RE: [asa] Loading the ark (Ken Ham, t. rex blood)

Bernie Dehler said:
> I'm not reading Ham... I'm listening to him. I got some videos from
the local

> library. I like hearing all sides. He has two great points... some

> possibility anyway. He mentioned the t.rex find that had a partial

> fossilized bone with apparent red blood cells. Fascinating mystery
with

> interesting implications... I guess the jury is still out on that,
but

> fascinating ramifications:

David Campbell said:

Note it's not actual blood cells but rather mineralized traces that

might be blood cell remnants. Nothing about that is a problem to old

earth views.

Hi David,

The problem, as I understand it, is that it is generally received that
anything as old as t.rex is supposed to be fossilized. It is
impossible, supposedly, to have something that old that isn't
fossilized. Therefore, it is very strong evidence that this t. rex
lived relatively recently, in contrast to modern scientific thought.
Serious problem. Either fossils form differently than modern science
proposes, or this T. rex lived "recently", or the blood is not really
blood or from the t. rex. If it is really blood from the t. rex, then
it would shake-up modern science (either learning something new about
fossil formation or when t. rex lived). As I understand it, the t. rex
leg bone was only partially fossilized... which is a modern scientific
mystery.

Comments?

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Nov 29 15:50:38 2007