Dinosaur Shocker (YEC say dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years)

Smithsonian Magazine ^ | May 1, 2006 | Helen Fields

[Doctor Stochastic]

[music_code]

I am more interested in what working scientists think. Among working scientists, evolution isn't a point of contention at all.

This is not correct. There are many 'working scientists' who firmly reject evolution. Out of that group, some are creationists, but many others are not.

Among those scientists who subscribe to evolution, two things must be noted:

1. By the candid admission of at least one prominent evolutionist, "There is absolutely nothing about evolution that anyone knows with certainty." This man, a distinguished scientist, put the question to a roomful of evolutionists: "Concerning evolution, what do we know for certain?" There was dead silence in the room.

The obvious point is, even the evolutionists themselves can't agree on what they "know". That means evolution does not even pass the laugh test as a valid theory, let alone established fact.

2. It is not evolution per se that is accepted among this group, but rather a prior commitment to the religious philosophy behind evolution that is common to them all. This is a group of people with a decidedly materialistic worldview, who are committed to keeping God out the picture.

[js1138]

If I said I don't believe your quote, you would give the reference, wouldn't you?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"This is not correct. There are many 'working scientists' who firmly reject evolution."

No, actually, I am correct. About 95% of working scientists accept evolution. Of the 5% that don't, only a very small part are comprised of people actually working in fields related to evolution.

There is no controversy in science about evolution; it's a controversy only among certain religious circles.

"By the candid admission of at least one prominent evolutionist."

Who is he? Citations are in order.
BTW, NOTHING is certain in science.

"The obvious point is, even the evolutionists themselves can't agree on what they "know". That means evolution does not even pass the laugh test as a valid theory, let alone established fact."

The disagreements are over the process, not that evolution happened, or whether common descent is a fact.

"It is not evolution per se that is accepted among this group."

Yes it is. Don't lie, it's not nice.

"but rather a prior commitment to the religious philosophy behind evolution that is common to them all. "

There is no religious philosophy behind evolution.

"This is a group of people with a decidedly materialistic worldview, who are committed to keeping God out the picture."

God doesn't appear in ANY scientific theory. Science is not capable of investigating untestable claims like whether or not God exists.

Most people in the USA who accept evolution are Christians.

You need to do a little better than this if you want to make a decent argument.

[Slingshot]

Your statements
Your reasoning
Your concepts
Even the ordering of your sentences
Are positioned with care.
Such is to be found also in a flower arrangement done in the old Japanese tradition.
Balanced.

The use of Science and its repeatable experiments, without the Unrepeatable events in life, produces an understanding that is Unbalanced.

Mathematics of a high order, using Microbiology as a map; has lead some superior scientifically inspired business men to make surprisingly good assumptions until one lone unrepeatable event upset the entire apple cart. LTCM is one such example.

Science is not able to "contain the whole".

Very Good. Well Done.

Have a good day.

[BrandtMichaels]

All of your fervent wishing does not elevate ToE beyond it's present fairly controversial state either. If it were not controversial then this article would have far fewer replies.

Some recent posts here reminded me of yet another 'fly in the ointment' of ToE. Sexual reproduction is within species boundaries. If a creature 'evolves' across the species boundary is it supposed to randomly happen in male/female pairs or does ToE fall short in this explanation too?

Any strong scientific theory needs far fewer amendments than those that ToE has historically shown. Maybe you can list some yet to be revealed ToE 'predictions' that (hopefully) won't cause the pretzel logic the YEC article above promotes!

68 MYO soft tissue!!! - Just another anomaly here folks - nothing to see - move along.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"All of your fervent wishing does not elevate ToE beyond it's present fairly controversial state either. If it were not controversial then this article would have far fewer replies."

There is no scientific controversy. The only controversy is among certain religious groups.

"Sexual reproduction is within species boundaries. If a creature 'evolves' across the species boundary is it supposed to randomly happen in male/female pairs or does ToE fall short in this explanation too?"

Speciation happens to populations, slowly, not to individuals all at once. Your conception is more in the lines of the X-Men than anything that actual scientists say.

"Any strong scientific theory needs far fewer amendments than those that ToE has historically shown. "

Nonsense. Most scientific theories have many amendments as new info comes along. Evolution has had no more than most.

"68 MYO soft tissue!!! - Just another anomaly here folks - nothing to see - move along."

Yeah, a few mm of *soft* tissue. The only thing this *changes* is the understanding of how the insides of bones fossilize under special conditions. The fossils were never dated by cracking them open and seeing how it looked inside anyway.

You're grasping at straws, and coming up empty every time.

[Liberal Classic]

[music_code]

Absolutely I will give the reference for the quote. However, it is not accessible to me here at work, it is in a book I have at home. I'll post it at a later time.

[2nsdammit]

By definition, decaying = breaking down into component parts.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=decay

I thought that all creation was done at the same time. What did the bacteria eat? You would still need some sort of food chain, unless God just kept creating new food to eat for every single living being every day.

What does rust have to do with the food chain?

You realize how ridiculous this theory sounds, don't you?

[Doctor Stochastic]

[Doctor Stochastic]

Less likely:

[YHAOS]

"But I imagine I shouldn't be so hasty. The wise course is to wait to hear what the person(s) you address have to say about the matter."

Well, it seems your wait is over, that you have your answer, and that your judgment is not at all hasty.

"I also imagine that if they will to answer the question you pose in good faith, they'd find they first need a standard, a criterion of truth and judgment that is not their own "creation." Otherwise, there is no common ground in truth according to which society can give its just assent."

And so it would seem that even an ordered 'polis' is limited (may we even say crippled) if that 'order' is but one dimensional.

[js1138]

I'm sure if it isn't bogus it would be quoted on the net, even if only on creationist sites. I don't get any google hits.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I'm sure if it isn't bogus it would be quoted on the net, even if only on creationist sites. I don't get any google hits."

I didn't get any either. I tried all sorts of combinations of the words too, still nothing. It sounds vaguely familiar, like something I saw at the quote mine website. It's probably either completely fabricated or totally out of context anyway.

It's funny that he chose to post it but has no idea who the *famous evolutionist* is. Tells a lot about how anti-evos construct posts.

[Gumlegs]

I vote for Clara or perhaps ...

[Doctor Stochastic]

Didn't she once throw up on a city bus after a weekend party in Hollywood? Sick Transit Gloria Monday

[js1138]

I have googled all kinds of variations on this quote and found no hits at all. This is rather unusual, because you can generally find google hits on any random set of words.

Aside from the quote being bogus, it is completely inconsequential, because no honest and intelligent person would say he knows anything for certain. Even the assertion that you exist doesn't say anything about how you exist or whether your body might be bits in someone's computer program.

What an honest biologist would assert is that common descent is as certain as any historical knowledge can be.

[Quark2005]

I'm a bit confused - what am I supposed to be seeing/not seeing here??

[Doctor Stochastic]

The "green" and "blue" stripes are the exact same color.