Posted on 10/10/2009 11:10:58 AM PDT by bogusname
Evolutionists have maintained that the fossil record supports a long-ages history for earth, but material extracted from dinosaur bones is providing an interesting challenge to that theory. The recent discoveries of soft dinosaur tissues, defined cell matrices, elastic blood vessels, and clearly observable cell microstructures such as cell nuclei have been a source of both shock and excitement to the paleontology community.
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
“You could have fooled us with your rantings about ICR’s perceived doctrinal stand.”
You don’t even know what question I was answered, did you?
You were too eager to lash out at me. This was another irrelevant tpanther sideshow.
“It’s still not clear just what all that has to do with the article subject, the reliability of making connections from dino to birds and so forth.”
The article if from ICR, they are crackpots. It certainly has something to do with the thread and the credibility of the article, don’t you think?
“And is that not a judgment? Like “it’s not their place to judge”.”
It is their professed religion. I accept that without judgment. Why wouldn’t I?
ding
And what you read into the tenets, even if accurate, really has naught to do with premises of the article which you have not really said much about. Or how stone and minerals can be sequenced (erroneous but not crackpot either).
The credibility of the article is easily checked but if that is the complaint point to where the article is wrong not what you say the ICR believes, the ICR did not write the article, one person did.
What have you done to support your statements?
“The article if from ICR, they are crackpots.”
Thank you, It clear enough now.
“The credibility of the article is easily checked but if that is the complaint point to where the article is wrong not what you say the ICR believes, the ICR did not write the article, one person did.”
The article author misrepresented the quoted research per previous posts. However, that sort of article is fully in line with most ICR “research”.
It is completely reasonable to point to the ICR, it’s complete lack of scientific credibility and state with confidence that any conclusions reached by it or it’s “researchers” is erroneous.
Do you wish to defend the ICR?
But since you make this comment about the credibility of the author, “The article author misrepresented the quoted research per previous posts. However, that sort of article is fully in line with most ICR “research”.”, can you point to just what you're talking about? And about that sequencing stone and minerals? How are coming along with that?
see post #132, I know you don’t believe it, but that is what they did.
“I have to mark that day then when biological/chemical history was made. Stone and mineral were sequenced.....ok........”
You are a funny guy.....not strong on chemistry, but still funny.
But on the other hand if you can't find such a reference (it shouldn't take too long) you will apologize, etc. How's that?
“But on the other hand if you can’t find such a reference (it shouldn’t take too long) you will apologize, etc. How’s that?”
You cannot sequence stone and mineral. You keep bringing that up, not me, for some odd reason.
Here goes again: They apparently took a fossil sample, bathed it in chemicals to strip away the minerals and then were able to sequence what was left (assuming they didn’t contaminate it)
This is hardly “soft tissue”.....but it may have been something, but that’s the best explanation I can give you
This is the odd reason:
To: count-your-change
(C-Y-C)“You can’t sequence stone and minerals.”
(RFE) They did exactly that, after passing it through numerous chemical baths. The mechanism whereby even collagen could be preserved is unknown at this time, but there was no doubt that they started with a recognizable, hard-as-rock fossil.
(C-Y-C) And about that sequencing stone and minerals? How are coming along with that?
To: count-your-change
(RFE) see post #132, I know you don’t believe it, but that is what they did.
What was done?
Dinosaur Soft Tissue Sequenced; Similar to Chicken Proteins Apr 12, 2007 ... Dinosaur Soft Tissue Sequenced; Similar to Chicken Proteins ... extracted from the T. rex’s leg bone is original dinosaur soft tissue that ... news.nationalgeographic.com/.../070412-dino-tissues.html -
So which is it? Can stone and mineral be sequenced or not?
[[They very clearly state the consequences for failing to believe what they state are their foundational principles]]
again, you’re confused- anyone can go to the link and see that there’s no vast fundamentalist conspiracy that damns people to hell who ‘don’t beleive the same way ICR does’ lol- they specifically state that those who REFUSE to ACCEPT CHRIST are damned, and this is fully ocnsistent with the actual word of God and makes sense that they too would beleive that, as this is a central Christian precept, and it is fully reasonable that they would require those workign for them to beleive that CHrist is Lord, and to be saved through Christ- again- NOWHERE do they even begin to imply that anyone who beleives in evolution is automatically goign to hell lol
“The “odd reason”?”
you missed the post where I explained how they did it.
be honest!
they started with a hard-as-rock fossil, and sequenced something within it.
“again, you’re confused- anyone can go to the link and see that there’s no vast fundamentalist conspiracy that damns people to hell who ‘don’t beleive the same way ICR does’ lol- they specifically state that those who REFUSE to ACCEPT CHRIST are damned, and this is fully ocnsistent with the actual word of God and makes sense that they too would beleive that, as this is a central Christian precept”
It’s very amusing when biblical literalists can’t put the context of the ICR bylaws together. That is exactly what they mean. Believe in evolution = going to hell. Why won’t you admit that? ....Or is the word of God actually a little more complex and less literal?
Go do a a bit of research so you’ll better understand what you’re talking about and then come back, otherwise I’ll waste no more of my time here.
again, you’re confused- anyone can go to the link and see that there’s no vast fundamentalist conspiracy that damns people to hell who ‘don’t beleive the same way ICR does’ lol- they specifically state that those who REFUSE to ACCEPT CHRIST are damned, and this is fully ocnsistent with the actual word of God and makes sense that they too would beleive that, as this is a central Christian precept, and it is fully reasonable that they would require those workign for them to beleive that CHrist is Lord, and to be saved through Christ- again- NOWHERE do they even begin to imply that anyone who beleives in evolution is automatically goign to hell lol
“Go do a a bit of research so you’ll better understand what you’re talking about and then come back, otherwise I’ll waste no more of my time here.”
Why would you stop wasting your time now? I am not responsible for your lack of understanding, which is the source of most of your wasted time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.