Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Blood vessels, cells and proteins(!) discovered in dinosaur bones
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 1 of 19 (507155)
05-02-2009 10:29 AM


Wow! Just wow!
To be completely clear: this isn't fossilised tissue in the shape of these things; it's actual proteins!
Wow!

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by ramoss, posted 05-02-2009 10:40 AM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 05-02-2009 11:40 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 2 of 19 (507156)
05-02-2009 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Jack
05-02-2009 10:29 AM


Ok..
What I think is of real real nifty thing is that it was replicated by
5 different independent labs!
That shows it isn't bad science. It is awesome.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Jack, posted 05-02-2009 10:29 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 3 of 19 (507158)
05-02-2009 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Dr Jack
05-02-2009 10:29 AM


As always, email me if you want a pdf of the paper - my addy is in my profile.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Dr Jack, posted 05-02-2009 10:29 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Dr Jack, posted 05-02-2009 11:57 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 4 of 19 (507160)
05-02-2009 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Coragyps
05-02-2009 11:40 AM


Thank you for the offer; but I have access to pretty much everything online through the OU anyway

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Coragyps, posted 05-02-2009 11:40 AM Coragyps has not replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 5 of 19 (507272)
05-03-2009 10:33 AM


Precitably Creationists are already lying about it
Creation Safaris has a misleading piece up about it already; doubtless we can look forward to more in this vein.

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Coyote, posted 05-03-2009 11:48 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 6 of 19 (507277)
05-03-2009 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Dr Jack
05-03-2009 10:33 AM


Re: Precitably Creationists are already lying about it
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Dr Jack, posted 05-03-2009 10:33 AM Dr Jack has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 7 of 19 (507547)
05-06-2009 5:13 AM


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???

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Dr Jack, posted 05-06-2009 5:21 AM Peg has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 8 of 19 (507549)
05-06-2009 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Peg
05-06-2009 5:13 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Peg, posted 05-06-2009 5:13 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Peg, posted 05-07-2009 6:38 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 9 of 19 (507656)
05-07-2009 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dr Jack
05-06-2009 5:21 AM


Why is it the least likely?
because evolutionists hold firmly to their belief that the creature is 80mil years old?
Thats a strong faith!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dr Jack, posted 05-06-2009 5:21 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Parasomnium, posted 05-07-2009 7:22 AM Peg has replied
 Message 11 by Dr Jack, posted 05-07-2009 8:04 AM Peg has replied
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 05-07-2009 9:01 AM Peg has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 10 of 19 (507659)
05-07-2009 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Peg
05-07-2009 6:38 AM


Likelihood...
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Peg, posted 05-07-2009 6:38 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Peg, posted 05-08-2009 2:29 AM Parasomnium has replied

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 11 of 19 (507661)
05-07-2009 8:04 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Peg
05-07-2009 6:38 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Peg, posted 05-07-2009 6:38 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Peg, posted 05-08-2009 2:34 AM Dr Jack has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 12 of 19 (507666)
05-07-2009 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Peg
05-07-2009 6:38 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Peg, posted 05-07-2009 6:38 AM Peg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Peg, posted 05-08-2009 2:37 AM Percy has replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 13 of 19 (507786)
05-08-2009 2:29 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Parasomnium
05-07-2009 7:22 AM


Re: Likelihood...
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??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Parasomnium, posted 05-07-2009 7:22 AM Parasomnium has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by mark24, posted 05-08-2009 7:45 AM Peg has not replied
 Message 19 by Parasomnium, posted 05-11-2009 4:59 PM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 14 of 19 (507787)
05-08-2009 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dr Jack
05-07-2009 8:04 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dr Jack, posted 05-07-2009 8:04 AM Dr Jack has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Dr Jack, posted 05-08-2009 4:07 AM Peg has not replied

  
Peg
Member (Idle past 4930 days)
Posts: 2703
From: melbourne, australia
Joined: 11-22-2008


Message 15 of 19 (507788)
05-08-2009 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by Percy
05-07-2009 9:01 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Percy, posted 05-07-2009 9:01 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Percy, posted 05-08-2009 7:38 AM Peg 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