Replies

"But I do appreciate how your version eliminates the veterinarian altogether. Less embarrassing that way, isn't it? After all, no one less than a pathologist (according to you) can recognize red discs of blood sitting in a vein, right?"

Ah, by vet I thought you were specifically referring to Gayle. But yes, the pathologist is a vet as well. Actually, I would think that Gayle, as a histologist, would be somewhat more qualified to identify the remains. Although pathologists do quite a bit of that kind of work too.

I'm not sure who it is that you think should feel embarrassed, or why. Mary? Gayle? I have no idea how difficult it was to identify the remains as red blood cells under a microscope.

"Are you trying to make a joke? Or have you drunk so deeply of the evolutionist Kool Aid, you don't see how ridiculous that statement is?"

So let me see if I have it straight on what it is you think happened: Mary doesn't think it's red blood cells - Jack isn't even open to the possibility of it being red blood cells, so he instructs his employee to spend her time trying to prove that they're not red blood cells. Do you really don't see how ridiculous THAT is?

"Shweitzer's boss advised her to find evidence to show that what looked like red blood cells was NOT red blood cells--& you claim this means he thought they WERE red blood cells?"

YES. Unless he thought they WERE red blood cells - or at least quite open to the possibility - why would they BOTHER trying to prove that they're not?

As I asked before: Isn't that the advice you would expect him to give if he thought they might be remains of blood cells? What, pray tell, do you think he would say?

Let's say you were a scientist with lab technicians, and you think that perhaps your group has made an amazing find - let's call it 'X' - what would you instruct your lab technicians to do? I would instruct the technicians to do their very best to prove it's NOT X!

And news flash: THAT'S HOW SCIENCE IS SUPPOSED TO WORK. If you have a theory, you do your darndest to disprove it first before publishing it for the world.

Your post is just shy of lucid. Before going any further, please clarify. Here’s what you wrote:

“Ah, by vet I thought you were specifically referring to Gayle. But yes, the pathologist is a vet as well. Actually, I would think that Gayle, as a histologist, would be somewhat more qualified to identify the remains. Although pathologists do quite a bit of that kind of work too.”

Here’s what I had posted:

‘The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. One of the vets went up to Callis and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?”’

So you are claiming to identify the ‘one of the vets’ by name? Where do you get this info? Link, please.