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

#21 agnophilo123

agnophilo123

    Member

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

Posted 13 November 2012 - 02:22 PM

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.

I'm not avoiding anything, I was asking you for the actual evidence. A study about x dinosaur does not prove y dinosaur remains had macroscopic soft tissue. And for the record the skeletal system is considered an organ system, and our bones (specifically the marrow) produce white blood cells. They're not just scaffolding for our bodies.

#22 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,000 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

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

Posted 13 November 2012 - 09:50 PM

I'm not avoiding anything, I was asking you for the actual evidence. A study about x dinosaur does not prove y dinosaur remains had macroscopic soft tissue. And for the record the skeletal system is considered an organ system, and our bones (specifically the marrow) produce white blood cells. They're not just scaffolding for our bodies.


You were asking about finding organs inside the bone, since that is what we are looking at, structures INSIDE the bone... You complained before because the study was talking about proteins and tissues, rather than organs, I commented that one wouldn't hope to find organs in bones (since that is absurd), now you're attempting to shift the focus, (yes bones are considered as organs for the proliferation of white blood cells, however this doesn't mean that we should find organs within the bone itself.

As I said this has been repeated over and over and over and the same results occur its not an isolated case. To my knowledge T-Rex, Hadrosaur and Archeopteryx have all had tissue identified within multiple replicates
  • goldliger likes this

#23 goldliger

goldliger

    Member

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

Posted 14 November 2012 - 04:25 PM

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.


Other specimens are perfectly valid. They're still dinosaur fossils that are claimed to be millions of years old. And I didn't say anything about "microscopic chemical traces."




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users