Posted on 12/02/2009 8:28:11 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Although creation-based organizations have reported for over a decade on the technical scientific journal articles published about soft tissue found inside dinosaur remains, mainstream media outlets have largely been silent on the subject. But a recent segment that aired on CBS’s 60 Minutes finally broke the news to a broader audience. The soft tissue issue may be gaining more traction, and even “may be changing the whole dino ballgame,” according to correspondent Lesley Stahl.[1]
The program is currently viewable online at the CBS website. In a field test demonstration to determine whether a dinosaur fossil was real bone, and not bone replaced by minerals, Stahl touched her tongue to it...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
God they hate it when you’re right.
Should be hard copy as well. I see 4/13/07...issue 5822...as one of them.
I will pray for you then anti, as you are self-proclaimed to be lost. You've been added to my list of Freepers to pray for, for their salvation, that they may find their way to God.
Worry not, it will just be prayer, nothing like the incoming Islamic demands that will be made of those like you, or believer like me, should this country continue to reject God.
;)
Don't worry, I don't take offense to it. I equate it to just thinking good thoughts.
Worry not, it will just be prayer, nothing like the incoming Islamic demands that will be made of those like you, or believer like me, should this country continue to reject God.
That's not quite rejecting God, but replacing worship in him with worship in another, or in the opinion of the Muslims, worshipping the same god in a different way.
I'm just glad that if I'm living in a Christian society I live in the one of today. Several hundred years ago I could have been burned at the stake for what I've said on this board already.
“Evolution has failed to predict anything”
That statement is incorrect…...Darwin demonstrated that many orchid flowers had evolved elaborate structures by natural selection in order to facilitate cross-pollination. He suggested that orchids and their insect pollinators evolved by interacting with one another over many generations, a process referred to as coevolution.
One particular example illustrates Darwin’s powerful insight. He studied dried specimens of Angraecum sesquipedale, an orchid native to Madagascar. The white flower of this orchid has a foot-long (30 cm) tubular spur with a small drop of nectar at its base. Darwin claimed that this orchid had been pollinated by a moth with a foot-long tongue. He noted, however, that his statement “has been ridiculed by some entomologists.” And indeed, around the turn of the century, a Madagascan moth with a one-foot-long tongue was discovered. Apparently, the moth’s tongue uncoils to sip the nectar of A. sesquipedale as it cross-pollinates the flowers. “
http://science.jrank.org/pages/5389/Pollination-History-pollination-studies.html
“It called for gradual change which is not in evidence anywhere on Earth. Zero transitional evidence Zip, nada!”
This statement is also incorrect.
Why does the creationist/i.d crowed keep asking for the evidence when it is here. All you have to do is go to a museum and see it for yourself. You can take a look at Australopithecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Homo sapiens and see the clear transtion.
I'll take a pass on what I'm sure would be a satisfying discussion about whether a few molecules in the rock means something is "not entirely fossilized." I may have overstated the case; it's hard to tell from the several writeups I checked.
Nevertheless we're left with rock containing a few organic molecules and "cellular components" for dinosaurs, versus dry leather and edible meat for mammoths. Do you have an explanation, or are you too stupid to realize that it's obvious you're running away from the question?
Wrong again!
Darwin’s fanciful ideas proved nothing but that he could imagine almost anything. He had no ‘insight’ but his co-religionist propagators were happy to simply agree with him, and you in your visible inclination accept that as insight.
That’s all there ever is to evolution: consensus of imaginative, fanciful ‘suggestions’ that somehow become ‘fact’ when printed.
The explanation is simple enough. The mammoth died approximately 3500 years ago and the dinosaur more like 5000 - 50000.
Shhhhh- we ‘anti-science’ folks are apparently too stupid to realize that soft tissue is NOT fossilized rock, but is rather... wait for it.... soft tissue. Since soft tissue isn’t supposed to be aroudn for millions of years, the evogroupies are reduced to arguing the soft tissue is ‘fossil’, despite the FACT that hte soft tissue isn’t infact fossil lol. Yep- We creationists are hte ones who are ‘anti-science’ alright lol- Watch the spin as the evogroupies try to wiggle out of their mistake- about all we’re likely to get form them is ‘you Creatards don’t udnerstand science’ lol
As usual ignore the evidence presented. He predicted that this orchid would be pollinated by a moth with a foot-long tongue, and around the turn of the century a moth with a foot-long tongue.
This is conclusive proof that evolution is predictive
So you plainly fail there, and you do did not even attempt to respond to the second point.
You’re an idiot. There is no other explanation for your foolishness.
So we tried the misdirection, and avoidance and that did not work so now it down to the name-calling.
Well I guess when the facts are not on your side that is all that you have.
What's the explanation for your multiple identities, Ted?
Try the ascii version of Splifford. It's side-splittingly funny ... the first 280,000 times.
Courtesy ping.
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.