It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
"When paleontologist Mary Schweitzer found soft tissue in a Tyrannosaurus rex fossil, her discovery raised an obvious question -- how the tissue could have survived so long? The bone was 68 million years old, and conventional wisdom about fossilization is that all soft tissue, from blood to brains, decomposes. Only hard parts, like bones and teeth, can become fossils. But for some people, the discovery raised a different question. How do scientists know the bones are really 68 million years old?"
68 million year old t-rex soft tissue? Yeah, that sounds possible to me. I am sure that finding was also explained away in some convoluted fashion.
“The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,”
Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”
beegoodbees
All of the moths changed twice at almost the same time, not a few mutated and only their offspring survived.(as evolution dictates) Give me a break.
As far as missing evidence, you will provide none to support your ideas but you expect me to provide some to support mine? Anyhow any such skulls that are found are simply labeled as being contemporary and never even considered for comparison to anything like a dinosaur because we already "know" that dinosaurs died millions of years ago and dolphins were not around yet.
This is what you apparently don't know.
"Now, in a series of papers published in September in Nature (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group) and elsewhere, the ENCODE group has produced a stunning inventory of previously hidden switches, signals and sign posts embedded like runes throughout the entire length of human DNA. In the process, the ENCODE project is reinventing the vocabulary with which biologists study, discuss and understand human inheritance and disease.
Ewan Birney, 39, of the European Bioinformatics Institute in Cambridge, England, led the analysis by the more than 400 ENCODE scientists who annotated the genome. He recently spoke with Scientific American about the major findings. Excerpts follow.
Scientific American: The ENCODE project has revealed a landscape that is absolutely teeming with important genetic elements—a landscape that used to be dismissed as “junk DNA.” Were our old views of how the genome is organized too simplistic?"
link to article
www.scientificamerican.com...
edit on 31-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)
Grimpachi
reply to post by beegoodbees
"When paleontologist Mary Schweitzer found soft tissue in a Tyrannosaurus rex fossil, her discovery raised an obvious question -- how the tissue could have survived so long? The bone was 68 million years old, and conventional wisdom about fossilization is that all soft tissue, from blood to brains, decomposes. Only hard parts, like bones and teeth, can become fossils. But for some people, the discovery raised a different question. How do scientists know the bones are really 68 million years old?"
68 million year old t-rex soft tissue? Yeah, that sounds possible to me. I am sure that finding was also explained away in some convoluted fashion.
I have no idea where you pulled that quote from but I doubt it was from a scientific journal. Maybe you should read what the actual person said about their work which BTW she is a Christian however she understands the difference between science and religion. In the future if you are going to quote something it is in the T&C to provide links and use the quote function for off site material unless that is your own quote from something you wrote.
“The reason it hasn’t been discovered before is no right-thinking paleontologist would do what Mary did with her specimens. We don’t go to all this effort to dig this stuff out of the ground to then destroy it in acid,”
Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”
This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”
link to smithsonian
So are you another dishonest young earth creationist who misrepresents this Christian paleontologists work to further your own agenda?
rhinoceros
beegoodbees
All of the moths changed twice at almost the same time, not a few mutated and only their offspring survived.(as evolution dictates) Give me a break.
I see you can't wrap your head around even simple concepts like natural selection. No, not all the moths changed twice at almost the same time and no, mutations were not necessarily even involved in these occasions. You see, we had variation within the moth population (as in any population of any species that are not clonal). The ones that were lighter were more likely to have been eaten by predators. Hence the ones that were darker were more likely to survive and perhaps pass their genes to the next generation. Repeat this pattern over many generations, and soon enough almost everybody will be dark, because the alleles that lead to dark are more likely to be passed on than the alleles that lead to light. This is not exactly rocket science.
As far as missing evidence, you will provide none to support your ideas but you expect me to provide some to support mine? Anyhow any such skulls that are found are simply labeled as being contemporary and never even considered for comparison to anything like a dinosaur because we already "know" that dinosaurs died millions of years ago and dolphins were not around yet.
I have addressed all your questions. You, however, have failed to address all my questions. So this is your final answer. No 200M year old skulls that are very similar to humans or dolphins have been ever discovered because it has never been considered that such old skulls could be similar to these. Are you serious?
This is what you apparently don't know.
"Now, in a series of papers published in September in Nature (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group) and elsewhere, the ENCODE group has produced a stunning inventory of previously hidden switches, signals and sign posts embedded like runes throughout the entire length of human DNA. In the process, the ENCODE project is reinventing the vocabulary with which biologists study, discuss and understand human inheritance and disease.
Ewan Birney, 39, of the European Bioinformatics Institute in Cambridge, England, led the analysis by the more than 400 ENCODE scientists who annotated the genome. He recently spoke with Scientific American about the major findings. Excerpts follow.
Scientific American: The ENCODE project has revealed a landscape that is absolutely teeming with important genetic elements—a landscape that used to be dismissed as “junk DNA.” Were our old views of how the genome is organized too simplistic?"
link to article
www.scientificamerican.com...
edit on 31-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)
Oh I know, but I also know that it's way beyond your comprehension. Tell me how it's surprising that there are "genetic elements" within "junk DNA" when we know for a fact that most of it consists of repetitive sequence and ancient integrated viruses, which obviously had "genetic elements" within them.edit on 31-10-2013 by rhinoceros because: (no reason given)
15c.) Intellectual Property: You will not Post any copyrighted material owned by others, material belonging to another person, material previously Posted by you on another website, or link to any copyrighted material without providing proper attribution*, as defined by TAN, to its original source. You will not Post any material that infringes, misappropriates, or violates any patent, trademark, trade secret, or other proprietary rights of TAN or any third party. You will not use your Postings on the Websites to promote your own personal website or any other website with which you may be associated without first receiving permission from TAN.
* Proper Attribution for the posting of copyrighted material owned by others is defined as posting a relevant snippet of the online content not to exceed 10% of the entire piece, a properly formed link back to the source website, and a clear indication of the name of the source website. The posting to these websites of any copyrighted material owned by others that is not found elsewhere online is prohibited.
beegoodbees
All of the moths were white and then black and then white. According to evolution one moth would have to change color on accident and then all of the other moths go extinct because they didn't accidentally mutate leaving only the white moth and it's offspring.
According to you the variation were already there. Then where are the green moths that should already be there in case the trees turn green? Where are the blue and brown moths.
You make no sense at all. All you do is hurl insults all the while twisting and spinning the truth to suit your beliefs. There can be no reasoning with you. Expect no more replies from me.
Simple reasoning and intelligent deduction are well beyond your mental capacity. It really doesn't bother me if you want to support the new religion of the state.edit on 31-10-2013 by beegoodbees because: (no reason given)
jimmyx
the only problem I have with astrophysicists is when they say "the age of the universe is 14 billion years"....I think it should always be prefaced with..."as much as our present day instruments can measure, the age of the universe is 14 billion years old".edit on 31-10-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)
jimmyx
the only problem I have with astrophysicists is when they say "the age of the universe is 14 billion years"....I think it should always be prefaced with..."as much as our present day instruments can measure, the age of the universe is 14 billion years old".edit on 31-10-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)
beegoodbees
jimmyx
the only problem I have with astrophysicists is when they say "the age of the universe is 14 billion years"....I think it should always be prefaced with..."as much as our present day instruments can measure, the age of the universe is 14 billion years old".edit on 31-10-2013 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)
I agree, but I would include all speculative theories.
Grimpachi
reply to post by beegoodbees
Well did you bother to read the entire article or did you just stop at the ambiguous quote? The article you sourced does a fairly good job at explaining the dating process and in no way says dinosaur bones are misdated.
BTW I should not have to scan the entire web to find where you pulled one particular quote see the T&C rules for clarification.
15c.) Intellectual Property: You will not Post any copyrighted material owned by others, material belonging to another person, material previously Posted by you on another website, or link to any copyrighted material without providing proper attribution*, as defined by TAN, to its original source. You will not Post any material that infringes, misappropriates, or violates any patent, trademark, trade secret, or other proprietary rights of TAN or any third party. You will not use your Postings on the Websites to promote your own personal website or any other website with which you may be associated without first receiving permission from TAN.
* Proper Attribution for the posting of copyrighted material owned by others is defined as posting a relevant snippet of the online content not to exceed 10% of the entire piece, a properly formed link back to the source website, and a clear indication of the name of the source website. The posting to these websites of any copyrighted material owned by others that is not found elsewhere online is prohibited.
It is just another example of how things that don't fit are explained away and pushed aside.
beegoodbees
In other words, the fatal problem with all radioactive dates is that they are all based on assumptions about the past. You can get any date you like depending on the assumptions you make. And that is what geologist do, they make up an assumed geological history for rock depending on the numbers that come from the geochronology lab (see Dating secrets"
biblicalgeology.net...
pretty simple stuff really.
Grimpachi
reply to post by beegoodbees
It is just another example of how things that don't fit are explained away and pushed aside.
You are making that argument in this thread of all places?
WOW you really haven't learned anything please go to page one and watch the video with Neil deGrasse Tyson as he addresses the very argument you are making. They are not explained away or pushed aside there is a margin of error figured into the dating same as it is figured into dating the stars but that margin is nowhere near a span of millions of years for paleontology.
You are making the same argument the creationists made in the video it is no more valid in cosmology than paleontology.
All evolution evidence comes from evolutionist weblites full of assumptions and mistruths. Since there are no unbiased websites I don't see your point.
beegoodbees
reply to post by AngryCymraeg
All evolution evidence comes from evolutionist weblites full of assumptions and mistruths. Since there are no unbiased websites I don't see your point.