Spiderbyte wrote:
Sounds like you think name calling is a substantive argument.
How does soft tissue last millions of years?
First of all, if you look at their procedure, the "soft tissue" was made pliable by the chemical treatment used to remove the bone. It was not "soft" itself. It was called "soft" because in biology, the term "soft" is used to differetiate tissue from "hard" tissues (bone).
Which makes more sense?
1) Soft tissue doesn't last millions of years (common sense)
2) A miracle preserved soft tissue for millions of years? (No sense whatsoever)
There have long been instances of organic material preserved for millions of years. Degradation is highly variable depending on the conditions - for instance, in many soils, a buried body will decompose - including the skeleton - in a matter of years, while in other conditions, things can last a long time. There is no inherent reason why organic material can't last millions or even hundreds of millions of years under the right conditions. Yes, it was an really cool discovery to find this - but nothing impossible.
Your idea that we can just rely on "common sense" instead of data is obviously wrong on it's face - it's "common sense" that the world is flat - just take a look yourself.
What is shocking is that anyone thinks that non-bone preservation is news. Dr. Schweitzer published the Tryannosaur work back in 2005.
1) The dating methods have been proved to have wild errors, (which they have, so don't start in on the no they haven't, they all agree crap)
Hey, a new fallacy! Fallaciously ignoring an argument by a calling it "crap"! So, what is that, the "Argumentum ad Crapum" fallacy?
If you want to go beyond a bare asssertion, you can explain why all the experts accept the dating methods, and you don't.
So the question to you is:
"why do the various dating methods (including C14, K-Ar, varves, dendrochronology, ice cores, obsidian, protein racecimization, speleotherms, superposition, geologic event dating, geomagnetic polarity, Pb/U, association, Rb/St, and others), agree with each other when more than one can be used on the same sample?"
If methods are wrong, they'll give wrong answers. It seems odd to suggest that they'll happen to all give the same "wrong" answer, again and again over hundreds of samples and thousands of tests.
and the soft tissue is the nail on the coffin for long age evolution.
Are you unaware of the fact that an old earth was decided upon, based on the evidence,
by Christians, decades before Darwin published his book? The old age of the earth has been settled for nearly 200 years, just as has been the fact that earth is not flat.
(BTW, they've found even better soft tissue in a triceratops horn, and dinosaur eggs, of course if you'd bothered to listen to the link I posted for you a while back you'd know that. Like I said, blinders)
As pointed out above, that's not a surprise, because non-bone tissues can be preserved depending on the conditions.
2) Continue wasting time with your head in the sand, and refuse to even entertain the idea that God created in 6 days.
Just like you refuse to accept a literal reading of Exodus, which says that God flew the Jews out of Egypt using giant eagles? Do you refuse to even entertain that idea?
Which is more scientific? To exclude a particular avenue out of hand because it threatens a worldview, or to explore all options no matter where they take you? Sorry, but I'm goin with option #2!
Wow, there's a broken irony meter! Tell me, who's worldview is more threatened by the view they think is wrong? If the evidence showed that God created everything by poofing it into existence 6,000 years ago, I'd be fine with that. So I'm comfortable with either view.
Are you, Spiderbyte, comfortable with deep time and common ancestry, regardless of what the evidence says?
In Jesus-
Papias
