Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dakota Dino Reveals Skin Cells (first they find dino blood &vessels, now they find dino skin cells!)
CEH ^ | July 1, 2009

Posted on 07/06/2009 8:50:37 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

July 1, 2009 — “Absolutely amazing” and “absolutely gobsmacking” are exclamations made by scientists analyzing the fossilized skin of a hadrosaur known as Dakota. The researchers found cell structures and organic matter in the skin and layers that resemble the skin of birds and crocodiles.

The specimen was uncovered in 1999 on a North Dakota ranch and is still being analyzed. Photos on the BBC News show clear scales and cross sections of microscopic tendon structures. The article said, “Tests have shown that the fossil still holds cell-like structures,” adding, “although the proteins that made up the hadrosaur’s skin had degraded, the amino acid building blocks that once made up the proteins were still present.”

How could soft tissue structures and details survive intact for 66 million years?...

(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: belongsinreligion; catholic; christian; creation; cretinism; evolution; godsgravesglyphs; intelligentdesign; jewish; judaism; maryschweitzer; notasciencetopic; notjewishatall; propellerbeanie; pseudoscience; science; spam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-176 next last
To: dinodino
Do you *seriously* believe that dinosaurs walked the earth 2000 years ago? I mean, that’s not only within recorded history, but there were quite a few historians writing at the time. Don’t you think that if dinosaurs were around 2500 years ago that maybe Herodotus and Thucydides would have commented on them?

It also means that Homer predated the dinosaurs....unless.....maybe it wasn't a horse they hid in. It would explain the size.

121 posted on 07/09/2009 7:55:40 AM PDT by CougarGA7 (Apparently singing Olivia Newton John's "Heartattack" is inappropriate in cardiac rehab. Who knew?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

Comment #122 Removed by Moderator

To: DaveLoneRanger
If evolution is true, there is no such thing as morality.

If your morality is dependant upon creationism being "true," that's your business, but don't assume others are similarly limited.

123 posted on 07/09/2009 10:06:52 AM PDT by Bosh Flimshaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

Comment #124 Removed by Moderator

To: DaveLoneRanger
Strictly speaking, what I said and your summation of it are not in accord.

Of course it is. You said "If evolution is true, there is no such thing as morality," which therefore makes your morality dependant upon creationism. And that's fine. If you don't think you are capable of observing a system of morality unless creationism is "true," that's your own choice.

However, for myself (and millions of other people), morality is no more affected by the theory of evolution than the theory of gravity. Understanding and accepting how the natural world works does not preclude my belief in God, nor my ability to maintain a system of morality.

125 posted on 07/09/2009 1:05:44 PM PDT by Bosh Flimshaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

Comment #126 Removed by Moderator

To: DaveLoneRanger
If evolution is true, then God is a liar

Not at all. At most, if evolution is true, then your interpretation of the Bible may not be accurate. Too bad for you, but that's not my problem.

Evolution and the Bible do not mix

Again, you go much too far. If your interpretation of the Bible and evolution are not compatible, that's your problem, not mine, not that of science, and certainly not God's.

evolution is 100% external to the Bible

As is germ theory, the theory of gravity, and nuclear physics. So what? The Bible is not a science textbook. If you want to limit human understanding of the natural world to that present 2000 years ago, I suggest you turn off your computer, throw away your penicillin, and get yourself a goat.

I think you have a smaller understanding of the tenets of evolution if you don’t understand how it affects morality

Not to put too fine a point on it, but that's just sophistry. My morality is not affected by understanding that species evolve through the process of natural selection any more than its affected by understanding that the earth revolves around the sun, that microbes invisible to the naked eye are responsible for infection, or that the earth may be slightly older than six thousand years old.*

*please tell me you don't also dispute any of these last three items

127 posted on 07/14/2009 1:54:30 PM PDT by Bosh Flimshaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

Comment #128 Removed by Moderator

To: DaveLoneRanger
And if I argued Biblical interpretation, then you'd accuse me of not arguing science. See? Rigged to work either way. Cute but not altogether clever.

I don't believe you understand my point. I don't care what your Biblical interpretation is. Your interpretation of the Bible matters not one whit to my own morality, or my ability to maintain a moral system while recognizing the world around me.

Did you want to debate Biblical interpretation?

Not even a little bit. You interpret the Bible however you like. Just don't pretend that science has to modify its conclusions to suit your interpretation of a religious text, and we'll do fine.

Why is your interpretation superior?

I certainly never claimed it was. But I'm not the one insisting that my interpretation of the Bible should supercede a an entire field of science that has been supported and refined over the course of a hundred years, so that's not really my burden to bear.

If you wanna have that debate, say so.

Again, you miss the point. If you can't reconcile your own faith with the natural world, that's your problem. Its not my job, or that of science, to make you comfortable in that regard.

But if you accept the whole 4.6 billion years kit-n-kaboodle

Oh, my. You really do think that the earth is only a few thousand years old, don't you? Oh, my.

129 posted on 07/17/2009 5:55:57 AM PDT by Bosh Flimshaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

Comment #130 Removed by Moderator

To: DaveLoneRanger
because evolution genuinely repudiates the existence or relevance of true morality is not a statement meaning all evolutionists are immoral.

I'm not implying that your point is the latter, merely pointing out that the former is a ridiculous, wholly unsupported statement.

You can't really sit back and say that whatever I believe has to be wrong because it conflicts with what you believe.

And if that's what I were doing, we would be in agreement. However, I am not telling you that what you believe (i.e. that evolution does not occur, that if it does, it "genuinely repudiates the existence or relevance of true morality"), is wrong because it conflicts with what I believe, but what you believe is wrong because it is not supported by facts or by logic.

Which conclusions did I declare in need of change simply because they conflicted with the Bible?

You believe evolution cannot be true, and the earth cannot be more than a few thousand years old, because you believe the Bible tells you otherwise. You can hem an haw at it all you like, but that's essentially what your position amounts to. Own it.

The real pity is in you thinking science actually supports an eons-ancient earth.

Have you ever taken an earth sciences course? How about geology? Astronomy? Anthropology? Archeology? Could you please point out which of those fields supports the notion that the earth is only a few thousand years old? Because unless the textbooks have changed significantly since the time I was an undergraduate, those fields are all pretty confirm that the earth is far, far older than a few thousand years old.

Cripes, I can't believe its 2009 and I'm arguing with an adult that thinks the world is six thousand years old. And people wonder why India and China are going to eat us alive in the next generation.

131 posted on 07/17/2009 9:33:37 AM PDT by Bosh Flimshaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

Comment #132 Removed by Moderator

To: DaveLoneRanger
The thing is, I've done research about evolution, ethics, morality, altruism and so forth. I know what I'm talking about. I don't think you have, and I don't think you do.

For some reason, I suspect that much of that "research" took place on the AIG website or, worse, from materials provided by Kent Hovind. Am I wrong?

Why don't you peel open these planets you keep throwing at me and let's examine the contents.

I'll admit that I have no idea what that means.

Ahh, a classic set-up. You place the onus on me to "prove" my claims, but lurking in your unwritten rules of evidence is a disclaimer that no creationist research on the matter can be accepted, because a creationist rejects old-earth evolution, which is wrong. Therefore, the claim can never, in your eyes, be proven. To sidestep this amusing construct, I started consulting primarily with scientific sources (whereas before it had simply been part of the portfolio) and still found the science on old-earth evolution lacking.

However, we would need to narrow down considerably your very broad ranges of "geology, astronomy, anthropology, and archeology." Those are entire fields unto themselves, with a multitude of sub-specialties, and likewise, a plethora of sub-debates.

That's a lot of words just avoid admitting that you haven't actually taken any courses in those areas. Its more than a little sad that in 2009, a student of an accredited (presumably) college or university can skate all the way through without learning much at all about the world around him. Oh, well...America had a good run at the top, I suppose.

Well, I hate to do the job your Earth Sciences 101(b) professor should have done when you were a freshman, but each of those fields (and their multitude of sub-specialties) confirms, supports, and strengthens the position that the earth is far, far older than a few thousand years old.

If you can provide *one* field of scientific study that supports your contention that the earth is only a few thousand years old, please provide it. Otherwise, I'll accept your concession that such an idea is wholly unsupported by any legitimate science.

133 posted on 07/20/2009 1:16:03 PM PDT by Bosh Flimshaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

Comment #134 Removed by Moderator

To: DaveLoneRanger
Some of us didn't let our education interfere with learning, that's all.

That's a nice way of saying you held the line and didn't let anything like "facts" or "reality" seep in and change any of your preconceived notions about the world.

Well...I'm sure that's mighty generous, but you can hardly fill the role of a "Earth Sciences 101(b)" teacher if you don't even know how illogical it is to ask me to prove a negative. We've already established that you've never taken a science course, but if you think asking you to "provide *one* field of scientific study that supports your contention that the earth is only a few thousand years old" is asking you to prove a negative, you should probably revisit your extensive debate education as well.

At some point, there were compelling arguments to convince you than, man, this evolution stuff was spot-on. So what I'm asking you to do is tell me what it was. Why don't you pick three of those persuasive pieces of evidence, from any field including the aforementioned, and let's discuss.

Generally, its considered pretty disingenuous to avoid answering someone's questions by asking your own, but nonetheless I'll do you the courtesy you were unable or unwilling to extend to me.

First, you assume incorrectly that understanding a scientific theory like evolution can be boiled down to three data points and then discussed in a vacuum. That's not how it works. Evolution is confirmed (and constantly refined and strengthened) by how tens of thousands of pieces of data fit together. Those pieces of data have accumulated over the course of a century, and pretending that evolution can be discussed intelligently by cherry-picking three pieces of data and ignoring how they fit into the larger picture is one of the reasons why creationists are able to remain so wilfully ignorant.

But, since you asked, the theory of evolution is most persuasively supported, in my humble, nonscientific opinion, by the study of molecular biology (which demonstrates the genetic relationships between related species and is an enormously powerful tool for examining how species have evolved over the millenia), the fossil record (which amounts to assorted snapshots of different species and their ancestors taken at different points in time), and laboratory experimentation that demonstrates natural selection (i.e. experiments with fruit flies, bacteria, etc., in which scientists can apply specific pressure over thousands of generations and observe the natural selection).

Now, before you start typing away feverishly at a post demonstrating the myriad ways creationists can fail to understand those areas of evolutionary theory, you need to understand that this is a two-way street. I have answered your question, so I expect you to answer mine: what field of scientific study supports your contention that the earth is only a few thousand years old?

135 posted on 07/21/2009 6:20:36 AM PDT by Bosh Flimshaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

Comment #136 Removed by Moderator

Comment #137 Removed by Moderator

To: DaveLoneRanger
I'm asking you to pick what you consider to be the strongest indicators in support of evolution.

I extended you the courtesy of providing three areas of study which demonstrate the validity of the theory of evolution. Rather than address them, you disingenuously ignore those items and ask for others. When I stated that the fossil record demonstrates the theory of evolution, I wasn't talking about just the horse fossil record, or the turtle fossil record. I mean the whole fossil record. That's why its such a powerful piece of evidence, and that's why your desire to cherry-pick certain species is a clearly a dodge. If you want to argue why the three areas actually support your notion of young earth creationism, then do it. But don't just keep asking for different responses when you've already received direct answers. That's not only rude, but very dishonest.

Then, you utterly fail to respond to my request for just *one* are a of science that supports your contention that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Weak, DLR. Very weak.

Out of curiosity, it this a "lot of words just avoid admitting that you haven't actually taken any courses in those areas"...?

No. Unlike you, I've taken (and bothered to learn from) undergraduate courses in earth sciences, biology, astronomy, and anthropology. I'm merely acknowledging that I am not a professional scientist, but unlike YEC's such as yourself, I at least make an honest effort to understand their work. Seriously, DLR...do yourself a favor and pick up a good science journal some time and give it a read. You may be surprised that you actually *like* learning about the world around you instead of just arguing with people who already have.

138 posted on 07/21/2009 10:07:59 AM PDT by Bosh Flimshaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

Comment #139 Removed by Moderator

To: DaveLoneRanger

You have yet to respond to my question. Why do you bother typing hundreds of words if you can’t even answer a simple, direct question?


140 posted on 07/21/2009 7:14:30 PM PDT by Bosh Flimshaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-176 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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