To be fair I did say that if someone were to allow option C it would "revolutionize how science is done". And it doesn't rattle me that cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc etc supports the narrative. Of course it does. I've been banging that drum for like 30 pages. The creationist interpretation of the evidence supports the creationist narrative. Things that are "known to be" fit within their narrative. Again, it's more about premise than process. If we get the premise wrong at the outset, and continue down that path, we're liable to wind up at the wrong destination.infidel wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 11:09 amIt's like this... Geologists have established the age of the various layers of the Earth to very high degrees of certainty using a variety of radiometric dating processes. In particular, the K-T boundary (or whatever it's called now) is known to be ~63 million years old. T Rex fossils are always found below that layer so we know they must be older than that layer. Entertaining option C doesn't just mean shortening the timespan of Evolution but overturning everything we know about the physics of radioactive decay and geologic processes. So let's expand on our options a little:tuttle wrote: ↑Mon May 21, 2018 8:55 amYep. Sorry for being unclear. Your assessment is more or less correct. Evolution disallows C as a consideration. If they were at all to consider option C, it would be a direct challenge to the entire paradigm of evolution. Therefore they are restricted to A & B, which is exactly the two paths that are being taken. My thought is this: Consider, just for a moment, that the tissue found actually does mean that the fossils are younger (the realm of thousands, even tens of thousands of years old vs 65-125 million years old). If that's actually the case, then what kind of impact would that make on other observations/experiments/etc that scientists will make from here on out? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I ponder if they cut themselves off from what really happened. Instead of considering the implications of what might lead to an astounding scientific breakthrough (because surely, a timescale adjustment would revolutionize how science is done), they'll never allow any evidence to be interpreted outside of their narrative.
A) the soft tissues are not from the fossil, i.e. external contamination;
B) it actually IS possible for soft tissues to survive through some mechanism we don't yet understand
C) the fossils are actually much younger than believed and everything we know about radioactive decay and geology is wrong
Now it's easy to see, from a purely scientific POV, why most critics default to A, some are coming around to B, and nobody seriously considers C.
YECs, on the other hand, swap options B and C. C is easy for you to accept. It fits your "narrative" and you have no problem throwing out all of geology and radioactive physics if necessary. So we have two narratives. And two conclusions. Science dismisses the YE conclusion because it would require dismissing all of the physical evidence for the old Earth, and YEC dismisses the old Earth conclusion because it would require dismissing a literal reading of ancient scriptures.
All of the scientific disciplines converge on the same narrative. Seriously, ALL of them. Cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc etc everything we have learned about the physical universe supports the "narrative" that it is 13+ billion years old, the Solar system formed ~4.5 billion years ago, life started in the simplest forms 3+ billion years ago and has evolved over that time into the diversity we see today. Your side has a few pages of ancient myths and a handful of cherrypicked controversies.
Besides, I thought science was all about adapting to the shifts in knowledge. If the fossils are actually much younger than believed then a re-evaluation about how radioactive decay and geology will have to take place. What was it that caused two different 'timescales' to be measured, etc. That'd be a fun one for scientists. But is it that big of a leap to think something we know now might be wrong? For pretty much always we believed that there is no possible way soft tissue could be found in a fossil. We're essentially learning that everything we thought we knew to be sure about proteins remaining in fossils was wrong! So the shifting of what we thought was right scientifically today, but needed re-evaluation after a key discovery, isn't really a negative argument for option C. It's just science doing its thing. The real reason that option C is rejected is because the shift is too great to be contained within the narrative. The narrative would break. Can't risk that.