Page 776 of 1027 FirstFirst ... 276676726766774775776777778786826876 ... LastLast
Results 7,751 to 7,760 of 10262

Thread: Evolution: The Grand Deception

  1. #7751

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeboll64 View Post
    How do you know?


    How do you know?


    Gravity exists in our world whether or not we write a "mathematical law" to describe it. The fact that it CAN be described mathematically (as can the rest of our world) is something you should think about. Because the mathematical nature of our universe, like gravity, exists whether or not anyone came up with the abstract notion of mathematics to mathematically describe this mathematical nature. Why would that be? Einstein said the most incomprehensible thing about our world was that it was comprehensible. Think about that.

    But to your point, I believe people are colloquially using "laws of nature" to refer to the forces that govern our world.
    Part of that OTHER conversation we had Mike was disabusing you of this crap. Go read my responses again - IN CONTEXT.
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can also make you commit atrocities

    - Voltaire

  2. #7752
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    21,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by solver View Post
    How does a massive spinning dynamo suddenly REVERSE it's generated magnetic field? Have you ever heard of inertia?

    How long ago do you believe earth's core was formed? Perhaps long after earth first was THOUGHT to have existed, like 1-1.5 billion years ago?


    https://phys.org/news/2016-01-theory...-magnetic.html

    How does it drift?

    My understanding is that the poles do not suddenly shift, but rather, the field weakens and
    disintegrates, creating multiple north and south poles at various points on the earth's surface.

    I thought maybe you were planning to try to submit data to show deep time and evolution are wrong?

  3. #7753

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeboll64 View Post
    Yes.


    All of them know that to stand up to the Darwin Industry would be professional suicide. But I would put the number at about 50-50, Don. Half of them know neo-Darwinism is dead, but tow the line because they know their jobs depend on it. The other half have been so successfully indoctrinated into the Modern Synthesis at school that they have become the zealots the other half are afraid of offending. So we have Darwin zealots, those who know neo-Darwinism is dead but are afraid to speak out, and those who have spoken out and now work with The Third Way, The Discovery Institute, CMI, AiG, ICR, etc.

    But you don't have to take my word for it. You can watch the movie Expelled, read the Jerry Bergman book Slaughter of the Dissidents, or read the personal accounts of dozens of people like Mark Armitage, Daniel Sternberg, and David Coppedge. And if that doesn't work, here are some more quotes from The Altenberg 16: Will the Real Story of Evolution Please Stand Up?...

    “The commercial media is both ignorant of and blocks coverage of stories about non-centrality of the gene because its science advertising dollars come from the gene-centered Darwin industry. … . At the same time, the Darwin industry is also in bed with government, even as political leaders remain clueless about evolution. Thus, the public is unaware that its dollars are being squandered on funding of mediocre, middlebrow science or that its children are being intellectually starved as a result of outdated texts and unenlightened teachers.” (Suzan Mazur, p. ix).

    “The consensus of the evolution pack [i.e. the science blogs] still seems to be that if an idea doesn’t fit in with Darwinism and neo-Darwinism—keep it out.” (Suzan Mazur, p. viii).

    “Unless the discourse around evolution is opened up to scientific perspectives beyond Darwinism, the education of generations to come is at risk of being sacrificed for the benefit of a dying theory.” (Stuart Newman, p. 104).

    “One reason that so little progress has been made in this area is that perfectly valid scientific concepts that employ nonadaptive evolutionary mechanisms are rarely considered because of the hegemony of the neo-Darwinian framework.” (Stuart Newman, p. 131).

    “[P]eople are always more loyal to their tribal group than to any abstract notion of “truth”— scientists especially. If not they are unemployable. It is professional suicide to continually contradict one’s teachers or social leaders.” (Lynn Margulis, p. 275).

    “I think there is a challenge that self-organization and plasticity in general presents to Darwinian theory … . To my mind, self-organization does represent a challenge to the Darwinian, i.e. the modern synthesis and the perceived understanding of evolutionary theory. … [P]eople are concerned that if they open up the door to non-Darwinian mechanisms, then they’re going to allow creationists to slip through the door as well.” (Stuart Newman, pp. 131–132).

    “I think that abandoning Darwinism (or explicitly relegating it where it belongs, in the refinement and tuning of existing forms) sounds anti-scientific. They fear that the tenants of intelligent design and the creationists (people I hate as much as they do) will rejoice and quote them as being on their side. They really fear that, so they are prudent, some in good faith, some for calculated fear of being cast out of the scientific community.” (Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, p. 317).

    Some are scared to stand up to the Darwin Industry because they might lose their jobs, grants, or peer status. Others because they hate creationists so much they'd rather keep peddling a doctrine they know is junk than give creationists the satisfaction of saying, "We told you so!"



    I'm sure it's next to impossible to pinpoint exactly how rapidly environmental changes trigger the epigenetic and morphological changes, but many times it is within one single generation. In other words, the immediate offspring have the morphological change. Other times, the changes have been noticed within a few years of a known environmental change. But I linked and quoted scientific data on Trinidad guppies and sticklebacks, right? Why not just look into them a little closer? Or check out the recent data on rapidly "evolving" plants if you prefer. Or... just Google "rapid evolution" to find many more examples than I've listed. (Make sure you pay close attention to the secular scientists all being "shocked" and "bewildered" that evolution could happen so rapidly, okay?)


    Of course. But what we're finding out is that these rapid changes have nothing to do with genetic mutations, Don. They have to do with epigenetic regulatory systems that turn some genes on, others off, and still others are snipped or changed during the transcription process.

    Listen... this is what is happening:

    Animals communicate with their environments at the cellular level.
    Those cells and thousands of sub-cellular systems communicate with each other.
    Cellular machines then act accordingly based on the new instructions they are receiving... NOT FROM THE ORIGINAL GENETIC CODE... but from epigenetic machinery and systems already in place.


    So this religious idea spawned generations of zealots without even having a freaking mechanism by which it could have occurred? What does that tell us about the popularity of the idea, Don? That it had nothing to do with scientific observation... but with the fact that it was a perfect philosophical fit for millions of people who already had an aversion to a Creator to whom they were indebted. Darwin simply told those people exactly what their ears were already itching to hear. (2 Timothy 4:3)


    Not only is this not a fact, but random mutation is not even one of the mechanisms still in the running, Don. It has already been scientifically shown to be woefully inadequate to create novel traits and forms. A few evolutionists are busily working on other possible mechanisms, but it seems the mainstreamers like you are content to sit idle and keep preaching a sermon that has already been falsified.

    Time for you to bone up on some more recent data, dude. Neo-Darwinism - with its random mutation/natural selection mechanism - is dead.
    This is the most baseless, self-serving, dogmatic nonsense I've ever read. Maybe you're right. Maybe scientist are so completely indoctrinated by the scientific method, that they study subjects that they really don't like or even believe in. Maybe the fear of revealing their true belief, is more important then trying to prove their Belief. Maybe you can even know what these scientist are thinking. Maybe you are just too blinded by your own obsessive belief, for your ideas to be even considered objective, rational, impartial, or honest. Maybe you are just another pseudo-sophist, pseudo-scientist, peddling his own self-serving brand of logic, for ego-gratification and attention. Maybe you believe that if you keep casting superficial aspersions, doubts, lies, insinuations, misrepresentations and distortions, that the still standing 160 yo Theory will simply grumble into dust. Maybe, if you just keep presenting fallacy-ridden arguments, that you will create a new legion of ignorant and intellectually lazy disciples. Maybe you believe that YOU are the truth, the light, and the way, despite your lack of research, experience, and knowledge.

    What do you expect from our young, impressionable, vulnerable, inquisitive, and critical minds? Do you want them them to believe that donkeys and snakes can speak, even if it was a one-off? Do you want them to believe that, "God did it all", and that the Bible should be their only reference source? Do you want them to believe that the Earth, and all the Universe was just, "poofed" into reality by an immaterial, supernatural entity, by a single thought? We can find evidence of a meteor event 65 Million years ago, but none for a supposed world-wide flood. No underlying logic or independent evidence. Do you want these minds to simply accept that the physical and genetic similarities among all species, is simply the result of a supernatural design, by a supernatural Designer? Do you expect these minds to accept that God "poofed" into existence man in his present form, as well as the other animals and plants? Do you want them to believe that the dinosaurs and humans all lived together in a 6-10,000 year time-frame? Do you believe that if you can(via the internet) prove that science is not absolutely perfect, that they should not waste their time learning something they may be passionate about in science? Maybe they should be just like you, and just learn nothing, since Belief is everything. Finally, they should always selectively choose and interpret only the evidence that supports their Beliefs. Bugger the rationale of the majority views.

    Your paranoid views are all self-serving. Your logic requires that reality itself change. Are you suggesting that the regulatory elements inside the cell promotes mutations, or prevents mutations? Are you suggesting that these regulatory elements inside the cell, control how the genes express themselves? What is the mechanism that allows for this? You are obvious completely blinded by your own delusion, to call the ToE a religious idea. A religious idea requires no evidence at all, hence there are thousands. It is really sad that as another human being, you have convinced yourself that you are 100% right, and simply hide behind a wall of denial and ignorance. It only demonstrates that there is no limit to what a human being can be persuaded to believe in. Don

  4. #7754
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,097

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShelbyGT View Post
    This should shed a little light on the evo's problem:

    https://youtu.be/vH4VwhxVGds
    Mark Armitage - Creation Com.
    Why would I not think he's not poking around in something he got that morning from the butcher?

    Armitage again.
    The material isn't what he says it is or he doesn't understand what he has in front of him.

    Why am I so suspicious?

    Simply because many YECs (I don't include you, Shelby) can't be trusted.
    As Mike showed when he claimed to have read Origin of Species.
    Last edited by Stephen T-B; 05-17-2017 at 07:55 AM.
    "True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it."Karl K. Popper

  5. #7755

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen T-B View Post
    Mark Armitage - Creation Com.
    Why would I not think he's not poking around in something he got that morning from the butcher?

    Armitage again.
    The material isn't what he says it is or he doesn't understand what he has in front of him.

    Why am I so suspicious?

    Simply because many YECs (I don't include you, Shelby) can't be trusted.
    As Mike showed when he claimed to have read Origin of Species.


    Let's assume that what he has is what he says, especially since we have seen it with our own eyes and also seen the peer reviewed paper on it.

    Now the question was; "how can soft tissue last for multiple millions of years?".

    Another question would be, what does this do to the ToE?
    Truth is like a lion, it does not need to be defended, simply let it loose.

  6. #7756
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    7,097

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShelbyGT View Post
    Let's assume that what he has is what he says, especially since we have seen it with our own eyes and also seen the peer reviewed paper on it.

    Now the question was; "how can soft tissue last for multiple millions of years?".
    If it's what it is claimed to be, obviously it can.

    *It does nothing to ToE.

    *"Dinosaurs' iron-rich blood, combined with a good environment for fossilization, may explain the amazing existence of soft tissue from the Cretaceous (a period that lasted from about 65.5 million to 145.5 million years ago) and even earlier"

    From here: "How a 195-million-year-old dinosaur bone could still have soft tissue in it "
    Last edited by Stephen T-B; 05-17-2017 at 01:21 PM.
    "True ignorance is not the absence of knowledge, but the refusal to acquire it."Karl K. Popper

  7. #7757

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stephen T-B View Post
    If it's what it is claimed to be, obviously it can.

    *It does nothing to ToE.

    *"Dinosaurs' iron-rich blood, combined with a good environment for fossilization, may explain the amazing existence of soft tissue from the Cretaceous (a period that lasted from about 65.5 million to 145.5 million years ago) and even earlier"

    From here: "How a 195-million-year-old dinosaur bone could still have soft tissue in it "


    A triceratop's horn buried less than 2 feet in the Hell Creek area subjected to water, hot and cold cycles, bugs, fungus and roots is not a recipe for the pristine condition that you call "a good enviournment for fossilization"!

    So the question remains, how can soft tissue last for multiple millions of years? Be for real.
    Truth is like a lion, it does not need to be defended, simply let it loose.

  8. #7758
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    8,607
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    www.ecclesia.org/truth/therory.html


    In accepting the theory of evolution, we are asked to accept as fact many other theories. Evolution is not one theory, but a complex series of theories. It is based upon many preconceived `facts`. Any time someone begins piling theory upon theory, the stack of theories becomes like a chain. The failure of any one theory can easily nullify the others.

    In `believing` in evolution, we are asked to believe that all of the different forms of life on earth began from a `primeval soup`. No one knows where this `soup` was, or what happened to it. No one can say what happened to suddenly bring forth life from the `soup`.

    What evidence is there to prove or disprove the theory of evolution? Is evolution a workable explanation for the origin of life on the planet Earth? The purpose of this paper is to present the evidence showing the many misleading `facts` often presented as `proof` that evolution is an undeniable `fact`.


    The Origin of Life

    What is life? Is it just having the right combinations of proteins in just the right order? Is a man nothing more than a collection of substances and chemicals that happened to somehow `become alive`?

    Evolutionists claim that the process of life was started by some unknown process, millions (or billions) of years ago. This is the foundation of the evolutionary theory. Is there proof that this is really what happened?

    One of the greatest weaknesses of evolutionary theory is that there are too many forms of life to have happened by chance, and the building blocks of life are too complex to have just somehow `happened`.

    Could a cell by chance come into being that "has the DNA instructions to fill one thousand 600-page books?" (National Geographic).

    Examples:

    1. Research has shown that the requirements for life are so complex that chance and even billions of years could not have produced them.

    2. Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from inorganic materials) has never been observed.

    3. Mendel's laws of genetics explain virtually all of the physical variations that are observed within life categories such as the dog family. A logical consequence of these laws and their modern day refinements is that there are limits to such variation.

    4. The many similarities between different species do not necessarily imply a genealogical relationship; they may imply a common Designer.

    5. The human body (or the body of any other creature) cannot live without most internal organs, such as the heart, the lungs, the liver, et cetera. Remove any of these organs, and the specimen dies. This implies that the entire body was created at one point in time.

    6. Natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics.

    7. Mutations are the only proposed mechanism by which new genetic material becomes available for evolution.

    8. Almost all observable mutations are harmful; many are fatal.

    9. No known mutation has ever produced a form of life having both greater complexity and greater viability than its ancestors.

    10. Over seventy years of fruit-fly experiments, equivalent to 2700 human generations, give no basis for believing that any natural or artificial process can cause an increase in either complexity or viability. No clear genetic improvement has been observed despite the many unnatural efforts to increase mutation rates. In addition, no `new` life form has been produced by mutation. No fruit fly `evolved` into a mosquito or a bee.

    11. There is no evidence that mutations could ever produce any new organs such as the eye, the ear, or the brain.

    12. If the earth, early in its alleged `evolution`, had oxygen in its atmosphere, the chemicals needed for life would have been removed by oxidation. But if there had been no oxygen, then there would have been no ozone, and without ozone all life would be quickly destroyed by the sun's ultraviolet radiation.


    13. Two aspects ignored by studies of the origin of life are:

    a) The beauty of the different forms of life.

    b) The symmetry of virtually all forms of life.

    Evolutionary scientists ignore these aspects, primarily because these two things suggest a Creator. Virtually all recorded mutations produce malformed, `non-evolutionary` changes in the subject under study.

    14. There have been many imaginative but unsuccessful attempts to explain how just one single protein could form from any of the assumed conditions of the early earth. The necessary chemical reactions all tend to move in the direction opposite from that required. Furthermore, each possible energy source, whether the earth's heat, electrical discharges, or the sun's radiation, would destroy the protein products millions of times faster than they could be formed.

    15. If, despite the virtually impossible odds, proteins arose by chance processes, there is absolutely no reason to believe that they could ever form a self-reproducing, membrane-encased, living cell. There is no evidence that there are any stable states between the assumed naturalistic formation of proteins and the formation of the first living cells. No scientist has ever advanced a testable procedure whereby this fantastic jump in complexity could have occurred-even if the universe were completely filled with proteins, as you will see.

    16. The cells of living creatures are enormously complex. Every part must be present in order for the cell to survive. All the parts have different `jobs`. It is not illogical to state that if you remove any one part, the cell cannot survive. This obviously implies that the parts (i.e., the cell membrane, the nucleus, the ribosomes, etc.) had to have come into being at the same time.

    17. Computer-generated comparisons have been made of the sequences of amino acids that comprise a protein which is common to 47 forms of animal and plant life. The results of these studies seriously place the theory of evolution into jeopardy.

    18. The genetic information contained in each cell of the human body is roughly equivalent to a library of 4000 volumes. For chance mutations and natural selection to produce this amount of information, assuming that matter and life `somehow` got started, is analogous to continuing the following procedure until 4000 volumes have been produced:

    (a) Start with a meaningful phrase.

    (b) Retype the phrase but make some errors and insert some additional letters.

    (c) Examine the new phrase to see if it is meaningful.

    (d) If it is, replace the original phrase with it.

    (e) If it is not, return to step (b).

    To accumulate 4000 volumes that are meaningful, this procedure would have to produce the equivalent of far more than 10^3000 (10 to the 3000th power) animal offspring. To begin to understand how large 10^3000 is, realize that the entire universe has `only` about 10^80 atoms in it.


    19. Based on present day observations, DNA can only be replicated or reproduced with the help of certain enzymes. But these enzymes can only be produced at the direction of DNA. Since each requires the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must simultaneously explain the origin of the other.

    20. Amino acids, when found in nonliving matter, come in two forms that are chemically equivalent; about half can be described as "right-handed" and half "left-handed" (a structural description-one is the mirror image of the other). However, the protein molecules found in all forms of life, including plants, animals, bacteria, molds, and even viruses, have only the left-handed variety. The mathematical probability that chance processes could produce just one tiny protein molecule with only left-handed amino acids is virtually zero.

    21. The simplest form of life consists of 600 different protein molecules. The mathematical probability that just one molecule could form by the chance arrangement of the proper amino acids is far less than 1 in 10^527 (10 to the 527th power). The magnitude of the number 10^527 can begin to be appreciated by realizing that the visible universe is about 10^28 inches in diameter.

    22. There are many instances where quite different forms of life are completely dependent upon each other. Examples include: fig trees and the fig gall wasp, the yucca plant and the pronuba moth, many parasites and their hosts, pollen-bearing plants and the honey-bee family consisting of the queen, workers, and drones. There are many, many others. If one member of each interdependent group evolved first (such as the plant before the animal), the other member could not have survived. Since all members of the group obviously have survived, they must have come into existence at essentially the same time.

    23. Earthly life forms reproduce after their own kind. Different animals do not inter-breed. This suggests that each of these life forms were distinctly created. Cats and dogs do not interbreed to produce `cat-dogs`. Therefore it is highly unlikely that different life forms were formed by species interbreeding.
    Last edited by solver; 05-17-2017 at 07:21 PM.

  9. #7759
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Phoenix, Arizona
    Posts
    9,109

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShelbyGT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Taikoo View Post
    Regarding C14, there is a bit of a mixed message from creationists. Are you going to say that C14 dating is a valid and useful technique for dating, or not?
    C14 has been useful as a tool to determine time.
    I have limited time tonight, but let me take a quick crack at Min's comments. I won't be able to see her response, but at least it's out there for everyone to think about.

    Firstly, I say C14 is valid and useful within severe limitations. It, like every radiometric dating method, relies heavily on assumptions, circular reasoning, and personal bias. For example, if the C14 test says a particular fossil is 45 thousand years old, it really could be 25 hundred years old. We don't know how much C14 was in the animal when it died, or how much has leached in or out since that time. Nor do we know that the current estimated half life of 5730 years has remained constant for time indefinite.

    What we can be fairly sure of is that, using the current half life, there should exist no detectable C14 in anything older than 100 thousand years. Our best procedures today can detect the tiny bit of remaining C14 in fossils said to be about 50 thousand years old, but after that, there isn't enough left to measure.

    So no, Taikoo, radiocarbon dating is not valid to pinpointing how old a thing really is, but it is valuable in that its very presence strongly indicates the fossil is no older than perhaps 100 thousand years.

    Measurable amounts of C14 in dinosaurs, coal, oil, and even diamonds doesn't necessarily say these things are less than 10 thousand years old, but it makes a powerful case that they are less than 100 thousand years old.

    Quote Originally Posted by ShelbyGT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Taikoo View Post
    Regardless of that, no C14 has been detected in situ in any dinosaur remains.
    Yes, C14 has been found in dinosaur remains;
    Researchers have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and collagen in dinosaur bones - the bones are younger than anyone ever guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8 dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.
    Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS)
    .


    Unexpectedly,
    all 16 samples submitted for measurement contained C-14. We found measurable amounts of 14C in all 14 of our dinosaur and other fossils. Moreover, we found surprising consistency in these data, which range from approximately 17,850 to 49,470 radiocarbon years as indicated in Figure 1.

    http://crev.info/2015/06/c14-dinosaur-bone/
    What Min has claimed is inaccurate. Measurable C14 has been found in dinosaur bioapatite, the bulk organic fraction of whole bone, and in original dinosaur collagen. That's about as in situ as you can get.

    Quote Originally Posted by ShelbyGT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Taikoo View Post
    I kind of thought the"soft tissue" thing had been hashed out elsewhere, but evidently not.
    Oh we brought it up but no credible explanation was offered. You're welcome to try.
    1. Why the "scare quotes" around soft tissue - as if it isn't exactly what the secular peer reviewed papers call it?

    2. There is no "hashing" available for the evolutionists. The story is as follows...

    a. Although there were older cases, original biological dinosaur soft tissue hit the mainstream in 2005, when Mary Schweitzer discovered it in a "68 million year old" T-Rex that was uncovered by Jack Horner.

    b. After publishing her finds, Schweitzer et al were promptly attacked by evo academia. She and her team were accused of shoddy work, and her groundbreaking discovery was blown off as bacterial biofilm or contamination.

    c. Schweitzer did more tests, and confirmed that the material was indeed exactly what she said it was.

    d. Schweitzer spoke to one peer reviewer who told her she still couldn't be right, because soft tissue couldn't survive anywhere near that long. Mary asked him what would convince him that it was what she said it was. He replied, "Nothing."

    e. Other scientists started looking for what deep time uniformitarianism told them was impossible to find.

    f. Before long, these scientists were reporting soft tissue finds in virtually every dinosaur remain they checked.

    g. Schweitzer found more soft tissue in an "80 million year old" Hadrosaur.

    h. Schweitzer proposed that iron in the blood may have acted like a natural formaldehyde, capable of preserving soft tissue for tens of millions of years.

    i. Schweitzer performed an experiment in which she doused ostrich blood vessels in a purified hemoglobin solution, from which she removed all natural coagulants (ie: nothing at all like what would be found in an animal who had just died in the wild). She reported that after two whole years in an air conditioned laboratory, the ostrich vessels remained partially intact.

    j. Schweitzer and others have since made dozens of subsequent discoveries in this field, including original dinosaur blood vessels, blood cells, osteocytes, and even DNA. Mary has since removed herself from the burden to trying to answer how these original proteins and other original biological materials could have survived for as long as the dinosaurs are claimed to be. She says she will leave that question to others, and focus on her main job of making more of these kinds of discoveries.

    k. In the 12 years since Schweitzer's first T-Rex discovery, secular scientists have been reporting soft tissue in ever older (according to deep time beliefs) animals. The record was held for a while by some Cambrian beard worm tubes that are claimed to be 550 million years old, but that record has recently been broken by a claim of 1.2 billion year old original soft tissue.

    Now that we're all up to date on one of my favorite subjects, let the "hashing out" commence.

    Quote Originally Posted by ShelbyGT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Taikoo View Post
    Certainly, what has been found is of interest, and does show that some organic structures can be preserved longer than was previously known.
    Yes, it is a little more than interesting for the creationist's position!
    I wonder if Min believes that what she stated is the only thing these discoveries could show. I wonder if she is open to the possibility that the soft tissue and subsequent C14 results show that these animals are simply no where near the ages that have been arbitrarily assigned to them. I wonder how many years will finally be a bridge too far for her. I mean, if 65 million years was such a shock that evo academia attacked Schweitzer and rejected her findings out of hand, how much of a shock must 550 million years be? Or 1.2 billion years? At what point, exactly, will Min and her brethren say enough is enough? How many billions of evolutionary years will it take before they seriously consider the strong possibility that these dinosaurs and other animals are much, much younger than they have been led to believe?

    Quote Originally Posted by ShelbyGT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Taikoo View Post
    If one could prove that it is impossible for such material to last more than x years, then that would really be something...

    Please refer me, if you know of such, to any paper published in any respected journal that
    would support the idea that ToE has been disproved bu the discovery of these materials.
    Lets say that X years is 65 million years, then yes science does indeed tell us that soft tissue cannot last that long. This falsifies the claim that dinosaurs are that old and if there are no long ages then there is no evolution. That is interesting isn't it?
    I think Min is trying to pull a fast one on us, Shelby. If one makes a counterintuitive claim that both lacks conclusive evidence and flies in the face of many observational evidence, that one cannot rightly ask others to disprove her illogical claim.

    If she claims that soft tissue can survive intact for millions and billions of years, then the onus is on her to provide a valid and verifiable mechanism by which this could possibly happen, and confirmational evidence that it did. If she claims UCD, then the onus is on her to provide a valid and verifiable mechanism by which this could possibly happen, and confirmational evidence that it did.

    It has never been, is not now, and will never be the burden of "the other guy" to disprove any unsubstantiated counterintuitive claim she decides to make.

    (I'm glad you brought soft tissue up, Shelby. It is one of my favorite subjects, and it's been awhile since we've caught up with the most recent information. I get the feeling Still small has something new and relevant to post on this subject, and can't wait to see it. Keep up the good work fighting the good fight for the Lord.)
    Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me. (Job 41:11)

  10. #7760

    Default

    Come on Solver, just give us any evidence against ToE! Any at all!

    Of course the entire list will be glossed over, or one point will be criticized and the entire rest of the list will be ignored. However, when taken at face value and given serious thought the list is an insurmountable wall that Darwin cannot climb or even see over.

    Will it phase the devotees of Darwin? Of course not, they have unshakable faith. I mean what is the alternative, a Creator that we have to answer to? Anything but that! And that is why it will be ignored.

    Truth is hate speech to those who hate the truth.
    Truth is like a lion, it does not need to be defended, simply let it loose.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •