Creationists

[Youwerecreated]

I understand you don't read other people's links when they prove you wrong, but why don't you read your own links? You'll realize you just posted ANOTHER one that proves you wrong.

"We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising," she said in a telephone interview. But, she said, she does not know yet if scientists will be able to isolate dinosaur DNA from the materials.


Now please provide me proof that DNA was extracted from materials.


Thank you.

Look how she is spinning it drock when she has evidence staring her right in the face she can't admit evolutionist have been wrong and their dating methods too.





The Scrambling Continues


An Update on the Amazing T. Rex Bone Discovery Announced a Year ago This Month

March 6, 2006


Layman



dinosaurs
evolutionists
fossils


Last year at about this time, it was disclosed that scientists had made an amazing discovery of a Tyrannosaurus rex thigh bone that still retained well-preserved soft tissue (which included blood vessels and cells). For evolutionists who argue that dinosaurs died about 65 million years ago, it was a startling discovery. AiG–USA’s Dr. David Menton (who holds a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University) wrote at the time that it “certainly taxes one’s imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history.”1

At the annual meeting of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) held in St. Louis, Missouri, USA, late last month (and which was attended by Dr. Menton), the North Carolina State University paleontologist who had announced the find last year, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, elaborated on the discovery that continues to shock the paleontological community. Evolutionists like her have been scrambling for 12 months to explain away this powerful evidence that dinosaurs have been around in relatively recent times. (For additional evidence of dinosaurs living in the past several centuries, go to Are dinosaurs alive today?) At the AAAS meeting, Dr. Schweitzer, as recorded by National Geographic, explained how she has been trying “to make sense of the surprising discovery, [and that] scientists are beginning to rethink a long-standing model of how the fossilization process works. … Traditional ideas of how fossils form do not allow for the preservation of soft, perishable organic tissues.”2

Schweitzer also said at the AAAS conference that “we propose now that soft-tissue components of bone might persist in a lot more different animals, in a lot more ages and environments, than we once thought.”3 So steadfast is she in her long-age belief, Dr. Schweitzer will not even consider a re-think of her view that dinosaurs perished 65 million years ago. So she continues a search for an explanation of how soft tissue could have survived so well preserved for a long time.

What did the researchers find?

A year ago this month, the journal Science reported that a team led by Dr. Schweitzer found flexible connective tissue and branching blood vessels, as well as intact cells (that have the appearance of red blood cells) and osteocytes (bone cells) in the femur (thigh bone) of a “68-million-year-old” T. rex uncovered in Montana.

As summarized by Dr. Menton last year4:


The T. rex was deposited in sandstone of “estuarine” origin, meaning that the animal was buried in rock layers laid down by water (no surprise here for the creationists—see “Genesis and catastrophe&#8221.

Since the bone looked relatively unfossilized, researchers, using weak acid, dissolved the mineral from a piece of the dinosaur bone (much the same way as the common science class exercise where chicken leg bones are soaked in vinegar for a week to make them rubbery).

In fresh bones, the acid removes the hard mineral, leaving only organic material such as fibrous connective tissue, blood vessels and various cells. By comparison, if one were to demineralize a typical well-permineralized fossil, there would be nothing left. The acid-treated T. rex bone fragment, however, produced a flexible and elastic structure similar to what you would get from a fresh bone.

When the demineralized T. rex bone was examined under the microscope, it revealed small branching translucent blood vessels with what appeared to be red blood cells inside. …

The report would have been an interesting scientific contribution if the writers would have ended on the note that old dinosaur bones look surprisingly young. But this would hardly serve as evidence for their millions of years of evolution.

To see the startling photos of the dinosaur tissue and to read more about this find, go to Still soft and stretchy.

Schweitzer, reports National Geographic, said that she will be continuing to study possible ways to explain this phenomenon, which was previously thought to be impossible. To illustrate the challenge being faced (although she claims to be on one possible track5), she showed two photographs and stated: “One of these cells is 65 million years old, and one is about 9 months old. Can anyone tell me which is which?”

Her inferred answer was no.

Will evolutionists now be convinced to think about rewriting dinosaur history?

As AiG wrote in a news release 12 months ago about this find (in a release which was distributed nationwide to the secular media):


The tissue/blood vessels are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most. (I.e., by the global Flood of Noah’s time, about 4,300 years ago.)

The deeply entrenched idea of long ages is so dominant in most of the scientific establishments that facts will not undermine the evolution belief system. … Philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn have pointed out what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm: the paradigm is not discarded but modified.

Years ago when a startled Dr. Schweitzer found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. rex bone, she said, “it was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. … The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?” Her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm.

Almost certainly this astonishing discovery will become an “accepted” phenomenon that even “stretchy” soft tissues must be somehow capable of surviving for millions of years … and “stretching” beyond belief the idea that the evolutionary timetable concerning dinosaurs can be true.

Regardless of how the evolutionist community finally decides what to do with this fossil conundrum, the creationists now possess immensely powerful evidence against the well-publicized belief that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and instead have tremendous support for the biblical timeline of a recent creation.

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.


Footnotes
1.As we reported nine years ago (see Sensational dinosaur blood report!), there have been previous reports of soft tissue and cells found in dinosaur fossils. Back
2.“Many Dino Fossils Could Have Soft Tissue,” National Geographic News, February 22, 2006, news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0221_060221_dino_tissue.html. Back
3.Ibid. Back
4.“Ostrich-osaurus” discovery? Back
5.National Geographic summarized one track of her search for an answer:

New findings not yet published have led her to suggest one possible explanation. The key, she believes, may be the iron content of the blood and muscle proteins hemoglobin and myoglobin.

After an organism dies, iron released from these proteins as they degrade may trigger the formation of highly reactive forms of oxygen known as free radicals. Other heavy metals in the environment may produce the same effect.

Schweitzer thinks these metal-generated free radicals may trigger the formation of longer molecular chains, known as polymers, which essentially bind and lock remaining cellular structures in place.

“Eventually, the polymerized remains become inert, free from attack from the outside and further chemical change,” Schweitzer said.

The researchers are now trying to obtain a pure sample of the blood cell-like structures. If successful, Schweitzer hopes to apply a technique known as Raman spectroscopy to search for the presence of hemoglobin.

In addition to testing her preservation theory, this analysis will help determine if identifiable protein fragments from the ancient animal are still present in the tissues. It’s possible, Schweitzer says, that some unknown form of geochemical replacement preserved the tissue structure but changed its molecular composition.

The Scrambling Continues - Answers in Genesis

Every Bible blog you've ever posted has been bullshit.

Please provide me a science based website that says DNA was extracted from those T-Rex materials.


Thank you.

Who do you think it was that made the discovery of the red blood cells. She just has not come out and admitted to it ,because she admittedly don't want to change her view that the dinosaur is 70 million years old.

She knows the problem this presents for the theory. But you can see the pictures and you can see blood vessels and cells.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I understand you don't read other people's links when they prove you wrong, but why don't you read your own links? You'll realize you just posted ANOTHER one that proves you wrong.

"We're doing a lot of stuff in the lab right now that looks promising," she said in a telephone interview. But, she said, she does not know yet if scientists will be able to isolate dinosaur DNA from the materials.


Now please provide me proof that DNA was extracted from materials.


Thank you.

Look how she is spinning it drock when she has evidence staring her right in the face she can't admit evolutionist have been wrong and their dating methods too.





The Scrambling Continues


An Update on the Amazing T. Rex Bone Discovery Announced a Year ago This Month

March 6, 2006


Layman



dinosaurs
evolutionists
fossils


Last year at about this time, it was disclosed that scientists had made an amazing discovery of a Tyrannosaurus rex thigh bone that still retained well-preserved soft tissue (which included blood vessels and cells). For evolutionists who argue that dinosaurs died about 65 million years ago, it was a startling discovery. AiG–USA’s Dr. David Menton (who holds a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University) wrote at the time that it “certainly taxes one’s imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history.”1

At the annual meeting of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) held in St. Louis, Missouri, USA, late last month (and which was attended by Dr. Menton), the North Carolina State University paleontologist who had announced the find last year, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, elaborated on the discovery that continues to shock the paleontological community. Evolutionists like her have been scrambling for 12 months to explain away this powerful evidence that dinosaurs have been around in relatively recent times. (For additional evidence of dinosaurs living in the past several centuries, go to Are dinosaurs alive today?) At the AAAS meeting, Dr. Schweitzer, as recorded by National Geographic, explained how she has been trying “to make sense of the surprising discovery, [and that] scientists are beginning to rethink a long-standing model of how the fossilization process works. … Traditional ideas of how fossils form do not allow for the preservation of soft, perishable organic tissues.”2

Schweitzer also said at the AAAS conference that “we propose now that soft-tissue components of bone might persist in a lot more different animals, in a lot more ages and environments, than we once thought.”3 So steadfast is she in her long-age belief, Dr. Schweitzer will not even consider a re-think of her view that dinosaurs perished 65 million years ago. So she continues a search for an explanation of how soft tissue could have survived so well preserved for a long time.

What did the researchers find?

A year ago this month, the journal Science reported that a team led by Dr. Schweitzer found flexible connective tissue and branching blood vessels, as well as intact cells (that have the appearance of red blood cells) and osteocytes (bone cells) in the femur (thigh bone) of a “68-million-year-old” T. rex uncovered in Montana.

As summarized by Dr. Menton last year4:


The T. rex was deposited in sandstone of “estuarine” origin, meaning that the animal was buried in rock layers laid down by water (no surprise here for the creationists—see “Genesis and catastrophe&#8221.

Since the bone looked relatively unfossilized, researchers, using weak acid, dissolved the mineral from a piece of the dinosaur bone (much the same way as the common science class exercise where chicken leg bones are soaked in vinegar for a week to make them rubbery).

In fresh bones, the acid removes the hard mineral, leaving only organic material such as fibrous connective tissue, blood vessels and various cells. By comparison, if one were to demineralize a typical well-permineralized fossil, there would be nothing left. The acid-treated T. rex bone fragment, however, produced a flexible and elastic structure similar to what you would get from a fresh bone.

When the demineralized T. rex bone was examined under the microscope, it revealed small branching translucent blood vessels with what appeared to be red blood cells inside. …

The report would have been an interesting scientific contribution if the writers would have ended on the note that old dinosaur bones look surprisingly young. But this would hardly serve as evidence for their millions of years of evolution.

To see the startling photos of the dinosaur tissue and to read more about this find, go to Still soft and stretchy.

Schweitzer, reports National Geographic, said that she will be continuing to study possible ways to explain this phenomenon, which was previously thought to be impossible. To illustrate the challenge being faced (although she claims to be on one possible track5), she showed two photographs and stated: “One of these cells is 65 million years old, and one is about 9 months old. Can anyone tell me which is which?”

Her inferred answer was no.

Will evolutionists now be convinced to think about rewriting dinosaur history?

As AiG wrote in a news release 12 months ago about this find (in a release which was distributed nationwide to the secular media):


The tissue/blood vessels are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most. (I.e., by the global Flood of Noah’s time, about 4,300 years ago.)

The deeply entrenched idea of long ages is so dominant in most of the scientific establishments that facts will not undermine the evolution belief system. … Philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn have pointed out what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm: the paradigm is not discarded but modified.

Years ago when a startled Dr. Schweitzer found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. rex bone, she said, “it was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. … The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?” Her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm.

Almost certainly this astonishing discovery will become an “accepted” phenomenon that even “stretchy” soft tissues must be somehow capable of surviving for millions of years … and “stretching” beyond belief the idea that the evolutionary timetable concerning dinosaurs can be true.

Regardless of how the evolutionist community finally decides what to do with this fossil conundrum, the creationists now possess immensely powerful evidence against the well-publicized belief that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and instead have tremendous support for the biblical timeline of a recent creation.

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.


Footnotes
1.As we reported nine years ago (see Sensational dinosaur blood report!), there have been previous reports of soft tissue and cells found in dinosaur fossils. Back
2.“Many Dino Fossils Could Have Soft Tissue,” National Geographic News, February 22, 2006, news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0221_060221_dino_tissue.html. Back
3.Ibid. Back
4.“Ostrich-osaurus” discovery? Back
5.National Geographic summarized one track of her search for an answer:

New findings not yet published have led her to suggest one possible explanation. The key, she believes, may be the iron content of the blood and muscle proteins hemoglobin and myoglobin.

After an organism dies, iron released from these proteins as they degrade may trigger the formation of highly reactive forms of oxygen known as free radicals. Other heavy metals in the environment may produce the same effect.

Schweitzer thinks these metal-generated free radicals may trigger the formation of longer molecular chains, known as polymers, which essentially bind and lock remaining cellular structures in place.

“Eventually, the polymerized remains become inert, free from attack from the outside and further chemical change,” Schweitzer said.

The researchers are now trying to obtain a pure sample of the blood cell-like structures. If successful, Schweitzer hopes to apply a technique known as Raman spectroscopy to search for the presence of hemoglobin.

In addition to testing her preservation theory, this analysis will help determine if identifiable protein fragments from the ancient animal are still present in the tissues. It’s possible, Schweitzer says, that some unknown form of geochemical replacement preserved the tissue structure but changed its molecular composition.

The Scrambling Continues - Answers in Genesis

Every Bible blog you've ever posted has been bullshit.

Please provide me a science based website that says DNA was extracted from those T-Rex materials.


Thank you.

Taking shots at creationists who report the evidence accurately,highjacked that is funny.

Uwilling to let their views go.

Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

From the articel above.

I would just like to point you to an article I have just read, it states:-

"in Montana 2005 field palaeontologist Otis Kline and his excavation team unearthed fossils from a triceratops and a hadrosaur. These specimens came from the same Hall Creek formation as the Schweitzer T-rex. They were also in good condition and the team was propelled to determine if these, like the T-rex still contained some fresh remains that hadn't yet fossilised.
Both the dinosaurs still possessed collagen!!
Otis Kline & another Scientist, Hugh Miller, were eager to test both of these dinosaurs for Carbon 14.
Due to the significance of this study, the industry-recognised Accelerated Mass Spectrometer (AMS) was used to test for Carbon 14. Furthermore, not one but two internationally recognised labs, Geochron Laboratories and the University of Georgia Isotope Center were used so that the results could be independently confirmed.
The tests yielded paradigm-shifting results: BOTH bones contained Carbon 14
According to the AMS testing, the Triceratops registered, on multiple tests an average age of 30,890 ±380 years old.
The Hadrosaur was tested to be 23,170±170 years old (Josef Holzschuh, Jean Pontcharra, Hugh Miller, Recent C-14 Dating of Fossils Including Dinosaur Collagen, Nov 2009)
The Evolution believing Scientists who found and tested the T-rex bone, Refuse to carbon date it, because they say it is impossible as it is 65 million years old. Are they afraid it will cause them even more problems.

Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html#ixzz1e4TlULdX

 

[Dr.Drock]

Look how she is spinning it drock when she has evidence staring her right in the face she can't admit evolutionist have been wrong and their dating methods too.





The Scrambling Continues


An Update on the Amazing T. Rex Bone Discovery Announced a Year ago This Month

March 6, 2006


Layman



dinosaurs
evolutionists
fossils


Last year at about this time, it was disclosed that scientists had made an amazing discovery of a Tyrannosaurus rex thigh bone that still retained well-preserved soft tissue (which included blood vessels and cells). For evolutionists who argue that dinosaurs died about 65 million years ago, it was a startling discovery. AiG–USA’s Dr. David Menton (who holds a Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University) wrote at the time that it “certainly taxes one’s imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history.”1

At the annual meeting of the prestigious American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) held in St. Louis, Missouri, USA, late last month (and which was attended by Dr. Menton), the North Carolina State University paleontologist who had announced the find last year, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, elaborated on the discovery that continues to shock the paleontological community. Evolutionists like her have been scrambling for 12 months to explain away this powerful evidence that dinosaurs have been around in relatively recent times. (For additional evidence of dinosaurs living in the past several centuries, go to Are dinosaurs alive today?) At the AAAS meeting, Dr. Schweitzer, as recorded by National Geographic, explained how she has been trying “to make sense of the surprising discovery, [and that] scientists are beginning to rethink a long-standing model of how the fossilization process works. … Traditional ideas of how fossils form do not allow for the preservation of soft, perishable organic tissues.”2

Schweitzer also said at the AAAS conference that “we propose now that soft-tissue components of bone might persist in a lot more different animals, in a lot more ages and environments, than we once thought.”3 So steadfast is she in her long-age belief, Dr. Schweitzer will not even consider a re-think of her view that dinosaurs perished 65 million years ago. So she continues a search for an explanation of how soft tissue could have survived so well preserved for a long time.

What did the researchers find?

A year ago this month, the journal Science reported that a team led by Dr. Schweitzer found flexible connective tissue and branching blood vessels, as well as intact cells (that have the appearance of red blood cells) and osteocytes (bone cells) in the femur (thigh bone) of a “68-million-year-old” T. rex uncovered in Montana.

As summarized by Dr. Menton last year4:


The T. rex was deposited in sandstone of “estuarine” origin, meaning that the animal was buried in rock layers laid down by water (no surprise here for the creationists—see “Genesis and catastrophe&#8221.

Since the bone looked relatively unfossilized, researchers, using weak acid, dissolved the mineral from a piece of the dinosaur bone (much the same way as the common science class exercise where chicken leg bones are soaked in vinegar for a week to make them rubbery).

In fresh bones, the acid removes the hard mineral, leaving only organic material such as fibrous connective tissue, blood vessels and various cells. By comparison, if one were to demineralize a typical well-permineralized fossil, there would be nothing left. The acid-treated T. rex bone fragment, however, produced a flexible and elastic structure similar to what you would get from a fresh bone.

When the demineralized T. rex bone was examined under the microscope, it revealed small branching translucent blood vessels with what appeared to be red blood cells inside. …

The report would have been an interesting scientific contribution if the writers would have ended on the note that old dinosaur bones look surprisingly young. But this would hardly serve as evidence for their millions of years of evolution.

To see the startling photos of the dinosaur tissue and to read more about this find, go to Still soft and stretchy.

Schweitzer, reports National Geographic, said that she will be continuing to study possible ways to explain this phenomenon, which was previously thought to be impossible. To illustrate the challenge being faced (although she claims to be on one possible track5), she showed two photographs and stated: “One of these cells is 65 million years old, and one is about 9 months old. Can anyone tell me which is which?”

Her inferred answer was no.

Will evolutionists now be convinced to think about rewriting dinosaur history?

As AiG wrote in a news release 12 months ago about this find (in a release which was distributed nationwide to the secular media):


The tissue/blood vessels are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most. (I.e., by the global Flood of Noah’s time, about 4,300 years ago.)

The deeply entrenched idea of long ages is so dominant in most of the scientific establishments that facts will not undermine the evolution belief system. … Philosophers of science like Thomas Kuhn have pointed out what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm: the paradigm is not discarded but modified.

Years ago when a startled Dr. Schweitzer found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. rex bone, she said, “it was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. … The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?” Her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm.

Almost certainly this astonishing discovery will become an “accepted” phenomenon that even “stretchy” soft tissues must be somehow capable of surviving for millions of years … and “stretching” beyond belief the idea that the evolutionary timetable concerning dinosaurs can be true.

Regardless of how the evolutionist community finally decides what to do with this fossil conundrum, the creationists now possess immensely powerful evidence against the well-publicized belief that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and instead have tremendous support for the biblical timeline of a recent creation.

Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.


Footnotes
1.As we reported nine years ago (see Sensational dinosaur blood report!), there have been previous reports of soft tissue and cells found in dinosaur fossils. Back
2.“Many Dino Fossils Could Have Soft Tissue,” National Geographic News, February 22, 2006, news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0221_060221_dino_tissue.html. Back
3.Ibid. Back
4.“Ostrich-osaurus” discovery? Back
5.National Geographic summarized one track of her search for an answer:

New findings not yet published have led her to suggest one possible explanation. The key, she believes, may be the iron content of the blood and muscle proteins hemoglobin and myoglobin.

After an organism dies, iron released from these proteins as they degrade may trigger the formation of highly reactive forms of oxygen known as free radicals. Other heavy metals in the environment may produce the same effect.

Schweitzer thinks these metal-generated free radicals may trigger the formation of longer molecular chains, known as polymers, which essentially bind and lock remaining cellular structures in place.

“Eventually, the polymerized remains become inert, free from attack from the outside and further chemical change,” Schweitzer said.

The researchers are now trying to obtain a pure sample of the blood cell-like structures. If successful, Schweitzer hopes to apply a technique known as Raman spectroscopy to search for the presence of hemoglobin.

In addition to testing her preservation theory, this analysis will help determine if identifiable protein fragments from the ancient animal are still present in the tissues. It’s possible, Schweitzer says, that some unknown form of geochemical replacement preserved the tissue structure but changed its molecular composition.

The Scrambling Continues - Answers in Genesis

Every Bible blog you've ever posted has been bullshit.

Please provide me a science based website that says DNA was extracted from those T-Rex materials.


Thank you.

Taking shots at creationists who report the evidence accurately,highjacked that is funny.

Uwilling to let their views go.

Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

From your link:


"Of course, what everyone wants to know is whether DNA might be lurking in that tissue. Wittmeyer, from much experience with the press since the discovery, calls this “the awful question”—whether Schweitzer’s work is paving the road to a real-life version of science fiction’s Jurassic Park, where dinosaurs were regenerated from DNA preserved in amber. But DNA, which carries the genetic script for an animal, is a very fragile molecule. It’s also ridiculously hard to study because it is so easily contaminated with modern biological material, such as microbes or skin cells, while buried or after being dug up."

Read more: Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine


So the challenge stands, please find me one science website (not a bible blog) that says DNA was taken from the T-Rex materials.



If you can't find one, that's ok, just admit it, I don't understand why you keep posting science websites that go against you. Just admit no science based website exists that says DNA was pulled from the materials.

 

[LOki]

I have asked you for any proof that refutes what he said and you can't provide that proof so you make another meaningless post.

Sure I can, but you're an intellectually dishonest asshat for whom the term "proof" is utterly meaningless, let alone the notions of verifiable evidence and valid logic.

There's no point in attempting to "prove" anything to you as long as you continue to embrace your incontrovertibly shameless refusal to admit the evincible intellectual dishonesty of your irrational intellectual paradigm.

While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.

You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.

So the real mystery here is, why do you repeatedly make these requests for "proof" of assertions that you disagree with, when simple disagreement with your baseless (by you own explicit admission) preconceptions is the sufficient criterion you apply to dismiss those proofs?

I am gonna leave my Christian beliefs for just one second stupid.

I have clearly scored a

 

[LOki]

The truth is there is no way non-life can produce life.

Is that really so? Enlighten us then; if your Creator is a living being, then please describe the mechanism by which His life was produced from non-life; if your Creator is not living, then by what mechanism did He bring about life?

There is no way a non-thinking process can create intelligence.

Well, I have to admit that you're strong evidence of this.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Every Bible blog you've ever posted has been bullshit.

Please provide me a science based website that says DNA was extracted from those T-Rex materials.


Thank you.

Taking shots at creationists who report the evidence accurately,highjacked that is funny.

Uwilling to let their views go.

Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

From your link:


"Of course, what everyone wants to know is whether DNA might be lurking in that tissue. Wittmeyer, from much experience with the press since the discovery, calls this “the awful question”—whether Schweitzer’s work is paving the road to a real-life version of science fiction’s Jurassic Park, where dinosaurs were regenerated from DNA preserved in amber. But DNA, which carries the genetic script for an animal, is a very fragile molecule. It’s also ridiculously hard to study because it is so easily contaminated with modern biological material, such as microbes or skin cells, while buried or after being dug up."

Read more: Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine


So the challenge stands, please find me one science website (not a bible blog) that says DNA was taken from the T-Rex materials.



If you can't find one, that's ok, just admit it, I don't understand why you keep posting science websites that go against you. Just admit no science based website exists that says DNA was pulled from the materials.

If you can't see whats going on it's because you don't want to see it. I know you have a lot invested in your views.

 

[LOki]

I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.

We'd like to reason with you as well. Seriously.

So, though I claim no special expertise nor special status as an authority, I will submit my best understanding to the questions you pose. I hope you'll accept that I'm just attempting to address your questions, and not submitting a comprehensive research paper on the subject. I also hope that you'll allow for correction if I have misunderstood your question or have myself, misspoken.

Fair?

If by your theory over time things get better and through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive why did we lose certain ablilities that would aid us in survival.

Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?

Would these not be abilities that natural selection would have kept in our gene pool to aid us in survival ? but yet these abilities were left in the animals we evolved from would this not be evolution in reverse?

The theory of evolution does not assert or predict that "over time things get better". The theory acknowledges variation (caused by several mechanisms) in genotype and phenotype within a population of individual organisms. The theory asserts that organisms with greater inheritable fitness to survive (i.e. advantaged) to reproduce in their environment, will more likely pass that fitness and their other heritable traits to their progeny; those less fit (i.e. disadvantaged) will be less likely to pass any inheritable traits.

Illustrative example: If under conditions of some kind of environmental hardship, increased problem solving capability (say, of survival) proved to be so great an advantage to survival that superior land speed, superior eyesight, superior strength, and superior sense of smell became less relevant to fitness, then those organisms less advantaged in problem solving capability are less likely to make relevant inheritable contributions to future generations--even such contributions as those you cite.

If, for say genetic or morphological, reasons the traits you cite (call them physical) are incompatible with the expression, heritability, or adaptive function of increased problem solving capability (call them reasoning), then the shift away from those physical traits will be dramatic in the population possessing the reasoning traits.

In any case, this is not to say that the population possessing the superior physical traits will necessarily disappear; it's not as if those (physical) traits have no survival value in any environment. Particularly in the cases of resource abundance or where competition is not a selective pressure in their environment. These two populations could continue to co-exist and never experience noteworthy divergence. But where less fit populations find themselves in direct competition for (scarce) survival resources with more fit populations, the less fit will suffer for it and their genetic legacy necessarily with them.

Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?

Yes. The direction of evolution is not in any way defined by "big to small", "small to big", "slow to fast", "weak to strong", "stupid to smart", or any other hierarchy of value we place on such things; the direction of evolution is toward greater net fitness to successfully beget progeny. If environmental conditions (including the other organisms living in that environment) favor one size variant over another, for whatever reason--it does not have to have anything to do with size (maybe they can hide better, or maybe they're stronger, or maybe they're faster, or maybe have a better sense of smell, or maybe they are smarter)--such net fitness (and the inheritable traits of those who posses it) is more likely to prevail in later generations.

Helpful?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sure I can, but you're an intellectually dishonest asshat for whom the term "proof" is utterly meaningless, let alone the notions of verifiable evidence and valid logic.

There's no point in attempting to "prove" anything to you as long as you continue to embrace your incontrovertibly shameless refusal to admit the evincible intellectual dishonesty of your irrational intellectual paradigm.

While you require no "proof" what-so-ever to claim absolute certainty in the validity of your beliefs, you demand absolute unqualified "proof" to refute your baseless beliefs; and you require that others with competing beliefs produce absolute unqualified "proof" to validate their beliefs.

You asshats validate "evidence" against your conclusion (rather than validating your conclusion against evidence). IOW, if some evidence is inconsistent with your baseless conclusion, you judge it to be invalid without any justification in valid logic or other verifiable evidence. Every bit of evidence and valid logic that refutes your "evidence" is judged invalid because it is inconsistent with your conclusion. For you, disagreement with you is the definition of invalid.

So the real mystery here is, why do you repeatedly make these requests for "proof" of assertions that you disagree with, when simple disagreement with your baseless (by you own explicit admission) preconceptions is the sufficient criterion you apply to dismiss those proofs?

I am gonna leave my Christian beliefs for just one second stupid.

I have clearly scored a

No, you just keep repeating the same rhetoric not offering a sound argument against what we ask and provide.

First it takes intelligence to load and fire a firearm.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The truth is there is no way non-life can produce life.

Is that really so? Enlighten us then; if your Creator is a living being, then please describe the mechanism by which His life was produced from non-life; if your Creator is not living, then by what mechanism did He bring about life?

There is no way a non-thinking process can create intelligence.

Well, I have to admit that you're strong evidence of this.

You want someone who is finite explain somone who is infinite. You want someone that at best may live 80 years to someone that has always been.

This is the exception we die God has no beginning and no end.

You see,for someone to become intelligent they must first be able to think and reason.

 

[Photonic]

Exactly, it's from another thread where that idiot who claims to have been courted by Mensa maintains we're aunts and uncles of monkeys...

You truly have absolutely no idea what evolution is, do you.

That's not even a question, I'm making a statement of pure fact here.

 

[Photonic]

The truth is there is no way non-life can produce life.

Is that really so? Enlighten us then; if your Creator is a living being, then please describe the mechanism by which His life was produced from non-life; if your Creator is not living, then by what mechanism did He bring about life?

There is no way a non-thinking process can create intelligence.

Well, I have to admit that you're strong evidence of this.

You want someone who is finite explain somone who is infinite. You want someone that at best may live 80 years to someone that has always been.

This is the exception we die God has no beginning and no end.

You see,for someone to become intelligent they must first be able to think and reason.

You assume the human mind can't comprehend the concept of infinity but we are more than capable of doing so (Well, maybe not you). We are also more than capable of expressing it and defining it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.

We'd like to reason with you as well. Seriously.

So, though I claim no special expertise nor special status as an authority, I will submit my best understanding to the questions you pose. I hope you'll accept that I'm just attempting to address your questions, and not submitting a comprehensive research paper on the subject. I also hope that you'll allow for correction if I have misunderstood your question or have myself, misspoken.

Fair?

If by your theory over time things get better and through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive why did we lose certain ablilities that would aid us in survival.

Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?

Would these not be abilities that natural selection would have kept in our gene pool to aid us in survival ? but yet these abilities were left in the animals we evolved from would this not be evolution in reverse?

The theory of evolution does not assert or predict that "over time things get better". The theory acknowledges variation (caused by several mechanisms) in genotype and phenotype within a population of individual organisms. The theory asserts that organisms with greater inheritable fitness to survive (i.e. advantaged) to reproduce in their environment, will more likely pass that fitness and their other heritable traits to their progeny; those less fit (i.e. disadvantaged) will be less likely to pass any inheritable traits.

Illustrative example: If under conditions of some kind of environmental hardship, increased problem solving capability (say, of survival) proved to be so great an advantage to survival that superior land speed, superior eyesight, superior strength, and superior sense of smell became less relevant to fitness, then those organisms less advantaged in problem solving capability are less likely to make relevant inheritable contributions to future generations--even such contributions as those you cite.

If, for say genetic or morphological, reasons the traits you cite (call them physical) are incompatible with the expression, heritability, or adaptive function of increased problem solving capability (call them reasoning), then the shift away from those physical traits will be dramatic in the population possessing the reasoning traits.

In any case, this is not to say that the population possessing the superior physical traits will necessarily disappear; it's not as if those (physical) traits have no survival value in any environment. Particularly in the cases of resource abundance or where competition is not a selective pressure in their environment. These two populations could continue to co-exist and never experience noteworthy divergence. But where less fit populations find themselves in direct competition for (scarce) survival resources with more fit populations, the less fit will suffer for it and their genetic legacy necessarily with them.

Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?

Yes. The direction of evolution is not in any way defined by "big to small", "small to big", "slow to fast", "weak to strong", "stupid to smart", or any other hierarchy of value we place on such things; the direction of evolution is toward greater net fitness to successfully beget progeny. If environmental conditions (including the other organisms living in that environment) favor one size variant over another, for whatever reason--it does not have to have anything to do with size (maybe they can hide better, or maybe they're stronger, or maybe they're faster, or maybe have a better sense of smell, or maybe they are smarter)--such net fitness (and the inheritable traits of those who posses it) is more likely to prevail in later generations.

Helpful?

So things don't get better with time we ended with the human did we get better then our ancestors ?

If we start with one cell and wind up with a dinosaur what just happened ?

If we don't go from less complex to more complex why does your side say we did ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Exactly, it's from another thread where that idiot who claims to have been courted by Mensa maintains we're aunts and uncles of monkeys...

You truly have absolutely no idea what evolution is, do you.

That's not even a question, I'm making a statement of pure fact here.

Oh boy,you are saying chimps evolved from us ?

 

[Montrovant]

I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.

If by your theory over time things get better and through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive why did we lose certain ablilities that would aid us in survival.

Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?

Would these not be abilities that natural selection would have kept in our gene pool to aid us in survival ? but yet these abilities were left in the animals we evolved from would this not be evolution in reverse?

Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?

As usual, let me preface this by saying I am a layman when it comes to evolution; I make no claims of extensive knowledge or education on the subject.

That said, I wonder if you are reading too much into the use of the term beneficial. Sometimes you seem to try and impart an intelligence upon natural selection which, as far as I am aware, is not part of the theory of evolution. If something is better, as far as selection is concerned, it just means that the animals with that trait were better able to survive and reproduce than others without it. It does not follow that everything about the animals is superior to the others. So, as an example, an animal with less speed might survive and reproduce more efficiently that one with more speed, if the animal with less speed had more intelligence and was better able to find hidden food, or hide from predators, etc. The animal with less speed but more intelligence survives better, breeds more, and over time, dominates the area and perhaps even pushes the faster but less intelligent animal into extinction.

As to small to large and back again, again I wonder if you are imparting features to natural selection which are not part of the theory of evolution. Evolution is not supposed to be a direct line from single-celled organisms up through modern day to eventually reach some kind of perfect creature. It is supposed to work based on the environment involved; so where in some times/places/situations bigger animals may thrive, in others smaller animals may do so. I'm not sure what you are referencing with this smaller to bigger to smaller argument.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Is that really so? Enlighten us then; if your Creator is a living being, then please describe the mechanism by which His life was produced from non-life; if your Creator is not living, then by what mechanism did He bring about life?

Well, I have to admit that you're strong evidence of this.

You want someone who is finite explain somone who is infinite. You want someone that at best may live 80 years to someone that has always been.

This is the exception we die God has no beginning and no end.

You see,for someone to become intelligent they must first be able to think and reason.

You assume the human mind can't comprehend the concept of infinity but we are more than capable of doing so (Well, maybe not you). We are also more than capable of expressing it and defining it.

Really,name one thing that has always existed ? And describe why and how it has always existed ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.

If by your theory over time things get better and through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive why did we lose certain ablilities that would aid us in survival.

Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?

Would these not be abilities that natural selection would have kept in our gene pool to aid us in survival ? but yet these abilities were left in the animals we evolved from would this not be evolution in reverse?

Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?

As usual, let me preface this by saying I am a layman when it comes to evolution; I make no claims of extensive knowledge or education on the subject.

That said, I wonder if you are reading too much into the use of the term beneficial. Sometimes you seem to try and impart an intelligence upon natural selection which, as far as I am aware, is not part of the theory of evolution. If something is better, as far as selection is concerned, it just means that the animals with that trait were better able to survive and reproduce than others without it. It does not follow that everything about the animals is superior to the others. So, as an example, an animal with less speed might survive and reproduce more efficiently that one with more speed, if the animal with less speed had more intelligence and was better able to find hidden food, or hide from predators, etc. The animal with less speed but more intelligence survives better, breeds more, and over time, dominates the area and perhaps even pushes the faster but less intelligent animal into extinction.

As to small to large and back again, again I wonder if you are imparting features to natural selection which are not part of the theory of evolution. Evolution is not supposed to be a direct line from single-celled organisms up through modern day to eventually reach some kind of perfect creature. It is supposed to work based on the environment involved; so where in some times/places/situations bigger animals may thrive, in others smaller animals may do so. I'm not sure what you are referencing with this smaller to bigger to smaller argument.

Not sure what theory of evolution you subscribe to but yes many believe natural selection is part of evolution.

There has been many scientist who said evolution makes things better. As we become better adapted does that not make us stronger and better with things being added to help us adapt better ?

So what you're saying by random chance humans got bigger brains ? but lost the ability of superior sight,superior strength,superior land speed,superior sense of smell ?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Taking shots at creationists who report the evidence accurately,highjacked that is funny.

Uwilling to let their views go.

Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine

From your link:


"Of course, what everyone wants to know is whether DNA might be lurking in that tissue. Wittmeyer, from much experience with the press since the discovery, calls this “the awful question”—whether Schweitzer’s work is paving the road to a real-life version of science fiction’s Jurassic Park, where dinosaurs were regenerated from DNA preserved in amber. But DNA, which carries the genetic script for an animal, is a very fragile molecule. It’s also ridiculously hard to study because it is so easily contaminated with modern biological material, such as microbes or skin cells, while buried or after being dug up."

Read more: Dinosaur Shocker | Science & Nature | Smithsonian Magazine


So the challenge stands, please find me one science website (not a bible blog) that says DNA was taken from the T-Rex materials.



If you can't find one, that's ok, just admit it, I don't understand why you keep posting science websites that go against you. Just admit no science based website exists that says DNA was pulled from the materials.

If you can't see whats going on it's because you don't want to see it. I know you have a lot invested in your views.

I have nothing invested in my views, if science proves evolution wrong, I have no moral issue with changing my view of evolution.


But you're projecting, literally the entire way you live your life is invested in being a science denier.

 

[LOki]

I am gonna leave my Christian beliefs for just one second stupid.

I have clearly scored a

No, you just keep repeating the same rhetoric not offering a sound argument against what we ask and provide.

The argument is sound. The facts that support it are not in dispute ... YOU don't even dispute the facts (or at least where you do, you haven't voiced it).

So, I am not just repeating rhetoric; I am reiterating the argument that is the premise of the question,"Why do you repeatedly make these requests for "proof" of assertions that you disagree with, when simple disagreement with your baseless (by you own explicit admission) preconceptions is the sufficient criterion you apply to dismiss those proofs?"

The answer to that question is worth having IMO, because it might help me to better reach an understanding with you regarding precisely what you're asking for.

 

[Montrovant]

I would like to try and reason with you evolutionist.

If by your theory over time things get better and through natural selection we pass on things that would better help us survive why did we lose certain ablilities that would aid us in survival.

Examples, superior land speed,superior eyesight,superior strength,a superior sense of smell ?

Would these not be abilities that natural selection would have kept in our gene pool to aid us in survival ? but yet these abilities were left in the animals we evolved from would this not be evolution in reverse?

Is it rational to believe in evolution that evolution would start from small to large why do we we see it go from small to very large back to small is this evolution in reverse or macro-evolution ?

As usual, let me preface this by saying I am a layman when it comes to evolution; I make no claims of extensive knowledge or education on the subject.

That said, I wonder if you are reading too much into the use of the term beneficial. Sometimes you seem to try and impart an intelligence upon natural selection which, as far as I am aware, is not part of the theory of evolution. If something is better, as far as selection is concerned, it just means that the animals with that trait were better able to survive and reproduce than others without it. It does not follow that everything about the animals is superior to the others. So, as an example, an animal with less speed might survive and reproduce more efficiently that one with more speed, if the animal with less speed had more intelligence and was better able to find hidden food, or hide from predators, etc. The animal with less speed but more intelligence survives better, breeds more, and over time, dominates the area and perhaps even pushes the faster but less intelligent animal into extinction.

As to small to large and back again, again I wonder if you are imparting features to natural selection which are not part of the theory of evolution. Evolution is not supposed to be a direct line from single-celled organisms up through modern day to eventually reach some kind of perfect creature. It is supposed to work based on the environment involved; so where in some times/places/situations bigger animals may thrive, in others smaller animals may do so. I'm not sure what you are referencing with this smaller to bigger to smaller argument.

Not sure what theory of evolution you subscribe to but yes many believe natural selection is part of evolution.

There has been many scientist who said evolution makes things better. As we become better adapted does that not make us stronger and better with things being added to help us adapt better ?

So what you're saying by random chance humans got bigger brains ? but lost the ability of superior sight,superior strength,superior land speed,superior sense of smell ?

You misread my statement. What I said is not part of the theory of evolution is the intelligence you seem to think drives natural selection, not natural selection itself.

Once again, better in terms of evolution does not necessarily mean better in terms of what humans might want. In terms of selection, what is better is not known until after the fact. Is it better to be stronger, or faster, or more elusive? That depends on the environment. And since evolution is not based on an intelligence directing things, the idea that it must lead to creatures with all of the features you consider positive or beneficial is incorrect.

I don't know if you are asking if human intelligence is random chance based on evolution or the existence/lack of a creator. It could have been random in the sense there was no guarantee intelligence to our extent would develop. It would not be random in the sense that our intelligence was a positive survival/reproduction trait.

As far as losing senses, I honestly don't know. I don't know how acute the senses of the animals we descended from were, nor how strong they were, nor how fast; I don't know if there is some reason those senses or musculature would be incompatible with the features that allow us to have our intelligence.

 

[Photonic]

Exactly, it's from another thread where that idiot who claims to have been courted by Mensa maintains we're aunts and uncles of monkeys...

You truly have absolutely no idea what evolution is, do you.

That's not even a question, I'm making a statement of pure fact here.

Oh boy,you are saying chimps evolved from us ?

If you could hear my sigh as I read that...


You can stop with the being dishonest thing now, you know full well evolution is very clear about us not evolving from any modern day animal.

That includes chimps.