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 ...
Don't be to harsh on that fellow, he tries, he really tires.
Besides, doesn't it at least bring a small smile to your lips, to be awash in the warm glow of superior intellect?
No?
==Ignorance is bliss, eh?
I wouldn’t know, why don’t you tell me about it.
==If it wasn’t for the sheer humor of your posts, I would simply ignore them.
Thanks for being a loyal reader :o)
==Please do not stop
You can bet I won’t! Thanks for the encouragement :o)
If this doesn’t cast a doubt on phony dating techniques that are used in science, then nothing will. And if nothing will, then what more proof do you need we are no longer speaking of science, but a religion, a false religion.
Okay, here's WC's entire paragraph:
To complicate things, they say stuff like "Biotite from the Faraday Mine came from a granite pegmatite that intruded a paragneiss that formed from highly metamorphosed sediments." (link) This is little more than an attempt to confuse common-sense creation scientists with big words, scientists who are not privy to their private ivory tower meetings where they contrive their unnecessary jargon. A creationist analysis of that sentence reveals that unwarranted assumptions come into play, as usual, about every other word.The first 2/3 of that nothing to do with the research itself. It's only about the way scientists express themselves in scientific writing. In my experience, every field has special words unfamiliar to outsiders that enable people in that field to express themselves precisely. But WC says scientists only use those words to confuse creationists. That statement reveals the scorn so many creationists have for education, hard work, and experience, an attitude I'm always disappointed to see on a conservative forum.
I can only guess that the "unwarranted assumptions" accusation refers to the words "paragneiss" and "highly metamorphosed sediments." This demonstrates the common, and baseless, creationist charge that any scientific conclusion they disagree with, no matter how much work went into it, is an "assumption." I doubt either you or WC have any idea why geologists decided those rocks are what they say.
Explain to us how dating is done and how it’s “phony”.
Please try to do it without the words god and flood.
“your ‘refuting article’ is a load of crap as pointed out in the trueorigin’s site-”
What’s crap about it? What seemed like crap was the conclusion of the article of the subject thread - which is the same conclusion as most creationist papers.
[[It’s only about the way scientists express themselves in scientific writing.]]
Lol- how they ‘express themselves’- that’s precious
[[That statement reveals the scorn so many creationists have for education, hard work, and experience, an attitude I’m always disappointed to see on a conservative forum.]]
Ahhhh yes- the scorn Creationists have- FR has exposed the compelte contempt that sites liek TO and DC and other ‘science’ sites have towards Christians, but when a Christian points out hte blatant attempts by scientists to divert attention away from the central issues being discussed, we’re labelled as ‘scornful’ lol You betcha- Whatever Hahaha
[[I can only guess that the “unwarranted assumptions” accusation refers to the words “paragneiss” and “highly metamorphosed sediments.”]]
Nope sorry- it was explained to you why- you conveniently ignored the explanation apparently, and just wish to further argue somethign beyond what was actually discussed- have fun arguing with yourself
[[I doubt either you or WC have any idea why geologists decided those rocks are what they say.]]
Don’t bet the farm on that little assumption- as mentioned, it was already pointed out to you why and how the critics were INTENTIONALLY obscuring the main points- but whatever- you just keep tryign to nitpick where no meat is left to pick from- again- you’ll be arguign with yourself- not goign to play your usual silly games while you pretend to bwe ‘dissappointed’ at Creationists and pretend to be ‘objective’ which you most certainly are not
Agreed
By “actual” I mean what actually occurred. When the Bible says “the sun stood still”, did the sun stop, the earth quit rotating, or what actually transpired? “Literal” does not seem to be an option as either would have had all sorts of catastrophic consequences. The phrase “the sun stood still” seems to refer to a suspension of time of some sort. The primitive mind wrote about this in terms they understood. I’m not sure that we could explain it much better today. It was a supernatural event that defies the rational mind.
Amen!
Current science has the conceit that it knows all and only the details have to be worked out.
Thus they violate the most basic rules of scientific method.
God’s word completely rules out evolution in over 100 places. One has to throw out almost every book of the Bible to accept that idea.
Intra-species evolution is a well documented fact. Inter-specifies evolution, i.e., “The Origin of the Species”, is theory.
I cannot for the life of me see what's funny about that. Do you ever read anything the least bit technical or specific to a certain field? Oh wait, yes you do. Is there some reason it's funnier for scientists to use words like "paragneiss" than for creationists to use words like "holobaramin"?
Nope sorry- it was explained to you why
I think I must have intruded on a discussion you're having with the voices in your head, for which I apologize. I've only been talking about that three-sentence paragraph complaining about the sentence with the big words. No one has explained what the unwarranted assumptions were in that sentence.
“Is it any wonder the HMS Beagle is sinking ever more rapidly with each passing day? The Evos must be in an utter panic!”Drinking bilge water is fine and dandy if you enjoy that sort of thing, but its a lousy way to bail out a sinking ship.
“Unfortunately, most YECs have not studied the peer reviewed evidence that refutes evolution mysticism or evidence of a young earth and they don't feel comfortable in these threads.” [excerpt]This YECer finds your comment intriguing.
“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.” [excerpt]Yes, there are several variations of that out there.
“This would allow for a much earlier creation event.” [excerpt]Something that is very important if you need there to be a much earlier creation event.
“I don’t know whether the 6 day account was actual or poetic.” [excerpt]There is that claim, but all the arguments I've seen are very weak.
“There are some pretty definite indications that poetic form was used in places of the account.” [excerpt]However, when taken in the context of the whole Bible, it becomes clear that the days are not poetic.
“Determining what is symbolic and what is actual needs divine illumination.” [excerpt]A good understanding of Hebrew semantics doesn't hurt either ;-)
“The on-going debate between evolution and creation, I think, is futile.” [excerpt]I disagree.
“Evolution cannot explain the creation of all life forms that exist …” [excerpt]You are correct about what Evolution cannot do, but that doesn't stop people from saying it can, and did.
“… and creation does not rule out the theory of evolution.” [excerpt]Evolution asserts that all life forms evolved from a single life form.
“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.” [excerpt]Correct.
“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.” [excerpt]An excellent suggestion.
Keep on making false conclusions. The only conclusion that can be scientifically drawn is that protein fragments large enough to be detected and have an immune response....can remain for a long time.......under VERY SPECIFIC conditions.
If its intra-species, it isn’t evolution.
You’re missing the the whole issue. God provided for the needs of his creation, including the necessary adaptability for the events that he foresaw. The evolutionists seek a Godless creation, and attempt to use God’s creation as evidence against itself. You have been fooled into aiding their deception.
[[I cannot for the life of me see what’s funny about that.]]
Here- lemme reveal why that was so funny- We’re NOT talking about ‘big words’ here- nothign particularly amusing about ‘big words’ however, the ‘express themselves’ was a dismissive hand wave dismissing the FACT that they intentionally misrepresent issues and did so in the examples explained in previous posts- that’s what’s so funny- ‘expressing themselves’ apparently entails intentionally misleading people
[[I think I must have intruded on a discussion you’re having with the voices in your head, for which I apologize.]]
It was pretty rude of you to interrupt
[[I’ve only been talking about that three-sentence paragraph complaining about the sentence with the big words.]]
Yup- you were- again using hte tactic of bringing non relevent arguments to the table that had nothign to do with hte issue being discussed- As explained several times now- it’s NOT the fact that they use ‘big words’ it’s HOW they use them, in this case- once again, intentionally bringing issues NOT relevent to the central issue being discussed and bringing ASSUMPTIONS to the table and denigrading the other party based on those ASSUMPTIONS- this issue has been explained several timesa now- as I said- if you wish to keep arguing a non issue- have fun arguing with yourself- WC’s statement was NOT about ‘big words’ but rather about HOW those ‘big words’ are intentionally MISUSED in order to MISGUIDE and direct attention away from the central issues-
“Expressing htemselves’ LOL
Perceptive insight, DBCJR. I think that's exactly what the text "the sun stood still" intends to suggest.
What do we humans really know about time? We perceive it in a certain way (a linear progression of moments irreversibly moving from past to future). But how can such a model of time account for eternity, infinity, universality? Simply put, it can't. And yet human beings, even of primitive times, have thought about such things and have knowledge of them, albeit imperfect knowledge. But compared to its standard, all human knowledge is "imperfect." That's as true today as it ever was.
You wrote: "The primitive mind wrote about this in terms they understood. I’m not sure that we could explain it much better today. It was a supernatural event that defies the rational mind."
Very well said, DBCJR. Thank you so much for writing!
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.