Search This Blog

Wednesday, May 28, 2014

Evolutionary Scientists Locked Into Preconceptions

One fact of life is that nobody is unbiased. Some people have the misconception that scientists find data and then follow where the evidence leads. That is the opposite of the truth, and contrary to human nature. People have ideas and want to see if they can find evidence to support them.

Michelle Studer provided me with this photo of horses with blinders (also called blinkers). She added, "They see only what the master wants them to see. We also teach them to ignore other stimulation such as sound and touch. Programming at its finest. Some harness racers also wear a shadow roll in their nose, so their vision is obscured further."
Unfortunately, evolutionary scientists interpret evidence through erroneous presuppositions, and wear blinders when it comes to contrary data. When the evidence does not support evolution or "deep time", they tend to go through bizarre contortions to force observed data to fit their models.
Dinosaurs have allegedly been extinct for millions of years and the fossils have fully turned to stone. There "should not" be soft tissues and red blood cells, but evolutionary science-deniers do not want to accept the facts. And extinct shouldn't stink. However, fossils tend to be aromatic at times. 
The reactions of scientists to cadaverous smells from fossils as well as finding blood cells, blood vessels and proteins like collagen in them is a bit like those cartoon characters with a bewildered look in their eyes who can’t see the obvious—even though the other characters and the audience can see it all too easily. 
If one could still smell these dead sea creatures then they couldn’t possibly be millions of years old. Dr Mary Schweitzer and others who report such occurrences—if they did not have their evolutionary blinkers on—might have concluded (as did your students) that fossils from which smells emanate could not be millions of years old.
It’s worthwhile going back over some of the developments since Dr Schweitzer’s initial findings in the 1990s which shocked evolutionists because the ‘shocks’ have kept coming.
You can read the rest of "Blinkered scientists look past the obvious", in context, here. But it's best to leave off your blinders so you can see more clearly.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

I won't bother harping on the lack of scientific content in this post - that may well be pointless in the context of this blog - but the question I would like to ask is what exactly is the scientific evidence (by which I mean specifically "scientific evidence acceptable by young-Earth-creationists") that tells us at which rate fossils decay/die etc.

To wit, how would Mr. Superman back up a statement like "If one could still smell these dead sea creatures then they couldn’t possibly be millions of years old"?

I don't think I've ever been around an archeological dig that smelled, you know, pleasant.

Is Mr. Piltdown claiming that the smell of recently decayed corpses accompanied such finds?

If so, how about some evidence.

Piltdown Superman said...

How about reading the article before making statements that reek of decaying prejudicial conjecture?

Unlike the owner of this Weblog, I have very little respect for anonymous posts. However, I'll give a bit of an answer.

"I would like to ask is what exactly is the scientific evidence (by which I mean specifically "scientific evidence acceptable by young-Earth-creationists") that tells us at which rate fossils decay/die etc."

An example of prejudicial conjecture in your loaded terminology.

"To wit, how would Mr. Superman back up a statement like "If one could still smell these dead sea creatures then they couldn’t possibly be millions of years old"?"

Prove me wrong. Also, do some research. Third, use some common sense.

"I don't think I've ever been around an archeological dig that smelled, you know, pleasant."

That should tell you something right there.

"Is Mr. Piltdown claiming that the smell of recently decayed corpses accompanied such finds?"

Huh?

Again, do some research, read the article and then you might be able to offer something of substance instead of snark.