jeffblue101
New member
in other words, you have no idea but you know evolution is still a fact.
toldailytopic: Soft tissue found in dinosaur bones: what is the significance?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
in other words, you have no idea but you know evolution is still a fact.
jeffblue101
New member
:idea:
Creationists in the future built a time-machine, went back into the past and implanted cloned dinosaur tissue in the rock layers in order to undermine the theory of evolution.
Wrong. When Jefferson started a thread about this subject a week ago I provided not only the link to the Smithsonian's article (which I doubt you read) but also links for other articles covering the discovery and the tissue with comments by Horner and Schweitzer. If you're unable or unwilling to actually look into the matter yourself, you're both lazy and ignorant. Not my problem. This wouldn't be the first time a creationist made a fool of himself by being willfully uninformed.
I see that you are too lazy to copy and past from a TOL post, or to even give a link. Moreover, it is evident you didn't really understand what you read in the smithsonian article. As far as you are concerned, an expert said it, and that is the end of the story. You don't bother to concern yourself with critically thinking about it.
For a guy with your pretensions--seriously: voltaire?--you don't seem terribly sharp, or perceptive, or really interested in learning...anything. Use Google, genius. I think you can figure that out, am I right? This isn't all that hard. The discovery's several years old and has been covered and discussed in detail since.
...and I'm sure you won't deign to explain why. Swine and pearls and all that.:yawn:
Those who actually made the discovery and who have studied it extensively know what they're talking about. You approach the issue as a creationist with all the ignorance and baggage that implies. Creationists have been trying to misinterpret the tissue since it was announced.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
From your article, it appears all they have done to explain how this tissue is still around after 65 million years is say 'Wow, I guess this stuff can last 65 million years.' (the quote is my own paraphrase)
PureX
Well-known member
I copied the line from the opening post, pasted it in google, and immediately found the Smithsonian article, as well as others. Granite read it. I read it. You apparently can't be bothered. So you really can't add anything of value, here, can you, except your own uninformed opinions.
PureX
Well-known member
They can't explain things until they have an explanation. That will take some time to investigate, and test. So for now, all we can do is wait and see.
Or, we can jump to wild unsubstantiated conclusions and then insult anyone who disagrees.
some other dude
New member
From the following echange, one might be led to believe that Granite has read the Smithsonian article and understands how soft tissue can survive after 100 million years:
From the article:
“It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,” she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.
Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”
Gee, nothing about how it might survive for 100 million years.
Looks like Granite hasn't read his own link.
:mock:Granite
From the article:
“It got me real curious as to exceptional preservation,” she says. If particles of that one dinosaur were able to hang around for 65 million years, maybe the textbooks were wrong about fossilization.
Schweitzer’s work is “showing us we really don’t understand decay,” Holtz says. “There’s a lot of really basic stuff in nature that people just make assumptions about.”
Gee, nothing about how it might survive for 100 million years.
Looks like Granite hasn't read his own link.
:mock:Granite
One Eyed Jack
New member
We're the ones who've been right since it was announced. It took you guys what -- six or seven years to admit it was actually dinosaur tissue?
Not that I'm aware of, no. And who are the "you guys" you're referring to? I'm not aware of any paleontologists who post on TOL.
Your beef is with Horner, Schweitzer, and others, who know more than creationist's pseudo "experts," and who have had to repeat themselves since the discovery: no, this doesn't mean the earth is only 6,000 years old; yes, the rock it came from is more than 60 million years old. The tissue does not mean what creationists think it means, and for science to be so badly warped and twisted has to be disconcerting for those who actually know better.
Nothing changes. Creationism persists in its ignorance.
organiccornflake
New member
Very cool!
Cruciform
New member
Gaudium de veritate,
Cruciform
+T+
One Eyed Jack
New member
Then you just haven't been paying attention, Granite. We've been saying this was actual dinosaur tissue the whole time others have been claiming it was a hoax, or biofilm, or whatever.
I have no beef with Schweitzer. As for Horner, didn't he say nothing would ever convince him this was actual dinosaur tissue?
And they know this how?
You're claiming soft-tissue can last 65-million years, despite everything we know about decay, and I'm persisting in my ignorance? All right, then.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
And your article says that Schweitzer is one of those evil evolutionist Christians. :shocked:
Just read the whole smithsonian article. I didn't find an explanation for how soft tissue survives 66 million years anywhere in it. This is a prime example of evolutionists demanding evidence against evolution from creationists and then hand wave it away when evidence is presented. This Schweitzer gal is a typical theistic evolutionist. She doesn't understand Romans 1:20 which says that the handiwork of God in his creation is so obvious that people who reject God are without excuse. To break that down further: No one will be able to stand before God at judgement day and tell God there was no evidence he existed. God will look him straight in the face and say that his creation proved his existence everyday he contemplated it.
The fact that there was no soft tissues found in dinosaurs used to be evidence that they were extremely old. When soft tissues are finally found, the story changes. If the absence of soft tissue used to be evidence for old ages, the presence of it has to evidence of young age or else you are a hypocrite.
Evolutionist christians are not called evil for no reason. To take away the very meaning of what it means to be all powerful God and make God a non causative bystander who takes ZERO part in his so called "creation" is very evil indeed.
One Eyed Jack
New member
No way -- she's a real sweetheart.
| Dinosaur Soft Tissue Destroys Millions Of Years Ideas | |
We love you, Mary!