RSR's Annual Soft Tissue Show: The Deniers

[The Barbarian]

The creationist is so in awe of the precision and success of science, he wants to make scripture into a science textbook.

It was never intended to be that, and until the last century, no one suppose it should be like that.

 

[Jonahdog]

The creationist is so in awe of the precision and success of science,

No, can't buy that. Creationists do not trust science. They are not in awe because they either do not understand or have made the intellectual decision not to accept it. Sad.

 

[6days]

We DO get some detailsin the first couple chapters of Genesis. Here are some, but *it all of the details....

*Earth was created covered in water...not a hot molten blob.


*Earth was created before the stars..... not billions of years later.


*Light was created for before the sun and stars existed.


*Days with evening and morning existed before the sun.


*Man was created from the dust of the ground...not a descendant of any previous creature.


*Woman was created from the rib of a man....created as an equal partner, and not a less highly evolved creature.


*Birds created before land animals...not a descendant of them.*


*Animals were given every green plant for food.....not to rip other creatures apart while still alive.


*The great sea creatures were created on day 5.....they did not evolve from land creatures which where created the following day.


*Our universe was spoken into existence by a deliberate act.... not a quantum fluctuation.


*Our moon was placed at the appropriate distance from Earth....not the result of a giant astrroid colliding with earth.


*Death entered our world after man sinned.

The creationist is so in awe of the precision and success of science, he wants to make scripture into a science textbook.

It has been pointed out to you before that your argument is dishonest.

Scripture is not a science text, and nobody has claimed that. Scripture is the Word of God and contains absolute truth no matter if it touches on science, history or any other topic. For ex. Scripture tells us that Jesus was born of a virgin. We accept that as absolute truth even though the vast majority of scientists say the evidence doesn't support virgin births.*

 

[Jonahdog]

It has been pointed out to you before that your argument is dishonest.

Scripture is not a science text, and nobody has claimed that. Scripture is the Word of God and contains absolute truth no matter if it touches on science, history or any other topic. For ex. Scripture tells us that Jesus was born of a virgin. We accept that as absolute truth even though the vast majority of scientists say the evidence doesn't support virgin births.*

Your reliance on your particular Scripture in spite of other evidence is simply misplaced and irrational. Your Scripture tells you, in your interpretation, that the universe is about 6000 years old. The evidence tells us otherwise by an enormous factor.

 

[The Barbarian]

It has been pointed out to you before that your argument is dishonest.

It's the creationist habit. When they run out of excuses, they start screaming "liar!" Do you honestly think anyone believes you?

Scripture is not a science text, and nobody has claimed that.

And yet, creationists claim "kind" has a scientific definition. You guys talk out of both sides of your mouth.

We accept that as absolute truth even though the vast majority of scientists say the evidence doesn't support virgin births.*

Never heard of parthenogenesis, um? You just made up the "vast majority" didn't you?

 

[everready]

No, can't buy that. Creationists do not trust science. They are not in awe because they either do not understand or have made the intellectual decision not to accept it. Sad.

We do not stand in awe of the science god we stand in awe of our creator the Lord Jesus Christ.

everready

 

[User Name]

What is the stuff they've found if it isn't soft tissue? Is it the remnants of soft tissue?

I think that's just about certain. For example, the molecule found in the T-rex bones was heme, a fraction of a hemoglobin molecule. Interestingly, the heme turned out to be most like that of birds, which is what evolutionary theory predicts. Birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Here is a quote from an article by the Society for Science and the Public:

"Researchers from London have found hints of blood and fibrous tissue in a hodgepodge of 75-million-year-old dinosaur bones. These fossils had been poorly preserved. That now suggests residues of soft tissues may be more common in dino bones than scientists had thought...Until now, scientists had thought that traces of soft tissue from dinosaurs remained only in really well-preserved fossils...Susannah Maidment is a paleontologist at Imperial College London in England. She was part of a team that has just found residues of soft tissue in slivers of eight dinosaur bones."​

Notice the words they use to describe what has been found: "hints...residues...traces" of soft tissue. But apparently, not actual tissue itself in the full sense of the word.

I'm still optimistic that small amounts full-fledged tissue may eventually be found, however.

 

[The Barbarian]

We do not stand in awe of the science god

You've already messed up, trying to make science into a god. It's just a method. You guys are compulsive idolators.

we stand in awe of our creator the Lord Jesus Christ.

If you did, you wouldn't be making gods of all sorts of other things.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm still optimistic that small amounts full-fledged tissue may eventually be found, however.

Theoretically possible. It would be a treasure trove of information for the biological sciences. And a disaster for creationism. The discovery that dinosaur heme is most closely like bird heme was a powerful confirmation of evolutionary theory.

Tissue would give us numerous other confirmations.

 

[Jonahdog]

Theoretically possible. It would be a treasure trove of information for the biological sciences. And a disaster for creationism. The discovery that dinosaur heme is most closely like bird heme was a powerful confirmation of evolutionary theory.

Tissue would give us numerous other confirmations.

Well no, creationists would simply bring up all the creationist research which indicates that the dino bones are less than about 6000 years old. And if such creationist research does not exist their basis for the 6000 year old claim will be either "Just because" or "The Bible".

The old "How could it be that old?" rationale. Thought that went out with "What do you mean the earth moves around the sun? Don't you see the sun moving through the sky each day?"

 

[6days]

We do not stand in awe of the science god

But....we do stand in awe of thee God of science...the Creator God of the Bible.

we stand in awe of our creator the Lord Jesus Christ.

Yes!! Col. 1:16

 

[Stripe]

Notice the words they use to describe what has been found: "hints...residues...traces" of soft tissue. But apparently, not actual tissue itself in the full sense of the word.

Ten years ago you would have been laughed off the stage had you said this; likely you would have been among those doing the mockery. Fossils were believed to be purely rock.

The soft-tissue finds are a challenge to the evolutionary mindset that evolutionists are desperately trying to incorporate as if it was expected.

 

[User Name]

Ten years ago you would have been laughed off the stage had you said this...Fossils were believed to be purely rock.

Indeed!

likely you would have been among those doing the mockery.

Not at all. I was open-minded when I first heard about this. In fact, I leaned toward thinking that Mary Schweitzer's findings were valid, and it appears that she has been vindicated. Good for her. Good for us all!

The soft-tissue finds are a challenge to the evolutionary mindset that evolutionists are desperately trying to incorporate as if it was expected.

I don't know of anyone who considers this to be expected. So far as I can tell, it has been a surprise to everyone. But again, we are only talking about microscopic amounts so far. If we ever find more than that, that will be a huge surprise.

 

[The Barbarian]

Stipe writes earlier:
Ignoring the troll, the facts are that material has been found that 10 years ago was "completely impossible."

Barbarian reminds him again that his statement is false:
Sounds wrong, considering we had soft material from invertebrate fossils before that time.

Purely organic matter, however, and particularly such things as spores, are immune. They barely notice the immersion, except perhaps to enjoy their newfound freedom. Chitinozoans are similar. These are believed to be the eggs of some animal, perhaps related to an obscure group of worms called the gastrotrichs. Chitinozoans occur in their billions through the Ordovician to Carboniferous, and have been successfully extracted from significantly metamorphic rocks. For whatever reason, those eggs were meant to last. Slightly less robust, but still often abundantly preserved, are the jaws of polychaete worms, that we call scolecodonts. Again, something in their composition made them rather resilient to decay processes.

The most peculiar and apparently inexplicable example, however, are the graptolites. These are a very important group of fossils with respect to dating rocks, since they are extremely abundant, very widespread, and evolved rapidly in a recognisable sequence. In general the colonial skeletons, made of a series of tubes, are a few centimetres long (although some reached a meter or so), and they are usually preserved as organic carbon – either a shiny film or a thick black deposit. Sometimes they are found preserved in three dimensions, and can be extracted by dissolving limestones in weak acids. In the best examples, the skeletons can be sectioned and viewed with an electron microscope to yield details of how they were put together. And what do we find? Collagen. Although the huge molecules themselves are no longer pristine, they have a characteristic shape that is recognisable. Collagen was a surprising result. Skin is mostly collagen, and needless to say, it doesn’t generally fossilize. There are however different types of collagen, with different levels of robustness.
http://www.asoldasthehills.org/Fossil preservation.html

Now Stipe tries it one more time:

Ten years ago you would have been laughed off the stage had you said this; likely you would have been among those doing the mockery. Fossils were believed to be purely rock.

Do you think people already forgot, Stipe? If you can't be good, learn to be cautious.

 

[User Name]

Stipe writes earlier:
the facts are that material has been found that 10 years ago was "completely impossible."

To be fair, Schweitzer's work came in for quite a bit of criticism, which has turned out to be unfounded. Perhaps that is the sort of thing Stripe was referring to.

 

[Stripe]

To be fair, Schweitzer's work came in for quite a bit of criticism, which has turned out to be unfounded. Perhaps that is the sort of thing Stripe was referring to.

Not really. The industry taught that fossilization was a complete process; anything found in the rocks was completely rock.

 

[6days]

These are a very important group of fossils with respect to dating rocks

The fossils date the rock?
Yup.... And I have a little bottle of anti-hydrogen I could sell you.

And what do we find? Collagen. Although the huge molecules themselves are no longer pristine, they have a characteristic shape that is recognisable. Collagen was a surprising result.

Fantastic evidence against the "millions and millions" of years, belief system.

 

[6days]

It's the creationist habit. When they run out of excuses, they start screaming "liar!"

Nope..... that is dishonest.
You in particular are often called dishonest though.

Ceationist ...wants to make scripture into a science textbook

Scripture is not a science text, and nobody has claimed that.

And yet, creationists claim "kind" has a scientific definition.

More dishonesty from you...

Also logical fallacy of moving the goalposts.

We accept (scripture / virgin birth of Jeaus) *as absolute truth even though the vast majority of scientists say the evidence doesn't support virgin births.

Never heard of parthenogenesis, um?

Sure....it is part of nature.

However, once again you seem willing to compromise on scripture suggesting the pregnancy of Mary was just a freak of nature ...God's Word tells us "The angel replied, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the baby to be born will be holy, and he will be called the Son of God."

 

[User Name]

Not really. The industry taught that fossilization was a complete process; anything found in the rocks was completely rock.

That's what Schweitzer found out. The fossils weren't completely rock.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It's the creationist habit. When they run out of excuses, they start screaming "liar!"

6days demonstrates:

Nope..... that is dishonest.

You guys can't help yourselves, can you?

You in particular are often called dishonest though.

By creationists, after I've posted evidence. It's the way you guys roll.

(quote-mining derailed when Barbarian restores the context)
The creationist is so in awe of the precision and success of science, he wants to make scripture into a science textbook.

It was never intended to be that, and until the last century, no one suppose it should be like that.

Scripture is not a science text, and nobody has claimed that.

We've all seen creationists claim otherwise.

Barbarian observes:
And yet, creationists claim "kind" has a scientific definition.

6days can't help himself:

More dishonesty from you...

Well, let's take a look...


Baraminology is a creationist system that classifies animals into groups called "created kinds" or "baramin" according to the account of creation in the book of Genesis and other parts of the Bible. It claims that kinds cannot interbreed, and have no evolutionary relationship to one another.[1] Creation science has been criticized for its pseudoscientific characteristics by the US National Academy of Science and numerous other scientific and scholarly organizations.[2][3][4][5]

The term was devised in 1990 by Kurt P. Wise, based on Frank Lewis Marsh's 1941 coinage of the term "baramin" from the Hebrew words bara (create) and min (kind). The combination is not meaningful in Hebrew. It is intended to represent the different kinds described in the Bible, and especially in the Genesis descriptions of the Creation and Noah's Ark, and the Leviticus and Deuteronomy division between clean and unclean.

Baraminology borrowed its key terminology, and much of its methodology from the field of Discontinuity Systematics founded by Walter ReMine in 1990.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baraminology

Whenever you're called on it, you just change your position and deny it.

Also logical fallacy of moving the goalposts.

Funny you should say that...

We accept (scripture / virgin birth of Jeaus) *as absolute truth even though the vast majority of scientists say the evidence doesn't support virgin births.

Barbarian observes:
Never heard of parthenogenesis, um?

Sure....it is part of nature.

So much for that claim. Do you even think before you write that stuff? Of course the immaculate conception was miraculous, not natural. But your claim is false, and you knew it when you made it.

However, once again you seem willing to compromise on scripture suggesting the pregnancy of Mary was just a freak of nature ...

No, and you knew that, too. You can't help yourself, can you?

God's Word tells us "The angel replied, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the baby to be born will be holy, and he will be called the Son of God."

I'm glad you're still willing to admit that much. But if you believe that, why not just believe everything He tells you?