@bewildered,
bewildered wrote:
1. Multiple expert opinions: There is no expert on blood cells that have been fossilized for billions of years or millions of years.
But there are experts in meteorite analysis and mineral samples. We have one online here with us, but you've been ignoring him.
bewildered wrote:2. Chemical analysis is useless in identifying red blood cells of billions of years ago.
I agree. That's because blood cells from billions of years ago don't exist. But a chemical analysis could easily identify the composition of various areas in the micrographs and that information could falsify your conclusions, so you MUST address it in order to follow a scientific analysis.
bewildered wrote:3. The morphology of mammalian red blood cells is unique, which means there is no other material in the world that matches red blood cells in both their size and shape.
But there are many things which have a superficial similarity, and the images you have provided simply do not contain enough detail to prove your assumptions.
bewildered wrote:4. I have provided micrographs of human red blood cells for comparison with the ET RBC remains at the same magnification. In view of points 2, 3 and 4, why is there need for chemical analysis in order to identify red blood cells?
Because points 2 and 3 can be easily discredited and point 4 is not a point at all, but simply photo's of already identified cells.
bewildered wrote:I have posted eight reasons showing why they cannot be other things.
You have not. You have posted unverified assumptions and invalid conclusions.
bewildered wrote:No one can identify them as any other things. What reason do people have to doubt them as red blood cell remains?
We can identify (and have identified) them as simple mineralization effects, but you are ignoring the facts.