Posted on 5/6/2009, 3:49:01 PM by GodGunsGuts
Dinosaur soft tissue and protein—even more confirmation!
Mary Schweitzer announces even stronger evidence, this time from a duckbilled dino fossil, of even more proteins—and the same amazingly preserved vessel and cell structures as before...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
[[Typical of the evo to slam credentials of a well-respected creation scientist when they can’t refute the sound logic of his work.]]
That’s hte only ‘defense’ they’ve got- The ‘rebuttals’ were nothign but slight of hand misrepresentations of Gentry’s and Humphry’s work and discoveries- but folsk like RF will consistently point to sites liek TO and pretend they are sound ‘scientific rebuttals’ because they ‘sound sciencey’ (and htey hope noone iwll actually spend the time to investigate whether or not the ‘rebuttals’ are true, scientific, or valid.
[[Since they can’t explain the young isotope, they say, believe it or not, that the polonium atoms appeared from a “secondary decay step” from uranium in the rocks, and that radon gas “diffused through the rock” and turned into polonium. You can’t make silliness like this up]]
Oh YES they cna make it up, and htey do- time and time again, and pretend as though it’s a sound ‘scientific’ ‘refutation’, and people like some on htis thread will present it on a platter as htough it were scientifically valid.
[[when they can’t accept results, they just make up processes to “explain” it and say that gas went through solid rock. Ridiculous.]]
There were several other equally silly made up scenarios in the TO ‘rebuttal’ and quite frankly, if that is what passes for a non ‘peer review’ ‘science’, then TO and science in general is in pretty sad shape these days
Thank you for your post as I didn’t really want to go through the silly ‘rebuttal’ on the TO site yet again here on FR-
How many alternate personalities to you have?
[[No, typical for a creationist to claim un-earned credentials as proof of credibility.]]
This ocming from someone who isn’t even of the caliber of Gentry who’s material HAs been peer reviewed and stood hte test of time for decades now?
[[I slam everyone who does this, it just seems that there are so many in the creationist movement that do it, it is astounding.]]
And typically, your ‘slamming’ does absolutely NOTHING to refute Gentry’s work- it’s nothign but an ad hominem attack on his character and ‘credentials’ which were good enough to earn him respect and his work respect in the scientific comunity- but please, do keep ‘slamming’ him- it’s funny to watch
[[“And had you even the lsightest inclination to do an unbiased search,”
Poor you, you are so put upon.....]]
Lol- you can’t even insult properly- It’s not I that am ‘put upon’- it was YOU who didn’t bother to do a thorough unbiased reasearch into the subject- it was YOU who only went to the evo’s old ‘standby’ site- a notoru\iously deceptive site- TO- in order to ‘refute’ Gentry. It was YOU who didn’t bother to present BOTH sides of hte argument- I’m just pointing out your laziness and your a priori agenda by pointing to innept sites liek TO as though they had even an inkling of scientific merrit in discussions liek this-
[[Dr. Gentry, whose PhD. is just as valuable as the garbage PhDs churned out by what passes for “science” departments in modern secular universities, still remains absolutely unrefuted in his work.
DocRock revealed he writes legal documents for a living, and obviously has thereby acquired the logic skills of a sound creationist mind. You should place more stock in his arguments, and investigate the jargonistic brainwashing that accounts for so-called “science” over the last several decades, and investigate these issues from a logical, common-sense viewpoint - you’ll realize that a 6-Day Creation ex nihilo and a young earth is the only sound conclusion.]]
Bingo- Great post by hte way- Good advice, but methinks it has fallen on deaf ears- despite hte claims of being unbiased and only ‘searhcing for hte truth’
Do you have a link to that? I'd like to read through it and Henke's article, but I can't track down either of them.
I have to say, the accusation that Henke "tries to bury truth under a mountain of minutiae" sounds a lot like "I know I'm right, don't bother me with details." Science is a mountain of minutiae, and for a scientist to complain about minutiae seems kinda weak. But I'll reserve judgment until I see the original material.
And there you have it, folks. You can't trust scientists because they use big words.
This really is a performance, isn't it?
it was in the trueorigins link I gave a few posts back
[[I have to say, the accusation that Henke “tries to bury truth under a mountain of minutiae” sounds a lot like “I know I’m right, don’t bother me with details.”]]
Really? Hmmmm- because hte ‘minutiae’ he referred to were irrelevent accusations and blown out of proportion criticisms that weren’t scientifically valid- As Wonderouscreation pointed out, Henke’s ‘rebuttal’ also consisted of made up assumptions that DEFY science- but you are only goign to beleive what you like
[[Science is a mountain of minutiae, and for a scientist to complain about minutiae seems kinda weak.]]
Not made up minutiae- nor is it made up of assumptions the likes of which Henke slings around- Humphrys goes over each and every point Henke brings up, and exposes hte fact that Henke tried to make mountains out of irrelevent molehills, but I’m predicting right now, that you’ll deny Humphry’s positions are not valid because they fly i nthe face of old age- but if you want to attempt to show scientific evidence that refutes his points, be my guest-
[[But I’ll reserve judgment until I see the original material.]]
Mmmm- Yep- you’ve already passed judgement-
[[And there you have it, folks. You can’t trust scientists because they use big words.]]
Another BLATANT misrepresentation from you Hahaha- that is NOT what he was inferrign at all- it hsoudl be obvious to anyone reading htis thread- and yes, even to you- but apparently you want to divert attention away fro mwhat he was saying by BLATANTLY MISREPRESENTING what he said and why- He was sayign you can NOT trust scientists when they intentionally use big words that do NOT reflect the FACTS of the case- the ‘big words’ he referred to are words used to intentionally misdirect people- The ‘big words’ were used in an intentionally deceitful manner- and Humphry’s and Gentry and those on this site have EXPOSED those deceits- and I’m pointing you’re out as well- you sir are another one hwo claims to be only ‘looking for hte truth’, yet you intentionally misrepresent what people are statign and why ALL the time here on FR- either that or their comments and intents are goign way over your head?
[[the ‘big words’ he referred to are words used to intentionally misdirect people-]]
That should read- “The big words he referred to are words that are INTENTIONALLY MISUSED, to INTENTIONALLY MISDIRECT and mislead people away from the damaging evidences that they can’t refute in a valid scientific manner
4 billion....just about as many as the Earth’s age is in years.
Of course, only someone as obviously uber-edumacated as you has the cognizance of what 4 billion years implies.....other than 4 billion years, of course.
I’ll leave “ignorance” to the “fools” on YEC sites that believe that a T-Rex died during Noah’s flood, which demands that T-Rex and man walked the Earth at the same time, which demands that in the game of life called “Man Vs. T-Rex a predator/prey relationship”.....Man was victorious and was not T-Rex kibble.
Anyone thqat believes that will believe anything.
That big huge link? When I went there, all I got was a list of Gentry references on the trueorigins site. And when I searched for a phrase from your #197, from what I thought was a quote from the article, I got nothing but a link to your post. So any more detailed pointer would be welcome.
The "big words" he referred to were in a quote he posted: "Biotite from the Faraday Mine came from a granite pegmatite that intruded a paragneiss that formed from highly metamorphosed sediments." Which of those words do not reflect the facts of the case? Was it not actually a pegmatite ("a coarsely crystalline granite or other high-silica rock")? Do you disagree that the intruded rock was a paragneiss ("a gneiss showing a sedimentary parentage")? If so, why?
If you can't support a claim that those "big words" do not reflect the facts, please withdraw your accusation that I was intentionally misrepresenting what WC said.
Is this headline from The Onion?
Right, the Discovery Institute. Please.
You are probably right, the evos will just declare that soft tissue can last 80 million years in dirt and leave it at that.
If you hitch your cart to this, and it is later proven incorrect, or a mechanism by which proteins are preserved over long periods of time is found, you would have to deny the existence of God.
Huh??? This is crazy talk. Why would any of this make me lose my faith in God?
We wouldn’t want you to have to do that - so a more rational position for you would be to simply have faith, and leave science, and scientific conclusions to people who know what they are doing.
Like yourself? LOL
All I know is, if I bury a fresh T-Bone steak in the back yard, I won't be digging up anything that resembles a fresh T-Bone steak 80 million years later, though (more or less), that's exactly what they say happened here. I'm just glad that brainwashed evos aren't checking my food expiration dates at the local supermarket!
Seeing how it is Evo scientists who made the discovery, I could see how you might say that!
Awww, poor jalisco. You had only just recommended the book, only to find out that it has already been refuted. LOL
Ciao, amigo.
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.