In die artikel Still soft and stretchy word vertel van ’n bioloog, Dr. Mary Schweitzer wat sagte weefsel in ’n dinosourusbeen gevind het. Haar verbasing oor die fonds is baie duidelik uit die volgende aanhaling: “I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: ‘The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?”. Sy het die toets tot 17 keer uitgevoer om seker te maak dat sy reg gesien het. Baie interessant dat die miljoene jare nooit bevraagteken word nie, maar daar word eerder gesoek na oplossings hoe die weefsel so lank gepreseveer kon bly. Die probleem is dat DNS nie veronderstel is om 65 miljoen jaar te hou nie. Navorsing toon dat dit by 0 °C hoogstens 2.7 miljoen jaar sal hou. Dit neem drasties af by hoër temperature: By 10 °C kan dit moontlik 180 000 jaar hou en by 20 °C slegs 15 000 jaar[1].

Baie wou haar egter nie glo nie en sy het gesukkel om haar werk gepubliseer te kry: I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible. I wrote back and said, “Well, what data would convince you?” And he said, “None.”’

Schweitzer can understand why so many are skeptical. ‘If you take a blood sample, and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week,’ she says, adding, ‘So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs? (Uit ‘Schweitzer’s Dangerous Discovery’)

Maar vooropgestelde idees kry jy nie sommer so gou uit mense uit nie:
It wasn’t hard to predict that such inconvenient facts, even when they could no longer be denied, would not lead to a wholesale abandonment of such a carefully constructed worldview artifice as evolution’s “deep time”—especially given its crucial importance for the materialist religion of the age. All it will take is for report after report to talk about the “millions of years” ages for each such “squishy fossil”, and everyone will relax and come to accept that “we know that soft tissues can last for millions of years”. As if there was never any doubt.
(Uit Best ever find of soft tissue (muscle and blood) in a fossil)

Nie net is sagte weefsel in fossielbene gekry nie, maar daar is ook loperige ink gekry in ’n inkvis wat veronderstel is om 150 miljoen jaar oud te wees. Kyk Fossil squid ink that still writes!

Dit is duidelik dat die miljoene jare aannames nie die toets van die tyd weerstaan nie.

Kyk ook:

• Evolutionist questions CMI report—Have red blood cells really been found in T. rex fossils?
• The real ‘Jurassic park’
• A ‘165 million year’ surprise
• Salty saga
• Fossils Questions and Answers
• Unfossilized dinosaur bones
• Bugs in brine

Is die skepping-evolusie kwessie belangrik?

Uit Why use apologetics for evangelism?: A creationist inquirer plays devil’s advocate and asks why we bother with apologetics, or defending the faith, at all, whether presuppositionalist or evidentialist.

And the site [www.creation.com] has proven usefulness in that many people have been drawn to (or returned to) Christ through the arguments used, e.g. ‘Sonia’, ‘Joel Galvin’ and ‘Lita’, and for that matter another geologist who was in the same position but now wants to learn to defend the truth of Genesis to help others. So I would argue that the way that we defend the faith is far better than the way many people don’t!

Our approach to defending the faith is consistent with Scripture and it is effective (if it were not effective, the atheists would not spend so much effort opposing us!). I don’t see much evidence of infidels opposing the fideistic approach, which is often little different to existentialism, because it does not challenge the basis of their unbelief.

Kyk ook Hoe evolusie mense se geloof beïnvloed.

Voetnotas

[1] Kyk Unfossilized dinosaur bones onder “The Rate of Organic Decay”: According to older data, DNA isn’t suppose to last any longer then 10,000 years. (Shreeve, James, “The Dating Game,” Discover, Sept. 1992, p. 78;). Assuming the best conditions, organic material can’t last very long, for example collagen. Here is a chart of collagen decay data.

A 1993 paper published in the journal Nature stated that if water was the sole mechanism of decay, DNA could not last longer then 50,000 years. Also, even without water and oxygen, background radiation would erase the information in the DNA. (Lindahl, T., ‘Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA’, Nature 362(6422):709–715, 1993)