well sir how do you explain what atheistic scientists are unhappily admitting to: that in partially fossilized bone is what is basically soft tissue red blood cells etc. which according to the laws of science cannot live sixty five million years.
Hey there ChristianGuy. You addressed this question to me over in my thread on earth science curriculum and I would like to respond here where I can do it and respect the productive forum rules that say we keep threads on topic.
First, I'd like to make it clear that I am just a guy studying what is written. I'm not a paleontologist, I haven't seen the bones and if I did see the bones I wouldn't have a clue how to investigate them.
One of the first techniques I use to determine credibility when reading, studying and investigating is to ask for sources of claims and then see if they can be produced. I want to know if what they say is true. I'm going to try that here:
You've made two hard assertions in your question to me.
1: That "atheistic scientists are unhappily admitting" the substance of this find. and 2: That the assumption of the find (Heme compounds discovered in extremely old earth bones) violates the "laws of science".
Let's take a look at your assertion #1:
I've read as many papers and articles (I didn't say news reports) as I can find that quote other scientists regarding Schweitzer's discovery. I simply can't find a quote from ANYONE that sounds like they are "unhappily admitting" anything. A tenet of science is skepticism and thus good scientists are skeptical. What I find are quotes from the scientific body who were initially very skeptical and now less so as time and research has moved almost a decade forward. What I also find is guarded enthusiasm over the fact that what is being learned might allow more discoveries from old bones than ever thought possible. In essence I find cautious enthusiasm rather than unhappiness.
I'd like to add (in the unfortunate case you don't read the papers I linked) that Mary Schweitzer, the researcher who discovered this is a born again Christian who is deeply troubled by the way some creationist web sites and personalities have misled people regarding her work. Following is a quote from her (see links for context).
quote:She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”
Now to assertion #2: Please quote the "law of science" that precludes the finding of these compounds in old earth bones (helpful hint: there isn't one, but don't take my word for it please).
What I'm inviting you to do ChristianGuy15 is to think about the things you read rather than just accept them. Cross check them. Dig to find out if the claims they make are consistent with the truth. If you don't find that the bulk of scientists are unhappy about the find, why would you trust someone who tells you otherwise? If there turns out to be no known law of science that precludes such a find, why would you trust a source that tells you there is?
It is this skill of skepticism and cross checking that I hope to instill in people I know who believe in a YE. Accurate conclusions will automatically follow.