Posted on 08/19/2009 9:40:47 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Another evo trying to be as obnoxious as possible on crevo threads, I see. WHo put you in charge?
He did give you a name - Dawkins, as if anyone already doesn't know that his position is that evolution gives the appearance of design.
You've been on these threads long enough that you can't honestly pretend that you haven't seen that position.
Or is your reading comprehension that bad?
Except for the small complicating factor that the Bible is not just one book in the sense that other works of literature are.
The Bible is many books written by many authors across time, simply compiled together in one handy convenient source.
That doesn't mean that it's not legitimate to use one part of the Bible to verify another.
Maybe Charles Fort was on to this long before Pabodie and his crew from Miskatonic U. Charles Fort wrote a couple of quite loony but interesting compilations of weird reports and so on and started up the "Fortean Times" as a repository of such stories. Very entertaining reading, much more so than the offerings of the current crop of boring evolution scientists, and probably more credible too. Anyway, in his books and magazine you'll find tales of miners hacking open petrified logs and finding living frogs inside, and so on. Fun stuff.
Are the stetements made in the NatGeo article wrong? Were they able sequence proteins?
Why am I “bad” because of what NatGeo. wrote?
Don't know to the first question. The sequencing used non standard techniques because they weren't sequencing the original tissue. Think of it like looking at a plaster mold, only at the molecular level.
Why am I “bad” because of what NatGeo. wrote?
I compared what you were attempting to what GGG was attempting to do with his 'Ink' from the squid. GGG implied that there was actual liquid ink from 60 million years ago. You are trying to make the same argument that there is actual unfossilized tissue remains from 60 million years ago. Where the reality is that they had to unfossilize (demineralize) the rocks to tease out the underlying structure.
I asked a simple question.
“Don’t know to the first question. The sequencing used non standard techniques because they weren’t sequencing the original tissue. Think of it like looking at a plaster mold, only at the molecular level.”
How do you know what techniques were used? And how do you know it wasn’t original tissue?
And I gave a simple answer.
How do you know what techniques were used? And how do you know it wasn’t original tissue?
"Schweitzer did the opposite of what most paleontologists do with their specimens. Instead of preserving and protecting it, she destroyed it by soaking it in a weak acid. If the entire fossil had been made of rock, it would have dissolved completely. But in the terms used in Schweitzer's paper -- co-authored by Jennifer L. Whittmeyer, John R. Horner and Jan K. Toporski -- the acid demineralized the specimen." http://animals.howstuffworks.com/dinosaurs/soft-tissue-dinosaur-fossil.htm/printable
The unsupported assertion is that the unmineralized portion is the original tissue. There is no law that the fossilization process only uses minerals.
And now comes further confirmation that the original tissues, not just minerals or plaster casts, were fund.
“Oldest Dinosaur Protein Found — Blood Vessels, MoreJohn Roach
for National Geographic News
May 1, 2009
The fossilized leg of an 80-million-year-old duck-billed dinosaur has yielded the oldest known proteins preserved in soft tissue—including blood vessels and other connective tissue as well as perhaps blood cell proteins—a new study says.”
To sum up: The actual people involved in doing the research say they have sequenced the proteins, found remains of the actual tissues, not just minerals that kind of look like tissues, and LeGrande says “no, it's just an assertion”.
LeGrande’s assertions vs. their assertions?
You have to get to know LeGrande and his assertions. Such as his assertion that the actual position of the Sun is 2.1 degrees ahead of the position you see it in the sky.
“You have to get to know LeGrande and his assertions. Such as his assertion that the actual position of the Sun is 2.1 degrees ahead of the position you see it in the sky.”Hmm, I guess you missed this. (from last June)
au contraire, I think if you interject circular arguments, and then exclaim “do as I say, not as I do”...it very much is an issue indeed.
As far as your history book comments...read what metmom said.
And then there’s also the pesky “Word of God” hurtle for you to overcome. It boils down to a matter of trust, do you trust the Lord to mean what He says and keep His word when He Himself exclaims the Bible is truth?
I do.
The way I see it, it can’t be anything else!
But find after find indicates just that.
Must be biofilms and other contamination! Nope, that possibility gets eliminated by stringent lab procedures.
Then it must be just minerals that look like tissues!
Nope, protein sequences are done and minerals don't have sequences.
Then it must be such a one off event as to be meaningless.
Nope, more examples turn up, even squid ink!
Then it must be extra special, extraordinary processes that preserved the specimens so well because they (the Darwinists) just KNOW the fossils can't be less than tens of millions of years old, not a million years old, certainly not LESS than a million years old, no no no.
AND of course no one wants the odor of creationism clinging to them when they rub egos with fellow Darwinists.
As far as your history book comments...read what metmom said.
And then there’s also the pesky “Word of God” hurtle for you to overcome. It boils down to a matter of trust, do you trust the Lord to mean what He says and keep His word when He Himself exclaims the Bible is truth?
I do.
_____
I read what metmom said, and respectfully disagree.
As to your word of God hurdle, that’s kind of funny, given that (extending the race metaphor) you choose not to participate in the race. The outcome was determined before the race begain. No scientific discovery, no scientific theory whatsoever will shake your faith, and if any of those theories tend to contradict your belief, they are simply dismissed out of hand, no investigation necessary.
The way I see it, that pretty much makes freedom of religion impossible.
Why?
The Bible has been compiled to form one book and we know it as such. However, that is NOT how it was written.
The only reason people use the argument that the Bible is one source and you can't use it to verify itself is to squash the debate before it even gets started.
Compiling something for ease of reference does NOT make it one source and thus invalid for comparison between the books.
At that rate, you might as well consider anything found in an encyclopedia to be invalid for supporting anything else in an encyclopedia.
Or anything in some research journal would be invalid for supporting anything else in the same research journal, just because it happened to be contained in the same issue.
The books of the Bible were written across thousands of years in different languages by different authors. The early church did not have the Bible. They has different documents written by different authors. They verify each other. Being compiled does not negate that.
The theater manager is unimpressed, “I’ve seen bird imitations before” he says.
Likewise, the finding of these preserved remains are probably the most significant find of the last dozen years but they are looked at as though it were a plot concocted by creationists.
So, the conclusion is that melanin may not be amenable to fossilization, regardless to how long it sits in the ground.
There are innumerable animals who are possibly being turned into 'fossils' at this very moment, up in the Mt. St. Helens area.
I think that the process is very dependent upon preservation of the original (how did it get buried?), the temperature, depth, and pressure the original is subject to, and the availability of the necessary minerals to leach out the calcium.
TIME, may have very little to do with it.
One thing is for sure. If you take fossilized squid ink, and grind it up, then add ammonia, it still makes a pretty good ink.
That is the question isn't it?
To sum up: The actual people involved in doing the research say they have sequenced the proteins, found remains of the actual tissues, not just minerals that kind of look like tissues, and LeGrande says “no, it's just an assertion”.
Lets look at your quote. "The fossilized leg of an 80-million-year-old duck-billed dinosaur has yielded the oldest known proteins preserved in soft tissue—including blood vessels and other connective tissue as well as perhaps blood cell proteins—a new study says.”
What part of fossilized are you missing? They are scraping out stone in the middle, soaking it in acid to remove specific minerals and then examining the male mold of the molecules that is left.
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.