It’s not ignorance but knowledge. The bone marrow remnants / blood cell components and other soft tissues that Mary Schweitzer found, allowing her to compare her dino with an ostrich and prove the dino was pregnant is an example.
When she presented her landmark work the entire evolutionary community rebelled on the basis it was impossible for these materials to survive that length of time. A few other paleontologists were sacked for reporting these finds.
No doubt the next post will no doubt recite the well-worn reasons and cliches why the complex molecules don’t disintegrate after all, even though such disintegration was well proven, to the extent that disintegration half-lives have been measured and determined. The just so stories get ever more far-fetched.
You may be aware that Ms Schweizer denounces
Creationists for their misrepresentation of her work.
As with the misrepresentation in your first paragraph!
It was not any soft tissue but bone that showed
the dinosaur was pregnant.
Falsehood number one.
Next: "evolutionary community rebelled". ( plus
your invented reason and clearly implied intellectual
dishonesty) Nonsense!
A dramatic new discovery is always to be met
with caution and calls for the most meticulous
confirmation. ([n science, that is; to a creationist,
the first hint was Proof of creationism. Like every
latest finding of Noah's ark)
Total falsehood:
"A few other paleontologists were sacked"
Note the double falsehood worked in with the word
"other".
Last paragraph is just trying to poison the well,
unworthy of the most worthless argument, unworthy
of response.
But withal, not a bad post, as an illustration of
how central falsehoods are to any creo-argument.
