Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,166 Year: 5,423/9,624 Month: 448/323 Week: 88/204 Day: 4/26 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What's the creationists thought on this?
Panda
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 110 of 136 (620146)
06-14-2011 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Chuck77
06-14-2011 5:40 AM


Re: aesearcRe: Schweitzer
Chuck77 writes:
Yes, in ALL honesty I am saying i've never heard of the woman before. All I know is that soft tissue was found inside a T.rex femur.
I think that Pressie's incredulity comes from the fact that anyone reading about those fossils should have read her name several times.
It is a little like me talking about evolution and then saying: "Who's Darwin?".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Chuck77, posted 06-14-2011 5:40 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 117 of 136 (620357)
06-15-2011 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by Mazzy
06-15-2011 5:41 PM


Re: aesearcRe: Schweitzer
Mazzy writes:
The matter at hand is that evolutionists discard evidence that is uncomfortable.
A dino was most certainly found with tissue and bones in tact.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...071203-dino-mummy.html
Can it be?!
Did you reference an article that you didn't read??
Oh yes.
It appears that you did.
Here is a direct quote from that article:
quote:
Then a chemical process must have mineralized the tissue before bacteria ate it.
(Emphasis mine)
So, to clarify:
No. A dinosaur was most certainly NOT found with tissue and bones intact.
Time and again I see this kind of dishonest quote-mining and intentional misrepresentation of evidence from anti-evolutionists.
Is your god really so very weak that you have to lie to support his existence?
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Mazzy, posted 06-15-2011 5:41 PM Mazzy has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 129 of 136 (625808)
07-25-2011 7:46 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Mazzy
07-25-2011 5:27 PM


Re: aesearcRe: Schweitzer
Mazzy writes:
This is a snip from the article:
"The soft tissues were recovered from the thighbone of a T. rex, known as MOR 1125, that was found in a sandstone formation in Montana. The dinosaur was about 18 years old when it died."
This is what the article states. If it is incorrrect information that is not my fault. If the truth has been exaggerated to suit the paradigm, that is also not my fault. I can only speak to the information that is available.
You provided 3 links in Message 114.
None of them contain the text you are quoting above.
But the three links you provided DO explain that it was mineralised tissue:
quote:
Then a chemical process must have mineralized the tissue before bacteria ate it.
I am left wondering why you had to find a 4th web-site to support your assertions, but then claim "that is also not my fault. I can only speak to the information that is available."
There WAS information available: YOU provided it.
But when it failed to support your claims, you went looking elsewhere.
You can't claim ignorance of the evidence when YOU have linked information refuting your own position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Mazzy, posted 07-25-2011 5:27 PM Mazzy 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