Posted on 07/06/2009 8:50:37 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Oy! That's not a typo, that's not knowing how to spell. On second thought, DON'T borrow my tagline, it doesn't apply to you.
And the mods let the personal attacks go on and on and on.
“it is they who refer to the degraded cells as not unlike bird or croc skin”
—But that isn’t from an analysis of soft tissue, but of rock which has formed into the shape of the dino’s skin. Usually soft tissue degrades away before it can be fossilized, but in this case much of it lasted long enough that it, too, fossilized much as bones often do. Of course, when paleontologists say that a bone has been preserved, they (usually) don’t mean they literally found bone tissue, but instead that a rock has been found in the shape of a bone that preserves many of its anatomical features. In this case rock has been found that preserves many of the anatomical features of the skin that allows them to compare it to the skin of crocs and birds.
As for the find of “soft tissue”, the only soft tissue I saw mentioned are amino acids (which in many conditions are nearly indestructible).
I’m Actually a bit surprised that in a structure so well preserved that not even proteins survived. As I’ve mentioned before, it wasn’t that long ago that many scientists were hopeful that we’d begin finding dino dna - and perhaps even begin sequencing them (one of the things that inspired Jurassic Park). Decades later we’re still looking for the first dino nucleobase. Even finding proteins is proving incredibly difficult, and they are FAR hardier and last VASTLY longer than dna.
So perhaps the “rational explanation” is that dinos are far older than we thought? :-) Or maybe it’s that we don’t understand very well how preservation works in many conditions.
Too logical an explaination for the crevos.
You sure about that?
We’re not going to reestablish the world for a noob.
You have no particular relevance here, so do the reading yourself.
All this talk of dinosaurs reminded me of a question I once asked to no end, what allowed them to grow so big?
Most of the theories that I've heard involved higher oxygen content of the atmosphere, and plentiful food supply. Also most reptiles keep on growing all of their lives.
Very snappy comeback. Ping me when you have posted some scientific evidence that dinosaurs were around 2000 years ago. I won’t hold my breath, of course.
He’s a retread.
Can you guess from his stupid assertions who?
LOL, I’m waiting too, but expect nothing from the goob.
Yes, I’m sure there is no evidence of a global flood.
From the description, it might be a Komodo Dragon
The big clue is that the creationist article editor-surveyor seems to refer to, and the book on Project Gutenberg, have the critter having a THREE-clawed foot (lizards have three toes), but dinosaurs had FOUR toes. Also, Marco Polo noted that the critter walked dragging its belly on the ground, while donosaurs walked with belly OFF the ground.
Would you really accept it as proof even if it were supplied? How much evidence would you need? One example, two, a million? Can you start with this very article as proof or do you have a scientific explanation for it?
The evidence is there if you are truly seeking it out and if you look at both the data and the data gathering techniques objectively.
Our current worldwide example of global warming can be used as an example of "scientific evidence" being influenced by outside factors. If so many scientists can get that wrong, and we are experiencing the data real-time, why can't the "scientific evidence" for evolution be called into question?
Very well. Carry on.
SOMETHING would be a good starting point, but e/s refuses to put anything up. How can he back up his assertions with nothing, and how can anyone refute it without seeing it? It's like some are already arguing the results of a race, and e/s won't even provide a starting point.
There is very good evidence of a mesopotamian flood, which was the entire “known world” of the time, and almost certainly contained if not all of mankind, an overwhelming percentage of it.
The term “world” was used repeatedly in Genesis to mean this area (e.g., refering to Sargon (or variations of his name) as “king of the world” when we know there were other contemporaneous kingdoms in China).
A lot of cultures arose around rivers, so it’s not surprising that there are a lot of flood myths.
And the creation of the Black Sea probably played a part.
But proponents of the Biblical flood seem to be talking about a flood that covered the entire world as we know it today.
Oh, I know.
I offer another literal reading of Genesis, unadulterated by Western thought.
I mean “World War I” didn’t have the whole world in it, did it? Heck, it barely had all of Europe. But it is still “world war.”
Let’s start with one. Show me ONE example of a 2000-year-old dinosaur.
Don’t toss global warming into the mix—I don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming anyway, and you are only bringing it up to muddy the waters.
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.