|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Blood vessels, cells and proteins(!) discovered in dinosaur bones | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Wow! Just wow!
To be completely clear: this isn't fossilised tissue in the shape of these things; it's actual proteins! Wow!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 612 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Ok..
What I think is of real real nifty thing is that it was replicated by5 different independent labs! That shows it isn't bad science. It is awesome.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 735 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
As always, email me if you want a pdf of the paper - my addy is in my profile.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Thank you for the offer; but I have access to pretty much everything online through the OU anyway
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Creation Safaris has a misleading piece up about it already; doubtless we can look forward to more in this vein.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2106 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Creation Safaris has a misleading piece up about it already; doubtless we can look forward to more in this vein.
Was that a pun? Aorta pop you one for that! Seriously, creationists have to lie about science as it contradicts what they believe. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
my initial question is how does the cell of any creature survive for so long???
Perhaps its not as old as they say it is???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
my initial question is how does the cell of any creature survive for so long??? We have no idea
Perhaps its not as old as they say it is??? That is the least likely of all explainations.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Why is it the least likely?
because evolutionists hold firmly to their belief that the creature is 80mil years old? Thats a strong faith!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Parasomnium Member Posts: 2224 Joined: |
Peg writes: Why is it the least likely? It is the least likely - or, rather, very unlikely - because it would mean that, if the dating was off to such an extent, almost everything we know about physics would be wrong. Dating methods are based in part on our understanding of physics, in particular nuclear decay. If, on the basis of this evidence, we would abandon our current picture of the ages of the different layers of the geologic column, and with it our current understanding of the history of life on earth, then we would have to abandon an important part of physics as well, together with a host of other well established scientific disciplines. Before we do so, we might be well advised to reconsider and try to find another more likely explanation. It's not so much a matter of strong faith, as you suppose, as more a matter of having a theory that fits most of the evidence. Current theory has the age of the dinosaurs as between 230 and 65 million years ago, because that theory fits most of the evidence. "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin. Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Jack Member Posts: 3514 From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch Joined: Member Rating: 8.7 |
Why is it the least likely? because evolutionists hold firmly to their belief that the creature is 80mil years old? Thats a strong faith! Faith, as always, has nothing to do with it. Let me give you an analogy: you've got a 1000 reliable witnesses to an event, 999 of them say one thing, the 1000th tells you something that appears to contradict them. Do you think the most rational thing to do is to consider that: a) the 999 other witness are wrong?b) there is an explaination as to what the 1000th appears to contradict? You, apparently, think that a) is the way forward. I think that b) is the rational choice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22392 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
Peg writes: Why is it the least likely? because evolutionists hold firmly to their belief that the creature is 80mil years old? Thats a strong faith! Faith means not having a reason for what you believe. Exceptionally strong faith means holding on to a belief even in the presence of contrary evidence. This isn't the proper thread for a discussion of dating techniques, but if you'd like to question whether acceptance of ancient dates has sufficient supporting scientific evidence then you should join one of the threads in the [forum=-3] forum. You and Creation Safaris have the mistaken view that scientific skepticism about the discovery is because it calls evolution into question. That couldn't be further from the truth. All the scientists expressing skepticism would be delighted if it holds up to scrutiny, because it can only add to our knowledge. The skepticism stems from an understanding of just how fragile complex organic molecules like protein and DNA are. You might recall that some years ago evidence of bacteria was discovered in an Antarctic meteorite that had come from Mars (the meteorite is known as Alan Hills 84001). Expressions of skepticism came from all sides of the scientific community, for the same reasons skepticism is now being expressed about the dinosaur protein discovery. Spectacular claims require spectacular proof, and in the case of the Martian meteorite it turned out they were mistaken about evidence of bacteria. It seems absolutely incredible to most scientists that protein could survive for millions and millions of years, and that's why the skepticism. It has nothing to do with fears that it calls into question evolution and even physics itself. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Parasomnium writes: It is the least likely - or, rather, very unlikely - because it would mean that, if the dating was off to such an extent, almost everything we know about physics would be wrong. Dating methods are based in part on our understanding of physics, in particular nuclear decay. If, on the basis of this evidence, we would abandon our current picture of the ages of the different layers of the geologic column, and with it our current understanding of the history of life on earth, then we would have to abandon an important part of physics as well, together with a host of other well established scientific disciplines. thankyou for that explanation. What is the more likely explanation? How could the bones of a 65 million year old reptile possibly still have cells attached to it??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
MrJack writes: Let me give you an analogy: you've got a 1000 reliable witnesses to an event, 999 of them say one thing, the 1000th tells you something that appears to contradict them. Do you think the most rational thing to do is to consider that: a) the 999 other witness are wrong?b) there is an explaination as to what the 1000th appears to contradict? I agree with you. But this is assuming the methods of dating are accurate. How can it be concluded that they are?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peg Member (Idle past 4930 days) Posts: 2703 From: melbourne, australia Joined: |
Percy writes: It seems absolutely incredible to most scientists that protein could survive for millions and millions of years, and that's why the skepticism. It has nothing to do with fears that it calls into question evolution and even physics itself. yes i understand that its not calling evolution into question But surely it must call dating methods into question? If its highly unlikely that such protein could survive for so long, perhaps it is not as old as is believed? This is what i would like to ascertain.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024