Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9179 total)
2 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
Incognito
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 138 (196582)
04-04-2005 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by simple
04-01-2005 9:06 PM


Re: 2 tigers make all tigers
Simple,
In case you haven't figured it out - none of the people posting on this website have any REAL answers for you on this dinosaur blood vessel issue. If you do a quick search of the internet you'll find a similar problem at all the "pro-evolution" and "pro-old-earth" websites - they have no scientific explanations. Currently they are all invoking various uniformitarian "miracles" and calling on their various "Gods" to save them from the fact that blood particulate lasting millions of years is illogical at best and a complete fallacy at worst. It's funny that they try and grill you on why it can't happen when they can't even begin to explain how it could happen.
Check this entire series of posts - they have nothing that explains how any form of soft-tissue (dehydrated or otherwise) lasts millions of years - all they are doing is trying to nit-pick at your mistakes. This isn't a case of Evolution vs. Creation, it's a case of internet junkies vs. Simple.
A better use of your time would be to read up on the evidence from REAL scientists (Creationists, Uniformitarian, etc.) and spend your time convincing your friends/family of the facts in person (it's amazing what a little grass-roots campaigning can do). As for radiometric dating - start with a guy named Woodmorappe - they abhor him on this website but he's got some really good information. If you need some basic internet overviews - Answersingenesis.org and ICR have some interesting articles...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by simple, posted 04-01-2005 9:06 PM simple has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by simple, posted 04-04-2005 10:26 PM Incognito has not replied

  
Incognito
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 138 (196584)
04-04-2005 12:40 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by Trixie
04-01-2005 3:56 PM


Re: detente
Trixie, you're kidding right? Do you have any idea where Montana is? How about what kind of climate is currently found there. If it wasn't semi-tropical in the past - what was a T-Rex doing there? Or did some great localized flood wash it in from Mexico? (You're probably going to tell me that T-Rex's were built for snow unlike all their reptile brethren...)
As for your woolly mammoths - I too used to assume on blind faith that they lived in "cool environments." Then I remembered that Yellowstone was practically devoid of large wild-life (elk, bison, etc.) until settlers pushed them in there (even today they have problems finding enough food). Same problem for the mammoths - what did they eat in the cold snowy wastelands of the north? If elk/bison can't survive - how could a larger animal?
As far as your comment about polar bears? An albino bear is still a bear - doesn't really matter where it lives. Or as a uniformitarian do you not believe in micro-evolution?
Penguins - a more tropical world is not necessarily devoid of ice - just would have less of it. By the way, go look up the words "Penguins" and "Galapagos Islands" - they're not as frigid as you think...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Trixie, posted 04-01-2005 3:56 PM Trixie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by DrJones*, posted 04-04-2005 12:47 AM Incognito has replied
 Message 82 by Cthulhu, posted 04-04-2005 1:05 AM Incognito has replied
 Message 89 by Trixie, posted 04-04-2005 3:38 AM Incognito has replied

  
Incognito
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 138 (196587)
04-04-2005 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by simple
04-01-2005 2:06 PM


Re: detente
Simple, in case you want more evidence as to why we should be thoroughly investigating our current museum fossil samples - this hit the news back in February. Horner's statement regarding cutting open more dinosaur bones makes a lot of sense in light of this kind of lack of accountability in the fields of anthropology/paleontology.
"Panel says professor of human origins made up data, plagiarized works"
"Another dating error was identified for a skull found near Paderborn, Germany, that Protsch dated at 27,400 years old. It was believed to be the oldest human remain found in the region until the Oxford investigations indicated it belonged to an elderly man who died in 1750."
"The Herne anthropological museum, which owned the Paderborn skull, did its own tests following the unsettling results. "We had the skull cut open and it still smelt," said the museum's director. "We are naturally very disappointed."
Page not found - WND

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 84 by Cthulhu, posted 04-04-2005 1:08 AM Incognito has replied
 Message 91 by JonF, posted 04-04-2005 8:36 AM Incognito has not replied
 Message 95 by simple, posted 04-04-2005 10:31 PM Incognito has not replied

  
Incognito
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 138 (196590)
04-04-2005 1:06 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by DrJones*
04-04-2005 12:47 AM


Re: detente
There is no such thing as micro-evolution? My Biology dictionary seems to think there is. It also seem to think there is an idea called macro-evolution under the same evolution entry...
Or are you saying science is wrong again and I should just burn the dictionary along with everything else taught to me in the uniformitarian public school system?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by DrJones*, posted 04-04-2005 12:47 AM DrJones* has not replied

  
Incognito
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 138 (196593)
04-04-2005 1:27 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Cthulhu
04-04-2005 1:05 AM


Re: detente
And T-Rex's warm-blooded self was capable of surviving a Montana winter? Is this a fact backed by evidence or did you make this up? Being warm-blooded and being capable of surviving a long, cold, winter are two different things.
Read up on Yellowstone brother (my father worked there for 4 years). The Elk and Bison were not naturally found in large numbers at the high elevations they are found in today (combination of better food at lower elevations, predators, etc.) The main reason they are so "over-populated" as you say is because they have no where else to go, large predators were taken out of the equation for years, and the government fed them from time to time to make the tourists happy...
The woolly mammoth ate musk ox? Really? What about bison or elk? Hmm... I think I'm going to have to re-evaluate my scientific world view...
"Galapagos penguins aren't the same as other penguins." Aren't they still penguins? A Great Dane isn't a poodle but it's still a dog...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Cthulhu, posted 04-04-2005 1:05 AM Cthulhu has not replied

  
Incognito
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 138 (196601)
04-04-2005 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by gengar
03-31-2005 3:25 AM


Re: stretching the evidence
"Meanwhile, you are also making an assumption - that things were very different only a few thousand years ago. Have you any evidence that this was the case?"
Please educate yourself on the mega-fauna and mega-flora of the past. The last time I went down to the local lake I didn't see too many 60 foot cattails growing in the water...
Or is the fact that everything seemed to be "bigger" not evidence of climate change at some point in the past?
For you radiometric dating types - assumptions, assumptions, assumptions... Don't really make for good science - especially when they all base their scatter-plot, non-matching, results on a non-existent geologic column. But again, what would a Creationist detractor know?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by gengar, posted 03-31-2005 3:25 AM gengar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by gengar, posted 04-04-2005 9:11 AM Incognito has not replied

  
Incognito
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 138 (196604)
04-04-2005 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Cthulhu
04-04-2005 1:08 AM


Re: detente
It's not really off-topic. Where there is smoke, there is normally a fire... If the anthropologists are submitting blatant frauds as science and the paleontologists are admitting that they never actually checked the inside of their fossils before, it leads one to wonder what other important research they are glossing over...
Simple, notice again that anytime something comes up that makes evolutionists look bad, they are all too ready to dismiss it...
Kind of like dinosaur blood in "60+ million year old" bones...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Cthulhu, posted 04-04-2005 1:08 AM Cthulhu has not replied

  
Incognito
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 138 (196607)
04-04-2005 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by mark24
03-31-2005 3:37 AM


Re: Prediction
"The rate of racemization is highly temperature dependent. The study with bone indicated that an uncertainty of 2 would yield an age with an error of 50%. Additional uncertainties are introduced by the possible contamination of the fossil with free amino acids from the environment, and the possibility of racemization during the acid hydrolysis of the protein in the fossil. The former would reduce the apparent age of the fossil by introducing amino acids from recent material which would have undergone little racemization. Racemization which occurs during acid hydrolysis would, of course, increase the apparent age."
Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research
This message has been edited by Incognito, 04-04-2005 01:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by mark24, posted 03-31-2005 3:37 AM mark24 has not replied

  
Incognito
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 138 (196632)
04-04-2005 7:47 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Trixie
04-04-2005 3:38 AM


Re: detente
Again, as anybody reading this will notice - you evo's want to bicker over words when you get stuck on an issue. Tropical, semi-tropical - I don't think Simple or anybody else for that matter would say that the entire pre-flood world was tropical. That said, it is conceivable that parts of the pre-flood world were semi-tropical. The point of the matter is that the majority of the Earth consisted of a warmer (and base on air samples, more oxygen rich) environment. You need evidence? It's everywhere - a T-Rex in Montana is a good start, mammoths that EAT A LOT OF FOOD and therefore would likely starve in ice age tundra are another, mega-flora, mega-fauna (60 foot cattails, horsetails, giant mosses, etc.)
Micro-evolution is Creationist word-play? Ok, when was the last time a human gave birth to a non-human or a dog gave birth to a non-dog. Hmm...
How can the world have been warmer and colder? Easy - it's called a warm pre-flood world and a post Noah's Flood ice age. Instead of conjuring up the secular "snow-ball Earth" we just admit there is evidence for only one ice age. Don't understand this? Look up the water saturation of air - notice how it doesn't hold much water as the air temperature drops and correspondingly, a "million year" ice age would never produce extensive ice sheets. Oard's "An Ice Age Caused by the Genesis Flood" is a good start on this concept.
Dehydrated or otherwise, it is a uniformitarian "miracle" for any tissue to have survived 60+ million years in the ground. But than again, most of your uniformitarian science is built on "miracle" uniformitarian assumptions...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Trixie, posted 04-04-2005 3:38 AM 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