How (Not) to Date a Fossil (article)

Institute for Creation Research ^ | 4-21-2014 | Brian Thomas

[fishtank]

"Apparently, evolutionary thinking blinds its proponents from even considering clues that confound their worldview, like original tissues still inside un-mineralized fossils. The Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology report's press release even displays a Daohugou feathered bird's original bone material and soft tissues that reflect UV light differently than the surrounding mudrock.3 The idea that such biological material—portions of intact soft tissue—can last for even one million years, let alone 160 million, stretches credulity way past the breaking point.4"

ICR article quote.

[fishtank]

[Psalm 144]

Here I thought this was some sort of eHarmony kind of article.

[Scrambler Bob]

You’re not talking about Cougars, are you?

[fishtank]

Slick wants to know if a fossil is anything like a mummy.

[Dilbert San Diego]

Yep, I thought that too. The title made it sound like an article from a woman’s magazine, warning women about getting involved with certain types of men.

[Daffynition]

Ping

[pgkdan]

How (Not) to Date a Fossil (article)

Easy. Just say NO if I ask.

[Telepathic Intruder]

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Does anyone need any extra convincing to not date this fossil?

[sitetest]

I thought this article was going to be on avoiding going out with old men.

[MIchaelTArchangel]

I don’t know about you guys, but if something happened to my wife, I would not mind some twenty-something gal dating me!!

[afsnco]

Similar to evolutionary scientists finding gelatinous heme in the marrow of a partially permineralized t-rex bone. Rather than saying, “Wait a minute, gelatinous heme can’t survive for 65 million years!” they instead say “Under certain conditions, gelatinous heme can survive for 65 million years.” That’s faith, not science.

Same with their belief that a stupendously complex “simple” single-celled organism can form itself from its chemical elements. Darwin ignorantly believed such cells were simple blobs of protoplasm. We know better now, and yet they cling faithfully to this fiction that they THINK/HOPE evades the Judge and Judgment.

[babygene]

Bookmarked

[al_c]

[DManA]

How old is this one?

6000.

And this one?

6000,

How about this one?

6000.

[Mr. K]

Don’t ask her out in the first place!

Ba-dum-bum!

Thank you, I’ll be here all week- try the veal.

[TexasGator]

“Same with their belief that a stupendously complex “simple” single-celled organism can form itself from its chemical elements. Darwin ignorantly believed such cells were simple blobs of protoplasm. “

afsnco is ignorant of Darwin’s beliefs.

[sickoflibs]

RE :”afsnco is ignorant of Darwin’s beliefs.”

AFSNO ?? What is that?

[Fuzz]

“Rather than saying, “Wait a minute, gelatinous heme can’t survive for 65 million years!” they instead say “Under certain conditions, gelatinous heme can survive for 65 million years.” That’s faith, not science.”

No, that’s observation. Faith would be continuing to espouse something ‘true’ with either no evidence or in spite of contradictory evidence.

[Fresh Wind]

I had a feeling I was going to see that picture if I clicked on the thread.

I must be psychic.