Cell biology Creationism Evolution Intelligent Design

Is Mark Armitage’s soft dinosaur tissue work a replication of Mary Schweitzer’s? If so…?

Spread the love

Re two recent flaps around the possible discovery of soft dinosaur tissue, Senior Scientist at the Geoscience Research Institute Tim Standish writes from Loma Linda U to offer a perspective on YEC Mark Armitage’s find vs. Mary Schweitzer’s find:

It isn’t replication, but it is strong verification. There are lots of other peer reviewed papers out there ranging from halophilic bacteria being resurrected from the dead in samples that are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old to more recent finds, all point to the unexpected presence of biological samples that are supposed to be millions of years old. From my perspective, this is one of those things that needs very careful explaining if the current understanding of dating and chemistry are going to stand. The alternative is that we have something wrong.

Hmmm, yes. We might indeed have something wrong. But what? When a stuffy little In group closes ranks and begins acting suspiciously (cf the Armitage firing and settlement), it often turns out that their overstuffed skeleton closet is about to burst, bones flying every which way and into the street…

So what they need, obviously, is a roomier closet. And a media relations program for Fixing those who ask, whose bones are these, exactly, and how did they come to be here?

As noted earlier, the In group doubtless fears giving young Earth creationism ammunition. But they might also be suppressing a sheetstorm of other issues, of broader interest. Only one way to start finding out: Quit treating their word as the authoritative Voice in the matter and start gathering evidence elsewhere.

See also: Is there some reason that paleontologists do NOT want soft dinosaur tissue?

Dinosaur found with preserved skin

and

Dinosaur found with preserved tail feathers, skin

and

2 Replies to “Is Mark Armitage’s soft dinosaur tissue work a replication of Mary Schweitzer’s? If so…?

  1. 1
    Dean_from_Ohio says:

    “Staring back at her was something that shouldn’t have been there.”

    Thus does the prevailing view stifle new discoveries and blind generations of researchers to evidence staring back at them. Without the dead weight of old earth assumptions, this
    might have been discovered decades ago.

    Count on it: this truth will be suppressed, and to the extent it leaks out, it will be interpreted by ever more elaborate extensions to the old earth consensus (N.B., such elaborations are a sure sign of a failing theory), something like the dinosaurs’ blood cells were the equivalent of superman with unexpected super qualities that enabled their tissue to stay flexible and translucent for a hundred million years. All praise and honor to the dinosaurs who bested the ravages of deep time through extraordinary constitutions!

    These things write themselves.

  2. 2
    George E. says:

    Soft tissue is nothing. Live toads in a kind of state of suspended animation have been found entombed in rock allegedly 400 million years old! Here’s a must-see video by Ian Juby on the subject. The account of the ancient toads starts at 11:54:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XCES79ymeU&index=116&list=PL608FF9C588CFD9BC

Leave a Reply