Yet *more* evidence for a young creation ...

[Jorge]

.
.
... or is it?

Nah, of course not! When any such evidence is found the Evo-Faithful merely re-interpret it to support their faith-based conclusions. That way, "Heads, Evos win; tails, biblical Creationists lose."

In the latest round, here's their re-interpretation:

"Researchers from North Carolina State University have confirmed that blood vessel-like structures found in an 80 million-year-old hadrosaur fossil are original to the animal, and not biofilm or other contaminants. Their findings add to the growing body of evidence that structures like blood vessels and cells can persist over millions of years..." [emphasis mine]

Source: Researchers Confirm Original Blood Vessels in 80 Million-Year-Old Fossil
https://news.ncsu.edu/2015/12/schweitzer-vessels/


You see boys and girls, before these things were discovered any scientist even suggesting that blood vessels and soft tissue could last for tens of millions of years would have been laughed out of his/her position, probably had their tenure and/or their degree revoked and probably have been tar-and-feathered in public for even suggesting such outright imbecility that opposes not just common sense but basic physics and chemistry.

But, (drum roll please) ... after the evidence is found, and given that Evolution MUST be upheld at ALL costs, they simply move the goalposts back into the next county and continue with their mantra as if nothing had happened.

HEAVEN FORBID that any of them should entertain - let alone suggest - the notion that, "Hey, perhaps these finding are NOT tens of millions of years old ... maybe there's truth to the biblical time frame."

Never happen! Paychecks, job security and professional recognition are far too important to step out on a limb like that. They'll propose anything, even advanced alien civilizations or blood vessels lasting for 80 million years, before accepting the biblical time history.

Oh well ... dumbos will be dumbos will be dumbos!

Jorge

[Wally]

Bless your heart.

[shunyadragon]

Bless your heart.

He will need it!

[rogue06]

[psstein]

First off, I'm a theistic evolutionist, I believe that's where the evidence leads. Most YEC attempts to deal with the starlight problem are, at least in my opinion, problematic at best.

However, I think Jorge makes an important point. It almost seems as though evolution can't be wrong, at least in the eyes of some people.

[Wally]

First off, I'm a theistic evolutionist, I believe that's where the evidence leads. Most YEC attempts to deal with the starlight problem are, at least in my opinion, problematic at best.

However, I think Jorge makes an important point. It almost seems as though evolution can't be wrong, at least in the eyes of some people.

The problem for Jorge is, evolution could be completely wrong, and it would have no affect on the evidence for the age of the earth.

[shunyadragon]

First off, I'm a theistic evolutionist, I believe that's where the evidence leads. Most YEC attempts to deal with the starlight problem are, at least in my opinion, problematic at best.

However, I think Jorge makes an important point. It almost seems as though evolution can't be wrong, at least in the eyes of some people.

Careful with 'seems,' among layman many things can 'seem' to be, but among scientists, evolution and other related disciplines of the geology of the earth can be wrong at times as our evolution of knowledge changes over time just like other sciences, but the foundation knowledge of Geology and the Life Sciences has accumulated to the point that the basic concepts of evolution and the history of our earth and universe will not change much if any at all. The earth will remain ~4.8 billion years old, and life evolved from primitive non-life forms beginning ~4 billion years ago.

[Duragizer]

Yet *more* repetitive drive-by poop-flinging from Jorge.

[Kbertsche]

.
.
... or is it?

Nah, of course not! When any such evidence is found the Evo-Faithful merely re-interpret it to support their faith-based conclusions. That way, "Heads, Evos win; tails, biblical Creationists lose."

In the latest round, here's their re-interpretation:

"Researchers from North Carolina State University have confirmed that blood vessel-like structures found in an 80 million-year-old hadrosaur fossil are original to the animal, and not biofilm or other contaminants. Their findings add to the growing body of evidence that structures like blood vessels and cells can persist over millions of years..." [emphasis mine]

Source: Researchers Confirm Original Blood Vessels in 80 Million-Year-Old Fossil
https://news.ncsu.edu/2015/12/schweitzer-vessels/

...

Jorge

This research is connected to Mary Schweitzer, who is a co-author of the paper that Jorge links to. I highly recommend the interview with her published by BioLogos a few months ago. Here are a few excerpts:

Source: Mary Schweitzer in BioLogos

For three hundred years we thought we knew how fossils formed—that an animal died, was buried, and all the organics rotted away, leaving small spaces that later filled with mineral. But that explanation never accounted for some things we see in fossils, like skin for example. Yet what this meant—the implications of it, were not considered by most paleontologists. Finding soft tissues that responded to our tests like modern materials in many ways, suggested that after three hundred years of looking at this stuff, we don’t know as much as we thought. ...

One thing that does bother me, though, is that young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and misrepresented the data. They’re looking at this research in terms of a false dichotomy [science versus faith] and that doesn’t do anybody any favors. ...

© Copyright Original Source

(emphasis mine, for Jorge's benefit)

The upshot of this research is simple and straightforward. Paleontologists were wrong in assuming that these structures could not survive for millions of years. The evidence says that they can survive for this long. This new realization violates no known laws of science.

[theophilus]

Most YEC attempts to deal with the starlight problem are, at least in my opinion, problematic at best.

That is only a problem for YECs who also believe in YUC, Young Universe Creation. Most who hold this view believe that the statement that God placed lights in the sky on the fourth day means that he created the bodies that produced the lights on that day. That isn't necessarily the case. The fact that there were three days each consisting of a day and a night before this shows that the sun already existed; apparently the atmosphere of the earth was so cloudy that although the light from the sun reached the earth the sun itself couldn't be seen. On the fourth day God removed the clouds so that the sun, moon, and stars were visible from the earth.

Paleontologists were wrong in assuming that these structures could not survive for millions of years. The evidence says that they can survive for this long. This new realization violates no known laws of science.

Or they were right but the fossils simply aren't as old as they say they are.

[rogue06]

This research is connected to Mary Schweitzer, who is a co-author of the paper that Jorge links to. I highly recommend the interview with her published by BioLogos a few months ago. Here are a few excerpts:

Source: Mary Schweitzer in BioLogos

For three hundred years we thought we knew how fossils formed—that an animal died, was buried, and all the organics rotted away, leaving small spaces that later filled with mineral. But that explanation never accounted for some things we see in fossils, like skin for example. Yet what this meant—the implications of it, were not considered by most paleontologists. Finding soft tissues that responded to our tests like modern materials in many ways, suggested that after three hundred years of looking at this stuff, we don’t know as much as we thought. ...

One thing that does bother me, though, is that young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and misrepresented the data. They’re looking at this research in terms of a false dichotomy [science versus faith] and that doesn’t do anybody any favors. ...

© Copyright Original Source

(emphasis mine, for Jorge's benefit)

The upshot of this research is simple and straightforward. Paleontologists were wrong in assuming that these structures could not survive for millions of years. The evidence says that they can survive for this long. This new realization violates no known laws of science.

In an earlier interview Schweitzer, who is an evangelical who describes herself as "a complete and total Christian," has stated that she has begun to take it personally when evolution deniers misrepresent her work saying that, “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”

[37818]

Not just this dated 80 million year old find . But the vast majority of such geological finds the specific methodology used to give the cited age is not given.

[shunyadragon]

Not just this dated 80 million year old find . But the vast majority of such geological finds the specific methodology used to give the cited age is not given.

Not true. If you read the layman's literature the methodology may not be provided in detail, but I you read the actual technical research articles the dating methodology is provided in detail.

[HMS_Beagle]

Not just this dated 80 million year old find . But the vast majority of such geological finds the specific methodology used to give the cited age is not given.

That's not true. You just have to know how to follow the data in the paper. This specimen was found embedded in the lower Judith River Formation near Malta, Montana. Radiometic dating places the Judith River deposition occurring over a 5MY span around 79 MYA.

The first radiometric ages from the Judith River Formation (Upper Cretaceous), Hill County, Montana
Goodwin, Deino
Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, 1989, 26(7): 1384-1391, 10.1139/e89-118

Abstract: A new isotopic age of ca. 78 Ma was obtained by the conventional K–Ar method and by laser-fusion 40Ar/39Ar analysis of biotite and sanidine crystals from two bentonites in the Judith River Formation of Kennedy Coulee, Hill County, Montana. The 40Ar/39Ar analyses yielded weighted mean ages of 78.2 ± 0.2 Ma (biotite) and 78.2 ± 0.2 Ma (sanidine) for sample 84MG8-3-4, and 79.5 ± 0.2 Ma (biotite) and 78.5 ± 0.2 Ma (sanidine) for sample 85MG7-16-1. These are the first isotopic age determinations from the Judith River Formation. The dated bentonites in Kennedy Coulee bracket two significant Judithian "age" mammal localities, UCMP V77083 and V81234.The radioisotopic age of ca. 78 Ma for the Hill County local faunas and correlations of other Judithian local faunas with marine units suggest that the duration of the Judithian was at least 5 Ma. Judithian local faunas are probably correlative with the late Campanian of the Western Interior. Similarities in the principal Judithian mammalian faunas from Alberta, Montana, and Wyoming can now be interpreted as documenting a low rate of evolutionary change rather than individual or populational variation of approximately contemporaneous local faunas.

[rogue06]

That's not true. You just have to know how to follow the data in the paper. This specimen was found embedded in the lower Judith River Formation near Malta, Montana. Radiometic dating places the Judith River deposition occurring over a 5MY span around 79 MYA.

Every paper published in a science journal, that I can recall reading, describing a fossil lists how the age range for the discovery was determined.