Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,167 Year: 5,424/9,624 Month: 449/323 Week: 89/204 Day: 5/26 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the creationists thought on this?
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1135 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


(1)
(1)
Message 56 of 136 (619219)
06-09-2011 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Chuck77
06-09-2011 5:35 AM


Re: Genesis...
Chuck77 writes:
Oh, and there wasn't a lot of fan fare about it as you can guess as to why...nor is it even talked about.
Chuck77 writes:
There are a lot of articles on this. Simply search them for yourselves. I picked only one of them.
Aren't these statements a little bit contradictory. If there are many articles on the topic, it has indeed been talked about widely. It was reported in just about every popular science outlet there is, so I'd call that a fair amount of fanfare.
I had a look over on Scienceblogs, a collection of blogs from various scientists, and the topic's been dicussed widely there, with a search for Schweitzer AND "soft tissue" returning 102 articles. Follow up research was covered, including analysis of the protein structure to try and include the T-Rex proteins in the family tree of living organisms. It popped up exactly where you'd expect a dinosaur to lie, as the closest relative of birds.
More recently, incidentally, Schweitzer's team seems to have found proteins from another dinosaur - Brachylophosaurus
The scientific community isnt' exactly hiding this finding under a bushel.
Edited by caffeine, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Chuck77, posted 06-09-2011 5:35 AM Chuck77 has not replied

caffeine
Member (Idle past 1135 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 61 of 136 (619235)
06-09-2011 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Pressie
06-09-2011 8:51 AM


Being fair to "Jon Woodromappe"
Pressie writes:
John Woodmorappe refers to Jan Peczkis as a science educator in one of his ‘articles’. He didn’t tell anybody that he referred to himself. Nobody knows what his qualifications are. We just know that he is a ‘science educator’. He certainly is not a geologist. He just calls himself a ‘science educator’.
Jan Peczkis claims to have an MA in Geology from Northeastern Illinois University, and there are two citations on Jstor for someone of that name from the same university, both in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology:
Implications of Body-Mass Estimates for Dinosaurs
Jan Peczkis
Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Vol. 14, No. 4 (Feb. 15, 1995), pp. 520-533
Trends in the Description of Extinct Genera among Mammalian Orders
Jan Peczkis
Journal of Paleontology, Vol. 63, No. 6 (Nov., 1989), pp. 947-950
He's also written well over a thousand book reviews on Amazon.com, assuming there are no shenanigans involved here.
-----------
Who he really is isn't so relevant here, though. The important point should be that "some person says radiometric dating is rubbish" is not a substantive argument. Let's hear some specific explanation of why it's so rubbish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Pressie, posted 06-09-2011 8:51 AM Pressie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Pressie, posted 06-10-2011 12:21 AM caffeine 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