Talk about illustrating the differences!

On Facebook, I've been debating the old creation and evolution issue with some fellas. I've thrown out the "nature of evidence" argument and it's been misunderstood a few times, but that's to be expected. So here's a funny illustration of exactly what I'm talking about.

Apparently researchers have found soft tissue in a Tyrannosaurus Rex bone and have extracted some collagen (and examined the proteins therein). This is nothing new though, and has been happening for a few years now. What is interesting though is that a common question comes up with this. The question is alluded to when one of the researchers, Mary Higby Schweitzer, says, "It had been thought that some proteins could last a million years or more, but not to the age of the dinosaurs"

BUT...

The Tyrannosaurus is supposed to be 68 million years old.

Does anyone even bother to ask the question "how can this be? Could the T. Rex be a lot younger than we think?"

Nope. Not for a second.

Now, apparently they were wrong about how long proteins could last. They used to think that some proteins could last upwards of a million years. They find a dinosaur that has an assumed age and their data is off by a factor of around sixty-eight times, but they uphold the theory and reject the obvious conclusion drawn from the data (and I'm the one who's always accused of having a bias...).

Would anyone EVER suggest "Gee Mary! I wonder how old this T. Rex is then? It can't be 68 million years old. The proteins would have been long dead by then. Maybe it's around a million years old, or younger!"

No sir. Not even an option. That's silly talk.

I've been saying it for years:

The Biblically driven and the non-Biblically driven scientist both see the same data.

It's not a question of evidence...it's a question of how you see the data and who is deciding what constitutes evidence.

Until Next Time,

The Armchair Theologian

P.S. - I'm in summer classes now, so posting is few and far between...sorry!