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

[fool]

No, I want a big one. Ride it to work, teach it to hunt evolutionists, like that.

For some reason I don't see that scene as complete without some hot chicks wearing bikinis made of some sort of fur.
And spears.
And some giant southern fried chicken.
Cause you get hungry riding around on the Dino.

 

[Angel4Truth]

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.

The aliens did it, thats the ticket...


:rapture:

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Jack, if you want a refresher in geology, go down to your local library.

I don't need a refresher in geology. I want you to tell me how they know this. If you can't even come up with a plausible reason as to why you accept it, then why should I?

Yes, you are. You're ignorant and don't know what you're talking about.

Granite, I'm fairly certain I've spent far more time studying this issue than you have. But by all means -- feel free to enlighten me if you think you have something to offer.

 

[fool]

Hello?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Hello?

Howdy.

 

[fool]

Howdy.

How you been?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

How you been?

Pretty good. How about yourself?

 

[fool]

Pretty good. How about yourself?

Busy, very very busy.
Good thing in these hard times we're having, if I was a God believing man I would be thankful for the load of stress I have the honor of bearing but not being that I have just the stress and the saticfaction of doing the right thing and letting the chips fall where they may just for the fun of watching it all happen.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Busy, very very busy.
Good thing in these hard times we're having, if I was a God believing man I would be thankful for the load of stress I have the honor of bearing but not being that I have just the stress and the saticfaction of doing the right thing and letting the chips fall where they may just for the fun of watching it all happen.

Well, at least you're getting some enjoyment out of it.

 

[fool]

Well, at least you're getting some enjoyment out of it.

What happens happens, only thing we can change is how we react.
Which brings me around (finally) to the topic of this thread....

 

[Granite]

I want you to tell me how they know this.

It's not just a question of this particular area or particular rock, Jack. If you want to question the reality of evolution, then you're not "just" asking a simple question, and you know it. As I've said before, this whole playing dumb shtick doesn't really become you.

Granite, I'm fairly certain I've spent far more time studying this issue than you have.

Studying, maybe. Understanding it, definitely not. The discovery's exciting. The study is fascinating. And creationists simply do not seem to know what to do with actual science, because they're used to pablum, not science.

Fit your T-rex with a saddle, by all means. I'll take the science. G'day.

 

[fool]

Fit your T-rex with a saddle, by all means. I'll take the science. G'day.

A saddle with room fer Hot Chicks!
And Spears.
And fried chicken.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Studying, maybe. Understanding it, definitely not. The discovery's exciting. The study is fascinating. And creationists simply do not seem to know what to do with actual science, because they're used to pablum, not science.

If you understand it so much better than me, then why not answer my question? Just look at it as an opportunity to enlighten me.

 

[Vaquero45]

It's not just a question of this particular area or particular rock, Jack. If you want to question the reality of evolution, then you're not "just" asking a simple question, and you know it. As I've said before, this whole playing dumb shtick doesn't really become you.



Studying, maybe. Understanding it, definitely not. The discovery's exciting. The study is fascinating. And creationists simply do not seem to know what to do with actual science, because they're used to pablum, not science.

Fit your T-rex with a saddle, by all means. I'll take the science. G'day.

When you get challenged and you got nuthin', throw your hands up in the air, pretend you are victorious and run away quickly.

Sounds like something granite would do.

It's dubious, dumb, dishonest, dorky, drivel, dimwitted, dramatic, and dastardly.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm still waiting for some kind of evidence that heme and other kinds of biological materails can't be preserved for millions of years.

Other than "I don't believe it, so it can't be so.", I mean.

 

[genuineoriginal]

I'm still waiting for some kind of evidence that heme and other kinds of biological materails can't be preserved for millions of years.

Other than "I don't believe it, so it can't be so.", I mean.

So, you apply a double standard?
The only valid argument evolutionists have for rejecting the Biblical account of creation is because they say, "I don't believe it, so it can't be so."

 

[kmoney]

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.

I did read the entire article. And you are correct that there isn't an explanation for how the soft tissue could have survived. But I'm not sure what you think these scientists should do. Do you think the honest thing to do is to say that dinosaurs aren't old and to reject evolution now? :idunno:

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm still waiting for some kind of evidence that heme and other kinds of biological materails can't be preserved for millions of years.

Other than "I don't believe it, so it can't be so.", I mean.

So, you apply a double standard?

Nope. Science works by evidence. Show us the evidence. If you claim biological molecules can't be preserved for millions of years, it's incumbent on you to show us your evidence. "I don't believe it, soe it can't be so." isn't evidence.

The only valid argument evolutionists have for rejecting the Biblical account of creation

As you learned, evolution is consistent with the Bible. "Life ex nihilo" (which not all YE creationists accept as true) is contrary to the Bible, but "evolutionists" don't seem to be the ones promoting that.

I think what you meant is "for rejecting G.O.'s new interpretation of the Bible."

 

[ideogenous_mover]

run with it!

given the midrashic account of even the animals eating of the tree of knowledge to the last donkey, combining that with my own imagination I will deduce that the giants of Genesis 6 that came down to breed with humans had also proportionally brought with them a whole array of gigantic angel-animals that bred with all the small earth animals. As the giants were washed away in the flood, we can come to the conclusion that it was both human-giants and animal-giants alike that were cleansed from the land.

 

[genuineoriginal]

Nope. Science works by evidence. Show us the evidence. If you claim biological molecules can't be preserved for millions of years, it's incumbent on you to show us your evidence. "I don't believe it, soe it can't be so." isn't evidence.

If you claim that the earth was not created in 6 literal days time (approximately 144 hours) then it is incumbent on you to show us your evidence that is not based on "I don't believe it, so it can't be so".