T-Rex SOFT TISSUE! YESsss!

[Servo]

how does evolution disprove intelligent desighn?

It doesn't.

But, if God created us using evolution, then there would be evidence of that. Every species would have evidence of changing from one species to the next; they would be a fossil record of that. God could have created us using evolution, but He didn't.

The Biblical account of what happened is correct and the evidence for that is all around us. Fossil records, strata layers, fossilized sea create imbedded into mountain sides, etc.

 

[heartless_Adam]

It doesn't.

But, if God created us using evolution, then there would be evidence of that. Every species would have evidence of changing from one species to the next; they would be a fossil record of that. God could have created us using evolution, but He didn't.

The Biblical account of what happened is correct and the evidence for that is all around us. Fossil records, strata layers, fossilized sea create imbedded into mountain sides, etc.

How do you mean? ther's pleanty of evidence for evolution.Which species doesnt have an account of evolution?

How do you know that evolution isnt just another aspect of revelation?

And the evolutionary account of history includes a time when earth was ocean, or all fire and volcanoes etc? Im not really seeing your point here. can you explain sorry?

 

[Servo]

How do you mean? ther's pleanty of evidence for evolution.Which species doesnt have an account of evolution?

None of them do. No fossil record exists.

How do you know that evolution isnt just another aspect of revelation?

And the evolutionary account of history includes a time when earth was ocean, or all fire and volcanoes etc? Im not really seeing your point here. can you explain sorry?

Because there is no evidence for that. All evidence points to a young earth created by intelligent design.

 

[eisenreich]

Because there is no evidence for that. All evidence points to a young earth created by intelligent design.

You do realize that all of the leading advocates of intelligent design hold that the earth is not young, but billions of years old, right?

 

[bob b]

You do realize that all of the leading advocates of intelligent design hold that the earth is not young, but billions of years old, right?

Nobody's perfect.

 

[heartless_Adam]

None of them do. No fossil record exists.


Because there is no evidence for that. All evidence points to a young earth created by intelligent design.

for example? what are you talking about? theres pleanty of fossil evidence. all what evidence?

 

[aharvey]

None of them do. No fossil record exists.

What do you mean by this? That there are no fossils? This is a nonsensical statement.

Because there is no evidence for that. All evidence points to a young earth created by intelligent design.

Ah, some things never change, at least for those who oppose evolution (I guess it makes sense that opponents of evolution would be resistant to change!). Here, Shimei, you forgot to mention that the reason that there is no evidence for evolution and all evidence for YEC/ID is simply because of the way you define "evidence": any information, and only information, that supports your religious beliefs. Thus, your assertions are, by your definition, correct and unassailable.

Alas, that's the only way one could so completely sweep away the millions of pages of published research by vast numbers of scientists in many different disciplines. I'm talking primary literature here, by the way, the stuff the scientists actually publish, not the media reporting nor the religious right's distorting thereof.

Ah well, off to a research conference. It'll be a nuisance, with all the new delays and restrictions on air travel created by the actions of some religious extremists who are so rock-headedly certain of their own beliefs. Still, I'm looking forward to going. People there will be talking about experiments they themselves actually did. You should check it out sometime. It is hard to exaggerate the difference between communicating with the players themselves as opposed to folks who cherrypick and distort other people's efforts for their own agenda.

 

[fool]

fine. you provide the framework, research and evidence for a major theory for human origins other than those provided by evolutionary theory or the bible and the point is yours.

Hinduism.
The universe is continualy created, preserved, and destroyed by a three headed God thingy.
I think they believe the current universe has some 65 billion years on it's odometer since the last overhall.
There ya go, not the Bible and not Evolution and it's a "major theory".
Thanks for the point (I'lll keep it in a jar on my mantle)

 

[bob b]

When one ignores all the baloney on this thread the fact remains that unmineralized, labile bone marrow was found in the femur of a TRex that had been dated by evolutionists as being 65 million years old because of the strata it was found in (fossils can not be dated directly). Previous to this find it was thought that this could not happen, which is why it was such a "surprise"

Dude thinks that perhaps the find was "only" 10-15 million years old. But that would shatter the myth that fossils can be dated accurately by what strata they are found in and throw doubt on the entire "house of cards" built up over the years by what Harvey calls the thousands of peer-reviewed articles in professional journals.

This is of course why creationists are so vigorously attacked for suggesting the obvious: perhaps the bones are not as old as had been thought.

Actually Darwinism is slowly disintegrating before everyone's very eyes. It is just so slow that it can't be seen (just like evolution).

I wish it would hurry up. I want to gloat while I am still here on Earth.

 

[Yorzhik]

They should find a sample they can carbon date. I know they wouldn't think of that since the tissue is so old, but it ought be done just to prove that a sample like that couldn't possibly have any carbon-14 in it.

 

[Yorzhik]

Oh, and welcome back Stratnerd and aharvey.

 

[bob b]

They should find a sample they can carbon date. I know they wouldn't think of that since the tissue is so old, but it ought be done just to prove that a sample like that couldn't possibly have any carbon-14 in it.

Both coal and, get this, diamonds have been C-14 dated and found to have C-14 still there. It makes no difference, they must be millions of years old and that's a "fact".

 

[Johnny]

When one ignores all the baloney on this thread the fact remains that unmineralized, labile bone marrow was found in the femur of a TRex that had been dated by evolutionists as being 65 million years old because of the strata it was found in (fossils can not be dated directly). Previous to this find it was thought that this could not happen, which is why it was such a "surprise"

(a) no one is sure if it's the original material [other studies of similar finds show that it appears to be a molecular fossilization], except of course the bob's. It very well could be, but we don't know.
(b) labile when it was soaked in water
(c) It was not thought to be impossible, just extremely rare. There had been previous finds of similar nature.

Both coal and, get this, diamonds have been C-14 dated and found to have C-14 still there. It makes no difference, they must be millions of years old and that's a "fact".

Got a cite?

 

[Paul Stan]

Has anyone ever tried to carbon date a diamond?

It would seem to be a waste of time and money.

 

[Stripe]

who here would expect a rock to be stretchy after being soaked in water?

 

[Stratnerd]

who here would expect a rock to be stretchy after being soaked in water?

Nobody.

Who here would expect that organic residues and partially permineralized material would be the standard not the exception for a < 10,000 year-old planet?

*raises hand and grins*

 

[ThePhy]

Bob Enyart claims he just became aware of this info on soft dino tissue. He admits he is a year behind on learning of this, and even modified his family vacation itinerary to look into this.

However, in December of last year Enyart engaged Johnny in an argument over Manganese nodules. Look at post 28 in that thread from last year where truthteller86 clearly brings up the soft T-Rex tissue discovery.

 

[BillyBob]

nothing 'disproves' evolution to those who are convinced it is fact.

You can insert a lot of other words here:

nothing 'disproves' Islam to those who are convinced it is fact.

nothing 'disproves' the viability of socialism to those who are convinced it is fact.

nothing 'disproves' creationism to those who are convinced it is fact.

 

[Stripe]

You can insert a lot of other words here:
nothing 'disproves' Islam to those who are convinced it is fact.
nothing 'disproves' the viability of socialism to those who are convinced it is fact.
nothing 'disproves' creationism to those who are convinced it is fact.

you catch on fast...

 

[Granite]

The last think evolutionary theory is doing is "disappearing," or "shrinking," or "disintegrating." Creationism is being backed further and further into a corner. Not the same thing at all.