Dinosaur Shocker (YEC say dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years)

Smithsonian Magazine ^ | May 1, 2006 | Helen Fields

[jennyp]

I regard this repeated spamming as a kind of rhetorical bullying tactic.

The survey is a bullying tactic??? Oh my.

I encourage anyone who agrees to scroll by as soon as they recognize it. Maybe you have the right to spam (?) here, but no one is required to read it or take it seriously.

If you want to sit there with your hands over your ears chanting "LALALALALALALALA" then that is totally your right. It just reflects badly on ... me???

[King Prout]

You evolutionists date the rocks by the fossils found in them and date the fossils by what rocks they are found in.

That is a falsehood. Look up the facts of radiometric dating, stratiography, tree-ring timelines, etc...

And do not repeat that false assertion again: Your first use of it can be excused as an innocent error of ignorance. No subsequent reiteration of it will be.

[ahayes]

You can join the "priesthood" if you like. All it requires is curiosity and study.

I'm not critical of those who want to learn, I'm just critical of those who are unlearned yet presume they are capable to debate topics they don't even understand.

[ahayes]

50% of all Evolutionists graduated in the lower half of their class.

Actually you're assuming that those who think evolution is correct are evenly distributed throughout the GPA continuum. This may not in fact be correct.

[js1138]

Seems like once you allow one uncaused cause, you've got the lid off the box. I don't think the folks who decreed you can't have uncaused causes ever studied quantum theory.

[King Prout]

Given:
"might" is defined as ability to impose positive and negative consequences, immunity to reprisals, lack of needs requiring exogenous sources of fulfillment, and endurance.

Postulate:
"right" is always defined by might, and that definition's range and power is always proportionate to the might of the one making the definition.

Challenge:
Provide one case where the above is clearly not operant.

Good luck, see you in a few years.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Some years ago while I was developing some computerized document analysis methods, I discovered who actually wrote Shakespeare. A group of tenured English Literature Professors visited me and explained how releasing such information would lead to the End Of Western Civilization. (They also showed me the Secret Handshake.)

[Doctor Stochastic]

Sounds like some people know no more science than the average lawyer or pony-tailed journalist.

[hosepipe]

[ In short in the italicized remarks at the top and Pinker's comment, we are here dealing with a fallacy that Whitehead called "the fallacy of misplaced concreteness." I gather it arises because modern science assumes and then asserts that everything there is in the universe is amenable to scientific description and explanation. So in effect, with this expectation, they must shrink the universe to fit their method. ]

Good post in total.. How can a human get his head around infinity.?. If the the universe ends, how can it end?.. And if its infinite, how can that be?.. Infinity is a problem.. a serious problem.. Approaching infinity flippantly is how some approach the concept of God.. They can't get their minds around it.. On the other hand those that can conceive of God as a reality seem to have little problem with the infinity problem..

That is, there are some are frogs in a well that know they are merely a frog in a well, and others are frogs in a well that think the/that well is a model of the universe.. One frog questions formulae spawned in well, yet others see those formulae as axiomatic.. This thread appears to be a conversation between two different kind of frogs.. The Frogulation of Cosmic infinity..

Cosmofrogulators.. Is that a science?.. Just asking..d;^)
I have a problem with concieving of the totality of God.. so I stopped..
The scary part is God would have no problem concieveing of the totality of US.. all of us.. Humans seem to have a problem with proper humility and gratitude.. and arrogance..

[Doctor Stochastic]

You could put in a bath of water-glass an set it in an over overnight. That works with pears.

[Doctor Stochastic]

You seem to have captured a native example of "advocacy of willful ignorance" in the wild.

[ahayes]

Nothing surprising. Those suckers are downright common.

[2nsdammit]

And these threads draw them in.....

[Doctor Stochastic]

That's an "oven" not an "over." (Baking, not cricket.)

[TXnMA]

Ichneumon, I'm beginning to believe that General Honore had folks like that in mind when he developed his famous remark...

Wonder if he originally r prefaced it with "willfully"...

[stands2reason]

I love these threads, you get to see how God-fearing Christians like myself are just simply too stupid to grasp the concept that science holds all the answers to the universe.....silly me...

Who says science holds all the answers to the universe?

Besides you, of course.

[metmom]

It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T. rex bone—the first observation of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive.

The article clearly says *still soft tissue*.

So you believe the mineralized fossil was actually "soft"? LOL!!! I doesn't take to much of a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts to mislead you does it?

So the scientists are lying to us then? So then why should people be criticized for not believing scientists then?

[ml1954]

I have always enjoyed learning and will continue to do so..

Great. Then check out this website..

www.talkorigins.org

[betty boop]

I just can't resist commenting on geometry.

And I'm so glad that you do, Alamo-Girl! As you say, there is something eerie about "the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" as a sort of "mirror image" of physics. We can "see" through mathematics, especially geometry, the things that we cannot see with our eyes. String theory would be "out of business" absent this understanding. And string theory is quite respectable in the scientific community these days.

Notwithstanding that string theory is thoroughly Platonic in spirit. :^) As are most string theorists, if Lisa Randall's observation is correct.

Thank you so much for writing, dear sister!