Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

Sasquatch

Member
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About Sasquatch

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
    Male
  • How old are you?
    41
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    no affiliation
  • What is your Worldview?
    Atheist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    Chicago
  1. Sasquatch

    Greetings

    Ike have you read her actual papers? "And I guess you just ignored her complaints about your side and where they refused to help her confirm her findings and she had to find someone else that would allow it". Where? Please show me where she is quoted as stating this. And as for "debating" In order for a debate to continue, there must be new points made. Otherwise, it's stagnant, and pretty much over. While there's always new discoveries being made in evolution, the same isn't true of creationism. The debate among scientists has been over for decades.. however, the public and political debate is far from over.
  2. Sasquatch

    Greetings

    She seems reasonable to me. At least she's keeping her work seperate from her personal religious beliefs. And she also admits the possibility of contamination existed and that more work needs o be done to come to a true conclusion..
  3. Sasquatch

    Greetings

    You realize tha your not getting the complete picture from just reading the abstracts right? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as any good skeptic knows. The finding of intact collagen protein in dinosaur fossils is certainly an extraordinary claim, and the finding of hemoglobin is even more stunning. Creationists are shooting themselves in the foot by avoiding the contamination issue.
  4. Sasquatch

    Greetings

    As I said I'm not well studied enough to comment on your "biochemical evidence" yet so I'm not ignoring you. After Schweitzer's first paper appeared in Science, some critics suggested that she published it before conducting enough analysis. Schweitzer agreed with this at least in part. She said that the team published its findings as step to securing funding for later work which doesn help her credibility or give weight to what is claimed. Also note that a team conducted more than 200 hours of scanning electron microscope analysis on a variety of dinosaur fossils. It came to the conclusion that Schweitzer's samples contained framboids, and the apparent soft tissue was essentially pond scum.
  5. Sasquatch

    Greetings

    More from her... "She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.” She makes total sense to me.
  6. Sasquatch

    Greetings

    Sweitzer says that she's a devout Christian. Jus pointing that out.
  7. Sasquatch

    Greetings

    Schweitzer offered hypotheses for how the tissue could have survived so long. One is that the densely mineralized bone, combined with as-yet-undiscovered geological or environmental processes, protected the structures within. Also a response to Schweitzer's 2007 paper the one reporting the presence of protein points out several questions about the findings, including the likelihood of contamination. The comment, written by Mike Buckley and an array of co authors, pointed out that the likelihood of collagen breakdown. Tests that should have been performed but were not. The inability to perform standard analyses on fragmented peptide sequences.
  8. Sasquatch

    Greetings

    Sweitzers work has been twisted and misrepresented as she openly says this. If this was real news then DNA would have been found, It wasnt.
  9. Sasquatch

    Greetings

    If no one "knows the age" of the earth, then how can you say Earth is 6000 years old? That's a pretty bold, matter of fact statement if no one "knows".
  10. Sasquatch

    Greetings

    What I've done is provide materials and supporting evidence for an old earth. I'm well aware that you think it's bunk and a conspiracy and I respect your opinon on that. However that doesnt make the evidence go away, It's still there. If you think there is some experiment that can be used to test somthing like the outdated idea of a global flood, please propose it. There is little "scrutiny" among creation scientist peers. They propose all kinds of models, etc. based on speculation centered around their own interpretations of scripture, but that's about it. Rarely do they propose any means of testing their hypotheses or models. You have to bring somthing to the table if you want to eat. As for not "responding" to every point, I cant as I'm at work. It's not outta disrespect.
  11. Sasquatch

    Greetings

    Because no one has found evidence that they havent. If you want to overthrow all of geology as well as the other disiplines of earth science go for it, but you have to bring your own research to the table. Work that can be tested, retested and cooborated by other scientists within that respective field of disipline..
  12. Sasquatch

    Greetings

    I'm not reading unsupported statements, I'm reading about the results of research that was conducted. "Both research teams used instruments called ion microprobes to date and analyze the zircon crystals, which often contain uranium, rare earth elements and other impurities. Uranium decays to lead at a known rate. Uranium-lead ratios in the zircons showed they formed as early as 4.4 billion to 4.3 billion years ago when they crystallized in molten granite"
  13. Sasquatch

    Greetings

    Nasa tends to disagree with you. http://science.nasa....001/ast17jan_1/ I dont know how to quote this "Scientists are drawing a portrait of how Earth looked soon after it formed 4.56 billion years ago, based on clues within the oldest mineral grains ever found. Tiny zircons (zirconium silicate crystals) found in ancient stream deposits indicate that Earth developed continents and water -- perhaps even oceans and environments in which microbial life could emerge -- 4.3 billion to 4.4 billion years ago, remarkably soon after our planet formed". I accept Nasa's findings on this as it's pretty clear cut from the evidence. I find it hard to believe that there is some grand conspiracy to dupe people into thinking that the earth is billions of years old or that experts in various fields are somehow "misinformed or wrong" Makes no sense.
  14. Sasquatch

    Greetings

    Do you have any informaion on the subject from sources from other than creationist websites?
  15. Sasquatch

    Greetings

    No insult intended. As I said Gilbo I'm not well versed in the subject of bIochemestry so I'd rather not comment now. Also various disiplines of mainstream science show Earth to be more than 6000 years old. Question, are there any non-creationists or Atheists that believe that Earth is 6000 years old? The reason I ask is that it seems pretty clear that the foundation for this belief is rooted in the bible and not science.
×

Important Information

Our Terms