Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,227 Year: 5,484/9,624 Month: 509/323 Week: 6/143 Day: 6/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Blood in dino bones
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 76 of 138 (196069)
04-01-2005 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by simple
04-01-2005 2:06 PM


Re: detente
You said
Well, It was a mostly tropical world pre flood
Do you have any evidence for this? I think there might just be evidence againstthis. For example, woolly mammoths, polar bears and penguins to name three. If it was tropical, where did Noah find his two polar bears and his two pengiuns?
I think if you want to use tropical heat, you first have to provide evidence that the tropical heat existed before you use it as your tool for racemising amino acids.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by simple, posted 04-01-2005 2:06 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by simple, posted 04-01-2005 9:06 PM Trixie has not replied
 Message 79 by Incognito, posted 04-04-2005 12:40 AM Trixie has replied

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 1011
From: Edinburgh
Joined: 01-03-2004


Message 89 of 138 (196614)
04-04-2005 3:38 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Incognito
04-04-2005 12:40 AM


Re: detente
You said
If it wasn't semi-tropical in the past - what was a T-Rex doing there?
Simple said, and I quoted
Well, It was a mostly tropical world pre flood
Would you like to explain why semi-tropical and tropical are the same. Simple saw the point I was making. I drew his attention to a flaw in his reasoning, without making any comment on the validity of his main idea.
As has been pointed out, polar bears are not albino bears and certain species of penguins exist only in colder climates. I suppose you'll explain that by "microevolution" and artificial term used to create a distinction between changes within a species and changes from one species to another. The only reason that the term "microevolution" had to be invented by creationists was because the penny finally dropped that we can actually see genetic changes within a population taking place in front of our eyes. Creationists could no longer deny the reality of it. So, they invented this term to allow for genetic change to take place without having to accept evolution. Hell, I could call it "Blue Smartyism", wouldn't make a blind bit of difference. Genetic change is genetic change, selection is selection. How long is a piece of string?
So we have evidence that the world was warmer than it is now. We also have evidence that the world was colder than it is now. How can this be? How can it be warmer and colder? How about considering the possibility that at some times it was colder and some times it was warmer. I think the problem you'll have with this is the time frame you have to allow for all this temperature change to happen. It tends to go against the idea of a young Earth and for the idea of a much older Earth.
As for the preservation of soft tissue, remember that the original article doesn't claim that the soft tissue survived, but in a dehydrated state. Fossilisation depends on the replacement of organic molecules with minerals. There may be residual organics left, but it isn't being claimed that the soft tissue itself survived intact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Incognito, posted 04-04-2005 12:40 AM Incognito has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Incognito, posted 04-04-2005 7:47 AM Trixie has not replied
 Message 97 by simple, posted 04-04-2005 10:44 PM Trixie has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024