PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     How Old Is IT Really?

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"After 68 million years in the ground, a Tyrannosaurus rex found in Montana was dug up, its leg bone was broken in pieces, and fragments were dissolved in acid in [Paleontologist Mary] Schweitzer’s laboratory at North Carolina State University in Raleigh..."

"It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind."  

Find this at Smithsonian.com--"Dinosaur Shocker"

Well how old is it folks?  It's got heme and blood vessels.  
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 02:01 AM on August 15, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well how old is it folks?  It's got heme and blood vessels.  

It's 68 million years old.  Why would having heme and blood vessels change that?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:08 AM on August 15, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I take it you understand that a fossil is no longer bone--it is mineral.  That means there is no organic bone left--nothing organic would be left.

Now you are letting the model shape the evidence Demon.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 02:30 AM on August 15, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I take it you understand that a fossil is no longer bone--it is mineral.  That means there is no organic bone left--nothing organic would be left.

The collagen that was found was mineralized, it was hard as a rock, it had to be bathed in acid before it was soft.  Organic material has been found in fossils, never this old before, true, but your claim that nothing organic would be left is inaccurate.

Now you are letting the model shape the evidence Demon.

No I'm not, you are.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:46 AM on August 15, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Collagen is irrelevant.   That was not my point Demon so don't try to switch.  Heme was found in it, and blood vessels.  You have remains of something comparatively recent before your eyes and you can't even see it.

Even Schweitzer said the fossil stunk, and used the deterioration of blood within a week as an example as to why she was surprised.  Why is the name of the article Dinosaur Shocker?

68 million--NO way.
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 03:43 AM on August 15, 2009 | IP
Lester10

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It's 68 million years old.  Why would having heme and blood vessels change that?


I'm sorry Demon, do you know how dumb that sounds?

Evolution says dinosaurs died out 68 million years ago.
Dinosaur bone found with blood components still elastic.
How long can blood components remain elastic?
Around 68 million years obviously, isn't that amazing! (It's called circular reasoning and it often causes you to stop thinking logically.

It's the same with rocks dating fossils and fossils dating rocks. The theory of evolution dates the rocks and the theory says those fossils became extinct at that time. Therefore if you find those fossils, you know what age the rocks are.
Much like the coelocanth or any other 'living fossil' that apparently disappeared from the fossil record for hundreds of millions of years; clearly extinct until they pitch up alive and well and virtually unchanged hundreds of millions of years later. Dinosaurs are like the coelocanth, their extinction is based on the theoretical dating of the rocks and the stories in history about dragons are ignored as mythology to fit in with the preconception about the extinction of dinosaurs according to the theory of evolution.

It's all in the circular reasoning and it causes the non-evolution prejudiced person to look at you as if your brain has clearly turned to mush.
Sorry Demon, but that's a fact. Logic has to  invariably be left behind at the front door when evolution comes to visit.



-------
Richard Lewontin: “We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door”
 


Posts: 1554 | Posted: 04:38 AM on August 15, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dinosaur bone found with blood components still elastic.

The collagen wasn't elastic, it was mineralized.  They had to soak it in weak acid for 3 days for it to be soft.

(It's called circular reasoning and it often causes you to stop thinking logically.

Please you have no idea what circular reasoning is!  From here:
AgeofTRex
"Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” "

It's established beyond a shadow of a doubt that the fossil is 68 million years old.

It's the same with rocks dating fossils and fossils dating rocks. The theory of evolution dates the rocks and the theory says those fossils became extinct at that time. Therefore if you find those fossils, you know what age the rocks are.

Yep, that's the quick and diry way to estimate a date, they're called index fossils for a reason.  But that quick and dirty date is never used until it's confirmed by multiple radiometric dating techniques.  Only when it is cross checked with 2 or more different radio isotope methods is a date officially issued.

Much like the coelocanth or any other 'living fossil' that apparently disappeared from the fossil record for hundreds of millions of years; clearly extinct until they pitch up alive and well and virtually unchanged hundreds of millions of years later.

Well, no, the coelacanth had evolved.  And the reason we couldn't find it was because it lived down so deep and in such a hard to access environment.  Prehistoric coelacanths lived in shallow water.

Dinosaurs are like the coelocanth, their extinction is based on the theoretical dating of the rocks and the stories in history about dragons are ignored as mythology to fit in with the preconception about the extinction of dinosaurs according to the theory of
evolution.


Blah blah blah, you have repeatedly failed to support your harebrained claim.  No dinosaurs found above the KT extinction line, no dinosaurs found with man.  No actual representations of dinosaurs in primitive art.  You lose again.

It's all in the circular reasoning and it causes the non-evolution prejudiced person to look at you as if your brain has clearly turned to mush.

Kinda like the bible is inerrant because it says so in the bible.  Talk about circular reasoning!

Sorry Demon, but that's a fact. Logic has to  invariably be left behind at the front door when evolution comes to visit.

Ha ha ha, still pisses you off that 99.9% of the world's biologists accept evolution and the theory of evolution has been immensely successful when practically applied.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:10 AM on August 15, 2009 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Collagen is irrelevant.   That was not my point Demon so don't try to switch.

Not trying to switch anything.  Soft tissue was NOT found in the fossil, it was mineralized, it was hard as a rock.

Heme was found in it, and blood vessels.

Heme is an iron based substance and the blood vessels were also mineralized, hard as a rock.

You have remains of something comparatively recent before your eyes and you can't even see it.

Don't be ridiculous!  What makes you an expert?  The real experts who found it, the real experts that studied it, all said it was 68 million years old.  Let's see your evidence that it wasn't.  Show us how it's impossible for heme to survive that long, show us the evidence that mineralized collagen and blood vessels couldn't survive that long.  Show us why radiometric dating says it's 68 million years old.  Let's face it, you don't know what you're talking about.

Even Schweitzer said the fossil stunk, and used the deterioration of blood within a week as an example as to why she was surprised.  Why is the name of the article Dinosaur Shocker?

But Schwitzer says it's 68 million years old.  And it's called "dinosaur Shocker" because no one thought we would find this material in a 68 million year old fossil, not because anyone thought the fossil was younger than that.

68 million--NO way.

There's no doubt it's 68 million years old.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:48 AM on August 15, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A very interesting article - very exciting.

That's what makes science so interesting, Nature always has surprises for us.  However, no one, except Creationists, are claiming that dinosaurs lived recently.  The discovery DOES mean that there are things about the fossilization process that was not entirely understood.  If soft tissue can be recovered from inside dinosaur bones, that opens up a whole new area of research.  We have a new avenue open to us to learn more about long extinct animals.  

Very exciting!!!
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 3:32 PM on August 15, 2009 | IP
Mustrum

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 02:43 AM on August 15, 2009 :
Collagen is irreleva

Even Schweitzer said the fossil stunk, and used the deterioration of blood within a week as an example as to why she was surprised.  Why is the name of the article Dinosaur Shocker?


Perhaps you can explain why Schweitzer thinks the fossils are millions of years old?  Why do you think she (a Christian) is so upset by creationists using her work to deceive people?  Hum....





-------
*Mustrum*
 


Posts: 143 | Posted: 4:26 PM on August 15, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

An interesting article on the background of the scientific controversy:

Origin of Species: How a T. Rex Femur Sparked a Scientific Smackdown

Well, there is one way. In early May, a new paper by Asara and Schweitzer—together with more than a dozen coauthors—appeared in Science. In it, the team has replicated their protein experiments on MOR 2598, a bone fragment from an 80 million-year-old hadrosaur, an entirely different species, dug up in a different part of Montana in 2007.

This time, they have used even more rigorous controls, handling the fossils with sterile instruments from the beginning of the excavation. They have replicated both Schweitzer's biochemical results (which show evidence of degraded cells and blood vessels) and Asara's mass spec data (which reveal eight collagen peptides) in independent labs. Asara himself used a mass spec machine with much higher resolution and adhered to Pevzner's demands for rigorous statistical analysis. Once again, the ancient protein fragments have lined up with bird collagen. But they lined up most closely with something else: the T. rex peptides reported two years ago by Asara.

McIntosh declares himself swayed, though still circumspect. "It's a nice bit of work," he tells me. "I think they've been doing a good job of shutting the door. Whether the door is truly locked or not, I don't know." Some other explanation could potentially win out over time. But the hemoglobin-based ostrich contamination hypothesis, he says, "doesn't really bear on what they're trying to prove here."

Pevzner, characteristically, is still playing the sheriff. "I'm glad that Asara called the previous criticism appropriate," he says. "I had a commentary that their analysis was unprofessional; they agreed with this. I had a commentary that this work couldn't be evaluated unless they release the data; they agreed with that."



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 4:46 PM on August 15, 2009 | IP
Yehren

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The collagen that was found was mineralized, it was hard as a rock, it had to be bathed in acid before it was soft.  Organic material has been found in fossils, never this old before, true, but your claim that nothing organic would be left is inaccurate.[i]

The time for many degradation reactions in protein are in the millions of years, in the absence of enyzmes.    So if the bone remained sterile, biochemistry predicts that such things are possible.


 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 7:54 PM on August 15, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

LOL, it is always fun to watch (read) people argue about trivialities that the other person says. totally forgetting about the main topic, or to back up their arguments with facts.

I would first like to commend Demon38 for his systematic rebuttals.  but like I said, you forgot to back up your statements with facts
so here are MY rebuttals, starting with the big one:

Only when it is cross checked with 2 or more different radio isotope methods...

WRONG. different radio dating methods are used for different (supposed) time frames. Carbon14 is used for 100 - 50,000 years old. Uranium-238 for up to 4.5 Billion.
and that isn't taking into account the inaccuracy of radio dating (the need for LARGE amounts of the rock / fossil in order to determine averages... unknown parent substance amounts... daughter substance's from Different parent substances... catalysts... and, as quoted from R.E. Lee, "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," in Anthropological Journal of Canada, March 3, 1981, p. 9. "half of the dates are rejected" as being "unacceptable") etc



No actual representations of dinosaurs in primitive art

HA! that's a good one.
you must have missed all these:

- the 'beaked dragon statue' from either the Zhou or Han Dynasty china is a depiction of a Oviraptor
- or the 'dragon artefact' from Shang dynasty (B.C. 1766-1122)  china of a Saurolophus
- a Roman mosaic from about 200 AD shows two 'long-necked sea dragons' aka Tanystropheus
- a cave painting made by North American Anasazi Indians around 150 B.C. - 1200 A.D closely resembles a brontosaurus
- the Australian Aborigines from Queensland have stories and a cave painting of a plesiosaur
- on a temple in Cambodia there are carvings of a stegosaurus
- French artwork from the 1500's show multiple depictions of Plateosaurus
- the story of saint george and the dragon
and even more if you would just bother looking for them


The real experts who found it, the real experts that studied it, all said it was 68 million years old
Yes, I will believe they said that
But unless I am mistaken they also said that finding blood cells in a 68 Million year old fossil is IMPOSSIBLE
this means one of two things. either the blood cells where not really there ... or the fossil isn't really 68 million years old.

now didn't I hear something about not letting the model shape the evidence


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 5:11 PM on September 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 5:11 PM on September 13, 2009 :

I would first like to commend Demon38 for his systematic rebuttals.  but like I said, you forgot to back up your statements with facts
so here are MY rebuttals, starting with the big one:

Only when it is cross checked with 2 or more different radio isotope methods...

WRONG. different radio dating methods are used for different (supposed) time frames. Carbon14 is used for 100 - 50,000 years old. Uranium-238 for up to 4.5 Billion.
and that isn't taking into account the inaccuracy of radio dating (the need for LARGE amounts of the rock / fossil in order to determine averages... unknown parent substance amounts... daughter substance's from Different parent substances... catalysts... and, as quoted from R.E. Lee, "Radiocarbon, Ages in Error," in Anthropological Journal of Canada, March 3, 1981, p. 9. "half of the dates are rejected" as being "unacceptable") etc



I'm afraid you are mistaken.  Here is a table of techniques and ages for some rocks from Greenland.  The different isotopes are used to cross-check the results:

Technique  Age Range (billion years)
uranium-lead 3.60±0.05
lead-lead         3.56±0.10
lead-lead    3.74±0.12
lead-lead  3.62±0.13
rubidium-strontium 3.64±0.06
rubidium-strontium 3.62±0.14
rubidium-strontium 3.67±0.09
rubidium-strontium 3.66±0.10
rubidium-strontium 3.61±0.22
rubidium-strontium 3.56±0.14
lutetium-hafnium 3.55±0.22
samarium-neodymium 3.56±0.20


From:
Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 5:26 PM on September 13, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 5:11 PM on September 13, 2009 :The real experts who found it, the real experts that studied it, all said it was 68 million years old
Yes, I will believe they said that
But unless I am mistaken they also said that finding blood cells in a 68 Million year old fossil is IMPOSSIBLE
this means one of two things. either the blood cells where not really there ... or the fossil isn't really 68 million years old.


Can you show us where anybody said there were blood cells???

Or are you copying someone who doesn't know what they are saying?



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 11:42 PM on September 13, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 11:42 PM on September 13, 2009 :

Can you show us where anybody said there were blood cells???

Or are you copying someone who doesn't know what they are saying?




admittedly, there are far more Christian (creationist) based sites that say there where blood cells. but here is a quote form
scienceblog.com.
"Dr. Mary Schweitzer, assistant professor of paleontology with a joint appointment at the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences, has succeeded in isolating soft tissue from the femur of a 68-million-year-old dinosaur"

here is an image of soft tissue from inside the bone


and here are some more images

left: flexible branching structures in the T. rex  bone identified as “blood vessels”
right: these blood cells where squeezed out of some of the blood vessels.

and you yourself said
Quote from Apoapsis at 4:46 PM on August 15, 2009 :

Schweitzer's biochemical results (which show evidence of degraded cells and blood vessels)



and even the VERY FIRST post by AFJ gave a site that agreed there where blood cells. (Smithsonian.com--"Dinosaur Shocker")

is that enough proof?





and as for the radio dating... I will admit when I am wrong.
some of the dates for radio dating do match up

(I still stand by what I said that radio dating methods are inaccurate. but perhaps their accuracy should be discussed on a new thread. so that this thread can stay on the topic of the T-Rex bone)


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 02:14 AM on September 14, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 02:14 AM on September 14, 2009 :

and here are some more images

left: flexible branching structures in the T. rex  bone identified as “blood vessels”
right: these blood cells where squeezed out of some of the blood vessels.


Where did these images come from?  Here is one of Schweitzer's images:





(Edited by Apoapsis 9/14/2009 at 10:10 AM).


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 09:15 AM on September 14, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


this image came from smithsonianmag.com.
the site AFJ gave in the very first post


these images both came from creation.com
a Pro-Creationist site I stumbled across while I was looking for this quote:
scienceblog.com.
"Dr. Mary Schweitzer, assistant professor of paleontology with a joint appointment at the N.C. Museum of Natural Sciences, has succeeded in isolating soft tissue from the femur of a 68-million-year-old dinosaur"
on a Pro-Evolutionist site


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 11:56 PM on September 14, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 11:56 PM on September 14, 2009 :


these images both came from creation.com
a Pro-Creationist site I stumbled across while I was looking for this quote:



Those do not look like images from Dr.  Schweitzer, do you have a reference from her showing those images?  Here are some from her earlier 2005 work:





-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 07:41 AM on September 15, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I see what you are driving at Apoapsis

NO, I do not have any proof that the above Pictures I posted are genuine.

But the Reason they where posted was because you asked
Quote from Apoapsis at 11:42 PM on September 13, 2009 :

Can you show us where anybody said there were blood cells???


so. assuming these are forgeries (from a Christian site, that is unlikely). how about the other evidence/ quotes/ pictures ?
are you convinced that Blood cells were found in the T-Rex bone?

PS: just out of curiosity, where did you get your photos from?


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 4:49 PM on September 15, 2009 | IP
Quelle

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If T-Rex's existed alongside elephants, then why don't we find elephant bones in the same strata as T-Rex?  


-------
So When Was The Flood?
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 3:44 PM on September 18, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how often do you find horse bones next to camel bones? (rhetorical question, don't bother answering)

and who mentioned elephants?


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 4:06 PM on September 18, 2009 | IP
JimIrvine

|     |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Why don't you answer the question asked of you?


-------
Lester in logical fallacies
That’s IN MY HEAD –you know, kind of like a pneumonic helps people to remember;,

Lester in Naturalism
the reality is that medical doctors have no training in evolution

Lester in 'Scientists Assert:
Ancestors assumes evolution.
 


Posts: 320 | Posted: 5:19 PM on September 18, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

how often do you find horse bones next to camel bones? (rhetorical question, don't bother answering)


Unfortunately for you, camels and horses are found in the same strategy. Large geographical distances between the fossils isn't what matters, but rather the age of the fossils.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 5:30 PM on September 18, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Lester10 at 04:38 AM on August 15, 2009 :
It's 68 million years old.  Why would having heme and blood vessels change that?


I'm sorry Demon, do you know how dumb that sounds?

As dumb as claiming that a creature that can hide under lotus leaves is a brontosaurus?

It's the same with rocks dating fossils and fossils dating rocks.


Ah, ignorance is bliss.

I just taught my class about index fossils last week.  None of them felt that it was circular, but then, they actually understand how it works.




-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 6:45 PM on September 18, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 5:11 PM on September 13, 2009 :

No actual representations of dinosaurs in primitive art

HA! that's a good one.
you must have missed all these:

- the 'beaked dragon statue' from either the Zhou or Han Dynasty china is a depiction of a Oviraptor
- or the 'dragon artefact' from Shang dynasty (B.C. 1766-1122)  china of a Saurolophus

This is also from the Shang dynasty period:


If we apply your criterion, then we must conclude that there existed a 2 legged stegasaur with the head of a dog.

- a Roman mosaic from about 200 AD shows two 'long-necked sea dragons' aka Tanystropheus


Is that the same mosaic that shows Neptune and some sea nymphs?  I guess those must be real, too.

- a cave painting made by North American Anasazi Indians around 150 B.C. - 1200 A.D closely resembles a brontosaurus

'Closely resembling'?  Well, CLEARLY brontosaurus lived among the Anasazi!  

- on a temple in Cambodia there are carvings of a stegosaurus

Not really...

Looks more like a pig with some ornaments on it.

-the story of saint george and the dragon
and even more if you would just bother looking for them


What you seem to be doing is establishing an argument that the imaginatins of ancient (and sometimes not so ancient) peoples were so restricted as to only portray the things they saw around them.  If so, then clearly the Olympian gods exist, cerberus exists, Medusa exists.

The sphinx?  Real.
Horus?  Real.
The griffen?  Real.

What amazing times they must have been.


The real experts who found it, the real experts that studied it, all said it was 68 million years old
Yes, I will believe they said that
But unless I am mistaken they also said that finding blood cells in a 68 Million year old fossil is IMPOSSIBLE
this means one of two things. either the blood cells where not really there ... or the fossil isn't really 68 million years old.

They never said blood cells.  They said structures that looked like blood cells.  

Subsequent examination showed them to be "[b]lood cell size iron-oxygen spheres found in the vessels were identified as an oxidized form of formerly pyritic framboids."


So you have your answer, if you choose to look.

now didn't I hear something about not letting the model shape the evidence

You mean like claiming ancient stone carvings and depictions of mythical creatures in art menas that they really existed at the time?


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 7:09 PM on September 18, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 4:06 PM on September 18, 2009 :
how often do you find horse bones next to camel bones? (rhetorical question, don't bother answering)

and who mentioned elephants?


How about in contemporaneous strata?



-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 7:10 PM on September 18, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 4:49 PM on September 15, 2009 :
I see what you are driving at Apoapsis

NO, I do not have any proof that the above Pictures I posted are genuine.

But the Reason they where posted was because you asked
Quote from Apoapsis at 11:42 PM on September 13, 2009 :

Can you show us where anybody said there were blood cells???


so. assuming these are forgeries (from a Christian site, that is unlikely). how about the other evidence/ quotes/ pictures ?
are you convinced that Blood cells were found in the T-Rex bone?

PS: just out of curiosity, where did you get your photos from?


OK, I found them in the online supplement to her Science article, they aren't in the print edition.  I knew they had put up images of Ostrich blood cells and wanted to be sure they weren't from those.

Schweitzer never claimed they were blood cells.  Fresh blood cells couldn't survive the extraction process those blobs went through.

An interesting article about it is here:
Scientific Smackdown


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:53 PM on September 18, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Apoapsis - that was a very interesting article!  Since then, there has been a reexamination of the T-rex tissue sample - another mass spect done.  The subsequent tests confirm the original test results from 2007.

Reexamination of T-Rex Verifies Disputed Biochemical Remains

A new analysis of the remains of a Tyrannosaurus rex (T. rex) that roamed Earth 68 million years ago has confirmed traces of protein from blood and bone, tendons, or cartilage.

The scientists describe reanalysis of the T. rex data and also report finding evidence of substances found in collagen. "In summary, we find nothing obviously wrong with the Tyrannosaurus rex [analysis from 2007]," the report states. "The identified peptides seem consistent with a sample containing old, quite possibly very ancient, bird-like bone, contaminated with only fairly explicable proteins. Hemoglobin and collagen are plausible proteins to find in fossil bone, because they are two of the most abundant proteins in bone and bone marrow."


This is VERY exciting.  This would add to the  growing evidence linking the evolution of birds from dinosaurs.  Or at least that they share a common ancestor.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 10:27 PM on September 18, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from derwood at 7:09 PM on September 18, 2009 :
Quote from anti-evolutionist at 5:11 PM on September 13, 2009 :
- the 'beaked dragon statue' from either the Zhou or Han Dynasty china is a depiction of a Oviraptor
- or the 'dragon artefact' from Shang dynasty (B.C. 1766-1122)  china of a Saurolophus
This is also from the Shang dynasty period:


If we apply your criterion, then we must conclude that there existed a 2 legged stegasaur with the head of a dog.
the statue you showed is of an Saurolophus .




- a Roman mosaic from about 200 AD shows two 'long-necked sea dragons' aka Tanystropheus

Is that the same mosaic that shows Neptune and some sea nymphs?  I guess those must be real, too.

unfortunately this was the best picture I could find of the mosaic (and I did look for a while). and I can't see Neptune or any Nymphs.



- a cave painting made by North American Anasazi Indians around 150 B.C. - 1200 A.D closely resembles a brontosaurus

'Closely resembling'?  Well, CLEARLY brontosaurus lived among the Anasazi!




- on a temple in Cambodia there are carvings of a stegosaurus

Not really...

Looks more like a pig with some ornaments on it.
I'll let the viewers decide what the carving looks more like





-the story of saint george and the dragon
and even more if you would just bother looking for them


What you seem to be doing is establishing an argument that the imaginatins of ancient (and sometimes not so ancient) peoples were so restricted as to only portray the things they saw around them.  If so, then clearly the Olympian gods exist, cerberus exists, Medusa exists.
you make a good point.
not all stories involving large, scary animals where real. but nor where all of them made up.
the hard part is telling the truth from the lies



-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 12:20 AM on September 20, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A-E, for heavens sake, 65 million years seperate dinosaurs from modern humans.  

A friend of mine sent me a link a few years ago - something about the 10 mysteries of modern times.  One item described some rocks that had drawings on them that looked like dinosaurs, supposedly from some remote tribe in South America.  I did a little research and found that the drawings on these rocks of supposed dinosaurs were made by local villagers who sold them to gullible people.


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 03:47 AM on September 20, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Just goes to show you the power of being inundated by evolution and the image of PhDs in white coats and glasses.

Because they hear it in the public schools since 4th grade and then hear it on the discovery channel, and then hear it in the newspaper, and Newsweek and Time, and Omni, and Nat'l Geo, and the college professor, and the president and supreme court justices.  The thing is all these people that control these things were taught evolution since 4th grade.

Is a 4th grader going to argue with a B.S?  Is a freshmen in high school going to argue with an M.S?  Is a freshman in college going to argue with a PhD?  Is Joe Smith--high school grad going to argue with a Newsweek author, who also was taught evo from 4th grade, and was not going to argue with his teacher?

Is a scientist who wants to consider the possibility of "design features" in a science journal going to put his reputation on the line and come into ill will from peers and the NSF?

Some have and they are labeled as incompetent?  It has all the same dynamics as the protestant reformation.  No knock here to Catholics--just an observance to the dynamics of a smaller movement against a larger established entity.

(Edited by AFJ 9/20/2009 at 09:46 AM).
 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 09:45 AM on September 20, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Dinosaurs co-existing with humans:  The fossil record simply does not support this idea.  The Creation Museum in KY depicting such a thing is absurd.  

Just goes to show you the power of being inundated by evolution and the image of PhDs in white coats and glasses.


Sadly, far too few people understand how science works and think that a scientific theory is just 'a guess', 'a hunch'.  And far too many are too quick to believe in sensationalist stories - UFO's, Bigfoot, ghost, mysticism, Flintsones (aka - Ken Ham's Creationist Museum in KY), etc.

Scientific literacy in America is a serious problem.  Did you know that according to polls over the years a consistent 20% (1 in 5) Americans believe that the sun revolves around the earth?  I was absolutely stunned several years ago when my sister-in-law indicated that she thought just such a thing.  I always took it as being common knowledge from elementary school that the earth revolved around the sun.    

So is it any wonder that a recent survey on acceptance of ToE in America showed the following result:

A comparison of peoples' views in 34 countries finds that the United States ranks near the bottom when it comes to public acceptance of evolution. Only Turkey ranked lower.

So much for the US public being inundated with evolution.  But every year EVERYONE in the US in inundated by Christmas and Easter!  
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 2:00 PM on September 20, 2009 | IP
AFJ

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Schweitzer does it again.  This time dinosaur blood found.  

Dino Shocker 2


 


Posts: 86 | Posted: 6:01 PM on September 20, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Yes, very interesting.

Asara was able to identify eight collagen peptides from the hadrosaur, then confirm the identity of the sequences by comparing them both to synthesized fragments and to modern proteins analyzed under the same conditions. Once sequence data were validated, they were evaluated by Organ who determined that, like T.rex, this dinosaur's protein family tree is closer to that of modern birds than that of alligators.

All results were independently verified by researchers at BIDMC, Montana State University, Harvard University, the Dana Farber Cancer Institute, and Matrix Science of London.

The data were consistent with that of the earlier T. rex analysis, confirming that molecular preservation in fossilized remains is not an isolated event. "We used improved methodology with better instrumentation, did more experiments and had the results verified by other independent labs," Schweitzer says. "These data not only build upon what we got from the T. rex, they take the research even further."


They took more care in their extraction, delivery, and methodology with the hadrosaur.  I would like to read the original article that appeared in Science.  

The following did not mention any blood cells in the hadrosaur though.

Protein, Soft Tissue from 80-million year old Hadrosaur


 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 7:03 PM on September 20, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 12:20 AM on September 20, 2009 :
Quote from derwood at 7:09 PM on September 18, 2009 :
Quote from anti-evolutionist at 5:11 PM on September 13, 2009 :
- the 'beaked dragon statue' from either the Zhou or Han Dynasty china is a depiction of a Oviraptor
- or the 'dragon artefact' from Shang dynasty (B.C. 1766-1122)  china of a Saurolophus
This is also from the Shang dynasty period:


If we apply your criterion, then we must conclude that there existed a 2 legged stegasaur with the head of a dog.
the statue you showed is of an Saurolophus .

The one you show has 4 legs and does nto look like a dog.



- a Roman mosaic from about 200 AD shows two 'long-necked sea dragons' aka Tanystropheus

Is that the same mosaic that shows Neptune and some sea nymphs?  I guess those must be real, too.

unfortunately this was the best picture I could find of the mosaic (and I did look for a while). and I can't see Neptune or any Nymphs.






- a cave painting made by North American Anasazi Indians around 150 B.C. - 1200 A.D closely resembles a brontosaurus

'Closely resembling'?  Well, CLEARLY brontosaurus lived among the Anasazi!




Obviously a brontosaurus.  Humans are completely incapable of imaging things to make their stories more exciting.  That is how I know that there really is a space creature with a long head that bleeds acid like in 'Alien.'


- on a temple in Cambodia there are carvings of a stegosaurus

Not really...

Looks more like a pig with some ornaments on it.
I'll let the viewers decide what the carving looks more like



Looks more like a pig - look at the limb proportions and the shape of the head.
Pretty clear to me.


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."  


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:55 AM on September 21, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from AFJ at 09:45 AM on September 20, 2009 :
Just goes to show you the power of being inundated by evolution and the image of PhDs in white coats and glasses.


And what about people in black frocks with white collars, telling a child that if you don't accept Jesus, that you will die?


Because they hear it in the public schools since 4th grade and then hear it on the discovery channel, and then hear it in the newspaper, and Newsweek and Time, and Omni, and Nat'l Geo, and the college professor, and the president and supreme court justices.  The thing is all these people that control these things were taught evolution since 4th grade.

Right, and all those same liars tell that there is thng magical force called 'gravity' holding us down, when TRUE believers know that Jesus us holding us all down with his agape love!!!


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 12:22 PM on September 21, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

in this post, instead of re-posting the images already given I will just expect everyone to scroll up a bit and look at them there ^_^
thank you for your co-operation


Quote from derwood at 09:55 AM on September 21, 2009 :
The one you show has 4 legs and does not look like a dog.

you accuse me of believing "Humans are completely incapable of imaging things to make their stories more exciting"
so now I accuse you of believing "Humans are completely incapable of creating abstract works of art that art less realistic than real life"


after I posted a picture of a mosaic with long necked 'sea dragons' and said "I don't see Neptune or any Nymphs", you posted a picture of the mosaic WITH Neptune and WITHOUT the long necked 'sea dragons'. thus proving that the two mosaics are different.
Thank you


in reference to the stegosaurus/pig carving you said told me to "look at the limb proportions and the shape of the head"
so I reply by saying "the limbs are about the same. the tail AND the spine are in favour of the stegosaurus. and the head... I agree that it doesn't look much like the sketch"


to Orion
several times I have posted that "Blood Cells" where found in the bone. and you keep disagreeing with me.
but are we in agreement that "soft tissue" was found?

could you please describe to my how long it is expected to take 'soft tissue' to disappear from a fossilised bone?
and please don't refer to the 65mill/y/0 T-Rex bone or the 80mill/y/o Hadrosaur bone. that would only result in circular reasoning.


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 11:38 PM on September 21, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 11:38 PM on September 21, 2009 :

but are we in agreement that "soft tissue" was found?


No, the fossil had to be dissolved in acid for a week to release the "soft" tissue from the rock.

After 68 million years in the ground, a Tyrannosaurus rex found in Montana was dug up, its leg bone was broken in pieces, and fragments were dissolved in acid in Schweitzer’s laboratory at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. “Cool beans,” she says, looking at the image on the screen.

Dinosaur Shocker

And from Schweitzer's 2005 paper detailing sample preparation:

Small (0.05-2 inches width) fragments of untreated compact and undescribed (1S) endosteally derived bone tissues were separated from Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) femur and collected under a hood, using aseptic methods. Tissues were demineralized (0.5M EDTA, pH 8.0) for 7 days, changing buffer daily. Material remaining after demineralization was rinsed with phosphate buffer (PBS, pH 6.8) and imaged using a Zeiss dissecting scope with a digital camera and Axio Vision Software (other dinosaur specimens were demineralized according to this protocol but no further analyses were undertaken for this study). Higher magnification images of buffer-immersed tissues on glass slides were obtained with a Zeiss AxioCam2 compound microscope at magnifications of 40X and 63X.

Science 25 March 2005:
Vol. 307. no. 5717, pp. 1952 - 1955
DOI: 10.1126/science.1108397


Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex
Mary H. Schweitzer, Jennifer L. Wittmeyer, John R. Horner, Jan K. Toporski


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:07 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

in that case what was the "shocker"?
my understanding was something was found that should not have been found in a 65+ million year old bone (blood cells, soft tissue, or what ever)


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 12:19 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Hi A-E:
to Orion
several times I have posted that "Blood Cells" where found in the bone. and you keep disagreeing with me.
but are we in agreement that "soft tissue" was found?


No, I don't think I ever said that there wasn't any blood cells - I said that in the articles I read that there wasn't any definite mention of blood cells found.  Certainly there were  protein fragments found.  Maybe is blood protein, or even blood cells in some form.  I don't know.  But I haven't heard anything specific to blood cells yet from anything I've read yet.


could you please describe to my how long it is expected to take 'soft tissue' to disappear from a fossilised bone?
and please don't refer to the 65mill/y/0 T-Rex bone or the 80mill/y/o Hadrosaur bone. that would only result in circular reasoning.


I'm not an expert on taphonomy (fossilization process).  I'm just a person interested in science.  But I can say this with certainty - obviously we don't know everything there is to know about the subject!  But I have no doubt that the T-rex and Hadrasaur bones are approximately as old as the researcher say they are.  Why not?

Question:  You (and Lester) seem to think that just because there is some preserved protein found in dinosaur bones that that disproves the 65 million year gap between dinosaurs and the current date.  Why?  

Sure, the discovery of protein in dino bones is extraordinary.  No one thought protein could last that long.  But I guess they were wrong.  Isn't it exciting!  It's already adding to the growing evidence that there is a dino-bird connection.  Or, at least, that they share a common ancestor.  

I think if there's anything that can be said, its that nature holds a lot of surprises for us.  And that's what makes science exciting.  There's always something new to learn.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:39 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 12:19 AM on September 22, 2009 :
in that case what was the "shocker"?
my understanding was something was found that should not have been found in a 65+ million year old bone (blood cells, soft tissue, or what ever)


Magazines like to sell magazines, the more sensational the title, the better it sells.

It was not thought that proteins could be preserved that long, so the discovery is very significant, apparently in some circumstances, the mineralization is incomplete and able to save traces of biomaterial.  Nobody is claiming they were blood cells, but fragments of heme have been found.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:45 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 12:19 AM on September 22, 2009 :
in that case what was the "shocker"?
my understanding was something was found that should not have been found in a 65+ million year old bone (blood cells, soft tissue, or what ever)



You're seriously trying to argue that the content of the article must be false due to the overdone headline? Get used to so-called "shockers" being blown out of proportion in layman news articles about science... It happens every time.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:46 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from orion at 12:39 AM on September 22, 2009 :
the discovery of protein in dino bones is extraordinary.  No one thought protein could last that long.  But I guess they were wrong.
Quote from Apoapsis at 12:45 AM on September 22, 2009 :
It was not thought that proteins could be preserved that long, so the discovery is very significant, apparently in some circumstances, the mineralization is incomplete and able to save traces of biomaterial.


so let me get this straight
- science does not believe protein/soft tissue or what ever can last 65+ million years in a dinosaur bone
- science does believe that any bone of a dinosaur Must be 65+ million years old

the recent discovery of protein in a dinosaur bone proves that one of the two above statements are wrong.
they cross out the one that will cause them least trouble


-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 07:41 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

so let me get this straight
- science does not believe protein/soft tissue or what ever can last 65+ million years in a dinosaur bone
- science does believe that any bone of a dinosaur Must be 65+ million years old

the recent discovery of protein in a dinosaur bone proves that one of the two above statements are wrong.
they cross out the one that will cause them least trouble


As they should. Discarding the entire knowledge base supporting the age of the dinosaurs over this case would be like discarding the theory of gravity because of airplanes. The far more likely scenario is that there is an explanation for the remains lasting that long inside the fossil.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 09:25 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from anti-evolutionist at 11:38 PM on September 21, 2009 :

Quote from derwood at 09:55 AM on September 21, 2009 :
The one you show has 4 legs and does not look like a dog.

you accuse me of believing "Humans are completely incapable of imaging things to make their stories more exciting"
so now I accuse you of believing "Humans are completely incapable of creating abstract works of art that art less realistic than real life"


Of course they are!  Which is MY POINT. Lost on you as it is.
It is a DOG on some two-legged mythical creature's body.  

YOU want it both ways - you want to dismiss the things that don't jive with your preconceived notions (such as depictions of Neptune riding half-dolphin half-horse creatures) yet you also want to present similarly fanciful art as 'proof' that dinosaurs lived with people, i.e., that the YEC myth has merit.

after I posted a picture of a mosaic with long necked 'sea dragons' and said "I don't see Neptune or any Nymphs", you posted a picture of the mosaic WITH Neptune and WITHOUT the long necked 'sea dragons'. thus proving that the two mosaics are different.


Yes, they are different, yet they are contemporary - so now you are saying that the one particular mosaic that YECs parade around is the only one with REAL depcitins of REAL mythical beasts onit?  How do you know this? How do you know that YOUR mosaic is just made up fluff and the mosaic I presented is not a true depiction of real beings?

Incredible...

in reference to the stegosaurus/pig carving you said told me to "look at the limb proportions and the shape of the head"
so I reply by saying "the limbs are about the same. the tail AND the spine are in favour of the stegosaurus. and the head... I agree that it doesn't look much like the sketch"

Limbs are about the same, eh?


Hmmm... Looks to me like the limbs of the temple carving are the same length and girth - same asa pig's - while the actual stegasaurus' forelimbs are proportionally much smaller than their hindlimbs and the head of the carving is DEFINTIELY morwe similar to the pig's than to the steg's.
Only wishful thinking sees the carving as a stegasaurus.

But let me guess - all of my replies are just trying to shift the burden and all that...


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 10:45 AM on September 22, 2009 | IP
anti-evolutionist

|       |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 09:25 AM on September 22, 2009 :
Discarding the entire knowledge base supporting the age of the dinosaurs over this case would be like discarding the theory of gravity because of airplanes.

that is a not a good example.
because airplanes ARE consistent with the theory of gravity (and the maths of vacuums, mass, airspeed velocity and other such stuff)
where as the discovery of the protein is not, or as I am sure you will argue not yet, consistent with our knowledge of the fossilisation process



-------
due to a lifestyle change I am not posting as often, but I still like to read posts when I can.
my apologies to anyone you who asks me questions that don't get answered.
 


Posts: 111 | Posted: 5:14 PM on September 22, 2009 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A-E:

you seem to be latching on to the discovery of dino protein as proof that dinos can not be as old as paleontologists, geologist, physicists, and chemists say they are.

Radiometric dating has been validated by other independent dating methods.

True, everyone was surprised to discover protein in dino bones.  But does this prove that diinos co-existed with humans?  Hardly.  It just shows that the taphonomic process still holds surprises.  It's a process less well understood and predictable than radiometric dating.  Fossilization obviously has far more variables involved in it.  I would guess bone size, type of burial (rapid, slow), type of sediment and minerals, quantity of water and oxygen in the soil, and soil micorbes all play a part.   Radiometric dating, on the other hand, is very well understood.  I've read that it gives very reliable results when properly used by people who know what they're doing.

Remember, there have never been primate fossils found with dinosaur fossils.  No co-existing footprints.  No credible evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed has ever been found.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 6:18 PM on September 22, 2009 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

that is a not a good example.
because airplanes ARE consistent with the theory of gravity (and the maths of vacuums, mass, airspeed velocity and other such stuff)
where as the discovery of the protein is not, or as I am sure you will argue not yet, consistent with our knowledge of the fossilisation process


The reason it is a perfect example is that it is consistent with the framework. That's what made it so moving to scientists. They had to pause, examine the finding, and discover that actually some tissue can survive fossilization processes better than we at first thought.

Along the same lines, airplanes would at a first glance appear to destroy the entire theory of gravity, but once you examine the actual forces at work and realize that there is in fact a testable explanation for the levitation of large objects in air, everything fits together quite nicely. Someone less knowledgeable, of course, could claim that airplanes are direct proof that gravity is false on the basis that they personally aren't convinced that the scientific explanations are anything but apologetic excuses... and that would be exactly what you're doing right now when you discard the scientific explanations as for how tissue can last in a fossil that is tens of millions of years old. You're actually suggesting with a straight face that the more logical move is to scrap a theory is built upon evidence from a dozen different disciplines of science and millions of other fossils and call the whole thing bogus... all because of one fossil set that at first glance appears inconsistent.

You remind me of my friend in fifth grade who would make a single mistake on a drawing with his pencil and erase the entire thing, disregarding the 99.5% of the rest of the drawing that was perfectly fine. Think about what you are proposing: some protein tissue found in a fossil disproves an age estimate that is supported by radioactive chemistry, physics, sedimentary layers, and the theory of evolution in general. Please, for your own sake, try just a little bit harder to be believable.



(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 9/22/2009 at 9:28 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:21 PM on September 22, 2009 | IP
derwood

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

An abandoned thread.

I am shocked (uh-oh - this is my second or third post in under 5 minutes - I must be a spammer!).


-------
Lester:

"I said I have a doctorate and a university background in anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, physics, chemistry, pathology etc. ..."
 


Posts: 1646 | Posted: 09:31 AM on September 28, 2009 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by:
ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.