Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
Not surprising a basic google search turned this extensive explanation written precisely to the ignorant folks that get mislead by Young Earth Creationists constant effort to pervert actual science.

https://letterstocreationists.wordpr...r-soft-tissue/

Since the non-scientists that continue to espouse these ridiculous arguments on these threads will get lost in the actual science discussed in this article, I will highlight a simplified summary.

"I cited a couple of these young earth articles at the beginning of this article. Googling “dinosaur soft tissue age earth” produced thousands of results. Dozens and dozens of these hits are sites promoting young earth creationism, claiming that Schweitzer’s results disprove evolution and radioactive dating of rocks. Some of these sites misrepresent the facts, stating that actual red blood cells have been found. As noted above, that is not the case: these little round red things are chunks of iron oxide, like rust, which just happen to be about the size and shape of red blood cells. The actual organic remains are highly crosslinked remnants of a several proteins which are known to have stable structures. These remnants retain the shape of the original soft tissue, which is not surprising, since they were confined within tiny pores in the dinosaur bones.

The main attack by young earth creationists on the antiquity of these finds is an argument from incredulity, based on ignorance: “It is obviously impossible for any trace of soft tissue to endure for 70 million years.” But, how do they know that it is impossible? They don’t. Yes, experiments on protein degradation in test tubes indicate that proteins would break down completely within about a million years. But lots of examples show that the rate of protein degradation varies wildly, depending on the conditions, so no one can say with certainty how long some fragments of protein can last, preserved with iron and sealed in mineral pores. We simply don’t know how this process progresses over a span of millions of years. It is difficult to devise definitive experiments to mimic that timespan."
So, someone doesn't know it's impossible, so it follows that it has to be possible. Oh wait, how does someone else know it's even possible? They don't. Oh, so we're back to it being impossible. Have to remember, on that whole 70 million year thingy, Goosey is older than you think. He's been around for 70 millions years and has personally witnessed all this evolution stuff.

"We simply don't know how this process progresses over a span of millions of years." And! it is "difficult" to devise experiments to mimic.....i.e. we can't apply REAL science to the whole evolution thingy, so what the heck! since REAL science simply doesn't work with defending evolution, we'll just make it up!

BTW you want to tag others as being ignorant. But you admit "we don't know" about everything you posted. Isn't "not knowing" something the definition of ignorance?