Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dinosaur Shocker (YEC say dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years)
Smithsonian Magazine ^ | May 1, 2006 | Helen Fields

Posted on 05/01/2006 8:29:14 AM PDT by SirLinksalot

Dinosaur Shocker

By Helen Fields

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.


TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: crevolist; dinosaur; dinosaurs; evolution; godsgravesglyphs; maryschweitzer; paleontology; shocker
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,621-1,6401,641-1,6601,661-1,680 ... 1,701 next last
To: AndrewC
"The evidence is that you are a liar and now are an idiot."

The evidence is that I am still posting. Unless you know of some evidence that I have stopped.

"You can't recognize a citation when one slaps you in the face. You can't recogize me citing you, so it would be foolish to believe you would recognize me citing me."

That wasn't what you were talking about. Try to keep up! I was directly answering your claim,

"No, apparently it depends on the meaning of *evidence*. You said that evidence does exist against evolution, but was being suppressed.(me)

Liar.(you)"

with evidence that you had indeed said that there was evidence against evolution being suppressed. We have not been talking about the citation of me you used to express your own sentiments for a few posts now.

"Here, I'll repeat it. --- Any evidence contrary to the dogma will be marginalized and ridiculed."

Can you elaborate on that?

"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.
1,641 posted on 05/17/2006 6:44:56 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1640 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
The evidence is that I am still posting. Unless you know of some evidence that I have stopped.

Yes, and the continued posting confirms my statements about your integrity.

That wasn't what you were talking about. Try to keep up! I was directly answering your claim,

That does not change the fact that you do not recognize citations especialy when prefaced by conditionals.... "I can contend that ..."

Can you elaborate on that?

Yes, but I won't.

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

1,642 posted on 05/17/2006 7:07:07 PM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1641 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
"Yes, and the continued posting confirms my statements about your integrity."

So if I keep posting I lack integrity, but if I stop I am a liar. I see. Your claims about my integrity are unfalsifiable.

"That wasn't what you were talking about. Try to keep up! I was directly answering your claim,

That does not change the fact that you do not recognize citations especialy when prefaced by conditionals.... "I can contend that ..."

But we stopped talking about that a while back. We are now talking about this statement from you,

"No, apparently it depends on the meaning of *evidence*. You said that evidence does exist against evolution, but was being suppressed.(me)

Liar.(you)"

which I answered with evidence that you had indeed said that there was evidence against evolution being suppressed. We have not been talking about the citation of me you used to express your own sentiments for a few posts now. Are you incapable of answering the above? Is there a reason you intentionally turned what I said around pretending it was about the *citation* post?

"Can you elaborate on that?

Yes, but I won't."

I understand.

"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.
1,643 posted on 05/17/2006 7:16:19 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1642 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
So if I keep posting I lack integrity, but if I stop I am a liar. I see. Your claims about my integrity are unfalsifiable

No, it does actually depend on the content of your posts, but since you are delusional you don't know that.

which I answered with evidence that you had indeed said that there was evidence against evolution being suppressed.

No, you answered with citations of me citing myself and other of my conditional statements.

I understand.

Let's hope that understanding grows unless it is one more of your delusions.

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

1,644 posted on 05/17/2006 7:28:38 PM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1643 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
"No, it does actually depend on the content of your posts, but since you are delusional you don't know that."

But the issue was about my integrity as regards to my statement I would keep posting forever. On the one hand you claim that my continuing to post is evidence of an alleged lack of integrity, but on the other hand you claim that if I stop posting it will be evidence of my lack of integrity. You have rigged it so that there is no way for one to have integrity. There's no pleasing you. You claim is therefore unfalsifiable.

"No, you answered with citations of me citing myself and other of my conditional statements."

And they showed you claiming in earlier posts there was evidence that was being suppressed against evolution. Which was what I said. Which goes directly against your claim that evolution is non-falsifiable. Which is why we are still going back and forth for over two weeks now. :)

"Let's hope that understanding grows unless it is one more of your delusions."

What about your own delusions?

"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.
1,645 posted on 05/17/2006 8:03:03 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1644 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
But the issue was about my integrity as regards to my statement I would keep posting forever

There is no issue on that. It is intuitively obvious to the casual observer that you cannot post forever. You are a liar. That is determined due to the content of your posts. The particular moment you stop is of no consequence.

And they showed you claiming in earlier posts there was evidence that was being suppressed against evolution.

No, you displayed my comments that I could contend that contrary evidence would be marginalized, etc.

What about your own delusions?

Yeah, I was deluded to think you would not steal from the collection plate.

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

1,646 posted on 05/17/2006 8:23:32 PM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1645 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
"There is no issue on that. It is intuitively obvious to the casual observer that you cannot post forever."

What if I change it to the next few years? :) Want to keep posting these every day for a few years? (I already conceded that *forever* was not the literal *forever*, iow, *to the end of time*). What if I stop for a week. Would that be evidence I had stopped completely? I can do so and just start it up again. :)

"You are a liar. That is determined due to the content of your posts. The particular moment you stop is of no consequence."

You use that word as if you think you know what it means. You don't. And that in itself is ironic, doncha think?

"No, you displayed my comments that I could contend that contrary evidence would be marginalized, etc."

And that you believed such evidenced existed.

"Yeah, I was deluded to think you would not steal from the collection plate."

We were discussing you, not 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.
1,647 posted on 05/18/2006 3:35:41 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1646 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
What if I change it to the next few years? :) Want to keep posting these every day for a few years? (I already conceded that *forever* was not the literal *forever*, iow, *to the end of time*). What if I stop for a week. Would that be evidence I had stopped completely? I can do so and just start it up again. :)

Yes, you could do that. It is called recanting.

You use that word as if you think you know what it means. You don't. And that in itself is ironic, doncha think?

Looks like your recanting is out of the question.

And that you believed such evidenced existed.

Are you wearing your bandanna, Madame Bianca?

We were discussing you, not me.

Your delusions are severe.

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

1,648 posted on 05/18/2006 4:51:58 PM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1647 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
"Yes, you could do that. It is called recanting."

You mean if I stop for a week, and start up again, I really haven't started up again? Just how fast do I have to post a reply to please you? :)

"Looks like your recanting is out of the question."

Why should I recant? I'd rather keep posting.

"Are you wearing your bandanna, Madame Bianca?"

No, but I read your posts where you claimed that evidence existed against evolution but was being suppressed by an evil cabal of evilutionists (possibly with help from Opus Dei). Maybe you read about it in the Darwin Code.

"Your delusions are severe."

What about your own delusions are severe?

"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.
1,649 posted on 05/18/2006 5:00:33 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1648 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
You mean if I stop for a week, and start up again, I really haven't started up again? Just how fast do I have to post a reply to please you? :)

You had to have had a hand in this statement...

But, there were also a lot of times when, even though no one could see us, the doors were open to the halls, on both ends of the halls, people could hear. . . . So, there were a lot of times when we were alone, but I never really thought we were. . . .

Why should I recant? I'd rather keep posting.

Yeah, I guess you want to keep your lack of integrity streak going and not recant. Recanting has nothing to do with posting so keep on posting. It is the content that matters, and, of course, you didn't know that.

No, but I read your posts where you claimed that evidence existed against evolution but was being suppressed by an evil cabal of evilutionists (possibly with help from Opus Dei).

Ah, captured by your delusions again.

What about your own delusions are severe?

I guess you did fire your 4-year old coach, however, your use of Eliza ® as a consultant is worse.

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

1,650 posted on 05/18/2006 7:52:13 PM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1649 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
"You had to have had a hand in this statement..."

Are you saying that if I stop for a little bit and then start up again, I have not really started up again? How would that be *recanting*? Even your hero Slick Willy wouldn't be dumb enough to think that. How come you do?

"Yeah, I guess you want to keep your lack of integrity streak going and not recant."

Recant what? My intention to keep posting for a few years? Why? Are we not having fun? You MUST be, you keep replying. :)

"Ah, captured by your delusions again."

They were your delusions. YOU were the one who claimed that evidence against evolution was being suppressed. After you read the "Darwin Code", where it was revealed that Darwin was really married to Lady Hope and recanted on Hitler's deathbed.

"I guess you did fire your 4-year old coach, however, your use of Eliza ® as a consultant is worse."

Took you long enough. It was fun watching your reaction.
Oh... did fire my 4-year old coach, however, my use of Eliza ® as a consultant is worse?

"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.
1,651 posted on 05/19/2006 4:15:15 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1650 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Are you saying that if I stop for a little bit and then start up again, I have not really started up again? How would that be *recanting*? Even your hero Slick Willy wouldn't be dumb enough to think that. How come you do?

Hey, Eliza user, you are a liar.

Recant what? My intention to keep posting for a few years? Why? Are we not having fun? You MUST be, you keep replying. :)

You can't recant because you are a serial liar.

They were your delusions. YOU were the one who claimed that evidence against evolution was being suppressed. After you read the "Darwin Code", where it was revealed that Darwin was really married to Lady Hope and recanted on Hitler's deathbed.

You need to use Eliza more, her responses are better than yours.

Took you long enough. It was fun watching your reaction. Oh... did fire my 4-year old coach, however, my use of Eliza ® as a consultant is worse?

I recognized you as an idiot before you used Eliza. Your admission is another piece of evidence that you are a liar and a person who ignores the policies of this forum.... Don't play games

And my reaction to you and to you using Eliza was the same, you are a proven liar and an idiot.

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

1,652 posted on 05/19/2006 7:50:23 PM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1651 | View Replies]

PRESERVED T. Rex Soft Tissue RECOVERED (Pic)
Star Tribune | 03.24.05 | Randolph Schmid
Posted on 03/24/2005 3:04:54 PM EST by wallcrawlr
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1369945/posts


1,653 posted on 05/19/2006 10:07:15 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]



Catastrophism

1,654 posted on 05/19/2006 10:21:16 PM PDT by SunkenCiv (https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
"Hey, Eliza user, you are a liar."

Are you saying that if I stop for a little bit and then start up again, I have not really started up again? How would that be *recanting*? Even your hero Slick Willy wouldn't be dumb enough to think that. How come you do?

"You can't recant because you are a serial liar."

Then why did you say I could? Were you lying, like your role model Bill Clinton? :)

"You need to use Eliza more, her responses are better than yours."

That is your response to my showing you actually did say that there was evidence against evolution being suppressed? I can understand you not wanting to admit it, but be a man and do it anyway. There is a commandment against lying in that religion you allegedly belong to. You should follow it more (or for once).

"Your admission is another piece of evidence that you are a liar and a person who ignores the policies of this forum.... Don't play games"

You've been playing games since the beginning of this discussion. My admission to fooling you continually with Eliza was not an admission of a lie. It was a demonstration of how dumb you could be. You fell for it for a long time. Besides, it was never more than one sentence a post. Your inability to address anything else like a mature adult shows you for what you are.

"And my reaction to you and to you using Eliza was the same, you are a proven liar and an idiot."

You use those words as if you understand what they mean. Which is ironic considering how much they apply to you. Using Eliza was not a lie, and you were the one shown to be the idiot for answering the obviously fake responses as if they were real. Yet again, you got tooled and can't admit you were wrong. :)

"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.
1,655 posted on 05/20/2006 4:09:07 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1652 | View Replies]

To: DocRock

well constructed post, very informative, thanks.

BTW, you have an excelant FR home page.

-regards


1,656 posted on 05/20/2006 9:59:11 AM PDT by FBD ("Rapid immigration is at odds with rapid assimilation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: FBD
excelant? sheesh... excellent
1,657 posted on 05/20/2006 10:54:17 AM PDT by FBD ("Rapid immigration is at odds with rapid assimilation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1656 | View Replies]

To: FBD

Thanks for the comments. I had a lot of info from the election I left on my homepage for future reference.


1,658 posted on 05/20/2006 11:31:46 AM PDT by DocRock
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1656 | View Replies]

To: CarolinaGuitarman
Are you saying that if I stop for a little bit and then start up again, I have not really started up again? How would that be *recanting*? Even your hero Slick Willy wouldn't be dumb enough to think that. How come you do?

No, it is simply stating a fact, you are a liar.

Then why did you say I could? Were you lying, like your role model Bill Clinton? :)

And where did I say that?

That is your response to my showing you actually did say that there was evidence against evolution being suppressed? I can understand you not wanting to admit it, but be a man and do it anyway. There is a commandment against lying in that religion you allegedly belong to. You should follow it more (or for once).

That is my response to all of your posts. Since you are a liar, Eliza is one up on you.

You've been playing games since the beginning of this discussion. My admission to fooling you continually with Eliza was not an admission of a lie. It was a demonstration of how dumb you could be. You fell for it for a long time. Besides, it was never more than one sentence a post. Your inability to address anything else like a mature adult shows you for what you are.

You are still a proven liar, and self-admittedly so besides breaking the "rules" on this forum. A liar and and an idiot. The Eliza sentences raised the level of your responses.

You use those words as if you understand what they mean. Which is ironic considering how much they apply to you. Using Eliza was not a lie, and you were the one shown to be the idiot for answering the obviously fake responses as if they were real. Yet again, you got tooled and can't admit you were wrong. :)

I recognized your lying and idiocy long ago. I did not put a name to it until enough of the sentences were produced to accuse you directly. When I did, you admitted it. No one would have accused you of using Eliza, with your first single use. And thereafter, you would have the gall to accuse them of being fooled. I will not lose any sleep over your accusation. The fact that you "tooled" anyone bespeaks of your level of response which allows hiding Eliza among your statements. I was not wrong about your lying and idiocy.

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

1,659 posted on 05/20/2006 4:51:32 PM PDT by AndrewC (Darwinian logic -- It is just-so if it is just-so)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1655 | View Replies]

To: AndrewC
"No, it is simply stating a fact, you are a liar."

Are you saying that if I stop for a little bit and then start up again, I have not really started up again? How would that be *recanting*? Even your hero Slick Willy wouldn't be dumb enough to think that. How come you do?


"That is my response to all of your posts."

In other words, you can't even begin to back up your claims. What a coward.

"You are still a proven liar,..."

Only in your dreams. :)

"and self-admittedly so besides breaking the "rules" on this forum."

I did nothing you have not done ten fold.

"A liar and and an idiot."

You just broke the rules too. You obviously are also a hypocrite as well as a recovering liar.

BTW, how are the meetings going? Get a sponsor yet? :)

"I recognized your lying and idiocy long ago."

Liar. Eliza fooled you, and like every other mistake you make, you can't admit it.

"I did not put a name to it until enough of the sentences were produced to accuse you directly."

I purposely put a grammatically messed up sentence for you to catch on. If I hadn't, a year or two from now when we are still posting on this thread (and we will be), you would still not know you had been had.

"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.
1,660 posted on 05/20/2006 5:05:08 PM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman ("There is grandeur in this view of life....")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1659 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,621-1,6401,641-1,6601,661-1,680 ... 1,701 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson