Jump to content


Photo

Another Total Refutation Of Evolution


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
22 replies to this topic

Poll: Does the latest find disprove evolution? (19 member(s) have cast votes)

Does the latest find disprove evolution?

  1. Yes (6 votes [31.58%])

    Percentage of vote: 31.58%

  2. No (11 votes [57.89%])

    Percentage of vote: 57.89%

  3. Maybe (2 votes [10.53%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.53%

  4. Not sure (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  5. Don't know (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote

#1 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 25 March 2005 - 06:11 PM

http://www.answersin...Dino_tissue.asp

The above link is a great article on the latest dinosaur find by an evolutionist scientist. With tissue on the bone that fresh and strectchy, it only proves the word of God is indeed the infallible word of God, proving that dinosaurs walked the Earth only thousands of years ago, not millions, per Genesis.

How many times do evolutionists have to get kicked in the butt with new evidence before they say, God is right and man is wrong?
This is just great new evidence to what has been known all along by believers in God and his word.

Even in the wake of this total disproving of evolution there will be those evolutionists who still cling to the no god notion, in a frenzy to hold onto the idea of not being accountable to God.

This also happened in the Bible when Christ was baptized, God spoke out loud from the sky, saying this is my beloved son in which I am well pleased, some of the people around said, that must be the voice of angels, and there were some who said it must have been just the thunder.

Evolutionists who will still cling to the evolution idea after this new discovery are as those people who said, the obvious voice of God, was only thunder, denial in the face of truth.

thanks, in him Louie Buren <><

#2 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:51 AM

Creationists tout their initial speculations and ignore their in-depth findings when they looked at the "flesh" at the lab and concluded it was fossilized slime younger than the fossil it came from which contained trace material from the bone.

#3 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:02 AM

Creationists tout their initial speculations and ignore their in-depth findings when they looked at the "flesh" at the lab and concluded it was fossilized slime younger than the fossil it came from which contained trace material from the bone.


Actually the "slime" hypothesis has been debunked a while ago... Your using outdated info, I guess the atheist induction sites "forgot" to update their information here.
  • goldliger likes this

#4 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 12 November 2012 - 12:58 PM

Actually the "slime" hypothesis has been debunked a while ago... Your using outdated info, I guess the atheist induction sites "forgot" to update their information here.

Give a source for your claim.

#5 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:01 PM

Give a source for your claim.


http://www.sciencema...27/626.abstract

"Molecular preservation in non-avian dinosaurs is controversial. We present multiple lines of evidence that endogenous proteinaceous material is preserved in bone fragments and soft tissues from an 80-million-year-old Campanian hadrosaur, Brachylophosaurus canadensis [Museum of the Rockies (MOR) 2598]. Microstructural and immunological data are consistent with preservation of multiple bone matrix and vessel proteins, and phylogenetic analyses of Brachylophosaurus collagen sequenced by mass spectrometry robustly support the bird-dinosaur clade, consistent with an endogenous source for these collagen peptides. These data complement earlier results from Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) and confirm that molecular preservation in Cretaceous dinosaurs is not a unique event."
  • goldliger likes this

#6 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 12 November 2012 - 02:14 PM

http://www.sciencema...27/626.abstract

"Molecular preservation in non-avian dinosaurs is controversial. We present multiple lines of evidence that endogenous proteinaceous material is preserved in bone fragments and soft tissues from an 80-million-year-old Campanian hadrosaur, Brachylophosaurus canadensis [Museum of the Rockies (MOR) 2598]. Microstructural and immunological data are consistent with preservation of multiple bone matrix and vessel proteins, and phylogenetic analyses of Brachylophosaurus collagen sequenced by mass spectrometry robustly support the bird-dinosaur clade, consistent with an endogenous source for these collagen peptides. These data complement earlier results from Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) and confirm that molecular preservation in Cretaceous dinosaurs is not a unique event."

Please give a source for your claim that the "tissue" was not fossilized slime, not an article that alludes to the find in question. This is an article about an entirely different specimen that simply refers to it and is talking about molecular fragments, not macroscopic organs.

#7 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1792 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 12 November 2012 - 03:23 PM

Please give a source for your claim that the "tissue" was not fossilized slime, not an article that alludes to the find in question. This is an article about an entirely different specimen that simply refers to it and is talking about molecular fragments, not macroscopic organs.


He just gave you a solid source from your evolutionist comrades and here you are trying to slide around it. How are you even justified in asking for proof that it 'was not fossilized slime?' Why not ask if there is solid proof that the dinosaur suffered from 'severe tooth decay.' ?????

#8 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 12 November 2012 - 03:35 PM

He just gave you a solid source from your evolutionist comrades and here you are trying to slide around it. How are you even justified in asking for proof that it 'was not fossilized slime?' Why not ask if there is solid proof that the dinosaur suffered from 'severe tooth decay.' ?????

He just gave you a solid source from your evolutionist comrades and here you are trying to slide around it. How are you even justified in asking for proof that it 'was not fossilized slime?' Why not ask if there is solid proof that the dinosaur suffered from 'severe tooth decay.' ?????

He gave a bad source that didn't support his claim. Citing sources is, if I recall correctly, a rule of the forum and false equivocation, red herrings and in general being rude (what you're doing) is against the rules.

#9 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 November 2012 - 04:18 PM

Please give a source for your claim that the "tissue" was not fossilized slime, not an article that alludes to the find in question. This is an article about an entirely different specimen that simply refers to it and is talking about molecular fragments, not macroscopic organs.


"Microstructural and immunological data are consistent with preservation of multiple bone matrix and vessel proteins"


Who said anything about macroscopic organs inside bones?... Hope you see the problem here, if not then I'd be worried.

#10 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:19 PM

"Microstructural and immunological data are consistent with preservation of multiple bone matrix and vessel proteins"


Who said anything about macroscopic organs inside bones?... Hope you see the problem here, if not then I'd be worried.

Macroscopic organs, ie macroscopic soft tissue as opposed to fossilized slime with microscopic traces from the original dinosaur. You seem to be deliberately acting dense to avoid what I'm saying.

#11 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 12 November 2012 - 05:46 PM

Again, he just gave you a source that confirms soft dinosaur tissue, and not slime (per your outdated claim).

What seems to be the problem?

#12 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1792 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:30 PM

He gave a bad source that didn't support his claim. Citing sources is, if I recall correctly, a rule of the forum and false equivocation, red herrings and in general being rude (what you're doing) is against the rules.

the problem is he has an attitude but he is trying to turn things around throw it back at us. And...the 'slime' issue is NOT an issue at all. He is missing Gilbo's point, deliberately.
  • goldliger likes this

#13 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1792 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 12 November 2012 - 06:33 PM

Quote: "Macroscopic organs, ie macroscopic soft tissue as opposed to fossilized slime with microscopic traces from the original dinosaur. You seem to be deliberately acting dense to avoid what I'm saying." You are the one avoiding the issue fella. It's starting to get bothersome. Where is your source for this 'fossilized slime'?
  • goldliger likes this

#14 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:22 PM

No, he didn't. I said that their conclusion after an in-depth analysis was that the "tissue" was fossilized slime mold not actual tissue but that it contained microscopic traces from the original dinosaur, which is probably not different from what his source says, though I can't know for sure because you need an account to read more than the abstract.

#15 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 12 November 2012 - 07:25 PM

Quote: "Macroscopic organs, ie macroscopic soft tissue as opposed to fossilized slime with microscopic traces from the original dinosaur. You seem to be deliberately acting dense to avoid what I'm saying." You are the one avoiding the issue fella. It's starting to get bothersome. Where is your source for this 'fossilized slime'?

The actual findings of the scientists that are mis-quoted as claiming they found dinosaur soft tissue and fresh blood by creationists:

http://news.national...aur-tissue.html

Their initial findings and speculation before they did any actual analysis are treated as gospel on creationist websites and their final conclusions after an in-depth analysis are willfully ignored.

#16 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 136 posts
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Minnesota

Posted 12 November 2012 - 08:22 PM

The actual findings of the scientists that are mis-quoted as claiming they found dinosaur soft tissue and fresh blood by creationists:

http://news.national...aur-tissue.html

Their initial findings and speculation before they did any actual analysis are treated as gospel on creationist websites and their final conclusions after an in-depth analysis are willfully ignored.


Again, your information is outdated. Your paper is from 2008. The latest study by Mary Schweitzer and her team indeed shows that the soft tissue is that of the dinosaur itself:

"These data are the first to support preservation of multiple proteins and to present multiple lines of evidence for material consistent with DNA in dinosaurs, supporting the hypothesis that these structures were part of the once living animals."

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/23085295

Are you going to deny this direct quote from the abstract?
  • Calypsis4 likes this

#17 Calypsis4

Calypsis4

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1792 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 62
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Midwest, USA

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:04 PM

No, he didn't. I said that their conclusion after an in-depth analysis was that the "tissue" was fossilized slime mold not actual tissue but that it contained microscopic traces from the original dinosaur, which is probably not different from what his source says, though I can't know for sure because you need an account to read more than the abstract.

Oh, I assure you we have done far more than that for this subject has come up many times on this website and been debated thoroughly by many more than are currently posting now.

The actual findings of the scientists that are mis-quoted as claiming they found dinosaur soft tissue and fresh blood by creationists:

http://news.national...aur-tissue.html

Their initial findings and speculation before they did any actual analysis are treated as gospel on creationist websites and their final conclusions after an in-depth analysis are willfully ignored.


I for one am getting tired of your lies. We didn't rely on creationists websites for the evidence of soft tissue analysis and confirmation.

Quote: "Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of microstructures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience."

That statement came directly from Mary Schweitzer and Jack Horner (among others) themselves in March, 2005 at : http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15790853

Posted Image

There was no mention of 'slime' in the matter and you did NOT document such a thing. The real shocker for them was to find soft tissue in what was supposed to be a 68 million yr old T-Rex...and later as found in a Hadrosaur, i.e.
  • Salsa and goldliger like this

#18 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5324 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:35 PM

Macroscopic organs, ie macroscopic soft tissue as opposed to fossilized slime with microscopic traces from the original dinosaur. You seem to be deliberately acting dense to avoid what I'm saying.


Organs are made of tissues, however tissue doesn't constitute an organ, hence my statement no organs in fossilised bones. Additionally tissue have been found in many more fossils, hence is repeatable. It's amusing that you avoid the evidence.... I thought being scientific meant following the evidence WHEREVER it leads, you may not like the conclusion, but that doesn't mean its false.
  • goldliger likes this

#19 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 13 November 2012 - 02:12 PM

Again, your information is outdated. Your paper is from 2008. The latest study by Mary Schweitzer and her team indeed shows that the soft tissue is that of the dinosaur itself:

"These data are the first to support preservation of multiple proteins and to present multiple lines of evidence for material consistent with DNA in dinosaurs, supporting the hypothesis that these structures were part of the once living animals."

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/23085295

Are you going to deny this direct quote from the abstract?

I think we're just not on the same page here. I was talking about a specific discovery - you're citing papers about other specimens and seem to be arguing that microscopic chemical traces of dinosaurs can survive in-tact which is not what I was talking about.

#20 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 206 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 26
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Ohio

Posted 13 November 2012 - 02:17 PM

Oh, I assure you we have done far more than that for this subject has come up many times on this website and been debated thoroughly by many more than are currently posting now.



I for one am getting tired of your lies. We didn't rely on creationists websites for the evidence of soft tissue analysis and confirmation.

Quote: "Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of microstructures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience."

That statement came directly from Mary Schweitzer and Jack Horner (among others) themselves in March, 2005 at : http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15790853

Posted Image

There was no mention of 'slime' in the matter and you did NOT document such a thing. The real shocker for them was to find soft tissue in what was supposed to be a 68 million yr old T-Rex...and later as found in a Hadrosaur, i.e.

I was going by memory but the only thing I got wrong was that my article was another team reviewing (and contradicting) the findings of the original team. Either way aside from that one oversight there are no "lies" in my comment.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users