Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Scientist Proves That Dinos and Man Coexisted

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 2:53:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
While at a dig at Hell Creek formation in Montana, the scientist, Mark Armitage, came upon the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site. When examining the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Armitage was fascinated to see the soft tissue. The discovery stunned members of the scientific community because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.

According to court documents, shortly after the original soft tissue discovery, a university official challenged the motives of Armitage, by shouting at him, "We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!"

http://www.pacificjustice.org....
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 3:23:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 2:53:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
While at a dig at Hell Creek formation in Montana, the scientist, Mark Armitage, came upon the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site. When examining the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Armitage was fascinated to see the soft tissue. The discovery stunned members of the scientific community because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.

According to court documents, shortly after the original soft tissue discovery, a university official challenged the motives of Armitage, by shouting at him, "We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!"

http://www.pacificjustice.org....

There is always a penalty to be paid for not adhering to the party line. Ask the folks who have refused Alcoholics Anonymous as stipulations for probation, parole, licensure, or whatever - even though it is all-but-proven that the "program" is essentially worthless as far as reducing/eliminating alcohol consumption.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 4:54:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 2:53:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
While at a dig at Hell Creek formation in Montana, the scientist, Mark Armitage, came upon the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site. When examining the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Armitage was fascinated to see the soft tissue. The discovery stunned members of the scientific community because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.

According to court documents, shortly after the original soft tissue discovery, a university official challenged the motives of Armitage, by shouting at him, "We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!"

http://www.pacificjustice.org....

D*** move by those guys, certainly.

I hope you don't think this is representative of any more than a small, fractional minority of the scientific community.

As for the discovery, a similar finding was made where soft tissue was found in T-Rex bones, but that was explained by the presence of iron which preserved the tissue.

I imagine it's something similar here, but, then, I'm no archaeologist.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 5:03:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 2:53:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
While at a dig at Hell Creek formation in Montana, the scientist, Mark Armitage, came upon the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site. When examining the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Armitage was fascinated to see the soft tissue. The discovery stunned members of the scientific community because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.

According to court documents, shortly after the original soft tissue discovery, a university official challenged the motives of Armitage, by shouting at him, "We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!"

http://www.pacificjustice.org....

Too bad for you that soft tissue has also been found in the marrow of T-Rex thigh bones (almost 10-years ago!). So this is relatively "old news". And yet, the bones date to 70-million years, while humans have existed for perhaps as long as 2-million (while more conservative estimates place our existence at 1.3 million) years. The only revolutionary information here is that we have more to learn about fossilization. Once the soft tissues are completely shielded by non-porous deposits of minerals, any hope of decay is stopped. Decay requires microbes and chemical reactions which cease once tissues are isolated. It appears that this also slows the fossilization process itself. So while this does show that our understanding of the fossilization process is lacking, it doesn't even start to suggest that man and dinosaurs co-existed on the planet.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/25/2014 5:11:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 2:53:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
While at a dig at Hell Creek formation in Montana, the scientist, Mark Armitage, came upon the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site. When examining the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Armitage was fascinated to see the soft tissue. The discovery stunned members of the scientific community because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.

According to court documents, shortly after the original soft tissue discovery, a university official challenged the motives of Armitage, by shouting at him, "We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!"

http://www.pacificjustice.org....

Can you link to the article in which he discovered this fossil?
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 5:05:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Your thread title is a lie to begin with. He 'proved' no such thing. Secondly, he is a creationist who is currently serving on the board of the Creation Research Society. He specializes in trying to find microscopic evidence for a young Earth. Yeah. Lastly he was discussing his theories on the discovery with his students - totally inappropriate before publishing. A student lodged a complaint and that is why his supervisor blew up at him.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 5:42:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If your willing to believe something as tenuous as this "proves" that man and dinosaurs coexisted you should really take a look at the millions of peices of evidence, multiple scientific disciplines in numerous fields of study covering almost every facet of that particular statement that unanimously and conclusively show that they really didnt.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 6:06:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It gets even better (or worse if you're a theist). The link in the OP is to the journal of the law firm representing him and they specialize in defending creationists. Yep, you're going to get an impartial news story there!

Apparently this chap wasn't even on the teaching staff of the university. He was employed as a microscope technician. So he was talking to students inappropriately about the age of the fossil which is why he was reported by one of them. Good on the student.

The paper published by the microscope technician about the fossil discovery was quite innocuous, simply detailing the finding of some soft tissue in a dinosaur horn. There is no mention of dating the fossil or his ridiculous conjecture about its age.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 6:25:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 3:23:39 PM, annanicole wrote:

There is always a penalty to be paid for not adhering to the party line.

You're comparing the scientific pursuit of knowledge to how a political party operates?

Ask the folks who have refused Alcoholics Anonymous as stipulations for probation, parole, licensure, or whatever - even though it is all-but-proven that the "program" is essentially worthless as far as reducing/eliminating alcohol consumption.

Now you're comparing science to a substance abuse rehabilitation programme?

Are you serious?
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 1:24:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 2:53:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
While at a dig at Hell Creek formation in Montana, the scientist, Mark Armitage, came upon the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site. When examining the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Armitage was fascinated to see the soft tissue. The discovery stunned members of the scientific community because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.

According to court documents, shortly after the original soft tissue discovery, a university official challenged the motives of Armitage, by shouting at him, "We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!"

http://www.pacificjustice.org....

Can you link what he published? Also, soft tissue has been found in dinosaurs before, but science has explained it a long time ago. Certain conditions would allow for soft tissue to still be present, and depending on the conditions this dinosaur was in... it could VERY easily prove nothing.
lifemeansevolutionisgood
Posts: 551
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 1:37:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 2:53:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
While at a dig at Hell Creek formation in Montana, the scientist, Mark Armitage, came upon the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site. When examining the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Armitage was fascinated to see the soft tissue. The discovery stunned members of the scientific community because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.

According to court documents, shortly after the original soft tissue discovery, a university official challenged the motives of Armitage, by shouting at him, "We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!"

http://www.pacificjustice.org....

I actually looked into it more (on non-biased websites, which you should use as sources).
1) California is an "at-will" state. You can get fired for no reason.
2) The only evidence that he was fired for anything to do with religion comes from... his own mouth.
3) There are MANY explanations for why soft tissue can exist in dinosaur bones, which he completely ignored.
4) He was teaching at the time and was teaching his "discovery", which was not even peer reviewed at the time.

Pretty much, this entire thing is being blown out of proportion by creationists in order to try and argue for their position. It is sad.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 1:54:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 2:53:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
While at a dig at Hell Creek formation in Montana, the scientist, Mark Armitage, came upon the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site. When examining the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Armitage was fascinated to see the soft tissue. The discovery stunned members of the scientific community because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.

According to court documents, shortly after the original soft tissue discovery, a university official challenged the motives of Armitage, by shouting at him, "We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!"

http://www.pacificjustice.org....

No carbon dating has been done on it. How can he just claim that by just seeing under a microscope.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 2:07:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 3:23:39 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/25/2014 2:53:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
While at a dig at Hell Creek formation in Montana, the scientist, Mark Armitage, came upon the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site. When examining the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Armitage was fascinated to see the soft tissue. The discovery stunned members of the scientific community because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.

According to court documents, shortly after the original soft tissue discovery, a university official challenged the motives of Armitage, by shouting at him, "We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!"

http://www.pacificjustice.org....

There is always a penalty to be paid for not adhering to the party line. Ask the folks who have refused Alcoholics Anonymous as stipulations for probation, parole, licensure, or whatever - even though it is all-but-proven that the "program" is essentially worthless as far as reducing/eliminating alcohol consumption.

I would like to see if any carbon dating has been done on it. Just seeing under a microscope is not enough. Also the soft tissue factor has been explained. See article

http://m.livescience.com...

The bones of dinosaurs still date to older than humans. Do you think dinosaurs had bones and soft tissue formed millions of years apart. Lol . The Bible just does not know about our universe. The animals mentioned in the Bible are mostly those which co-existed with humans.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Also the Bible is unaware of micro organisms which are older than humans.

Scientists have been silenced by the church more often. Galileo is an example.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 2:28:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 2:07:48 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 7/25/2014 3:23:39 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/25/2014 2:53:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
While at a dig at Hell Creek formation in Montana, the scientist, Mark Armitage, came upon the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site. When examining the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Armitage was fascinated to see the soft tissue. The discovery stunned members of the scientific community because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.

According to court documents, shortly after the original soft tissue discovery, a university official challenged the motives of Armitage, by shouting at him, "We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!"

http://www.pacificjustice.org....

There is always a penalty to be paid for not adhering to the party line. Ask the folks who have refused Alcoholics Anonymous as stipulations for probation, parole, licensure, or whatever - even though it is all-but-proven that the "program" is essentially worthless as far as reducing/eliminating alcohol consumption.

I would like to see if any carbon dating has been done on it. Just seeing under a microscope is not enough. Also the soft tissue factor has been explained. See article

http://m.livescience.com...

It says, "The tissue must be something else, perhaps the product of a later bacterial invasion, critics argued." Now what kind of a fool would postulate that? Do these folks just spew the first nonsense that comes into their wee little minds? Now they've come up with a "flesh-producing bacterial infection in dinosaur bones."

Anyway, I guess they decided that that wasn't a very good theory - and fired the tard that came up with it, hopefully. So the latest speculation is, "The iron did it?" Have they proven it? Of course not. But, gee whiz, they had to come up with something.

The bones of dinosaurs still date to older than humans. Do you think dinosaurs had bones and soft tissue formed millions of years apart. Lol . The Bible just does not know about our universe. The animals mentioned in the Bible are mostly those which co-existed with humans.

I doubt seriously if dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. Perchance there were entirely different populations on the earth prior to the creation of man in the OT.

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Also the Bible is unaware of micro organisms which are older than humans.

I've never heard of a micro-organism that is older than a human. Can you give the genus and species so that I can check out its life-span.

Scientists have been silenced by the church more often. Galileo is an example.

The church has never once "silenced" a scientist. You seem to be talking about Catholicism.

Look, on the other hand, at what so-called "science" does. They find flesh in a dinosaur and claim that it came from strange flesh-producing bacteria! That's their story. I dunno how I'd explain it, but I think I could do a tad better than that.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 4:43:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 2:28:26 PM, annanicole wrote:: Look, on the other hand, at what so-called "science" does. They find flesh in a dinosaur and claim that it came from strange flesh-producing bacteria! That's their story. I dunno how I'd explain it, but I think I could do a tad better than that.

Lets stop this right now. How about we list the evidence against Dinosaurs and man coexisting, and then look at the evidence for them coexisting a few thousand years ago.

So lets start with against.

1.) Hundreds of thousands of independant dates, utilising multiple independant dating mechanisms show that dinosaurs and humans lived tens of millions of years apart. And there is no example of where this is legimately violated

2.) No dinosaur has ever been found with remenants ANY form of modern animal in it's stomach.

3.) None of the tens if not hundreds of thousands Dinosaurs and man fossiles (and all modern animals) are EVER found at the same dates within the fossile record and there is no example of where this is legimately violated.

4.) None of the tens if not hundreds of thousands of examples of dinosaur fossiles have EVER been found in a condition representative of a few thousand years of aging. That includes this evidence.

And the evidence for:

1.) On a very tiny number of examples, traces and in most cases reminants of soft tissue of dinosaurs have occasionally been found in very specific conditions.

So on the one hand, you an overwhelming bredth of strong representative and direct evidence against; and on the other hand you have a single instance of very weak indirect evidence showing that something that is improbable (but is not impossible) .

So given the weight of evidence against, and given the fact that we know fossilisation and preservation can a really complicated, finely balanced process science fairly assumes, you know, there might be an alternative explanation.

This is why Creationists, collectively, are delusional. You have managed to convince yourself to accept one grain of evidence that can sort of be spun to support your point of view, and reject the equally valid mountain of evidence that doesn't.

Please come back when you find a mummified tyrannosaurus with a spear through it's neck. That is pretty much the only evidence sufficient to even make me think twice about rejecting the solid and broad pattern of evidence that points to an old earth.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 4:49:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 4:43:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/26/2014 2:28:26 PM, annanicole wrote:: Look, on the other hand, at what so-called "science" does. They find flesh in a dinosaur and claim that it came from strange flesh-producing bacteria! That's their story. I dunno how I'd explain it, but I think I could do a tad better than that.

Lets stop this right now. How about we list the evidence against Dinosaurs and man coexisting, and then look at the evidence for them coexisting a few thousand years ago.

So lets start with against.

1.) Hundreds of thousands of independant dates, utilising multiple independant dating mechanisms show that dinosaurs and humans lived tens of millions of years apart. And there is no example of where this is legimately violated

2.) No dinosaur has ever been found with remenants ANY form of modern animal in it's stomach.

3.) None of the tens if not hundreds of thousands Dinosaurs and man fossiles (and all modern animals) are EVER found at the same dates within the fossile record and there is no example of where this is legimately violated.

4.) None of the tens if not hundreds of thousands of examples of dinosaur fossiles have EVER been found in a condition representative of a few thousand years of aging. That includes this evidence.

And the evidence for:

1.) On a very tiny number of examples, traces and in most cases reminants of soft tissue of dinosaurs have occasionally been found in very specific conditions.


So on the one hand, you an overwhelming bredth of strong representative and direct evidence against; and on the other hand you have a single instance of very weak indirect evidence showing that something that is improbable (but is not impossible) .

So given the weight of evidence against, and given the fact that we know fossilisation and preservation can a really complicated, finely balanced process science fairly assumes, you know, there might be an alternative explanation.


This is why Creationists, collectively, are delusional. You have managed to convince yourself to accept one grain of evidence that can sort of be spun to support your point of view, and reject the equally valid mountain of evidence that doesn't.

I didn't accept it in the first place. I do not believe that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time.


Please come back when you find a mummified tyrannosaurus with a spear through it's neck. That is pretty much the only evidence sufficient to even make me think twice about rejecting the solid and broad pattern of evidence that points to an old earth.

I merely said, "Look, on the other hand, at what so-called "science" does. They find flesh in a dinosaur and claim that it came from strange flesh-producing bacteria! That's their story. I dunno how I'd explain it, but I think I could do a tad better than that."

I still say that. It would take a slap fool to try to "special plead" enough to come up with that nonsense. "The flesh was placed there by strange flesh-producing bacteria!" Yet that's what science tells us!

That was the part that I questioned.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 5:06:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 4:49:00 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/26/2014 4:43:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/26/2014 2:28:26 PM, annanicole wrote:: Look, on the other hand, at what so-called "science" does. They find flesh in a dinosaur and claim that it came from strange flesh-producing bacteria! That's their story. I dunno how I'd explain it, but I think I could do a tad better than that.

Lets stop this right now. How about we list the evidence against Dinosaurs and man coexisting, and then look at the evidence for them coexisting a few thousand years ago.

So lets start with against.

1.) Hundreds of thousands of independant dates, utilising multiple independant dating mechanisms show that dinosaurs and humans lived tens of millions of years apart. And there is no example of where this is legimately violated

2.) No dinosaur has ever been found with remenants ANY form of modern animal in it's stomach.

3.) None of the tens if not hundreds of thousands Dinosaurs and man fossiles (and all modern animals) are EVER found at the same dates within the fossile record and there is no example of where this is legimately violated.

4.) None of the tens if not hundreds of thousands of examples of dinosaur fossiles have EVER been found in a condition representative of a few thousand years of aging. That includes this evidence.

And the evidence for:

1.) On a very tiny number of examples, traces and in most cases reminants of soft tissue of dinosaurs have occasionally been found in very specific conditions.


So on the one hand, you an overwhelming bredth of strong representative and direct evidence against; and on the other hand you have a single instance of very weak indirect evidence showing that something that is improbable (but is not impossible) .

So given the weight of evidence against, and given the fact that we know fossilisation and preservation can a really complicated, finely balanced process science fairly assumes, you know, there might be an alternative explanation.


This is why Creationists, collectively, are delusional. You have managed to convince yourself to accept one grain of evidence that can sort of be spun to support your point of view, and reject the equally valid mountain of evidence that doesn't.

I didn't accept it in the first place. I do not believe that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time.

Ahh okay, my bad. I apologise!



Please come back when you find a mummified tyrannosaurus with a spear through it's neck. That is pretty much the only evidence sufficient to even make me think twice about rejecting the solid and broad pattern of evidence that points to an old earth.

I merely said, "Look, on the other hand, at what so-called "science" does. They find flesh in a dinosaur and claim that it came from strange flesh-producing bacteria! That's their story. I dunno how I'd explain it, but I think I could do a tad better than that."

That isn't their story, actually.

I still say that. It would take a slap fool to try to "special plead" enough to come up with that nonsense. "The flesh was placed there by strange flesh-producing bacteria!" Yet that's what science tells us!

That was the part that I questioned.

This is quite strange, because Creationism has the monopoly on pulling random explanations with no basis in fact, do not gather any supporting evidence, ignore how ridiculous it sounds and then assert it as fact. If you are questioning this about science, then you should not be a creationist.

Now making a hypothesis about bacteria laying down material that looks like soft tissue is valid; there are bacteria that do similar things today. But it wouldn't be an explanation until they had evidence, studies, supporting information backed up with experimentation.

However, if you gained that explanation from the article cited, then you obviously didn't actually read the article.

"Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years. [Paleo-Art: Illustrations Bring Dinosaurs to Life]"

You see, what ACTUALLY happened, according to the peer reviewed citation above, is that after analysis, they worked out what the soft tissue was, what constituted it, and using the evidence hypothesized why it was able to remain better preserved, then devised a successful experiment to demonstrate the process.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 5:24:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 5:06:06 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/26/2014 4:49:00 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/26/2014 4:43:31 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/26/2014 2:28:26 PM, annanicole wrote:: Look, on the other hand, at what so-called "science" does. They find flesh in a dinosaur and claim that it came from strange flesh-producing bacteria! That's their story. I dunno how I'd explain it, but I think I could do a tad better than that.

Lets stop this right now. How about we list the evidence against Dinosaurs and man coexisting, and then look at the evidence for them coexisting a few thousand years ago.

So lets start with against.

1.) Hundreds of thousands of independant dates, utilising multiple independant dating mechanisms show that dinosaurs and humans lived tens of millions of years apart. And there is no example of where this is legimately violated

2.) No dinosaur has ever been found with remenants ANY form of modern animal in it's stomach.

3.) None of the tens if not hundreds of thousands Dinosaurs and man fossiles (and all modern animals) are EVER found at the same dates within the fossile record and there is no example of where this is legimately violated.

4.) None of the tens if not hundreds of thousands of examples of dinosaur fossiles have EVER been found in a condition representative of a few thousand years of aging. That includes this evidence.

And the evidence for:

1.) On a very tiny number of examples, traces and in most cases reminants of soft tissue of dinosaurs have occasionally been found in very specific conditions.


So on the one hand, you an overwhelming bredth of strong representative and direct evidence against; and on the other hand you have a single instance of very weak indirect evidence showing that something that is improbable (but is not impossible) .

So given the weight of evidence against, and given the fact that we know fossilisation and preservation can a really complicated, finely balanced process science fairly assumes, you know, there might be an alternative explanation.


This is why Creationists, collectively, are delusional. You have managed to convince yourself to accept one grain of evidence that can sort of be spun to support your point of view, and reject the equally valid mountain of evidence that doesn't.

I didn't accept it in the first place. I do not believe that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time.

Ahh okay, my bad. I apologise!



Please come back when you find a mummified tyrannosaurus with a spear through it's neck. That is pretty much the only evidence sufficient to even make me think twice about rejecting the solid and broad pattern of evidence that points to an old earth.

I merely said, "Look, on the other hand, at what so-called "science" does. They find flesh in a dinosaur and claim that it came from strange flesh-producing bacteria! That's their story. I dunno how I'd explain it, but I think I could do a tad better than that."

That isn't their story, actually.

I still say that. It would take a slap fool to try to "special plead" enough to come up with that nonsense. "The flesh was placed there by strange flesh-producing bacteria!" Yet that's what science tells us!

That was the part that I questioned.

This is quite strange, because Creationism has the monopoly on pulling random explanations with no basis in fact, do not gather any supporting evidence, ignore how ridiculous it sounds and then assert it as fact. If you are questioning this about science, then you should not be a creationist.

Now making a hypothesis about bacteria laying down material that looks like soft tissue is valid; there are bacteria that do similar things today. But it wouldn't be an explanation until they had evidence, studies, supporting information backed up with experimentation.

It is a point well taken that both scientists, or "science", and religionists both make ridiculous statements based upon absurd little hypotheses or theories at times. This is merely an example of the former. Fortunately, science affords itself an easy escapte hatch while holding Christianity or creationism in general responsible for any and all absurdities uttered by its adherents.

'Tis a good quote: "Alas, the legs of the lame are not equal."

I still say that the idiot who suggested that the "flesh" was due to some sort of weird "flesh-producing bacteria" should have been canned on general principles. Even the "iron theory" is a long-shot. Two years does not translate into millions.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 6:20:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 5:24:47 PM, annanicole wrote:
Now making a hypothesis about bacteria laying down material that looks like soft tissue is valid; there are bacteria that do similar things today. But it wouldn't be an explanation until they had evidence, studies, supporting information backed up with experimentation.

It is a point well taken that both scientists, or "science", and religionists both make ridiculous statements based upon absurd little hypotheses or theories at times. This is merely an example of the former.

I think that you and I both know this is a horrible, distorted, dishonest untruth.

You misread the article. Lets face it. You have tried to make it sound absurd; which it isn't, and is simply an example of you not wanting to actually find any facts concerning a position you disagree with. THAT is the big difference between science and religion.

So lets look:

http://sydney.edu.au...

"The research team of 13 scientists, led by Professor Elizabeth Raff and Professor Rudolf Raff from Indiana University, USA, used embryo cells from Australian sea urchins to demonstrate how bacterial 'decay' can lead to preservation of soft tissue.

Essentially, bacteria invading an embryo will form densely packed biofilms inside the embryo cells. These biofilms can completely replace embryo cell structure and generate a faithful replica of the embryo."

So, an "absurd hypothesis", which has been researched, and has evidence to support it: yet ANOTHER difference between creationism and science.

Fortunately, science affords itself an easy escapte hatch while holding Christianity or creationism in general responsible for any and all absurdities uttered by its adherents.

The "Escape hatch" is that for science any hypotheses stand or fall by their evidence. Absurd theories such as light is both waves and particles; that time slows down as you go fast, or that disease is caused by germs and not the wrath of God have overturned the consensus by being demonstrable.

For Creationism, all you need to do is throw out the absurd claim and then go straight to asserting it as truth; skipping the pesky proof, demonstration and evidence.

'Tis a good quote: "Alas, the legs of the lame are not equal."

I still say that the idiot who suggested that the "flesh" was due to some sort of weird "flesh-producing bacteria" should have been canned on general principles. Even the "iron theory" is a long-shot. Two years does not translate into millions.

So not content with misreading the article, ignoring the fact that I called you on misreading the article, ignoring the fact that when you actually decide to google the original claim it is actually a little bit less absurd and more backed by evidence than you would care to imagine, you decide that in your expert opinion, having not even read the article, having little understanding of any of the molecular science behind it, have declared it a long shot not because of any bias in the experiment, or unfactored variable, but because you believe that finding a process that prevents bacterial decay that should wipe out the sample in weeks requires the science to show it can last millions of years.

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but how you got there is ridiculous.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 6:47:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 6:20:49 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/26/2014 5:24:47 PM, annanicole wrote:
Now making a hypothesis about bacteria laying down material that looks like soft tissue is valid; there are bacteria that do similar things today. But it wouldn't be an explanation until they had evidence, studies, supporting information backed up with experimentation.

It is a point well taken that both scientists, or "science", and religionists both make ridiculous statements based upon absurd little hypotheses or theories at times. This is merely an example of the former.

I think that you and I both know this is a horrible, distorted, dishonest untruth.

You misread the article. Lets face it. You have tried to make it sound absurd; which it isn't, and is simply an example of you not wanting to actually find any facts concerning a position you disagree with. THAT is the big difference between science and religion.

So lets look:

http://sydney.edu.au...

"The research team of 13 scientists, led by Professor Elizabeth Raff and Professor Rudolf Raff from Indiana University, USA, used embryo cells from Australian sea urchins to demonstrate how bacterial 'decay' can lead to preservation of soft tissue.

Essentially, bacteria invading an embryo will form densely packed biofilms inside the embryo cells. These biofilms can completely replace embryo cell structure and generate a faithful replica of the embryo."

So, an "absurd hypothesis", which has been researched, and has evidence to support it: yet ANOTHER difference between creationism and science.

Fortunately, science affords itself an easy escapte hatch while holding Christianity or creationism in general responsible for any and all absurdities uttered by its adherents.

The "Escape hatch" is that for science any hypotheses stand or fall by their evidence. Absurd theories such as light is both waves and particles; that time slows down as you go fast, or that disease is caused by germs and not the wrath of God have overturned the consensus by being demonstrable.

For Creationism, all you need to do is throw out the absurd claim and then go straight to asserting it as truth; skipping the pesky proof, demonstration and evidence.

'Tis a good quote: "Alas, the legs of the lame are not equal."

I still say that the idiot who suggested that the "flesh" was due to some sort of weird "flesh-producing bacteria" should have been canned on general principles. Even the "iron theory" is a long-shot. Two years does not translate into millions.

So not content with misreading the article, ignoring the fact that I called you on misreading the article, ignoring the fact that when you actually decide to google the original claim it is actually a little bit less absurd and more backed by evidence than you would care to imagine, you decide that in your expert opinion, having not even read the article, having little understanding of any of the molecular science behind it, have declared it a long shot not because of any bias in the experiment, or unfactored variable, but because you believe that finding a process that prevents bacterial decay that should wipe out the sample in weeks requires the science to show it can last millions of years.

I don't necessarily disagree with your conclusion, but how you got there is ridiculous.

I got there in that manner on purpose(s), and here they are:

(1) To demonstrate that opponents of a finding will LEAP to the most unwarranted, unprovable of speculations in their wild attempts at disproving. And SOMEBODY within the so-called "science community" will nod his head with a wise look in agreement. I did research that claim a little bit. I've yet to read of one real scientist who stood up and said, "I want to tell you two things: that's impossible, and you are stupid." Nobody did that.

(2) To demonstrate that the more radical atheists hold theists to a much different standard than they hold themselves. The same atheists that will flip, flop, and flap - and rightfully so, as more evidence filters in - will hold theists to rigid, literal, uncompromising interpretations. Some atheists on here, by the way, fully admit this.

(3) The very idea that "flesh-producing bacteria" accounted for that finding after millions of years is just plain stupid. Yet it was taken seriously, I guess. That there could be an intelligent designer behind the universe is summarily dismissed as ancient fairy tales devised by the ignorant. However, these same folks believe that some "flesh-producing" bacteria (genus and species not stated) came on the scene and deposited "flesh-like" substances that did not decay substantially in millions of years is taken seriously! It just makes one shake his or her head.

"For Creationism, all you need to do is throw out the absurd claim and then go straight to asserting it as truth"

That's not true. One simply presents it as theory, and it falls more accurately under the heading "intelligent design."

Don't worry about my understanding of molecular biology, although I'm sure it could be improved upon. I have been in medicine and academia for years, with a doctorate no less. I've studied histology, genetics, biochemistry, embryology, etc. with some of the best - and some of the worst. I've sat and heard atheists run neck-and-neck with theists if the goal was, "Who can make the most stupid statements?"

My forecast: Theists will never objectively prove the existence of a creator. Atheists will never prove a lack of intelligent design, and in fact must make huge assumptions in order to advance their claims.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 7:12:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 6:47:37 PM, annanicole wrote:
I got there in that manner on purpose(s), and here they are:

(1) To demonstrate that opponents of a finding will LEAP to the most unwarranted, unprovable of speculations in their wild attempts at disproving. And SOMEBODY within the so-called "science community" will nod his head with a wise look in agreement. I did research that claim a little bit. I've yet to read of one real scientist who stood up and said, "I want to tell you two things: that's impossible, and you are stupid." Nobody did that.

But as I pointed out twice so far, this is not at all what they have done; and saying that this is how it went is flat out dishonest.

Speculation is fine, even thinking out the box; as with this case, evidence and study has been conducted into it and with the citation I provided bacteria can do exactly what you have suggested is "Impossible".

In this case it is YOU who have simply jumped to a conclusion in stating that it's impossible, have conducted no research, gathered no evidence and are simply asserting your opinion as if it is a fact.

(2) To demonstrate that the more radical atheists hold theists to a much different standard than they hold themselves. The same atheists that will flip, flop, and flap - and rightfully so, as more evidence filters in - will hold theists to rigid, literal, uncompromising interpretations. Some atheists on here, by the way, fully admit this.

You make this sound like a bad thing. If I'm wrong, I can correct myself. If you are wrong (and given the evidence, you ARE wrong), you will stay wrong. That's just dumb.

(3) The very idea that "flesh-producing bacteria" accounted for that finding after millions of years is just plain stupid. Yet it was taken seriously, I guess. That there could be an intelligent designer behind the universe is summarily dismissed as ancient fairy tales devised by the ignorant. However, these same folks believe that some "flesh-producing" bacteria (genus and species not stated) came on the scene and deposited "flesh-like" substances that did not decay substantially in millions of years is taken seriously! It just makes one shake his or her head.

Well considering ALL the evidence of IR; the key facet of intelligent design has already been disproved, yet there is studies and evidence in support (as cited) of the "plain stupid" hypothesis, I can't really take what you are saying here seriously.

This is literally ridiculous; you are claiming one hypothesis is simply ridiculous, that actually have evidence that demonstrate a process that you claim is impossible, vs one you claim is imply is valid that has already been debunked.

Seriously, what you need to do, is simply acknowledge you didn't research anything, you jumped to a conclusion because you didn't like it, and were wrong. Simple as that.

"For Creationism, all you need to do is throw out the absurd claim and then go straight to asserting it as truth"

That's not true. One simply presents it as theory, and it falls more accurately under the heading "intelligent design."

It's not a theory. As it doesn't contain any testable hypotheses, and isn't a body of knowledge and makes no testable predictions. Moreover, all the main "evidence" and claims of intelligent design have already been demonstratably shown to be wrong; and the proponent of it demonstrably shown to be dishonest about his own claims.

The fact that despite it having failed completely as a scientific theory, the fact that you still seem to support it sort of proves my point.

Don't worry about my understanding of molecular biology, although I'm sure it could be improved upon. I have been in medicine and academia for years, with a doctorate no less. I've studied histology, genetics, biochemistry, embryology, etc. with some of the best - and some of the worst. I've sat and heard atheists run neck-and-neck with theists if the goal was, "Who can make the most stupid statements?"

And yet you seem to have a grossly distorted and irrational view of science. Go figure.

My forecast: Theists will never objectively prove the existence of a creator. Atheists will never prove a lack of intelligent design, and in fact must make huge assumptions in order to advance their claims.

And thus demonstrates the problem, the insipid issue with most religious people.

We will never prove a lack of intelligent designer; that does not mean it cannot be shown to be incredibly, nearly impossibly unlikely.

The balance of evidence, science, logic and philosophy all stand against the likelihood of an intelligent designer. Proof at this point is almost irrelevent; it's the difference between being pretty sure you aren't going to be hit by a massive green meteriorite shaped like kermit the frog, and knowing for certain you aren't going to be hit by a massive green meterioriate shaped like kermit the frog.
debateuser
Posts: 1,094
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 9:03:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 2:28:26 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/26/2014 2:07:48 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 7/25/2014 3:23:39 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/25/2014 2:53:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
While at a dig at Hell Creek formation in Montana, the scientist, Mark Armitage, came upon the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site. When examining the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Armitage was fascinated to see the soft tissue. The discovery stunned members of the scientific community because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.

According to court documents, shortly after the original soft tissue discovery, a university official challenged the motives of Armitage, by shouting at him, "We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!"

http://www.pacificjustice.org....

There is always a penalty to be paid for not adhering to the party line. Ask the folks who have refused Alcoholics Anonymous as stipulations for probation, parole, licensure, or whatever - even though it is all-but-proven that the "program" is essentially worthless as far as reducing/eliminating alcohol consumption.

I would like to see if any carbon dating has been done on it. Just seeing under a microscope is not enough. Also the soft tissue factor has been explained. See article

http://m.livescience.com...

It says, "The tissue must be something else, perhaps the product of a later bacterial invasion, critics argued." Now what kind of a fool would postulate that? Do these folks just spew the first nonsense that comes into their wee little minds? Now they've come up with a "flesh-producing bacterial infection in dinosaur bones."

Anyway, I guess they decided that that wasn't a very good theory - and fired the tard that came up with it, hopefully. So the latest speculation is, "The iron did it?" Have they proven it? Of course not. But, gee whiz, they had to come up with something.

The bones of dinosaurs still date to older than humans. Do you think dinosaurs had bones and soft tissue formed millions of years apart. Lol . The Bible just does not know about our universe. The animals mentioned in the Bible are mostly those which co-existed with humans.

I doubt seriously if dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. Perchance there were entirely different populations on the earth prior to the creation of man in the OT.

Not really. take a look at the genesis 1:24-26 and compare with genesis 1:31 in which the sixth day is mentioned. So according to the Bible , humans and animals were created on the sixth day.

1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

https://www.biblegateway.com...

According to modern knowledge the oldest human DNA is 400000 years old

Reference:
http://www.bbc.com...

Dinosaurs lived about 230 million years ago.

Reference:
http://www.abc.net.au...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Also the Bible is unaware of micro organisms which are older than humans.

I've never heard of a micro-organism that is older than a human. Can you give the genus and species so that I can check out its life-span.

Really how about 3.5 billion years old microbial communities. See link

http://m.livescience.com...

Oldest plants 472 million years ago

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Again the Bible does not know about this either and straight away claims grass was made in genesis 1:11 . Oops big mistake they made.

Genesis 1 reference
https://www.biblegateway.com...

Scientists have been silenced by the church more often. Galileo is an example.

The church has never once "silenced" a scientist. You seem to be talking about Catholicism.

Are catholics non-Christians. And where did protestants come from. Do you think M Luther and his non-sense has something to do with protestants.

Look, on the other hand, at what so-called "science" does. They find flesh in a dinosaur and claim that it came from strange flesh-producing bacteria! That's their story. I dunno how I'd explain it, but I think I could do a tad better than that.

They know their job well.
You can't even read your Bible correctly. First try that.
Scientific Errors In Religion : Atheists are right that religion is a myth

Read this topic on below link:

http://www.debate.org...
Martley
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 9:40:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 2:53:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
While at a dig at Hell Creek formation in Montana, the scientist, Mark Armitage, came upon the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site. When examining the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Armitage was fascinated to see the soft tissue. The discovery stunned members of the scientific community because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.

According to court documents, shortly after the original soft tissue discovery, a university official challenged the motives of Armitage, by shouting at him, "We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!"

http://www.pacificjustice.org....

Your source is a right wing conservative legal defense firm..... shocker! Did you actually READ Armitage's publication in Acta Histochemica (a peer-reviewed scholarly journal???)... my guess is no. Did you actually READ the scientific peer reviews of his study and publication??? My guess is no....

If you did... you would know that soft tissue finds are not uncommon in fossil remains and have a precedent of scientific justification... in numerous studies. It's kinda the reason this goof was canned!
A Black Belt is a white belt who never quit.

The best time to do something was 20 years ago.... the second best to do something is now.
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 10:43:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 7:12:04 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 7/26/2014 6:47:37 PM, annanicole wrote:
I got there in that manner on purpose(s), and here they are:

(1) To demonstrate that opponents of a finding will LEAP to the most unwarranted, unprovable of speculations in their wild attempts at disproving. And SOMEBODY within the so-called "science community" will nod his head with a wise look in agreement. I did research that claim a little bit. I've yet to read of one real scientist who stood up and said, "I want to tell you two things: that's impossible, and you are stupid." Nobody did that.

But as I pointed out twice so far, this is not at all what they have done; and saying that this is how it went is flat out dishonest.

Speculation is fine, even thinking out the box; as with this case, evidence and study has been conducted into it and with the citation I provided bacteria can do exactly what you have suggested is "Impossible".

In this case it is YOU who have simply jumped to a conclusion in stating that it's impossible, have conducted no research, gathered no evidence and are simply asserting your opinion as if it is a fact.

(2) To demonstrate that the more radical atheists hold theists to a much different standard than they hold themselves. The same atheists that will flip, flop, and flap - and rightfully so, as more evidence filters in - will hold theists to rigid, literal, uncompromising interpretations. Some atheists on here, by the way, fully admit this.

You make this sound like a bad thing. If I'm wrong, I can correct myself. If you are wrong (and given the evidence, you ARE wrong), you will stay wrong. That's just dumb.

Wrong about what?

(3) The very idea that "flesh-producing bacteria" accounted for that finding after millions of years is just plain stupid. Yet it was taken seriously, I guess. That there could be an intelligent designer behind the universe is summarily dismissed as ancient fairy tales devised by the ignorant. However, these same folks believe that some "flesh-producing" bacteria (genus and species not stated) came on the scene and deposited "flesh-like" substances that did not decay substantially in millions of years is taken seriously! It just makes one shake his or her head.

Well considering ALL the evidence of IR; the key facet of intelligent design has already been disproved, yet there is studies and evidence in support (as cited) of the "plain stupid" hypothesis, I can't really take what you are saying here seriously.

Really? Cite ONE! Cite a study in which flesh-producing bacteria produced "flesh" that "survived" even one millions years. I say you won't cite a single study.

This is literally ridiculous; you are claiming one hypothesis is simply ridiculous, that actually have evidence that demonstrate a process that you claim is impossible, vs one you claim is imply is valid that has already been debunked.

Seriously, what you need to do, is simply acknowledge you didn't research anything, you jumped to a conclusion because you didn't like it, and were wrong. Simple as that.

I will gladly do so when I see the study.

"For Creationism, all you need to do is throw out the absurd claim and then go straight to asserting it as truth"

That's not true. One simply presents it as theory, and it falls more accurately under the heading "intelligent design."

It's not a theory. As it doesn't contain any testable hypotheses, and isn't a body of knowledge and makes no testable predictions. Moreover, all the main "evidence" and claims of intelligent design have already been demonstratably shown to be wrong; and the proponent of it demonstrably shown to be dishonest about his own claims.

The fact that despite it having failed completely as a scientific theory, the fact that you still seem to support it sort of proves my point.

Don't worry about my understanding of molecular biology, although I'm sure it could be improved upon. I have been in medicine and academia for years, with a doctorate no less. I've studied histology, genetics, biochemistry, embryology, etc. with some of the best - and some of the worst. I've sat and heard atheists run neck-and-neck with theists if the goal was, "Who can make the most stupid statements?"

And yet you seem to have a grossly distorted and irrational view of science. Go figure.

'Tis true that sometimes the less educated actually have a better understanding of certain aspects at times.

My forecast: Theists will never objectively prove the existence of a creator. Atheists will never prove a lack of intelligent design, and in fact must make huge assumptions in order to advance their claims.

And thus demonstrates the problem, the insipid issue with most religious people.

We will never prove a lack of intelligent designer; that does not mean it cannot be shown to be incredibly, nearly impossibly unlikely.

Well, I found that "flesh" produced by imaginary "flesh-producing bacteria" from 60 millions ago to be a long shot, and trying to say this "flesh" survived that long makes it even worse.

The balance of evidence, science, logic and philosophy all stand against the likelihood of an intelligent designer. Proof at this point is almost irrelevent; it's the difference between being pretty sure you aren't going to be hit by a massive green meteriorite shaped like kermit the frog, and knowing for certain you aren't going to be hit by a massive green meterioriate shaped like kermit the frog.

That's your opinion.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
annanicole
Posts: 19,782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 10:52:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 9:03:53 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 7/26/2014 2:28:26 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/26/2014 2:07:48 PM, debateuser wrote:
At 7/25/2014 3:23:39 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 7/25/2014 2:53:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
While at a dig at Hell Creek formation in Montana, the scientist, Mark Armitage, came upon the largest triceratops horn ever unearthed at the site. When examining the horn under a high-powered microscope back at CSUN, Armitage was fascinated to see the soft tissue. The discovery stunned members of the scientific community because it indicates that dinosaurs roamed the earth only thousands of years in the past rather than going extinct 60 million years ago.

According to court documents, shortly after the original soft tissue discovery, a university official challenged the motives of Armitage, by shouting at him, "We are not going to tolerate your religion in this department!"

http://www.pacificjustice.org....

There is always a penalty to be paid for not adhering to the party line. Ask the folks who have refused Alcoholics Anonymous as stipulations for probation, parole, licensure, or whatever - even though it is all-but-proven that the "program" is essentially worthless as far as reducing/eliminating alcohol consumption.

I would like to see if any carbon dating has been done on it. Just seeing under a microscope is not enough. Also the soft tissue factor has been explained. See article

http://m.livescience.com...

It says, "The tissue must be something else, perhaps the product of a later bacterial invasion, critics argued." Now what kind of a fool would postulate that? Do these folks just spew the first nonsense that comes into their wee little minds? Now they've come up with a "flesh-producing bacterial infection in dinosaur bones."

Anyway, I guess they decided that that wasn't a very good theory - and fired the tard that came up with it, hopefully. So the latest speculation is, "The iron did it?" Have they proven it? Of course not. But, gee whiz, they had to come up with something.

The bones of dinosaurs still date to older than humans. Do you think dinosaurs had bones and soft tissue formed millions of years apart. Lol . The Bible just does not know about our universe. The animals mentioned in the Bible are mostly those which co-existed with humans.

I doubt seriously if dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. Perchance there were entirely different populations on the earth prior to the creation of man in the OT.

Not really. take a look at the genesis 1:24-26 and compare with genesis 1:31 in which the sixth day is mentioned. So according to the Bible , humans and animals were created on the sixth day.

1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

https://www.biblegateway.com...


According to modern knowledge the oldest human DNA is 400000 years old

Reference:
http://www.bbc.com...

Dinosaurs lived about 230 million years ago.

Reference:
http://www.abc.net.au...

http://en.m.wikipedia.org...

http://science.howstuffworks.com...

Also the Bible is unaware of micro organisms which are older than humans.

I've never heard of a micro-organism that is older than a human. Can you give the genus and species so that I can check out its life-span.

Really how about 3.5 billion years old microbial communities. See link

http://m.livescience.com...

Oldest plants 472 million years ago

http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

Again the Bible does not know about this either and straight away claims grass was made in genesis 1:11 . Oops big mistake they made.

Genesis 1 reference
https://www.biblegateway.com...

Scientists have been silenced by the church more often. Galileo is an example.

The church has never once "silenced" a scientist. You seem to be talking about Catholicism.

Are catholics non-Christians.

I'd say so. Just look how they have acted. That's not the religion taught in the NT, is it?

And where did protestants come from?

Attempts at reforming the Catholic Church.

Do you think M Luther and his non-sense has something to do with protestants.

Martin Luther tried to clean up the religion to which he subscribed, and wound up starting yet another sect.

Look, on the other hand, at what so-called "science" does. They find flesh in a dinosaur and claim that it came from strange flesh-producing bacteria! That's their story. I dunno how I'd explain it, but I think I could do a tad better than that.

They know their job well.
You can't even read your Bible correctly. First try that.

One thing I've noticed: atheists (whose cause is served by almost-autistic hyperliteral readings of passages) generally presume to be able to read and comprehend the Bible better than folks who have spent large portions of their lives studying it. That's possible, but highly unlikely.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Oromagi
Posts: 857
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/26/2014 10:57:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/25/2014 2:53:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:

Installgentoo is to scientific discourse what squirrels are to opera
jh1234l
Posts: 580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2014 1:40:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 6:06:37 AM, dee-em wrote:
It gets even better (or worse if you're a theist). The link in the OP is to the journal of the law firm representing him and they specialize in defending creationists. Yep, you're going to get an impartial news story there!

Apparently this chap wasn't even on the teaching staff of the university. He was employed as a microscope technician. So he was talking to students inappropriately about the age of the fossil which is why he was reported by one of them. Good on the student.

The paper published by the microscope technician about the fossil discovery was quite innocuous, simply detailing the finding of some soft tissue in a dinosaur horn. There is no mention of dating the fossil or his ridiculous conjecture about its age.

This.
My political compass:
Economic Left/Right: -1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
1 square right of Nelson Mandela, 2 squares down from Francois Hollande
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2014 3:43:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 7/26/2014 10:57:00 PM, Oromagi wrote:
At 7/25/2014 2:53:40 PM, Installgentoo wrote:

Installgentoo is to scientific discourse what squirrels are to opera

This.
dee-em
Posts: 6,447
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/27/2014 4:52:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So, despite the hysterics and hyperbole from the OP'er and posters like annanicole, what we have in summary is:

A microscope technician employed by the university led a group of students through a Socrates-style question and answer session trying to guide them towards his belief that his fossil discovery was only several thousand years old because of the soft tissue it allegedly contained. We don't know why he was subsequently fired, but that is a sackable offense right there. A non-teacher attempting to provide unauthorized education is way outside any contractual arrangement he would have had. His job was to install, maintain and aid students in operating microscopes.

A student complained and the technician's supervisor rightly chewed him out. Later the administration of the university fired the technician. If he was fired over this incident, as seems likely, it wasn't because of any religious views he privately held - it was because he was trying to surreptitiously foist his religious views on the student body. That is an entirely different matter and fully justified for the reasons given above. Note that he was fired by the university administration. This story has nothing to do with the scientific community, suppressing research, or any of the other accusations made by theists here. The OP'er in particular has egg all over his face.