YEC devotees were apoplectic about the find by Dr. Mary Schweitzer of Montana, in her (reliable radio-isotope dated) 68 million year of dinosaur fossils. They gleefully asserted that since dino DNA
(never claimed by Dr. Schweitzer..) or red blood cells
(also never claimed by the Dr.) or indeed any soft tissue could not have lasted that long, and hence, logically, this find "proved" that
dinosaurs were less than 6000 years old.
Instead, Schweitzer's and the U. of Washington's most recent results,
Proteins, soft tissue from 80-million-year-old dino support theory that molecules preserve over time | e! Science News
...
confirm that fossil protein-based
slimy remnants can, indeed, remain discoverable for, so far,
up to 80 million years when or
if they are buried
in certain specific conditions. The
"no dino soft tissue can survive that long!" assertion of non-scientific Creationists is proof in itself of their long-standing scientific illiteracy of this, and most other paleontological or archeological work.
As well, they hope to deny science its right to improve knowledge or understanding on
any areas. This may be because
their only source of knowledge on ancient events is a singular book written, obviously, by non-scientists who simply made up fantasy reasons for poorly observed and documented events of their time.
Strange logic indeed. If such undisturbed tissue or structures
were found, it could easily be in the 100,000+ year old range, given the known decay rate and racemization of proteins.
Evidence against a recent creation - RationalWiki
However, as science so often does, and the Scientific Method
encourages, further study by the prestigious University of Washington has shown that the initial speculation by Dr. Schweitzer
(which is all she ever did...) has proven to be wrong. They only concur that soft tissue is the long-decayed residue of ancient proteins.
New research challenges notion that dinosaur soft tissues still survive | e! Science News
This interesting quote from the article is telling:
Dr. Kaye said he began his research with the hope of being the second person to find preserved dinosaur tissues. In addition to the acid bath procedure used in [Schweitzer's] previous work, he added examination by electron microscope before the bones were dissolved. He was surprised by the findings.
In other words, this scientific team intended to
confirm the original findings, and hoped to provide the second proof. his methodology was more intense and incorporated additional "forensic tools".
But as he also says,
"you have to go where the science leads you, not where you hope it leads you!"
Aha. Yes! The big difference between science and faith-based assumptions.
So now, will YECs drop their absurd claims of
"dino DNA" or
"dino red blood cells"? Nope: I
guarantee it. (just watch the responses to this thread...) On
this sort of evidence, which they happily co-opt, misquote , grossly over-exaggerate on it's results and conclusions
(GORE™), or modify the technical content of, it's considered to be of too much value in convincing the less critical, the less scientifically educated, and will continue to be misrepresented for decades. It's already found it's "rightful" place amongst all the other fantasy techno-finds.
Essentially then, we have
made-up Creationist evidence, vigorously presented as sanctioned by an established and credible university researcher
(who has since agreed with the latest research findings by Dr. Kayne), that YEC presenters will now refuse to acknowledge.
There goes
their credibility, huh?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
