(June 7, 2025 at 5:10 am)Sheldon Wrote:(June 6, 2025 at 6:01 pm)SubtleVirtue Wrote: search "blood in T-Rex bones""Non-Mineralized Tissues in Fossil T rex"
"The absolute ages of all fossils ultimately hinge on radiometric dating techniques, the validity and accuracy of which are beyond reasonable doubt."
"Multiple analyses using several independent radiometric techniques show that the rocks in which the MOR T rex was found are about 65 million years old. The age of this fossil is a settled fact."
"for the past few centuries “fossil” has had two distinct meanings: the remains or traces of ancient life (the time-based definition), and an object of biological origin that has undergone the process of “fossilization” (the process-based definition). The creationist challenge to the age of the MOR T rex is an equivocation based on this dual definition:
1. A fossil (time-defined) is old.
2. The MOR T rex is not a fossil (process-defined) because the presence of soft tissue demonstrates that it is not fossilized.
Therefore, the MOR T rex is not old.
The argument is invalid because each of the premises defines “fossil” in a different way. Few arguments used by creationists are as easily refuted as this, because most errors in creationists’ reasoning are not simple logical fallacies, and arise instead from misinterpretations of empirical evidence and hence requiring detailed refutation. But the equivocal use of “fossil” is not a creationist invention; it is a bad habit that they learned from palaeontologists themselves."
CITATION
This is quite an old creationist canard, well debunked by science.
Here is another source debunking it, from TalkOrigins website, CITATION
did they carbon date the blood?
