Creationism: A Perverted Time Warp

IMAGINE your reaction if you turn on the radio and a scratchy voice says: “Here’s the latest hit from the Andrews Sisters — the Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy Of Company B.” Whoa, baby — that’s from the 1940s! What’s going on here?

Reading a creationist argument can be like unexpectedly getting caught in a time warp. If you want to experience that kind of temporal displacement, dear reader, then look at Dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago…or did they?, which appears at the website of the Beaufort Observer of Beaufort County, North Carolina. Here are some excerpts, with bold font added by us:

In recent decades, soft, squishy tissues have been discovered inside fossilized dinosaur bones. They seem so fresh that it appears as though the bodies were buried only a few thousand years ago.

Mary Schweitzer, a biology graduate student at Montana State University’s Museum of the Rockies, was examining a thin section of Tyrranosaurus rex bone…when she noticed a series of peculiar structures, threaded through the bone-like red blood cells in blood vessels.

Where do creationists go to find these debunked stories? In what dumpster are they diving? Quite likely it’s the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), which still carries such ancient gems as Dinosaur Soft Parts. ICR proclaims:

Not only were blood cells found, but soft and pliable tissue as well, including flexible blood vessels.

[…]

Faced with the implications of this discovery, secular evolutionists are scrambling to suggest a way soft tissue can be completely preserved in pristine condition, for they dismiss the possibility of young age.

That’s a lot of spin — even for a full-blown creationist outfit like ICR. The underlying facts are in this 1997 paper: Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone. The creationist have expanded that into the myth that dinosaur carcasses are being dug up with soft tissue clinging to the bones. And thanks to websites like ICR, the myth keeps floating around.

Like all other creationist foolishness, the “fresh dino tissue” clunker has been decisively debunked. See: Dino-blood and the Young Earth, by Gary S. Hurd. Hey, it’s also in the Talk.Origins Index to Creationist Claims.

Unlike the Andrews Sisters, who had the talent to entertain our parents’ generation, and whose recordings therefore still have merit, the canards of creationists have no value. Even when newly contrived they couldn’t survive a moment’s exposure in the real world. They’re still worthless, even as antiques, but they continue to be recycled.

Well here we are, momentarily stuck in the past. So for old time’s sake, let’s read some more from the Beaufort Observer:

The existence of 65 million-year-old DNA is biochemically inconceivable. Connective tissue decomposes and deconstructs over time, such that DNA should not survive at all, even if the creature was in existence only 50,000 years ago. … If the soft tissue is real and not bacterial biofilm–slime– as some scientists claim, the findings turn the old-earth, evolutionary theory on its ear. This may be why ongoing dinosaur soft tissue discoveries are generally not broadcast through popular media channels.

We can imagine the reaction of some uneducated couple, peacefully dwelling in their humble home as they read this nonsense. “Golly, Martha — they’re digging up fresh dinosaurs from Noah’s Flood! It says so right here in the Beaufort Observer.”

Another excerpt:

If the theory that the earth is 65 million-years old, or more, is debunked, then scientists will have mud on their collective face; and they will be embarrassed for having arrogantly, stubbornly, and self-righteously asserted the veracity of the theory of evolution. The government, too, would be forced to recognize creationism as a plausible, alternative explanation of the beginning of the universe. Logically, the government would be forced to reinstate prayer, not only in our schools, but everywhere in America, if for no other reason than to make amends for its years of promoting a false theory and for being so arrogantly critical of creationists.

That’s so wildly over the top that we don’t need to comment at all. But you liked it, didn’t you? We know you did. So as a final treat we’ll give you the article’s next paragraph:

For most scientists, to have their old-earth, evolutionary theories debunked, would be disastrous. Why? Because science, for most scientists, is a religion. So zealous and protective are they to preserve that religion, they actively suppress discoveries, such as the ones concerning soft tissue in dinosaur bones. Media are complicit in the cover-up as well.

People often make an effort to block pornography from their computers, in the belief that such material is harmful to those who see it — especially children. Your Curmudgeon strongly suggests that creationist websites are far more harmful to children than websites displaying images of pretty ladies doing what they were born to do.

Anyway, we don’t intend to confuse the Andrews Sisters, creationism, and porn. The Sisters are merely from the past. Creationist arguments are not only old, they’ve been debunked, and they’re at least as pernicious as porn. If you like your entertainment from the old days, that’s just fine — but stay away from creationism. That stuff will rot your brain.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

26 responses to “Creationism: A Perverted Time Warp

  1. Ain’t it the truth.

  2. I wouldn’t be surprised if there maybe wasn’t some goo that maybe dried out before it was degraded, that maybe didn’t mineralize, that maybe still has some DNA in it.

    Lots of maybes, but it would be cool.

  3. The Gadfly says: “Lots of maybes, but it would be cool.”

    It was mostly stuff like chemical traces of hemoglobin. Not quite the chunks of red meat the creationists would have us believe.

  4. If I remember correctly, it had to be demineralized before it became goo.

    Someone should mention to that creatard that dating isn’t done by examining how much of a fossil is mineralized but through radiometrics where debunking would require wholesale change in some laws of physics.

  5. There’s a nicely written presentation of Schweitzer’s discovery and its significance in How to Build a Dinosaur by Jack Horner. (Horner was Schweitzer’s thesis adviser.)

  6. Good grief. The techniques used in the original 1997 paper on heme compounds were organic chemistry methods to detect what atom/molecule signatures are present in the specimen. That is hardly soft tissue. Were talking broken down remnants of proteins/iron complexes, that’s all.

    Creotards can’t read for sh*t, can they?

  7. LRA says: “That is hardly soft tissue. Were talking broken down remnants of proteins/iron complexes, that’s all.”

    No, you Darwinist! It’s meat! Red, juicy meat!

  8. Mmmmmm. Meat….. *drool*

  9. The fact there is no actual dinosaur “meat” won’t stop the ‘noids from trying to open a chain of burger joints called “Dr. Dino’s Delicious Dinoburgers”….

    … just as soon as Dr. Dino finishes serving his prison sentence for tax-evasion…

  10. retiredsciguy

    It would be interesting if a person discovered to have creationist material on his/her computer would have to register as a facts offender.

  11. Do these people know that there are creationists who will tell them that their fantasies of dinosaurs, or earth itself, being merely 1000s of years old, are absurd? If they take the time to “research” and write such articles, I think that the answer is most often yes.

    Now there are some YECs, like the inimitable Joseph Farah, who will admit that he thinks that those creationoists are just as wrong as “Darwinists.” But only after being put on the spot. That they almost never volunteer such “inconvenient truths” IMO speaks more volumes than their embarrasingly bad anti-evolution arguments.

  12. Benjamin Franklin

    Somehow, the thought of the Andrews Sisters engaged in a lesbian tryst on a triceratops is oddly exciting, but perhaps I should take it to a different website.

    “Oooh, Maxine!”

  13. Benjamin Franklin says: “… lesbian tryst on a triceratops … perhaps I should take it to a different website.”

    Please, no pics.

  14. “Where do creationists go to find these debunked stories?” Debunked??

    Not according to 60 Minutes – “Scientist’s Dino Findings Making Waves” (November 15, 2009) The transcript on CBS.com provides this information:

    Schweitzer put some fragments of the bone in acid to dissolve away the outermost layer of mineral. But the acid worked too fast, and all the mineral dissolved away.

    Being a fossil, there should have been nothing left. But there was. It was ELASTIC, like LIVING TISSUE.

    She showed us video she took under the microscope. It looked like the SOFT tissue she would have expected to find if it had been MODERN bone.

    This was impossible. This bone was 68 million years old. [Really?]

    Asked what she thought at the time, Schweitzer said she didn’t want to tell anyone for fear of being ridiculed.

    “And so I said to my technician, ‘Okay, do it again. I don’t believe it,'” she recalled.

    And yet in sample after sample, they were there – things that looked suspiciously like FLEXIBLE, transparent blood vessels. She finally mustered the courage to tell Horner.

    “She said she dissolved the bone away and there were blood vessels. And, you know, I was like shocked,” Horner remembered. “How could that be?”

    The things Schweitzer was finding inside dinosaur bones – blood vessels, and even what seemed to be intact cells – pose a radical challenge to the existing rules of science: that organic material can’t possibly survive even one million years, let alone 68 million. [LOL]

  15. Uri says: “Debunked???

    Yes, debunked. 60 Minutes has no more scientific standing than the Flintstones. Here’s another article to add to those cited in the original post” Dino Blood Redux.

  16. Oh brother, expect someone without a clue to bring this up. It wasn’t blood vessels they found, it was medullary bone. It held blood vessels and is notable in that typically its a calcium reservoir for producing eggshells. It was unusual to not have fully mineralized, but its not even close to “blood vessels” that you are think of. Please try to do some research before making a fool of yourself, Uri.

  17. Okay, let’s try this article…

    “Ancient muscle tissue extracted from 18 million year old fossil” (November 5, 2009)

    (PhysOrg.com) — Scientists have extracted organically preserved muscle tissue from an 18 million years old salamander fossil. The discovery by researchers from University College Dublin, the UK and Spain, reported in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B shows that soft tissue can be preserved under a broader set of fossil conditions than previously known…

    According to the University College Dublin geologists [i.e., not Creationist], the muscle tissue is organically preserved in three dimensions, with circulatory vessels INFILLED WITH BLOOD.”

  18. Very interesting. I did notice that it was stated to be organically preserved and not exactly “fresh.” Also since this is a new discovery, I don’t have that much information about it so I really can’t speculate about it. However Uri, you still run headlong into the radiometric dating thing that still puts every example you can name millions of years in the past. Look at it this way, either our understanding of fossilization is incomplete, or the very laws of physics are wrong on the order 1000. Use Occam’s razor and find the most likely answer.

  19. With regard to radiometric dating, what were the original environmental conditions when a rock first formed, and how did they affect its formation? Last time I checked, this was not an observable event. So in order to determine the age of something, our present techniques must be combined with assumed historical events, right? Do we know if radioactive decay has altered elements in a sample? Has the system always remained closed? Do we know for certain that the decay rate always remained constant?

    And what about that listing of major “Unresolved Problems In Physics” on Wiki. Yeah, I know Wiki (like CBS) isn’t an “official” scientific source, but so far science has utterly failed to provide any answers to these problems (i.e., Dark Matter, Entropy or Baryon asymmetry).

    And should this blog be more focused on biology than physics, what are your thoughts about this article: “Discovery Raises New Doubts About Dinosaur-bird Links” (ScienceDaily, June 9, 2009)? Keep in mind this study was published in The Journal of Morphology (which is peer reviewed), and was funded by the National Science Foundation.

  20. Uri, we don’t debate with creationists here. Clear?

  21. I’m not sure what Uri’s point is. Science progresses. New things are discovered and we try to find explanations for them. Do any of Uri’s posts prove creationism or disprove evolution? No. They do seem to show that our previous ideas about fossilization are inadequate. Frankly, I find it more reasonable that organic material could be preserved in fossils than Noah having had room on the ark for dinosaurs.

    I found it amusing that the 60 Minutes piece kept saying things “looked like” this or that. I might “look like” Bill Gates but that doesn’t make me a billionaire!

  22. “Uri, we don’t debate with creationists here. Clear?”

    Oh, now I get it (wink). I can clearly see you don’t “debate,” just mock. Besides, “debate” is such a subjective term when it comes from an evolutionist.

    Moving on, now. Good luck with your fossils. Hey, that Ida sure turned out to be a real winner. Nice specimen, but certainly not our ancestor – ROFL

  23. “With regard to radiometric dating, what were the original environmental conditions when a rock first formed, and how did they affect its formation? Last time I checked, this was not an observable event. So in order to determine the age of something, our present techniques must be combined with assumed historical events, right? Do we know if radioactive decay has altered elements in a sample? Has the system always remained closed? Do we know for certain that the decay rate always remained constant?”

    These things are known and accounted for by the people who use the over 40 types of radiometric data. The main things in common with these dating methods is that most only concern the parent and daughter elements and the amounts they are in, so the effects on other elements is moot. Tests for an open system are known or that the effects of an open system are insignificant are also known. The decay rates of most of the used elements are known to within 5% (most less) and have been documented to not chance even over billions of years (supernova observations from distant galaxies which show radioactive decay). The mathematics, around Calculus 1 level, are tested and proved (think atomic bombs). All of these combined, without exception, show millions and billions of years. So again, do you really think that our understanding of physics can really be off by a factor of thousands?

    Thanks again for an interesting article link, but I’m not sure that it really supports the position you seem to be taking. Evolution for birds in the distant past is not in dispute and nothing implies they “poofed” into existence. Besides, in reading the article, they may have made an elemental error in the calculation of the elements necessary to flight. Notably, they confuse whats necessary “powered” flight with what’s just necessary for flight. So they haven’t eliminated a dinosaur ancestry that later evolved to powered flight. Also they haven’t even begun to tackle the morphological similarities between maniraptoran dinosaurs and primitive birds which are by far the most convincing evidence for their relatedness. Its an interesting debate, but hardly a debate on the theory of evolution.

  24. I’m sure Uri will be happier elsewhere so he can “debate”. There are plenty of sites that would love to hear from him. Though all it takes is to look at some of The Curmudgeon’s “Creationist Wisdom” posts to see why debating such as being a waste of time and effort. “Debate” is such a subjective term when it comes from an creationist.

    I’m happy to note that Uri is where he belongs, “ROFL”. For his sake, I hope the floor (and walls) are well-padded.

  25. For a synopsis on the debate:

    Dinobuzz: Dinosaur-Bird Relationships