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

Neatly dressed in blue Capri pants and a sleeveless top, long hair flowing over her bare shoulders, Mary Schweitzer sits at a microscope in a dim lab, her face lit only by a glowing computer screen showing a network of thin, branching vessels. That’s right, blood vessels. From a dinosaur. “Ho-ho-ho, I am excite-e-e-e-d,” she chuckles. “I am, like, really excited.”

After 68 million years in the ground, a Tyrannosaurus rex found in Montana was dug up, its leg bone was broken in pieces, and fragments were dissolved in acid in Schweitzer’s laboratory at North Carolina State University in Raleigh. “Cool beans,” she says, looking at the image on the screen.

It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils. Schweitzer, one of the first scientists to use the tools of modern cell biology to study dinosaurs, has upended the conventional wisdom by showing that some rock-hard fossils tens of millions of years old may have remnants of soft tissues hidden away in their interiors. “The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,” says dinosaur paleontologist Thomas Holtz Jr., of the University of Maryland. “It’s great science.” The observations could shed new light on how dinosaurs evolved and how their muscles and blood vessels worked. And the new findings might help settle a long-running debate about whether dinosaurs were warmblooded, coldblooded—or both.

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

It may be that Schweitzer’s unorthodox approach to paleontology can be traced to her roundabout career path. Growing up in Helena, Montana, she went through a phase when, like many kids, she was fascinated by dinosaurs. In fact, at age 5 she announced she was going to be a paleontologist. But first she got a college degree in communicative disorders, married, had three children and briefly taught remedial biology to high schoolers. In 1989, a dozen years after she graduated from college, she sat in on a class at Montana State University taught by paleontologist Jack Horner, of the Museum of the Rockies, now an affiliate of the Smithsonian Institution. The lectures reignited her passion for dinosaurs. Soon after, she talked her way into a volunteer position in Horner’s lab and began to pursue a doctorate in paleontology.

She initially thought she would study how the microscopic structure of dinosaur bones differs depending on how much the animal weighs. But then came the incident with the red spots.

AdvertisementIn 1991, Schweitzer was trying to study thin slices of bones from a 65-million-year-old T. rex. She was having a hard time getting the slices to stick to a glass slide, so she sought help from a molecular biologist at the university. The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. One of the vets went up to Callis and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?” Sure enough, under a microscope, it appeared that the bone was filled with red disks. Later, Schweitzer recalls, “I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.”

Schweitzer showed the slide to Horner. “When she first found the red-blood-cell-looking structures, I said, Yep, that’s what they look like,” her mentor recalls. He thought it was possible they were red blood cells, but he gave her some advice: “Now see if you can find some evidence to show that that’s not what they are.”

What she found instead was evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that they were red blood cells. Heme is a part of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood and gives red blood cells their color. “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 tends to be self-deprecating, claiming to be hopeless at computers, lab work and talking to strangers. But colleagues admire her, saying she’s determined and hard-working and has mastered a number of complex laboratory techniques that are beyond the skills of most paleontologists. And asking unusual questions took a lot of nerve. “If you point her in a direction and say, don’t go that way, she’s the kind of person who’ll say, Why?—and she goes and tests it herself,” says Gregory Erickson, a paleobiologist at Florida State University. Schweitzer takes risks, says Karen Chin, a University of Colorado paleontologist. “It could be a big payoff or it could just be kind of a ho-hum research project.”

In 2000, Bob Harmon, a field crew chief from the Museum of the Rockies, was eating his lunch in a remote Montana canyon when he looked up and saw a bone sticking out of a rock wall. That bone turned out to be part of what may be the best preserved T. rex in the world. Over the next three summers, workers chipped away at the dinosaur, gradually removing it from the cliff face. They called it B. rex in Harmon’s honor and nicknamed it Bob. In 2001, they encased a section of the dinosaur and the surrounding dirt in plaster to protect it. The package weighed more than 2,000 pounds, which turned out to be just above their helicopter’s capacity, so they split it in half. One of B. rex’s leg bones was broken into two big pieces and several fragments—just what Schweitzer needed for her micro-scale explorations.

It turned out Bob had been misnamed. “It’s a girl and she’s pregnant,” Schweitzer recalls telling her lab technician when she looked at the fragments. On the hollow inside surface of the femur, Schweitzer had found scraps of bone that gave a surprising amount of information about the dinosaur that made them. Bones may seem as steady as stone, but they’re actually constantly in flux. Pregnant women use calcium from their bones to build the skeleton of a developing fetus. Before female birds start to lay eggs, they form a calcium-rich structure called medullary bone on the inside of their leg and other bones; they draw on it during the breeding season to make eggshells. Schweitzer had studied birds, so she knew about medullary bone, and that’s what she figured she was seeing in that T. rex specimen.

Most paleontologists now agree that birds are the dinosaurs’ closest living relatives. In fact, they say that birds are dinosaurs—colorful, incredibly diverse, cute little feathered dinosaurs. The theropod of the Jurassic forests lives on in the goldfinch visiting the backyard feeder, the toucans of the tropics and the ostriches loping across the African savanna.

To understand her dinosaur bone, Schweitzer turned to two of the most primitive living birds: ostriches and emus. In the summer of 2004, she asked several ostrich breeders for female bones. A farmer called, months later. “Y’all still need that lady ostrich?” The dead bird had been in the farmer’s backhoe bucket for several days in the North Carolina heat. Schweitzer and two colleagues collected a leg from the fragrant carcass and drove it back to Raleigh.

AdvertisementAs far as anyone can tell, Schweitzer was right: Bob the dinosaur really did have a store of medullary bone when she died. A paper published in Science last June presents microscope pictures of medullary bone from ostrich and emu side by side with dinosaur bone, showing near-identical features.

In the course of testing a B. rex bone fragment further, Schweitzer asked her lab technician, Jennifer Wittmeyer, to put it in weak acid, which slowly dissolves bone, including fossilized bone—but not soft tissues. One Friday night in January 2004, Wittmeyer was in the lab as usual. She took out a fossil chip that had been in the acid for three days and put it under the microscope to take a picture. “[The chip] was curved so much, I couldn’t get it in focus,” Wittmeyer recalls. She used forceps to flatten it. “My forceps kind of sunk into it, made a little indentation and it curled back up. I was like, stop it!” Finally, through her irritation, she realized what she had: a fragment of dinosaur soft tissue left behind when the mineral bone around it had dissolved. Suddenly Schweitzer and Wittmeyer were dealing with something no one else had ever seen. For a couple of weeks, Wittmeyer said, it was like Christmas every day.

In the lab, Wittmeyer now takes out a dish with six compartments, each holding a little brown dab of tissue in clear liquid, and puts it under the microscope lens. Inside each specimen is a fine network of almost-clear branching vessels—the tissue of a female Tyrannosaurus rex that strode through the forests 68 million years ago, preparing to lay eggs. Close up, the blood vessels from that T. rex and her ostrich cousins look remarkably alike. Inside the dinosaur vessels are things Schweitzer diplomatically calls “round microstructures” in the journal article, out of an abundance of scientific caution, but they are red and round, and she and other scientists suspect that they are red blood cells.

Of course, what everyone wants to know is whether DNA might be lurking in that tissue. Wittmeyer, from much experience with the press since the discovery, calls this “the awful question”—whether Schweitzer’s work is paving the road to a real-life version of science fiction’s Jurassic Park, where dinosaurs were regenerated from DNA preserved in amber. But DNA, which carries the genetic script for an animal, is a very fragile molecule. It’s also ridiculously hard to study because it is so easily contaminated with modern biological material, such as microbes or skin cells, while buried or after being dug up. Instead, Schweitzer has been testing her dinosaur tissue samples for proteins, which are a bit hardier and more readily distinguished from contaminants. Specifically, she’s been looking for collagen, elastin and hemoglobin. Collagen makes up much of the bone scaffolding, elastin is wrapped around blood vessels and hemoglobin carries oxygen inside red blood cells.

Because the chemical makeup of proteins changes through evolution, scientists can study protein sequences to learn more about how dinosaurs evolved. And because proteins do all the work in the body, studying them could someday help scientists understand dinosaur physiology—how their muscles and blood vessels worked, for example.

Proteins are much too tiny to pick out with a microscope. To look for them, Schweitzer uses antibodies, immune system molecules that recognize and bind to specific sections of proteins. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have been using antibodies to chicken collagen, cow elastin and ostrich hemoglobin to search for similar molecules in the dinosaur tissue. At an October 2005 paleontology conference, Schweitzer presented preliminary evidence that she has detected real dinosaur proteins in her specimens.

Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil. 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.”

young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”

By definition, there is a lot that scientists don’t know, because the whole point of science is to explore the unknown. By being clear that scientists haven’t explained everything, Schweitzer leaves room for other explanations. “I think that we’re always wise to leave certain doors open,” she says.

But schweitzer’s interest in the long-term preservation of molecules and cells does have an otherworldly dimension: she’s collaborating with NASA scientists on the search for evidence of possible past life on Mars, Saturn’s moon Titan, and other heavenly bodies. (Scientists announced this spring, for instance, that Saturn’s tiny moon Enceladus appears to have liquid water, a probable precondition for life.)

Astrobiology is one of the wackier branches of biology, dealing in life that might or might not exist and might or might not take any recognizable form. “For almost everybody who works on NASA stuff, they are just in hog heaven, working on astrobiology questions,” Schweitzer says. Her NASA research involves using antibodies to probe for signs of life in unexpected places. “For me, it’s the means to an end. I really want to know about my dinosaurs.”

AdvertisementTo that purpose, Schweitzer, with Wittmeyer, spends hours in front of microscopes in dark rooms. To a fourth-generation Montanan, even the relatively laid-back Raleigh area is a big city. She reminisces wistfully about scouting for field sites on horseback in Montana. “Paleontology by microscope is not that fun,” she says. “I’d much rather be out tromping around.”

“My eyeballs are just absolutely fried,” Schweitzer says after hours of gazing through the microscope’s eyepieces at glowing vessels and blobs. You could call it the price she pays for not being typical.

"Liar"

Show where I said that you were the one who made the *Speak for yourself* statement. I said you made a mistake using it, which is correct.

"You made/used/posted that statement. And don't try to tapdance around "make" and "using"."

You made a mistake when using it in your post, in your response to me. When you said *I am*.

"I'm not dishonest like you. I posted the complete definition, and nowhere does it state that disavowing a statement changes who it refers to."

Since you were specifically talking about me, in a negative way, and I disavowed that statement and said *Speak for yourself*, in other words, that it was YOU, not ME, who lacked integrity, when you said *I am* it most definitely DID mean that you had admitted you were the one who was not a fine example of integrity. That this was possibly a mistake on your part doesn't change the fact that you said it; nor does it change what you said.

"And why do you think I refuse to provide you any evidence for my first contention."

Because you were lying about there being evidence. You made it up. Just like you want to make up your definitions of what words mean, like, say, unfalsifiable. That's irrelevant though, because your reasons for refusing to provide anything at all to back up your claims has no bearing on the fact that non-falsifiable claims cannot, EVER, have evidence that goes against them. By definition.

"You've just snookered yourself. Game, set, and match."

More denial. I already won days ago; I've been smacking your arguments around the table since day one. Once you said that non-falsifiable claims can have evidence that goes against them, you lost. I've just been amusing myself, watching you dig that hole ever deeper. :)

"I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable.""

So I repeat, that goes against your claim that there is evidence against evolution that is being suppressed.

Without being supported by evidence one contention is no better than another. You act as if the fact that a contention doesn't have to be supported by evidence to be called a contention means that a contention doesn't need to be supported by evidence to be taken seriously.

Unfalsifiable claims cannot, by definition, have evidence that goes against them. Yet you claim that evolution is both unfalsifiable AND has evidence that goes against it (which is vigorously suppressed by a secret conspiracy of evolutionists). There is a deep logical contradiction in your position, and you are not man enough to admit it.

Show where I said that you were the one who made the *Speak for yourself* statement. I said you made a mistake using it, which is correct.

Wrong, I didn't use the statement, I replied to it.

You made a mistake when using it in your post, in your response to me. When you said *I am*.

That is just plain old blatant BS on your part.

Since you were specifically talking about me, in a negative way, and I disavowed that statement and said *Speak for yourself*, in other words, that it was YOU, not ME, who lacked integrity, when you said *I am* it most definitely DID mean that you had admitted you were the one who was not a fine example of integrity. That this was possibly a mistake on your part doesn't change the fact that you said it; nor does it change what you said.

That is more of your BS. You had already stated your opinion of me and you received my reply. To that reply you stated "Speak for yourself". And I told I was speaking for myself, but that didn't change the fact that I was speaking of you.

Because you were lying about there being evidence. You made it up. Just like you want to make up your definitions of what words mean, like, say, unfalsifiable.

More tapdancing, this is your downfall --- I have never cared what you think, ever. Why do you think I would start now? :)

More denial. I already won days ago; I've been smacking your arguments around the table since day one. Once you said that non-falsifiable claims can have evidence that goes against them, you lost. I've just been amusing myself, watching you dig that hole ever deeper. :)

You are ever more delusional so much so that I suspect you were the model for Jack Torrance in "The Shining". Your statements are evidence of that.

I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable."

"Wrong, I didn't use the statement, I replied to it."

In replying to it, you used it in your post. Except you posted too quickly and didn't realize that you had made yourself the one without integrity.

"That is just plain old blatant BS on your part."

Ok, you didn't make a mistake using it and really did mean that it was you who was integrity challenged. That'll work too. :)

"That is more of your BS. You had already stated your opinion of me and you received my reply."

*I am* was your reply, which in that context meant you agreed with me that you should speak for yourself, in other words, that it was you not me who was integrity challenged. It was such a touching admission, I almost teared up. :)

"More tapdancing, this is your downfall --- I have never cared what you think, ever. Why do you think I would start now? :)"

I don't think you would start now. I don't care one way or the other. I'm just having fun watching you deny that non-falsifiability of a claim is logically incompatible with there being evidence against a claim. :)

"I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable.""

So I repeat, that goes against your claim that there is evidence against evolution that is being suppressed.

Without being supported by evidence one contention is no better than another. You act as if the fact that a contention doesn't have to be supported by evidence to be called a contention means that a contention doesn't need to be supported by evidence to be taken seriously.

Unfalsifiable claims cannot, by definition, have evidence that goes against them. Yet you claim that evolution is both unfalsifiable AND has evidence that goes against it (which is vigorously suppressed by a secret conspiracy of evolutionists). There is a deep logical contradiction in your position, and you are not man enough to admit it.

In replying to it, you used it in your post. Except you posted too quickly and didn't realize that you had made yourself the one without integrity.

That is actually hilarious. Who coaches you? A five year old?

Ok, you didn't make a mistake using it and really did mean that it was you who was integrity challenged. That'll work too. :)

Nope, a five year old would be too talented to have coached you on that one.

"More tapdancing, this is your downfall --- I have never cared what you think, ever. Why do you think I would start now? :)"

I don't think you would start now. I don't care one way or the other. I'm just having fun watching you deny that non-falsifiability of a claim is logically incompatible with there being evidence against a claim. :)

Wow, you are so delusional you can't even recognize your own statements. What a loser you are.

I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable."

"That is actually hilarious."

I don't find your lack of integrity funny. Well, maybe a little. :)

"Wow, you are so delusional you can't even recognize your own statements."

Those weren't my statements. You were the one who said that evolution (or *Darwinism* as you call it) is non-falsifiable. You also said that there was evidence that was against it that was being suppressed. Yet, since this was a lie, you didn't and can't back it up with anything.

"I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable.""

So I repeat, that goes against your claim that there is evidence against evolution that is being suppressed.

Without being supported by evidence one contention is no better than another. You act as if the fact that a contention doesn't have to be supported by evidence to be called a contention means that a contention doesn't need to be supported by evidence to be taken seriously.

Unfalsifiable claims cannot, by definition, have evidence that goes against them. Yet you claim that evolution is both unfalsifiable AND has evidence that goes against it (which is vigorously suppressed by a secret conspiracy of evolutionists). There is a deep logical contradiction in your position, and you are not man enough to admit it.

I don't find your lack of integrity funny. Well, maybe a little. :)

Get a better coach, the four year old is failing you.

Those weren't my statements. You were the one who said that evolution (or *Darwinism* as you call it) is non-falsifiable. You also said that there was evidence that was against it that was being suppressed. Yet, since this was a lie, you didn't and can't back it up with anything.

It is obvious from your --- "I don't think you would start now." --- statement that you did not recognize (for whatever reason) your own words. ----

"More tapdancing, this is your downfall --- I have never cared what you think, ever. Why do you think I would start now? :)"

I don't think you would start now. I don't care one way or the other.

I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable."

"It is obvious from your --- "I don't think you would start now." --- statement that you did not recognize (for whatever reason) your own words. ----"

But they were also your words, as you used them too. As you used red (which is my favorite color btw!), it was obvious that that was lifted from my post (plagiarism anybody?), but you used it in your OWN sentence. Unless you think I own them exclusively?

"I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable.""

So I repeat, that goes against your claim that there is evidence against evolution that is being suppressed.

Without being supported by evidence one contention is no better than another. You act as if the fact that a contention doesn't have to be supported by evidence to be called a contention means that a contention doesn't need to be supported by evidence to be taken seriously.

Unfalsifiable claims cannot, by definition, have evidence that goes against them. Yet you claim that evolution is both unfalsifiable AND has evidence that goes against it (which is vigorously suppressed by a secret conspiracy of evolutionists). There is a deep logical contradiction in your position, and you are not man enough to admit it.

But they were also your words, as you used them too. As you used red (which is my favorite color btw!), it was obvious that that was lifted from my post (plagiarism anybody?), but you used it in your OWN sentence. Unless you think I own them exclusively?

Yes, and the red color was to denote they were apart from the statement I was making. They were your words. It is called a citation. Or haven't you noticed the pattern I use?

I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable."

"Yes, and the red color was to denote they were apart from the statement I was making. They were your words."

Yet they finished YOUR point. You lifted my words and made them your own. In fact, you actually added to what I said by underlining *never* and putting the sentence in bold (making it stand out from everything else that was attributed to me). I may have written them originally, but in that post they were YOUR sentiments about me.

"I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable.""

So I repeat, that goes against your claim that there is evidence against evolution that is being suppressed.

Without being supported by evidence one contention is no better than another. You act as if the fact that a contention doesn't have to be supported by evidence to be called a contention means that a contention doesn't need to be supported by evidence to be taken seriously.

Unfalsifiable claims cannot, by definition, have evidence that goes against them. Yet you claim that evolution is both unfalsifiable AND has evidence that goes against it (which is vigorously suppressed by a secret conspiracy of evolutionists). There is a deep logical contradiction in your position, and you are not man enough to admit it.

Yet they finished YOUR point. You lifted my words and made them your own. In fact, you actually added to what I said by underlining *never* and putting the sentence in bold (making it stand out from everything else that was attributed to me). I may have written them originally, but in that post they were YOUR sentiments about me.

Yes, my point that you were not a fine example of integrity. Citations tend to support the statement for which they are cited. You are really in need of help, since my citing your words does not in any way make them mine no more than if I had cited Kerry ("I voted for...", etc)to show that he was an idiot.

I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable."

"Yes, my point that you were not a fine example of integrity."

You're confused. That was an earlier post. Try to keep up! The quote we are now talking about was,

"More tapdancing, this is your downfall --- I have never cared what you think, ever. Why do you think I would start now? :)"

You know, the one where you lifted my sentence and made it your own sentiment. The *You're a fine example of integrity (not)* quote was the one you admit was really about you when you said *I am* to my *Speak for yourself*. Maybe if you took notes it would make it easier for you.

"I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable.""

So I repeat, that goes against your claim that there is evidence against evolution that is being suppressed.

Without being supported by evidence one contention is no better than another. You act as if the fact that a contention doesn't have to be supported by evidence to be called a contention means that a contention doesn't need to be supported by evidence to be taken seriously.

Unfalsifiable claims cannot, by definition, have evidence that goes against them. Yet you claim that evolution is both unfalsifiable AND has evidence that goes against it (which is vigorously suppressed by a secret conspiracy of evolutionists). There is a deep logical contradiction in your position, and you are not man enough to admit it.

PS: I can do this forever if you want. :)

You're confused. That was an earlier post. Try to keep up! The quote we are now talking about was,

You're the one that's confused. You've already rejected it, so I have to keep piling on. This was more evidence of your integrity-challenged nature.

You know, the one where you lifted my sentence and made it your own sentiment. The *You're a fine example of integrity (not)* quote was the one you admit was really about you when you said *I am* to my *Speak for yourself*. Maybe if you took notes it would make it easier for you.

You evidently can't recognize citations(nor your own statements) even when they come up and slap you in the face.

I have never cared what you think, ever. Why do you think I would start now? :)---- is your statement and not my sentiment as you describe it. Thus you are showing even more lack of integrity. I do care about what you think, that is why I suggest you go get professional help for your delusions.

I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable."

"You're the one that's confused."

No, You're confused. That was an earlier post. Try to keep up! The quote we are now talking about was,

"More tapdancing, this is your downfall --- I have never cared what you think, ever. Why do you think I would start now? :)"

You know, the one where you lifted my sentence and made it your own sentiment. The *You're a fine example of integrity (not)* quote was the one you admit was really about you when you said *I am* to my *Speak for yourself*. Maybe if you took notes it would make it easier for you.

"You evidently can't recognize citations(nor your own statements) even when they come up and slap you in the face."

I already said I recognize the words you lifted of mine. But you then used them in YOUR sentence, expressing YOUR sentiments.

BTW, by saying that I can't recognize my own statements is pretty damning evidence that you KNOW that I am talking about THIS quote,

""More tapdancing, this is your downfall --- I have never cared what you think, ever. Why do you think I would start now? :)" and NOT the *Speak for yourself* quote.

"I have never cared what you think, ever. Why do you think I would start now? :)---- is your statement and not my sentiment as you describe it."

It was when you used it in your own post # 1602.

"I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable.""

So I repeat, that goes against your claim that there is evidence against evolution that is being suppressed.

Without being supported by evidence one contention is no better than another. You act as if the fact that a contention doesn't have to be supported by evidence to be called a contention means that a contention doesn't need to be supported by evidence to be taken seriously.

Unfalsifiable claims cannot, by definition, have evidence that goes against them. Yet you claim that evolution is both unfalsifiable AND has evidence that goes against it (which is vigorously suppressed by a secret conspiracy of evolutionists). There is a deep logical contradiction in your position, and you are not man enough to admit it.

"The above lie, deserves a post of its own."

It's not a lie if I don't stop. :)

No, You're confused. That was an earlier post. Try to keep up! The quote we are now talking about was,

I told you that you should fire your four-year old coach

I already said I recognize the words you lifted of mine. But you then used them in YOUR sentence, expressing YOUR sentiments.

Yes, but not the way your delusions describe them, since my sentiment is that you are not a fine example of integrity, and now you have demonstrated nearly no integrity.

BTW, by saying that I can't recognize my own statements is pretty damning evidence that you KNOW that I am talking about THIS quote,

Yes, that is the one with the citation, .... in red, ... your favorite color. That still does not make it mine.

It was when you used it in your own post # 1602.

Again with your delusions, I did use it as a citation, your downfall.

It's not a lie if I don't stop. :)

It's a lie.

I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable."

BTW

"Yes, but not the way your delusions describe them, since my sentiment is that you are not a fine example of integrity,"

No, You're confused. That was an earlier post. Try to keep up! The quote we are now talking about was,

"More tapdancing, this is your downfall --- I have never cared what you think, ever. Why do you think I would start now? :)"

You know, the one where you lifted my sentence and made it your own sentiment. The *You're a fine example of integrity (not)* quote was the one you admit was really about you when you said *I am* to my *Speak for yourself*. Maybe if you took notes it would make it easier for you.

"Yes, that is the one with the citation, .... in red, ... your favorite color. That still does not make it mine."

It does when you use to express your own sentiment; namely, that you don't care what I say.

"Again with your delusions, I did use it as a citation, your downfall."

You lifted my words, but attempted to use them against me, in your OWN sentence.

"It's a lie."

Not if I don't stop. :) Besides, coming from you, (The guy who made up the claim that there is evidence against evolution that is being suppressed), being called a liar is a sign I don't lie.

"I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable.""

So I repeat, that goes against your claim that there is evidence against evolution that is being suppressed.

Without being supported by evidence one contention is no better than another. You act as if the fact that a contention doesn't have to be supported by evidence to be called a contention means that a contention doesn't need to be supported by evidence to be taken seriously.

Unfalsifiable claims cannot, by definition, have evidence that goes against them. Yet you claim that evolution is both unfalsifiable AND has evidence that goes against it (which is vigorously suppressed by a secret conspiracy of evolutionists). There is a deep logical contradiction in your position, and you are not man enough to admit it.

No, You're confused. That was an earlier post. Try to keep up! The quote we are now talking about was,

No, I still think you are not a fine example of integrity. Of which this statement --- "I have never cared what you think, ever. Why do you think I would start now? :)" (I have also wrapped it quotes so as to hopefully preclude more of your delusions) --- is more evidence.

It does when you use to express your own sentiment; namely, that you don't care what I say.

Nope. You are still delusional. I stated that I did care about your thinking. So much so as to recommend professional help for your delusions. I sincerely am beginning to doubt that anything can help you. You will notice you changed "think" into "say" another example of your delusional nature.

You lifted my words, but attempted to use them against me, in your OWN sentence.

Yes, as a citation, that is why it was in red.

being called a liar is a sign I don't lie.

Another CarolinaGuitarman gem of a lie. It deserves a post of its own, but, in this case to save time, I will include it here.

Your statement was a lie.

I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable."

"No, I still think you are not a fine example of integrity. Of which this statement --- "I have never cared what you think, ever. Why do you think I would start now? :)""

Whether I care about what you think or not is not a matter of personal integrity.

"I stated that I did care about your thinking."

After you said, quoting me, that you didn't care about what I thought.

"being called a liar is a sign I don't lie.

Another CarolinaGuitarman gem of a lie. It deserves a post of its own, but, in this case to save time, I will include it here."

Another great example of you lying. You ripped my sentence in half to take away the full meaning. Here is what I actually said:

"Besides, coming from you, (The guy who made up the claim that there is evidence against evolution that is being suppressed), being called a liar is a sign I don't lie."

In other words, when you call someone a liar chances are good the person is honest.

"Your statement was a lie."

Prove it was.

"I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable.""

So I repeat, that goes against your claim that there is evidence against evolution that is being suppressed.

Without being supported by evidence one contention is no better than another. You act as if the fact that a contention doesn't have to be supported by evidence to be called a contention means that a contention doesn't need to be supported by evidence to be taken seriously.

Unfalsifiable claims cannot, by definition, have evidence that goes against them. Yet you claim that evolution is both unfalsifiable AND has evidence that goes against it (which is vigorously suppressed by a secret conspiracy of evolutionists). There is a deep logical contradiction in your position, and you are not man enough to admit it.

Whether I care about what you think or not is not a matter of personal integrity.

It does when you ask me justify a contention of mine. It displays your disingenuousness.

After you said, quoting me, that you didn't care about what I thought.

You are a liar or deluded again. That was a citation. That you lack the mental acumen to recognize the citation, does not change the fact.

In other words, when you call someone a liar chances are good the person is honest.

Again, you resort to your delusions. You are a demonstrated liar. You can't go on forever. You will stop at some time. Although with your dementia, it may be a long time.

Prove it was.

To prove it to you cannot be done since you are delusional. Rational people see your statement for the lie it is.

I repeat, "I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable."

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.