U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-17-2010, 03:37 PM
 
1,883 posts, read 2,491,149 times
Reputation: 598

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
The soft tissue thing has all been explained Campbell, just a couple of posts ago, but it seems that you do not bother to even read the posts that prove that you are wrong. Are you going blind, as well as losing your memory?
What is interesting is that Schweitzer is a Christian herself who has stated that the "young creationists" that use her work to promote their beliefs are wrong in their conclusions,and is offended that they take her work and twist it out of context.Those who want to cite her work as proof of a young universe ought to study HER views as a Christian of their claims,and ought to be honest enough when quoting her work to admit that the discoverer of this is herself a Christian who believes the dinosaurs are 68 million years old and one who disagrees with the conclusions of the young creationists
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-17-2010, 03:40 PM
 
1,883 posts, read 2,491,149 times
Reputation: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
So with all this vast knowledge, can you tell me how soft stretchable elastic tissue found in dinosaur bones has lasted for 80 million years?
And don't forget, it was your believers in evolution that said we would never find such tissue in dinosaur bones, because soft tissue could only last about 100,000 years. How could they be so wrong? Could it be that they are not nearly as knowledgeable as you believe? I find their beliefs amusing. Especially when the Creation scientist were not shocked by such a discovery. Yet the believers in evolution were. And if you knew anything about C-14, you would know that it is stated to be accurate to about 80 thousand years. The fact that the dinosaure bones were dated to only 35,000 years should tell you, there was more room for an expanded age if they were any older than that. So your Radar gun example, was pretty much based on nonsense.
What is nonsense is your lame attempts at a pretend version of "science".

Why don't you email and ask the CHRISTIAN woman,Schweitzer,how this happened.Or merely study her work instead of debating what you don't understand on the net.Try and do some independent thinking and ask yourself why the person who discovered this is a Christian who doesn't buy into the young creation nonsense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2010, 03:40 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 9,699,008 times
Reputation: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
The soft tissue thing has all been explained Campbell, just a couple of posts ago, but it seems that you do not bother to even read the posts that prove that you are wrong. Are you going blind, as well as losing your memory?


Even the woman scientist who made the discovery cannot explain how the tissue could remain soft and stretchable for 80 million years sanspeur. And of course, I think you will believe anything a believer in evolution tells you. Because you have bought into this theory, hook, line, and sinker. They told you that soft tissue would not last more than 100,000 years. And I'm sure you believed that. Now they will tell you just the oppsite, and I'm sure you will believe that. I'm sure you will believe anything they tell you sanspeur.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2010, 03:49 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 9,699,008 times
Reputation: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifertexan View Post
What is nonsense is your lame attempts at a pretend version of "science".

Why don't you email and ask the CHRISTIAN woman,Schweitzer,how this happened.Or merely study her work instead of debating what you don't understand on the net.Try and do some independent thinking and ask yourself why the person who discovered this is a Christian who doesn't buy into the young creation nonsense.


I'm not impressed with those who claim to be Christians. I happen to actually know the God of the Bible. And have had numerous encounters with Him. And I can tell you, everything found in the Scriptures is true. And your belief in Evolution is total nonsense. And that is why the Scriptures tell us, that the time would come when men would not endure sound doctrine, but would turn away from the truth, and embrace fables rather then God's Word.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2010, 04:12 PM
 
31,385 posts, read 31,213,111 times
Reputation: 14879
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
And have had numerous encounters with Him.
I firmly believe that nothing can be gained by arguing with those who suffer from hallucinations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2010, 04:19 PM
 
1,883 posts, read 2,491,149 times
Reputation: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
I'm not impressed with those who claim to be Christians. I happen to actually know the God of the Bible. And have had numerous encounters with Him. And I can tell you, everything found in the Scriptures is true. And your belief in Evolution is total nonsense. And that is why the Scriptures tell us, that the time would come when men would not endure sound doctrine, but would turn away from the truth, and embrace fables rather then God's Word.
This right here is why your pretense of approaching this from a scientific angle is false.You are not interested in knowing the truth,you are interested in maintaining a preconceived belief system.Therefore your approach is not "how does this work",but "I am not allowed to believe this,so how can I discredit this enough to satisfy myself and allow me to maintain my belief system".Such an approach does not allow you to consider whether something that disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible might actually be correct.And you tell me that I am buying into something?LMAO!At least what I buy into allows me to question the veracity of it instead of demanding that I ignore everything that might throw a shred of doubt on my preconceptions.This is where science is honest with itself.Scientists will look at this and ask themselves,how did this happen?People like yourself do not have that kind of courage.You CANNOT allow yourselves to consider the possibility that you are wrong.No how,no way.Everything is predicated on the end result that what you believe MUST be right and every bit of evidence that says otherwise must be ignored or discredited,all for the reason of not upsetting your preheld beliefs.

And yes,I buy into it.Because in every bit of my existence I see the fact that science works.The fact that you are reading this proves my point.Quantum physics at work,ala the internet and your computer.Medicine works.Physics works.Genetics works.My buying into it is based on empirical evidence that science works.Your buying into what you believe is based on the fact that you are not allowed to believe that science works in certain areas,because a certain interpretation of the Bible forbids you to consider the rightness or wrongness of it.You are certainly entitled to ignore facts when they upset you.Just don't expect people that actually think things through to agree with you.Some people have the courage to think for themselves instead of allowing themselves to be told what to think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-17-2010, 07:28 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,046 posts, read 30,805,992 times
Reputation: 12226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
Even the woman scientist who made the discovery cannot explain how the tissue could remain soft and stretchable for 80 million years sanspeur. And of course, I think you will believe anything a believer in evolution tells you. Because you have bought into this theory, hook, line, and sinker. They told you that soft tissue would not last more than 100,000 years. And I'm sure you believed that. Now they will tell you just the oppsite, and I'm sure you will believe that. I'm sure you will believe anything they tell you sanspeur.
Good grief, go back and read the posts I made today...The tissue did NOT remain soft and stretchy for 80 million years...It was made elastic by dissolving the bone away in acid...Science is not even sure if the tissue is organic from the dino, or slime deposited later...(Which you would know if you had taken the time to read my posts).... Talk about believing anything you are told Campbell, you hold the prize for that, not me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2010, 07:19 AM
 
7,654 posts, read 9,699,008 times
Reputation: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifertexan View Post
This right here is why your pretense of approaching this from a scientific angle is false.You are not interested in knowing the truth,you are interested in maintaining a preconceived belief system.Therefore your approach is not "how does this work",but "I am not allowed to believe this,so how can I discredit this enough to satisfy myself and allow me to maintain my belief system".Such an approach does not allow you to consider whether something that disagrees with your interpretation of the Bible might actually be correct.And you tell me that I am buying into something?LMAO!At least what I buy into allows me to question the veracity of it instead of demanding that I ignore everything that might throw a shred of doubt on my preconceptions.This is where science is honest with itself.Scientists will look at this and ask themselves,how did this happen?People like yourself do not have that kind of courage.You CANNOT allow yourselves to consider the possibility that you are wrong.No how,no way.Everything is predicated on the end result that what you believe MUST be right and every bit of evidence that says otherwise must be ignored or discredited,all for the reason of not upsetting your preheld beliefs.

And yes,I buy into it.Because in every bit of my existence I see the fact that science works.The fact that you are reading this proves my point.Quantum physics at work,ala the internet and your computer.Medicine works.Physics works.Genetics works.My buying into it is based on empirical evidence that science works.Your buying into what you believe is based on the fact that you are not allowed to believe that science works in certain areas,because a certain interpretation of the Bible forbids you to consider the rightness or wrongness of it.You are certainly entitled to ignore facts when they upset you.Just don't expect people that actually think things through to agree with you.Some people have the courage to think for themselves instead of allowing themselves to be told what to think.




I would say you are pretty much mainstream. You don't appear to question anything. And it appers to me, you ignore everything. Especially when it refutes evolution. You must believe anyone who reveals evidence outside of what the mainstream believes, are either delusional, or liars. The Bible does not forbid one to consider facts. It gives you the facts. It was the Bible in the Book of Job, that speaks of dinosuars, and their existance with man. And when soft tissue was discovered in dionsaur bones, it confirmed that reality, and that time frame. It is Evolutions time frame, that is at odds with the facts. It does not take any courage to agree with the mainstream. And that's where your at. When historical discovery shows us, that art work from ancient man reveals an advanced knowledge of dinosaurs. You ignore that. When Biblical accounts speak of dinosaurs. You ignore that. When C-14 reveals that dinosaur bones are thousands of years old, and not millions. You ignore that. When soft tissue is found in dinosaure bones. You ignore that. So please tell me, how did you ever draw the conclusion you are thinking for yourself? Especially when you filter out such information. The link below shows many examples of ancient art which displays early man and dinosaurs together. Only the non thinking could ignore this kind of evidence. And I am not the one ignoring this.

Ancient Dinosaur Depictions
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2010, 07:40 AM
 
7,654 posts, read 9,699,008 times
Reputation: 495
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Good grief, go back and read the posts I made today...The tissue did NOT remain soft and stretchy for 80 million years...It was made elastic by dissolving the bone away in acid...Science is not even sure if the tissue is organic from the dino, or slime deposited later...(Which you would know if you had taken the time to read my posts).... Talk about believing anything you are told Campbell, you hold the prize for that, not me.
sanspeur, Science Daily May 1, 2009

Ancient protein dating back 80 million years to the Cretaceous geologic period (HAS BEEN PRESERVED IN BONE FRAGMENTS AND SOFT TISSUES OF A HADROSAUR, OR DUCKBILLED DINOSAUR,) according to a study in the May 1 issue of Science.

sanspeur, please don't come here with your old information which is out of date. What I believe, is based on the latest studies, not your links from the past. Science is sure, and to suggest otherwise is to ignore the obvious. I know you have a vested intrest in not wanting to believe in the soft tissue found in dinosaur bones. Yet this discovery, (NOW HAS BEEN CONFIRMED.) And you can't blame this finding on Creationist.


Dinosaur-Bird Link: Ancient Proteins Preserved In Soft Tissue From 80 Million-Year-Old Hadrosaur
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-18-2010, 08:31 AM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
30,046 posts, read 30,805,992 times
Reputation: 12226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34 View Post
sanspeur, Science Daily May 1, 2009

Ancient protein dating back 80 million years to the Cretaceous geologic period (HAS BEEN PRESERVED IN BONE FRAGMENTS AND SOFT TISSUES OF A HADROSAUR, OR DUCKBILLED DINOSAUR,) according to a study in the May 1 issue of Science.
Quote:
sanspeur, please don't come here with your old information which is out of date. What I believe, is based on the latest studies,
You mean, like the bible?

Quote:
Science is sure, and to suggest otherwise is to ignore the obvious. I know you have a vested intrest in not wanting to believe in the soft tissue found in dinosaur bones. Yet this discovery, (NOW HAS BEEN CONFIRMED.) And you can't blame this finding on Creationist.
Thanks for the more recent link...It is good that it is confirmed, as is the age of the fossils the soft tissue was extracted from.
The point I was trying to make is that the tissue extracted was NOT SOFT or elastic until the fossilized bone was chemically treated...It didn't come out of the ground that way.

Have you heard of Leonardo the 77 million year old duck billed dinosaur? His fossilized skeleton is covered in soft tissue—skin, scales, muscle, foot pads—and even his last meal is in his stomach. The actual tissue has decayed over the millennia, and has been replaced by minerals.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...dinomummy.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top