More "non-existent" evidence ...

[Jorge]

Methodological naturalism is not opposed to Christianity. It is clearly opposed to young earthism. Two different things.

With due respect to my elder, you don't know what you're talking about PLUS you are misrepresenting what I have stated. Listen carefully: MN, as the operational manifestation of PN, clearly opposes Christianity - this is so by definition. A similar comment applies for MN opposition to Biblical Creationism ("YEC").

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

With due respect to my elder, you don't know what you're talking about PLUS you are misrepresenting what I have stated. Listen carefully: MN, as the operational manifestation of PN, clearly opposes Christianity - this is so by definition. A similar comment applies for MN opposition to Biblical Creationism ("YEC").

Jorge

Fortunately for the rest of the world the only place you get to make up your own definitions is in that teeny little pollo brain.

[Truthseeker]

MN, as the operational manifestation of PN, clearly opposes Christianity - this is so by definition.

Are you denying that MN does not always seek to disprove Christianity or things in the Bible?

A similar comment applies for MN opposition to Biblical Creationism ("YEC")

But some Christians are OE and accept MN as long as it does not mean to disprove Christianity.

You have not proven that thread wrong that attempts to show that "yom" in some contexts means an indefinitely long span of time, e.g., ten million years in the past.

[oxmixmudd]

"... cogent logical argument ..." as defined in the New Age Dictionary.

Seriously, from my many years of swapping posts with you, you wouldn't know a "cogent logical argument" even if it bit you on the nose UNLESS that argument supported your personal religious views. 'Nuff said.

Jorge

I recognized Rogue's argument against the assumption soft tissue can't survive millions of years as cogent and logical. For you to support the assertion above, you would need to show his argument was either not cogent or not logical or that if it was both, his argument offered support for my religious views. If that can't be done, then Rogue's argument is in fact both cogent and logical and I have indeed recognized at least one cogent and logical argument .

(1) So Jorge, can it be shown that Rogue's argument is either not cogent or not logical?

(2) Rogue's argument has nothing to do with religion, but simply shows that there is research which offers a counter to the assumption soft tissue can not survive for millions of years in a fossilized bone.
So that clause does not mitigate (1) as a necessary condition for your assertion to be true.


Jim

PS The reality is what Jorge is really saying is that I've not recognized any of his arguments for YEC to be cogent and logical. And he would have a point ... had he ever made a large number of arguments for YEC that were both cogent and logical

[rogue06]

Still using your "lawyer-like legalistic strategy", I see.

No, I do not have pictures or a video of Mary "shaking in her booties". What I do have is common sense.

IOW, as I said the only thing that you have is that you just "know" it must be true. And your "common sense" seems to be failing you. If she were "shaking in her booties" then she would never have published her findings or at the most picked some obscure journal to do it in^[1]. Instead she sought out the, bar none, most prestigious of all science journals, Nature, which would suggest far from "shaking in her booties" her discovery both thrilled and excited her.

The absolute "mystery" of blood and tissue lasting "tens of millions of years" is immediately resolved if one thing is removed - the "tens of millions of years".

The simplest solution is not always the proper one especially when all of the evidence points away from it.

I can picture you, had you lived a hundred years ago declaring that Lord Kelvin had demonstrated that the earth couldn't be a billion years old because he had determined how long it would take for the near-surface of the earth to cool to its present temperature from being a completely molten state. When radioactive decay was first discovered (the heat given off by it threw Kelvin's calculations right out the window) you would whine and pout about how it was just dreamed up solely to support the idea of a planet older "gazillions" of years old.

Did Mary mention this logical possibility, even as a passing remark? Nope, not at all. She did acknowledge that physics and chemistry indicated that these things shouldn't be possible. But she was cautioned by colleagues to watch her language and this she did very well.

Again, something that your faulty "common sense" tells you just must have happened.

From "It can't happen" to "We need to find out HOW it happened". See, no matter how much evidence stacks up, they will not, they CANNOT, abandon their beliefs. It's not sound science; it's religious ideology.

Jorge

And radioactive decay was just dreamed up out of whole cloth solely to support the idea of a planet older "gazillions" of years old.

It's the evidence Jorge. None of it points to a young earth. And here's a news flash for you... let's just suppose for giggles that unassailable evidence in support of non-avian dinosaurs existing only a few thousand years ago surfaced. What would that demonstrate? That the earth is only a few thousand years old? No. It would only show that dinosaurs survived far longer than what scientists had thought. Nothing more.

Now, let's see what you have to say about the recent discoveries of how iron could account for "soft tissue" being preserved for such a long time. Or was that just dreamed up out of whole cloth solely to support the idea of a planet older "gazillions" of years old?


















1. That way it would possibly go largely unnoticed but if someone else made a similar discovery then you could still claim the honors of being the first.

[lilpixieofterror]

I had hoped and prayed that Terror had finally learned and reformed.
I guess I have to pray and hope some more.

Jorge

I guess from now on, I'll have to quote you to be sure that you understand that I'm talking about you. I'm sorry Jorge, I know this topic has been brought up before and I know I gave you what she actually thought about your nonsense too. Keep those delusions going though because anything is better than admitting you're wrong, right?

[Duragizer]

.............................

Jorge

Simpsons - Homer Imagining Ballet.gif

[Roy]

Is it not significant that the specimen is described as a Tyrannous Rex[sic] part?

That depends on how long ago you think T. rex lived

But you raise an interesting point. To paraphrase :

The difficulty of blood and tissue lasting "tens of millions of years" is immediately resolved if one thing is removed - the "identification of the bones as belonging to a T. rex skeleton". While the age of the specimens is not mentioned in the original paper, the identification is, and it isn't challenged. If Jorge wasn't blinded bu ideology he might have realised this.

Roy

P.S. It's Tyrannosaurus rex

[Jorge]

""Papers like this do much to advance the field, by showing that fossils are more than 'just rocks', and opening the door to the possibility that materials persist in ancient fossils that were not thought possible only a few years ago," says Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University in Raleigh, who reported extracting blood from T. rex in 2009. "[It also] seems to indicate, like our own findings, that this is not necessarily an exceedingly rare occurrence.""

We Biblical Creationists could have told you that it is "not necessarily a rare occurrence" because ... drum roll, please ... these creatures did NOT live / die "tens of millions of years ago" -- it's that simple!

It would indeed be a rare - nay, an IMPOSSIBLE - occurrence if these findings were truly tens of millions of years old. But they're not, as we Biblical Creationists have been stating all along. Alas, the more of these things that are being discovered, the more back-pedaling has been taking place.

Now they're asking, "Gee, I wonder how that could have happened?" Before they were loudly shouting from the rooftops, "IT CANNOT HAPPEN!!! The laws of physics and chemistry absolutely prohibit it!" People were cautioned against even suggesting an obvious explanation (NO mega-years!); several people even lost their jobs. Lil' Mary (commenting above) was shaking in her booties when she discovered the blood and tissue some years back. She remained a good-little Evolutionist, toeing the party line by stating her findings in "acceptable" language and thus retained her job. Others bit the big one by not following the Evo-Rules.

And they're right - the laws of physics and chemistry DO prohibit it IF AND ONLY IF they are "tens of millions of years" old. If only thousands of years have elapsed then these findings are nothing to get excited about.

Of course, the Evo-Faithful, Biblical Deniers will never accept any of this and will concoct numerous "explanations" to retain their religious (not scientific) beliefs but thankfully that is their problem, not mine.

Complete article here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ml#.VXcnn9LbLV

Jorge

Here are sixteen (12 + 4) interesting points regarding the recent discovery.
The guy's comments (in green) are also quite illuminating.

http://crev.info/2015/06/dinosaur-soft-tissue-surprise/

Again, REGARDLESS OF ANY EVIDENCE, the Evo-Faithful will hang on to
their religious beliefs - evidence be damned! They cannot and will not abandon
their religious beliefs all the while claiming to be doing "science".

Hey, that's modern Evolutionary "science" for ya!

Jorge

[HMS_Beagle]

Here are sixteen (12 + 4) interesting points regarding the recent discovery.
The guy's comments (in green) are also quite illuminating.

http://crev.info/2015/06/dinosaur-soft-tissue-surprise/

Again, REGARDLESS OF ANY EVIDENCE, the Evo-Faithful will hang on to
their religious beliefs - evidence be damned! They cannot and will not abandon
their religious beliefs all the while claiming to be doing "science".

Hey, that's modern Evolutionary "science" for ya!

Jorge

Most non-morons understand that if you have a few million pieces of consilient evidence for an old Earth and you get a new piece that can also fit into the old Earth model you don't discard the previous millions of consilient pieces. But we're talking YECs here, not non-morons.

[Truthseeker]

Most non-morons understand that if you have a few million pieces of consilient evidence for an old Earth and you get a new piece that can also fit into the old Earth model you don't discard the previous millions of consilient pieces. But we're talking YECs here, not non-morons.

It remains to be seen whether OE scientists can come up with plausible explanations of why organic stuff can last 75 or more mya (I am not sure about the iron-as-preservative explanation).

[HMS_Beagle]

It remains to be seen whether OE scientists can come up with plausible explanations of why organic stuff can last 75 or more mya (I am not sure about the iron-as-preservative explanation).

Even if we never discover the exact mechanism of preservation that won't make the other millions of pieces of consilient evidence for an old Earth or the age of this specimen vanish.

[Jorge]

It remains to be seen whether OE scientists can come up with plausible explanations of why organic stuff can last 75 or more mya (I am not sure about the iron-as-preservative explanation).

Human imagination is near-limitless so rest assured that they WILL concoct something even if they have to extract it from the deepest bowels of their fantasies.

The fact remains that before these things were found they had already used HARD SCIENCE to predict an upper-limit on how long DNA and tissue could remain intact. Under even the most favorable conditions that they could conceive their upper-bound was nowhere near a million years.

Then the evidence proved them w-r-o-n-g. There are two logical options that would explain this serious anomaly. But heaven forbid that they should consider abandoning their Sacred "millions / billions of years". If they did that, if they even suggested it, they will be promptly dismissed from the halls of "science" and treated as a "pseudo-scientist" leper. There goes the job ... there goes the paycheck ... there goes the prestige. Nope, never happen. They'll continue toeing the party line and never, ever suggest the most obvious, logical alternative.

Repeating, that's modern Evolutionary "science" for ya!

Jorge

[lilpixieofterror]

Human imagination is near-limitless so rest assured that they WILL concoct something even if they have to extract it from the deepest bowels of their fantasies.

The fact remains that before these things were found they had already used HARD SCIENCE to predict an upper-limit on how long DNA and tissue could remain intact. Under even the most favorable conditions that they could conceive their upper-bound was nowhere near a million years.

Then the evidence proved them w-r-o-n-g. There are two logical options that would explain this serious anomaly. But heaven forbid that they should consider abandoning their Sacred "millions / billions of years". If they did that, if they even suggested it, they will be promptly dismissed from the halls of "science" and treated as a "pseudo-scientist" leper. There goes the job ... there goes the paycheck ... there goes the prestige. Nope, never happen. They'll continue toeing the party line and never, ever suggest the most obvious, logical alternative.

Repeating, that's modern Evolutionary "science" for ya!

Jorge

So far, we are left with the following possibilities:

1. The sample was somehow contaminated with modern DNA.
2. There might be some situations were DNA last far longer than previously thought.
3. The samples are far younger, than previously thought.

Obviously, you want the 3rd option, to be correct, but you haven't presented anything to prove the sample is far younger than previously thought or even to establish that possibility. You have asserted, your opinion is true, and that is final. That isn't science, that is presumptions masquerading as science. Let us try this together:

The samples are far younger, than previously thought because...

Now, presenting your findings or am I going to be waiting a long time for that to come forth?

[TheLurch]

The fact remains that before these things were found they had already used HARD SCIENCE to predict an upper-limit on how long DNA and tissue could remain intact. Under even the most favorable conditions that they could conceive their upper-bound was nowhere near a million years.

The fact remains that nobody's actually found DNA in these samples yet (read the article you linked - it's spelled out very clearly). Until that happens, this is a hypothetical discussion.