Posted on 05/12/2009 7:26:20 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Hadrosaur Soft Tissues Another Blow to Long-Ages Myth
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*
Recently-discovered dinosaur soft tissues, and even blood cells, represent some of the biggest hurdles for long-age evolutionary belief. Soft tissue was found in the femur of a large Tyrannosaurus rex about a decade ago, and more was discovered in another T. rex a few years later. And recently, soft tissues with proteins were found in a hadrosaur from Montana...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
I would go so far as to say they all are. Science builds on past discoveries.
The astute student of science will also note that you can pick any arbitrary date and person/event in the last 500 years and argue that practically all advances we enjoy today are based on work done before that event or person came along.
the communist manifesto was published a decade before the origin of the species.
pre-1900 engineering was steam-power, all of it big and clunky. and the rudiments of germ theory were only just beginning. penicillin wasn’t discovered until world war two.
i’m sorry pal, but i’m quite happy that medicine and engineering have advanced past the early twentieth century.
you’re doing a disservice to your arguments against ‘darwinism’ by railing against everything that’s been accomplished in science since his time.
Will you forever remain this helpless?
1. Radiometrics is liberalism.
2. Debate will be expressed in the form of loaded questions.
What else do we have?
Will you forever remain this helpless?
1. Radiometrics is liberalism.
2. Debate will be expressed in the form of repetitive loaded questions.
Next?
You’ve already been corrected once, the question isn’t radiometrics, rather “settled science”, “the debate is over”...blah blah blah.
The question at hand is the validity of making assumptions about the age of the Earth, based on assumptions about the age of this piece of tissue, from only field observations.
i’m sorry pal, but i’m quite happy that medicine and engineering have advanced past the early twentieth century.
Yes science advanced despite the cult of Darwinism, which wasn’t the point.
It could be something that hasn’t run off the rails with everything from global warming to abortion on demand to everything else liberals have destroyed in science.
Science flourishes when pursued by Godly people, when they’re not so Godly, decide to reject Him, well, we get Dr. Mengele.
Sorry pal but Darwin and his...errrrr...”results” aren’t exactly a shining example of virtue here.
And that somehow the Pope doesn't think God is responsible for all that we know or ever will know, or telling little girl's when they ask someone about why God made her with two sets of teeth that "He (God)has no place in His own creation", or that evolution IS His intelligent design, or...in effect allmendream fools no one but himself.
The question at hand is the validity of making assumptions about the age of the Earth, based on assumptions about the age of this piece of tissue, from only field observations.
Perhaps in a world of no liberals that shut down all debate with their endless projections and silly sabotage it would be, but clearly this is not the case, for that matter on pretty much ANY of these threads.
But this is a good place to start:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2251309/posts?q=1&;page=218
Are you bringing a disgreement from another thread, on another subject in to this one?
You can determine that for yourself as every thread on FR IS a disagreement, including this one.
You were saying something about radiometric dating, #218 provides some insight.
Don't jump threads - If you get involved in an argument in one thread, it's considered poor manners to restart the previous argument in the middle of an unrelated thread.
You were saying something about radiometric dating, #218 provides some insight.
I was saying something about radiometric dating because I was referred to an article about it in the thread, and because it's relevant to the content of the article, since that is the methology that's being challenged.
You spew liberal nonsense on a conservative website and then have the gall to pretend to have authority over a single soul to tell them what is or isn’t acceptable and what they should or shouldn’t do?
That’s a tad on the surreal side there fella! :)
I wasn’t arguing about radiometric dating on the other thread, I merely pointed out it’s not settled science. You blew that off, so in an attempt to get you to pay closer attention, I showed you post #218 on the other thread, that others understand it’s not settled science besides me.
Reading is still fundamental. But I can’t make you read.
“I was saying something about radiometric dating because I was referred to an article about it in the thread, and because it’s relevant to the content of the article, since that is the methology that’s being challenged.”
And ...
AGAIN...
I showed you it’s not settled science. It’s not settled science on this thread, not on another thread, not on FR period, and most certainly not scientifically in general.
Typically though, you want to run off the rails over decorum.
Again.
In short, you’re a train wreck.
Anything but the argument at hand because you know you don’t have one.
Radiometric dating is not “settled science”, and scientists themselves are still debating about it’s validity, so unlike algore science, “the debate isn’t over”.
So don’t keep asking the same failed questions, thread after thread after thread that have been adequately answered and knowingly ask THE SAME FAILED question AGAIN, that everyone knows you already know the answer to and expect a free pass.
Of course the debate isn't over. Some of it was in progress when you showed up to inject yourself into the middle of it and shut it down.
Noooo-sir-project-alot. That happened along 156-159.
Ah. So disagreeing with anything in the article is "shutting down the debate". Apparently the "debate" is supposed to consist of everyone agreeing with it.
Well, that is the way it seems to be with evolutionism, global warming, and HIV. - When a solid body of scientific evidence has refuted them, those that worship them scream "anti-science," even though no legitimate science has ever supported any of them.
Sauce for goose, sauce for gander?
Sauce for goose, sauce for gander?
If that's the choice, what do you have to offer they don't other than a different flavor of poison?
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.