Evidence for a Young Earth

by Perry 114 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • OnTheWayOut
    And a few in the atheist community of God deniers (not many now) still ignore 20 years of dinosaur soft tissue documented in science literature. because it is inconsistent with what they choose to believe.

    People in science often propose things and discover exceptions and mistakes. When they are wrong or haven't answered something, scientists will change statements and add thoughts and grow in understanding. Science looks for an answer to explain why the soft tissue exists and Perry scoffs at them. Meanwhile, Perry ignores all the proven science that doesn't fit in his world. Fundamentalists typically remain staunch that the incomplete story written by goat herders is the only explanation. They fill in data and ignore contradictions. And I love how Perry tries to say "No, it's the other way around." Seriously?

    Did you even realize that the soft tissue in this case supports evolution theory?

    The tissue was collagen, they reported in the journal Science, and it shared similarities with bird collagen — which makes sense, as modern birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs such as T. rex. - See more at: http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html#sthash.b0iTeOkU.dpuf

  • Perry
    You have a long way to go to prove there is Dino tissue in fossils.

    No, I do not:

    As listed by Dr. Walt Brown…
    - allegedly 17 million year old magnolia leaf contains DNA (Scientific American 1993)
    - allegedly 18 million year old salamander muscle and vessels filled with blood (Proc. Roy. Soc. 2009)
    - allegedly 40 million year old bee fossil contains LIVING bacteria (Science 1995)
    - allegedly 120 million year old insect fossil contains DNA (Nature 1993)
    - allegedly 200 million year old fish fossil contains DNA (Science. News 1992)
    - allegedly 400 million year old fish amino acids (Journal of Applied Genetics 2003).
    - allegedly 600 million year old rock contains LIVING bacillus (Nature 2000).

    Here you will find a comprehensive list of scientific articles representing 20 years of dinosaur soft tissue documentation.

    It is a fact. Just take a deep breath and deal with it.

  • Anders Andersen
    Anders Andersen


    First, can you state how old you think the earth is? Then at least we know what we're discussing.

    Still waiting for an answer.

  • Half banana
    Half banana

    Religious belief is a perversion! The religious mind has been persuaded to prioritise feelings above fact whereas common sense tells us decisions for action should be based on knowable things and not mystical ideas, however appealing.

    This is not to say that we cannot enjoy delving into the further reaches of the human imagination...we all love that... and we are all beneficiaries of human creativity. The perversion is in believing certain works to be literally divine.

    If this faculty of creative thinking did not exist we would not feel human but then neither would we need to look at the naturally occurring anomalies of science to defend a creationist viewpoint since the overriding evidence confirms that evolving life has existed on this particular planet at the level of backboned animals for half a billion years...and for many times longer than this whole period at the single cell level. Stromatolites (accretions of fossil bacterial mats) being conservatively dated at 3.5 billion years before present.

    Fundamentalists have placed the imaginative cart before the practical reasoning of the horse and imagine an invisible sky god doing all sorts of unprovable things just like our primitive forebears believed...If you were to take this god notion out of the religiously muddied waters the; clear truth of evolution remains.

    There is pleasure in pursuing imaginative works but great satisfaction in understanding the structural realities of the cosmos.

    What motive do you have to deliberately remain being snagged in the imaginative mode of thinking Perry?

  • WhatshallIcallmyself

    Perry -

    Two of your most recent links for examples of "Dino tissue" in fossils are not saying what you are asserting they are. One of the links is an article from New Scientist that discusses a species of bee that has been preserved in amber (not a fossil, or a dinosaur) and the other 1 from physics.org discusses how soft tissue is sometimes fossilised in a way that preserves the original aspect of muscles etc (it is fossilised, not tissue...). What about the rest of your links?

    Do you ever bother to read these links you are providing us with? If you did you might just think twice before linking us to sites that show what you are saying is wrong...

  • WhatshallIcallmyself


    How old would you say the Earth is? Perhaps if you supplied us with that information we could have a starting point for an interesting exchange of information.

  • kaik

    The soft tissue is fossilized, but chemical process was reversed, which gave the opportunity to study the soft tissue, and organic molecules. It is not a raw meat that was preserved. Entire process is described here by woman who invented this method.


  • Anders Andersen
    Anders Andersen

    Great find Kaik. I love this part of it especially:

    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.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

    So here is a devout Christian whose own scientific research does not contradict her beliefs, and other Christians who rape that research to further their own agenda regarding Young Earth nonsense. Nice.

  • Finkelstein

    Creationists have a propensity to be intellectually dishonest , their underlining intent is to extrapolate information and shape it up toward their own self serving biased agenda.

    Any unusual occurrence of discovered evidence and they take the position that all other previous evaluated discoveries are therefore false to their stated acceptance.

    ie. Perry is a intellectually dishonest person who wears a self righteous Christian hat for his own appealing sake.

    There is nothing wrong with scrutinizing information, its just how you do it and with what underlining intent are you doing so.

  • Vidiot

    Finkelstein - "Creationists have a propensity to be intellectually dishonest , their underlining intent is to extrapolate information and shape it up toward their own self serving biased agenda."

    Once again for the newbies, lurkers, and trolls...

    ...if you have to cheat to defend your beliefs, your beliefs don't deserve to be defended.

Share this