Posted on 06/13/2009 9:29:28 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
“Who or what do you have faith in?”
I haven’t said. Why do you think that is?
“Just like he got caught quoting ICR that blood cells were found”
Just like I quoted this article quoting the biochemist who performed an independent analysis of the bone find and concluded:
The results confirmed the existence of protein. “Because I am a collagen biochemist, our lab was contacted to perform an independent analysis of this new bone find,” explains Kalluri, who is Chief of the Division of Matrix Biology at BIDMC. “We isolated the proteins – collagen, laminin and elastin – from the bone, and also extracted bone cells and blood vessels from this sample. Our findings demonstrated that it did contain basement membrane matrix.”
Don’t know why you choose not to answer.
Feel free to read the following. I quoted this article quoting the biochemist who performed an independent analysis of the bone find and concluded:
The results confirmed the existence of protein. “Because I am a collagen biochemist, our lab was contacted to perform an independent analysis of this new bone find,” explains Kalluri, who is Chief of the Division of Matrix Biology at BIDMC. “We isolated the proteins – collagen, laminin and elastin – from the bone, and also extracted bone cells and blood vessels from this sample. Our findings demonstrated that it did contain basement membrane matrix.”
You notice that Curie, Einstein and Copernicus are not subjects of enormous controversies b/c they used mathematics and scientific methods, whereas Darwin’s tale is just a fable, with little science and plenty of conjecture behind it. Bob
Have you ever considered the appropriateness of your screen name?
>>according to gallup poll in Feb, only 4 in 10 believe in Evolution<<
>>>If true, it is the death knell for the USA as a leader in science.
As with most “facts” thrown around in these buffoon threads, this selectively omits context to mislead the reader. It should have stood out to you that the figure given is NOT the number who accept Genesis. Easy to see why if you look at the original source:
“PRINCETON, NJ — On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they “believe in the theory of evolution,” while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don’t have an opinion either way. These attitudes are strongly related to education and, to an even greater degree, religiosity.”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/Darwin-Birthday-Believe-Evolution.aspx
So the majority with an opinion accept the concept of evolution. The minority with an opinion tend to be uneducated, and reject it. The balance have no opinion, don’t know what either side is talking about, and don’t care. Not quite the message insinuated above.
These flat earth threads are so humiliating for FR.
“weak faith in what?”
in what they generally profess to have faith in.
“The results confirmed the existence of protein.”
The results documented nothing about finding “blood vessels” as you claimed.
Are we in agreement with that basic fact?
“How can you say someone has weak faith when you don’t know what faith is - nor do you know - what they have faith in?”
I didn’t say I didn’t know, I just didn’t answer your question. I was waiting for you to have a point.
I would agree with you that it would be difficult to reach a conclusion when, in fact, you do not understand the subject at hand - which definitely applies to “creation science” types - who claim to know the answer before engaging in any scientific research.
As for faith, nobody can say, for sure, that they fully understand faith. There are plenty that claim it, but nobody really knows - that’s why it is faith.
This is why matters of faith are and rightfully should be separate from matters of science, and why no matter what science discovers, faith will be unaffected.
In the case of “creation science” they can’t separate faith and science - and generally claim expertise in both, when th reality is that they have expertise in neither.
I was replying to #4 who said “Strict Darwinian materialists” are an overwhelming majority in the US - not a struggling minority” which makes my reply true that >>according to gallup poll in Feb, only 4 in 10 believe in Evolution<< (6 of 10 DON’T believe in it.) “These flat earth threads are so humiliating for FR” But like a dog returns to his own vomit, you click on one to pick fights with Christians.
“The results documented nothing about finding “blood vessels” as you claimed.”
Are you blind!!!!
The results confirmed the existence of protein. “Because I am a collagen biochemist, our lab was contacted to perform an independent analysis of this new bone find,” explains Kalluri, who is Chief of the Division of Matrix Biology at BIDMC. “We isolated the proteins – collagen, laminin and elastin – from the bone, and also extracted bone cells and blood vessels from this sample. Our findings demonstrated that it did contain basement membrane matrix.”
“Are you blind!!!!”
Stop diverting. Did they find actual “blood vessels” as you claimed or not?
It says “The results confirmed the existence of protein” It doesn’t say “the results confirmed and observed actual blood vessels”.
I read the whole article. They observed fossilized proteins that they think were blood vessels, not actual blood vessels. But really, why use this article at all, when it appears to do nothing to refute the thesis that the sample is “80 million years old”.
You need to find a new article, and you need to stop misrepresenting this one.
Read again!!!!
“We isolated the proteins – collagen, laminin and elastin – from the bone, and also extracted bone cells and blood vessels from this sample.”
They extracted bone cells and blood vessels!!!!!!
“They extracted bone cells and blood vessels!!!!!!”
No they didn’t. They extracted proteins. They did not extract blood vessels. They extracted “stuff” that was chemically demineralized and then said that “stuff” was once a protein associated with blood vessels.
They did not extract actual blood vessels, which was your claim. You made that claim to make it seem nonsensical that blood vessels could be preserved 80M years. They were fossilized remains, which were chemically treated to remove minerals, then isolated and run through a mass spectrometer from which certain protein signatures were derived.
You and your “creation science” brethren try to make it seem like actual blood vessels were found (much like a steak from the supermarket) - then you try to say “how can you preserve blood vessels for 80M years - impossible, therefore Genesis must be true”
These folks demonstrated that proteins associated with tissue that was fossilized can apparently be preserved under certain conditions. Very interesting stuff to be sure - but there is nothing here that supports “creation science”.
Also of note is that no cells were actually extracted either - as no nucleated cells and no DNA were actually found or otherwise detected. They found protein signatures in a mass spectrograph associated with them, but not actually cells.
The researcher said what he said in the context of a mass-spectrometer test. I’m sure that it will be repeated at some point, and reported - but it is not tantamount to putting a steak on ice for 80M years. It was a fossil.
I know, it’s tough stuff to understand for “creation science” types - especially when you are operating from the conclusion that the sample was less than 6,000 years old - which is not supported by the research.
So, to close the loop, since you are fixated on this article, are you agreeing that this sample is actually and in fact 80 million years old, and that the “Young-Earth Creationist” and “creation science” ideas are simply proven wrong?
“So, to close the loop, since you are fixated on this article, are you agreeing that this sample is actually and in fact 80 million years old, and that the “Young-Earth Creationist” and “creation science” ideas are simply proven wrong?”
I do not believe by any stretch of your imagination that the fossil is 80 million years. I realize that the finding of extracted bone cells and blood vessels deconstructs your belief in the 80,000,000 year finding of your so-called experts. You are going to, however, have to construct a better argument then you have to answer how soft tissue of any type can still be present over a period of 80 million years.
“You are going to, however, have to construct a better argument then you have to answer how soft tissue of any type can still be present over a period of 80 million years.”
Again, you are misrepresenting the research. They aren’t saying they have found “soft tissue”. They aren’t saying they know how apparent collagen fragments are preserved, and they also aren’t saying unequivocally that the samples were not contaminated.
However, they are saying that they don’t think they were contaminated.
Here’s another quote about your “blood vessels” from another related article posted here:
http://focus.hms.harvard.edu/2009/050109/tools_and_tech.shtml
“The microscope techniques revealed possible vestiges of bone cells, blood cells and vessels entwined within a fibrous structure that looked like collagen. Further analysis with antibodies confirmed there was collagen and other proteins mingling with those structures. “
You’ll note they aren’t saying “we found blood vessels” as you had claimed, and continue to claim.
This cutting-edge stuff - with plenty more research to come. You and the rest of your “creation science” prevaricators don’t have a prayer of actually understanding this research. That’s why you misrepresent it by saying that “soft tissue” was found - to make it seem like someone dug a fresh steak out of the ground.
Fortunately, I am completely objective, and am more than a few steps ahead of you in your argument. You have to make stuff up. I actually understand the research and am interested only in the facts coming out.
This is why there are more than a few dozen IQ points between the average “creation science” type, and folks who actually perform and/or understand this research.
Thank you for playing. You lost this round, but please feel free to try again.
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.