+ Reply to Thread
Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ... 91011
Results 151 to 155 of 155

Thread: Real Science making a comeback!

  1. #151
    Champ dawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond reputedawg80 has a reputation beyond repute dawg80's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    26,005

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    Not surprising a basic google search turned this extensive explanation written precisely to the ignorant folks that get mislead by Young Earth Creationists constant effort to pervert actual science.

    https://letterstocreationists.wordpr...r-soft-tissue/

    Since the non-scientists that continue to espouse these ridiculous arguments on these threads will get lost in the actual science discussed in this article, I will highlight a simplified summary.

    "I cited a couple of these young earth articles at the beginning of this article. Googling “dinosaur soft tissue age earth” produced thousands of results. Dozens and dozens of these hits are sites promoting young earth creationism, claiming that Schweitzer’s results disprove evolution and radioactive dating of rocks. Some of these sites misrepresent the facts, stating that actual red blood cells have been found. As noted above, that is not the case: these little round red things are chunks of iron oxide, like rust, which just happen to be about the size and shape of red blood cells. The actual organic remains are highly crosslinked remnants of a several proteins which are known to have stable structures. These remnants retain the shape of the original soft tissue, which is not surprising, since they were confined within tiny pores in the dinosaur bones.

    The main attack by young earth creationists on the antiquity of these finds is an argument from incredulity, based on ignorance: “It is obviously impossible for any trace of soft tissue to endure for 70 million years.” But, how do they know that it is impossible? They don’t. Yes, experiments on protein degradation in test tubes indicate that proteins would break down completely within about a million years. But lots of examples show that the rate of protein degradation varies wildly, depending on the conditions, so no one can say with certainty how long some fragments of protein can last, preserved with iron and sealed in mineral pores. We simply don’t know how this process progresses over a span of millions of years. It is difficult to devise definitive experiments to mimic that timespan."
    So, someone doesn't know it's impossible, so it follows that it has to be possible. Oh wait, how does someone else know it's even possible? They don't. Oh, so we're back to it being impossible. Have to remember, on that whole 70 million year thingy, Goosey is older than you think. He's been around for 70 millions years and has personally witnessed all this evolution stuff.

    "We simply don't know how this process progresses over a span of millions of years." And! it is "difficult" to devise experiments to mimic.....i.e. we can't apply REAL science to the whole evolution thingy, so what the heck! since REAL science simply doesn't work with defending evolution, we'll just make it up!

    BTW you want to tag others as being ignorant. But you admit "we don't know" about everything you posted. Isn't "not knowing" something the definition of ignorance?

  2. #152
    Dawg Adamant Argument Czar Guisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond reputeGuisslapp has a reputation beyond repute Guisslapp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    In your mind and under your skin
    Posts
    17,841

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    I knew you would get distracted by that and miss the big picture point. In case you missed it, the fact that natural tissue degrades doesn't in anyway disprove the age of the material that was discovered. They didn't find cells. That was a pure strawman misrepresentation made by young earth creationists.

    And you didn't read the science in the link, am I right?

  3. #153
    Champ arkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond reputearkansasbob has a reputation beyond repute arkansasbob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    on the brink
    Posts
    8,042

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    ain't nobody got time for that. your summary was sufficient. if you have already decided the outcome you can make any evidence fit it. it works that way on both sides of the argument.

  4. #154
    Champ saltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your timesaltydawg Ultimate jerk and not worth your time saltydawg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southern Nevada
    Posts
    11,182

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    The age of our Universe and of our Solar System is nowhere near the 6,000 year mark unless you ignore science and make that determination based on religious beliefs.

    "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" -- Thomas Jefferson



  5. #155
    Champ TYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond reputeTYLERTECHSAS has a reputation beyond repute TYLERTECHSAS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    44,772

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    You can't make this up.


    GLOBAL ATHEIST CONVENTION CANCELLED – NO ONE WANTS TO GO

    'Human beings don't need religion to be vile. We can be vile perfectly well without it'



    image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2017/11/dea...st-300x100.jpg





    (Daily Wire) The third annual Global Atheist Convention, ironically dubbed “Reason to Hope,” has been cancelled due to dismal ticket sales, The Sydney Morning Herald reports.
    Turns out, offering nihilism packaged as “hope” doesn’t sell too well to the masses.


    The conference, which was scheduled for February of this year, was set to be headlined by atheist novelist Sir Salman Rushdie, who was a huge get for the convention organizers. Iranian cleric Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against Rushdie in 1989 in light of his published work, “The Satanic Verses.” The book targeted the prophet Mohammad, Sikhs, and religion in general.

    "What is there to respect in any of this, or in any of the crimes now being committed almost daily around the world in religion's dreaded name? How well, with what fatal results, religion erects totems, and how willing we are to kill for them," Rushdie once critically said of religion, SMH notes.

    Fellow atheist Richard Dawkins was also on the anti-God roster.

    And what atheist convention would be complete without depressed, atheistic comedians distracting us from our void and utterly meaningless existence?
    "Alongside the thinkers, there was also going to be the 'entertainers,'" notes SMH. "Comic atheism is a particularly strong strand, and religious pomposity provides it with plenty of material. No doubt there was to be a feast of gloating about census figures."

    The author of the SMH report, Anglican Rector Dr. Michael Jensen, writes that he is personally "disappointed" that the conference was cancelled.

    "It's a great shame there's a lack of interest," said Jensen. "I say that as someone who believes in God and thinks that it is the most reasonable thing to believe. ... But I also think that the full and frank discussion of fundamental ideas is part of what a healthy culture promotes and enjoys. A Global Atheist Convention is to be welcomed, because every time people think about God and about the meaning of life is a time we more deeply consider the value and purpose of human life. It makes us better citizens."

    "But what really is the poison in the blood is not religion: it is apathy," added Jensen. "Human beings don't need religion to be vile. We can be vile perfectly well without it. Even viler, I'd argue."



    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/#8xL56LQXt0tA2XzR.99

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts