Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Real Science Friday & Jack Horner

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Real Science Friday & Jack Horner

    Real Science Friday & Jack Horner

    This is the show from Friday August 14th, 2009.

    BEST QUOTE OF THE SHOW:
    Charles Darwin, J. B. S. Haldane - they point out if you have something in a living organism that can't add benefit step-by-step then it could not have evolved. And we now know that there are thousands of things like that. Magnets and wheels and slings. Thousands of things.
    SUMMARY:

    * Post-show Note: Today Bob Enyart appeared on the Fox 31 Good Day Colorado TV program to talk about news topics with comedian Sheryl Underwood and local media personalities. The transcript is below.]

    * RSF & Creation Magazine: Listen in as RSF co-hosts Bob Enyart and Fred Williams enjoy the Summer 2009 Creation magazine!

    - Motors in 'Simple' Cells Synchronized! Yes, according to the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, not only do 'simple' cells have outboard motor-like flagella but it turns out, they are coordinated so that they can pull in one direction, switch into reverse, and then pull forward again! God is amazing!

    - Atheist and Fraud Perpetrator Ernst Haeckel: created the scam drawings of a fetus to look like a fish and a reptile to support his utterly discredited "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" and according to the New York Times, March 8, 1907, he was later honored as the founder of the "Association for the Propagation of Ethical Atheism." Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

    - Hear Bob Enyart & Jack Horner: taking Fred's suggestion the co-hosts aired Bob's fascinating phone conversation with Jack Horner, who is the real-life person whom the Jurassic Park scientist is modeled after, and sure enough, Jack is the scientist who excavated the soft-tissue T-Rex! Bob offered Jack Horner $23,000 (see the grant offer itself on the Walt Brown Week CD) to Carbon 14 date the specimen. Jack said that he would speak to Mary Schweitzer, but he ultimately turned down the offer.

    - And regarding Jack's latest chicken experiment:

    Little Jack Horner,
    Trapped in a corner,
    Breaking an egg as he sings;
    He put in a tail,
    But the 'xperiment failed,
    'cause ya get bad legs before ya get wings.
    Actually, the famed Montana State University paleontologist Jack Horner still believes the fraud-perpetrating ethical atheist Haeckel and so he tried to assist a developing chick to grow a dinosaur-like tail. Pending: Jack's opinion upon whether a creature evolving flight would end up with very bad legs long before it had good wings?

    * Any New Listener or Donor to BEL: You can help us jumpstart our vital September telethon! If you have never given before to Bob Enyart Live, if you donate this month, or sign up for one of our DVD or Bible Study monthly subscriptions, or purchase anything as a first-timer to BEL, we will apply the amount of your purchase, or your donation or your subscription (which we will multiply times ten!) to help jumpstart our September telethon to raise $40,000 to keep BEL on the Internet at KGOV.com for another year!

    Today’s Resource: If you want to give a copy of Bob's great debate, Does God Exist? to an atheist, you might want to read it first, but then you'll have a hard time parting with it! And have you seen the Science Department at our KGOV Store? Check out Guillermo Gonzalez’ Privileged Planet (clip), Illustra Media’s Unlocking the Mystery of Life (clip)! You can consider our BEL Science Pack; Bob’s Age of the Earth Debate; Walt Brown’s In the Beginning and Bob’s interviews with this great scientist in Walt Brown Week; the superb kids' radio programming, Jonathan Park: The Adventure Begins! Remember, unlike virtually any other book, audio or video publisher, BEL offers a money-back guarantee if not satisfied! However, we're usually perfectly satisfied with your money Actually, if YOU are not satisfied, you can return any particular BEL resource within 90 days for a full refund! And finally, free for an unbeliever who requests it, Bob Enyart's Mount Moriah DVD examines the powerful historic and geographic evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ![/QUOTE]

    * TRANSCRIPT of Bob Enyart on Colorado's Fox Affiliate: Today Bob Enyart appeared on the Fox 31 Good Day Colorado TV program. Here is the segment transcript from Ross Mountain Public Relations.

    Good Day Colorado with Shaul Turner: Friday, August 14, 2009.
    Guests: Bob Enyart, KBPI's Uncle Nasty, Comedian Sheryl Underwood
    Shaul Turner: Welcome back to Good Day Colorado! I'm Shaul Turner. Everyone has a strong opinion about something. Each week we invite interesting people to come on the show and lay it on the line, about how they really feel about the stories making news. We call it the Fox Box, so welcome, our regular, Uncle Nasty from 106.7 FM KBPI "Rocking the Rockies" week days 3 to 8. Actress and comedian Sheryl Underwood, on stage at the Improv this weekend, welcome back Sheryl and welcome, Bob Enyart, Conservative Activist featured on Fox news channel and many other venues also, host of Bob Enyart Live on KGOV radio.
    Lets kick it off on topic one. Everybody is talking about Michael Vick this morning. Michael Vick gets a new deal with the Philadelphia Eagles, $6.8 million over 2 years after getting out of prison, in there for running a brutal dog fighting ring. Does he deserve another chance to make millions as a football celebrity?
    Bob Enyart: Of course he deserves it, I mean dogs, I love animals Shaul you know that, they're delicious. Animals don't have rights other than the right to be hunted, killed and cooked and eaten. Those are the rights animals have. It's wrong to be cruel to an animal, but these were dogs and of course his life should go on.
    Shaul: Ok PETA, send your emails to Bob!
    Uncle Nasty: You know I think he paid his dues. He served his time. He deserves a second chance. You know that there are a lot of elements in peoples' lives that make them do things and sometimes they do things they know are wrong and I believe he knows what he did was wrong and I think he is doing the right steps, the right things to correct that and I wish him all the luck.
    Shaul: Okay, but Sheryl, you're sitting here with this look on your face like...
    Sheryl Underwood: Did he [Bob] just say a dog was delicious?
    Bob: I love animals, they are delicious.
    Sheryl: Oh, okay, oh I'm sorry.
    Bob: What he did was wrong. But it's not like he killed an unborn child, he was cruel to dogs, so his life should go on.
    Nasty: There are people in the NFL that have killed human beings that still get to play.
    Bob: That's a great point.
    Nasty: Stallworth [of the Cleveland Browns who killed a pedestrian while driving drunk] is being suspended for a year and he gets to come back next year.
    Bob: And O. J. Simpson is still in the NFL Hall of Fame.
    Sheryl: See ya got to bring up O. J. Here they go! Here they go! Here they go America! They have got to bring up O. J.
    Bob: Well, he's a murderer.
    Shaul: Okay, keeping on Michael Vick. What do you think, looking ahead at this, is it okay if he's in with the Eagles?
    Sheryl: Here is my question. How does that affect their current quarterback Donovan McNabb?
    Nasty: He's gonna play better, that's for sure.
    Shaul: Well, Donovan McNabb, he's already bringing up this point: that if they go to the super bowl or even win a few games, nobody is going to remember anything about hanging dogs, shooting them with handguns, electrocuting them, drowning them. Do you think that is going to happen should they win the super bowl?
    Bob: Well, it shouldn't happen, because animals don't have rights, but we have an obligation to be kind to them and not to mistreat them. So that shouldn't happen, Shaul.
    Shaul: Alright. Another thing that is really heated this week, the health care debate. It rages on with a town hall meeting in Fort Collins, like those across the nation. Outrageous crowds battle it out over whether the government should overhaul health care with a plan that would help everyone get the care they need. But these rumors are out that Sarah Palin's enforcing on her Facebook page that there would be death panels deciding who lives or dies. All of these wild stories, they're not true. [BE: of course this is true; and now the Democrats say they have removed the 'death panels' section of their House Bill.] What do you think Sheryl? How should we reform health care?
    Sheryl: Well, the first thing, it's a good start to even have a discussion. But I think the two white people on the show [Bob Enyart and KBPI's Uncle Nasty], you all don't need to talk to white people because you all are embarrassing other white people acting crazy.
    Bob: What?
    [Bob Enyart post-show note: reading this transcript in black and white, pun intended, makes Sheryl's comments seem strongly racist. In reality, she was just joking with her Showtime comedy routine material designed to get a reaction from people. While Bob does not believe that Sheryl is racist, her promotion of sexually immorality and support for the killing of innocent unborn children is enough to destroy ten thousand lives by her influence alone.]
    Sheryl: In this discussion, you all are asking crazy questions. See black people ask good questions. White people ask crazy questions. Like, I'm out in nature with a bear, having sex with a bear, but then the bear doesn't want to have sex with me, is the bear covered [by Obama's health care plan]? Black people ask good questions in the health care debate. We ask good questions. Like, if I think I got glaucoma, is my weed [marijuana] covered?
    Nasty: We have got to let her get in the pot joke. You know, there should be a [health care] tax credit. [BE: Nasty is a libertarian, which is an immoral conservative.] I think that is where we should go. I think that from co-pays to premiums, you should be able to write that off, there should be an $8,000 to $10,000 tax credit allowed for every American and that would encourage people to purchase health insurance.
    Bob: The problem with government health care is that it allows you to steal from your neighbor. And the more the government takes care of us, the less that parents take care of their own kids; parents leave; families fall apart.
    Nasty: That is not what I am saying. [And of course he was right; he had talked about tax credits. Bob was getting back to Obama's health care plan.]
    Bob: But that is what happens.
    Nasty: That is not what I'm saying. You should be able to write off your insurance premiums and your co-pays.
    Bob: So, not a government health care program?
    Nasty: No!
    Bob: Very good, Uncle Nasty.
    Sheryl: You already got a government health care program and you already got a situation where you pay for other people.
    Bob: Let's get rid of it.
    Sheryl: So, to me the fact that they are trying to do something and the fact that this man is trying to do something and now he is being criticized?
    Bob: Obama is messed up isn't' he?
    Sheryl: No he's not.
    Shaul: Alright, well I tell you what, because of time, we were talking earlier this week about this woman, pregnant with her seventh child [whose husband has left her]. Now, she probably didn't have adequate health care because she needs some money. She is pregnant with her seventh child, but she said you can go on eBay, and get the naming rights for the baby and pay her, the bidding went up into the thousands. So that was her health care plan.
    Bob: Well of course her husband left her, because husbands are not needed any longer. The government will pay the rent pay, for food stamps, pay for health care. So of course he left. But she is auctioning off the baby's name. But at least she isn't auctioning off the baby's abortion. Highest bidder gets to decide if the baby lives or dies. That would be legal in Obama's health care plan.
    Nasty: You had to shove that in there, didn't you Pastor Bob. [BE: Of course.]
    Sheryl: That is nowhere in the health care plan!
    Nasty: That you could auction off the right to abort a baby? What we need to do...
    Bob: Like Michael Vick. You would go to jail for what he did to a dog. [The point being, Planned Parenthood and Boulder Colorado's late-term abortionist Warren Hearn hack children to death. If you did that to an unborn puppy, or if you destroyed an eagle egg, you'd go to jail.]
    Nasty: Tax breaks to people who don't have kids. That is where the tax breaks need to start. [BE: No wonder they call him Uncle Nasty. That's downright hostile toward children.]
    Sheryl: I have never been on a show where the black person is the only sane person on the show.
    Shaul: Alright, but we are talking a lot about kids. We have to move to the next story. A Spanish company just put a new doll on the market. It's the breast feeding baby doll; comes with this vest that a little girl under ten can put on with two sensors in front where the baby "feeds," and then cries if he hasn't had enough. Then you can burp it. Is this an inappropriate deal, do you want to see a little girl like this at a playground or a mall Sheryl?
    Sheryl: Let me go first. First of all it is inappropriate because it is a baby. Now if it was a grown man that looked like George Clooney? I'll buy that.
    Shaul: The FCC is calling. [Federal Communication Commission censorship joke.]
    Bob: Sheryl, you know the African proverb, "It takes a village to raise a child?" That's from Obama's home town. That is where it comes from. And liberals, they talk about being concerned about kids, but they don't. They sexualize children.
    Sheryl: How does this fit in with a Spanish company making a baby doll that breast feeds?
    Bob: I'm talking about liberals. They say they care about kids, but they will sexualize children.
    Shaul: Okay, well let's talk about this. Nasty has got the last word.
    Nasty: All I know is that it hurt when I tried it.
    Shaul: Alright, that is going to wrap it up for the Fox Box this Friday, Sheryl Underwear. Underwood, not Underwear, at the Improv this Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Uncle Nasty from KBPI and Pastor Bob Enyart from KGOV.
    Last edited by Bob Enyart; October 8th, 2009, 07:46 PM. Reason: bad legs
    WARNING: Graphic video here.

  • #2
    Did she actually say abortion wouldn't be covered under Obama's health care plan?
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #3
      I see Bob's still the shining paragon of informed argument and intelligent comedy we all know and love.

      The way he makes that one about animals being delicious every single time there's a discussion about animals is brilliant. It's like those drunk people at parties who'll tell you a joke again and again until you force a laugh, just to make them go away.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Jefferson View Post
        Pending: Jack's opinion upon whether a creature evolving flight would end up with very bad legs long before it had good wings?
        Two things to consider: T-Rex forelimbs and ostrich wings.

        Comment


        • #5
          Bob offered Jack Horner $23,000 (see the grant offer itself on the Walt Brown Week CD) to Carbon 14 date the specimen. Jack said that he would speak to Mary Schweitzer, but he ultimately turned down the offer.
          I guess Bob still doesn't know that C14 dating only works for samples around 60,000 years or less. (Eventually you end up with NO C14 to measure) With dinosaurs being measured in the range of hundreds millions of years, C-14 dating is pretty well useless. I doubt Horner would want to waste his precious sample of organic material on a pointless test.
          “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



          - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
            I guess Bob still doesn't know that C14 dating only works for samples around 60,000 years or less. (Eventually you end up with NO C14 to measure) With dinosaurs being measured in the range of hundreds millions of years, C-14 dating is pretty well useless. I doubt Horner would want to waste his precious sample of organic material on a pointless test.
            In the call, he seemed more reluctant to dignify a creationist request. Personally, although I think creationism would have had a hard time getting a scientific look-in regardless, Phillip Johnson's Wedge Strategy did creationist organizations a lot of further harm, because I think most scientists are aware of it and therefore treat any approach from creationist organizations with extreme suspicion.

            It's just another kick in the pants to creationist organizations to actually start doing their own research instead of largely rehashing other people's discoveries in pseudo-scientific papers and endlessly cranking out the creationist equivalent of popsci books.

            Every year, I wait for a modern YEC equivalent of On The Origin of the Species instead of baraminology fails and sniping from the sidelines at real science. When will we see the creationist equivalent of the tree (or bush) of life - why is this so difficult if the YEC paradigm is, as its avocates say, so apparent?

            Jefferson, can you link to the story that says Jack Horner has failed in his experiment to create a chicken with a saurian-like tail? You guys are usually quite good at crosslinking, and I wanted to read this for myself as I have been quite interested in the chicken embryology experiments carried out so far. I hadn't heard that Horner had given up on this research (which seems to be what is implied).

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
              I guess Bob still doesn't know that C14 dating only works for samples around 60,000 years or less. (Eventually you end up with NO C14 to measure) With dinosaurs being measured in the range of hundreds millions of years, C-14 dating is pretty well useless. I doubt Horner would want to waste his precious sample of organic material on a pointless test.
              That was Bob's point. Ignorant much?
              sigpic

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
                That was Bob's point. Ignorant much?
                So you'd either find tons of C14, in which case its recent contamination, but even recent contamination might not exclude the presence of original protein alongside it. The original report was talking about femptogram quantities of original t-rex collagen mixed with other things - which were presumed ancient.
                And if it did turn out with little to no C14 well it's older than 60,000 years and that STILL doesn't tell you its not contamination that's somewhat older but not as old as believed.

                So, ultimately the reward from testing is essentially nonexistent (even with the grant offer).

                There's also another research group out there claiming the "t-rex collagen" is just bacterial slime.

                http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0002808

                I doubt Horner's group would be wanting to give them any more ammunition, especially given the above limitations and problems with doing the test in the first place. Add on involving a creationist and it becomes a resoundingly bad idea.

                The entire point being if Bob wants to poke at "evolutionary science", with a grant this particular study isn't a good target.
                “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                Comment


                • #9
                  How would you like your T-rex? Soft-shell or...

                  Originally posted by Flipper View Post
                  Two things to consider: T-Rex forelimbs and ostrich wings.
                  Hello Flipper! Hey, is that regular T-Rex limbs, or soft-tissue limbs?

                  Just wonderin'

                  -Bob Enyart
                  KGOV.com
                  The Bob Enyart Live talk show airs at KGOV.com weekdays at 5 pm E.T. Also, same time, same station, check out Theology Thursday (.com) and on Fridays, Real Science Radio (.com) a.k.a. rsr.org. All shows are available 24/7 and you can call us at at 1-800-8Enyart.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Bob Enyart View Post
                    Hello Flipper! Hey, is that regular T-Rex limbs, or soft-tissue limbs?

                    Just wonderin'

                    -Bob Enyart
                    KGOV.com
                    I don't know - if young earth creationism was true, why don't we find dinosaur bodies in the same states of preservation as, say, mammoths? Why aren't the LaBrea tar pits filled with dino bones as well as with Cenozoic mammals? Why don't the peat bogs of Siberia record our dino past?

                    I suggest that scientists just assumed that proteins wouldn't survive for tens of millions of years. In the case of the toughest proteins such as collagen, it turns out that, in certain unusual conditions, that assumption was wrong.

                    The chains, however, were badly degraded which is why there was until quite recently, some serious contesting of the results.

                    A third find of soft tissue in a Hadrosaur seems to confirm the validity of the Montanan results and nicely confirms an evolutionary prediction:

                    The B. canadensis collagen sequence data were compared to a database of collagen sequence data from 21 species of living animals and sequences from two other fossils, mastodon and T. rex. The results placed B. canadensis on the same family-tree branch with T. rex, in the same group as chicken and ostrich, and more distantly, to alligator and lizard.
                    Just what YEC would predict, eh Bob? I remember how AIG have always insisted that dinosaurs and birds are the same "kind" (however that's being defined this week).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                      So you'd either find tons of C14, in which case its recent contamination, but even recent contamination might not exclude the presence of original protein alongside it. The original report was talking about femptogram quantities of original t-rex collagen mixed with other things - which were presumed ancient.
                      And if it did turn out with little to no C14 well it's older than 60,000 years and that STILL doesn't tell you its not contamination that's somewhat older but not as old as believed.

                      So, ultimately the reward from testing is essentially nonexistent (even with the grant offer).

                      There's also another research group out there claiming the "t-rex collagen" is just bacterial slime.

                      http://www.plosone.org/article/info:...l.pone.0002808

                      I doubt Horner's group would be wanting to give them any more ammunition, especially given the above limitations and problems with doing the test in the first place. Add on involving a creationist and it becomes a resoundingly bad idea.

                      The entire point being if Bob wants to poke at "evolutionary science", with a grant this particular study isn't a good target.
                      Can you prove it's recent contamination? Can you prove that it isn't original, therefore showing the T-Rex to not be as old as previously thought?
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Lighthouse View Post
                        Can you prove it's recent contamination?
                        You could prove the ORGANIC material was recent contamination or at least contaminatED.

                        Can you prove that it isn't original, therefore showing the T-Rex to not be as old as previously thought?
                        Even if you proved the organic material was young, that wouldn't necessarily have anything to say about the fossil itself. It could just be modern bacteria growing on an old fossil. Its not like bacteria don't grow on rocks normally. If there were cracks in the fossil bone then bacteria could get in. Of course its possible that some of the old protein might STILL remain if it was in relatively protected parts of the fossil.

                        The real test, I think, is how long and what quality of sequence could you get from your test. It sounds like the new study Flipper linked is much better done than the original t-rex one.
                        “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                        - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                          I guess Bob still doesn't know that C14 dating only works for samples around 60,000 years or less. (Eventually you end up with NO C14 to measure) With dinosaurs being measured in the range of hundreds millions of years, C-14 dating is pretty well useless. I doubt Horner would want to waste his precious sample of organic material on a pointless test.
                          Rep for general stupidity. Especially since you thought you were clever. That was the point, as LH pointed out.

                          Do it, then when it comes back outside limits, the debate is over. But he won't. Because he know it will come back under 10,000 years.
                          Jesus saves completely. http://www.climatedepot.com/ http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/

                          Titus 1

                          For there are many insubordinate, both idle talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped

                          Ephesians 5

                          11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to speak of those things which are done by them in secret

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Alate_One View Post
                            You could prove the ORGANIC material was recent contamination or at least contaminatED.
                            How?

                            Even if you proved the organic material was young, that wouldn't necessarily have anything to say about the fossil itself. It could just be modern bacteria growing on an old fossil. Its not like bacteria don't grow on rocks normally. If there were cracks in the fossil bone then bacteria could get in. Of course its possible that some of the old protein might STILL remain if it was in relatively protected parts of the fossil.
                            They already concluded the soft tissue was from the dinosaur that was fossilized, otherwise.

                            The real test, I think, is how long and what quality of sequence could you get from your test. It sounds like the new study Flipper linked is much better done than the original t-rex one.
                            So, why did the blood vessels not fossilize?
                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Nick M View Post
                              Rep for general stupidity. Especially since you thought you were clever. That was the point, as LH pointed out.

                              Do it, then when it comes back outside limits, the debate is over. But he won't. Because he know it will come back under 10,000 years.
                              As I explained in my later post it wouldn't prove the age of the rest of the fossil even IF the organic material came back modern. But sure, kudos for the vindictive neg rep . . . . in any case carbon dating is rarely used on such old samples.

                              The hadrosaur fossil looks like a much better bet. If you're wanting someone to carbon date organic material - there's a lot more than femptograms in that case. However, I think there are better challenges that could be come up with.

                              What's even dumber about this is I've not known young earth creationists to actually trust carbon dates anyway since they regularly come back with dates over 10,000 years. So please, spare me your indignation.
                              “We do not believe in God because we need to explain this or that feature of the world. That is what science is for. We believe in God because we see something deeper in the world, something that transcends the scientific explanations.” - Karl Giberson Ph.D.



                              - The science and faith of theistic evolution explained.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X