Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,596 Year: 4,853/9,624 Month: 201/427 Week: 11/103 Day: 11/0 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Blood in dino bones
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3787 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

  
simple 
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 138 (196143)
04-01-2005 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Trixie
04-01-2005 3:56 PM


2 tigers make all tigers
quote:
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?
Good point. Actually, I can't say it was for sure. However, here is why I do think it was.
In the artic, there have been found evidences of a very different and warmer climate at one time. One example, was the (I don't know if I'm spelling this right) champosaurus, a crocodile like creature with the remains of a toad in it's belly.
Now, as to the penguins, I don't know, never thought about that. Perhaps they 'evolved' or adapted from a time when they used to like warmer waters? Now wolly mammoths have been known to be hunted by men, no? I think they may have been post flood? If there were pre flood ones do we know they were not comfortable in warmer climates?
I don't think Noah would have taken artic foxes on board, rather regular foxes who would have branched out to different kinds? I must confess I'm going on memories of creationist ideas, and I could have this wrong.
"Analysis of the tigers' mitochondrial DNA revealed that all tigers diverged from a common ancestor that lived 72,000-108,000 years ago. "
BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | New sub-species of tiger found !!!!!!!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Trixie, posted 04-01-2005 3:56 PM Trixie has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Incognito, posted 04-04-2005 12:16 AM simple has replied

  
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

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2293
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 5.9


Message 80 of 138 (196585)
04-04-2005 12:47 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Incognito
04-04-2005 12:40 AM


Re: detente
An albino bear is still a bear - doesn't really matter where it lives
Polar bears are not Albinos.
Or as a uniformitarian do you not believe in micro-evolution?
There is no such thing as "micro-evolution". What is the fundamental difference between walking to the store and walking to the next town? Is one micro-walking?

*not an actual doctor

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 83 by Incognito, posted 04-04-2005 1:06 AM DrJones* has not 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

  
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5933 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 82 of 138 (196589)
04-04-2005 1:05 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by Incognito
04-04-2005 12:40 AM


Re: detente
If it wasn't semi-tropical in the past - what was a T-Rex doing there?
What the hell?! Have you been ignoring science for the last 30-odd years? Tyrannosaurus rex was endothermic, or, to put it in terms you can understand, warm-blooded. It doesn't need a tropical environment.
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?
Where the hell did you get that? The elk and bison in modern times have trouble with getting enough food because they're overpopulated. Tip: To find out what woolly mammoths would have eaten, look up "musk ox".
By the way, go look up the words "Penguins" and "Galapagos Islands" - they're not as frigid as you think...
Galapagos penguins aren't the same as other penguins. We're talking about penguins that can only live in frigid climates, like Kings and Emperors.

Proudly attempting to Google-Bomb Kent Hovind's website
Lying Dumbass

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 85 by Incognito, posted 04-04-2005 1:27 AM Cthulhu 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

  
Cthulhu
Member (Idle past 5933 days)
Posts: 273
From: Roe Dyelin
Joined: 09-09-2003


Message 84 of 138 (196591)
04-04-2005 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Incognito
04-04-2005 12:52 AM


Re: detente
Wow. One freaking hoax. This obviously totally invalidates evolution, while creationism, with its dozens of hoaxes, is correct.
And we're drifting off-topic. If you want to talk about this, start a new thread.

Proudly attempting to Google-Bomb Kent Hovind's website
Lying Dumbass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Incognito, posted 04-04-2005 12:52 AM Incognito has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Incognito, posted 04-04-2005 2:12 AM Cthulhu has not replied
 Message 96 by simple, posted 04-04-2005 10:34 PM Cthulhu 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

  
Trixie
Member (Idle past 3787 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

  
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