Skip to comments.#3 Soft Tissue in Fossils10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth
Posted on 04/29/2013 8:13:56 AM PDT by kimtom
"... A recent discovery by Dr. Mary Schweitzer, however, has given reason for all but committed evolutionists to question this assumption. Bone slices from the fossilized thigh bone (femur) of a Tyrannosaurus rex found in the Hell Creek formation of Montana were studied under the microscope by Schweitzer. To her amazement, the bone showed what appeared to be blood vessels of the type seen in bone and marrow, and these contained what appeared to be red blood cells with nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals). The vessels even appeared to be lined with specialized endothelial cells found in all blood vessels.
Amazingly, the bone marrow contained what appeared to be flexible tissue. Initially, some skeptical scientists suggested that bacterial biofilms (dead bacteria aggregated in a slime) formed what only appear to be blood vessels and bone cells. Recently Schweitzer and coworkers found biochemical evidence for intact fragments of the protein collagen, which is the building block of connective tissue. This is important because collagen is a highly distinctive protein not made by bacteria. (See Schweitzers review article in Scientific American [December 2010, pp. 6269] titled Blood from Stone.)
Some evolutionists have strongly criticized Schweitzers conclusions because they are understandably reluctant to concede the existence of blood vessels, cells with nuclei, tissue elasticity, and intact protein fragments in a dinosaur bone dated at 68 million years old. Other evolutionists, who find Schweitzers evidence too compelling to ignore, simply conclude that there is some previously unrecognized form of fossilization that preserves cells and protein fragments over tens of millions of years. Needless to say, no evolutionist has publically considered the possibility that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old. ....."
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
Other than, ..” ...I guess soft tissue can survive...millions of years....”
The possibility that fossils could be younger cannot be allowed. yet fossilization (mineralization) does not take long at all (decades) (longer for more complete).
I don’t think that we (Christians) have any business trying to guess the age of the Earth. Scripture simply doesn’t say, and why would it? But the other side has many problems. Science and Christianity are compatable. Sadly, many use one as a way to “disprove” the other.
There’s some things we don’t know. And there is a God. Deal with it.
A: None of the above.
Wrong, the Bible does tell us. Only those who refuse to look at the evidence in Scriptures refuse to admit it.
Christians who refuse to accept what the Scriptures say are only worried about being ridiculed by those who already been proven wrong.
I believe evolution thru natural selection is fact and changes species over time. But these species evolve as a subset of that original species. I see no evidence where one species begets another different. There are no crossover croca-horse fossils.
Just as a point of fact, red blood cells do not have a nucleus.
Just something to consider when/if a question of the scientific knowledge of the author(s) of this piece comes up.
That soft tissue has been found in fossilized bone is not in dispute, for the record. (Actually, to be precise, from what I’ve read, it’s not “tissue” rather some proteins typically found in bone marrow, but not the marrow itself.)
I just HAD to say something about that “red blood cells with nuclei” comment though.
Whoops I commented too quickly. “and these contained what appeared to be red blood cells with nuclei, typical of reptiles and birds (but not mammals)”.
Reminds me of the punchline "frog with no legs can't hear".
I guess encased in solid rock, which is what a fossil is, moisture and soft tissue will not dry and harden. The question is why didn’t all the tissue calcify? That is the miracle.
“Appear to be” or variations used 5 times.
This appears to be nothing too substantial.
Science and Religion are not incompatible, the only folks that find them incompatible are the folks who subscribe to literal reading of every line of the old testament, particularly the pre-history parts, which of course flies in the face of all serious Theology.
The “young earth” theory, that the earth is just a few thousand years old is not supported by any basis, theological or scientific, its nonsense.
This very article is a bit silly, the evidence suggest tissue was found in the fossil, great, the supposition by the young earth theory is the fossile can’t possibly be millions of years old because of this, without any real evidence to support that, other than a theory, the opposite proposition is that soft tissue under the right circumstances could indeed survive millions of years.
Its not suprising the young earth theory folks are arguing a non bending proposal, and the sceintific folks are arguing hmmm perhaps there are things we don’t quite know... Yet, the “religious” and I do use that term very loosely here, are claiming that the other side is being unyeilding and absolute.
According to first mover theory, change in and of itself is proof of God’s existance, yet there are so many incredibly ignorant folks claiming that theories around change are an attack or affront to God that its nonsense.
ANyone so utterly ignorant of theological teachings, then trying to argue someone else’s theories are an affront to them is foolhearty on both fronts.
The Holes in the “Young Earth” theory are massive, let alone the very idea that the bible tells the age of the earth to begin with, which when read literally or figuratively it clearly makes no such offering.
Meanwhile, Schweitzers research has been hijacked by young earth creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldnt possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, its not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzers data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as a complete and total Christian. On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
As a Christian I’ve never understood why it is an article of faith to some people that the theory of evolution be proved wrong. For myself I really don’t care what science does or does not prove, it has no effect on my faith.
You claim the Holy Spirit will not enter the heart of a person that does not share your peculiar interpretation of the first few verses of Genesis.
You are very close to comitting the unfogivable sin. The Holy Spirit will go where the Holy Spirit will go.
You can allow that is a possibility to your friend. The wonderful thing about science is that you can follow the evidence, and you can design and construct experiments that prove or disprove a theory.
You can simply insist that both of those possibilities are likely, but if you were assigning PROBABILITIES, which would have a higher probability?
Fact is that this is one more evidentiary element.
I had a thought the other day that it should be a law of ethical conduct within the scientific community that if one was stating a theory, or postulating some sort of guess, that you should be required to say something along the lines of, “It is our belief, based on the best evidence we have that . . . “
This is how global warming became a fact. It was a lie repeated sufficiently that billions and billions of dollars and many careers have been wasted.
Science is in very bad shape at the moment. Stating something definitive about a theory or belief should be a career-ender.
Christ used many parables to illustrate His points. It doesn't diminish Christian faith to realize that the parables were stories. I think of Genesis the same way.
Wow! What an article.
Now tell us how the chemical elements in the young Earth got there, and where they came from.
Because if one holds not that "the Earth is younger than science says" but rather "the Old Testament chronology of births and deaths is an accurate timeline of the Earth's age" then all it takes is a clear indication of 20,000 years or thereabouts.
You think of Genesis as a parable.
Do you have scripture that shows that Christ considered it that way?
The parables He told were clearly stated as parables.
Genesis is written as a history.
It is NOT written as history. It is inspired by God but written with the understanding and vocabulary of a bronze age shepherd.
This is true, but not only that they conveniently forget definitions, like day being "one rotation of the Earth with respect to the sun"/"the time it takes the sun to return to the same position in the sky" -- in the first few days of creation there is no sun (or Earth on the first day) -- the Hebrew word for 'day' there can mean "some period of time", which we even have in English for the meaning of 'day' (e.s. "back in my day", "in the days of King David" etc).
The young earth theory, that the earth is just a few thousand years old is not supported by any basis, theological or scientific, its nonsense.
This is untrue, if God is omnipotent and superior to creation then he could run through the creation-events in seconds rather than days/millennia -- that is to say that he could have spread out the universe after "the big bang" (creation of light) faster than light's own speed [like blowing up a balloon increases the distance between points on the surface] -- so there's no reason to dismiss a literal 24-hrs out of hand.
Another interesting possibility is the time between the creation and the fall -- if there is no death before the fall, then would man have aged? It therefore makes some sense to start counting Adam's age as being from the fall & expulsion from Eden rather than his creation-date; granted, that's non-literal and a bit of a leap, but not unreasonable.
The Holes in the Young Earth theory are massive, let alone the very idea that the bible tells the age of the earth to begin with, which when read literally or figuratively it clearly makes no such offering.
There are problems with the old earth theories too, maybe not as many but they are there: Helium, IIRC, shouldn't be on this planet at all if it's millions of years old because at the rate of loss that we have now it would have all run out.
When it gets down to the nitty-gritty of daily living it must be asked: does it matter? And I've got to say 'no' -- it doesn't matter if the 'day' is literal or figurative because it's not about 'days', it's about God creating & how that impacts the human-God relationship.
The main problem, as I see it, is that evolution is violation of God creating things and declaring they reproduce "after its own kind."
I agree; but
The gaps do not account for 1000’s of years.
I would not be dogmatic and say 4004 B.C. either.
“It is NOT written as history.”
Says you with the level of authority that you have.
Same here, but I'm Catholic and all I need to believe is that God is reponsible for all Creation and that at some point He breathed life into Man. The rest of it is a lot of noise and I'm not sure why people get so worked up about it.
Death before sin is a problem as well, because death is a consequence of sin.
Science and Religion are very compatible, the only folks that find them to be otherwise are the folks who subscribe to the outdated and unproven Darwinianism.
The young earth theory, that the earth is just a few thousand years old has more evidence than evolution has, yet the flat earth evolutionists refuse to even consider the facts.
The backlash from the flat earthers becomes a bit silly after awhile. The evidence proves of the presence of soft tissue in a dinosaur was found in the fossil. Which proves that dinosaurs are not as old as the flat earth evolution society suggests. We have more evidence to prove the earth is not billions of years old, than the flat earth evolution society has that the earth is billions of years old.
Other than a theory, evolution has never ever been proven as fact. Its not surprising that the evolutionists and their old age theory folks argue a non bending proposal.
Evolutionists argue that perhaps there are things we dont quite know, and that is why they continue to cling to their pie in the sky belief that has never ever been proven.
Yet, because Christians dare to show the evidence that disproves evolution and their billion year old earth theory, they will go out of their way to even attack Christians for daring to call themselves scientists.
What really gets me is the way they claim that theological scholars are ignorant of what the Scriptures tell us. Anyone so utterly ignorant of theological facts who try to argue someone elses theories are an affront to both God and Science.
The Holes in the theory of evolution are so massive, that you could literally put the whose universe into them. The idea that they dare to claim that the Scriptures agree with them is actually Blasphemous. Those who claim such an idea, do not even have a cursory understanding of either Hebrew or Greek. So for them to claim they know what the Scriptures say is not just ludicrous, but ignorant!
“...Dr Schweitzers research (as distinct from the Young Earth Creationists interpretation of it) is at Scientific American: ...”
I read the report, doesn’t change the fact that it difficult to ascribe the survival of softer tissues, But the rejection any alternative to the evolutionary interpretation.
Time is just another of God's creations. "Before Abraham was I Am". So to try to trap God into a prison of 7 days and 6000 years is so so foolish.
Science is struggling to get a grip on exactly what time is.
Yes, very well, but that isn’t even an argument presented.
(still too young)
“...I dont think that we (Christians) have any business trying to guess ...”
yes, no one knows.
But this is about two opposing world views.
Actually it is science that has much to answer for, by picking and choosing which facts to make known and which to sweep under the rug...
101 Evidences for a Young Age of the Earth...And the Universe
Center for Scientific Creation - In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
The Holy Spirit will open ones heart to accept God, but when He does, the heart will then accept the Scriptures to be the very Word of God.
Thus the heart will then be open to the truth, and the truth is what the Scriptures say, not what human scientists say.
So, my statement still stands as correct.
I don’t condemn you. Unlike you I don’t believe that’s my job.
This is true.
Though I'm pretty sure that plants don't count for 'death' (i.e. man and animals could certainly eat as many plants as they wanted w/o it counting as death; and carnivores eating may not have counted either -- we have to remember that man is special from all the animals, being made in God's image, so even animal deaths* might not have counted [very spotty, but a possibility])... or maybe the Tree of Life was a Hot-dog tree and carnivores ate that. ;)
* -- God's warning about eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good & Evil would be even more powerful if there was a carnivore/animal-death ecological-cycle going on in Eden because it would have a sort of "if you do this, you'll be part of that cycle" connotation. (Remember that 'the world' can mean mankind as in Jn 3:16.)
** -- Note I'm not denying the Bible, I'm pointing out that the death of man, any man, is a very significant event; likely much, much more than we know or understand.
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God" 2Tomothy 3:16
And the means by which God created everything is broken down in precise detail in the bible?
Let me put this way. In pool, can God get all the balls to go into the holes on the break of the rake? I think all would say yes. Do the balls have to go in instantaneously and simultaneously? Of course not. Now take that example and ramp it up a little bit to the scale of the universe. The goal is still the same, have a specific event occur - creation of Man. Does it really matter that it is done instantaneously and simultaneously? Just like the pool balls, they take their own path to get to the final outcome.
Arguing about the path and duration of the ball’s movements are meaningless, if the intent is the final event - Creation of man.
It doesn’t flipping matter HOW God created man, but that God did.
P.S - Can someone tell me the special biblical exception that allows for an old universe, but young earth? Genesis 1:13-17 doesn’t seem to lend much wiggle room, IMHO. There is TONS of scientific evidence to allow for an old universe.
We are in full agreement.
(And trying to make God a liar by saying they aren't days could be just as foolish: "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God." [1 Cor 3:19])
We are foolish, and ignorant, and arrogant -- and that's where God has to start (because He's the one that starts).
I do not condemn anyone, their words condemn themselves.
I am but defending God’s word against those who claim God does not tell the truth.
God cannot lie, because He is perfect, and to lie is to sin.
God is flawless so He does not sin.
Okay, clearly you believe in young earth, so I ask you this simple quesiton...
How old do you believe the Earth is, and what evidence do you cite to make that claim?
Are you suggesting that Geneisis in its original Hebrew gives the creation date?
Secondly are you suggesting, and with what evidence are you mounting for this, that animals and beasts found to live on the earth and believed by the hethens not to co-exist in time with Humanity did indeed do so?
Third, The great rusting of the oceans of the earth, that hethens believe happened for millions of years, and is evidenced by the massive iron deposits currently being mined, did not happen, how do you suggest they occurred?
None of these suggested things which counter the “young earth” hypothesis disprove God, and no theologian worth their salt has ever suggested that science is at odds with God.
The literal reading of the prehistory of the Bible is an ignorant philosophy that flies in the face of thousands of years of Theology.
>>>The main problem, as I see it, is that evolution is violation of God creating things and declaring they reproduce “after its own kind.”<<<
IMHO all the talk about evolution does is it might reveal some of how God brought about humanity. Even if evolution becomes a proven fact all it does for me is to reveal the mechanism God used to bring about His will. No one will ever convince me that humanity is a mere accident of chance.
Actually it does matter: man was a special creation -- taken from the dust of the Earth and having life breathed into him by God Himself.
To say that man evolved from other animals is to deny that man is special; this is even distinct from saying that evolution is the method for God's creation of animal-life.
Being made in God's own image is a big deal.
P.S - Can someone tell me the special biblical exception that allows for an old universe, but young earth? Genesis 1:13-17 doesnt seem to lend much wiggle room, IMHO. There is TONS of scientific evidence to allow for an old universe.
2 Pet 3:8 -- But you must not forget this one thing, dear friends: A day is like a thousand years to the Lord, and a thousand years is like a day.
IOW, God is not bound by mere time. -- Also consider that a day is one revolution of the Earth WRT the sun... if there is no sun and no Earth, that is an undefined period.
You obviously do not understand how the moder day bibles are put together.
Modern day bibles like the NKJV and NASV are the most accurate bibles on the planet.
They authors used the best original manuscripts available from Hebrew and Greek
You need to study and learn about what you know before you write what you think.