd paragraph onwards assumes that DNA was found. This is totally baseless.

DNA is tremendously fragile due to the fact that its job is to break apart and self-replicate (almost) perfectly. Collagen on the other hand (which is what they found) is a tough, non-elastic substance and so its preservation is not controversial. The reason we have not discovered collagen before is that the process of removing it is invasive - in other words, the fossil is destroyed. I'm sure you can appreciate why many people disapprove of the destruction of irreplaceable artefacts.

Answer 6

This is coming from a website that is a clear propagator of creationist belief. Disregardable - give me a decent citation rather than one that claims that "After the Flood, he says dinosaurs were at a disadvantage for survival and most dinosaur species became extinct during the next several hundred years"...

Answer 7

There is a foundational base for all life in the universe. But why can't man just sit it out until unquestionable factual data shows its elusive face. Maybe we have these facts but men are to attached to their old belief to see truth looking them straight in the eye? There are so many new developments out in the world that we don't talk about publicly because man can get stuck in bad datum.

Being able to say I don't know will take man a lot further than wasting his time over stupid arguments of creation verses evolution.

Answer 8

Mary Schweitzer is one of the scientist that found red blood cells in dinosaur bones a few years back from Montana State University. It was a T-Rex. I haven't heard about the one that you are talking about.

Answer 9

Just because some molecular biologists don't think DNA lasts more than 10,000 years doesn't make it so... maybe it lasts longer.

Answer 10

That is the most totally crap question I have seen on here for a long time.

When I was little, I thought it never rained at the seaside, because it was always sunny when we went there on holiday. I now now it does rain at the seaside.
So,
a) Is rain at the seaside a recent phenomenon
b) I learned something new as I grew up.

Additional.
It has been know for a long time that elements of DNA could survive far longer than 10,000 years anyway.

Answer 11

Thank you for demonstrating, yet again, that the only "scientific arguments for Creationism are lies. DNA has been extracted from woolly mammoths that are 43,000 years old and Neanderthal man from 38,000 years ago. Further, what was sequenced was protein, not DNA. Your article merely has one lie supporting another.