First let me offer this disclaimer. I do not need "evolution" to be untrue for my belief system. For that I simply reconciled reason and logic, the truth of scripture with what I observe & experience in life. Also, I disagree with some of the tactics and assertions used by the creation movement. I believe the true path to knowledge is objectivity as much as possible considering we all have some biases.
One experience I love in life is the act of acquiring knowledge. When I do that I like to use what ever resources are are available, especially those friendly to the object of study. So when it comes to evolution I like going straight to the source. The Smithsonian.com.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html What is particularly interesting about this article is that If you look in all the science literature before this confarmation you will never find any scientist who believes that soft tissue or blood vessels could survive more than 10 to 100 thousand years. But now with this discovery they seem to take it in stride. As a matter of fact they dismiss the importance this could have in dating the fossils and avoid the obvious possibility that the fossils may not be as old as they think. Not near as old for that matter which could have stunning implications concerning the typical time line evolutionists use. Instead in my research I find they came up with modifications assuming there must be some different kind of fossilization no one has ever heard of. Anything but admit the possibility of the obvious, the fossil isn't that old.
The main reason for this is because of the other sciences. For instance dating the strata. One reason they so much believe the 65 million year old dogma is because of the wide acceptance that the geological layers in the strata date the fossils depending on their position in the layers. The layers themselves are believed to be old because of radiometric dating methods. You get the picture. If One were to research these assumptions they would find denials, downplaying and more modifications that preserve the theory of evolution. For example a Christian organization can send a diamond to several secular labs for dating and get irreconcilable dates as a result. The counter to this fact? Is to dismiss it because of who requested the testing or say something like it's not one labs fault that the other lab dated it wrong. Again ignoring the obvious problems with the evolutionary time line.
To be honest some creationists use the same kind of exaggerated bias. But my question is this: Should evolution really be considered the same as empirical science; like say medicine? Where observations can be made and experiments repeated without the need for speculation?
My Posts
63yrs • M
