Schweitzer on MSNBC

http://newcreationist.blogspot.com/
If "all of the chemistry and all of the molecular breakdown experiments that we've done don't allow for this" and they are using the protein sequences found in this fossil as evidence for a dinosaur/bird connection because they believe it is actual remnants of the dinosaur" then why do they believe it is as old as they say it is when all the chemistry and all the experiments say otherwise? Certainly NOT because the empirical evidence says so but rather because their theory says so. It is quite obvious that the theory is more important to them than the actual evidence even when the theory fails to explain the evidence. This is of course backwards because the theory should change when the evidence does.

http://newcreationist.blogspot.com/2011/02/here-is-msnbc-segment-of-interview...

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Schweitzer
• MSNBC
• soft
• tissue
• T-rex
• fossil
• fossils
• evolution
• creation
• flood

[habfan24]

So,how old is this specimen? How many million years old?

[hugenex2000]

@habfan24 The presence of soft tissue would indicate thousands of years at the very most. My guess is about 4,600 years.

[habfan24]

@hugenex2000 lol How could that be??? But,but but i don't understand, that's not what the intelligent people who wrote the text books taught me???

Oh no, what am I going to do now???

[hugenex2000]

@habfan24 Well, maybe the intelligent people who wrote the text books were wrong! Hard to believe but it's happened before.

What are you going to do now, you ask.

Think for yourself and don't believe everything you hear.

But you already knew that didn't you.

(grin)

[gregrutz]

@RuinSonic The rock chips came from inside a 70 million year old fossil.

[RuinSonic]

@gregrutz How exactly do they know it wasn't contaminated remains from a different animal? I don't understand how it's simply interpretation between Creationists and Scientists. The overwhelming majority of evidence from every field relating to the age of the earth point to an old earth. Finding the newest gap/problem isn't honest science or "thinking for yourself." If you personally believe that with your limited understanding, fine. But you seem quite arrogant to call it proof.

[gregrutz]

@hugenex2000 Ahhhhh NO. NO they did NOT find red blood cells. Red blood cells deteriorate in less than 2 weeks.

See what they found at > watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE

[hugenex2000]

@gregrutz The found red blood cells, soft tissue, pliable blood vessels and collagen bone matrix. The also found and sequenced proteins and compared them to ostridge.

[gregrutz]

@hugenex2000 It was brake down products, No red blood cells, No tissue.

[gregrutz]

@hugenex2000 Correct, It never crossed their minds that the dinosaur was less than 70 million years old. The age of the dinosaurs is too well established, Fact.