Page 777 of 1027 FirstFirst ... 277677727767775776777778779787827877 ... LastLast
Results 7,761 to 7,770 of 10262

Thread: Evolution: The Grand Deception

  1. #7761

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mikeboll64 View Post
    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.


    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.


    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.


    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?


    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.)


    Thanks for "fleshing out" the main points! You nailed it!

    Yes, still Small has posted some great info on new finds! I was thrilled to see it. Hope you can catch up soon.

    When asked about evidence (as if we have never presented any) I said "let's start with soft tissue in dinosaur bones". She tried to pull a Max on me and suggested that "oh, I thought that was already dealt with". Well, it hasn't. And it is only growing as a pen evidence against ToE.

    So, I agree, let's "flesh out" this mystery of soft tissue and how it could possibly last over a million years, much less a billion years!!!
    Truth is like a lion, it does not need to be defended, simply let it loose.

  2. #7762

    Default

    It is scientific illiteracy that has contributed to the resurgence of Creationism. When you add Answers in Genesis, which is committed to analyzing and critiquing science, you wind up contrasting the scientific method of inquiry and observational science, with a plethora of unverifiable evolutionary speculation that is presented as fact. I will use the unquestionable, observable evidence that supports a common ancestor, and ID, as an example of creationist's dishonesty.

    Every human being embodies the history of our species, in the form of stuff we inherit from the past. Natural Selection has no mechanism for eliminating useless traits(usually it just atrophies). Blind fish and mammals have eyes that don't work. Flightless birds have feathers that don't function. Snakes have useless pelvises that float in their abdomen. We all have the genes to make vitamin C, but they are not expressed. We are all born with a tail(coccyx). Some are functional most are not. We are born with a bunched-up transparent eyelid, goose bumps, a musculature to move our ears, a nictitating membrane, wisdom teeth, an appendix, and about 90 other vestigial organs.There is no doubt that these organs exist, and were inherited genetically from other species, as part of the ToE Natural Selection. From Darwin to the present, the existence of bad, useless, unintelligent design should truly provide powerful evidence that species were not created in their present forms, but must have evolved over time. They must also have evolved in such a way that the designs we see in ourselves and other species today, are often the opposite of being intelligent. The presence of so much “unintelligent” design across so many species should make any Intelligent Design claim laughable. For every “irreducibly complex” thing with more design than can be accounted for by science, there are a thousand things in nature with inferior levels of design. For every arrow pointing toward a “Designer,” there are a thousand arrows pointing the other way. Creationist simply dismiss, deny, present possible inconsistencies, or fill this gap with more fallacy-ridden supernatural claims based on ignorance.

    To understand the strange phenomenon of this cult's logic, lets ignore for now that they piggy-back off an established Religious Belief, which is being disguised as a pseudo-science. Let's just understand how they manipulate scientific evidence to favor their proposed ID, in the same way lawyers handle evidence in legal cases. Namely, they are paid to come to a foregone conclusion, no matter how poorly it is supported. If 1,000 people saw you commit the crime and Joe saw someone else do it, Joe’s testimony is the only one that matters, to support your defense. For all other testimonies, you must tarnish their integrity, and question their competence. It is this tortured, convoluted, dishonest, and twisted reasoning that we must suffer with. For example, I listed many examples of bad design which at the very least, implies a lack of intelligence. Creationists and ID theorists will only present a response that focuses exclusively on the particular examples themselves. They then will claim falsely and absurdly, that we are presenting the, "bad design" hypothesis as “proof of Darwinian evolution,”. They then attempt to undermine the argument of bad design by undermining the examples we use to illustrate our point. Totally dishonest. Rather than address the actual question of how ID can account for bad design, they focus exclusively on creating a tenuous speculation that there is no such thing as a genuine vestigial organ(in this case). Also dishonest.

    I realize that everyone did not have the opportunity, or could afford the benefits of a tertiary education. I realize that there are those without the benefits of even a secondary education. But every normal relatively healthy human on the planet, has the benefit of common sense. It is not common sense to assume that, " God poofed everything into existence". That is mob mentality, and intellectual laziness. If you can even entertain such an absurd notion, then you are the perfect mindless candidate for this cult. Once you know the answers to all questions, what is the point of questioning, or understanding any part of reality? Why bother making the sacrifices necessary for an advance education? It is much easier to simply join the extreme cultist Beliefs of a closed minded Creationist. This step only requires your submission, and the dismissal of all natural laws as we know them. But if you voluntarily chose to become a de-evolved, member of those that want to excel in knowledge, then you deserve all the reactions you will receive.

    Why don't you creationist present your case to the scientific community? If you know that you are right, why would you care about the reaction you will receive? Are you suggesting that your facts, data, consistency, logic, testability, predictability, and repeatability, will be ignored by the entire science community? Do you think that they are afraid that, "God actually did do it all", and they have wasted their entire academic lives? No Mike, you are nothing more than just another snake-oil salesman, peddling your unfalsifiable pseudo-sophistry, to entice the ignorant/uneducated into believing that they are smarter than the entire scientific community. Although, if this is your mental predisposition profile, then you belong in the creationism camp. How has creationism advanced science in any way? How many creation specific discoveries are there? What creation-specific mechanisms were uncovered? I'm afraid science requires more that just self-serving assertions and logic, ignorance, and appeals to absolutes. Don
    Last edited by Truly Enlightened; 05-18-2017 at 05:06 AM.

  3. #7763
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    21,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by solver View Post


    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 theor.................

    Why must you gish?
    Last edited by Taikoo; 05-18-2017 at 07:35 AM.

  4. #7764

    Default

    Let me ask you creationists.

    How do you reconcile the TWO creation stories in Genesis? Which one is the the truth?
    Do you believe that all life began(including the Universe), began 6-10,000 years ago?
    Do you believe that Noah's Ark had accommodated for 60,000 species of animals, 2M insects, food and water, and for his family?
    Do you believe that in general, that science offers the best explanation of parts of our reality?
    Do you believe that eating some fruit would give one everlasting life and all knowledge?
    Do you believe that a snake and a donkey spoke to people?
    Do you believe that the Earth is a flat disk in shape, like a dinner plate, and rests upon mountain pillars?
    Do you believe that the sun revolves around the flat Earth?
    Do you believe that the sky is a giant, upside-down colander.
    Do you believe that flying insects walk on all fours, and that rabbits and hares chew their cuds, just as cows do?
    Do you believe that Pi is equal to 3, or that comets are evil?
    Do you believe that 39 hrs is equal to 3 days?
    Do you believe that the end of the world will come well before 100 C.E(rhetorical)?
    Do you believe that Abiathar was his own son, or that Murder is in the eye of the beholder?
    Do you believe that God has human body parts?
    Do you believe that Mutation of our genes is a natural mechanism that allows for changes within the organism?
    Do you believe that Radiometry has some scientific value? If so, specifically to what extent?
    Do you believe that the ToE is a deception orchestrated to deceive most scientist into accepting it radical views?
    Can you present any falsifiable evidence to support your unfalsifiable claims?

    I hope that you will respond truthfully to my questions, or not at all. Most of these questions are truth claims made in the Bible. Maybe you can describe some of the Bibles scientific findings? I sincerely hope that the fate of our young and brightest minds, is to be snuffed out pursuing the vacuous claims from creationists. Unless you would like to present at least ONE creation-specific evidence, that has nothing to do with science. Since it is your claim that has nothing to do with science, or logic. Don

  5. #7765
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    21,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Truly Enlightened View Post
    Let me ask you creationists.

    How do you reconcile the TWO creation stories in Genesis? Which one is the the truth?
    Do you believe that all life began(including the Universe), began 6-10,000 years ago?
    Do you believe that Noah's Ark had accommodated for 60,000 species of animals, 2M insects, food and water, and for his family?
    Do you believe that in general, that science offers the best explanation of parts of our reality?
    Do you believe that eating some fruit would give one everlasting life and all knowledge?
    Do you believe that a snake and a donkey spoke to people?
    Do you believe that the Earth is a flat disk in shape, like a dinner plate, and rests upon mountain pillars?
    Do you believe that the sun revolves around the flat Earth?
    Do you believe that the sky is a giant, upside-down colander.
    Do you believe that flying insects walk on all fours, and that rabbits and hares chew their cuds, just as cows do?
    Do you believe that Pi is equal to 3, or that comets are evil?
    Do you believe that 39 hrs is equal to 3 days?
    Do you believe that the end of the world will come well before 100 C.E(rhetorical)?
    Do you believe that Abiathar was his own son, or that Murder is in the eye of the beholder?
    Do you believe that God has human body parts?
    Do you believe that Mutation of our genes is a natural mechanism that allows for changes within the organism?
    Do you believe that Radiometry has some scientific value? If so, specifically to what extent?
    Do you believe that the ToE is a deception orchestrated to deceive most scientist into accepting it radical views?
    Can you present any falsifiable evidence to support your unfalsifiable claims?

    I hope that you will respond truthfully to my questions, or not at all. Most of these questions are truth claims made in the Bible. Maybe you can describe some of the Bibles scientific findings? I sincerely hope that the fate of our young and brightest minds, is to be snuffed out pursuing the vacuous claims from creationists. Unless you would like to present at least ONE creation-specific evidence, that has nothing to do with science. Since it is your claim that has nothing to do with science, or logic. Don
    Gish and counter gish

  6. #7766
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    21,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShelbyGT View Post
    Thanks for "fleshing out" the main points! You nailed it!

    Yes, still Small has posted some great info on new finds! I was thrilled to see it. Hope you can catch up soon.

    When asked about evidence (as if we have never presented any) I said "let's start with soft tissue in dinosaur bones". She tried to pull a Max on me and suggested that "oh, I thought that was already dealt with". Well, it hasn't. And it is only growing as a pen evidence against ToE.

    So, I agree, let's "flesh out" this mystery of soft tissue and how it could possibly last over a million years, much less a billion years!!!

    Fleshing out what I have said by misrepresenting and otherwise falsifying it
    is hardly honourable or meaningful, except what it says about the person doing it.


    But then, no argument that you or Mike ever offers is anything other than
    a misrepresentation, a distortion, or the like. Whether this is done deliberately or negligently is up to such conscience as may be present.

  7. #7767

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taikoo View Post
    Gish and counter gish

    Actually, it is just an attempt at a diversion from all the facts listed. Just as I said!
    Truth is like a lion, it does not need to be defended, simply let it loose.

  8. #7768

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Taikoo View Post
    Fleshing out what I have said by misrepresenting and otherwise falsifying it
    is hardly honourable or meaningful, except what it says about the person doing it.


    But then, no argument that you or Mike ever offers is anything other than
    a misrepresentation, a distortion, or the like. Whether this is done deliberately or negligently is up to such conscience as may be present.

    What was misrepresented or false? Back up your accusations or remain silent.
    Truth is like a lion, it does not need to be defended, simply let it loose.

  9. #7769
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    21,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShelbyGT View Post
    What was misrepresented or false? Back up your accusations or remain silent.

    Oh right, you are in charge of when and what I can say.

    I've a far better idea than my trying to list all the things you say that are false or misrepresented.

    Why dont you try to offer one fact that disproves ToE or deep time,
    that does not involve a misrepresentation or falsehood?

    Do that, and you've nothing to worry about.

    Otherwise, you may want, good "Christian" and all, to examine the whole thing
    of whether your behaviour is negligent or willful, and how that relates to conscience.

  10. #7770
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    21,599

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ShelbyGT View Post
    Actually, it is just an attempt at a diversion from all the facts listed. Just as I said!
    Facts not in evidence, as per usual.

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
  •