Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 121 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-28-2017 12:57 PM
372 online now:
DrJones*, jar, kjsimons, PaulK, Riggamortis, ringo, Tangle, Taq, xongsmith (9 members, 363 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Post Volume:
Total: 814,799 Year: 19,405/21,208 Month: 2,164/3,111 Week: 385/574 Day: 40/59 Hour: 3/6

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
3Next
Author Topic:   What is the Latest On Dr Schweitzer Trex Soft Tissue Find?
mram10
Member (Idle past 977 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 16 of 33 (733629)
07-19-2014 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Pressie
07-18-2014 6:49 AM


You should read more scientific articles and fewer religious websites masquerading as "science".

The collagen had to be demineralised. Dr Schweitzer (an evangelical Christian) et al showed a way soft tissues can be preserved as long as those fossils exist, by publising their research in peer-reviewed scientific journals. You should try to tell your creationist buddies how science is done.

I was not aware the smithsonian mag was religious. Noted Here is the link I was reading:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/.../dinosaur-shocker-115306469

Do you have any "real" sources that are totally unbiased?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Pressie, posted 07-18-2014 6:49 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by ringo, posted 07-19-2014 1:31 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply
 Message 20 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2014 1:43 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18819
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 17 of 33 (733630)
07-19-2014 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by mram10
07-19-2014 12:45 PM


I would also point out that my "homework" has taken me over a year to post 24 times

Almost 2 years, in fact (Joined: 08-07-2012

But it doesn't appear you learned much in that time ...

Can you define evolution? can you describe what the theory of evolution is? can you describe what the difference between abiogenesis and evolution is? can you describe what the difference between 'macro' and 'micro' evolution is?

I doubt it ... but you could prove me wrong ...

Enjoy

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 12:45 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13332
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 18 of 33 (733638)
07-19-2014 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by mram10
07-19-2014 12:51 PM


mram10 writes:

Here is the link I was reading: link


quote:
Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”



That article is from May 2006.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 12:51 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 379 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 19 of 33 (733640)
07-19-2014 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by mram10
07-19-2014 12:48 PM


The articles are written for the general public

You are teh general public, so they are written for you to understand

and have stated "red blood cells"

...which obviously did not work. What makes you think more detailed evidence is going to be easier for you to grasp than what is presented to the "general public" when you haven't read the most recent findings?

It makes it easier to track down the associated articles by asking those that are interested, then it is to google and go through 100 articles.

True, but you didn't even google ONE article, apparently.


Organic life is nothing but a genetic mutation, an accident. Your lives are measured in years and decades. You wither and die. We are eternal, the pinnacle of evolution and existence. Before us, you are nothing. Your extinction is inevitable. We are the end of everything.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 12:48 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15947
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 20 of 33 (733641)
07-19-2014 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by mram10
07-19-2014 12:51 PM


I was not aware the smithsonian mag was religious. Noted Here is the link I was reading:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/.../dinosaur-shocker-115306469

Now that link describes the demineralization process, and also describes how creationists lie about Schweitzer's work. So how carefully were you reading it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 12:51 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15947
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 21 of 33 (733642)
07-19-2014 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by mram10
07-19-2014 12:48 PM


I bring it up here, hoping people have more information. The articles are written for the general public and have stated "red blood cells", etc. It makes it easier to track down the associated articles by asking those that are interested, then it is to google and go through 100 articles.

Yes, other people can use google for you.

From the abstract of Schweitzer's paper:

Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 12:48 PM mram10 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 8:08 PM Dr Adequate has responded

  
mram10
Member (Idle past 977 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 22 of 33 (733661)
07-19-2014 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dr Adequate
07-19-2014 1:48 PM


From the abstract of Schweitzer's paper:

Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience.

Wow! This is the first time you replied to me without name calling or rude comments Thanks. It was actually a really good explanation.

Edited by mram10, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2014 1:48 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-19-2014 8:18 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

    
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 15947
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 23 of 33 (733663)
07-19-2014 8:18 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by mram10
07-19-2014 8:08 PM


Wow! This is the first time you replied to me without name calling or rude comments

This is, of course, not true.

Thanks. It was actually a really good explanation.

You're welcome.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mram10, posted 07-19-2014 8:08 PM mram10 has acknowledged this reply

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 1696
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 24 of 33 (733774)
07-21-2014 6:19 AM


Smiley faces
For some reason lots of creationists think that adding lots of smily faces somehow would enhance ridiculously crazy ideas. Wonder why? Trying to sell snake oil or what? Second hand car salesmen?

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by mram10, posted 07-26-2014 11:15 AM Pressie has not yet responded

    
mram10
Member (Idle past 977 days)
Posts: 84
Joined: 08-07-2012


Message 25 of 33 (734157)
07-26-2014 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by Pressie
07-21-2014 6:19 AM


Re: Smiley faces
Thanks Prissie
You offend many second hand car salesmen out there
It's easy to jump on the secular science bandwagon. It is much harder to be a real scientist and question everything. Einstein's theories were a little revolutionary too.

(here comes the, "are you comparing yourself to Einstein?")


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Pressie, posted 07-21-2014 6:19 AM Pressie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by JonF, posted 07-26-2014 11:21 AM mram10 has not yet responded
 Message 27 by ringo, posted 07-26-2014 11:39 AM mram10 has not yet responded
 Message 28 by NoNukes, posted 07-26-2014 10:23 PM mram10 has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3807
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 26 of 33 (734158)
07-26-2014 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by mram10
07-26-2014 11:15 AM


Re: Smiley faces
And it's easier yet to be a creationist and ignore 99.9999% of the evidence and misinterpret the rest.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mram10, posted 07-26-2014 11:15 AM mram10 has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13332
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 27 of 33 (734161)
07-26-2014 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by mram10
07-26-2014 11:15 AM


Re: Smiley faces
mram10 writes:

It's easy to jump on the secular science bandwagon. It is much harder to be a real scientist and question everything.


You keep talking about "real science" as if it was somehow different from "secular science". Maybe you could tell us what you think "real science" is, and why you think secular scientists aren't doing it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mram10, posted 07-26-2014 11:15 AM mram10 has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9750
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 28 of 33 (734224)
07-26-2014 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mram10
07-26-2014 11:15 AM


Re: Smiley faces
It's easy to jump on the secular science bandwagon. It is much harder to be a real scientist and question everything. Einstein's theories were a little revolutionary too.

Yes, Einstein did produce non-controversial results. But he did it by expanding on his hypothesis in ways that are the essence of the scientific method, and not by babbling.

And yes, the "are you Einstein" question seems appropriate here, because it is a well accepted indicator of crank behavior. But feel free to substitute Galileo if you want.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mram10, posted 07-26-2014 11:15 AM mram10 has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 15647
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 29 of 33 (750390)
02-15-2015 8:11 AM


Response to ChristianGuy15
This is response to ChristianGuy15's Message 39 in the Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists thread.

ChristianGuy15 writes:

well sir how do you explain what atheistic scientists are unhappily
admitting to: that in partially fossilized bone is what is basically
soft tissue red blood cells etc. which according to the laws of science
cannot live sixty five million years.

The preservation was indeed unexpected, but in the sense of requiring a rare sequence of events in unlikely conditions, not in the sense of breaking any laws of science. If you read through this thread you'll get a pretty good sense of how it happened.

--Percy


    
ThinAirDesigns
Member
Posts: 564
Joined: 02-12-2015


(1)
Message 30 of 33 (750402)
02-15-2015 12:32 PM


This is response to ChristianGuy15's Message 39 in the Earth science curriculum tailored to fit wavering fundamentalists thread.

ChristianGuy15 writes:

well sir how do you explain what atheistic scientists are unhappily
admitting to: that in partially fossilized bone is what is basically
soft tissue red blood cells etc. which according to the laws of science
cannot live sixty five million years.

Hey there ChristianGuy. You addressed this question to me over in my thread on earth science curriculum and I would like to respond here where I can do it and respect the productive forum rules that say we keep threads on topic.

First, I'd like to make it clear that I am just a guy studying what is written. I'm not a paleontologist, I haven't seen the bones and if I did see the bones I wouldn't have a clue how to investigate them.

One of the first techniques I use to determine credibility when reading, studying and investigating is to ask for sources of claims and then see if they can be produced. I want to know if what they say is true. I'm going to try that here:

You've made two hard assertions in your question to me.

1: That "atheistic scientists are unhappily admitting" the substance of this find.
and
2: That the assumption of the find (Heme compounds discovered in extremely old earth bones) violates the "laws of science".

Let's take a look at your assertion #1:

I've read as many papers and articles (I didn't say news reports) as I can find that quote other scientists regarding Schweitzer's discovery. I simply can't find a quote from ANYONE that sounds like they are "unhappily admitting" anything. A tenet of science is skepticism and thus good scientists are skeptical. What I find are quotes from the scientific body who were initially very skeptical and now less so as time and research has moved almost a decade forward. What I also find is guarded enthusiasm over the fact that what is being learned might allow more discoveries from old bones than ever thought possible. In essence I find cautious enthusiasm rather than unhappiness.

Following are some links I refer to above:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/.../dinosaur-shocker-115306469
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
http://www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6291.full
http://biologos.org/...nes-an-interview-with-mary-schweitzer

I'd like to add (in the unfortunate case you don't read the papers I linked) that Mary Schweitzer, the researcher who discovered this is a born again Christian who is deeply troubled by the way some creationist web sites and personalities have misled people regarding her work. Following is a quote from her (see links for context).

quote:
She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”

Now to assertion #2: Please quote the "law of science" that precludes the finding of these compounds in old earth bones (helpful hint: there isn't one, but don't take my word for it please).

What I'm inviting you to do ChristianGuy15 is to think about the things you read rather than just accept them. Cross check them. Dig to find out if the claims they make are consistent with the truth. If you don't find that the bulk of scientists are unhappy about the find, why would you trust someone who tells you otherwise? If there turns out to be no known law of science that precludes such a find, why would you trust a source that tells you there is?

It is this skill of skepticism and cross checking that I hope to instill in people I know who believe in a YE. Accurate conclusions will automatically follow.

Food for thought.

JB

Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.

Edited by ThinAirDesigns, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 02-15-2015 1:32 PM ThinAirDesigns has responded

  
Prev1
2
3Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017