Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolutionists

CrappyDebater
Posts: 334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 10:26:39 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
How exactly does muscle tissue organically preserved in three dimensions, with circulatory vessels infilled with blood survive 18 million years?
http://www.ucd.ie...

Is there a scientific consensus on this yet?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 10:52:28 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 10:26:39 AM, CrappyDebater wrote:
How exactly does muscle tissue organically preserved in three dimensions, with circulatory vessels infilled with blood survive 18 million years?
http://www.ucd.ie...

Is there a scientific consensus on this yet?

Yes, there is. As the article admits, the methods of previous preservation of soft tissue was in Amber and Bone. In other words, a proper isolation of the sample from possible bacteria and other methods of decay. This salamander tissue sample simply existed in the right conditions for it to be isolated.

What does this have to do with Evolution, by the way?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 12:05:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 11:07:32 AM, CrappyDebater wrote:
Because its a fossil?

By that logic, you couldve named the thread "Gravity", because it has mass too. Something that is a fossil doesnt instantly make it an evolutionary question.
CrappyDebater
Posts: 334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 12:25:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
By that logic, you couldve named the thread "Gravity", because it has mass too. Something that is a fossil doesnt instantly make it an evolutionary question.

Yes but if you ask anyone on the street what a fossil represents other than the obvious dead creature reminants, what will they tell you?

...
...
......
.....
EVOLUTION.... DING DING DING!!!!!

I'm sorry that was mean.
I apologize.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 1:16:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Yes but if you ask anyone on the street what a fossil represents other than the obvious dead creature reminants, what will they tell you?

And obviously if you ask anyone on the street something their answer is automatically correct.
CrappyDebater
Posts: 334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 1:21:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
You are correct, their answer may be incorrect, as we have seen by a simple field study of the education of America in relation to politics etc.

But that has no effect on the answer given.
Floid
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 1:25:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
But that has no effect on the answer given.

And the answer given has no relevance to the question of "What does the methodology of fossil preservation have to do with evolution?", which is the question you tried to answer by claiming "Well if you asked people on the street they would say it does".
CrappyDebater
Posts: 334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 1:47:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Fossil with non-fossilized flesh "appears" to contradict long age, even if in reality it does not. So I could have made the topic Age of Fossil!

too late, thread already made.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 2:34:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 12:25:54 PM, CrappyDebater wrote:
By that logic, you couldve named the thread "Gravity", because it has mass too. Something that is a fossil doesnt instantly make it an evolutionary question.

Yes but if you ask anyone on the street what a fossil represents other than the obvious dead creature reminants, what will they tell you?

...
...
......
.....
EVOLUTION.... DING DING DING!!!!!


I'm sorry that was mean.
I apologize.

Uh, no. They would say "paleontology".
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 2:35:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 1:47:37 PM, CrappyDebater wrote:
Fossil with non-fossilized flesh "appears" to contradict long age, even if in reality it does not. So I could have made the topic Age of Fossil!

too late, thread already made.

Yes you could, and you shouldve. Atleast then the topic would have something to do with the actual subject you wanted to discuss about.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 2:36:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 1:50:39 PM, CrappyDebater wrote:
Not to mention its a example young earth creationists use as evidence against evolution?
Do you deny this?

Against evolution? No. Against the age of the earth? Yes. The age of the earth is a separate field from Evolution, and has to do with geology.
sherlockmethod
Posts: 317
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/23/2010 8:01:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
We appear to have organic material older than 16 million years. I think we have dino material from around sixty million years old. Several factors play a role such as very rapid covering and the burial taking place shortly after death. This is no real surprise but is a great find. I wish we did have a world wide flood as we would have tons of fossils and organic material.
Library cards: Stopping stupid one book at a time.
mds1303
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 1:00:11 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/23/2010 2:36:26 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/23/2010 1:50:39 PM, CrappyDebater wrote:
Not to mention its a example young earth creationists use as evidence against evolution?
Do you deny this?

Against evolution? No. Against the age of the earth? Yes. The age of the earth is a separate field from Evolution, and has to do with geology.

Yes the age of the earth may be a seperate argument from that of Evolution, however in order to validate the theory of evolution you must have evidence that the earth has been around long enough to enable the numerous mutations to occur.

I believe this article is very important for the Theory of evolution, which is probably why it says,

"Although examples of soft tissue preservation are likely to remain incredibly rare, further discoveries will help scientists paint a better picture of life on earth since the beginning of evolutionary time."

Being able to look at tissue from 18 million years ago and see what it looks like compared to tissue from the same species today should prove valuable insight.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 5:48:37 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 1:00:11 AM, mds1303 wrote:
Yes the age of the earth may be a seperate argument from that of Evolution, however in order to validate the theory of evolution you must have evidence that the earth has been around long enough to enable the numerous mutations to occur.
No no, the theory of evolution simply has to do with Change over time. The amount of time is irrespective of what the basis of the theory is about. The conclusion based on the time AND the fossil evidence LEADS to greater amounts of mutation that lead to common ancestry and speciation, but this is only a buildup on the basis of the theory itself.
CrappyDebater
Posts: 334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 7:11:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
@ sherlock
Thats true, I read somewhere that a certain type of radiation or light seems to be the cause of such preservations as well, im trying to find more information about it.
It also had to do with another ELE theory from such radiation.
mds1303
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 11:07:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 5:48:37 AM, tkubok wrote:
At 2/24/2010 1:00:11 AM, mds1303 wrote:
Yes the age of the earth may be a separate argument from that of Evolution, however in order to validate the theory of evolution you must have evidence that the earth has been around long enough to enable the numerous mutations to occur.

": No no, the theory of evolution simply has to do with Change over time. The amount of time is irrespective of what the basis of the theory is about. "

Well I am simply saying that in order to prove that the theory of evolution in deed did occur over millions of years like everyone believes the Earth would have to be that old. If someone PROVES for certain that the Earth was created within the last 10,000 years or so the Theory of Evolution as predicted today is out the window.

"The conclusion based on the time AND the fossil evidence LEADS to greater amounts of mutation that lead to common ancestry and speciation, but this is only a build up on the basis of the theory itself."

I can't understand your jibberish here, are you trying to explain what the theory of evolution is?
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 11:25:45 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 11:07:40 AM, mds1303 wrote:
": No no, the theory of evolution simply has to do with Change over time. The amount of time is irrespective of what the basis of the theory is about. "

Well I am simply saying that in order to prove that the theory of evolution in deed did occur over millions of years like everyone believes the Earth would have to be that old. If someone PROVES for certain that the Earth was created within the last 10,000 years or so the Theory of Evolution as predicted today is out the window.

Yes, that's true, because that is science. If something doesn't fit the facts, then it isn't an explanation, and we need to find a new one that does.

However, we know that no one will "prove" the world was "created" in the last 10,000 years. We have cave writings older than that. That's the idea that should be out the window, except for some reason, creationists just can't let that nonsensical concept go.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 11:29:12 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 11:25:45 AM, Volkov wrote:
However, we know that no one will "prove" the world was "created" in the last 10,000 years. We have cave writings older than that. That's the idea that should be out the window, except for some reason, creationists just can't let that nonsensical concept go.
Please don't generalize creationists here. We don't all share same beliefs. My religion does not deny that Earth is much older than 10,000 years. It does not deny the previous existence of dinosaurs either.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 11:32:07 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 11:29:12 AM, Mirza wrote:
Please don't generalize creationists here. We don't all share same beliefs. My religion does not deny that Earth is much older than 10,000 years. It does not deny the previous existence of dinosaurs either.

My apologies, you're right - Young Earth Creationists, then.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 11:40:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 11:32:07 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/24/2010 11:29:12 AM, Mirza wrote:
Please don't generalize creationists here. We don't all share same beliefs. My religion does not deny that Earth is much older than 10,000 years. It does not deny the previous existence of dinosaurs either.

My apologies, you're right - Young Earth Creationists, then.
N0 problem0.
mds1303
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 11:49:03 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 11:25:45 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/24/2010 11:07:40 AM, mds1303 wrote:
": No no, the theory of evolution simply has to do with Change over time. The amount of time is irrespective of what the basis of the theory is about. "

Well I am simply saying that in order to prove that the theory of evolution in deed did occur over millions of years like everyone believes the Earth would have to be that old. If someone PROVES for certain that the Earth was created within the last 10,000 years or so the Theory of Evolution as predicted today is out the window.

Yes, that's true, because that is science. If something doesn't fit the facts, then it isn't an explanation, and we need to find a new one that does.

However, we know that no one will "prove" the world was "created" in the last 10,000 years. We have cave writings older than that. That's the idea that should be out the window, except for some reason, creationists just can't let that nonsensical concept go.

but even proving the earth is a less theb a billion years old would throw the theory of evolution out the window (or change it at least) by todays standards
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 11:53:44 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 11:49:03 AM, mds1303 wrote:
but even proving the earth is a less theb a billion years old would throw the theory of evolution out the window (or change it at least) by todays standards

How? Multi-cellular only appeared about 1 billion years ago, and complex animals only arose 550 million years ago. The evolutionary timeline would need to change, but the concept wouldn't have to change in any fundamental way, even compared with how it is already built today.
mds1303
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 7:44:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 11:53:44 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/24/2010 11:49:03 AM, mds1303 wrote:
but even proving the earth is a less theb a billion years old would throw the theory of evolution out the window (or change it at least) by todays standards

How? Multi-cellular only appeared about 1 billion years ago, and complex animals only arose 550 million years ago. The evolutionary timeline would need to change, but the concept wouldn't have to change in any fundamental way, even compared with how it is already built today.

Well u still have to take into account the time to get the first living cell, anyways I am just saying that it would def change it a lot but 10000 years would basically disprove it because that's obv a blink of an eye
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 7:56:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 7:44:41 PM, mds1303 wrote:
Well u still have to take into account the time to get the first living cell, anyways I am just saying that it would def change it a lot but 10000 years would basically disprove it because that's obv a blink of an eye

And? If the molecules of your body weren't held together, gravity, molecular attraction, and all these other things would also be disproved. But, that simply isn't happening, is it?

Science fits the facts, not the myths. If the world is proven to be only 10,000 years old, then yes, the theory has an issue. But no one has an issue with that, because if the world is only 10,000 years old, its a fact, and science must follow it.
mds1303
Posts: 55
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2010 9:22:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/24/2010 7:56:38 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/24/2010 7:44:41 PM, mds1303 wrote:
Well u still have to take into account the time to get the first living cell, anyways I am just saying that it would def change it a lot but 10000 years would basically disprove it because that's obv a blink of an eye

And? If the molecules of your body weren't held together, gravity, molecular attraction, and all these other things would also be disproved. But, that simply isn't happening, is it?

Science fits the facts, not the myths. If the world is proven to be only 10,000 years old, then yes, the theory has an issue. But no one has an issue with that, because if the world is only 10,000 years old, its a fact, and science must follow it.

Lol I don't know why you seem so defensive.

I simply made the point that this discovery could have huge implications on the theory of evolution, mainly because the second poster acted as if there was no correlation between them.