hooberus
So, rather than deal with the valid accusations of bad science or deception on the part of Carl Wieland and Answers in Genesis relating to the find in the 1990's, you just repeat the errors with a more recent discovery?
For example, one of the main faults Carl is criticised for is using a popular science article as a basis of his claims, rather than the actual science papers. And what do you do? Link to MSNBC and interviews targetted at a non-scientific audience!!
To be fair you link to talkorigins, but you missed out the best bits;
"For example, the main article has left many people with the false impression that the recovered tissues were in a soft pliable state when first exposed. This is not true. All of the fossil material was rehydrated during the same process that removed the mineral components of the bone. They were then buffered, and also some were fixed. The related press reports have created the impression that there are large features with the characteristics of fresh tissue. This is not true. The structures examined are a few millimeters across at most. The last, and rather irritating aspect of this research is not from the Science article, or the supporting material, but from the press interviews given by Schweitzer which repeatedly hint at the recovery of DNA, and even of cloning."
And you also ignore the evidence being discussed is not claimed by any one involved in the discovery with YECism. Your use of it to do this without making it clear the people who made the discovery make no such claims is deceptive;
One small, and hopeful change from Schweitzer's similar 1990s "discovery" is that this time both she and Horner have made direct statements that this find is neither a contradiction of the sciences, nor of an ancient Earth.
You also let yourself down by saying;
The second interview with Leesem also points out the fact that other extant Dinosaur remains on display (ie: "Sue") may also have soft tissue remains within their bones. Perhaps this will now cause a more thorough evaluation of these specimens.
If you had read the talkorigins article you linked to thoroughly, or had a more comprehensive knowledge of evolutionary biology, you would have known the find is nothing that new;
"Hendrik Poinar of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, cautions that looks can deceive: Nucleated protozoan cells have been found in 225-million-year-old amber, but geochemical tests revealed that the nuclei had been replaced with resin compounds. Even the resilience of the vessels may be deceptive. Flexible fossils of colonial marine organisms called graptolites have been recovered from 440-million-year-old rocks, but the original material--likely collagen--had not survived."
And also, you can't resist the temptation to poison the well;
... possibly in part due to the worldview that such creatures were probably too supposedly "old" for such items to be found within bones - so thus why split them intentionally?
... when you regularly quote from a website that has been shown on this occasion and at least one other occasion I've highlighted to you to be a treasury of bad science, selective use of data, and downright deceptive practice. You conceeded this point as far as you could bring yourself to; I can find the post if you don't remember.
Before you question whether scientists might sometimes not pursue avenues of investigation due to beliefs, I think you better satisfy yourself that the Creationstic arguments you repeat here are not constructed by people with certain beliefs blinding themselves to any interpretation of evidence other than one that agrees with their previously held beliefs.
The evidence thus far indicates this is exactly what they do - feel free to rebutt this allegation if you can.
I mean, further into the talk origins article you linked to it says (regarding Wieland);
His major misrepresentations do not begin until the fourth sentence. There were several prior errors of fact and interpretation, but the first gross falsehood was not until the fourth sentence. For AiG this is doing very well (see Boiled Creationist with a Side of Hexaglycine: Sarfati on Imai et al. (1999)). Wieland wrote,
"The fact that this really is unfossilized soft tissue from a dinosaur is in this instance so obvious to the naked eye that any scepticism directed at the previous discovery is completely 'history'."
There are three falsehoods in this sentence; first, there were not soft remains "obvious to the naked eye" unless Wieland has superhuman microscopic X-ray vision. Oddly, one might more fairly say 'incompetently,' none of the microphotographs associated with the AiG "announcement" of Schweitzer's new publication have the scale bars found on all scientific publications of these results. Even the LA Times thought to include the obvious fact that these are microscopic features.
Honestly hooberus, if YECism were true, why do some of the most famous and well-regarded Creationists need to lie and distort to support their beliefs?
This is no ad hom; the evidence is there in black and white, whether you like to accept it or not and whether you continue in this thread or not.
I suggest anyone interested in the issue read all of http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.html, it is illuminating, not only in the analysis of the find, but in its analysis of YECistic lies, deception and nonsense.
Oh, and remember this earlier quote I made hooberus?
"As Christians we have the responsibility to pursue truth in all matters. When we are wrong, we need to admit it"
Over to you... I hope you won't just run away from the issue. it'll still be there even if you do...
