Comment: We agree that she's doing good, important work

(See in situ)


GoodSamaritan's picture

We agree that she's doing good, important work

I can understand why atheistic evolutionists would conveniently fail to address the science that declares these fossils are 65 million years old vs. the science that declares DNA is completely gone in at most hundreds of thousands of years - assuming there was no postmortem decay from nucleases, steady-state freezing temperature from burial, constant pH, and other unrealistic assumptions.

What I'm objecting to is her silence on the glaring discrepancies after 20 years of research that has since been corroborated repeatedly by other teams. How many more *decades* must pass before it's appropriate for her to speak up?

Your answer to that is:

...doing real science rather than "creation science" means that the next step is to reexamine assumptions about the persistence of such molecules, not to immediately jump to the conclusion that the bones must only be thousands of years old.

So waiting 20+ years while the "assumptions about the persistence of such molecules" are verified over and over again as correct and expecting her to mention the elephant in the room is "[immediately jumping] to the conclusion that the bones must be thousands of years old." Maybe since the soft-tissue evidence isn't looking too good for evolution it would appropriate to wait another 20 years before discussing the obvious so we can keep using the bogus millions of years paradigm until retirement.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father