Franko #fundie

Franko #fundie libertydwells.com

Dr. Schweitzer CAN'T come to any other conclusion because she is trapped. The possibility that the bones are not millions of years old can not be entertained, NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE IS - even if it's screaming in her, or any other believers in long ages of evolution's, face. The Priests of Evolution will not allow it. Dr. Schweitzer needs grant money, and anyone who goes against the grain will lose their funding also.

The obvious conclusion, if one has no bias, is that the bones can not possibly be anywhere near 68 million years old. The only reason to claim that the bones are that old is by faith in the religion of evolution, not by scientific observation.

So how old are the bones? No one can know for sure, but OBSERVATIONAL SCIENCE says they are not millions of years old. Any other suggestion would be one of faith, not science.

So when scientists claim to know that dinos died out 68 million years ago, I know they are wrong. They should know they are wrong, but they refuse to entertain the idea, they are in denial. They can't let science take them where it leads, they have blinders on.

54 comments

old comment by aebars

Nowhere here do you say WHY they can't be 68 million years old. You're just saying, as far as I can tell, anyway, that we can't be sure that they're that old because we haven't directly observed said passing of time (the old "how do you know, were you there?" argument). As has been said innumerable times before, we rely on other evidence besides direct observation to determine the age of the bones, other evidence that creationists cannot advance for their own theory, which therefore puts us in a better position than them. DIRECT OBSERVATION IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO DISCERN THAT SOMETHING HAPPENED, DIPSHITS. If such were not the case, the people known as forensic detectives wouldn't exist.

old comment by dionysus

By the way, why can't the idea of younger dinosaur bones be entertained? Scientists would absolutely LOVE to find something like that. Even if you believe there's some multi-national, multi-religious scientific conspiracy young dinosaur bones wouldn't disprove evolution any more than finding living coelacanths disproved evolution. It might change some established facts of paleontology but having a species go extinct after they were thought to go extinct does literally nothing to the Theory of Evolution. Just like if, in a criminal case, a victim is presumed dead and later found that doesn't mean that the perpetrator never attacked the victim. It just means the victim never died.

old comment by Horsefeathers

"The Priests of Evolution will not allow it. Dr. Schweitzer needs grant money, and anyone who goes against the grain will lose their funding also."

1: Coming to a conclusion that is directly opposite of the currently held opinion and then successfully defending it via evidence is how scientists become famous, dipwad. Look at Einstein.

2: Grants are more likely to be given to cutting edge research. If you could show evidence that our current understanding of evolution, the dating of the Earth, or anything else was incorrect you'd be flooded with grant money to continue your research.

"The obvious conclusion, if one has no bias, is that the bones can not possibly be anywhere near 68 million years old."

That is only obvious if you do have a bias, doofus.

"The only reason to claim that the bones are that old is by faith in the religion of evolution, not by scientific observation."

Evolution is not a religion, no matter how many times you idiots claim it to be.

"So how old are the bones? No one can know for sure, but OBSERVATIONAL SCIENCE says they are not millions of years old."

I'm pretty sure that you can date them quite accurately with methods borrowed from geology, or simply knowing the species that the specimen belongs to since it's likely already been dated before.

"Any other suggestion would be one of faith, not science."

You seem a bit fuzzy on how this science thing actually works.

"So when scientists claim to know that dinos died out 68 million years ago, I know they are wrong. They should know they are wrong, but they refuse to entertain the idea, they are in denial. They can't let science take them where it leads, they have blinders on."

You're delusional.

old comment by Stonespiral

So I'm gathering this is about the vascular remains found in that T-Rex bone right? Schweitzer herself said that finding only told them they still didn't know enough about decay and nothing about the age of the earth.

The bone itself was a rare case, an intact leg bone, trapped quickly in sandstone that hadn't been moved around by other forces so that it wasn't cracked or broken in any significant manner. The 'tissue' inside were the sturdy remains of what are assumed to be large vessels with all the biological components removed and a few fossilized iron remains of hemoglobin still making a blood cell kind of shape.

There was no DNA, it was not blood, it was not fresh in any use of the word. It was a fascinating discovery that told us how much could survive in a well sealed environment and we've found more things like it at the cellular level since.

old comment by dionysus

The Priests of Evolution will not allow it. Dr. Schweitzer needs grant money, and anyone who goes against the grain will lose their funding also.

Do you know how much money convicted tax evader Kent Hovind made just speaking to audiences of believers? If some scientist found out that the Earth is 6000 years old and that dinosaurs lived with humans and for some reason other scientists didn't want to accept it, Dr. Schweitzer could have taken her show on the road and made enough money speaking to Creationists that she could have laughed in the face of the grant providers. Indeed, even if she had no evidence (like Hovind) she could make a much more lucrative career out of telling gullible believers that the Earth is 6000 years old than she's likely to make as a paleontologist spending years or even decades of research that may or may not produce new results. In fact, if your research isn't producing new results you're less likely to get big grants.