Skip to comments.
What Does It Take to Fossilize a Brain?
ICR ^
| March 11, 2009
| Brian Thomas, M.S.
Posted on 03/11/2009 8:50:55 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 next last
To: GodGunsGuts
Here are several recent examples. The city inhabited by these creatures contains THOUSANDS more:
Steny Hoyer can be seen employing a new technique he learned from speech coach Barney Fwank.
To: GodGunsGuts
It's interesting that they were able to see this detail with a scanner. I remember how, when I first came to my current manufacturing plant, I told my job mentor (an evolutionist) about my fossil collecting hobby. He had me bring some mucrospirifers (a type of mollusc) in and we tried X-raying them in our lab. (We have a very nice, high-magnification X-ray). We weren't able to see anything interesting, but it was a nice try... maybe we should have kept at it!
22
posted on
03/11/2009 9:34:31 AM PDT
by
Liberty1970
(Democrats are not in control. God is. And Thank God for that!)
To: GodGunsGuts
so much to - the world exists since 500 years.
In the original literature the theory is, that a certain type of bacteria supported the mineralization of the brain.
Now there’s a theory that ‘the flood’ was the reason the brain mineralized as Ca3(PO4)2 - beacause - it really happened - lmfao.
Seems like somebody took a random piece of research and inserted ‘the flood’ into it.
23
posted on
03/11/2009 9:38:41 AM PDT
by
Rummenigge
(there are people willing to blow out the light because it casts a shadow)
To: steve-b
[[Spamming the same guff over and over seems to have done the trick for you.]]
Are you EVER goign to discuss ANY of the science GGG posts? Or are you simply goign to keep posting childish insults and whining about ‘spamming’ while ignoring hte science and spamming yourself?
24
posted on
03/11/2009 9:40:18 AM PDT
by
CottShop
(Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
To: GodGunsGuts
Oh, you like comics too? What a coincidence!
25
posted on
03/11/2009 9:42:10 AM PDT
by
Boxen
(There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
To: Liberty1970
[[It will be interesting to see if old-earth advocates are willing to adjust their understanding for how the sediments containing this fossil formed in the light of this evidence.]]
Nah- they’re just goign to keep ignoring the issues while attackign hte messenger, and pretending they are ‘defeating’ the message. Sad but true.
26
posted on
03/11/2009 9:42:56 AM PDT
by
CottShop
(Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
To: Boxen
Both begin with a conclusion. Darwinistic Materialism assumes purely naturalistic causes to explain the unobservable, unrepeatable past. Creation Science assumes that Genesis is a true historical account of the unobservable, unrepeatable past. The question is, which approach explains the remnants of the past better. To my mind, Creation Science is the far better explanation.
To: GodGunsGuts
28
posted on
03/11/2009 10:01:33 AM PDT
by
Sarajevo
(You jealous because the voices only talk to me.)
To: GodGunsGuts
There are reasonable assumptions and there are unreasonable assumptions. Naturalism (I’m not certain what you mean by “Darwinistic Materialism”) is a reasonable assumption. That a certain creation myth must be the true account of the origins of man, life, and the universe is an unreasonable assumption.
29
posted on
03/11/2009 10:42:50 AM PDT
by
Boxen
(There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
To: GodGunsGuts
What’s more, science does not seek to prove or show evidence that naturalism is correct or true. Whereas christian creationism begins with it’s own conclusion, that a certain ancient creation myth is true, which it then it seeks to prove.
30
posted on
03/11/2009 10:51:57 AM PDT
by
Boxen
(There is no wealth like knowledge, no poverty like ignorance.)
To: GodGunsGuts
40 something years, unspecified amounts of cocaine, low-tar KOOLs, and wifey Michelle?
31
posted on
03/11/2009 10:53:39 AM PDT
by
MortMan
(Power without responsibility-the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages. - Rudyard Kipling)
To: CottShop
[[Spamming the same guff over and over seems to have done the trick for you.]] Are you EVER goign to discuss ANY of the science GGG posts? Or are you simply goign to keep posting childish insults and whining about spamming while ignoring hte science and spamming yourself?
When GGG actually posts science, then it would be of interest to discuss it. Until then, it is best to ignore such cretards. There is no point in discussing with someone who doesn't even know the subject.
32
posted on
03/11/2009 11:03:05 AM PDT
by
doc30
(Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
To: Islander7
33
posted on
03/11/2009 1:24:49 PM PDT
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: Boxen
*Here’s the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it?*
Sounds like evos starting with Darwin’s Origin of the Species. He comes up with the theory and people spend decades trying to find evidence to support it. And when they can’t they even try to fake it.
Sad.....
34
posted on
03/11/2009 1:27:50 PM PDT
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: Boxen
Naturalism (Im not certain what you mean by Darwinistic Materialism) is a reasonable assumption. That a certain creation myth must be the true account of the origins of man, life, and the universe is an unreasonable assumption. Why? For both claims.
Why is naturalism a reasonable assumption when there's simply no precedent for order, complexity, or life arising without an intelligence source?
Why is unreasonable to assume that order, complexity, and life have a intelligent source?
35
posted on
03/11/2009 1:32:22 PM PDT
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: doc30
When GGG actually posts science, then it would be of interest to discuss it. Until then, it is best to ignore such cretards. There is no point in discussing with someone who doesn't even know the subject. Then why did you post here?
If you think the threads lack science, contribute some. Explain the fossilized brain.
36
posted on
03/11/2009 1:34:29 PM PDT
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: metmom
If you think the threads lack science, contribute some. Explain the fossilized brain.Pearls before swine? Dog training is easier than teaching the like of you and the other cretards science. At least dogs can be motivated to learn.
37
posted on
03/11/2009 1:49:14 PM PDT
by
doc30
(Democrats are to morals what an Etch-A-Sketch is to Art.)
To: doc30
What a cop out as well. Just so you don’t have to answer a question you can’t.
Figures....
38
posted on
03/11/2009 2:01:30 PM PDT
by
metmom
(Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
To: GodGunsGuts
39
posted on
03/11/2009 2:03:32 PM PDT
by
TruthWillWin
(The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples money.)
To: TruthWillWin
Was that an example of Natural Selection?
40
posted on
03/11/2009 2:08:22 PM PDT
by
YHAOS
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-45 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson