Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Wednesday, July 24, 2019

Dinosaur Soft Tissue Deniers Accidentally Support Creation

Looks like the hands at the Darwin Ranch contracted with the Field Museum of Paleontology in Chicago. Like a pesky stain on a shirt or a bad penny, evolutionists cannot escape the devastating facts of soft tissues found in dinosaur bones, which support recent creation and the Genesis Flood.


Evolutionists continue to deny the reality of soft tissues in dinosaur bones. The latest effort inadvertently supports recent creation.
Original image credit:
Triceratops at the Dinosaur Journey Museum, US Dept of Transportation / aschweigert
(Usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)
Secularists tried ignoring the problem, put the spin on tissues, and even sailed on Denial River with Cleopatra. Now they're trying something old and new by digging up failed arguments from 2008 and attempting to research up some confirmation for their biases. I reckon that these folks are unwilling to face reality.




They had some interesting results, but inadvertently confirmed several things that creationists have been saying all along. In addition, several very important facts have been left out in an effort to make a possible exception prove the rule. This is similar to something I've said: If scientists found conclusive proof of actual Darwinian evolution for some critter, it would not instantly prove the general theory of evolution for everything, you savvy?
By dismissing dinosaur soft tissue as bacteria, Field Museum scientists may have given creationists a selling point.

Scientists at Chicago’s prestigious Field Museum of Paleontology have made a frontal assault on claims of original dinosaur proteins in dinosaur bones. The claims that soft tissue can be found in some dinosaur fossils, made primarily by Mary Schweitzer at North Carolina State University, and by others, have invigorated young-earth creationists with alleged proof that the bones are only thousands of years old, not tens of millions. Are they wrong? Were they looking at bacterial biofilms masquerading as dinosaur proteins, blood vessels and blood cells?

It’s an old argument revitalized by new experiments. The Field Museum team of 19 paleontologists from a dozen institutions in the US, Canada, Britain and China sawed out some bone from Dinosaur Provincial Park in Alberta, Canada to check. They took precautions to avoid contamination. They found evidence of recent bacteria, but no collagen (bacteria do not make collagen).
To finish reading, click on "Showdown: Is Dino Soft Tissue Just Bacteria?" A related article of interest is "Soft Tissue Showdown".




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Labels