Why Creationists Believe in a Young Earth

[Zaius137]

1. The "fresh meat" characterization by Creationists is incorrect. The femur was fossilzed and the parts of blood and marrow found inside were fossilized as well. Dr. Schweitzer had to paintakingly rehydrate them before they became elastic.
2. The discovery is not new. She published her paper in 2006 - long enough for Creationists to glom onto and mischaracterize it and long enough for her to decry them doing so.
3. There are still some questions about what she actually recovered. I'm inclined to think that soft tissue parts deep in the giant femur of a T-Rex could survive long enough to fossilze themselves rather than it being contamination.

I would really like to see the citations for your assertions at least so I don’t spread bad information.

One thing though Blood and marrow do not fossilize at least these samples that were recovered… Soft tissue parts may leave impressions on a substrate but are easily decomposed. I think they did recover some fossilized lizard skin (no citation).

I have read reports years ago that blood and marrow were occasionally recovered from fossils but dismissed them as nonsense. These reports are from a reputable institution and qualified individuals.

Again I would like to read what the critics have to say… even if it is from talkorigins (albeit a misrepresentation).

 

[AV1611VET]

au contraire...

Daniel 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

 

[USincognito]

How about from Mary Schweitzer herself?

Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

And I was misstating the condition of the soft tissue that was preserved.

In the course of testing a B. rex bone fragment further, Schweitzer asked her lab technician, Jennifer Wittmeyer, to put it in weak acid, which slowly dissolves bone, including fossilized bone—but not soft tissues. One Friday night in January 2004, Wittmeyer was in the lab as usual. She took out a fossil chip that had been in the acid for three days and put it under the microscope to take a picture. “[The chip] was curved so much, I couldn’t get it in focus,” Wittmeyer recalls. She used forceps to flatten it. “My forceps kind of sunk into it, made a little indentation and it curled back up. I was like, stop it!” Finally, through her irritation, she realized what she had: a fragment of dinosaur soft tissue left behind when the mineral bone around it had dissolved. Suddenly Schweitzer and Wittmeyer were dealing with something no one else had ever seen.

This is on page 2.

From page 1.

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.”

 

[SkyWriting]

I also have good reason to believe in the Genesis flood (YEC) because of a recent discovery… I believe for good reason soft tissue from dinosaur bones can not last 70 million years (it is impossible).

Science can't see into the past more than 24 hours. Else there would be fewer unsolved murders. (35%)
I'm not going to trust them any farther back than that.
I know what your thinking, dinosaur bones are important and we wouldn't be wrong about that.
Dead people are a waste of effort. Their dead. Who gives a rip.

 

[RickG]

I would like to read what the critics have to say… even if it is from talkorigins (albeit a misrepresentation).

From Dr. Mary Schweitzer's website at North Carolina State University:

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~mhschwei/NCSU_Paleontology/Mary_Schweitzer.html

Schweitzer MH, Wittmeyer JL, Horner JR. 2007. Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 274:183-187.

Schweitzer MH, Wittmeyer JL, Horner JR. 2005. Gender-specific reproductive tissue in ratites and Tyrannosaurus rex. Science 308:1456-1460.

Schweitzer MH, Wittmeyer JL, Horner JR, Toporski JB. 2005. Soft Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science 307: 1952-1955.

Avci, R., M. Schweitzer, R. D. Boyd, J. Wittmeyer, F. Teran Arce, J. O. Calvo. 2005. Preservation of bone collagen from the late Cretaceous period, studied by immunolocalization and atomic force microscopy. Langmuir 21(8):3584 – 3590.


As for the "talk origins" comment. Please point a specific item you are suggesting is a a misrepresentation.

 

[Zaius137]

From Dr. Mary Schweitzer's website at North Carolina State University:

http://www4.ncsu.edu/~mhschwei/NCSU_Paleontology/Mary_Schweitzer.html

Schweitzer MH, Wittmeyer JL, Horner JR. 2007. Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B. 274:183-187.

Schweitzer MH, Wittmeyer JL, Horner JR. 2005. Gender-specific reproductive tissue in ratites and Tyrannosaurus rex. Science 308:1456-1460.

Schweitzer MH, Wittmeyer JL, Horner JR, Toporski JB. 2005. Soft Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science 307: 1952-1955.

Avci, R., M. Schweitzer, R. D. Boyd, J. Wittmeyer, F. Teran Arce, J. O. Calvo. 2005. Preservation of bone collagen from the late Cretaceous period, studied by immunolocalization and atomic force microscopy. Langmuir 21(8):3584 – 3590.


As for the "talk origins" comment. Please point a specific item you are suggesting is a a misrepresentation.

I don’t think talkorigins pretends to be anything other than an Atheist Web “rag”

I read the news release and it alone could not be more sensational about the finding.

From a,b,c,d of the talkorigins article…

a) "red blood cells" have not been found in dinosaur bone,

Dr. Mary Schweitzer, assistant professor of paleontology with a joint appointment at the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences, has succeeded in isolating soft tissue from the femur of a 68-million-year-old dinosaur. Not only is the tissue largely intact, it’s still transparent and pliable, and microscopic interior structures resembling blood vessels and even cells are still present.

News Release: NC State Paleontologist Discovers Soft Tissue in Dinosaur Bones



b) Schweitzer did not say that there were "red blood cells" in her specimens…

From the news release…

Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution.

OK so it says “resembling” in one part.


c) hemoglobin was not found in dinosaur bone, d) Schweitzer did not say that hemoglobin was found in dinosaur bone,

I’ll give you c and d.


d) Wieland has grossly falsified his account of this research, if he ever read the scientific presentations at all. As Wieland never cited the scientific literature, it is presumed that he never bothered to become informed about the issues that he wrote about. If, however, he has read the actual science, he is guilty of more than "willful ignorance", and has actively lied to a trusting public.

Wieland never intended to write a scientific review just an interest article so (d) is simple talkorigins hype.

 

[Zaius137]

Dino Blood and the Young Earth

Forgot the link itself...

 

[RickG]

I don’t think talkorigins pretends to be anything other than an Atheist Web “rag”

I read the news release and it alone could not be more sensational about the finding.

From a,b,c,d of the talkorigins article…

a) "red blood cells" have not been found in dinosaur bone,

Dr. Mary Schweitzer, assistant professor of paleontology with a joint appointment at the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences, has succeeded in isolating soft tissue from the femur of a 68-million-year-old dinosaur. Not only is the tissue largely intact, it’s still transparent and pliable, and microscopic interior structures resembling blood vessels and even cells are still present.

News Release: NC State Paleontologist Discovers Soft Tissue in Dinosaur Bones



b) Schweitzer did not say that there were "red blood cells" in her specimens…

From the news release…

Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution.

OK so it says “resembling” in one part.


c) hemoglobin was not found in dinosaur bone, d) Schweitzer did not say that hemoglobin was found in dinosaur bone,

I’ll give you c and d.


d) Wieland has grossly falsified his account of this research, if he ever read the scientific presentations at all. As Wieland never cited the scientific literature, it is presumed that he never bothered to become informed about the issues that he wrote about. If, however, he has read the actual science, he is guilty of more than "willful ignorance", and has actively lied to a trusting public.

Wieland never intended to write a scientific review just an interest article so (d) is simple talkorigins hype.

1. Talks origins makes no statements about either being or being associated with any atheist organization.
2. What talk origins does do is point of specific misrepresentations put out by those who misrepresent the scientific literature.
3. Show me a statement they have made about YEC misrepresentation that is incorrect. The accusation is easy to make, back it up.

From the NCSU news relase: "[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]many of the small microstructures present in the T. rex sample displayed the same appearance as the blood and bone cells from the ostrich sample."[/FONT]

Wieland never intended to write a scientific review just an interest article so (d) is simple talkorigins hype.

What Wieland wrote was grasped whole heatedly by the creationist community as legitimate reporting. Talk origins reviewed his work and others that grasped it and exposed the misinformation. The misrepresentation is the problem, not who reports it. Furthermore, the claims of dinosaur blood are still posted on the AiG site. I don't know about you, but as a Christian I have a problem with that in way of the 9th commandment.



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

 

[Split Rock]

I don’t think talkorigins pretends to be anything other than an Atheist Web “rag”

Nice propaganda.

This is from their Archive website: TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

"Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology.

The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences."

Note it says nothing about atheism or religion in general.

 

[SkyWriting]

Originally Posted by Zaius137
I don’t think talkorigins pretends to be anything other than an Atheist Web “rag”

Nice propaganda. This is from their Archive website: "Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology. The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences." Note it says nothing about atheism or religion in general.

The site has the same type of goals offered by The Institute for Creation Research. The difference being that Talk.Org is more of a Wiki format that contributors chosen with the correct mindset are allowed to change the content.

Split Rock is correct that the rag is focused on anti-Creation topics and the spirituality and religious affiliation of it's contributors is not disclosed.

 

[Zaius137]

Nice propaganda.

This is from their Archive website: TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy

"Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology.

The TalkOrigins Archive is a collection of articles and essays, most of which have appeared in talk.origins at one time or another. The primary reason for this archive's existence is to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions (FAQs) that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup and the frequently rebutted assertions of those advocating intelligent design or other creationist pseudosciences."

Note it says nothing about atheism or religion in general.

Like Ian Musgrave an astronomer and born again Atheist talking on probability. By the way his probability lacks in objectivity and facts.

 

[Zaius137]

I want to post something on the Talkorigins website. Do you think that web news page would allow it? It would not… why? It is because it is an Atheist web site. The creation sites seem to state exactly what they are about… What about talkorigins? Don’t be so naive about it talkorigins is an Atheist “RAG”.

 

[Psudopod]

I want to post something on the Talkorigins website. Do you think that web news page would allow it? It would not… why? It is because it is an Atheist web site. The creation sites seem to state exactly what they are about… What about talkorigins? Don’t be so naive about it talkorigins is an Atheist “RAG”.

It's not a forum or a wiki, so you'd need to submit it to them. If what you wrote was worth them putting up, then maybe they would. Given that several of their contributors are Christian (if you look through the old feedback, you'll see several introduce themselves) I see no reason why faith alone would be reason enough to reject you.

 

[USincognito]

The site has the same type of goals offered by The Institute for Creation Research. The difference being that Talk.Org is more of a Wiki format that contributors chosen with the correct mindset are allowed to change the content.

My irony meter explodeth! ICR (and other Creationist organizations) make you sign in intellectual purity oath. That is, you have ignore anything that points away from YECism and/or spin it to make it support YECism. Talk Origins only asks that the content there be sourced and scientific.

Split Rock is correct that the rag is focused on anti-Creation topics and the spirituality and religious affiliation of it's contributors is not disclosed.

That's because the spirituality and religious affiliation has nothing to do with whether the content of the site is factually correct, sourced and scientific or not. That Douglas Theobald is a Christian doesn't change anything in his 29+ evidences essays. That Gary Hurd is a deist doesn't change anything he contributes. That a contributor is an atheist doesn't change anything about what they post.

 

[RickG]

The creation sites seem to state exactly what they are about… What about talkorigins? Don’t be so naive about it talkorigins is an Atheist “RAG”.

If you will show me one statement from that cite that says anything about there not being a God, I will agree, but until then, the site has nothing to do with atheism.

It has everything to do with showing the misrepresentations by creationist organizations in many different fields of science, and demonstrating with "real" science why those misrepresentations are just that misrepresentations.

Again, I'll pose the challenge to you. Show me one thing they post about misrepresented science that is incorrect. Perhaps you should be asking the question to ICR, AiG, etc. why they publish deliberately misrepresented science. I would say they have a lot of trouble with God's 9th commandment.

 

[RickG]

Split Rock is correct that the rag is focused on anti-Creation topics and the spirituality and religious affiliation of it's contributors is not disclosed.

Concerning Talkorigins.org

1. Point out anything they say against any religion or disbelief in any God.
2. Point out anything they state in favor of atheism.
3. Point out anything they say that is incorrect.

 

[AV1611VET]

Concerning Talkorigins.org

1. Point out anything they say against any religion or disbelief in any God.
2. Point out anything they state in favor of atheism.
3. Point out anything they say that is incorrect.

Just out of curiosity, Rick, do you believe that Jesus stilled the storm on the sea of Galilee as it was documented?

Mark 4:39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

 

[Sphendonael]

Just out of curiosity, Rick, do you believe that Jesus stilled the storm on the sea of Galilee as it was documented?

Mark 4:39 And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm.

TalkOrigins has said absolutely nothing about the reliability of Mark 4:39, or the divinity of Jesus. So... why did you quote that?

 

[AV1611VET]

TalkOrigins has said absolutely nothing about the reliability of Mark 4:39, or the divinity of Jesus.

TalkOrigins can take a hike.

So... why did you quote that?

Because Rick is a climatologist, and his opinion carries more weight with me.

 

[Sphendonael]

TalkOrigins can take a hike.

Cool. So, if it wasn't a post about TalkOrigins... why did you post it as a reply to him asking a question regarding the reliability of TalkOrigins?

Because Rick is a climatologist, and his opinion carries more weight with me.

I'm pretty sure that being a scientist devoted to the study of climate, or the study of weather conditions over a period of time, does not necessitate believing or disbelieving in Jesus' ability to magically conjure up wind. Miracles that were written about in an ancient text 2000 years ago are kind of hard to study scientifically.