Hi Donald,

Interesting how you take it to a new thread, and now add the "bending
the truth" to it.

Perhaps it is you that's bending the truth? You already responded to
me in the thread it first appeared. How deceptive that you try to take
the argument somewhere else and change the entire spin into "bending
the truth". Quite shady of you to say the least. Wonder why you felt
the need to do that. Here's my response to show that you've shown
nothing new with your post that wasn't addressed in the icr.org
article:

"Donald E. Sterling" <donaldsterling@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1183145111.311649.27540@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...

On Jun 24, 2:31 pm, "Gabriel" <gabriel_bapt...@hotmail.com> wrote:

Hi Donald,

"Donald E. Sterling" <donaldsterl...@gmail.com> wrote in
messagenews:1182682147.069342.257490@w5g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

Prepare to be Shocked

THE TRUTH ABOUT CHRISTIANITY

We all know that they have been digging up bones of people who are
in the hundreds of thousands of years old.

This is the lie of science, upon which your whole argument falls
apart. You
believe them when they tell you with certainty these things are
thousands of
years old.

http://www.icr.org/article/2033/80/

Turns out they are wrong.

Thanks for posting.

We agree that they must have been operating under some sort of theory
previously to this find. How else would people be able to suggest
that the dinosaur was of a recent era.

How else? Because maybe they ~were~ of a recent era, rather than
millions of years old, as they like to theorize? You seem to be
operating on the idea that it's all a fact, while the rest of the
world theorizes about it all. It's a theory they're 80 million years
old, plain and simple. Not a fact, but a theory. Which means they
could be wrong and maybe it's not that old at all. You can't beg the
question by saying "how else would they be able to suggest" as if you
already know the truth yourself. You don't. It's almost deceptive to
act otherwise.

This view that the dinosaur
was young may have come as a surprise to many because the previous
theory was that there is no way that fossilization could preserve
soft tissues.

First off, what they are writing about happened in 2003.

No, what they were writing about includes what you mention in 2005.
Here are the references to the icr.org article on that page itself:

http://www.icr.org/article/2033/80/ makes references to:
1. Schweitzer, M. H., et al.,Science, vol. 307, no. 5717, pp.
1952-1955, 25 March 2005.
2. Boswell, E., Montana State University News Service, 24 March 2005.

So this article is well aware of the findings you're just now pointing
out, and your article is old compared to the one at icr.org.

The same
scientist (Schweitzer) has since then renounced the idea that the
dinosaur was young enough to be of a recent era.

One scientist renouncing it does not make it so. If so we could
renounce evolution and the big bang theory and never have to hear it
again, as many scientists renounce those all the time.

http://www.icr.org/article/2033/80/ again shows us this was not the
first time it happened. It also shows how wet "fossil" magnolia
("allegedly" 17-20 million years old) with fragments of genetic
material, when water doesn't take long to degrade DNA, completely
unaddressed by Schweitzer to my knowledge.

Not to mention what they found out about Bees:
"Spores of bacteria were found inside the insect and actually grew
when placed in the proper medium. Dr. Cano, the discoverer, took
careful measures to avoid contamination. Analysis of the DNA extracted
showed it was very much like the DNA found in bacteria growing in bees
today. Just as the creation model predicts, bees have always been bees
and bacteria have always been bacteria. "

It had to do with
the stone that they were preserved in. They have been studying the
layers of the earth for sometime now and have found methods to
determine how old a rock layer is.

No, they have theories on how to determine how old rock layer is. The
fact you need to realize is they could easily be just as wrong about
this, like they realize they were just as wrong about the existence of
soft tissue.

So what they did was took dinosaur
fossils from other rock layers that they knew

Here's where you try to turn it into fact. They theorize the rock
layers are 80 million years old. They don't "know" it is, as you
claim. So based on this "theory" of the rock being 80 million years
old, it's still merely a theory that the fossils contained in it are
that old as well for this very reason. The fact is "soft tissue would
have degraded completely many millions of years ago no matter how
fortuitous the preservation process". That's more compelling evidence
that both the theory of rock aging along with the theory of fossil
aging are both wrong. So to make this a fact, they need to show how
soft tissue can be preserved for many millions of years. Not just
patch it with another theory that it must be as old as the rock that
we also theorize is millions of years old.

were 80 million years
old and ended up with the same results. They found and have
published (since that old outdated article)

See above. The icr.org article is more recent than the one you've used
to make this post with.

that this is not a revolution in the
dating method of a fossil but in a method of retrieving preserved
parts of it. In other words they found a new method to examine
fossils with, not a new time frame for the existence of dinosaurs.

But this method unearthed new evidence that debunks their theories. So
in essence, it challenges the theories on the claimed time frame for
the existence of dinosaurs.

Here is a more recent article from March 25th 2005 about the same
dig.

Again, it's old compared to the ocr.org article, as they reference
even this March 25th, 2005 finding.

The SAME Scientist that was in the article you found
(Schweitzer) reveals that the fossils were of a much older era.

No, theorized to be of a much older era, not "reveals".

"Attempting to dissolve the minerals from a piece of fossilized bone,
so the theory goes, would merely dissolve the entire fossil."

Notice they use the word "theory". That was the old understanding of
preservation in fossils.

And please notice the word "theory" in the attempt to claim they know
how old rocks are.

Here is the new information.

"Schweitzer then duplicated her findings with at least three other
well-preserved dinosaur specimens, one 80-million-year-old hadrosaur
and two 65-million-year-old tyrannosaurs. All of these specimens
preserved vessels, cell-like structures, or flexible matrix that
resembled bone collagen from modern specimens."

Which only shows the initial article is right: "the evidence seems to
indicate the T. rex fossil is -- well, young", along with any other
fossil that they do this test right along with it. It was a theory
that dinosaurs were millions of years old. Suddenly proof shows
otherwise. So they use other theories (determining how old rock is) to
act like they have new "proof" that it's still billions of years old?!
It's still not proof. It's a theory that also comes under fire from
the incredible soft-tissue findings. And even rock aging has its
problems that your argument hinges on it being a fact, rather than a
theory, on how we determine the age of rocks.

http://www.icr.org/article/822/80/

The refrence link is here ----> http://www.physorg.com/news3506.html

Yes, this article is pointed out by icr.org. They were well aware of
it and referenced it.

End result, they still have no proof that the dinosaurs are as old as
they theorize, in fact they look to have less reason to believe their
theories are accurate, and instead they have new ~FACTS~ to contradict
these theories and indicate they are not. They have no proof soft
tissues could last that long (they just now make new theories that it
does, of course), and even the case of wet "fossil" magnolia having
DNA evidence, when water doesn't take long to degrade DNA is not
addressed.

I asked in that previous article, and I ask it here now? Do you not
believe in God? Curious why you're in here to convince us that
theories are really facts to try debunking the facts that were
recently uncovered that contradict the evolutionist's claim on how old
the earth must be. Curious why you turn your original response into a
new one with a dishonest twist of "bending the truth". If you want to
find people that won't think about what you say, won't question it,
and gloss over the misconceptions you put in it, try an evolution
newsgroup.

Thanks for posting!

How else? Because maybe they ~were~ of a recent era, rather than millions of
years old, as they like to theorize? You seem to be operating on the idea
that it's all a fact, while the rest of the world theorizes about it all.
It's a theory they're 80 million years old, plain and simple.

And please notice the word "thoery" in the attempt to claim they know how old rocks are.