Dinosaur Soft Tissues and Evolutionist Science Deniers
by Cowboy Bob Sorensen
Edited 12-14-2015
Evidence supporting an old Earth has been iffy for a long time. Uniformitarian geologist Charles Lyell (a lawyer by trade) wanted to free the science of geology from Moses, and famously gave his own estimates of the rate of erosion for Niagara Falls despite evidence to the contrary. Today, there is deceptive reporting in paleontology.
Dishonesty is not surprising. After all, atheists and other anti-creationists are opposed to the biblical worldview, and are living up to their own ethical standards. In addition, they don't look too kindly on scientific evidence that refutes long ages, and microbes-to-minerologist evolution requires huge amounts of time. Ain't happening, but they need the time for their Just So Stories. There have been numerous challenges to long ages of late from many places, so evolutionists are circling the wagons to defend their failed paradigms.
One of the biggest challenges to long-age geology is the fact of soft tissues and blood in dinosaurs (see "Fear and Loathing of Dinosaur Research by Evolutionists"). When material supporting a young Earth is published, especially the dinosaur material, anti-creationists go on a jihad. At The Question Evolution Project on Facebook, I made this post with the latest video by Mark Armitage on dinosaur soft tissues, and received the usual fact-free responses from trolls that I removed.
On December 1, 2015, Creation-Evolution Headlines shared a report that was released that same day confirming "80 million year old" hadrosaur blood vessels were really and truly blood vessels. I shared this news, and as expected, various trolls attacked. One was as dense as a singularity. He said,
Edited 12-14-2015
Evidence supporting an old Earth has been iffy for a long time. Uniformitarian geologist Charles Lyell (a lawyer by trade) wanted to free the science of geology from Moses, and famously gave his own estimates of the rate of erosion for Niagara Falls despite evidence to the contrary. Today, there is deceptive reporting in paleontology.
 |
| "Dinosaur Fossils" image courtesy of khunaspix / FreeDigitalPhotos.net |
One of the biggest challenges to long-age geology is the fact of soft tissues and blood in dinosaurs (see "Fear and Loathing of Dinosaur Research by Evolutionists"). When material supporting a young Earth is published, especially the dinosaur material, anti-creationists go on a jihad. At The Question Evolution Project on Facebook, I made this post with the latest video by Mark Armitage on dinosaur soft tissues, and received the usual fact-free responses from trolls that I removed.
On December 1, 2015, Creation-Evolution Headlines shared a report that was released that same day confirming "80 million year old" hadrosaur blood vessels were really and truly blood vessels. I shared this news, and as expected, various trolls attacked. One was as dense as a singularity. He said,
"Hi there.! Do read this article... you would know that recovery of soft tissues from extremely old dinosaur fossils isn't unexpected, though rare. For instance, partial blood tissues have been recovered from a late cretaceous T-rex. But if you can indeed prove that this is testimony for the fact that the earth is young as opposed to scientifically tested dating methods, by all means submit your research paper up for peer reviews and collect your Nobel Prize".Why do they keep doing the "Nobel Prize" nonsense? Anyway, he didn't read the article, and wanted to refute it with an old, irrelevant link to secularists' speculations. When he was challenged by another person to check out peer-reviewed creationist material, he blustered, "'peer reviewed' [lack of capitalization in the original] as in reviewed by the scientific community? Go ahead, prove it, and collect your Nobel Prize". There he goes with the "Nobel Prize" stuff again. Aside from making no sense, he seems unwilling to admit that creationists have published peer-reviewed material in secular and creationist circles. This kind of prejudicial conjecture is not impressing people with sensibilities. I predict more empty rhetoric from them all over teh interwebs.
In addition to being science deniers, anti-creationists are known for lying. They also use logical fallacies to distract and manipulate people into avoiding the evidence that creationists present. If you study on it for a spell, you might agree with me that both lying and manipulation take away choices, which may be why we detest being on the receiving end of such practices. Manipulation contains an emotional element, too. Either way, you can't make an informed decision if you're prevented from knowing the whole story.
Anti-creationists hate having their religion of evolution challenged, so they lash out instead of examining the evidence. It wouldn't do for them to admit that the evidence shows that there is a Creator, geologic evidence supports the global Noachian Flood instead of uniformitarianism, astronomy refutes secular cosmology...they don't want that. But the truth remains despite their persistent machinations. Yippie ky yay, secularists!