+ Reply to Thread
Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 157

Thread: Real Science making a comeback!

  1. #136
    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
    42,100

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    Not remotely the same. The amount of evidence for evolution makes it certain. Did you watch the vid that was linked earlier?
    Of course I watched it. And others too. Other pro-evolution videos. Just more of the same. Loosely connected pieces of evidence. I think I posted this comment before. But, will again. Evolution depends on one accepting as fact some contention. As in:


    A=B, B=C, and therefore A=C.

    Evolutionists always point at that A = C part and say, see! given the rest of it you have to agree it is true. Yeah, if indeed the first two parts are true. But, how do you know A = B? Where did that come from? Show me your evidence that PROVES A = B. And then you get, at best, some VERY loose small tidbits of evidence, with ENORMOUS assumptions to string it all together.

    While I am certainly no geneticist, I did take a couple of classes in genetics, and did a research paper on the Punnett Square. As I have posted before, I can see the concept of Natural Selection altering, or more accurately, focusing the gene pool for a species. But most of the "inferior" traits do not go away, just that they appear less often in the phenotype, especially if that trait happens to be a recessive gene. Even if you accept the concept of Natural Selection on steroids, it still does NOT create a new species.

    And science itself is constantly correcting itself. Recently new research changed "the fact" we share 99% of our DNA with chimps to 92%. You may say, well see, science is doing what it's supposed to do as new data is discovered. Granted. But then how can anyone state something is factual when the previous "facts" proved erroneous? One can't.

    So, if you want to tell me, evolution is a work in progress, that we really don't KNOW if it's true, but it remains the most likely explanation for many of the changes noted over time. I am willing to meet you halfway and agree....well, maybe science is on to something. But do not tell me it's certain.

  2. #137
    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
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    53,273

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    Very interesting for sure. Short 3 minute clip.

    THE HEAVENS DECLARE:
    Evolutionists can't explain soft-tissue remains


    Exclusive: David Rives notes breaking new evidence doesn't confirm a secular timeline ...more

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/08/evolution...KLZ6MlMlETt.99

  3. #138
    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
    42,100

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    Like I stated in my post just above, science is constantly correcting itself. That's good. And that is why we TRUE scientists remain steadfast to the correct definitions of: scientific hypothesis, theory, and law, and fully understand the stark differences.

    In the case of "the science of evolution" you have a hypothesis that masquerades as a theory. And is nowhere close to being scientific law. In reality, it will never rise to that level. Perhaps with more scientific evidence on its side EVO might achieve the status of being a true theory.

  4. #139
    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
    29,875

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    Quote Originally Posted by TYLERTECHSAS View Post
    Very interesting for sure. Short 3 minute clip.

    THE HEAVENS DECLARE:
    Evolutionists can't explain soft-tissue remains


    Exclusive: David Rives notes breaking new evidence doesn't confirm a secular timeline ...more

    Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/08/evolution...KLZ6MlMlETt.99
    If they really wanted an explanation, they could have just gone and talked to a real scientist.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.liv...ft-tissue.html

  5. #140
    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
    42,100

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!


  6. #141
    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
    29,875

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    Quote Originally Posted by dawg80 View Post
    Lol. Dude is a graduate of Liberty University.

  7. #142
    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
    state of incredulity
    Posts
    8,624

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    If they really wanted an explanation, they could have just gone and talked to a real scientist.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.liv...ft-tissue.html
    did you read the explanation? it's just a bunch of ridiculous hand-waving. i have not formed an opinion on this yet, but this article is completely unconvincing. they are saying that the porous rock "may wick away bacteria and reactive enzymes"?? so if i pack meat in wet sponges, that will help keep it from going bad? complete nonsense. the blood vessels stayed recognizable for two years while submerged in a toxic solution? well that proves it! two years may as well be 200 million...

    by the way, there are certain types of ubiquitous bacteria that really love iron.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron-oxidizing_bacteria

  8. #143
    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
    29,875

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    It is not a matter of "loving" iron. It is a matter of proteins becoming more stabile by undergoing crosslinking (structural change) similar to the structural change that proteins undergo when you cross link with formaldehyde.

  9. #144
    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
    state of incredulity
    Posts
    8,624

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    It is not a matter of "loving" iron. It is a matter of proteins becoming more stabile by undergoing crosslinking (structural change) similar to the structural change that proteins undergo when you cross link with formaldehyde.
    if you take away the formaldehyde, does the tissue decompose?

  10. #145
    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
    29,875

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    Quote Originally Posted by arkansasbob View Post
    if you take away the formaldehyde, does the tissue decompose?
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...4/#!po=10.3053

    Natural tissue does decompose. That is why tissue implants (e.g. Heart valves) are chemically stabilized before implantation. The formaldehyde doesn't remain but it's cross-linked reaction product does.

  11. #146
    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
    state of incredulity
    Posts
    8,624

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    Quote Originally Posted by Guisslapp View Post
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...4/#!po=10.3053

    Natural tissue does decompose. That is why tissue implants (e.g. Heart valves) are chemically stabilized before implantation. The formaldehyde doesn't remain but it's cross-linked reaction product does.
    that's not the question i asked. do the cross-linked proteins decompose over time? are they completely impervious to microbiological attack?

  12. #147
    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
    29,875

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    Quote Originally Posted by arkansasbob View Post
    that's not the question i asked. do the cross-linked proteins decompose over time? are they completely impervious to microbiological attack?
    Those are two separate questions.

    The rate of decomposition depends on the environment. While I don't know if anyone has studied the rate of decomposition of stabilized collagen under the relevant conditions, under highly enzymatic conditions (such as implanted and exposed to a body's immune response) unfixed collagen breaks down in a matter of days, whereas fixed collagen provides a scaffold for in vivo recellularization. I don't know if we have fully surmised whether the fixed collagen remains or whether it gets resorbed over time. But suffice it to say that when attacked aggressively by the body's inflammation response it lasts at least hundreds if not thousands of time longer under such conditions.

    Bones breakdown too. You would only find ancient bones where they didn't entirely decompose, right? So obviously the conditions there allowed for some preservation of the structure of the bone. Same thing with stabilized protein.

  13. #148
    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
    42,100

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    Here's Frazier talking to Goosey:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbS2KSRUVHo

  14. #149
    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
    29,875

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    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."

  15. #150
    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
    11,262

    Re: Real Science making a comeback!

    Quote Originally Posted by dawg80 View Post
    Remember that crap that humans share 99% DNA with chimps? Been debunked! It was just more junk science, meant to advance a political agenda. Much like the man-made global warming hoax.

    Report says humans share 92% DNA with chimps. Not a big deal, ya say, 92% vs. 99%. Well, we share 90% DNA with cats!
    I always knew that you were a cool Kat.

    "All roads lead to Putin" -- Thomas Jefferson



+ 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