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.”
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.