Posted on 11/22/2009 8:10:55 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Fungi are single or multi-celled organisms that break down organic materials, such as rotting wood, in order to absorb their nutrients. Neither plant nor animal, they range from mushrooms to single-celled yeast.
Scientists were investigating organic chemicals trapped in an Italian sedimentary rock formation when they found evidence that an extinct fungus feasted on dead wood during a time when the world’s forests had been catastrophically eradicated.[1] What could have caused such a universal effect on forests, and why does organic material remain in rocks that are supposedly 251.4 million years old?...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
“ORGANIC chemistry, carbon and nitrogen isotopes, and carbon/nitrogen ratios are consistent with a fungal origin.”
Then the abstract adds,
“Unequivocally diagnostic data, however, may have been precluded by post-burial replacement of its organic constituents.”,
so the posted article
was correct in repeating what the abstract referred to, “organic “ chemistry though the role of the fungus was not “unequivocally” established.
Using the term “fossil” obviously wasn't intended to mean nothing of the original was left.
The use of the term fossil means that the original had been mineralized or turned into rock, the traces of Carbon and Nitrogen are remnants left over from when the fossil was formed, just like all rocks, say for example granite. Are you saying that granite was once alive since it contains traces of Carbon and Nitrogen?
I'm back, and just as I suspected, all it took was a cursory investigation of your accusation against Brian Thomas (namely, your claim that his characterization of the material in question as organic as "blatantly false") to once again demonstrate that you are reckless, irresponsible, and have no idea what you are talking about.
Unfortunately, we do not have access to the scientific paper that Thomas footnoted as the basis for designating the material in question as organic. And while the article in question does not mention "organic" chemicals by name, it does indeed list (as Count-Your-Change points out repeatedly) organic chemicals. Beyond that, a quick Google search would have brought up repeated references that quoted the authors of the paper Brian Thomas cited as saying the following:
'Organic chemistry, carbon and nitrogen isotopes, and carbon/nitrogen ratios are consistent with a fungal origin,' the study's authors wrote.
I have never known Brian Thomas to tell a lie. And in each and every case where I have taken the time to research your accusations of the same, Brian Thomas has been vindicated every time.
Your baseless, off-the-cuff accusations have become a matter of routine with you, Ira. As such, you are steadily losing credibility in the eyes of the thousands upon thousands of people on both sides of the origins debate who regularly read these posts.
Something to think about.
However, I must say, as clueless as you are, at least you are step up from Natural Law (aka Natural Plagiarizer) as he has demonstrated over and over that he has no qualms about stealing other peoples words and ideas and pretending that they are his own.
...”any tumble”???
“Organic chemistry, carbon and nitrogen isotopes, and carbon/nitrogen ratios are consistent with a fungal origin.”
Not algae, not random mixtures of various chemicals, not granite, not the minerals that came later, but FUNGAL ORIGIN.
IF THE ORGANIC CHEMISTRY FOUND WAS OTHERWISE IT WOULD NOT BE “CONSISTENT WITH A FUNGAL ORIGIN”.
“Scientists were investigating organic chemicals trapped in an Italian sedimentary rock formation when they found evidence that an extinct fungus feasted on dead wood during a time when the world’s forests had been catastrophically eradicated.”
You made this above quote in your post #22 and attempted to show it was erroneous but clearly it was quite correct, the problem being you spoke without reading the references listed, even the easy ones.
So are you “designious”, misleading and dancing around with the granite alive silliness?
Now come on, Ira, your personal dislike of Thomas is making you nit pick when you honestly know you wouldn't do so were that not the case, don't you?
And you're seeing nits that don't exist. That goes way beyond disagreement. that's letting your feeling cloud your comments.
With that I say good night and Cheers!
Tumble...explanation, understanding revealed, discovery. A bit o’ Brit slang.
Thanks!
Hi Jim,
Did you change your mind about Creation/ID articles and papers being allowed to be posted in News? Because, certain mods are back to banishing Creation/ID posts to Gen/Chat.
All the best—GGG
If I understand what was done it is similar to what I’ve found when buried metal has corroded away in the ground. One can still analyze the soil and find chemicals left behind that are unique to that particular mixture of metals even though traces of each occur naturally all over.
Ir’s not metal any more but neither is it just enriched soil.
Similar, I say, not exactly the same.
Many, many times. The explanations range from my supposedly “weak faith” to I'm a “paid agent” of every Creation and ID organization out there. Indeed, just when I think the evos can't get any more hysterical about my posts, they usually manage to top themselves in short order.
See post #41.
You never addressed the fact that Mr. Thomas attempted to leave the false impression that these chemicals were not fossilized.
However very nice attempt at dancing around the facts I am actually impressed by the effort you put into this.
Crying to daddy again because your special privileges have been taken away?
Actually, I am far more angry that certain rogue, Christian Right-hating mods are flagrantly undermining Jim Robinson’s authority than I am that my posts are being banished by some Temple of Darwin fanatic to Gen/Chat.
Forgot to ping you to #54.
It is the height of hubris and conceit to assume that those who disagree with you are Christian haters. Maybe its just you that they don't like.
Did you write that yourself, or are you plagiarizing again?
Do a Google search and figure it out for yourself. However, like all of my other posts it is 100% true.
We all know that Ira is a liar, and doesn’t mind showing it.
He just doesn’t handle being wrong very well.
Does the sun still circle the earth E-S?
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.