Jen Shroder
Embarrassing proof that evolutionists are wrong, T.rex buried by media
By Jen Shroder
An 11 year old Russian boy recently uncovered the remains of a woolly mammoth including fur, bones, flesh and layers of fat. Scientists are guessing it is 30,000 years old and report they haven't seen anything like it in 100 years.
Have they already forgotten the T. rex uncovered in the year 2000 in Montana? Using the methods of scientists, they claim it is 68 million years old, but it has soft tissue with blood cells. That flies against everything evolutionists claim. A 68 million year old fossil couldn't possibly have soft tissue in the bones, yet there it is.
"I am quite aware that according to conventional wisdom and models of fossilization, these structures aren't supposed to be there, but there they are. I was pretty shocked," said Mary Higby Schweitzer, assistant professor in the Dept. of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at North Carolina State University.
Schwietzer was so stunned at the facts that she repeated the experiments eight times. She co-authored a paper with Jack Horner of the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University. Horner said, "I see this as a really important discovery that will change our methods of collecting and study. We can truly begin asking biomolecular questions. The discovery also means that our preconceived ideas about preservation were wrong."
"Ideas." One has to appreciate how theories (guesses) taught as FACT to our children in public schools, are suddenly referred to as "ideas" when proved wrong. I remember a large group of parents confronting my son's 7th grade teacher about how he was about to teach our children evolution. He promised he would be teaching it as theory, but the scientific claim of "theory" is taught as fact because (basically) it's their best guess after hundreds of "tests." It doesn't matter if every test FAILS, it's been tested, there is no better GUESS so they call it a scientific theory, dance around the word and will test our children to make sure they respond as though these best guesses are undeniable fact. It's OUTRAGEOUS.
According to the Smithsonian, in 1999 when Schweitzer first suspected red blood cells through a microscope, she kept looking and looking and thinking, "This can't be. Red blood cells don't preserve." She showed the slide to Horner her mentor who said, "Yep, that's what they look like. Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that's not what they are."
Schweitzer gets angry when creationists recognize her work as proving evolution's necessary dating theories wrong. She believes that, "invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all," she says, "what God asks is faith, not evidence. If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don't need faith."
I appreciate that Schweitzer is passionate about finding the truth, but then denying what it means because she thinks God is purposely hiding that truth? So we continue to teach our children flat out, unproven lies cloaked under "theory" but taught as fact? This is worse than Bill Clinton debating what the meaning of the word "sex" is. At least we're not pushing condoms and telling them we're not promoting sex on our kids in public school. Oh wait, we do. Well, at least we're not pushing abortions without calling it murder...oh wait, we do that too.
Matthew Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural history, said the T. rex find was a huge opportunity to learn more about how fossils are made, a process that is not fully understood."
WHAT? Scientists don't fully understand how fossils are made? That's hard to believe when there appears to be so much unified information claiming to know EXACTLY how fossils are made and how old they are. Right up until the moment they are proved wrong.
Schweitzer, now looking for proof, found so much that the only argument to be had came from paleontologist Tom Kaye who said, "If you start finding diamonds every 20 feet, you have to start asking yourself: are diamonds that common, or is it a different kind of sand?" You can't make this stuff up. Oh wait, they do. And the media buries the story.
I have been reading a lot about scientific methods of dating, about isochrons with guessed "starting dates," or about molten rock in the Grand Canyon giving impossible results with modern techniques, or about excess argon screwing up test results, I could tell you about K-Ar Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand, how eruptions in 1949, 1954 and 1975 tested .27 to 3.5 million years old. I could talk about how radioisotope laboratories provide forms with sample submissions asking the customer how old HE estimates the sample to be. Why? Why does the lab that is asked to provide how old an object is, ask the inquirer what THEIR guess is?
I could tell you about carbon dating and how the earth's magnetic field, cosmic rays and the GUESSED 14C levels contribute to flawed results. I could tell you how researchers just "throw out" samples that don't line up with their calculations. I could tell you how plants discriminate against carbon dioxide differently so scientists can just "guess & correct" manipulating tests any way they want.
But all of these variables are not that impressive to me, they just show that the data that is fed into these techniques is easily skewed. And that is why, if you don't calculate two events in history, you WILL get completely messed up results. And that is two events in the Bible. First, the flood would have greatly changed the carbon balance. Lowered 12C in biosphere, the 14C relative to 12C is greatly altered. But that's not the biggest cataclysm that is often overlooked.
The Bible says in Genesis 2:4
"This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground."
From creation to the flood, the biosphere of the earth was radically different. There was no rain, there was mist that came from the ground and watered the whole face of the earth. Scientists have been using techniques that do not account for the radical change between creation and the flood. If their test results are so skewed merely from the earth's magnetic field and solar radiation, imagine what the radically different physics of the earth watering itself would do. A change that apparently caused man to age differently. If you notice, the age of man according to the Bible slowly decreased, one naturally thinks the aging process changed but that's wrong. Earlier men lived longer before the flood than younger men who were born nearer to the flood. It was the flood that decreased their life span. And after the flood when life spans were seriously shortened, it was because of a radically different mix of radiation and mist. I can't imagine what it was like before the flood but it was drastically different than today.
And what about those embarrassing "living fossils," the occasional discovery of plants and life that crop up that science claimed to be extinct for hundreds of millions of years?
The academic elite have been doing everything they possibly can to chip away at the faith of our children in public school. They seem to be desperate to feed them anything they can find to replace what the Bible says. It is so outrageous, but we really must pity them and pray for them, because if they don't turn around, if they don't get a grip on who the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is, if they don't seek Jesus Christ and ask forgiveness for the atrocities they have imposed on our children, then the Bible says it would be better for them if a millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.
Pray for them but protect your children. Get them out of public school. It is the darkest place for their soul that you can imagine.
SOURCE: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html#ixzz28XE608EX
Evelyn Boswell, 3/25/05, Montana State University News
© Jen Shroder
October 7, 2012
An 11 year old Russian boy recently uncovered the remains of a woolly mammoth including fur, bones, flesh and layers of fat. Scientists are guessing it is 30,000 years old and report they haven't seen anything like it in 100 years.
Have they already forgotten the T. rex uncovered in the year 2000 in Montana? Using the methods of scientists, they claim it is 68 million years old, but it has soft tissue with blood cells. That flies against everything evolutionists claim. A 68 million year old fossil couldn't possibly have soft tissue in the bones, yet there it is."I am quite aware that according to conventional wisdom and models of fossilization, these structures aren't supposed to be there, but there they are. I was pretty shocked," said Mary Higby Schweitzer, assistant professor in the Dept. of Marine, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at North Carolina State University.
Schwietzer was so stunned at the facts that she repeated the experiments eight times. She co-authored a paper with Jack Horner of the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University. Horner said, "I see this as a really important discovery that will change our methods of collecting and study. We can truly begin asking biomolecular questions. The discovery also means that our preconceived ideas about preservation were wrong."
"Ideas." One has to appreciate how theories (guesses) taught as FACT to our children in public schools, are suddenly referred to as "ideas" when proved wrong. I remember a large group of parents confronting my son's 7th grade teacher about how he was about to teach our children evolution. He promised he would be teaching it as theory, but the scientific claim of "theory" is taught as fact because (basically) it's their best guess after hundreds of "tests." It doesn't matter if every test FAILS, it's been tested, there is no better GUESS so they call it a scientific theory, dance around the word and will test our children to make sure they respond as though these best guesses are undeniable fact. It's OUTRAGEOUS.
According to the Smithsonian, in 1999 when Schweitzer first suspected red blood cells through a microscope, she kept looking and looking and thinking, "This can't be. Red blood cells don't preserve." She showed the slide to Horner her mentor who said, "Yep, that's what they look like. Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that's not what they are."
Schweitzer gets angry when creationists recognize her work as proving evolution's necessary dating theories wrong. She believes that, "invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all," she says, "what God asks is faith, not evidence. If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don't need faith."
I appreciate that Schweitzer is passionate about finding the truth, but then denying what it means because she thinks God is purposely hiding that truth? So we continue to teach our children flat out, unproven lies cloaked under "theory" but taught as fact? This is worse than Bill Clinton debating what the meaning of the word "sex" is. At least we're not pushing condoms and telling them we're not promoting sex on our kids in public school. Oh wait, we do. Well, at least we're not pushing abortions without calling it murder...oh wait, we do that too.
Matthew Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at the Smithsonian's National Museum of Natural history, said the T. rex find was a huge opportunity to learn more about how fossils are made, a process that is not fully understood."
WHAT? Scientists don't fully understand how fossils are made? That's hard to believe when there appears to be so much unified information claiming to know EXACTLY how fossils are made and how old they are. Right up until the moment they are proved wrong.
Schweitzer, now looking for proof, found so much that the only argument to be had came from paleontologist Tom Kaye who said, "If you start finding diamonds every 20 feet, you have to start asking yourself: are diamonds that common, or is it a different kind of sand?" You can't make this stuff up. Oh wait, they do. And the media buries the story.
I have been reading a lot about scientific methods of dating, about isochrons with guessed "starting dates," or about molten rock in the Grand Canyon giving impossible results with modern techniques, or about excess argon screwing up test results, I could tell you about K-Ar Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand, how eruptions in 1949, 1954 and 1975 tested .27 to 3.5 million years old. I could talk about how radioisotope laboratories provide forms with sample submissions asking the customer how old HE estimates the sample to be. Why? Why does the lab that is asked to provide how old an object is, ask the inquirer what THEIR guess is?
I could tell you about carbon dating and how the earth's magnetic field, cosmic rays and the GUESSED 14C levels contribute to flawed results. I could tell you how researchers just "throw out" samples that don't line up with their calculations. I could tell you how plants discriminate against carbon dioxide differently so scientists can just "guess & correct" manipulating tests any way they want.
But all of these variables are not that impressive to me, they just show that the data that is fed into these techniques is easily skewed. And that is why, if you don't calculate two events in history, you WILL get completely messed up results. And that is two events in the Bible. First, the flood would have greatly changed the carbon balance. Lowered 12C in biosphere, the 14C relative to 12C is greatly altered. But that's not the biggest cataclysm that is often overlooked.
The Bible says in Genesis 2:4
"This is the history of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, before any plant of the field was in the earth and before any herb of the field had grown. For the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground."
From creation to the flood, the biosphere of the earth was radically different. There was no rain, there was mist that came from the ground and watered the whole face of the earth. Scientists have been using techniques that do not account for the radical change between creation and the flood. If their test results are so skewed merely from the earth's magnetic field and solar radiation, imagine what the radically different physics of the earth watering itself would do. A change that apparently caused man to age differently. If you notice, the age of man according to the Bible slowly decreased, one naturally thinks the aging process changed but that's wrong. Earlier men lived longer before the flood than younger men who were born nearer to the flood. It was the flood that decreased their life span. And after the flood when life spans were seriously shortened, it was because of a radically different mix of radiation and mist. I can't imagine what it was like before the flood but it was drastically different than today.
And what about those embarrassing "living fossils," the occasional discovery of plants and life that crop up that science claimed to be extinct for hundreds of millions of years?
The academic elite have been doing everything they possibly can to chip away at the faith of our children in public school. They seem to be desperate to feed them anything they can find to replace what the Bible says. It is so outrageous, but we really must pity them and pray for them, because if they don't turn around, if they don't get a grip on who the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is, if they don't seek Jesus Christ and ask forgiveness for the atrocities they have imposed on our children, then the Bible says it would be better for them if a millstone were hung around their neck and they were thrown into the sea.
Pray for them but protect your children. Get them out of public school. It is the darkest place for their soul that you can imagine.
SOURCE: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html#ixzz28XE608EX
Evelyn Boswell, 3/25/05, Montana State University News
© Jen Shroder
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
