the self replicating watch argument

[Dan1988]

The difference between scientists and the creationist con artists who call themselves scientists is that scientists will admit it IF they are wrong . AND they’re careful to devise experiments that show that their hypotheses are correct . They don’t do the woulda, shoulda, coulda, pseudoscience fantasy thing that creationists do. Creationists never admit they’re wrong; they act like 3 year olds caught in a lie . “But mommy Santa did break your vase!” And just like that three-year-old’s mommy , scientists don’t buy creationist fantasies either

LOL! the Pagan scientists don't even have the guts to debate Christian scientists. The Pagan theories have all been debunked so they don't like been grilled over their straw man arguments.

I see the Pagans all ran into their holes and none wanted to explain why we find supposed 65 million year old Dinosaur bones with red blood cells still present in the bone cavity. They have no answers and they respond with ignorance.

So yeah right, we can see who the 3 year old's are LOL

 

[pitabread]

I see the Pagans all ran into their holes and none wanted to explain why we find supposed 65 million year old Dinosaur bones with red blood cells still present in the bone cavity. They have no answers and they respond with ignorance.

Perhaps you should do more research, because the preservation of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils has been explained: https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

The obvious question, though, was how soft, pliable tissue could survive for millions of years. In a new study published today (Nov. 26) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, Schweitzer thinks she has the answer: Iron.

After death, though, iron is let free from its cage. It forms minuscule iron nanoparticles and also generates free radicals, which are highly reactive molecules thought to be involved in aging.

"The free radicals cause proteins and cell membranes to tie in knots," Schweitzer said. "They basically act like formaldehyde."

Formaldehyde, of course, preserves tissue. It works by linking up, or cross-linking, the amino acids that make up proteins, which makes those proteins more resistant to decay.

 

[Dan1988]

What, exactly, do you believe in that requires you to take that attitude?

I believe God created every single atom in the universe. I believe what He told us about Himself and creation and the whole of human history from the begging to the end.

We have the answers to every question in Gods Word ans we have it preserved in the Holy Scriptures. We know that there was a world wide flood, in which most dinosaurs were buried in mud, sand and rocks causing apparent sedimentary rock which is nothing more than sand drying up after the waters subsided.

The Bible contains the absolute truth about life and the creation of all things, it tells us where we came from, why we're here and where we are going to spend eternity.

 

[Speedwell]

LOL! the Pagan scientists don't even have the guts to debate Christian scientists. The Pagan theories have all been debunked so they don't like been grilled over their straw man arguments.

I see the Pagans all ran into their holes and none wanted to explain why we find supposed 65 million year old Dinosaur bones with red blood cells still present in the bone cavity. They have no answers and they respond with ignorance.

So yeah right, we can see who the 3 year old's are LOL

What would be the point of debating a guy who thinks that red blood cells were found in a dinosaur bone?

 

[Dan1988]

Perhaps you should do more research, because the preservation of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils has been explained: https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

It has been explained by using false pretenses, it's impossible to rationalize something if it breaks all the laws of physics and biology. I understand that they scrambled to come up with something to keep the straw man from collapsing.

But it's all in vain because the Christian scientists are in the process of inflicting the death of Pagan science once and for all. The truth is coming out more and more every day, the lies are all being debunked and the truth will rule the world very soon.

 

[Dan1988]

What would be the point of debating a guy who thinks that red blood cells were found in a dinosaur bone?

That's right you lose before you start, because your straw man has collapsed. They are not red blood cells they are organic tissue which are dead cells but they still have the same power to completely destroy evolutionists and leave them dead in their lies.

 

[Speedwell]

I believe God created every single atom in the universe. I believe what He told us about Himself and creation and the whole of human history from the begging to the end.

We have the answers to every question in Gods Word ans we have it preserved in the Holy Scriptures. We know that there was a world wide flood, in which most dinosaurs were buried in mud, sand and rocks causing apparent sedimentary rock which is nothing more than sand drying up after the waters subsided.

The Bible contains the absolute truth about life and the creation of all things, it tells us where we came from, why we're here and where we are going to spend eternity.

OK. You started out seeming to argue for the existence of God, but it turns out to be about nothing but your interpretation of Scripture after all. Now we know where you're really coming from; thanks.

 

[pitabread]

But it's all in vain because the Christian scientists are in the process of inflicting the death of Pagan science once and for all. The truth is coming out more and more every day, the lies are all being debunked and the truth will rule the world very soon.

You are here to parody creationists aren't you? Because honestly you sound like a parody.

 

[doubtingmerle]

Yes I looked at the link but I wasn't convinced in the slightest. The supposed evidence has huge holes in it, they had to impose a lot of theoretical hypothesis to make the fossils conform to theory.

I was referring to the link explaining why nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution. Can you explain why you disagree? Or will you keep on making your victory lap around the ring without ever facing off against your opponent?

You think we are making up all the facts we show you? I once thought that too. But I was changed by a trip to the library.

I have studied all of the evidence for both creation and evolution at great length and in great detail.

Then please explain to me why we find a long series of fossil jawbones showing the transition from reptiles to mammals. Why are we finding all those intermediates?

 

[doubtingmerle]

You are here to parody creationists aren't you? Because honestly you sound like a parody.

It could be. I once wrote a lengthy refutation of a post, only to find out I was responding to a parady.

But I doubt if this is parady. I came from a Baptist background which was very close to what I am reading here. If Dan is writing parady, he is darn good at faking it, because reading this stuff sure brings back memories of what I used to hear.

 

[Dan1988]

I was referring to the link explaining why nested hierarchy is evidence for evolution. Can you explain why you disagree? Or will you keep on making your victory lap around the ring without ever facing off against your opponent?

You think we are making up all the facts we show you? I once thought that too. But I was changed by a trip to the library.




Then please explain to me why we find a long series of fossil jawbones showing the transition from reptiles to mammals. Why are we finding all those intermediates?

No Sir, they are not intermediaries. They are all fully complete and they were created that way. Nobody has ever found a singe transitional fossil, what they take is a fully "evolved" created animal and claim that it is in transition to another species.

By adding a theory to a fossil doesn't make it what you want it to be, it remains a fully "evolved" creature and there is no evidence of evolution. There is adaptation, which happens to every creature when they change environments but it's not evolution. It's simply adjusting to it's environment.

 

[Speedwell]

There's only one way to interpret scripture correctly

How do you know it's your way?

and I can assure you that the Anglicans have twisted the scripture to suit their view.

The Anglicans are an offshoot of the Roman Church

And that's bad exactly why?

 

[doubtingmerle]

By adding a theory to a fossil doesn't make it what you want it to be, it remains a fully "evolved" creature and there is no evidence of evolution.

Yes, of course, the species I was referring to were fully complete animals. Evolution doesn't predict that intermediates are half animals.

Again, why do we find the jawbones getting more and more like mammals over the course of many millions of years? Do you care to speculate on why this is what we find?

There is adaptation, which happens to every creature when they change environments but it's not evolution. It's simply adjusting to it's environment.

Ok, but if animals adjust to their environment for millions of years, won't that be a heck of a lot of adjustments?

 

[pitabread]

It could be. I once wrote a lengthy refutation of a post, only to find out I was responding to a parady.

But I doubt if this is parady. I came from a Baptist background which was very close to what I am reading here. If Dan is writing parady, he is darn good at faking it, because reading this stuff sure brings back memories of what I used to hear.

When I see a certain degree of bluster from creationists I figure they're either going for parody or just highly insecure.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The problem is that the whole of science stands to be corrected or proven wrong all the time. ...

Repeated igorance so I will start recording this for prosperity and ease of reference:
31 July 2018 Dan1988: Ignorance that science making itself better is a problem !
A reason that science underpins the lifestyle that we enjoy is that science improves. We no longer use bloodletting to equalize "humors" to treat diseases. We have computers and the Internet ! We have medical advances that have extended lifetimes. etc.

Our understanding of the universe is advanced enough so that it is extremely hard to correct or invalidate much of "the whole of science". Any new scientific theory will want to reproduce the vast agreement with empirical evidence supporting existing theories. The best way to do that is to extend the existing theories. The new scientific theory will then reduce to the old theories in appropriate limits.
On the other hand there are specialized scientific theories that are overturned almost daily. QM itself is robust but the QM treatment of a system changes.

31 July 2018 Dan1988: A fantasy that God created the physical world in such a way that scientists cannot understand, etc.
Scientists understand how the "physical world" of the Earth and Solar System and galaxies were created. Scientists create specks of dust. There is no scientific evidence that the universe was created. The real physical world started in a hot dense state almost 14 billion years ago. We can describe that universe down to a very small time

31 July 2018 Dan1988: A fantasy that scientists have to be able to change how the universe works?
What scientists do is observe what the universe has to teach them and explain it using science and especially mathematics. They do not change how the universe works. They change the laws of physics to give an ever better approximation to how the universe works.

 

[RealityCheck01]

LOL, of' course it does when the scientists remain firm and steadfast in their ignorance.

31 July 2018 Dan1988: A "firm and steadfast in their ignorance"/"circular reasoning" lie about scientists and argument by insults.
The history of science, especially in the last 400 years, is the reduction of ignorance by gathering empirical evidence and using deductive reasoning.

When you insult Christian and non-Christian scientist. you show that you have no argument at all, Dan1988. 400 years ago, the vast majority of scientists in the West were Christian. It was Christian geologists that noted that geological formations would take millions of years to form. It was Christian biologists who first thought abut the origin of species. Charles Darwin was a Christian during his early career but says he became closer to an agnostic in 1879. Gregor Mendel was a Augustinian friar and abbot. etc.
Today, a estimate would be that a third of scientists are Christians.

 

[RealityCheck01]

You can't run away from the truth, you know as well as everyone else does that the theory of evolution has been debunked and it's dead in the water.

31 July 2018 Dan1988: A "theory of evolution has been debunked" lie as anyone who can read biology textbooks or Wikipedia or use Google to find credible scientific sources knows.
Evolution

 

[RealityCheck01]

LOL! the Pagan scientists don't even have the guts to debate Christian scientists.

31 July 2018 Dan1988: An insult and ignorant fantasy that science is a debate between "Pagan scientists" and Christian scientists.
What Christian and non-Christian scientists have learned is that it is useless to debate "scientists" when there is massive evidence for evolution. What they get are things like the Gish gallop. So they do not.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I see the Pagans all ran into their holes and none wanted to explain why we find supposed 65 million year old Dinosaur bones with red blood cells still present in the bone cavity. They have no answers and they respond with ignorance.

31 July 2018 Dan1988: "Pagans" idiocy and a "red blood cells still present in the bone cavity" + "no answers" lie.
We have found dinosaur fossils dated to 68 and 76 million years ago. A few of these fossils contain preserved soft tissues that anyone with 2 brain cells can tell is also millions of years old. Think about it, Dan1988: Are the contents of an egg older, younger or the same age as the shell? Does it matter if the egg is fresh or hard boiled? What about a fossil of a species that died out 65 million years ago and its contents?

It is a lie that red blood cells have been found (structures speculated to be their remains have been found). It is a lie that no one has tried to explain the discovery.

From 2013: Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained is Mary Schweitzer (part of the team that made the discovery) explaining this - released iron acts as a preservative.

 

[RealityCheck01]

It has been explained by using false pretenses, it's impossible to rationalize something if it breaks all the laws of physics and biology.

31 July 2018 Dan1988: An ignorant "breaks all the laws of physics and biology" fantasy when preservatives obey the laws of physics and biology.

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained is physics and biology backed up by experiment..

Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years.

N.B. Please do not reply with the inanity that the experiment did not last for millions of years !

The logic is simple. We do not find preserved soft tissue in the vast majority of fossil specimens. We do find preserved soft tissue in a few specimens. The difference is the presence of iron nanoparticles. The scientific hypothesis is that iron nanoparticles preserve soft tissue. The scientific prediction is that soft tissue in iron-rich liquids will last longer than soft tissue in water. That prediction was tested and confirmed.

We have a credible, backed up by the laws of physics and biology, mechanism for some fossils of species that died out 65 million years ago to contain soft tissue.