Sasquatch

Hello, new guy here. I've been following this forum for awhile now and decided to join. I enjoy learning why people believe what they do. More from a psychological as well as a cultural viewpoint I suppose. Just to put it out there, I have no beliefs in deity's God/Gods or the supernatural. I'm Just here to observe and occasionally join conversaions and ask questions.

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.

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..

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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".

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.

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..

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"

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.

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

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.

I'm pretty sure this has been debunked already. If this was real, where is the DNA from it? If a living dinosaur tissue was found, there would have been DNA, and that would have been all over the news for a long time. Sweitzer says herself that Creaionisss have hijacked and misrepresnted her work for their own fundamental agenda. Her's something from the same researchers who discovered the fossil in question: "We performed multiple analyses of Tyrannosaurus rex (specimen MOR 1125) fibrous cortical and medullary tissues remaining after demineralization. The results indicate that collagen I, the main organic component of bone, has been preserved in low concentrations in these tissues. The findings were independently confirmed by mass spectrometry. We propose a possible chemical pathway that may contribute to this preservation. The presence of endogenous protein in dinosaur bone may validate hypotheses about evolutionary relationships, rates, and patterns of molecular change and degradation, as well as the chemical stability of molecules over time. " Analyses of Soft Tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex Suggest the Presence of Protein http://www.sciencemag.org/content/316/58… And more about soft tissue (which is becoming increasingly common now that we know to look for it: Influence of Microbial Biofilms on the Preservation of Primary Soft Tissue in Fossil and Extant Archosaurs http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ado… Infrared mapping resolves soft tissue preservation in 50 million year-old reptile skin http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/c… Anyone who believes, in this day and age, that the earth is only 6,000 years old, should have their head examined.

theists like to insist that I am agnostic, because I cleary state that I have no idea if god(s) exist or not. But I am an atheist because I have no active belief in god(s) and won’t have until suitable evidence is brought forth. I have never bothered with god(s), just like I don’t with other extraordinary entities without extraordinary evidence like Bigfoot and the Pink Unicorn. Though I don’t believe in them, I don’t know if they exist or not. All of these entities are highly improbable. I don’t bother thinking about any of them. Unfortunately, I do have to bother about people who have god belief because they exist and can be quite problematic.Atheism is translated thusly: a=non, theism=belief in a theistic entity. I am an atheist, just like I am an ateapotist, an apinkunicornist, and an atoothfairyist. Give me extraordinary evidence for the existence of theistic entities, celestial teapots, and Bigfoot, and I will accept their existence. Doubt I would worship any of them though.

I will openly say I don't know Gilbo. My question is will you? Because in all fairness, you don't.

I'm not qualified to comment straight away Gilbo Point me in the direction of a biology textbook or some real scientific research.(not links to creationist websites) and I'll be glad to look at it.

I do find it ironic that creationists are hung up on the whole "goo to you thing" but somehow "dust to man" and the belief that there is an invisible man who lives in the sky who grants wishes if you telepathically accept him as your master or you will burn in hell for all of eternity because a rib woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical fruit tree. I dunno it's just odd IMO. But heck, believe what you want. I have a friend who thinks flying saucers have visited Earth. There's no way I can convince him otherwise.

I dont belong to a group, (unless you consider Rockabilly subculture) a group, but that doesnt apply here. I stand by what I say that God of the gaps is not a sound answer for what we do not know about the natural world. It is ludacris.

The main difference here is I can say I dont know how it all started and that I dont have all of the answers. However I dont fill in that blank with "God did it" as that is ludacris in my view. On the other hand you claim to have the answers to the "where it all started" question with your "God" and bible. But when it comes down to it, you dont know anymore than I do, I can admit that i dont know. I run far away from any group or organization that claims to have "the answers". I think for myself and dont follow the flock. I have never been presented with any convincing evidence for the supernatural, but my my mind is open(organized religion excluded).

Ok if the logical conclusion is that an intelligent agent is behind it, then how do you test that statement? How has it been tested? How do you go about proving that? What scientific studies have done to show that a supernatural intelligent being or agent is behind the natural world? It seems that from reading the transcripts from the Dover trial, that advocates of ID had a wide open opportunity to present their case and bring the scientific evidence for ID to the table. However they failed to do that and what they presented was severly lacking as far as science goes. I am open to any valid scientific studies that present any evidence for the supernatural. So if you have any, please show me.

I'm not trying to discredit or make fun of the supernatural. I'm asking for not only scientific evidence of the supernaural but how science can or does go about studying the supernatural? Where has the supernatural been verified within the world of science? I fail to see how and unanswered question about the natural world has a supernatural answer by default. There has to be some quantifiable and real world scientific evidence for that to be so.