Skip to comments.Creation Museum Marries Adam, Eve and Dinosaurs
Posted on 05/26/2007 9:24:34 AM PDT by Sleeping Beauty
click here to read article
Fossilized bones do. What is your point?
Answers in Genesis Ministry generally, and Carl Wieland CEO-Australia specifically, are the principal sources of the creationists’ repeated falsehood that dinosaurs are modern because blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in fresh bone. There are in fact five gross errors in just those few words that originated with Wieland and Answers in Genesis. These falsehoods are found commonly repeated throughout the creationist literature. We have demonstrated above that Carl Wieland, writing for Answers in Genesis, falsely represented this research to his readers. Minimally any objective reader should be satisfied that within the scientific literature, a) “red blood cells” have not been found in dinosaur bone, b) Schweitzer did not say that there were “red blood cells” in her specimens, c) hemoglobin was not found in dinosaur bone, d) Schweitzer did not say that hemoglobin was found in dinosaur bone, e) Wieland has grossly falsified his account of this research, if he ever read the scientific presentations at all. As Wieland never cited the scientific literature, it is presumed that he never bothered to become informed about the issues that he wrote about. If, however, he has read the actual science, he is guilty of more than “willful ignorance”, and has actively lied to a trusting public. Schweitzer did make some early remarks to news reporters that were easily exploited by creationists such as Wieland. Even the popularized version of Schweitzer’s work was distorted through selective quoting and direct misrepresentation. This is a common problem when trying to communicate science - anything that can be misinterpreted by creationists probably will be. But the test of science is in the scientific literature, and at no point did her speculative remarks enter the scientific dialog.
Serious questions of credibility are raised by the falsehoods and misrepresentations exposed above. The dino-blood chimera has been widely promoted by Answers in Genesis. Wieland wrote -
Such is the stifling effect of the evolutionary dogma that scientists can be blinded to the clear implications of their own data. [Wieland 2002]
The irony is palpable. No scientist could continue his or her career guilty of such shoddy work, but we predict that there will be no negative consequence to Wieland or his organization. If you “own” the truth, you apparently needn’t stint at falsehood.
Although they are not consistent with pyrite framboids, they may indeed be geological in origin, derived from some process as yet undefined; they may have their origin as colonies of iron-concentrating bacteria or fungal spores, or they may be the result of cellular debris, which clumped upon death, became desiccated, and then through diagenetic processes such as anion exchange or others not yet elucidated, became complexed with other, secondary degradation products. [Schweitzer and Horner (1999: 189)]
As fossils, actual bone should not be in the fossils.
Which is what you were denying was possible in the first place.
Funny that you should reference Horner:
(Horner):Young Earth Creationists are like the "Flat Earth" people of last century, they latch on to pieces of straw, ignoring the bale.
24 March 2005, a team of paleontologists lead by Mary Higby Schweitzer published their discovery of dinosaur soft tissues recovered from the cortical bone of a T. rex femur. The three page paper in Science magazine, published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, presents the striking discovery of apparently preserved organic tissues. These include several cell types that the authors feel able to delineate by direct comparison to modern cells recovered from a recent ostrich femur. (Schweitzer MH, Wittmeyer JL, Horner JR, Toporski JK (2005) Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science 307(5717):1952-1955).
Now, unless you have a link for those two other posts, do not bother me anymore.
The Bible doesn't teach it.
Early Christian Cosmology:
It is certain that a few isolated Christian writers explicitly argued against the spherical Earth. Lactantius (245325) calls it "folly" because people on a sphere would fall down; Saint Cyril of Jerusalem (315386) saw Earth as a firmament floating on water; Saint John Chrysostom (344408) saw a spherical Earth as contradictory to scripture; Severian, Bishop of Gabala (d. 408) and Diodorus of Tarsus (d. 394) argued for a flat Earth; and Cosmas Indicopleustes (547) called Earth "a parallelogram, flat, and surrounded by four seas"
There are relatively few historical records of the period between 600 and 1000 for either spherical or flat-Earth thinking (owning to the general scarcity of records from that time). Saint Basil (329379) argued that knowledge about Earth's shape was irrelevant. Later, St. Boniface (d. 755) accused Vergilius (d. 784) of "teaching a doctrine in regard to the rotundity of the Earth, which was 'contrary to the Scriptures.'" (Catholic Encyclopedia.) Pope Zacharias decided that "if it be proved that he held the said doctrine, a council be held, and Vergilius expelled from the Church and deprived of his priestly dignity." Vergilius believed "that beneath the Earth there was another world and other men, another Sun and Moon." Isidore of Seville (Etymologiae, XIV) taught that the Earth was round, but shaped like a wheel, apparently thinking of a flat Earth. However, Isidore refused to take a clear position on the matter, preferring to report other philosophers' opinions, and he also admitted the possibility of the antipodes' existence.