You did not listen to the show. What is there to talk about? :idunno:
Real Science Radio: Evidence Man Lived with Dinosaurs
- Thread starter Jefferson
- Start date
You did not listen to the show. What is there to talk about? :idunno:
Lordkalvan
New member
Obviously you haven't been paying attention. Obviously you have nothing to offer. If you have, present what you think is the best and strongest point from the show and let's discuss it. Alternatively, you could just run away.
Obviously you did not listen to the show.
Lordkalvan
New member
Yep, best to run away.
Lordkalvan
New member
Faster than a speeding plane.....
gcthomas
New member
Hey! Lighthouse neg-repped me for that 'Stripe running away' post.
Since is is plain at he IS running away from the questions, I suppose that a feeble neg rep is all the argument he has.
:mock: Lighthouse's feeble defence of Stripe
Lordkalvan
New member
Hmm, nearly a week since I suggested that I would be more than happy to discuss any evidence that anyone might care to present here that suggests dinosaurs and human beings co-existed, but so far nary a snippet.
Cue irrelevant one-liner from Stripe in 3...2...
Cue irrelevant one-liner from Stripe in 3...2...
Lordkalvan
New member
So that's more than two weeks now. That evidence must be really hard to come by.....
GuySmiley
Well-known member
Guess what stupid . . . this is the Bob Enyart Live forum. This thread has a title that happens to match the title of a show Bob Enyart did. The OP links to the show so you can listen to it.
Often in forums, the thread title, forum title, and OP go hand in hand to clue people in as to what the topic is. People who'd like to discuss the topic ought to familiarize themselves with the material presented.
You remind me of a 2 year old who needs to be spoonfed everything. Grow up and go look at what you've been presented with. Its time to end this two week temper tantrum you've been on. Mommy and Daddy arent going to feed you. Be a big boy and click on a link. If thats too hard, nobody is making you participate.
Lordkalvan
New member
If you're unable or unwilling to provide evidence in support of the OP, perhaps you should just say so instead of spitting insults?
Ah, so there is no expectation that anyone who speaks up in favour of the OP should have to do anything to support that OP? And there was me thinking this was a discussion forum.
So an offer to discuss any evidence that anyone can present to support the OP is a demand to be 'spoonfed'? Interesting. And there was I thinking it was an offer to discuss anything anyone wanted to present in support of the OP in - wait for it - a discussion forum.
I don't appear to have been presented with anything. I simply offered to discuss with anyone who wanted to present it any evidence that supported the OP. The resulting silence seems to speak for itself.
An observation concerning the inability of proponents of human/dinosaur co-existence to support the hypothesis is not a 'two week temper tantrum'. In fact, all it seems to have elicited so far is your own 'temper tantrum', which rather seems to suggest a nerve has been touched.
Or you could be a big boy and present some of the alleged evidence yourself and discuss it rather than stamp your foot about it.
Participate in what? The deafening silence from those here who think dinosaurs and humans lived together? Just think: instead of posting this diatribe, you could have usefully spent your time presenting some of the missing evidence instead. What a missed opportunity.
Last edited:
Lordkalvan
New member
And they sure seem to get fretful when challenged.
GuySmiley
Well-known member
Apparently you saw something you consider to be beyond ignorant. lordkalvan cant seem to find anything.
Lordkalvan
New member
This isn't my hypothesis; the expectation is that those who propose it should be the ones to 'find anything' to support it.
servantofChrist
New member
THIS *DESTROYS* THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!
THIS *DESTROYS* THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!
If I understand the rules correctly on TOL, we're not allowed to put in links in our posts. So let me just say that if you will type in, into your general search box, "dinosaur soft tissue found," a number of websites will come up.
There is also an article in the April 2006 issue of "Discover Magazine," titled: "Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery." Why is it "dangerous"? It's dangerous to the theory of evolution.
Several years ago, Dr. Mary Schweitzer was examining a part of a T-Rex leg bone under a microscope. And what she saw was so stunning, she had to stop and ask herself if she could believe what her eyes were showing her.
There was not only red blood cells showing up, but SOFT, STRETCHY TISSUE as well! In fact, there is a photo online showing the tissue in the stretched position!
And that's not all -- more and more dinosaur bones are being found having red blood cells and soft tissue in them. Soft tissue was also found in the horn of a Triceratops!
THE POINT BEING: THERE IS NO WAY THAT RED BLOOD CELLS AND SOFT TISSUE COULD STILL EXIST IN A DINOSAUR BONE THAT IS 65 MILLION YEARS OLD!
These incredible discoveries speak VOLUMES for a "young earth," and dinosaurs living thousands, not millions, of years ago.
A careful reading of Job 40:15 - 41:34 shows two dinosaurs being described. No hippopotamus has a tail that "sways like a cedar." And the following describes a creature much greater than a mere alligator: "When he rises up, the mighty are terrified... Nothing on earth is his equal-- a creature without fear. He looks down on all that are haughty; he is king over all that are proud." Speaking of "king"... I'm not implying that this creature is a T-Rex, but it is interesting that the word "rex," means "king."
Evolutionists have tried to explain away Dr. Schweitzer's findings -- but test after test, in very stringent laboratory conditions, have been done. And they have confirmed not only the initial findings of Dr. Schweitzer, but the presence of red blood cells and/or soft tissue discovered by other scientists, in other dinosaurs, as well... including a duck-billed dinosaur, which supposedly lived 80 million yrs ago, longer ago than even T-Rex.
THIS *DESTROYS* THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!
If I understand the rules correctly on TOL, we're not allowed to put in links in our posts. So let me just say that if you will type in, into your general search box, "dinosaur soft tissue found," a number of websites will come up.
There is also an article in the April 2006 issue of "Discover Magazine," titled: "Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery." Why is it "dangerous"? It's dangerous to the theory of evolution.
Several years ago, Dr. Mary Schweitzer was examining a part of a T-Rex leg bone under a microscope. And what she saw was so stunning, she had to stop and ask herself if she could believe what her eyes were showing her.
There was not only red blood cells showing up, but SOFT, STRETCHY TISSUE as well! In fact, there is a photo online showing the tissue in the stretched position!
And that's not all -- more and more dinosaur bones are being found having red blood cells and soft tissue in them. Soft tissue was also found in the horn of a Triceratops!
THE POINT BEING: THERE IS NO WAY THAT RED BLOOD CELLS AND SOFT TISSUE COULD STILL EXIST IN A DINOSAUR BONE THAT IS 65 MILLION YEARS OLD!
These incredible discoveries speak VOLUMES for a "young earth," and dinosaurs living thousands, not millions, of years ago.
A careful reading of Job 40:15 - 41:34 shows two dinosaurs being described. No hippopotamus has a tail that "sways like a cedar." And the following describes a creature much greater than a mere alligator: "When he rises up, the mighty are terrified... Nothing on earth is his equal-- a creature without fear. He looks down on all that are haughty; he is king over all that are proud." Speaking of "king"... I'm not implying that this creature is a T-Rex, but it is interesting that the word "rex," means "king."
Evolutionists have tried to explain away Dr. Schweitzer's findings -- but test after test, in very stringent laboratory conditions, have been done. And they have confirmed not only the initial findings of Dr. Schweitzer, but the presence of red blood cells and/or soft tissue discovered by other scientists, in other dinosaurs, as well... including a duck-billed dinosaur, which supposedly lived 80 million yrs ago, longer ago than even T-Rex.
Lordkalvan
New member
Thanks for your info and engaging in a discussion, soC. I will look at this in depth as soon as I can and offer my comments.
Have you read Schweitzer's original T. rex paper?
You misunderstand the rules.
Don't redirect people to another forum to discuss an issue, and don't simply drop links without engaging in a discussion on the topic.
Lordkalvan
New member
And yet Schweitzer herself doesn't think so, remarking that 'these findings will give us greater insight into the processes of evolutionary change.'
Source: http://news.ncsu.edu/releases/tpschweitzer-bone/
It is important to remember that the material under examination was not 'pure', but had already been treated in a weak acid solution capable of dissolving minerals and the material exposed still appears to have been subject to a fossilisation process. According to Dr Matthew Collins, a researcher in ancient bio-molecules at York university:
'This may not be fossilisation as we know it, of large macrostructures, but fossilisation at a molecular level.
'My suspicion is this process has led to the reaction of more resistant molecules with the normal proteins and carbohydrates which make up these cellular structures, and replaced them, so that we have a very tough, resistant, very lipid-rich material - a polymer that would be very difficult to break down and characterise, but which has preserved the structure.'
Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4379577.stm
Well, apart from the fact that these were not 'fresh' red blood cells and soft tissue that was found inside what was fossilised bone, the fact that the material was recovered from rocks reliably dated by other methods to 68 million years old rather suggests that under the right circumstances it can. Fossilisation is itself a rare event dependent on a variety of related factors to occur, so simply declaring that 'there is no way' that fossilisation of the material Schweitzer recovered could occur is simply to rush to judgement in the face of considering any evidence that suggests the contrary is indeed in the case.
Actually, they do no such thing. They certainly indicate that there are aspects of the fossilisation process that are poorly understood, but that does not axiomatically mean that dinosaurs must have lived 'thousands, not millions, of years ago.' You cannot dismiss all the evidence that indicates otherwise simply on the basis of an assumption that naturalistic processes could not possibly preserve for millions of years the material Schweitzer discovered.
I believe this description is understood as a metaphor by some scholars:
'Scholars also note that the Hebrew term usually translated "tail" here can, and sometimes did, refer euphemistically to the genitalia of a male elephant or hippo; each have a penis that when erect, extends several feet in length. Those favoring this view note that the term for "move" can also mean "extend," that the preceding verse describes strength being in the loins, and the verse that follows describes "stones wrapped in sinew," which arguably refers to the animal's testicles. In some translations it is even rendered that way, [3, 3b] although many modern translations use the term "thighs" instead of "stones."'
Source: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/behemoth.htm
Or the description is figurative or even mythical. Centaurs, hydra, harpies and other strange creatures are extensively referenced in classical literature, but this does not make them actually existing animals. Also, 'behemoth' is used in a number of contexts in the Bible, not all of which square with the usage here.
I think you're wise to avoid implying any such thing as the two references are clearly unrelated.
Please show 'evolutionists' trying 'to explain away Dr Schweitzer's findings'. What exactly are they supposed to be trying 'to explain away' and why?
Which further suggests that not everything about the fossilisation process is fully understood. This does not immediately mean that dinosaurs lived thousands of years ago and co-existed with human beings.
Last edited: