Total Posts:124|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Soft tissue discovered in dinosaur fossil.

B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
It's been confirmed. The soft tissue found is original. This begs the question. How can soft tissue, still pliable and containing red blood cells and even DNA, survive for 65 million years. The answer is simple. It can't. Scientists are trying to tell us that iron preserved it for all these millions of years. I'm not convinced. They preserved some meat for two years, using this method, but it's straining my credulity past the breaking point to believe that it could preserve it for 65 million years. When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 8:14:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
It's been confirmed. The soft tissue found is original. This begs the question. How can soft tissue, still pliable and containing red blood cells and even DNA, survive for 65 million years. The answer is simple. It can't. Scientists are trying to tell us that iron preserved it for all these millions of years. I'm not convinced. They preserved some meat for two years, using this method, but it's straining my credulity past the breaking point to believe that it could preserve it for 65 million years. When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?

If believing that minute remnants of DNA and soft tissue occurring in a minute number of the billions or more fossils examples we've found strains your credulity past breaking point then you shouldn't be a creationist.

We find mummified species, still calcified bone, soft tissue, DNA and pretty well preserved creatures from ten thousand years ago, and it should strain your credulity even further to believe that almost all the billions of fossils found are completely fossilized and none have as much DNA, soft tissue and biological material as even the least well preserved 10,000 year old mummy. It should also strain your credulity to believe that all radiometric dating of all kinds just so happen to give consistently similar dates.

It should also strain your credulity to believe that the Bible is literally true, because the real world shows its wrong; and the fact that most of the world is not convinced by it, it isn't as scientifically compelling as a book by Bill Bryson really seems to indicate if It was literally true, your opinion of gods intelligence is very low.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 9:08:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
It's been confirmed. The soft tissue found is original. This begs the question. How can soft tissue, still pliable and containing red blood cells and even DNA, survive for 65 million years. The answer is simple. It can't. Scientists are trying to tell us that iron preserved it for all these millions of years. I'm not convinced. They preserved some meat for two years, using this method, but it's straining my credulity past the breaking point to believe that it could preserve it for 65 million years. When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?

Of course it's a monstrous lie. Atheistic scientists banded together 160 years ago in a conspiracy to hide the awful truth. Jesus didn't ride into Jerusalem on a donkey and/or colt. He rode in on a T. Rex. A domesticated one naturally.

All those fossils just appear old because God is a practical joker. He must split his sides laughing every time a new fossil is dated by these gullible paleontologists. It's hilarious.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 10:08:42 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
It's been confirmed. The soft tissue found is original. This begs the question. How can soft tissue, still pliable and containing red blood cells and even DNA, survive for 65 million years. The answer is simple. It can't. Scientists are trying to tell us that iron preserved it for all these millions of years. I'm not convinced. They preserved some meat for two years, using this method, but it's straining my credulity past the breaking point to believe that it could preserve it for 65 million years. When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?

Ah yes, back to make a mockery of science with your ignorance and incredulity as your driving force. Could you be any more dishonest?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
v3nesl
Posts: 4,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 12:28:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
It's been confirmed. The soft tissue found is original. This begs the question. How can soft tissue, still pliable and containing red blood cells and even DNA, survive for 65 million years. The answer is simple. It can't. Scientists are trying to tell us that iron preserved it for all these millions of years. I'm not convinced. They preserved some meat for two years, using this method, but it's straining my credulity past the breaking point to believe that it could preserve it for 65 million years. When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?

Yeah, this is pretty powerful evidence. The chemistry of elasticity is pretty well understood, and we all know that elasticity breaks down pretty rapidly - either more cross-bonds form and the material hardens, or bonds break down and you get dust. And this process is internal, it has little to do with environment, unless the material is in liquid hydrogen or something equally exotic.

So yeah, there is no way that elastic tissue can be anywhere close to 65 million years old, and a whole bunch of dating techniques have to be called into question.
This space for rent.
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 2:00:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 8:14:59 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
It's been confirmed. The soft tissue found is original. This begs the question. How can soft tissue, still pliable and containing red blood cells and even DNA, survive for 65 million years. The answer is simple. It can't. Scientists are trying to tell us that iron preserved it for all these millions of years. I'm not convinced. They preserved some meat for two years, using this method, but it's straining my credulity past the breaking point to believe that it could preserve it for 65 million years. When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?

If believing that minute remnants of DNA and soft tissue occurring in a minute number of the billions or more fossils examples we've found strains your credulity past breaking point then you shouldn't be a creationist.

We find mummified species, still calcified bone, soft tissue, DNA and pretty well preserved creatures from ten thousand years ago, and it should strain your credulity even further to believe that almost all the billions of fossils found are completely fossilized and none have as much DNA, soft tissue and biological material as even the least well preserved 10,000 year old mummy. It should also strain your credulity to believe that all radiometric dating of all kinds just so happen to give consistently similar dates.

It should also strain your credulity to believe that the Bible is literally true, because the real world shows its wrong; and the fact that most of the world is not convinced by it, it isn't as scientifically compelling as a book by Bill Bryson really seems to indicate if It was literally true, your opinion of gods intelligence is very low.

Thank, once again, for proving how clueless you are. Everyone should be reminded, once in a while, so we're not tempted to take you seriously. Have a nice day.

Oh. You still haven't given a plausible explanation of how SOFT TISSUE with blood cells and even DNA have lasted 65 million years. Good luck with that.
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 2:02:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 9:08:24 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
It's been confirmed. The soft tissue found is original. This begs the question. How can soft tissue, still pliable and containing red blood cells and even DNA, survive for 65 million years. The answer is simple. It can't. Scientists are trying to tell us that iron preserved it for all these millions of years. I'm not convinced. They preserved some meat for two years, using this method, but it's straining my credulity past the breaking point to believe that it could preserve it for 65 million years. When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?

Of course it's a monstrous lie. Atheistic scientists banded together 160 years ago in a conspiracy to hide the awful truth. Jesus didn't ride into Jerusalem on a donkey and/or colt. He rode in on a T. Rex. A domesticated one naturally.

All those fossils just appear old because God is a practical joker. He must split his sides laughing every time a new fossil is dated by these gullible paleontologists. It's hilarious.

Answer the question. How could soft tissue last 65 million years. You can deflect all you like, but the question is not going away.
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 2:03:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 10:08:42 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
It's been confirmed. The soft tissue found is original. This begs the question. How can soft tissue, still pliable and containing red blood cells and even DNA, survive for 65 million years. The answer is simple. It can't. Scientists are trying to tell us that iron preserved it for all these millions of years. I'm not convinced. They preserved some meat for two years, using this method, but it's straining my credulity past the breaking point to believe that it could preserve it for 65 million years. When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?

Ah yes, back to make a mockery of science with your ignorance and incredulity as your driving force. Could you be any more dishonest?

Answer the question. How can soft tissues possibly survive for 65 million years?
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 2:06:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 12:28:08 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
It's been confirmed. The soft tissue found is original. This begs the question. How can soft tissue, still pliable and containing red blood cells and even DNA, survive for 65 million years. The answer is simple. It can't. Scientists are trying to tell us that iron preserved it for all these millions of years. I'm not convinced. They preserved some meat for two years, using this method, but it's straining my credulity past the breaking point to believe that it could preserve it for 65 million years. When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?

Yeah, this is pretty powerful evidence. The chemistry of elasticity is pretty well understood, and we all know that elasticity breaks down pretty rapidly - either more cross-bonds form and the material hardens, or bonds break down and you get dust. And this process is internal, it has little to do with environment, unless the material is in liquid hydrogen or something equally exotic.

So yeah, there is no way that elastic tissue can be anywhere close to 65 million years old, and a whole bunch of dating techniques have to be called into question.

Thanks for your reply. Isn't it funny, how none of them had an answer for me? Only deflection and scorn. And they call me irrational.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 2:18:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 2:00:54 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 8:14:59 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
It's been confirmed. The soft tissue found is original. This begs the question. How can soft tissue, still pliable and containing red blood cells and even DNA, survive for 65 million years. The answer is simple. It can't. Scientists are trying to tell us that iron preserved it for all these millions of years. I'm not convinced. They preserved some meat for two years, using this method, but it's straining my credulity past the breaking point to believe that it could preserve it for 65 million years. When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?

If believing that minute remnants of DNA and soft tissue occurring in a minute number of the billions or more fossils examples we've found strains your credulity past breaking point then you shouldn't be a creationist.

We find mummified species, still calcified bone, soft tissue, DNA and pretty well preserved creatures from ten thousand years ago, and it should strain your credulity even further to believe that almost all the billions of fossils found are completely fossilized and none have as much DNA, soft tissue and biological material as even the least well preserved 10,000 year old mummy. It should also strain your credulity to believe that all radiometric dating of all kinds just so happen to give consistently similar dates.

It should also strain your credulity to believe that the Bible is literally true, because the real world shows its wrong; and the fact that most of the world is not convinced by it, it isn't as scientifically compelling as a book by Bill Bryson really seems to indicate if It was literally true, your opinion of gods intelligence is very low.

Thank, once again, for proving how clueless you are. Everyone should be reminded, once in a while, so we're not tempted to take you seriously. Have a nice day.

What a compelling argument.

Oh. You still haven't given a plausible explanation of how SOFT TISSUE with blood cells and even DNA have lasted 65 million years. Good luck with that.

Oh I do. But plausibility and science has no relevance to your argument, it was worth pointing out the sheer dishonesty of your point of view.

If lack of explanation (which there is actually a plausible explanation if one is being honest) is justification of why a greater theory is untrue, then you must concede that creationism is false.

Even if I couldn't answer this question, of how minute remants of chemical tissue that is In a state of decomposition completely different from that of finds one expects in specimens that are only a few thousand years old (which you utterly ignore), can be shown can survive millions of years; then the fact that every aspect of creationism stands opposed to the detailed scientific evidence should be a big deal to you.

The world shows no evidence of being created in genetics, the earth is old, life evolves, there are no evidence of kinds existing at all and the fossil record shows a progression of species over time that diversifies through relatively small taxonomic changes. Everything is against creationism.

Now the fact that you seem not to care about this all indicates you simply do not care what the evidence is, you just care about any scrap of evidence that is even marginally consistent with your position and ignore all the evidence to the contrary. It seems that is highly dishonest to even begin to argue on issues such as this.

The bible says explicitly states you should remove the plank from your own eye before you remove the speck from someone else: paraphrased to an extent in modern times as "those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". I would take this into consideration when arguing at how other people do not take into account the evidence.

We do, just because what the evidence is, is not compelling in respect of all the evidence you ignore that shows that it is against all reasonable probability that TRexs excited geologically recently; and the nature of what was found is most likely due to a process of fossilization we don't understand; does not mean we are ignoring it or being dishonest. We just take into account all the evidence; not just the stuff that agrees with our position.
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 2:29:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 2:18:34 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:00:54 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 8:14:59 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
It's been confirmed. The soft tissue found is original. This begs the question. How can soft tissue, still pliable and containing red blood cells and even DNA, survive for 65 million years. The answer is simple. It can't. Scientists are trying to tell us that iron preserved it for all these millions of years. I'm not convinced. They preserved some meat for two years, using this method, but it's straining my credulity past the breaking point to believe that it could preserve it for 65 million years. When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?

If believing that minute remnants of DNA and soft tissue occurring in a minute number of the billions or more fossils examples we've found strains your credulity past breaking point then you shouldn't be a creationist.

We find mummified species, still calcified bone, soft tissue, DNA and pretty well preserved creatures from ten thousand years ago, and it should strain your credulity even further to believe that almost all the billions of fossils found are completely fossilized and none have as much DNA, soft tissue and biological material as even the least well preserved 10,000 year old mummy. It should also strain your credulity to believe that all radiometric dating of all kinds just so happen to give consistently similar dates.

It should also strain your credulity to believe that the Bible is literally true, because the real world shows its wrong; and the fact that most of the world is not convinced by it, it isn't as scientifically compelling as a book by Bill Bryson really seems to indicate if It was literally true, your opinion of gods intelligence is very low.

Thank, once again, for proving how clueless you are. Everyone should be reminded, once in a while, so we're not tempted to take you seriously. Have a nice day.

What a compelling argument.

Oh. You still haven't given a plausible explanation of how SOFT TISSUE with blood cells and even DNA have lasted 65 million years. Good luck with that.

Oh I do. But plausibility and science has no relevance to your argument, it was worth pointing out the sheer dishonesty of your point of view.

If lack of explanation (which there is actually a plausible explanation if one is being honest) is justification of why a greater theory is untrue, then you must concede that creationism is false.

Even if I couldn't answer this question, of how minute remants of chemical tissue that is In a state of decomposition completely different from that of finds one expects in specimens that are only a few thousand years old (which you utterly ignore), can be shown can survive millions of years; then the fact that every aspect of creationism stands opposed to the detailed scientific evidence should be a big deal to you.

The world shows no evidence of being created in genetics, the earth is old, life evolves, there are no evidence of kinds existing at all and the fossil record shows a progression of species over time that diversifies through relatively small taxonomic changes. Everything is against creationism.

Now the fact that you seem not to care about this all indicates you simply do not care what the evidence is, you just care about any scrap of evidence that is even marginally consistent with your position and ignore all the evidence to the contrary. It seems that is highly dishonest to even begin to argue on issues such as this.

The bible says explicitly states you should remove the plank from your own eye before you remove the speck from someone else: paraphrased to an extent in modern times as "those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". I would take this into consideration when arguing at how other people do not take into account the evidence.

We do, just because what the evidence is, is not compelling in respect of all the evidence you ignore that shows that it is against all reasonable probability that TRexs excited geologically recently; and the nature of what was found is most likely due to a process of fossilization we don't understand; does not mean we are ignoring it or being dishonest. We just take into account all the evidence; not just the stuff that agrees with our position.

How about answering the question? How can soft tissue survive for 65 million years? You can't give me an answer. No one can. You try to claim that it was nothing but some very small scrap of desiccated tissue. What they found were intact blood vessels with red blood cells in them. The tissue was still elastic. They even sequenced some of the DNA! Are you trying to tell me that DNA, with a half life of about 500 years, can last 65 million years? Your feeble attempt at damage control has failed. If even one thing about evolution can be proven to be false, the entire theory is finished. Dinosaurs are not millions of years old. They can't be. This discovery proves it.
JMcKinley
Posts: 314
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 3:00:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
They've already explained how it happened. Your ignorance and incredulity of that process has no bearing on its validity.

Science proves things that we thought we once thought to be crazy all the time. That is the beauty of science. It cuts through the bias and flawed human intuition and gets to the heart of the matter.
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 3:39:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 2:29:12 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:18:34 PM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:00:54 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 8:14:59 AM, Ramshutu wrote:
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
It's been confirmed. The soft tissue found is original. This begs the question. How can soft tissue, still pliable and containing red blood cells and even DNA, survive for 65 million years. The answer is simple. It can't. Scientists are trying to tell us that iron preserved it for all these millions of years. I'm not convinced. They preserved some meat for two years, using this method, but it's straining my credulity past the breaking point to believe that it could preserve it for 65 million years. When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?

If believing that minute remnants of DNA and soft tissue occurring in a minute number of the billions or more fossils examples we've found strains your credulity past breaking point then you shouldn't be a creationist.

We find mummified species, still calcified bone, soft tissue, DNA and pretty well preserved creatures from ten thousand years ago, and it should strain your credulity even further to believe that almost all the billions of fossils found are completely fossilized and none have as much DNA, soft tissue and biological material as even the least well preserved 10,000 year old mummy. It should also strain your credulity to believe that all radiometric dating of all kinds just so happen to give consistently similar dates.

It should also strain your credulity to believe that the Bible is literally true, because the real world shows its wrong; and the fact that most of the world is not convinced by it, it isn't as scientifically compelling as a book by Bill Bryson really seems to indicate if It was literally true, your opinion of gods intelligence is very low.

Thank, once again, for proving how clueless you are. Everyone should be reminded, once in a while, so we're not tempted to take you seriously. Have a nice day.

What a compelling argument.

Oh. You still haven't given a plausible explanation of how SOFT TISSUE with blood cells and even DNA have lasted 65 million years. Good luck with that.

Oh I do. But plausibility and science has no relevance to your argument, it was worth pointing out the sheer dishonesty of your point of view.

If lack of explanation (which there is actually a plausible explanation if one is being honest) is justification of why a greater theory is untrue, then you must concede that creationism is false.

Even if I couldn't answer this question, of how minute remants of chemical tissue that is In a state of decomposition completely different from that of finds one expects in specimens that are only a few thousand years old (which you utterly ignore), can be shown can survive millions of years; then the fact that every aspect of creationism stands opposed to the detailed scientific evidence should be a big deal to you.

The world shows no evidence of being created in genetics, the earth is old, life evolves, there are no evidence of kinds existing at all and the fossil record shows a progression of species over time that diversifies through relatively small taxonomic changes. Everything is against creationism.

Now the fact that you seem not to care about this all indicates you simply do not care what the evidence is, you just care about any scrap of evidence that is even marginally consistent with your position and ignore all the evidence to the contrary. It seems that is highly dishonest to even begin to argue on issues such as this.

The bible says explicitly states you should remove the plank from your own eye before you remove the speck from someone else: paraphrased to an extent in modern times as "those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones". I would take this into consideration when arguing at how other people do not take into account the evidence.

We do, just because what the evidence is, is not compelling in respect of all the evidence you ignore that shows that it is against all reasonable probability that TRexs excited geologically recently; and the nature of what was found is most likely due to a process of fossilization we don't understand; does not mean we are ignoring it or being dishonest. We just take into account all the evidence; not just the stuff that agrees with our position.

How about answering the question? How can soft tissue survive for 65 million years? You can't give me an answer. No one can. You try to claim that it was nothing but some very small scrap of desiccated tissue. What they found were intact blood vessels with red blood cells in them. The tissue was still elastic. They even sequenced some of the DNA! Are you trying to tell me that DNA, with a half life of about 500 years, can last 65 million years? Your feeble attempt at damage control has failed. If even one thing about evolution can be proven to be false, the entire theory is finished. Dinosaurs are not millions of years old. They can't be. This discovery proves it.

The problem with your argument is that you have lept to the conclusion that our understanding of DNA and collegen degradation is 100% cast iron correct, and therefore our understanding of all the other scientific evidence in support of evolution must therefore be wrong.

Why? How can you possibly claim that our scientific understanding of one aspect is so wrong by relying on another?

Considering, as I said, we haven't found DNA sequences (I have found none of the references to this claim DNA was found), we haven't found lots of soft tissue, mummified dinosaurs, or any other taxa older than a couple of hundred thousands years. We haven't sequenced DInosaur DNA, only the tiny collagen remnants (and they are tiny remnants). We haven't found non fossilized dinosaurs all over the place.

If we all our accepted science you say is wrong, is wrong about the age of dinosaurs, then ALL those things should have been found, but they're not. As a result, the only valid conclusion, is that we are wrong about our Conclusions surrounding degradation of collagen and proteins.

Moreover, if the scientists involved are all engaged in a conspiracy to suppress evidence and to invent processes, why would they have reported these findings at all!

Your argument doesn't warrant a response, because you will reject anything that I could argue for the very reason you are not interested in evidence, you are misrepresenting the data and jumping to insane conclusions that almost all of science is flat out wrong except for the science relating to a very small, very limited aspect of of chemistry. The only rational conclusion is that our understanding of biological degradation is maybe a little wrong or at least incomplete.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 4:18:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 2:06:53 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:28:08 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
It's been confirmed. The soft tissue found is original. This begs the question. How can soft tissue, still pliable and containing red blood cells and even DNA, survive for 65 million years. The answer is simple. It can't. Scientists are trying to tell us that iron preserved it for all these millions of years. I'm not convinced. They preserved some meat for two years, using this method, but it's straining my credulity past the breaking point to believe that it could preserve it for 65 million years. When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?

Yeah, this is pretty powerful evidence. The chemistry of elasticity is pretty well understood, and we all know that elasticity breaks down pretty rapidly - either more cross-bonds form and the material hardens, or bonds break down and you get dust. And this process is internal, it has little to do with environment, unless the material is in liquid hydrogen or something equally exotic.

So yeah, there is no way that elastic tissue can be anywhere close to 65 million years old, and a whole bunch of dating techniques have to be called into question.

Thanks for your reply. Isn't it funny, how none of them had an answer for me? Only deflection and scorn. And they call me irrational.

And, dishonest.

Why you ask? Simple. Had you actually been interested to find out about the discovery of that soft tissue, you would have researched it and found articles talking about it. If there was something you didn't quite understand, you could have easily started a thread here, copied and pasted that which you wanted to understand and most likely, others would have jumped in to explain it to you.

If scientists had not yet determined why the soft tissue survived so long when no other fossils contained such tissue, they would have continued their experiments and studies to find out why, and an answer would eventually present itself

Instead, you did no such research and started a thread of ignorance and incredulity exclaiming that evolution was a lie based entirely on something that wouldn't topple evolution regardless.

That's called dishonesty.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 4:31:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
It's been confirmed. The soft tissue found is original.

Bohica, this deserves a link to the original report, which I managed to find from your vague allusions in only three minutes.

Had you done even basic diligence on further scientific reporting, you'd likely have realised that:

1) The find was reported ten years ago in 2005 [http://www.sciencemag.org...], and has seen substantial discussion in scientific journals since; and
2) a mechanism for tissue preservation was proposed in 2007 by the researcher who discovered the tissue. [http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org...]

So due to your intellectual laziness and negligence in research, you've reported falsely on a topic eight years out of date!

Before railing about when independent scientists from a 66% non-Christian world will bow to Christian creationism, how about you address when fundamentalist apologians will observe reasonable procedures for evidence and reporting, and read, cite, and seek expert understanding on authoritative sources before posting wild claims?

Thank you.
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 7:14:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 4:18:10 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:06:53 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:28:08 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
It's been confirmed. The soft tissue found is original. This begs the question. How can soft tissue, still pliable and containing red blood cells and even DNA, survive for 65 million years. The answer is simple. It can't. Scientists are trying to tell us that iron preserved it for all these millions of years. I'm not convinced. They preserved some meat for two years, using this method, but it's straining my credulity past the breaking point to believe that it could preserve it for 65 million years. When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?

Yeah, this is pretty powerful evidence. The chemistry of elasticity is pretty well understood, and we all know that elasticity breaks down pretty rapidly - either more cross-bonds form and the material hardens, or bonds break down and you get dust. And this process is internal, it has little to do with environment, unless the material is in liquid hydrogen or something equally exotic.

So yeah, there is no way that elastic tissue can be anywhere close to 65 million years old, and a whole bunch of dating techniques have to be called into question.

Thanks for your reply. Isn't it funny, how none of them had an answer for me? Only deflection and scorn. And they call me irrational.

And, dishonest.

Why you ask? Simple. Had you actually been interested to find out about the discovery of that soft tissue, you would have researched it and found articles talking about it. If there was something you didn't quite understand, you could have easily started a thread here, copied and pasted that which you wanted to understand and most likely, others would have jumped in to explain it to you.

If scientists had not yet determined why the soft tissue survived so long when no other fossils contained such tissue, they would have continued their experiments and studies to find out why, and an answer would eventually present itself

Instead, you did no such research and started a thread of ignorance and incredulity exclaiming that evolution was a lie based entirely on something that wouldn't topple evolution regardless.

That's called dishonesty.

Actually, I did research it. That's why I asked the question. I want to hear some of the lame excuses for how this is possible. You see. When something that is so obvious slaps you atheists in the face. When you are presented with something that is impossible, according to your world view, you don't stop to question your assumptions. You look for a way to discredit, or explain it away, instead. Soft tissue, after 65 million years, is a flat out impossibility. And I recently found out that original organic material has been found on a fossil that is 150 million years old. More than twice as old as the other one. Do you really believe it could last that long? Do you?
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 8:30:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 7:14:57 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 4:18:10 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 6/25/2015 2:06:53 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 12:28:08 PM, v3nesl wrote:
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
It's been confirmed. The soft tissue found is original. This begs the question. How can soft tissue, still pliable and containing red blood cells and even DNA, survive for 65 million years. The answer is simple. It can't. Scientists are trying to tell us that iron preserved it for all these millions of years. I'm not convinced. They preserved some meat for two years, using this method, but it's straining my credulity past the breaking point to believe that it could preserve it for 65 million years. When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?

Yeah, this is pretty powerful evidence. The chemistry of elasticity is pretty well understood, and we all know that elasticity breaks down pretty rapidly - either more cross-bonds form and the material hardens, or bonds break down and you get dust. And this process is internal, it has little to do with environment, unless the material is in liquid hydrogen or something equally exotic.

So yeah, there is no way that elastic tissue can be anywhere close to 65 million years old, and a whole bunch of dating techniques have to be called into question.

Thanks for your reply. Isn't it funny, how none of them had an answer for me? Only deflection and scorn. And they call me irrational.

And, dishonest.

Why you ask? Simple. Had you actually been interested to find out about the discovery of that soft tissue, you would have researched it and found articles talking about it. If there was something you didn't quite understand, you could have easily started a thread here, copied and pasted that which you wanted to understand and most likely, others would have jumped in to explain it to you.

If scientists had not yet determined why the soft tissue survived so long when no other fossils contained such tissue, they would have continued their experiments and studies to find out why, and an answer would eventually present itself

Instead, you did no such research and started a thread of ignorance and incredulity exclaiming that evolution was a lie based entirely on something that wouldn't topple evolution regardless.

That's called dishonesty.

Actually, I did research it. That's why I asked the question. I want to hear some of the lame excuses for how this is possible. You see. When something that is so obvious slaps you atheists in the face. When you are presented with something that is impossible, according to your world view, you don't stop to question your assumptions. You look for a way to discredit, or explain it away, instead. Soft tissue, after 65 million years, is a flat out impossibility. And I recently found out that original organic material has been found on a fossil that is 150 million years old. More than twice as old as the other one. Do you really believe it could last that long? Do you?

It is more impossible for fossile not to be 65 million years old because more understood, and more compelling science shows it thus.

I explained this in my last post; the fact that you are saying that this one small aspect of science is correct yet all the rest of science is wrong is arbitrarily chosen as the conclusion by you because your religious beliefs prevent you from accepting all that other science. As I explained before, your conclusions are frankly ignorant or dishonest and nothing in between.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 8:49:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
It's been confirmed. The soft tissue found is original. This begs the question. How can soft tissue, still pliable and containing red blood cells and even DNA, survive for 65 million years. The answer is simple. It can't. Scientists are trying to tell us that iron preserved it for all these millions of years. I'm not convinced. They preserved some meat for two years, using this method, but it's straining my credulity past the breaking point to believe that it could preserve it for 65 million years. When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?

Define evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
https://www.google.com...

That's weird... I provided a detailed post showing various examples of descent with modification(biological evolution).

Speciation is evolution(macro evolution).
Birth of a new breed of dog is evolution(micro evolution).
Insect changing resistance to certain pesticides is evolution(micro evolution).

That post has yet to be challenged.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 9:28:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The argument that the discovery of dinosaurian soft tissue dating millions of years discredits certain dating methods relies on two assumptions: (1) soft tissue cannot be preserved for millions of years, and (2) certain dating methods date the sample to be millions of years old. Young Earth advocates hold (1) to be true and conclude that the discovery proves that the dating methods used are in question, whereas scientists propose that radioactivity and related dating methods are much better understood than fossilisation so the discovery instead suggests (1) is false.

The proposal that soft tissue cannot be preserved for millions of years assumes that conditions are met to break bonds. Short of omniscience, it's not possible to know whether bond-breaking conditions were met throughout the time the sample was fossilised. And if conditions to break soft tissue chemical bonds were not met, then it can survive indefinitely. The discovery of dinosaurian soft tissue may seem like a compelling reason to disbelieve evolution to someone already predisposed towards that point of view, but to anyone else the question is why should we disregard better supported science in favour of the questionable assumption that soft tissue cannot be preserved for millions of years.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 10:01:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?
In case you did not get the notification or read my post:

http://www.debate.org...

All the examples listed in the link above qualify as evolution and thus negates your statement that biological "evolution[, which is descent with modification,] is a lie."
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 10:28:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 10:01:46 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?
In case you did not get the notification or read my post:

http://www.debate.org...

All the examples listed in the link above qualify as evolution and thus negates your statement that biological "evolution[, which is descent with modification,] is a lie."

No one is arguing that species don't change over time. This is not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to one kind of life evolving into another. Lizards into birds, for example. There is no solid evidence that this has happened, or is even possible. Everything we know about biology tells us that life can only work with the DNA it already has. There are no known examples of anything being able to add new information, thereby changing it's chromosome count. It just isn't possible. Also, it has been observed that mutations, the driving force in evolution, destroy information. Not create it.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 10:31:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 10:28:10 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:01:46 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?
In case you did not get the notification or read my post:

http://www.debate.org...

All the examples listed in the link above qualify as evolution and thus negates your statement that biological "evolution[, which is descent with modification,] is a lie."

No one is arguing that species don't change over time. This is not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to one kind of life evolving into another. Lizards into birds, for example. There is no solid evidence that this has happened, or is even possible. Everything we know about biology tells us that life can only work with the DNA it already has. There are no known examples of anything being able to add new information, thereby changing it's chromosome count. It just isn't possible. Also, it has been observed that mutations, the driving force in evolution, destroy information. Not create it.

Question: The word destroy, in this context, has a negative connotation?
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 10:58:44 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 10:31:25 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:28:10 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:01:46 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?
In case you did not get the notification or read my post:

http://www.debate.org...

All the examples listed in the link above qualify as evolution and thus negates your statement that biological "evolution[, which is descent with modification,] is a lie."

No one is arguing that species don't change over time. This is not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to one kind of life evolving into another. Lizards into birds, for example. There is no solid evidence that this has happened, or is even possible. Everything we know about biology tells us that life can only work with the DNA it already has. There are no known examples of anything being able to add new information, thereby changing it's chromosome count. It just isn't possible. Also, it has been observed that mutations, the driving force in evolution, destroy information. Not create it.

Question: The word destroy, in this context, has a negative connotation?

Let's just say that random mutations are not able to provide the complex specified information necessary for a new species.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 11:19:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 10:58:44 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:31:25 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:28:10 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:01:46 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?
In case you did not get the notification or read my post:

http://www.debate.org...

All the examples listed in the link above qualify as evolution and thus negates your statement that biological "evolution[, which is descent with modification,] is a lie."

No one is arguing that species don't change over time. This is not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to one kind of life evolving into another. Lizards into birds, for example. There is no solid evidence that this has happened, or is even possible. Everything we know about biology tells us that life can only work with the DNA it already has. There are no known examples of anything being able to add new information, thereby changing it's chromosome count. It just isn't possible. Also, it has been observed that mutations, the driving force in evolution, destroy information. Not create it.

Question: The word destroy, in this context, has a negative connotation?

Let's just say that random mutations are not able to provide the complex specified information necessary for a new species.

Would this count as a random mutation giving birth to a new species?

The early geneticist Hugo de Vries observed an act of speciation while studying the evening primrose plant. The original species, Oenothera lamarckiana, had 14 chromosomes, while the new species had 28. The new species was unable to breed with Oenothera lamarckiana, and thus he named it Oenothera gigas.(De Vires, 1905) (Image Source 6)

Or this:

The new species of mosquito Culex pipiens molestus recently formed in, and is endemic to, the London Underground rapid transit system. It most likely speciated from the surface population Culex pipiens, although it is now genetically dissimilar enough to be considered another. (Byrne et al., 1999)

http://phylointelligence.com...

Or this(random genetic mutations arising between two populations of flies that were once one species. Due to this, inbreeding is not possible):
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/25/2015 11:42:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 11:19:53 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:58:44 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:31:25 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:28:10 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:01:46 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?
In case you did not get the notification or read my post:

http://www.debate.org...

All the examples listed in the link above qualify as evolution and thus negates your statement that biological "evolution[, which is descent with modification,] is a lie."

No one is arguing that species don't change over time. This is not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to one kind of life evolving into another. Lizards into birds, for example. There is no solid evidence that this has happened, or is even possible. Everything we know about biology tells us that life can only work with the DNA it already has. There are no known examples of anything being able to add new information, thereby changing it's chromosome count. It just isn't possible. Also, it has been observed that mutations, the driving force in evolution, destroy information. Not create it.

Question: The word destroy, in this context, has a negative connotation?

Let's just say that random mutations are not able to provide the complex specified information necessary for a new species.

Would this count as a random mutation giving birth to a new species?

The early geneticist Hugo de Vries observed an act of speciation while studying the evening primrose plant. The original species, Oenothera lamarckiana, had 14 chromosomes, while the new species had 28. The new species was unable to breed with Oenothera lamarckiana, and thus he named it Oenothera gigas.(De Vires, 1905) (Image Source 6)

Or this:

The new species of mosquito Culex pipiens molestus recently formed in, and is endemic to, the London Underground rapid transit system. It most likely speciated from the surface population Culex pipiens, although it is now genetically dissimilar enough to be considered another. (Byrne et al., 1999)

http://phylointelligence.com...

Or this(random genetic mutations arising between two populations of flies that were once one species. Due to this, inbreeding is not possible):
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

I remember reading something about how certain plants can trade genetic information . Animal species are not able to do this. In this example, the plants did not create the new genetic information. They acquired it.

The other two examples are not new kinds. They are sub-species of the same kind. Flies are still flies. They will never be anything else. There is no evidence that small changes, over time, can create something new. Only variations on a theme.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 12:13:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 11:42:08 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 11:19:53 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:58:44 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:31:25 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:28:10 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:01:46 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?
In case you did not get the notification or read my post:

http://www.debate.org...

All the examples listed in the link above qualify as evolution and thus negates your statement that biological "evolution[, which is descent with modification,] is a lie."

No one is arguing that species don't change over time. This is not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to one kind of life evolving into another. Lizards into birds, for example. There is no solid evidence that this has happened, or is even possible. Everything we know about biology tells us that life can only work with the DNA it already has. There are no known examples of anything being able to add new information, thereby changing it's chromosome count. It just isn't possible. Also, it has been observed that mutations, the driving force in evolution, destroy information. Not create it.

Question: The word destroy, in this context, has a negative connotation?

Let's just say that random mutations are not able to provide the complex specified information necessary for a new species.

Would this count as a random mutation giving birth to a new species?

The early geneticist Hugo de Vries observed an act of speciation while studying the evening primrose plant. The original species, Oenothera lamarckiana, had 14 chromosomes, while the new species had 28. The new species was unable to breed with Oenothera lamarckiana, and thus he named it Oenothera gigas.(De Vires, 1905) (Image Source 6)

Or this:

The new species of mosquito Culex pipiens molestus recently formed in, and is endemic to, the London Underground rapid transit system. It most likely speciated from the surface population Culex pipiens, although it is now genetically dissimilar enough to be considered another. (Byrne et al., 1999)

http://phylointelligence.com...

Or this(random genetic mutations arising between two populations of flies that were once one species. Due to this, inbreeding is not possible):
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

I remember reading something about how certain plants can trade genetic information . Animal species are not able to do this. In this example, the plants did not create the new genetic information. They acquired it.

The other two examples are not new kinds. They are sub-species of the same kind. Flies are still flies.

Is 'kinds' analogous to a species, a genus, a family, an order, a class, a phylum, a kingdom, or a domain?

They will never be anything else. There is no evidence that small changes, over time, can create something new.

Only variations on a theme.
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 12:41:16 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 12:13:02 AM, SamStevens wrote:
At 6/25/2015 11:42:08 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 11:19:53 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:58:44 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:31:25 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:28:10 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:01:46 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?
In case you did not get the notification or read my post:

http://www.debate.org...

All the examples listed in the link above qualify as evolution and thus negates your statement that biological "evolution[, which is descent with modification,] is a lie."

No one is arguing that species don't change over time. This is not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to one kind of life evolving into another. Lizards into birds, for example. There is no solid evidence that this has happened, or is even possible. Everything we know about biology tells us that life can only work with the DNA it already has. There are no known examples of anything being able to add new information, thereby changing it's chromosome count. It just isn't possible. Also, it has been observed that mutations, the driving force in evolution, destroy information. Not create it.

Question: The word destroy, in this context, has a negative connotation?

Let's just say that random mutations are not able to provide the complex specified information necessary for a new species.

Would this count as a random mutation giving birth to a new species?

The early geneticist Hugo de Vries observed an act of speciation while studying the evening primrose plant. The original species, Oenothera lamarckiana, had 14 chromosomes, while the new species had 28. The new species was unable to breed with Oenothera lamarckiana, and thus he named it Oenothera gigas.(De Vires, 1905) (Image Source 6)

Or this:

The new species of mosquito Culex pipiens molestus recently formed in, and is endemic to, the London Underground rapid transit system. It most likely speciated from the surface population Culex pipiens, although it is now genetically dissimilar enough to be considered another. (Byrne et al., 1999)

http://phylointelligence.com...

Or this(random genetic mutations arising between two populations of flies that were once one species. Due to this, inbreeding is not possible):
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

I remember reading something about how certain plants can trade genetic information . Animal species are not able to do this. In this example, the plants did not create the new genetic information. They acquired it.

The other two examples are not new kinds. They are sub-species of the same kind. Flies are still flies.

Is 'kinds' analogous to a species, a genus, a family, an order, a class, a phylum, a kingdom, or a domain?

They will never be anything else. There is no evidence that small changes, over time, can create something new.

Only variations on a theme.

In Genesis, it says that all creatures would produce after their own kind. In other words, cats would always produce cats. Dogs would always produce dogs. Even with all of the different breeds of dogs, each breed is still fertile with every other breed of dogs. If you remember the fruit fly experiment they did, it produced flies of different sizes, and minor differences in wing size...etc. Many of them produced mutated and deformed flies. This is pretty strong evidence that you can only push for selection so far before you encounter problems. There seems to be a DNA limit on how far it can change. And lets remember that as different as breeds of dags look, they still have the same DNA. What we see is the expression of genetic traits that already exist. No new information was added or changed.
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 1:10:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 12:41:16 AM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/26/2015 12:13:02 AM, SamStevens wrote:
At 6/25/2015 11:42:08 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 11:19:53 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:58:44 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:31:25 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:28:10 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:01:46 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?
In case you did not get the notification or read my post:

http://www.debate.org...

All the examples listed in the link above qualify as evolution and thus negates your statement that biological "evolution[, which is descent with modification,] is a lie."

No one is arguing that species don't change over time. This is not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to one kind of life evolving into another. Lizards into birds, for example. There is no solid evidence that this has happened, or is even possible. Everything we know about biology tells us that life can only work with the DNA it already has. There are no known examples of anything being able to add new information, thereby changing it's chromosome count. It just isn't possible. Also, it has been observed that mutations, the driving force in evolution, destroy information. Not create it.

Question: The word destroy, in this context, has a negative connotation?

Let's just say that random mutations are not able to provide the complex specified information necessary for a new species.

Would this count as a random mutation giving birth to a new species?

The early geneticist Hugo de Vries observed an act of speciation while studying the evening primrose plant. The original species, Oenothera lamarckiana, had 14 chromosomes, while the new species had 28. The new species was unable to breed with Oenothera lamarckiana, and thus he named it Oenothera gigas.(De Vires, 1905) (Image Source 6)

Or this:

The new species of mosquito Culex pipiens molestus recently formed in, and is endemic to, the London Underground rapid transit system. It most likely speciated from the surface population Culex pipiens, although it is now genetically dissimilar enough to be considered another. (Byrne et al., 1999)

http://phylointelligence.com...

Or this(random genetic mutations arising between two populations of flies that were once one species. Due to this, inbreeding is not possible):
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

I remember reading something about how certain plants can trade genetic information . Animal species are not able to do this. In this example, the plants did not create the new genetic information. They acquired it.

The other two examples are not new kinds. They are sub-species of the same kind. Flies are still flies.

Is 'kinds' analogous to a species, a genus, a family, an order, a class, a phylum, a kingdom, or a domain?

They will never be anything else. There is no evidence that small changes, over time, can create something new.

Only variations on a theme.

In Genesis, it says that all creatures would produce after their own kind. In other words, cats would always produce cats. Dogs would always produce dogs. Even with all of the different breeds of dogs, each breed is still fertile with every other breed of dogs. If you remember the fruit fly experiment they did, it produced flies of different sizes, and minor differences in wing size...etc. Many of them produced mutated and deformed flies. This is pretty strong evidence that you can only push for selection so far before you encounter problems. There seems to be a DNA limit on how far it can change. And lets remember that as different as breeds of dags look, they still have the same DNA. What we see is the expression of genetic traits that already exist. No new information was added or changed.

Okay, so if you are arguing that creatures would produce after their kind, you are essentially saying that animals in the family Canidea could produce new species of dog, correct? http://s3.amazonaws.com...
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
B0HICA
Posts: 366
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 2:24:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/26/2015 1:10:38 AM, SamStevens wrote:
At 6/26/2015 12:41:16 AM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/26/2015 12:13:02 AM, SamStevens wrote:
At 6/25/2015 11:42:08 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 11:19:53 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:58:44 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:31:25 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:28:10 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 10:01:46 PM, SamStevens wrote:
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?
In case you did not get the notification or read my post:

http://www.debate.org...

All the examples listed in the link above qualify as evolution and thus negates your statement that biological "evolution[, which is descent with modification,] is a lie."

No one is arguing that species don't change over time. This is not what I'm talking about. I'm referring to one kind of life evolving into another. Lizards into birds, for example. There is no solid evidence that this has happened, or is even possible. Everything we know about biology tells us that life can only work with the DNA it already has. There are no known examples of anything being able to add new information, thereby changing it's chromosome count. It just isn't possible. Also, it has been observed that mutations, the driving force in evolution, destroy information. Not create it.

Question: The word destroy, in this context, has a negative connotation?

Let's just say that random mutations are not able to provide the complex specified information necessary for a new species.

Would this count as a random mutation giving birth to a new species?

The early geneticist Hugo de Vries observed an act of speciation while studying the evening primrose plant. The original species, Oenothera lamarckiana, had 14 chromosomes, while the new species had 28. The new species was unable to breed with Oenothera lamarckiana, and thus he named it Oenothera gigas.(De Vires, 1905) (Image Source 6)

Or this:

The new species of mosquito Culex pipiens molestus recently formed in, and is endemic to, the London Underground rapid transit system. It most likely speciated from the surface population Culex pipiens, although it is now genetically dissimilar enough to be considered another. (Byrne et al., 1999)

http://phylointelligence.com...

Or this(random genetic mutations arising between two populations of flies that were once one species. Due to this, inbreeding is not possible):
http://evolution.berkeley.edu...

I remember reading something about how certain plants can trade genetic information . Animal species are not able to do this. In this example, the plants did not create the new genetic information. They acquired it.

The other two examples are not new kinds. They are sub-species of the same kind. Flies are still flies.

Is 'kinds' analogous to a species, a genus, a family, an order, a class, a phylum, a kingdom, or a domain?

They will never be anything else. There is no evidence that small changes, over time, can create something new.

Only variations on a theme.

In Genesis, it says that all creatures would produce after their own kind. In other words, cats would always produce cats. Dogs would always produce dogs. Even with all of the different breeds of dogs, each breed is still fertile with every other breed of dogs. If you remember the fruit fly experiment they did, it produced flies of different sizes, and minor differences in wing size...etc. Many of them produced mutated and deformed flies. This is pretty strong evidence that you can only push for selection so far before you encounter problems. There seems to be a DNA limit on how far it can change. And lets remember that as different as breeds of dags look, they still have the same DNA. What we see is the expression of genetic traits that already exist. No new information was added or changed.

Okay, so if you are arguing that creatures would produce after their kind, you are essentially saying that animals in the family Canidea could produce new species of dog, correct? http://s3.amazonaws.com...

Depends on what you mean by species. Different breeds of dogs are not really new species. I guess you could argue that foxes and coyotes are in the same group. I don't know enough to comment on that, but I could look it up. Not sure if foxes and coyotes can interbreed with canines or not.
dee-em
Posts: 6,490
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/26/2015 5:32:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/25/2015 2:02:35 PM, B0HICA wrote:
At 6/25/2015 9:08:24 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 6/25/2015 3:25:51 AM, B0HICA wrote:
It's been confirmed. The soft tissue found is original. This begs the question. How can soft tissue, still pliable and containing red blood cells and even DNA, survive for 65 million years. The answer is simple. It can't. Scientists are trying to tell us that iron preserved it for all these millions of years. I'm not convinced. They preserved some meat for two years, using this method, but it's straining my credulity past the breaking point to believe that it could preserve it for 65 million years. When are people going to wake up and realize that evolution is a lie?

Of course it's a monstrous lie. Atheistic scientists banded together 160 years ago in a conspiracy to hide the awful truth. Jesus didn't ride into Jerusalem on a donkey and/or colt. He rode in on a T. Rex. A domesticated one naturally.

All those fossils just appear old because God is a practical joker. He must split his sides laughing every time a new fossil is dated by these gullible paleontologists. It's hilarious.

Answer the question. How could soft tissue last 65 million years. You can deflect all you like, but the question is not going away.

Why? No answer will satisfy you. Your mind is closed shut like a steel trap.

You, with absolutely no qualifications or even a basic knowledge of the subject you attempt to critique, find this and that stretches your credulity. Could there be a more textbook example of a fallacious argument from personal incredulity?

One thing I can guarantee you --- the Theory of Evolution is in no danger of being overturned by the likes of you taking inane potshots on an internet forum. If you think otherwise, you are even more foolish than you appear.