• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

interesting proof of creationism... (1 Viewer)

Lantzolot

Member
Joined
Sep 15, 2005
Messages
67
Reaction score
1
Location
Arkansas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This article was from discover magazine. you can find it at:

http://www.discover.com/issues/apr-06/features/dinosaur-dna/



Ever since Mary Higby Schweitzer peeked inside the fractured thighbone of a Tyrannosaurus rex, the introverted scientist's life hasn't been the same. Neither has the field of paleontology.


"I had one reviewer tell me that he didn't care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn't possible. I wrote back and said, 'Well, what data would convince you?' And he said, 'None.' "


Two years ago, Schweitzer gazed through a microscope in her laboratory at North Carolina State University and saw lifelike tissue that had no business inhabiting a fossilized dinosaur skeleton: fibrous matrix, stretchy like a wet scab on human skin; what appeared to be supple bone cells, their three-dimensional shapes intact; and translucent blood vessels that looked as if they could have come straight from an ostrich at the zoo.

By all the rules of paleontology, such traces of life should have long since drained from the bones. It's a matter of faith among scientists that soft tissue can survive at most for a few tens of thousands of years, not the 65 million since T. rex walked what's now the Hell Creek Formation in Montana. But Schweitzer tends to ignore such dogma. She just looks and wonders, pokes and prods, following her scientific curiosity. That has allowed her to see things other paleontologists have missed—and potentially to shatter fundamental assumptions about how much we can learn from the past. If biological tissue can last through the fossilization process, it could open a window through time, showing not just how extinct animals evolved but how they lived each day. "Fossils have richer stories to tell—about the lub-dub of dinosaur life—than we have been willing to listen to," says Robert T. Bakker, curator of paleontology at the Houston Museum of Natural Science. "This is one spectacular proof of that."

At the same time, the contents of those T. rex bones have also electrified some creationists, who interpret Schweitzer's findings as evidence that Earth is not nearly as old as scientists claim. "I invite the reader to step back and contemplate the obvious," wrote Carl Wieland on the Answers in Genesis Web site last year. "This discovery gives immensely powerful support to the proposition that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old at all, but were mostly fossilized under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago at most."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How is this proof for creationism?
 
Lantzolot said:
Some creationists, noting Schweitzer's evangelical faith, have tried to pressure her into siding with them. "It is high time that the 'Scientific' community comes clean: meaning that the public is going to hold them ACCOUNTABLE when they find out that they have been misled," reads a recent e-mail message Schweitzer received. She has received dozens of similar notes, a few of them outright menacing.......

These religious attacks wound her far more than the scientific ones. "It rips my guts out," she says. "These people are claiming to represent the Christ that I love. They're not doing a very good job. It's no wonder that a lot of my colleagues are atheists." She told one zealot, "You know, if the only picture of Christ I had was your attitude towards me, I'd run."

Apparently it's not unless you take Schweitzer's data and twist it to the point that she isn't even comfortable.
 
Moderator's Warning:
In accordance with forum rules, which can be found here:

9. Copyrighted Material - All material posted from copyrighted material MUST contain a link to the original work.
Please do not post entire articles. Proper format is to paraphrase the contents of an article and/or post relevant excerpts and then link to the rest. Best bet is to always reference the original source.
Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 107 http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html


Lantzolot, you did include a link, but posting of the entire article is not allowed. Please refrain from doing so in the future.
 
talloulou said:
Apparently it's not unless you take Schweitzer's data and twist it to the point that she isn't even comfortable.

you don't have to twist the data...that dinosaur is less than 10,000 years old and now scientists rather than recognizing that they might be wrong about the preservation of animals want to instead change their views on how long they can be preserved. I personally just dont see something like skin or blood vessels lasting 64 million years...
 
Lantzolot said:
you don't have to twist the data...that dinosaur is less than 10,000 years old and now scientists rather than recognizing that they might be wrong about the preservation of animals want to instead change their views on how long they can be preserved. I personally just dont see something like skin or blood vessels lasting 64 million years...


Did you even bother to read the entire story?...:roll:
 
Lantzolot said:
you don't have to twist the data...that dinosaur is less than 10,000 years old and now scientists rather than recognizing that they might be wrong about the preservation of animals want to instead change their views on how long they can be preserved. I personally just dont see something like skin or blood vessels lasting 64 million years...
:2funny: 10,000 years? Then how much does the rest of the fossil date?
 
Lantzolot said:
you don't have to twist the data...that dinosaur is less than 10,000 years old and now scientists rather than recognizing that they might be wrong about the preservation of animals want to instead change their views on how long they can be preserved. I personally just dont see something like skin or blood vessels lasting 64 million years...

Yep. They were roaming around in great herds until they were hunted to extinction by overzealous Darwinists itching to secularize society in the late 1800s.
 
Iriemon said:
Yep. They were roaming around in great herds until they were hunted to extinction by overzealous Darwinists itching to secularize society in the late 1800s.
Nop. They poisoned poor dinosaurs. The poison disintegrated but it preserved some blood structures.
And what do you think mad cow decease is –-- the same tricks of Darwinists. They are cooking something awful again. But they will not fool me the second time. It is all coming out.
 
I saw bigfoot riding a dinosaur through my backyard just the other day. Pfft, 64 million years ago my a$$.

Back on topic...Why didn't "God" tell us about the dinosaurs in the bible?
 
Lantzolot said:
you don't have to twist the data...that dinosaur is less than 10,000 years old and now scientists rather than recognizing that they might be wrong about the preservation of animals want to instead change their views on how long they can be preserved. I personally just dont see something like skin or blood vessels lasting 64 million years...

Even if you decide dinosaurs were around longer than we thought it is still a giant ridiculous leap to say that proves adam and eve and the garden of Eden? Isn't it?
 
Wow, interesting article.
It proves NOTHING unfortunately.
If something could be proven to be less than nothing, this would be it.

What is next on the agenda?
 
Theories are great. The below theory could supports the fact that life on this planet may have formed from alien bacteria that landed on Earth billions of years ago via comets hitting our atmosphere.

Specifically, Louis has isolated strange, thick-walled, red-tinted cell-like structures about 10 microns in size. Stranger still, dozens of his experiments suggest that the particles may lack DNA yet still reproduce plentifully, even in water superheated to nearly 600 degrees Fahrenheit . (The known upper limit for life in water is about 250 degrees Fahrenheit .)

So how to explain them? Louis speculates that the particles could be extraterrestrial bacteria adapted to the harsh conditions of space and that the microbes hitched a ride on a comet or meteorite that later broke apart in the upper atmosphere and mixed with rain clouds above India.

If his theory proves correct, the cells would be the first confirmed evidence of alien life and, as such, could yield tantalizing new clues to the origins of life on Earth.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/02/red.rain/index.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/science-technology/11620-mysterious-red-cells-might-aliens.html
 
Last edited:
Gibberish said:
Back on topic...Why didn't "God" tell us about the dinosaurs in the bible?
That is a very daring question. Good luck.
 
Gibberish said:
I saw bigfoot riding a dinosaur through my backyard just the other day. Pfft, 64 million years ago my a$$.

Back on topic...Why didn't "God" tell us about the dinosaurs in the bible?

I think God did. If I recall there are references to the Heffalump, the Squirtle, and the Godzilla.
 
Heffalumps and Woozels... are very confuzel!

Great Winnie the Pooh reference Iriemon! I got a chuckle. :lol:
 
BodiSatva said:
Heffalumps and Woozels... are very confuzel!

Great Winnie the Pooh reference Iriemon! I got a chuckle. :lol:

I had forgotten about the woozels. :)
 
Lantzolot said:
you don't have to twist the data...

It is pure twisting of data.

"When they got it into a lab and chemically removed the hard minerals, they found what looked like blood vessels, bone cells and perhaps even blood cells." (source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/ )

So, after removing the hard minerals, they had some flexible tissue left. The comparison is even made to soaking a chicken bone in vinegar to soften it by removing the hard minerals.
 
Lantzolot said:
you don't have to twist the data...that dinosaur is less than 10,000 years old and now scientists rather than recognizing that they might be wrong about the preservation of animals want to instead change their views on how long they can be preserved. I personally just dont see something like skin or blood vessels lasting 64 million years...

One can only hope....that this thread was created out of ignorance of Science....rather than a fanatical view of biblical manipulation. One can Hope.

Unfortunately.....one would be dissapointed.

Dr. Schweitzer, herself cannot fully explain the Data, and denys the validity until the scientific method can be used to repeat what has been shown. By attempting to place this finding into the realm of "Fact" you show a complete lack of scientific understanding, and only prove just how little attention should be paid to your opinion in this matter.
I have read the actual Paper she submitted to science, and though the Data is fascinating, it was not admitted to the journal, pending confirmation of the findings......we shall see.


Now.....Go read your bible and find me the chapter on Laviathan....at least that is good fiction.
 
drobforever said:
Yes. But only a Cosmolgist who believes in creationism can convince you.

You again?

You left me hanging with a simple A,B,C,D question. I will repeat it here. If you don't know, just say so - what is so hard about that?

Which of the follow corrently describes your opinion?:

a) the big bang is real
b) the big bang is not real - the CMBR is not real
c) the big bang is not real - the CMBR is real, but there is another reason for it
d) I don't know



You are the one who engauged me in the topic. And after getting drawn into complex argument that can go one forever, I have tried to boil it down to one simple question. You decided to abandon the very sub-thread that you started, and now you are starting it up again.

Are you not capable of answering this question?

PS) You don't have to be a Cosmologist to know what CMBR (I'm sure not one). You can look it up on Wikipedia and read about it if you want to learn. But weren't you talking about dark matter in the other thread? If you were then you should really look up CMBR, cause it is a very easy to understand principle that is pretty clear in its implication (compared to dark matter).
 
Last edited:
python416 said:
You again?

Yes it's me again. But then I've already said before, I'm not going to argue with someone who'd only be convinced by a Cosmolgist. I made the previous comment only to remind anyone who wants to answer your question that it's pointless because unless he/she can prove that he/she is a Cosmolgist nothing can get through your head. And don't dream about me answering your 'questions' since you've never answered my argument in that thread.
 
drobforever said:
Yes it's me again. But then I've already said before, I'm not going to argue with someone who'd only be convinced by a Cosmolgist. I made the previous comment only to remind anyone who wants to answer your question that it's pointless because unless he/she can prove that he/she is a Cosmolgist nothing can get through your head. And don't dream about me answering your 'questions' since you've never answered my argument in that thread.

Ask me a direct multiple choice question, and you will get an answer - I promise. ANYTHING YOU WANT - GO FOR IT!


I never said I would only consider a Cosmolgist's opinion - if that was the case I wouldn't be on this board.

Are you still not capable of picking A,B,C, or D?

a) the big bang is real
b) the big bang is not real - the CMBR is not real
c) the big bang is not real - the CMBR is real, but there is another reason for it
d) I don't know

I don't see how answering a question is pointless, but I do see how not answering one and trying to continue a debate is completely pointless.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom