Posted on 04/02/2013 10:13:02 AM PDT by fishtank
But it is a history book. Otherwise, why does it contain so much history? Why not just philosophical musings like something from Kahlil Gibran?
Take a trip to the northern Congo.
There is not just soft tissue, but complete living dinos, somewhat like a “brontosaurus.”
Un-scientific ignorance is the best description of you that we have.
Replace “It’s” with “Genesis is”.
And even the history books are not exclusively history books. They have many meanings and purposes. They are archetypes of God’s fractured relationship with man, extensible to all of us. They set the stage for Jesus’ appearance and explain the necessity of his sacrifice.
In the author’s own words, ““It is hard enough to understand...The idea that it has lasted for 65 million years simply boggles the mind”, it is stated the author is ignorant enough to boggle the author’s mind trying to understand how it could be possible for the biological cells to remain undestroyed for 65 million years. Since the topic related to a scientific subject, it can hardly be honestly denied the author claims to be ignorant of the science to the point of having the author’s mind boggled.
If the author would care to present some observable evidence to demonstrate why proteins and other biological matter cannot ever be preserved in a geological formation for 65 million years, then we could perhaps have an informed discussion of the relevance of the fossils in the mentioned formation rather than an uniformed discussion based upon self professed ignorance and lack of understanding of the scientific principles under discussion.
If you look into the scientific research on the subject of how biological matter can and is found to be preserved for fantastically long periods of time, you will have the opportunity to be more surprised and less boggled. Exobiology is finding extremely difficult to sanitize Terrestrial space probes to avoid contaminating extraterrestrial venues.
In the author’s own words, ““It is hard enough to understand...The idea that it has lasted for 65 million years simply boggles the mind”, it is stated the author is ignorant enough to boggle the author’s mind trying to understand how it could be possible for the biological cells to remain undestroyed for 65 million years. Since the topic related to a scientific subject, it can hardly be honestly denied the author claims to be ignorant of the science to the point of having the author’s mind boggled.
If the author would care to present some observable evidence to demonstrate why proteins and other biological matter cannot ever be preserved in a geological formation for 65 million years, then we could perhaps have an informed discussion of the relevance of the fossils in the mentioned formation rather than an uniformed discussion based upon self professed ignorance and lack of understanding of the scientific principles under discussion.
So it happens all the time, is that what you’re saying? It’s so common one shouldn’t be surprised? It’s as common as three-headed cattle, honest democrats, teenagers showing gratitude and benign muslims?
Or do you mean, since it’s remotely possible one shouldn’t find it surprising that it occurred? I’m sorry but, yes it’s possible but it doesn’t happen much, therefore, I’m surprised.
Your inability to understand the idea of 65 million years is what stands out.
You’re lost in a dream, and reality look out!
The author of the threadd clearly chose to promote the idea that Creationism must be true and the scientific concept of evolution must be false because he cannot “understand” and it”boggles his mind” that it could be assderted that the soft tissues of a dionosaur could survive unfossilized for 65 million years. How we characterize our SUBJECTIVE feelings about finding such old original biological matter, there is nonetheless observable OBJECTIVE evideence of its existence and its age being about 65 million years old. While it is true that biological consumption (eating) of biological matter, oxiddation, hydrolysis, and a myriad of other agents makes it highly problematic for such biological matter to survive deestruction for so many millions of years, there is no biochemical reason why it cannot or should not when the biological matter is somehow shielded from the typical panoply of destructive agents. Therefore, from the biochemical point of view, there is no objectivee reason to be overly surprised at finding the unpredicted survival of such cellular matter from the age of the dinosaurs about 5 million years ago, whether or not we4 are personally awed the by evident great age of the material.
The author of the thread, however, obviously disagrees because he has an agenda to find support for the Creationism conjecture. Attempts to hold the science of evolution by implying the age of the dinosaurs as being far less than 65 million years in age because of the survival of the biological matter harms the creationism conjecture by engaging in obviously false witnessing of the evidence. Some supporters of the Biblical Scripture would argue that you cannot do so by bearing falsee witness to the observable evideence available by using the scientific method. Such an argument appears to have certainly been valid in the casee of the Church of Rome playing its direct role in killing Galileo for effrontery of postulating the Sun as the center of the Solar System and not the Earth as dictated by the church’s support of the ancient geocentric and crystalline spheres dogma. It In the name of religion men such as Galileo, Copernicus, and others have been wrongly ridiculed and punisheed for observing and stating the observable truth about the world and universe in which we alll live. It remains to be seen how many people who identify themseelves as Christians can on the one hand bear false witness about the observable evidence and on the other hand assert ttheir obediance to the Commandment not to bear false witness. In other words, a Christian who practices the religion cannot hypocritically attempt to prove Creationism, whether or not Creationism as defined by that person is a reality, by going around and bearing false witness about the evidence obseerved when employing the scientific method. From a christian point of view the Universe is as God created it, so the observable evidence of its existence is as God created it as well. The Universe is what it is. Wee can honestly disagree and be mistaken about what we think we have observed in experimentation, but we cannot disregard the obseerved evidence of God’s creation for the purpose of bearing witness not supported by the observable evidence to support a theological conjecture. As applied to this thread the author is clearly implying evolution should be denied because Creationism asserts the biological matter cannot be rationally believeed to be 65 million years old as the science of evolution and geology assdert it to be. Yet, the scientific evidence about the nature of organic matter and its properties clearly support the possibility and eveen probability of its survival against destruction under tthe right geological circumstances. The fact that scientific researchers had not discovered such evidence before recent years is more a matter of investigativee insight and persistence than it is a matter of improbability in the physical nature of things as God created them to be.
I’ll try to make this as simple and BRIEF as possible for you. Extant dinosaur tissue, at a minimum, is 65 million years old. I find the discovery if such soft tissue surprising. If that highly emotional response on my part bothers you, I have a suggestion. It involves an uncomfortable posture.
Why would you tr to claim your surprise “bothers” me after I so explicitly and lengthily just finished saying your feelings about the matter weere sujective and not relevant to the discussion? You make it appear that you are trying to change the subject away from the topic of the original thread, which attempts to ridicule the sciencee of evolution by dismissing the idea that the dinosaur tissue could be 65 million years old or older.
Simply put, what evidence obtained by the scientific method is there to support the author’s implied conclusion that the dinosaur tissue could, should, or must be less than or substantially less than 65 million years old?
One of the reasons your arguments are going nowhere is because of this habit of yours where you invent falsehoods about what other people say, do and believe. I understand 65 million years rather well considering how I spent much time physically digging through some 265 million years of geological strata to examine the fossils in them. That combined with studying astronomy makes 65 million years rather paltry in comparison to the age of thes of the galazies and their stars. So, I’m not impressed by your efforts to belittle. I would suggest that you can earn more respect for your point of view by arrguing respeectfully from the evidence.
Because I didnt read the four page thing you sent me because you long ago got boring. You originally took issue with the idea that soft tissue surviving 65 million years was somehow surprising.
Newsflash: it is surprising.
Who cares if you are surprised? This not about you. This is about the topic of the thread and its author’s efforts to promote Creationism as the author sees it by holding evolutionary science up to ridicule upon the basis of the author’s comments about the dinosaur tissue.
If you want to be surprised, have at it. If you want to talk about the inability or ability of dinosaur tissue to survive in the observed condition for 65 or more million years, the let’s hear it.
Mary H. Schweitzer, the scientist behind this, has no problems believing it is millions of years old - she is just interested in how well preserved it is in that one can detect cellular structure and even some reactivity (antibody binding IIRC) to heme and collagen.
I thought it was a fascinating discovery. I’m less surprised than most other people perhaps because of the work I had seen about the survivability of living organisms and organic material over past decaddees of experience. I had the privilege of handling one of the Apollo 11 Lunar rock samples in 1971 at a conference attended by a number of the NASA scientists engaged in related research. One oncerns they were discussing at our conference was the problems associated with distinguishing extraterrestrial samples contaminated with biological contaminants from Earth versus exobiological organisms not contaminated by biological organisms from Earth. This conference highlighted the extraordinary ability of some organic materials and living organisms to survive the harshest imaginable environments.
My geology professor also highlighted thee issue in 1971 with his researh into how coal and petroleum were being formed in geological strata. Sampling of new coal beds in Florida’s everglades were turning up some amazing examples of biological organisms survivng the process for extraordinarily long timeframes.
Beam me up Scotty!!!!
I liked the mitochondrial DNA from buried leaves near a lake(IIRC). The leaves stack up year after year, and the buried ones are in an environment with almost no oxygen and no light. They got fairly good DNA sequence from samples that were hundreds of thousands of years old (IIRC) and confirmed and calibrated the “molecular clock” of the modern trees still living around the lake.
When it arrives....
"Look, Vardig, these creatures come from a sterile world! Quick! sneeze on it and send it back!
They'll all die and their world will be ours without so much as an orbital bombardment!"
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.