Thanks for your message.
However, as per my policy not to get involved in private discussions on creation, evolution or design, I am posting my response to my blog CED. Normally I remove the sender's personal details, but in this case I have to refer to the web page you cite, which has your name on it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Clive Campbell" [...]
To: Stephen E. Jones [...]
Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2006 12:59 AM
Subject: Lengthy evolution vs. sudden creation of life and a new take on the Genesis creation account
> Grace and peace, Stephen.
> Visited your home page and thought you might be interested in my article: Lengthy evolution vs. sudden creation of life and a new take on the Genesis creation account
I will only comment on one part of your Old Earth Creationist/Young Life (OEC/YL) position at that web page, namely that you take the discovery of "soft tissue found inside a T. rex thigh bone, encased in sandstone" as evidence that it dates from only about "2300 B.C." when "evolutionists are .... claiming it is 68 million years old":
Lengthy evolution vs. sudden creation of life and a new take on the Genesis creation account, by Clive Campbell, 10/27/05 ... Most evolutionists will mock me for saying so, but from my perspective it takes far more faith to believe in the theory of lengthy evolution of life than in the theory of sudden creation of life. To believe the former, one must believe ... inspite of such evidence as soft tissue found inside a T. rex thigh bone, encased in sandstone (evolutionists are still closed-mindedly claiming it is 68 million years old). To believe the latter--the theory of sudden creation of life (around 3970 B.C., according to biblical chronology)--one must believe ... the destruction of those civilizations about 2300 B.C., exactly the time the Bible puts the global Flood; the extinction of dinosaurs by flooding; and carbon dating of dinosaur bones in the thousands of years.Which theory ... puts forward the best evidence? ... One simple example makes my point. Which is better science: to accept the carbon dates of dinosaur bones as an indication of their young age or to throw them out just because they do not fit the theory of evolution and instead, date the bones by dating the rock around them? What if the rock is in fact millions of years old, as I do not dispute, but the dinosaur is only thousands? ...
First, you commit the fallacy of false dilemma that only "evolutionists" claim that this dinosaur (and dinosaurs in general) are millions of years old, when in fact most Old Earth Creationists (like myself) claim it also.
Second, I assume you are referring to the following discovery of "what appear to be soft tissues from a Tyrannosaurus rex fossil bone" (my emphasis) dated "68 million years ago":
T. rex fossil has 'soft tissues', BBC, 24 March, 2005 ... Dinosaur experts have extracted samples of what appear to be soft tissues from a Tyrannosaurus rex fossil bone. The US researchers tell Science magazine that the organic components resemble cells and fine blood vessels. In the hotly contested field of dino research, the work will be greeted with acclaim and disbelief in equal measure. What seems certain is that some fairly remarkable conditions must have existed at the Montana site where the T. rex died, 68 million years ago. Normally when an animal dies, worms and bugs will quickly eat up anything that is soft. Then, as the remaining bone material gets buried deeper and deeper in the mud, it gets heated, crushed and replaced by minerals - it is turned to stone. ... The form, and nothing else, is all that is left of the original. On the outside, the hindlimb fossil designated MOR (Museum of the Rockies specimen) 1125 has this appearance. But when Dr Mary Schweitzer, of North Carolina State University, dissolved away the minerals, she found something extraordinary inside. She discovered transparent, flexible filaments that resemble blood vessels. There were also traces of what look like red blood cells; and others that look like osteocytes, cells that build and maintain bone. "This is fossilised bone in the sense that it's from an extinct animal but it doesn't have a lot of the characteristics of what people would call a fossil," she told the BBC ... "It still has places where there are no secondary minerals, and it's not any more dense than modern bone; it's bone more than anything." Dr Schweitzer is not making any grand claims that these soft traces are the degraded remnants of the original material - only that they give that appearance. She and other scientists will want to establish if some hitherto unexplained fine-scale process has been at work in MOR 1125, which was pulled from the famous dinosaur rocks of eastern Montana known as the Hell Creek Formation. ..."This may not be fossilisation as we know it, of large macrostructures, but fossilisation at a molecular level," commented Dr Matthew Collins, who studies ancient bio-molecules at York University, UK. "My suspicion is this process has led to the reaction of more resistant molecules with the normal proteins and carbohydrates which make up these cellular structures, and replaced them, so that we have a very tough, resistant, very lipid-rich material - a polymer that would be very difficult to break down and characterise, but which has preserved the structure," he told the BBC. But if there are fragments, at least, of the original dinosaur molecules, their details could provide new clues to the relationship between T. rex and living species, such as birds. Inevitably, people will wonder whether the creature's DNA might also be found. But the "life molecule" degrades rapidly over thousand-year timescales, and the chances of a sample surviving from the Cretaceous are not considered seriously. "I actually don't work with DNA and my lab is not set up to do that," said Dr Schweitzer. "Our goal is more to look to see what we can find with respect to the proteins that are coded by the DNA. "To a large degree, most of the chemical studies that have been done suggest proteins are more durable than DNA and they have almost the same kind of information because they use DNA as their template." Dr Collins added: "I would agree that proteins are the molecules to go for - they are the major macromolecules in bone. "We've got some very interesting research coming out from a number of labs looking at stable isotopes (different forms of the same atom) in bones and clearly information about diets which comes from such isotopes may now be amenable from these dinosaur materials." However, he cautioned that the great age of MOR 1125 may put such detail beyond the investigating scientists. ...
If so, then although you are not a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) in that you accept that it is "an ancient universe ... fourteen ... billion years" old, however like YECs you claim that God did not create life until "around 3970 B.C." i.e. ~6,000 years ago.
Therefore your argument (and error) on this is the same as YEC's (e.g. "Dinosaur soft tissue find-a stunning rebuttal of `millions of years'," by Dr Carl Wieland, AiG-Australia, 25 March 2005) in that what YEC (and your OEC/YL position) needs is not the rare exception of a fossil found with soft tissue, but for it to be the norm.
In effect YEC is arguing an extreme version of the half-full/half-empty glass argument, except instead of 50% full and 50% empty, it is more like 99.9999% of fossils don't have any soft tissue while only 0.0001% do. So YEC (and OEC/YL) is claiming that the 0.0001% supports its position and the 99.9999% does not support the opposite Old Life positions (both evolutionist and creationist)!
And note what the above article says: "Dinosaur experts have extracted samples of what appear to be soft tissues from a ... fossil bone"; "some fairly remarkable conditions must have existed at the Montana site where the T. rex died"; "when Dr Mary Schweitzer ... dissolved away the minerals, she found something extraordinary inside"; "This is fossilised bone ... but it doesn't have a lot of the characteristics of ... a fossil"; "Dr Schweitzer is not making any grand claims that these soft traces are the degraded remnants of the original material - only that they give that appearance"; "My suspicion is this process has led to the reaction of more resistant molecules with the normal proteins and carbohydrates ... and replaced them, so that we have a very tough, resistant ... polymer that would be very difficult to break down and characterise, but which has preserved the structure" and "DNA ... degrades rapidly over thousand-year timescales, and the chances of a sample surviving from the Cretaceous are not considered seriously." (my emphasis).
>Love in the Lord,
Thanks. Same to you.
Stephen E. Jones, BSc (Biol).
Genesis 17:1-8. 1When Abram was ninety-nine years old, the LORD appeared to him and said, "I am God Almighty; walk before me and be blameless. 2I will confirm my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase your numbers." 3Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 4"As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of many nations. 5No longer will you be called Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I have made you a father of many nations. 6I will make you very fruitful; I will make nations of you, and kings will come from you. 7I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you. 8The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God."