What of the dinosaurs?

[Calminian]

I'm still not decided on the Ica stones. The Genesis Park website has this writeup which does seem to lend them credibility.

Other items of anatomical accuracy that attest to the authenticity of these Ica Stone depictions include the positioning of the tail and legs. Early critics said the Ica Stones were fakes, in part because their tails were sticking out while walking. Paleontologists in the 1960s were confident that dinosaurs dragged their tails. The paleontologists were wrong and the Ica Stones were right.

Scientists now believe dinosaurs held their massive tails off the ground while walking, because there are no drag marks on dinosaur trackways.

The dinosaurs on the Ica Stones are depicted standing upright, rather than with legs splayed out in a lizard-like position. That, according to dinosaur experts, is “dead on” accurate. The stylizing of animals depicted on the Ica Stones matches those found in the Nascan Lines (monkey with curled tail, hummingbird, and stylized dinosaur). Many of the Ica Stones were been blackened so that the artistic etchings stand out. While some fraudulent Ica Stones have been manufactured in recent years to sell to tourists, a number of the dinosaur stones were found in tomb excavations by experienced archaeologists. Moreover microscopic analysis of the patina (covering the stone surface) and oxidation in the etching grooves unambiguously distinguishes between the authentic and the recently forged artifacts.​

I think the stumbling block is, duplicates were forged for profit.

 

[Calminian]

Oh, yes. We evolutionists are well aware of this finding. The only instance so far, but now that one has been found the search is on. No soft tissue had ever before been seen in such fossils, though some did look. It's quite exciting and stirs hope that it might be possible, in a few rare instances, to actually get our hands on dinosaur DNA. And believe me, all of us would like that to happen. In this sample no DNA was present, and due to its great age hope in this regard is currently quite slim, but one can hope.

Oh my. Cycel, are you this unfamiliar with this issue? Dude, no, this is not the only find. They're turning up everywhere now. You seriously need to research this.

I would highly recommend listening to this podcast before saying anything else:

Rsr's Annual Soft Tissue Show: The Deniers

 

[JackH]

Oh my. Cycel, are you this unfamiliar with this issue? Dude, no, this is not the only find. They're turning up everywhere now. You seriously need to research this.

I would highly recommend listening to this podcast before saying anything else:

Rsr's Annual Soft Tissue Show: The Deniers

You are going to get about as much objectivity from a website coined evolutionaryfairytale.com like the one above as you are a Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) video.

Can you furnish links to articles from reputable scientific journals and the like that conclude soft tissue proves that dinosaurs and humans coexisted? Or that dinosaur bones that contain soft tissue can conclusively be dated to be less than 6,000 years old?

Those are the points I am interested in.

 

[JackH]

Just look at all the fallacious drawings of Lucy

One of the problems with Lucy that leads to controversy is that many of the bones were missing.

Here is a skeleton that is 12,000 to 13,000 years old that is mostly complete, to include DNA:

Oldest Most Complete, Genetically Intact Human Skeleton in the New World Indicates Shared Ancestry – National Geographic Society Press Room

There is much interesting information in this short article, from a credible source.

But what interests me most is how do you or anyone else reconcile this skeleton that has been dated by various means to be 12,000 to 13,000 years old with the YEC position that humans and animals were created around 6,000 years ago?

 

[Calminian]

You are going to get about as much objectivity from a website coined evolutionaryfairytale.com like the one above as you are a Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) video.

I don't really respond to Jack anymore unless he actually makes an argument, but notice he religious tactics he employs. Don't listen to this argument because the source is a group that disagrees with my premise. There's actually quite a bit of religiosity behind this logical fallacy.

poisoning the wells -- This entry comes from an article by Albury Castell titled "Analyzing A Fallacy," which was included in the book Readings In Speech, edited by Haig Bosmajian (Harper & Row, 1965). Here is the full quote: "During the last century a famous controversy took place between Charles Kingsley and Cardinal Newman. It began, I believe, by Kingsley suggesting that truth did not possess the highest value for a Roman Catholic priest; that some things were prized above truth. Newman protested that such a remark made it impossible for an opponent to state his case. How could Newman prove to Kingsley that he did have more regard for truth than for anything else, if Kingsley argued from the premiss that he did not? It is not merely a question of two persons entertaining contradictory opinions. It is subtler than that. To put it baldly, Newman would be logically 'hamstrung.' Any argument he might use to prove that he did entertain a high regard for truth was automatically ruled out by Kingsley's hypothesis that he did not. Newman coined the expression poisoning the wells for such unfair tactics...The phrase poisoning the wells exactly hits off the difficulty. If the well is poisoned, no water drawn from it can be used. If a case is so stated that contrary evidence is automatically precluded, no arguments against it can be used."​

For me Jack is a great example of just how brainwashed and religious evolutionists can be. Not all evolutionists are like Jack, but believe me what I say, a lot of them are. They literally cannot look at any source material that disagrees with their position.

 

[Calminian]

Here's a great video clip of how they altered Lucy's hip with a power saw.

Seriously this is priceless, especially the audience laughter. But really, evolution is quite funny when you step back and realize what people are wiling to believe to validate their religious beliefs.

Even funnier is the idea that somehow a deer stepped on Lucy's hip bone and miraculously caused it to fit perfectly just like a human hip bone. I'm not making this up. This perfect transformation of lucy's hip from ape to human was caused by a deer. We needed a power saw to fix it, but the deer only needed his hoof.

All that aside all the evidence we have from Lucy's skeleton points to her being an ape. She was a knuckle walker in fact. AoK, even you would have to ask, why would she have longer arms and knuckle walking hands if she human upright hips?

My friend, you've been sucked into a fairytale. Lucy was an ape, just as she's displayed at the creation museum.

BTW, there's a great presentation on Lucy that everyone should see by David Menton at Answers in Genesis (JackH of course would not be willing to check it out). Here's the full video. It's a blessing if anyone is interested. You'll never look at Lucy the same.

[video=youtube;matJ3MkikDc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=matJ3MkikDc[/video]

 

[Word_Swordsman]

Oh, yes. We evolutionists are well aware of this finding. The only instance so far, but now that one has been found the search is on. No soft tissue had ever before been seen in such fossils, though some did look. It's quite exciting and stirs hope that it might be possible, in a few rare instances, to actually get our hands on dinosaur DNA. And believe me, all of us would like that to happen. In this sample no DNA was present, and due to its great age hope in this regard is currently quite slim, but one can hope.

I must inform you there are subsequent findings in other dinosaur species. Look it up. I can remember a textbook article declaring it should be a crime to willingly deface any significant fossile discovery. That prevented scientists from slicing up dinosaur bones and finding facts that were known by a few, but hopefully contained as long as possible. Satan is well able o deceive by such means. He is an expert at blinding the most brilliant of human minds. Don;t let yours be perverted to believe his lies. If you insist on only searching atheist files for the truth, you will not find it. You will keep accumulating lie power.

Sorry, but the same discoverer has identified all necessary proteins, similar DNA, RNA, mitochondria, etc. found in living tissues today.

Please wonder why it so hard to uncover data beyond 2009. It is suppressed. It is a very serious decision for a professional to sacrifice career and retirement to defy orders from the world of academia. Few is any microbiologists would prefer to collect garbage for a career instead. But the data is there. But if you insist on atheism or deception in general, we understand why you can't confirm this. Find the latest beginning with ta slightly more recent deal with Eodromaeus murphi
from S. America (2011). I'll later restart with a more recent find if you evolutionists will enter into reason, logic, and common sense. Deal with this one next. I am noting you wriggled out of dealing with the first challenge so far.

 

[Calminian]

I must inform you there are subsequent findings in other dinosaur species. Look it up. I can remember a textbook article declaring it should be a crime to willingly deface any significant fossile discovery. That prevented scientists from slicing up dinosaur bones and finding facts that were known by a few, but hopefully contained as long as possible. Satan is well able o deceive by such means. He is an expert at blinding the most brilliant of human minds. Don;t let yours be perverted to believe his lies. If you insist on only searching atheist files for the truth, you will not find it. You will keep accumulating lie power.

Sorry, but the same discoverer has identified all necessary proteins, similar DNA, RNA, mitochondria, etc. found in living tissues today.

Please wonder why it so hard to uncover data beyond 2009. It is suppressed. It is a very serious decision for a professional to sacrifice career and retirement to defy orders from the world of academia. Few is any microbiologists would prefer to collect garbage for a career instead. But the data is there. But if you insist on atheism or deception in general, we understand why you can't confirm this. Find the latest beginning with ta slightly more recent deal with Eodromaeus murphi
from S. America (2011). I'll later restart with a more recent find if you evolutionists will enter into reason, logic, and common sense. Deal with this one next. I am noting you wriggled out of dealing with the first challenge so far.

Exactly. But now that the cat's out of the bag, more and more are turning up. Check out this one:
Seabed worm fossils still soft after 500 million years? This article is from CMI, which JackH will not be willing to look at, but there are many write-ups from evolutionists as well.

 

[ColinCat]

when you step back and realize what people are wiling to believe to validate their religious beliefs.

What. Like talking snakes? People living in fish? Dead people rising from the grave? People turning into salt? Devils? Angels? Demons? Flaming swords guarding paradise? Giants? Talking donkeys? Water walking? Making the sun stand still?

Your right; people will believe anything to validate their religious beliefs.

 

[Calminian]

What. Like talking snakes? People living in fish? Dead people rising from the grave? People turning into salt? Devils? Angels? Demons? Flaming swords guarding paradise? Giants? Talking donkeys? Water walking? Making the sun stand still?

Your right; people will believe anything to validate their religious beliefs.

But now compare that to what you believe. The entire universe came into existence, uncaused for no reason. A infinitely small singularity with infinite (or near infinite) density suddenly, without cause or reason, expanded and eventually formed everything we see including the human brain. Hmmm.

Boy I'll take a God that can give a snake the ability to talk over that anytime. But that's just me. I just don't have the faith to believe that.

 

[ColinCat]

Actually... That's not what I believe.

That straw man never stood a chance

 

[Word_Swordsman]

What. Like talking snakes? People living in fish? Dead people rising from the grave? People turning into salt? Devils? Angels? Demons? Flaming swords guarding paradise? Giants? Talking donkeys? Water walking? Making the sun stand still?

Your right; people will believe anything to validate their religious beliefs.

That is typical of an appeal to distracting arguments that are not based on observable facts. Lets deal with the observable first, then when equipped look at the Bible reports. Please just stay within the confines of the science method. I prefer the one initiated by Francis Bacon, wildly perverted by atheists since his time. The later in the timescale, the more I protest moving the reasonable position of the goal post to justify the latest modern explanation of nature that always defies the Genesis account. Hmmmm. Who might be behind that project?

Now, please look up all internet references to "dinosaur tissue discoveries". Then refine your search to DNA, RNA, chromosomes, protein regulators, and other constants that keep 'known life forms' simply 'known life forms'.

Before commenting, be sure you cover the issue of increasing cellular complexity compared to what is actually observed, that of decreasing cellular complexity through undesirable cellular mutations. Mutations are decreasing the range of genetic variability, not improving them. Why? Most cellular mutations are adverse events leading to cellular failure (death). That is not God's will, but He put men in charge, Satan taking that away from Man. Now that Jesus has given that power back to believers, what will you do with it? If not a believer of the gospel, which demands acceptance of the Genesis account, what authority will you cite over us all? I stand prepared to defy any authority not from God. Can you meet that challenge? I will say already, NO. You can't trump the wisdom of God which leads His children to the absolute truth, which exposes the absolute deprivation of carnal men.

Lord, I pray I and friends will receive your direction from here forward. Let this not be of only a mere human mind and men's knowledge, but of you, Holy Spirit.

 

[JackH]

BTW, here's the Genesis 3D movie project Eric Hovind is working on. Eric is a good guy, and that tells me his father may not be the demon Jack is accusing him of. It's so sad when christians act like Jack. I guess he feels if he points out the sins of others, it makes him look better.

[video=youtube;H1rKmD-MAco]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=H1rKmD-MAco[/video]

Before I spend my $99 on the CD you recommend, I thought I'd check it out a little further.

So I do a Google search and I get this:

Eric Hovind - RationalWiki

That starts out with: : "Eric Hovind is an uneducated huckster who has followed in the footsteps of his father, Kent Hovind, a convicted felon and creationist wingnut." It goes on to talk about this here Genesis 3D horror flick.

It's on the internet so it must be true. I'm a French model. You can find that on the internet too. Bon jour.

 

[JackH]

Sorry, but the same discoverer has identified all necessary proteins, similar DNA, RNA, mitochondria, etc. found in living tissues today.

The same discover, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist and Christian, has indicated that the issue with the tissue is that sometimes organic materials in fossils can survive for millions of years. It is not that dinosaurs and humans coexisted less than 6,000 years ago. She believes that the bones in question are millions of years old.

Incidentally, you said in a previous post that there is nothing in the Bible about dinosaurs. That appears to be in conflict with the typical spiel of the YECs here and your favorite websites, Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis.

What's up with that?

 

[Calminian]

Before I spend my $99 on the CD you recommend, I thought I'd check it out a little further.

So I do a Google search and I get this:

Eric Hovind - RationalWiki

That starts out with: : "Eric Hovind is an uneducated huckster who has followed in the footsteps of his father, Kent Hovind, a convicted felon and creationist wingnut." It goes on to talk about this here Genesis 3D horror flick.

It's on the internet so it must be true. I'm a French model. You can find that on the internet too. Bon jour.

LOL. Jack, your not worthy to tie their sandals as far as God's kingdom goes. They actually have done something. You're a coward who sits behind a screen and makes really embarrassing arguments for his side. I enjoy talking to you, though, just to practice pointing out logical fallacies.

 

[ColinCat]

That is typical of an appeal to distracting arguments that are not based on observable facts. Lets deal with the observable first, then when equipped look at the Bible reports. Please just stay within the confines of the science method. I prefer the one initiated by Francis Bacon, wildly perverted by atheists since his time. The later in the timescale, the more I protest moving the reasonable position of the goal post to justify the latest modern explanation of nature that always defies the Genesis account. Hmmmm. Who might be behind that project?

Now, please look up all internet references to "dinosaur tissue discoveries". Then refine your search to DNA, RNA, chromosomes, protein regulators, and other constants that keep 'known life forms' simply 'known life forms'.

Before commenting, be sure you cover the issue of increasing cellular complexity compared to what is actually observed, that of decreasing cellular complexity through undesirable cellular mutations. Mutations are decreasing the range of genetic variability, not improving them. Why? Most cellular mutations are adverse events leading to cellular failure (death). That is not God's will, but He put men in charge, Satan taking that away from Man. Now that Jesus has given that power back to believers, what will you do with it? If not a believer of the gospel, which demands acceptance of the Genesis account, what authority will you cite over us all? I stand prepared to defy any authority not from God. Can you meet that challenge? I will say already, NO. You can't trump the wisdom of God which leads His children to the absolute truth, which exposes the absolute deprivation of carnal men.

Lord, I pray I and friends will receive your direction from here forward. Let this not be of only a mere human mind and men's knowledge, but of you, Holy Spirit.

Alright. Let's say I give you everything about dinosaurs. Where do we go from there.

 

[Calminian]

The same discover, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist and Christian, has indicated that the issue with the tissue is that sometimes organic materials in fossils can survive for millions of years.....

This is an argument? Of course if you want to hang onto millions of years, then they would have to concluded this stuff can survive million of years, even though they didn't believe that before. In fact they were shocked.

But why not consider that maybe this stuff can't last millions of years. Couple that with all the historical evidence that dinosaurs and man lived together, and that case becomes pretty solid. The real myth to get rid of is the millions of years.

A BTW, what does her christianity have to do with this? People can be christians and wrong about the Bible and what it says. You say it like it proves something. Yet another logical fallacy, appeal to authority. I personally believe logic students should monitor your posts.

 

[Word_Swordsman]

The same discover, Dr. Mary Schweitzer, a molecular paleontologist and Christian, has indicated that the issue with the tissue is that sometimes organic materials in fossils can survive for millions of years. It is not that dinosaurs and humans coexisted less than 6,000 years ago. She believes that the bones in question are millions of years old.

Incidentally, you said in a previous post that there is nothing in the Bible about dinosaurs. That appears to be in conflict with the typical spiel of the YECs here and your favorite websites, Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis.

What's up with that?

I am not in remembrance of saying the Bible doesn't mention dinosaurs. Taht name wasn't likely known in ancient time, but those folks doubtless had their own names for them.

Dr. S is required to believe that fossil is 65 million years old. Yet, the new facts defy that presumption.
Professional palaeontologists dare not admit anything not allowed by academia in charge of their basis of education. Her paychecks in the future will depend on her dealings with those facts. But her findings defied evolutionist maxims. Can't be undone, facts are facts. Once facts are listed, they are subject to to various "interpretations" often in defiance of plain sensible observations and a corresponding reasonable conclusion.When the naturalists are confronted with evidence they are wrong about their conclusions, they switch the facts and match up false preexisting conclusions.

I really "feel" for her. She is a real predicament. Adopt the truth, or go with the lies. What to do? Consider switching to Veterinary?

 

[Word_Swordsman]

Alright. Let's say I give you everything about dinosaurs. Where do we go from there.

Believe God.

 

[Cycel]

Oh my. Cycel, are you this unfamiliar with this issue? Dude, no, this is not the only find. They're turning up everywhere now. You seriously need to research this.

I would highly recommend listening to this podcast before saying anything else:

Rsr's Annual Soft Tissue Show: The Deniers

Honestly, I don't trust the web site. I want a scientific source, not a highly biased creationist rant.

I've located a Scientific American article, Blood from Stone: How Fossils Can Preserve Soft Tissue (17 Nov 2010),by the researcher who conducted most of these studies: Mary H. Schweitzer. I am only part way through reading it, but she confirms your claim that more samples have turned up.

Speaking of the initial discovery she writes:

"Back then, I was a relatively new graduate student at Montana State University, studying the microstructure of dinosaur bone, hardly a seasoned pro. After I sought opinions on the identity of the red spheres from faculty members and other graduate students, word of the puzzle reached Jack Horner, curator of paleontology at the museum and one of the world’s foremost dinosaur authorities. He took a look for himself. Brows furrowed, he gazed through the microscope for what seemed like hours without saying a word. Then, looking up at me with a frown, he asked, “What do you think they are?” I replied that I did not know, but they were the right size, shape and color to be blood cells, and they were in the right place, too. He grunted. “So prove to me they aren’t. ” It was an irresistible challenge, and one that has helped frame how I ask my research questions, even now."

I don't know if you are familiar with Horner, but he's famous, and I loved the challenge he gave her.

I'll get back again when I have a chance to finish the reading.