Posted on 04/29/2013 10:55:17 AM PDT by imardmd1
This book describes Dr. Martin's personal journey from an evolution-trained scientist to a Bible-believing creationist. Dr. Martin examines many of the claims and theories of prominent evolutionists, comparing their often incredible, inconsistent, pseudo-scientific explanations of origins to the clear and simple description of the Creation as depicted in the Bible.
The result is the realization that evolution, just like creation, is in fact a faith system - in other words, it takes just as much faith, perhaps more, to believe in the Darwinist theory of evolution as it does to take as simple, profound truth the Bible's clear explanation of a world and a universe brought into existence by the mere thought process of Almighty God.
An additional treat in this book is a series of Marvels of God's Creation, animals whose incredibly complex design completely defies the ability of evolutionists to come up with any explanation for how the creature could have evolved to its present state.
This book is extensively footnoted and is suitable for a textbook in creation science. It gives all the glory to God for His magnificent creation and provides excellent topics for discussion and engagement of non-believers in debate on the world's origin, which can be used by the Holy Spirit to bring an evolutionist to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.
ansel12 post #65: "The first mocking of Christians and Christian America by attacking Christians as “taliban” on this thread, came from you."
John Valentine from the previous "Coelacanths" thread, post #13: "No matter what you call it, it consists of empty-headed recitation of propaganda points and misrepresentation of legitimate research.
No legitimate, serious scientist (i.e. expert) feels the slightest need to "defend" himself from this kind of inanity."
To which alancarp responded in post #25: "Okay, to be fair, I’ll refer to you, then, as part of the Evolutionist Taliban."
Important to note that, beginning with post #3, the "Coelacanths" thread included a lengthy discussion of some alleged "Christian Taliban" or "Taliban Catholics" , and John Valentine did not then respond to this particular gratuitous slap.
Sadly, it seems Valentine took in the term as being some acceptable form of insult on Free Republic.
It's not.
Nothing either Christian or scientific has anything to do with "Taliban".
Using such terms about our FRiends is simply inappropriate on Free Republic.
Amen!
This is a very strange thread, BJK. I’ve been at FR a long time & participated in a lot of discussions. Some got very heated. I’ve seen a lot of name calling—true conservatives calling other true conservatives all kinds of insulting terms, which never made sense to me.
What I haven’t seen is such a total & complete breakdown in communication. It’s as if one side is speaking English & the other side is speaking Swahili, & no actual communication ever occurs. I’ve seen this in liberal/conservative discussion galore; I’ve just never seen it on FR. [I.e.: it’s quite typical for a liberal to blow off every word a conservative says w’out pausing even half a second to try to actually understand the conservative’s point. That is the liberal MO. They consider themselves so intellectually & morally superior to conservatives, they naturally don’t need to listen to a word we say.]
Now this same phenomenon is happening on this thread. Having thought about it, here is my conclusion. Conservative evolutionists decided long ago that ‘creationists’ are idiots. They cannot conceive of a person who believes God’s version of the origin of the universe as anything less. That being so, there’s no reason to read or understand what we are saying; they know a priori it’s all nonsense-twaddle. So they blow past everything we say & just keep yammering in their own closed off echo-chambers.
If that’s not what’s going on, I don’t know what is. A communication train wreck of this order has to an explanation of some kind. Given the citations you mentioned, it’s clear the evolutionists hold ‘creationists’ in disdain. Evidently the disdain is such that it precludes even reading our posts.
sakic responding post #50: "Seems pretty improbable to me, but who knows what will happen."
Fantasywriter post #51: "Sakic, it’s not improbable. It’s impossible.
Protein, blood, soft-tissue—they cannot & do not remain intact for even one million yrs.
This is a fact.
65-68 million yrs is so far out of the realm of possibility, it’s beyond description.
Blood just doesn’t last that long under any circumstances."
We know for certain that organic material can survive inside amber for many millions of years, but no DNA was confirmed as recovered from such samples.
Might some other conditions mummify small bits of organic material to survive so long?
That is the claim -- as yet not "proved", and no DNA alleged -- regarding tiny samples found in one or two dinosaur fossils.
Is it possible that these tiny samples -- if confirmed by future discoveries -- could somehow overthrow the scientific understanding of Earth's age and life's evolution?
No. It would simply demonstrate that long-term mummification can occasionally happen in nature.
"A well preserved Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton had been found in 1990 and brought for analysis to Montana State University. During microscopic examination of the fossilized remains, it was noted that some portions of the long bones had not mineralized, but were in fact original bone. Upon closer examination it was noted that within the vascular system of this bone were what appeared to be red blood cells (note retained nucleus in the center of the apparent RBCs and the fact that reptiles and bird generally retain the RBC nucleus while mammals, like humans, do not). 50 Of course, this did not seem possible since the survival of intact red blood cells for some 65-million years seems very unlikely if not downright impossible."
http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html
definitions of mummification:
So there's no other word for it.
But in the terms used in Schweitzer's paper -- co-authored by Jennifer L. Whittmeyer, John R. Horner and Jan K. Toporski -- the acid demineralized the specimen.
After seven days, the demineralization process revealed several unexpected tissues..."
The mummified material was soaked for seven days to bring it back, so to speak, to life.
Oops; no soaking required:
“If this is not already enough, Schweitzer recently made an even more startling discovery. About three years ago (2002) she and her team had to divide a very large T. rex thigh bone in order to transport it on a helicopter. When the bone was opened flexible soft tissue “meat” was found inside. This is incredible because this bone was supposed to be some 68 million years old. Microscopic examination revealed fine delicate blood vessels with what appear to be intact red blood cells and other type of cells like osteocytes - which are bone forming cells. These vessels were still soft, translucent, and flexible. Subsequent examination of other previously excavated T. rex bones from this and other areas have also shown non-fossilized soft tissue preservation in most instances.54
This find calls into question not only the nature of the fossilization process, but also the age of these fossils. How such soft tissue preservation and detail could be realized after 68 million years is more than miraculous - - It is unbelievable! Schweitzer herself comments that, “We may not really know as much about how fossils are preserved as we think.” 54 Now, if that is not an understatement I’m not sure what is.”
http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html
Hi. First time poster, long time lurker.
Soaking was required.
You’re talking about the same bone as BroJoeK. They cracked open a T.Rex fossil (from a T.Rex named Bob) because it was too heavy for the helicopter. But the article you cited makes it seem like they found wet meat inside as soon as it split. That’s not exactly what happened.
What happened was, they changed the usefulness of the fossil. It was no longer a “show” bone. So they sent the Dr. Schweitzer, who found microscopic traces of bone. Then she soaked it in an acid they dissolves rock, and found blood cells and scraps of collagen.
There are quite a few articles on this, but I’ll cite the one from the Smithsonian.com because you’ve already shown a preference for it.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html?c=y&page=2
If it’s the same bone [your cite says it was found in 2000; my cite talks about a bone found in 2002] then it was soaked. But if soaking means it was mummified, then all bones, including fresh bones, are mummified:
Q: As I recall, you soaked fossils in a mild acid to dissolve the mineral deposits on the inside of the bones. Why does the acid not harm or dissolve the vessels as well, but instead leaves them intact and pliable? Paul Moffett, Indianapolis, Indiana
Schweitzer: That is a good question. The type of acid we use is very commonly applied to remove the mineral from modern bone to reveal the structural proteins that are so intimately linked to the mineral. It is a very mild acid and is more accurately a metal chelator than a true “acid.” So it removes the mineral while leaving the protein intact, and it does not harm cell membranes or vessels in modern bone, so we hoped that it would not in our ancient material either.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/schweitzer-qa.html
And I do agree. Your post echos what I tried to point out in Post 7 of that thread - that we in the anti-evolutionist camp should have the right to question 'evidence' of any kind on any subject without being mocked or name-called... exactly what the Left does to we conservatives on a daily basis.
Valentine, it seemed to me, continued to argue that we did NOT have that right, and continued the name-calling (note that phrase "empty-headed recitation of propaganda points and misrepresentation...inanity"). Frankly, I think we could find examples in which the Left says virtually the same thing about "credible" climate science.
Hence, I tried to illustrate the absurd by being absurd - hence my own use of 'Evolutionist Taliban' in that context.
I frankly don't like the fact that I did that, because one of the hallmarks of this site is the reasonable engagement in actual debate without name-calling. We should not stoop to the levels of the Left. But it also seemed like no one was interested in doing so that day, and I wasn't interested in rolling over and taking such epithets without a response.
So I will accept that my method was poor... but hopefully my motivation - good or bad - is understood, for what it's worth.
“If it’s the same bone [your cite says it was found in 2000; my cite talks about a bone found in 2002]”
—It’s the same bone. It was found in 2000, and was excavated over three summers (summer of 2000, 2001, and 2002). And so it wasn’t until 2002 that Schweitzer got to experiment on the bone.
But it is the same bone.
As to your statement But if soaking means it was mummified, then all bones, including fresh bones, are mummified:
, I'll admit I'm a little confused. Why would that mean all bones are mummified?
Soaking the fossil doesn't mean it was mummified. Soaking the fossil meant all the minerals were dissolved but the protein stayed, which is exactly the same thing that happens if you were to use a fresh bone.
The interesting thing about this fossil, obviously, is that no one expected there to be any proteins in something 64 millions years old.
This was the claim:
“The mummified material was soaked for seven days to bring it back, so to speak, to life.”
The claim is not true. The bone was treated the same way a fresh bone wd be treated, if the purpose was to study the soft tissue.
The following quote summarizes the bottom line:
“This find calls into question not only the nature of the fossilization process, but also the age of these fossils. How such soft tissue preservation and detail could be realized after 68 million years is more than miraculous - - It is unbelievable! Schweitzer herself comments that, “We may not really know as much about how fossils are preserved as we think.” 54 Now, if that is not an understatement I’m not sure what is.”
http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html
The point of it all being, no evolutionist alive will question the validity of their theory. They treat their theory as objective truth. Therefore nothing ever calls the theory itself into question, & nothing ever will. In that sense, it’s not a scientific system at all, but rather a belief/faith system. That is how its true believers treat it.
Again I cite Thomas Kuhn’s signal thesis: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Kuhn describes evolutionists & their religious commitment to their theory to a T. Read the book if you haven’t; it’s priceless.
“The mummified material was soaked for seven days to bring it back, so to speak, to life.”
I took this to be somewhat figurative. The idea that the soft tissue traces were locked inside the rest of the fossil, and were “brought to life” once the minerals had be dissolved away. Maybe not though, I didn’t write it.
I agree with you about the treatment. It was essentially what gets done to fresh bones. Which was a brilliant stroke on the part of Dr. Schweitzer. And has opened the door to a whole treasure trove of potential discoveries.
I don’t agree with most of that quote. I agree the presence of soft tissue in these fossils certainly calls into question our understanding of the fossilization process. Now we have to figure out the process (or processes) in which microscopic traces of proteins and cells can remain in fossils for millions of years. Exciting times!
But why does it call into question the age of the fossils?
Also, when you say evolutionists, I’m assuming you mean people who adhere to the idea that the diversity of life on this planet is the result of continual change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations, these generations spanning about 3.7 billions years?
I actually did read ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ back in university. But I remember liking ‘Human Understanding’ more.
“The idea that the soft tissue traces were locked inside the rest of the fossil,”
Wasn’t a fossil.
“During microscopic examination of the fossilized remains, it was noted that some portions of the long bones had not mineralized, but were in fact original bone.” [’had not mineralized’ means ‘hadn’t fossilized’]
http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html
As for calling the age of the T-rex into question, you don’t need to worry about that. For you, nothing will ever call it into question.
It was a fossil. It says so in the quote. “During microscopic examination of the fossilized remains”.
Almost the entirety of the bone had been mineralized, or to be accurate, permineralized. It was only once they broke it open did they find traces of bone matrix and proteins locked inside.
So it was a fossil.
Also, that quote isn’t even referring to the T-Rex that got the acid bath. It’s from the the one in 1990 that was thinly sliced. The one that the veterinary pathologist picked up on.
The T.Rex that got the acid bath, Bob, yielded up something of particular interest. The presence of a medullary bone, which is something found on modern birds. It’s a calcium-rich structure they create on certain bones before they breed. Once they start producing eggs, they draw on the calcium in the medullary bones to create the shells. After comparing these samples to that of modern ostrich and emu, they have nearly identical structures! That’s pretty cool.
Which is why these discoveries are so exciting. It’s possible that many of the predictions made by the theory of evolution that were previously untestable, can now be tested like in the example above.
My cow; you’re goodusername under a second acct. That’s frowned upon.
No. It would simply demonstrate that long-term mummification can occasionally happen in nature.
I'm afraid the error of the the above sentences is to confuse the Theory of Evolution with science.
As it has been pointed out earlier in this discussion, evolution's tenets and parameters are a matter of belief, a religious concept, not a science. Like the theory of phlogiston, facts never overcome science, although correct interpretation of facts might overcome a misconception, such as the creeping gradualism of "evolution" as forced on the concepts of origins.
In your thoughts above, you've just invented a new term to uphold the shaky foundations of evolutionary theory based on misunderstanding of sedimentary geology. By coining the phrase "prolonged mummification" you beg a lengthening of the fossilization supporting historical geology, as currently taught.
Getting back to science, I can confirm Ohm's Law by conducting the experiment, thus reproducing the observation codified by Georg Ohm. It is not possible to claim evolution as explaining speciation, because it has never been seen, and it has not yet been reproduced. To force this belief exclusively on mankind as the only explanation is to suffocate healthy curiosity, criticism, experimentation; and, yes, well-founded religious thought.
Wit all respect, my estimate is that your approach falls short of academic acceptance, IMHO.
"Millions of years" is postulated, not proven. The primordial occurrence of amber is estimated from the sediment layer in which it is found.
“My cow; you’re goodusername under a second acct. That’s frowned upon.”
—This is my only account, I’m afraid.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.