Originally posted by sdunklee72520
found recently in a t-rex bone were blood cells collegen tissue and other things very well preserved.and even still elastic.
They didn't find any actual blood cells or fresh tissue. What happened was that Dr. Schweitzer took a bone and treated it with some chemicals that
dissolved away the mineral components, and what was left was a mass of organic material that had deconstructed over time. It still had some of the
structural features of tissue preserved in it, i beleive, but it wasn't perfectly preserved tissues and cells and the like. Its very interesting, but
there's no reason, scientifically, to not expect it, considering what's known about the preservation and stability of organic chemicals. Others have
been finding protein remians in bones for a little while now too. Schweitzer's work is pretty spectacular though.
as for evolution I believe we do evolve to be able to survive yet in the last 30k years there has not been any evidence of any new specie
showing up anywhere where are they?
There have been many instances of observed speciation in the modern era.
As for over the past 30,000 years, please present evidence that this hasn't happened.
If we evolved from a rodent with 36 billion combinations in it's dna to what we are today in 7 million years with 56 billion combinations
thats 20 billion significant changes in our dna in 7 million years? or around 3 billion changes a year.
Where are you getting 7 million years from?
at that rate there should be new animals every week!
I don't know if I'd agree with the rationale you've used to figure out the change rate, but, given that, why assume that the rate is the same in
all groups all the time?
It is quite relevant. We are talking about how we got here, on earth
I'm sorry but its not. Evolutionary theory does not claim that a peice of dirt suddenly became consious.
The problem I have with that is that there “is” micro-evolution meaning that individuals of a particular species develop behavioral changes
or adapt minimal alterations to their existing anatomy
Please explain why a series of small changes, one after another, isn't a big change, when looking at the begining and the end products. In Zeno's
famous Paradox, it is immpossible to move from point A to point B because in order to do so you must first move half way, and then half-way, and then
half way, before you can ever move the full way, and thus movement is 'logically' prevented by allways having to move half-way. Of course, this is
absurd, and we can move between points. Similarly, a salamander, for example, can't give birth to a lizard, but each generation can be slightly
altered from the previous one, and over generational time this can result in a population of lizards.
Where did you read that Jesus created living organisms out of clay?
Its implied in a trinitarian godhead. But its not particular to this discussion, so if you're not a trinitarian christian then feel free to ignore
it as irrelevant. But lets not ignore the genetic aspect, the shared genetic material (shared and also altered through generational time), evidence
that supports evolution from a common ancestor for life, and that also is in general agreement with the morphological and paleontological evidence for
Which says there will be “pestilences” to wipe out millions if not billions of people
There have been such diseases in the past. There is nothing particularly apocalyptic about right now.
Evolution takes place over millions of years, this is happening within a few years, definitely suggestive of a higher “thought” process and
a definite purpose. Time will tell.
No, this is incorrect. Evolution does not require millions of years. Evolution is the change in populations over the timespan of a generation. In a
small number of generations, this means small total change, in a great number f populations, this can mean a great amount of change.
Science has no “proof” that single cell organisms evolved into multi-celled organisms.
Agreed. Science has no proof of anything infact. Science does not deal in proofs. Science deals with observations of the natural world and a logical
analysis of those observations, not 'proofs'.
They have fossil evidence that they existed
Its a bit more than just 'in the oldest rocks there are single celled organisms only and then in later rocks there are mutli-cellular ones',
althought that in itself is good evidence. Its the distribution and sharing of genes amoung these organisms, and the sequences in which the
multicelled forms appear. Its not proof, but then again we have no proof of anything in science.
And Im telling you that the Bible clearly states that life did evolve on earth and that the evolution process was “created” by God.
Why should what you say matter? What is the evidence to support what you state, thats what is important. If you are talking about the bible, then
you are talking about an opinion, your personal interpretation. I look at the bible and I see nothing about evolution. It would be remarkable if
there was anything about it, considering that the entire conception of organisms in the distant past was radically different from the modern
biological idea of polytypic species living in relation to their local environment and existing in a particular moment in time. Indeed, without this
sort of understanding, there can't be anything like evolution, and the understanding of organisms in the bible, that of broad 'kinds', is throughly
in keeping with similar ancient conceptions of organisms. Its not just non-evolutionary, its pre-evolutionary.
I started out as a pure evolutionist
Strange, you don't seem to actually understand evolution.
then by being open minded by nature, I discuss ideas with people that I meet who spend their life, in one discipline of science. A good place
to start is with the Bible
You are being open minded, and that is reflected by your going to the bible to understand the natural world? Why not the rig veda? Or hesiod's
Theogeny? There are lots of religious texts out there in the world, why did you 'happen' to start with the bible? How is accepting at the begining
the religious ideas of a group of ancient goat-herding pastoralists from the levant being 'open minded'?
But if there is an answer out there somewhere I will do my best to find it, and get back to you.
But if you are just going to look at the bible and try to create an interpretation of part of the bible so as to explain this, then what is the point?
In the end, it'd just be an interpretation of a particular text.
that there were “ancient”civilizations that were flooded and made unusable.
I don't think that in any of those cases the settlement in question was destroyed by a sudden flood, except perhaps the ones around the black sea.
But, and perhaps I have missed part of the conversation, what is this supposed to mean? That there are ruins of cities that today are underwater?
This is something unexpected?
Does that mean there were two different floods? That is an amazing thought process.
Why aren't you applying the same critical thought to the idea that I suppose you are supporting, that all these floods occured at the same time?
Indeed, why suppose at all that, because there is evidence of flooding of the black sea, and evidence of a flood in part of japan, that therefore they
were caused by a global flood?
The fact is that the evidence rather doesn't support a global flood, and indeed one could even say that the evidence we have refutes
flood ever having occuring.
Perhaps you should stay in school. Honestly.
Your display of logic in that last post is worse then something a 5 year old would try to come up with
This is a discussion board. We are all here to discuss the subject. This is not the first time that i have seen you attack a fellow member for not
being, in your opinion, 'educated' enough. If there is a flaw in another member's reasonging, point it out. But do not personally attack other