Soft tissue on dinosaur fossil

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/scientist-alleges-csun-fired-him-for-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/

Don't worry someone came up with a possible reason this could happen
that does not destroy millions of years. 🙂
Kelly

Do you have a point, or is an obvious attempt at a cheap shot the best you've got?
You admit this isn't an issue for the age of the earth, but you imply otherwise in a way that you feel you can't be challenged on.
You imply that there is a conspiracy against scientists that contradict the age of the earth, but do not make the statement strong enough that you can be challenged on it.
Basically you are making two implications that you know are false so you make them in such a way that you can't be called out as a liar.

As for the actual court case, If the University is correct and he was not a permanent employee on a permanent contract then his termination due to non-renewal of contract does not constitute being fired as suggested in the story title. Also, he is claiming that he was fired for his religious beliefs, not for his discovery - so again, the title is incorrect.

RJHinds is going to love this. I feel sure he will be able to find some soft tissue on the Turin shroud.

Originally posted by KellyJay
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014/07/24/scientist-alleges-csun-fired-him-for-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/

Don't worry someone came up with a possible reason this could happen
that does not destroy millions of years. 🙂
Kelly

Kelly are you a proponent of the millions of years or 6000 years?

Originally posted by divegeester
Kelly are you a proponent of the millions of years or 6000 years?

Young earth between 6K and 10K years.
I think if God did it, observations will not properly give us enough
information to date the universe correctly. That however is a statement
of faith, not science which I freely admit.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you have a point, or is an obvious attempt at a cheap shot the best you've got?
You admit this isn't an issue for the age of the earth, but you imply otherwise in a way that you feel you can't be challenged on.
You imply that there is a conspiracy against scientists that contradict the age of the earth, but do not make the statement strong enough tha ...[text shortened]... s that you know are false so you make them in such a way that you can't be called out as a liar.

The discovery is the latest in several recent – and controversial – soft tissue finds by archaeologists: researchers last November claimed the controversial discovery of purported 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex can be explained by iron in the dinosaur’s body, which they say preserved the tissue before it could decay.

This sounds like another crazy evolutionist's idea, because all animals and men have iron in their bodies. Who would have thought of this excuse but a crazy evolutionist?

Originally posted by RJHinds
[quote] The discovery is the latest in several recent – and controversial – soft tissue finds by archaeologists: researchers last November claimed the controversial discovery of purported 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex can be explained by iron in the dinosaur’s body, which they say preserved the tissue before it could d ...[text shortened]... men have iron in their bodies. Who would have thought of this excuse but a crazy evolutionist?

I suspect there is more to this report than appears on the face of it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
[quote] The discovery is the latest in several recent – and controversial – soft tissue finds by archaeologists: researchers last November claimed the controversial discovery of purported 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex can be explained by iron in the dinosaur’s body, which they say preserved the tissue before it could d ...[text shortened]... men have iron in their bodies. Who would have thought of this excuse but a crazy evolutionist?

I laughed when I read the part about the iron. I think those that want
to use this as proof for a young earth will make claims about the soft
tissue that backs up what they believe. I was wondering what those that
didn't agree with a young earth were going to say about, and was
amused that there was already an explaination of 'iron' to dismiss it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Young earth between 6K and 10K years.
I think if God did it, observations will not properly give us enough
information to date the universe correctly. That however is a statement
of faith, not science which I freely admit.
Kelly

As a Christian I am willing to have faith that god can do whatever he likes. Do you think it is substantiated in scripture that the earth is 6 - 10 k years old? Within that scale the 4k is a big difference, why the gap?

Originally posted by divegeester
I suspect there is more to this report than appears on the face of it.

It was the first time I have ever heard about soft tissue in fossils before.
Kelly

Originally posted by divegeester
As a Christian I am willing to have faith that god can do whatever he likes. Do you think it is substantiated in scripture that the earth is 6 - 10 k years old? Within that scale the 4k is a big difference, why the gap?

I have never done the math myself, so I've heard different numbers
thrown out there. I have debated those that believe in the gap theory
to in scripture that believe a huge amount of time took place between
Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2. They have some strong arugments, but I think
they are wrong. I guess if I'm wrong about that, then the billions or
millions of years could be true.

I just don't see it, so again faith, not science.
Kelly

Originally posted by divegeester
As a Christian I am willing to have faith that god can do whatever he likes. Do you think it is substantiated in scripture that the earth is 6 - 10 k years old? Within that scale the 4k is a big difference, why the gap?

Incase I didn't answer your question, yes I think scripture and the events
in it has the years as young.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I laughed when I read the part about the iron. I think those that want
to use this as proof for a young earth will make claims about the soft
tissue that backs up what they believe. I was wondering what those that
didn't agree with a young earth were going to say about, and was
amused that there was already an explaination of 'iron' to dismiss it.
Kelly

I am sure if people don't buy that one, then they will find another lie that is more believable as an excuse. There is no way they are going to admit that dragons or dinosaurs might have lived with men.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am sure if people don't buy that one, then they will find another lie that is more believable as an excuse. There is no way they are going to admit that dragons or dinosaurs might have lived with men.

I try not to use the word "lie" as freely as some here do. They may
honestly believe what they think is true, that does not make them
liars, just wrong. If they know the truth and still reject it, then I'd
call their honestly into question.
Kelly