Posted on 06/30/2006 12:42:04 AM PDT by nickcarraway
>>Please explain how the tissue was soft and what it implies for Evolution, if you would be so kind.<<
Has anyone done that yet? BTW, when you used the word "how" did you really mean "why"?
No amount of change in the fire protection system could have prevented the disaster or its results.
I am sure that Ann mentioned that it was a core meltdown, right?
yes.
I think he said what he meant. Answer the question. Thank you.
I don't.
To save myself some time, I'll let you read the answer yourself, whatever he meant: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=soft+tissue+t-rex+
You're welcome.
Maybe nothing. There was nothing in the find that changes evolutionary theory. I will bet that after more study, this find makes evolution a stronger theory. This probably plugs one of those 'gaps'.
"We, on the other hand, revel in our opponents' ignorance and gain much joy in pointing it out for all to see. "
- You were doing fine up to this point, but don't you realize that with this one sentence you suddenly revealed yourself to be just another elitist who looks down on others who don't share your views?
In fact, when "We..revel in our opponents ignorance and gain much joy in pointing it out.." then aren't you doing exactly what you accuse Ann of doing in her book?
In fact, I would say that you and Ann are of a kind. Maybe you reject her because you see so much of her in yourself.
Perhaps it's just the old liberal curse of self loathing expressed through transference.
Hmmmmm.
Could you point that out in the SToE?
"If you don't buy evolution, there are other theories - intelligent design, special creation, theistic evolution ....
Theistic evolution is just evolution, there is no change to the theory (SToE). Special creation is not a theory - it makes no testable predictions and it is not falsifiable. ID is not a theory - it makes no testable predictions and is not falsifiable.
Depending on your age, most of us will know with utter clarity in less than 50 yrs or so what the correct answer is. Until then, you have your conviction and I have mine -- but that makes neither one of us more or less intelligent.
I don't believe I have ever questioned your intelligence.
"If you want to call all creationists Luddites of flat earth types, how about my husband who graduated first in his class from MIT - he's neither dumb or ingnorant."
When have I ever called you a Luddite? Or your husband?
"My biggest problem with the evolutionary debates is that if you don't agree with the evolutionists on the board, you are a knuckle dragging neanderthal with the sophistication of a 3 yr old. Simply not true.
I do not doubt the intelligence of Creationists, I doubt their desire to critically assess their beliefs about the SToE. Most are quite satisfied to accumulate the strawman creations of a few anti-evolutionists which they treat as 'truth'. This reliance on misinformation guarantees they will have little or no understanding of the current state of the SToE and the evidence.
"And by the way -- I believe I have remained civil, not called any one names, etc, which is more than I can say for the way I've been treated in the last few hours.
At what point did I ever treat you poorly? All I did was ask for clarification.
Some do it for principle, Ann does it for the money!
Intelligence == The ability to process information.
No. I was asking for your take on the condition of the soft tissue when it was discovered. Was it mineralized, partially mineralized, or not mineralized?
Considering that dating of strata is done by radiometrics, the condition of fossils impacts the SToE in what way?
My belief is that 90 percent of what we presume to "know" about God was actually made up by men, hence the Almighty's rather petty tendencies and His craving for our attentions.
I am elite, and I reserve the right to look down on those who revel in their ignorance.
Only under communism are all men forced to be equal.
>>I will bet that after more study, this find makes evolution a stronger theory. <<
And therin lies much of the problem. So many of the "evolutionists" I spar with here are so impressed with the recent discoveries of man that they hang their hat on what they believe we WILL discover as opposed to what we HAVE discovered.
Nothing wrong with that - if applied as a possibility and not a fact.
The story of the woman caught in adultry does not appear in the earliest extent versions of the Gospel and appears to have been added sometime around the 4th century.
My take on the condition is what I read and what I read only. One thing needs to be addressed: Is there any existing explanation that would support the condition of the tissue if it is actually as old as claimed, or are new hypotheses required?
I just reread my post. When I said I only know what I read I forgot to add the relevant link. Here it is: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4379577.stm
It talks about the mineralization, or lack thereof, in not only the soft tissue, but the bone as well.
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.