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

Skip to comments.

Dinosaur soft tissue and protein—even more confirmation! (more evidence for young earth creation!!!)
CMI ^ | May 6, 2009 | Carl Wieland

Posted on 05/06/2009 8:49:01 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

Dinosaur soft tissue and protein—even more confirmation!

Mary Schweitzer announces even stronger evidence, this time from a duckbilled dino fossil, of even more proteins—and the same amazingly preserved vessel and cell structures as before...

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; US: Montana
KEYWORDS: catholic; christian; creation; drmaryschweitzer; evolution; goodgodimnutz; intelligentdesign; maryschweitzer; oldearthspeculation; religionofatheism; science; sistermaryelephant
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-269 next last
To: GodGunsGuts
How soon can they clone that sumbiatch?
21 posted on 05/06/2009 9:06:22 AM PDT by Hacklehead (Liberalism is the art of taking what works, breaking it, and then blaming conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Granted that soft tissue remains present, I’d think that use of the term “fossil” is thrown into question.


22 posted on 05/06/2009 9:07:42 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

23 posted on 05/06/2009 9:08:05 AM PDT by steve-b (Intelligent design is to evolutionary biology what socialism is to free-market economics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gdani

I cut and pasted from the article that the Evos (as per usual) didn’t even bother to read. But if you want to have a no-cut-and-paste debate re: creation vs. evolution, I’m game. Why don’t we start with all the philogenetic trees that supposedly establish common descent that are now in shambles because the Evo-prediction that the genome is comprised of 97% fossil/”junk” DNA turned out to be completely false.


24 posted on 05/06/2009 9:08:16 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Young Earth idiot alert.


25 posted on 05/06/2009 9:08:43 AM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steve-b; All

LOL!!!


26 posted on 05/06/2009 9:10:36 AM PDT by KevinDavis (Now a member of the NRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DBCJR
I guess I miss the connection. Could you please expand upon it?

Bible literalists (Hagee, et al, peg the earth's age to be 6,000). A lot of FReepers believe that too...'course, a lot of them also believed George Bush was a great president.

27 posted on 05/06/2009 9:11:52 AM PDT by meandog (There are bad no dogs, only bad owners--the only good bad owner is one mauled by a good bad dog!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: KevinDavis
"It also proves that Earth is not 6000 years old.."

Nobody said it was 6000 years old. But we can show that Adam and Eve were created less than 10,000 years ago, and that a catastrophic event and flood happened fairly recent as well.

28 posted on 05/06/2009 9:11:57 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: staytrue

Is this a Huckabee thread?


29 posted on 05/06/2009 9:12:07 AM PDT by Paladin2 (Big Ears + Big Spending --> BigEarMarx, the man behind TOTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

More misinformation and cherry picking from an old article.

From one of your own xtian sites.http://www.answersincreation.org/trex_soft_tissue.htm

” Even more interesting is what Answers in Genesis omits from the original article, as they “pick and choose,” as is their style, only those portions that supports their position....

Carl Wieland of AiG calls this a “stunning rebuttal of millions of years.” Nothing could be further from the truth.....
Even more interesting is what Answers in Genesis omits from the original article, as they “pick and choose,” as is their style, only those portions that supports their position.....

Carl Wieland of AiG calls this a “stunning rebuttal of millions of years.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
The find of T-Rex soft tissue in no way supports a young earth. In fact, when you consider the fact that we should find much more soft tissue in all large dinosaur bones, it actually supports an old earth even better!”


30 posted on 05/06/2009 9:12:23 AM PDT by hurly (A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Uh, isn't this the third or fourth time you've posted this very same story??

This is becoming like an info-mercial or OxyClean commercial...

31 posted on 05/06/2009 9:12:36 AM PDT by DTogo (High time to bring back the Sons of Liberty !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: staytrue
The only idiots on this thread are those who believe that random processes can produce super-sophisticated bio-nano-machines that merely give the "appearance" of design.

PS I thought I saw your brain in there somewhere. You might want to reach in and take it back before they clear them out to make room for the next batch of scrifices:


32 posted on 05/06/2009 9:15:07 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote
"They told a simple story.... complex enough for the times."

Actually, Evo's try make it a simple story, and determine a lot of numbers that simply aren't true (so do some believers)

33 posted on 05/06/2009 9:16:06 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; metmom; DaveLoneRanger; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

Actually, some Creationists believe that the Bible reads that there was a creation then a “replenishing” that is accounted for in Genesis 2, the Garden of Eden account. This would allow for a much earlier creation event. I don’t know whether the 6 day account was actual or poetic. There are some pretty definite indications that poetic form was used in places of the account. That doesn’t mean that we should read the whole thing as being symbolic. Determining what is symbolic and what is actual needs divine illumination.

The on-going debate between evolution and creation, I think, is futile. Evolution cannot explain the creation of all life forms that exist and creation does not rule out the theory of evolution. Scholars who attempt to rule out creation with theories like Big Boom and evolution fail very basic and fundamental rules of science, as intelligent as they might be. We simply do not know and the secular theories have infinite gaps in them.

For either side of the issue to take a superior and derogatory attitude toward the other is ignorant. I say we leave the attitudes outside the discussion.


34 posted on 05/06/2009 9:17:15 AM PDT by DBCJR (What would you expect?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: steve-b

LOL from me too. Good one.


35 posted on 05/06/2009 9:17:39 AM PDT by jalisco555 ("My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy" - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DTogo
Second time, the other stories were about how the Darwin cult couldn't come to grips with the soft tissue contained in the T. rex bone of her first find.
36 posted on 05/06/2009 9:18:58 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: varmintman
The true main age of dinosaurs was almost certainly a few thousand or a few tens of thousands of years back, and not millions or tens of millions. The planet's living world in its present form more or less is probably aroun d 6K years old as the Bible indicates


Alley Oop may agree with you, science doesn't!

37 posted on 05/06/2009 9:19:21 AM PDT by meandog (There are bad no dogs, only bad owners--the only good bad owner is one mauled by a good bad dog!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The only idiots on this thread are those who believe that random processes can produce super-sophisticated bio-nano-machines that merely give the "appearance" of design.

You misunderstand evolution if you believe it is random. Evolution is not a random process. There is nothing random about natural selection.

38 posted on 05/06/2009 9:19:41 AM PDT by jalisco555 ("My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy" - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DTogo
"Uh, isn't this the third or fourth time you've posted this very same story??"

YEAH dang it! Only Evo's are allowed to cut and paste the same crap over and over again!

39 posted on 05/06/2009 9:19:50 AM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Hacklehead

That stuff is great, ain’t it.


40 posted on 05/06/2009 9:20:04 AM PDT by jalisco555 ("My 80% friend is not my 20% enemy" - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 261-269 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