toldailytopic: Soft tissue found in dinosaur bones: what is the significance?

Nathon Detroit

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for January 30th, 2012 10:49 AM


toldailytopic: Soft tissue found in dinosaur bones: what is the significance?



050324_trex_softtissue_hlg10a.hlarge.jpg



Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.
 
oatmeal

oatmeal

Well-known member
Knight said:
The TheologyOnline.com TOPIC OF THE DAY for January 30th, 2012 10:49 AM


toldailytopic: Soft tissue found in dinosaur bones: what is the significance?



050324_trex_softtissue_hlg10a.hlarge.jpg



Take the topic above and run with it! Slice it, dice it, give us your general thoughts about it. Everyday there will be a new TOL Topic of the Day.
If you want to make suggestions for the Topic of the Day send a Tweet to @toldailytopic or @theologyonline or send it to us via Facebook.
Click to expand...

Nicely aged, ready for the grill!
 
Granite

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html

This is one of the best over-all discussions of the topic I've found.

What's the significance of the find? Well, it may shed light on dinosaurs, their development, and how they actually lived and evolved. It's a serendipitous discovery, and a remarkable scientific achievement. And the people actually involved in the find are aghast that creationists consistently misrepresent it.
 
PureX

PureX

Well-known member
True to the human propensity for irrationality, those who don't believe in science will use this scientific discovery to disclaim the voracity of science so as to promote their non-scientific view of reality.

Those who respect science will simply wait to see what can be learned from this surprising new bit of information.
 
MaryContrary

MaryContrary

New member
Hall of Fame
PureX said:
True to the human propensity for irrationality, those who don't believe in science will use this scientific discovery to disclaim the voracity of science so as to promote their non-scientific view of reality.
Click to expand...
Okay, am I nuts or is "believing in science" not the most unscientific thing I've heard of? Why do you believe in science? Science doesn't believe in science!
PureX said:
Those who respect science will simply wait to see what can be learned from this surprising new bit of information.
Click to expand...
Agreed. That's a very scientific position to take. I notice you're dismissing things before they're even presented though. For example, what if those that would use this scientific discovery to disclaim the voracity of science so as to promote their non-scientific view of reality are actually right? You've already dismissed any claim of theirs, even as you proposing waiting for science to illuminate it. Then science would have failed you, huh? Or, rather, you would have failed science. That wouldn't be very scientific.

Maybe you should keep an open mind or something.
 
Granite

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Okay, am I nuts or is "believing in science" not the most unscientific thing I've heard of?
Click to expand...

You're only giving us two choices?:chuckle:

Why do you believe in science? Science doesn't believe in science!
Click to expand...

Ummmmm...what?

For example, what if those that would use this scientific discovery to disclaim the voracity of science so as to promote their non-scientific view of reality are actually right?
Click to expand...

What exactly are you going for here? Those involved in the discovery and the study of the tissue dismiss outright any creationist attempt to misrepresent or hijack the data.
 
MaryContrary

MaryContrary

New member
Hall of Fame
Granite said:
You're only giving us two choices?:chuckle:
Click to expand...
Dude, one of them is "I'm nuts". What more do you want from me? Sheesh.
Granite said:
Ummmmm...what?
Click to expand...
Maybe PureX will get it.
Granite said:
What exactly are you going for here? Those involved in the discovery and the study of the tissue dismiss outright any creationist attempt to misrepresent or hijack the data.
Click to expand...
Okay. But what if they're right? PureX seems to be trying to have faith in science to answer questions while simultaneously dismissing some of the possible answers ahead of time. That seems pretty contradictory to me.

That's like me saying I'm going to pray to God for the correct answer to this algebra problem I'm working on, that I have complete faith in His ability to answer correctly, His willingness to do so and that the answer definitely isn't seven.

That be kinda dumb. Because the answer could be seven. I dunno, obviously, because I haven't solved the problem or I wouldn't be praying about it in the first place. The only reason I can think to do that would be to attack the validity of the answer being seven. And even then that's a pretty darned shaky example of appeal to authority, I think, considering I've no idea yet what position the authority in question has taken on the issue.

I certainly wouldn't be actually praying for an answer I don't have and be so sure it wasn't seven. That'd be irrational. So maybe I'm questioning PureX's rationality.
 
Lon

Lon

Well-known member
Granite said:
... the people actually involved in the find are aghast that creationists consistently misrepresent it.
Click to expand...

More like annoyed. The only correction I'd make to her statement is that I'd expect science and revelation to coincide. Faith doesn't require the leap to be deaf and dumb as well as blind.
 
Angel4Truth

Angel4Truth

New member
Hall of Fame
some other dude said:
No, they're holding fast to that assumption.

Of course, that means they have to find some way to account for soft tissue to survive for 68 million years with being totally degraded, but that's what makes science fun, right? :banana:
Click to expand...

If it doesn't work, make it work!! :juggle:
 
PureX

PureX

Well-known member
MaryContrary said:
You've already dismissed any claim of theirs, even as you proposing waiting for science to illuminate it. Then science would have failed you, huh? Or, rather, you would have failed science. That wouldn't be very scientific.

Maybe you should keep an open mind or something.
Click to expand...
I didn't disclaim anyone's proposition. I was merely pointing out the irrationality of using a scientific discovery to disclaim a scientific theory that one has chosen not to believe in the first place by rejecting the scientific process that proposed it. It's you who has assumed that irrationality discredits it's own propositions. Which it does.

I'm afraid your 'clever turnabout' wasn't all that clever because you ended up verifying the inherent lack of credibility of such irrational creationist sophistry.
 
V

voltaire

BANNED
Banned
Anybody want to answer how the soft tissue can survive after 100 million years. 65 million is the cutoff date, not the median date.
 
Granite

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
voltaire said:
Anybody want to answer how the soft tissue can survive after 100 million years. 65 million is the cutoff date, not the median date.
Click to expand...

How about looking into the matter and seeing what the scientists involved have to say? It won't take you very long.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top