Posted on 10/10/2009 11:10:58 AM PDT by bogusname
But contamination would raise another problem, that is if the link to dinosaur and bird is due to contamination then there really is no link to be found in the lab at all. OR
Horner, Schweitzer, and, I forget the other fellow's name, are the best of the best with the best and latest equipment yet cannot even run a amino acid sequence without botching it? Or perhaps the objections of contamination have nothing to do with contamination of the test so much as contamination of the science by prejudice.
In this article it appears what is being called “soft tissue” is the bone collagen that was sequenced....... 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 -
awwwwwww....you’re sore it’s the religion forum?
OK.
But we knew that.
Yeah metmom, you know kind of like Rush Limbaugh should be silenced in the interests of the fairness doctrine.
“Nothing there about ‘believe in creation and creation science or go to hell’. Perhaps that’s what they believe, I don’t read minds, but it just isn’t what was said there.”
Third to last tenet states it fairly plainly.
“In this article it appears what is being called “soft tissue” is the bone collagen that was sequenced”
that’s what I’m talking about. It is not “soft tissue” it was fossilized collagen protein fragments extracted chemically. It was a fossil.
It’s still interesting, but it’s not like they opened up a cooler and pulled out a steak as the article implies.
I read about contamination. That’s something that should be resolvable. It’s in the “more to come” category
“awwwwwww....you’re sore it’s the religion forum?”
I am? I think you posted to the wrong guy. I’m ambivalent on that subject.
Darwins birthday was just commemorated with celebrations, Jesus’ birthday will soon be celebrated.
Darwin's writing form the foundation of evolutionary belief, Christians have the Bible.
Darwin had his apostles, Huxley and Wallace, Jesus had the twelve.
Evolution has its guiding force, natural selection. Christian belief has the spirit of God.
Evolution explains the relationship between humans, survival of the fittest, Christianity says we are made in the image of our Creator.
Evolution has a core philosophy, materialism as in ‘The cosmos is all there is’.....Sagan. Christianity has a core philosophy of man's subjection to God. Other might be named but that's enough here.
Other might add to the list but if it is, as Merriam-Webster gives as one definition of religion, “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith” then ““Evolution is accepted, from what I see, in the same way as religion is and so I think it is justifiably called such.”
You can’t sequence stone and minerals.
LOL!
You can’t just declare something a religion just because it makes it convenient to argue against it that way. You gotta bring something more than just a juvenile association game.
Surely you can frame a better argument than “Origin of the Species” is equivalent to the Bible, when you know that is a inane assertion. Nobody actually believes that - except maybe for you (but I doubt you do - your argument is too half-hearted)
Evolutionists are very often Christian (almost all that I know are), I know a number of folks object to that, but it’s not their place to judge, even though the ICR says we’re going to hell.
“You can’t sequence stone and minerals.”
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.
Stone/minerals may be made of lot of things but I ain’t ever heard of them being transformed into amino acids no matter what kind of chemical baths are used.
You’ll have to tell me how that works.
You haven't noticed the sheer mountains of evidence before you on FR, so why should anyone provide more?
Evolutionists are very often Christian (almost all that I know are), I know a number of folks object to that, but it’s not their place to judge, even though the ICR says we’re going to hell.
Uh-huh...how many high profile liberals do you know that are creationists?
“Evolutionists are very often Christian (almost all that I know are),...”
And is that not a judgment? Like “it's not their place to judge”.
Anyway after that small diversion, did you actually read the article? Where was the stone and minerals sequenced? And how can one do that?
What do I care?
They're a private organization, are they not? Don't they have a right to decide what to and to not believe?
Who's going to challenge them and why? The government? Anyone else?
You could have fooled us with your rantings about ICR's perceived doctrinal stand.
“What do I care?”
You may not, but you are posting on a thread that is sourced to the ICR, so apparently you do actually care, you just may not realize it.
“They’re a private organization, are they not? Don’t they have a right to decide what to and to not believe?”
Absolutely, they just happen to believe that you are going to hell if you disagree with them. They are totally within their rights to do so.
“Who’s going to challenge them and why?”
All decent people should challenge them, as they are crackpots. Do you think evolutionists are going to hell just like they think?
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.