arguments for young earth

Percivale

Sam
Supporter
Feb 13, 2012
924
206
Southern Indiana
✟122,996.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Does someone have the scientific responses to the young earth creationist claim that red blood cells, unfossilized tissue, etc. have been found in fossils dated far too old for them to have been preserved that long? There was one about a T rex bone...
 

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
Upvote 0

classicalhero

Junior Member
Jun 9, 2013
1,631
399
Perth,Western Australia
✟11,338.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Liberals
Upvote 0

Papias

Listening to TW4
Dec 22, 2005
3,967
985
58
✟57,276.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
The problem is that based on what we know, such structures shouldn't exist after the alleged age.


False - we hadn't really looked before.

Note that the "soft tissues" weren't actually soft or bendable until they had been chemically treated. This has been discussed here before - it doesn't help creationism at all, and even the researcher who found the first material like this was surprised that creationists were trying to misportray it as helping creationism.

It's kinda funny to see creationists still trying to make it sound as if this helps them - afer over a decade since this was found. In all that time, scientists have found many other similar examples, and it's not a big surprise anymore.

In Christ-

Papias
P.S. Also, the same researcher has found a possible chemical reason for the preservation. Here's the article: http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

gluadys

Legend
Mar 2, 2004
12,958
682
Toronto
✟24,020.00
Faith
Protestant
Politics
CA-NDP
The problem is that based on what we know, such structures shouldn't exist after the alleged age.

On the contrary, based on what was assumed to be the case, such structures should not exist in such an ancient fossil.

But, this was the first time such fossil material was examined in this way. Typically one does not deliberately break a fossilized bone to see what it is like inside. Nor, as was stated in the article, does one typically give it an acid bath.

So, we did not know until this was done.

And now we do know that sometimes soft material can be preserved inside fossilized bones over 70 million years old. And it may be worth looking for it.
 
Upvote 0