Red Blood Cells 70 Million Years Old?

[Dr. Shane]

T-Rex bone with red blood cells

Can red blood cells be 70 million years old?

[bevin]

Google "t-rex red blood cells"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html

To put it bluntly, the pro-creation "christian" "scientists" are lying - they are deliberately misrepresenting complex issues.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Well, AiG does seem to have a couple of discoveries mixed up. The discovery they refer to was by Jack Horner not Mary Schweitzer. However they did make this same claim about the Mary Schweitzer find after they were wrongly informed about it from a published journal.

[Fran]

Well, I don't know about Dino blood, but I do know there is still enough blood on the cross to save us all. The blood is still as active as it was years ago when Christ died.

Praise God! I guess that is the only blood I want to have contact with. Anything else is Yuk.....

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

To put it bluntly, the pro-creation "christian" "scientists" are lying - they are deliberately misrepresenting complex issues.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

Hmmm, I am not sure about who is lying. Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission

[Nicodema]

The problem (as I see it) once again is: agenda.

Agenda gets in the way of everything. Of science. Of the search for truth. "Don't bother me with facts when my mind is already made up!" is the cry of the day. It is the cry of agenda.

I personally don't think regular scientists HAVE an agenda. Sure, there might be exceptions -- there might be a handful of rabid atheistic materialists who are glad to leave God out of the picture -- but they are the exception rather than the rule. Regular scientists take the facts they find and form a conclusion about them which becomes a working theory. In my opinion, they simply don't comprehend that "the things which were made were not made of things which do appear" because to do so negates scientific pursuit in the area of origins. Obviously if we cannot deduce origins from studying what we see, there is no place in the field for the scientific method, which necessitates studying what we can see.

Creation "scientists" -- now there's another story. There is a clear agenda here to "prove" Biblical creation or at least "intelligent design". They have the conclusion foregone and try to fit the facts around it. That is not the scientific method. They can believe, think, and function as they like, but as they are not using the scientific method, the label "scientist" for them is highly questionable.

My mate, who is something of a scientist himself, tells me that all our modern scientific advances -- medical, technological, etc. -- are part of the same science which brings us evolutionary theory, are connected with it, are to some degree an outgrowth of it. I don't know enough about the sciences to objectively evaluate this statement myself.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

I personally don't think regular scientists HAVE an agenda.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

[]http://www.biblepicturegallery.com/Thumb...0the%20sand.jpg[/]

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

My mate, who is something of a scientist himself, tells me that all our modern scientific advances -- medical, technological, etc. -- are part of the same science which brings us evolutionary theory, are connected with it, are to some degree an outgrowth of it.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

What we have today is a result of freedom of thought. That is quite true. Man has always been intelligent but held back by supersticion - much of which was the result of religion (organized or other). America has been the world's beacon of light as it has provided a place where ideas can be nutured and prosper. It is not by chance that the steamboat, submarine, automobile, phonograph, telephone, electric light and airplane were all American inventions. Other nations that have caught up to America have done so because of this spirit of freedom.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

It is not by chance that the steamboat, submarine, automobile, phonograph, telephone, electric light and airplane were all American inventions.

---

Steamboat

[:"blue"]

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blsteamship.htm

In 1769, the Scotsman James Watt patented an improved version of the steam engine that ushered in the Industrial Revolution. The idea of using steam power to propel boats occurred to inventors soon after the potential of Watt's new engine became known.

[/]

Submarine

[:"blue"]

http://www.die-marine.de/english/bauer.html

On February 1st, 1851 the first tests in diving took place,

[/]

Automobiles

[:"blue"]

http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blcar.htm

Nicolaus August Otto

Nicolaus August Otto invented the gas motor engine in 1876.

Gottlieb Daimler

In 1885, Gottlieb Daimler invented a gas engine that allowed for a revolution in car design.

Karl Benz (Carl Benz)

Karl Benz was the German mechanical engineer who designed and in 1885 built the world's first practical automobile to be powered by an internal-combustion engine.

[/]

phonograph

[:"blue"]

http://history.acusd.edu/gen/recording/scott.html

Edouard-Leon Scott de Martinville was born in France in 1817. As a printer by trade, he was able to read accounts of the latest scientific discoveries and became an inventor. On March 25, 1857, he received French patent #17,897/31,470 for the phonautograph.

[/]

telephone

[:"blue"]

http://sln.fi.edu/franklin/inventor/bell.html

A pioneer in the field of telecommunications, Alexander Graham Bell was born in 1847 in Edinburgh, Scotland. He moved to Ontario, and then to the United States, settling in Boston, before beginning his career as an inventor.

[/]

electric light

[:"blue"]

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/inventors/page/i/incandescentbulb.shtml

The first incandescent electric light was made in 1800 by Humphry Davy, an English scientist.

[/]

airplane

The Wright brothers did build the first fully controlled long duration plane - but there was lots of work in Europe and other places....

I think I'll concede the telephone also since the bulk of the work was done in the USA. 1.5 out of 8 isn't bad.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

I guess my point fell on deaf ears. Freedom of thought. Meditate on that for a while. Technological advancement came with freedom of thought. Try not to derail threads just because you get a hair up you know where.

BTW: I got my information from PBS so if it was faulty now you know why.

[Dr. Shane]

Brother Bevin, it saddens me that you seem to just want to fight over silly things. It is simular to what is seen on the playground of an elementary school. It is as if you look for a reason to disagree and insult. That says more about you than it does your victems.

In this case a little research will show Robert Fulton, an American, is creditted for inventing the steamboat. David Bushnell, an American, the submarine. Thomas Edison, an American, the electric light bulb and phonograph. However regardless if they were Americans or living in western Europe, the point I was making is that they were living in societies that allowed free thought. It is free thought that has allowed such techological advances.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

It is free thought that has allowed such techological advances.

---

Here, I strongly agree with you. However American's have a myopic view that only the USA provides, or has provided, such a climate.

The biggest opposition to free thought has been, and continues to be, political - either through organized religion or social order.

One only has to watch the suppression of freedom of thought being promoted by christian denominations in the USA, and by the neo-con's of the Bush administration, to see this in action.

In quite a few ways Western Europeans, Canadians, Australians, NZers, many Asians, and (in some areas) Eastern Europeans such as Russians have more freedom of thought than Americans have right now. Of course the USA is far better than other parts of Middle East, Africa, etc.

/Bevin

[Neil D]

Hmmmmmmm....I thought this thread was aabout Dinosaurs and "Red Blood Cells 70 Million Years Old?", but instead we have this thread about Americans inventors and intellectual freedom???

What does that have to do with the article that was origionally posted???

While I will not deny how easy for me to get lost, this thread seems engineered for one to get that way...

[bevin]

We ended up here quite simply.

Freedom of thought - the ability to examine the facts without preconceptions - is what let scientists to break free from the shackles of religious mysticism and see the evidence for what it is.

This clear sight led straight to evolution. It also leads to accurately understanding the evidence at the start of this thread. It is not surprising that American Christians are simultaneously opposed to other people's freedom of thought, and opposed to the science that leads directly to evolution.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Evolutionists are trying to limit thought in the publ;ic classroom today. They do not want their "sacred" theory of evolution challenged. They want to indoctrinate our children with evolution without having anyone challenge them. That is why those that think evolutionists don't have an agenda are... []http://www.biblepicturegallery.com/Thumb...0the%20sand.jpg[/]

Our public educational system is to teach students how to think not what to think. It is just as wrong today for secular humanists to keep creation or intelligent design from being taught as it was for foundamentalist Christians to pass laws preventing the teaching of evolution - which resulted in the Scopes 'Monkey Trial'.

However that is not to say there is not freedom of thought in America today. The government in America allows private schools to teach a balance ciriculem which presents the science for and against both beliefs. Creationism and evolution do not have two different sets of evidence. The facts are the same in both theories. The difference is the conclusions drawn from the facts. A balanced education will teach the facts and the reasons why different groups come to different conclusions. That is freedom of thought.

[bevin]

There are two ways of looking a science classes.

(a) They should present only the ideas that are not under serious dispute

( They should present the debates that are taking place in science

Today's high-school science classes present ideas that are not seriously disputed in the scientific arena. Evolution is not seriously disputed. There is no strong scientific reason to think evolution is wrong.

If the creationists want to take their inadequate and flawed ideas into the classroom, then they must expect the opposing arguments to be given equal treatment.

They must expect their anti-evolution arguments to be shown to be badly flawed, full of holes, and ludicrous. This will happen. I am unaware of ANY anti-evolution argument that is not seriously flawed.

Do you really want the christian kids to be shown in public school how the deeply wrong their denominations are about this?

/Bevin

ps: I know you do not think that the Creationists are wrong. I feel like a spectator watching a motorist driving a car over a cliff, blind to the fact the cliff is there. I know I don't have credibility with you - but the cliff is really there!

[NormF]

Neil D wrote:</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

...this thread seems engineered for one to get [lost]

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

For those who would rather discuss the matters in this thread with more light and less heat, you're invited to read and contribute to the "T-Rex Soft Tissues" thread in the Origins Forum.

Regards,

Norm

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Evolution is not seriously disputed. There is no strong scientific reason to think evolution is wrong.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

There you are simply wrong. Evolution is one of the most disputed subjects in science. Especially at the high school level.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

Evolution is one of the most disputed subjects in science

---

A different kind of dispute. Scientific dispute is based on "consider this experiment with these measurements", not on "but I don't spiritually like your conclusion".

There are no known experiments that produce results counter to the theory of evolution, and there are no known fundamental flaws in the theory.

Physics can not make that claim - there are deep problems with some of the models of very small things and very short periods of time.

Astronomy can not make that claim - we are still hunting for the dark matter.

In both these areas, the race is on to find a radically different better model. There is no such race in evolutionary theory, because no-one has a flaw to pursue.

/Bevin

[Nicodema]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

Quote:

---

I personally don't think regular scientists HAVE an agenda.

---

[]http://www.biblepicturegallery.com/Thumb...0the%20sand.jpg[/]

---

Cute, but inaccurate. That image belongs to those who think creation apologists claiming to be scientists don't have an agenda.

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

different kind of dispute. Scientific dispute is based on "consider this experiment with these measurements", not on "but I don't spiritually like your conclusion".

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

There are actually thousands of scientists with PhDs throughout the world that disagree with evolution on a scientific basis. I know that is a pill that you refuse to swallow but burying your head in the sand will not change it. They are not just a bunch of blind religious zealots failing to see what evolutionists proclaim to be truth.

[Ron Lambert]

Why is it that if you are a trained science professional who believe Divine Creation is a reasonable explanation for the origin of life, you are only "claiming" to be a scientist? This is the kind of biased disparagement evolutionists encourage, and it is why I question the evolutionists' essential objectivity and real science professionalism. What kind of scientists refused to have an open mind to all credible, logical possibilities?

[Dr. Shane]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

That image belongs to those who think creation apologists claiming to be scientists don't have an agenda.

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

All the creation scienctists I have learned under have been very upfront about their agenda. Which have told you they have no agenda? The evolutionists are the ones that claim they have no agenda. And if you believe that I have a bridge to sell you.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

There are actually thousands of scientists with PhDs throughout the world that disagree with evolution on a scientific basis

---

The question is not

[:"blue"]"is there a very small percentage of a very large pool of people who call themselves scientists who say they disagree?"[/]

but

[:"blue"]"is there a well-formed experiment which produces results which are contrary to evolutionary theory?"[/]

Yes, there are such people.

No, there are no such experiments.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Again, Brother Bevin, you fail to grasp the issue. The evidence for Creation and Evolution are the same. Both groups have the same evidence. It is not that one group has a collection of scientific evidence and another group has a differenct collection and we are faced with comparing the evidence of the two groups. Both groups have the same evidence. The conclusions drawn from the evidence are different.

If anyone questions whether or not evolutionists have an agenda, just look at Brother Bevin's unwillness to even consider those with PhDs in science to be legitamate scientists if they do not agree with evolution. Saddly he is not alone. Scientists that believe in some form of creation are always having their academic skills attacked.