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.
Your opinion is faulty. I have presented quite good reasons for not believing in the process of the unfolding evolution of the universe is without intelligence and I have also presented good reason for not accepting the religious explanations for the existence of the universe.
Your opinion is not based on fact is insulting for its lack of integrity.
Thank you for your reply, Eusebius, I appreciate it. You put forward a good argument for your beliefs. You made a good point in our 'believing' opposing views. I was thinking that I 'know' while you 'believe'. You have helped me understand your perspective a little better.
If I may address the human versus animal issue, by definition, if we are alive and we are not plants or fungus or bacterium or lichen then we are animal. Furthermore, by definition if our females have mammary glands then we are mammals. Insects are animals as are fish, frogs, spiders, snails etc and humans.
From Wikipedia;
Quote:
Animals are multicellular, eukaryotic organisms of the kingdom Animalia (also called Metazoa). Their body plan eventually becomes fixed as they develop, although some undergo a process of metamorphosis later on in their lives. All animals are motile, meaning they can move spontaneously and independently, at some point in their lives. All animals are heterotrophs: they must ingest other organisms or their products for sustenance.
From Mirriam-Webster;
Quote:
Full Definition of MAMMAL. : any of a class (Mammalia) of warm-blooded higher vertebrates (as placentals, marsupials, or monotremes) that nourish their young with milk secreted by mammary glands, have the skin usually more or less covered with hair, and include humans.
Scientists just now found soft tissue inside Dinosaur fossil. Maybe those dinosaur's aren't really "millions of years old" after all.
Good grief Eusebius. The T -Rex soft tissue argument is donkeys years old. It was explained (and the YE implications debunked) before I ever logged on here. You have absolutely got to get with the basics at least of this subject if you are going to meaningfully participate in it.
Claim CC371.1: Soft, flexible tissue, complete blood vessels, and apparently intact cells were found when a Tyrannosaurus bone was broken open (Schweitzer et al. 2005). Such preservation indicates that the bones are only a few thousand years old, not millions of years.
Source:
Wieland, Carl. 2005. Still soft and stretchy. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...ino_tissue.asp
Response:
The reports of the soft tissue, though remarkable, have been sensationalized further. The tissues were not soft and pliable originally. The tissues were rehydrated in the process of removing the surrounding mineral components of the bone (Schweitzer et al. 2005). Moreover, it is unknown whether the soft tissues are original tissues. Fossil flexible tissues and nucleated cells have been found before in which the original material was not preserved (Stokstad 2005).
The age of fossils is not determined by how well they are preserved, because preservation depends far more on factors other than age. The age of this particular bone was determined from the age of the rocks it was found in, namely, the Hell Creek Formation. This formation has been reliably dated by several independent methods (Dalrymple 2000).
DNA has never been recovered from any dinosaurs nor from anything as old as them, and researchers do not expect to find DNA from these soft tissues (though they can still hope). DNA has been recovered, however, from samples much more than 10,000 years old (Poinar et al. 1998), even more than 300,000 years old (Stokstad 2003; Willerslev et al. 2003). If dinosaur fossils were as young as creationists claim, finding soft tissues in them would not be news, and recovering DNA from them should be easy enough that it would have been done by now.
I'm sure you knew about that before you Googled it.
Pretty much all of us did - apart from you. You obviously had not only never heard of it before you Googled it, but you had forgotton the several times it had come up in the past. Eusebius old chap you have crapped on yourself big -time here...
Look, let me give you some well -meant advice, because I love you like a brother. You really do not understand or know anything about evolution -including the debate, and (as I have said before) you do not want to, because understanding would undermine your unthinking rejection of it.
It is only to save your own face (because your efforts to debunk evolution only help our case) that I earnestly suggest you stick to your resolve - leave this debate alone, because you are out of your depth with one toe in the water.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-10-2015 at 04:28 AM..
Reason: "it" of course, not "them"
Scientists just now found soft tissue inside Dinosaur fossil. Maybe those dinosaur's aren't really "millions of years old" after all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matadora
You so silly.
No where does this vox article suggest that Dinosaurs are not millions of years old.
No where.
In fact is states this: "It's still unclear exactly how this soft tissue is able to survive, but some hypothesize that iron molecules might bind to proteins in the tissue, making it more stable".
And they were correct in their thinking: "The controversial discovery of 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex finally has a physical explanation. According to new research, iron in the dinosaur's body preserved the tissue before it could decay".
I never stated the article said those dinosaur's aren't really millions of years old after all. That was my own thought concerning the matter. Next time don't get your undies all up in a wad.
Nonetheless, the tissue is still soft and most likely, in my estimation to be only thousands of years old.
Good grief Eusebius. The T -Rex soft tissue argument is donkeys years old. It was explained (and the YE implications debunked) before I ever logged on here. You have absolutely got to get with the basics at least of this subject if you are going to meaningfully participate in it.
Claim CC371.1: Soft, flexible tissue, complete blood vessels, and apparently intact cells were found when a Tyrannosaurus bone was broken open (Schweitzer et al. 2005). Such preservation indicates that the bones are only a few thousand years old, not millions of years.
Source:
Wieland, Carl. 2005. Still soft and stretchy. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...ino_tissue.asp
Response:
The reports of the soft tissue, though remarkable, have been sensationalized further. The tissues were not soft and pliable originally. The tissues were rehydrated in the process of removing the surrounding mineral components of the bone (Schweitzer et al. 2005). Moreover, it is unknown whether the soft tissues are original tissues. Fossil flexible tissues and nucleated cells have been found before in which the original material was not preserved (Stokstad 2005).
The age of fossils is not determined by how well they are preserved, because preservation depends far more on factors other than age. The age of this particular bone was determined from the age of the rocks it was found in, namely, the Hell Creek Formation. This formation has been reliably dated by several independent methods (Dalrymple 2000).
DNA has never been recovered from any dinosaurs nor from anything as old as them, and researchers do not expect to find DNA from these soft tissues (though they can still hope). DNA has been recovered, however, from samples much more than 10,000 years old (Poinar et al. 1998), even more than 300,000 years old (Stokstad 2003; Willerslev et al. 2003). If dinosaur fossils were as young as creationists claim, finding soft tissues in them would not be news, and recovering DNA from them should be easy enough that it would have been done by now.
Pretty much all of us did - apart from you. You obviously had not only never heard of it before you Googled it, but you had forgotton the several times it had come up in the past. Eusebius old chap you have crapped on yourself big -time here...
Look, let me give you some well -meant advice, because I love you like a brother. You really do not understand or know anything about evolution -including the debate, and (as I have said before) you do not want to, because understanding would undermine your unthinking rejection of it.
It is only to save your own face (because your efforts to debunk evolution only help our case) that I earnestly suggest you stick to your resolve - leave this debate alone, because you are out of your depth with one toe in the water.
You talking to me?
Nonetheless the tissue is soft tissue. The tissue is not rock. If the dino was in the ground millions of years I doubt it would still have soft tissue no matter what spin your friends say.
Are you talking about a different dinosaur soft tissue event than the article I posted just recently?
This is the heading of the article and notice the date: Scientists just found soft tissue inside a dinosaur fossil. Here's why that's so exciting.
Updated by Joseph Stromberg on June 9, 2015, 11:00 a.m. ET @josephstromberg joseph@vox.com
But what's so exciting about this new study is that the fossils used, unlike Schweitzer's, aren't particularly well-preserved. Susannah Maidment, one of the paleontologists who worked on the paper, called them "crap" specimens. If they have preserved soft tissue inside them, it could be a sign that thousands of other fossils in museum collections do too.
I never stated the article said those dinosaur's aren't really millions of years old after all. That was my own thought concerning the matter. Next time don't get your undies all up in a wad.
Nonetheless, the tissue is still soft and most likely, in my estimation to be only thousands of years old.
Then why did you put it in quotations implying that you were quoting that statement directly from the article?
Don't get too worked up and run off with your false conclusions about the article.
Make no mistake, we know without a doubt that Dinosaurs are millions of years old. The findings only opened up discovery into how this tissue was preserved as well as it was...and they solved that mystery. It also expands the half life for DNA degradation that was originally established from Egyptian mummies.
Had Paleontologists in the past actually looked for DNA or soft tissues they would find them in most bones...but for whatever reasons they just did not look. Most likely it was due to not wanting to destroy the fossil or bones but putting them in an acid bath. This was also mentioned in the article.
So all this did was help define a new reference for DNA degradation and maximum survival time of college. They were going by the references established from the mummies. Now they are able to establish a new reference using tissues from Dinosaur fossils and bones.
The age of the Dinosaur remains the same. They extracted these findings from a 68-million Year Old T. rex.
You really need to pay attention to what the findings say and stop trying to twist the data...we know that creationists are so desperate that they will steal cheat and lie to twist that data.
You are doing exactly what is being described below.
Quote:
"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".
Her response to this:
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.”
By the way this is old news. This discovery was made in 1991.
IS EVOLUTION A SCIENTIFIC THEORY?
What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein's theory of gravity must.
1. Be observable
2. Be reproducible by controlled experiments
3. Make accurate predictions
In that light, where does evolution stand? (By "evolution", I mean "Macroevolution"-apes turning into humans, for example. "Microevolution" refers to small changes within a species, perhaps through selective breeding.) Its operation cannot be observed. It cannot be reproduced and it cannot make accurate predictions. Can evolution even be considered a scientific hypothesis? The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as "a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory,]" yet lends itself "to deductions that can be experimentally tested."
Last edited by Everliving; 06-10-2015 at 02:21 PM..
Reason: misspelling
IS EVOLUTION A SCIENTIFIC THEORY?
What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein's theory of gravity must.
1. Be observable
2. Be reproducible by controlled experiments
3. Make accurate predictions
In that light, where does evolution stand? (By "evolution", I mean "Macroevolution"-apes turning into humans, for example. "Microevolution" refers to small changes within a species, perhaps through selective breeding.) Its operation cannot be observed. It cannot be reproduced and it cannot make accurate predictions. Can evolution even be considered a scientific hypothesis? The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as "a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory,]" yet lends itself "to deductions that can be experimentally tested."
Even though you are right and it seems very logical, what may happen is some who are militant about evolution my blather on and on about how stupid you are, uneducated you are, how there are loads and loads of proof (which they never actually show us) in favor of evolution. So hold on to your hat there Everliving and be prepared for a good old lambasting from those who think they know everything.
Then why did you put it in quotations implying that you were quoting that statement directly from the article?
Don't get too worked up and run off with your false conclusions about the article.
"All you had to do was to read the article to see if it stated that." "I'm allowed to quote myself all day if I want."
Quote:
Make no mistake, we know without a doubt that Dinosaurs are millions of years old. The findings only opened up discovery into how this tissue was preserved as well as it was...and they solved that mystery. It also expands the half life for DNA degradation that was originally established from Egyptian mummies.
Sure you know they are millions of years old. I guess you never saw the dino's etc. on the columns I think in Cambodia in a temple complex dated just eleven hundred years ago. http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVER...ia_Temple.html
Quote:
The age of the Dinosaur remains the same. They extracted these findings from a 68-million Year Old T. rex.
LoL
Quote:
You really need to pay attention to what the findings say and stop trying to twist the data...we know that creationists are so desperate that they will steal cheat and lie to twist that data.
If you say so.
Quote:
You are doing exactly what is being described below.
By the way this is old news. This discovery was made in 1991.
Another Creation Myth busted!
Sure, uh huh.
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.
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.
