RIL - News | Forums | Search | Rilpedia | Bibeln | Source

"18 million years old" fossils are young, according to known physics

Main picture

Scientists have extracted organically preserved muscle tissue from an allegedly 18 million years old salamander fossil

What is remarkable about that? Well ... according to current knowledge such tissue should have been petrified, or mineralized long ago (within orders of magnitudes shorter timescales) by the geological processes, so is indeed not what to expect from "millions of years old" dinosaurs.

It appears that when researchers face strong facts against their paradigm, they're ready to believe anything - how improbable it might be - in order to keep their paradigm, since "we KNOW the it is so and so old" (70 million years in this case).

In a 1993 Science article about a finding of what appears to be blood cells/dinosaur DNA. Citing the researcher [1] :

 "I got goose bumps, it was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn't believe it. The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?"

Hmm, why not accept the obvious? Even as, later on in the article it is said:

 "There is no evidence - none - that even a very common, stable macromolecule like collagen has survived for that long," says the Smithsonian's Tuross. "It takes a leap of faith to believe that something like collagen has been destroyed and yet DNA persists".

So indeed, going only by observations and known facts here, something really shouts out that Dinosaurs are indeed young, more around the age predicted by a Biblical framework and nothing like millions of years. But what instead happens is that they add some evolutionary wording, getting an feeling that this somehow strenthens evolution theory when it does the opposite!:

   "That, says Horner, is the big question: Where do dinosaurs fit?' They could be most closely related to either birds or crocodiles - or both or neither. Michael Parrish, a paleontologist and biochemist at Northern Illinios University, argues that with the molecule in hand they will be able to 'answer a lot of questions about phylogeny'"

And there are more findings from supposedly millions of years old rocks/dinosaurs. A recent overview of that is found here:

 http://www.icr.org/article/4628/

Biomolecules in general - according to all known knowledge today - can not persist for at most a few tens of thousands of years. And without those enormous timescales, evolutionists can not even start to think about evolution by random mutations and selection (even though that can't be shown to work in theory either, but the problem gets even more acute). In-built variation mechanisms within the ground types of animals on the other hand, do not need such time scales at all. They don't need to wait for the "impossibly improbable" to happen, they just work as designed. 

Sources

  1. Physorg.com, "Ancient muscle tissue extracted from 18 million year old fossil", (retrieved 2010-01-17)
  2. Science, 1993, "Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype"

 

 http://creation.com/still-soft-and-stretchy

And the news article:

 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/

0
Your rating: None