• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

The Basic Evolution Time Sandwich

gungasnake

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2013
539
4
✟830.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
The Evolution Time Sandwich
Assuming macroevolutionary scenarios were possible (they aren't), the question arises, how much time would you actually need for them? The basic answer to that question is known as the Haldane Dilemma:

Saint Paul Science

after the famous mathematician and population geneticist J.B.S. Haldane who published his work in the mid 1950s. The basic answer is that you would need trillions and quadrillions of years, and not just the tens of millions commonly supposed. Walter Remine puts a simplified version of the idea thusly:

"Imagine a population of 100,000 apes or "proto-humans" ten million years ago which are all genetically alike other than for two with a "beneficial mutation". Imagine also that this population has the human or proto-human generation cycle time of roughly 20 years.

Imagine that the beneficial mutation in question is so good, that all 99,998 other die out immediately (from jealousy), and that the pair with the beneficial mutation has 100,000 kids and thus replenishes the herd.

Imagine that this process goes on like that for ten million years, which is more than anybody claims is involved in "human evolution". The max number of such "beneficial mutations" which could thus be substituted into the herd would be ten million divided by twenty, or 500,000 point mutations which, Remine notes, is about 1/100 of one percent of the human genome, and a miniscule fraction of the 2 to 3 percent that separates us from chimpanzees, or the half of that which separates us from neanderthals."

That basically says that even given a rate of evolutionary development which is fabulously beyond anything which is possible in the real world, starting from apes, in ten million years the best you could possibly hope for would be an ape with a slightly shorter tail.

But nobody ever accused evolutionists of being rational. Surely, they will argue, the problem might be resolved by having many mutations being passed through the herd simultaneously.

Most of the answer involves the fact that the vast bulk of all mutations are harmful or fatal. ANY creature which starts mutating willy nilly will perish.

So much for the amount of time evolutionists NEED (i.e. so much for the slice of wonderbread on the bottom of the basic evolutionist time sandwich. What about the slice on the top of the sandwich, i.e. how much time do they actually HAVE?

Consider the case of dinosaurs, which we are told died out 70 million years ago. Several years ago, scientists trying to get a tyrannosaur leg bone out of a remote area by helicopter, broke the bone into two pieces, and this is what they found inside the bone:

This is the Reuters/MSNBC version of the story:

Scientists recover T. rex soft tissue - Technology & science - Science | NBC News

That meat clearly is not 70 million years old; I've seen week-old roadkill which looked worse.

Vine DeLoria, the well-known Native American author and past president of the National Council of Amnerican Indians informs us that Indian oral traditions speak of Indian ancestors having to deal with dinosaurs on a regular basis, and that Indians view the 70 million year thing as a sort of a whiteman's fairytale:

Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans and the Myth of Scientific Fact: Vine Deloria Jr.: 9781555913885: Amazon.com: Books

Since that first case, more and more of this soft tissue in dinosaur remains has been turning up, Another take:

Dinosaur Soft Tissue is Original Biological Material | Bob Enyart Live

All of that is consistent with our finding images of known dinosaur types in Amerind petroglyphs.

Vine DeLoria notes ("Red Earth, White Lies") that Indian traditions describe the stegosaur (Mishipishu) as having red fur, a sawblade back, and a "great spiked tail" which he used as a weapon.

In fact you find pictures (petroglyphs) of Mishipishu around rivers and lakes and Lewis and Clark noted that their Indian guides were in mortal terror of these since they originally signified as much as "One of these LIVES here, be careful".

The pictograph at Agawa Rock at Lake Superior shows the sawblade back fairly clearly:

4836604472_5cf0574276_z.jpg


and the close-eyed will note that stegosaurs did not have horns; nonetheless such glyphs survive only because Indians have always gone back and touched them up every couple of decades, and the horns were added very much later after the creature itself had perished from the Earth.

Something is massively wrong with the common perception that dinosaurs died out tens of millions of years ago.

That is basically what I call the evolutionist time sandwich. They need trillions or quadrillions of years, and all they have is a few thousand or tens of thousands, tops.
 

lasthero

Newbie
Jul 30, 2013
11,421
5,795
✟244,477.00
Faith
Seeker
This is basically just a retread and combination of things you've posted in other topics. Why did you even bother?

the horns were added very much later after the creature itself had perished from the Earth.

I find it hilarious that you still haven't found anything to support the assertion that the horns were added later. Nor do you address that the spikes of a stegasaurus are completely shaped in a differently way - stegasaurus had larger plates in the middle, much larger - your argument seems to rest on the the creature having spikes, but these spikes in that picture don't even resemble the spikes on a stegasaurus. Also, again, its posture is completely wrong.

That meat clearly is not 70 million years old; I've seen week-old roadkill which looked worse.

This is a classic argument from incredulity - you're basically arguing that, because it doesn't look old to you, it can't be old. However, the vast majority of bones we find do NOT have any such materials in them, so the question should be why it happens in certain cases.

I note that you're just spitting out articles, and not the actual scientific paper. Let's read that, shall we?

Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present

Since you're probably not going to read all this, I'll summarize the relevant part - the basic understanding was that this is a sort of thing that only happens in very specific cases - particularly when they were buried rapidly in sandstone, several meters underground, and the bones in question were unbroken. These three factors create a sort of seal that preserves the material for a long time.

Oh, and it's not 'meat' by the way. 'Transparent soft-tissue vessel', is what the paper describes it as.
 
Upvote 0

gungasnake

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2013
539
4
✟830.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Upvote 0

gungasnake

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2013
539
4
✟830.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Soft tissue found in TWO Triceratops | Young Earth .com Evidence Against Old Earth Arguments

First Triceratops: In the Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences paper titled, Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous by Mary Schweitzer, Jack Horner, et al., describe the discovery within a Triceratops horridus bone of:

"Hollow, transparent and flexible vessels [which] were slightly pigmented" and its "Osteocytes… had pigmented elongate cell bodies, some with internal contents and short, stubby filipodia."

Of the various dinosaur soft tissue types, the paper says:

"As arguably the most labile and easily degraded of the structures we observed, the presence of soft vessels is enigmatic. They are neither biomineralized nor have any obvious inherent characteristics that would favour preservation…"
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Upvote 0

gungasnake

Well-Known Member
Oct 24, 2013
539
4
✟830.00
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
The connective tissue IS meat, and not bone and the coloration of the bone cannot be claimed to come from chemical treatment.

They've been finding soft tissue including collagen, blood vessels, hemoglobin, skin cells, and proteins which are so close to that of a chicken as to indicate that the tyrannosaur was just a big chicken with sharp teeth, and then there's the case of the hadrosaur which was found partially intact:

Mummified Dinosaur Skin Looks Young

The mummified remains belong to a hadrosaur nicknamed “Dakota” and were the subject of a recent study that appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.1 About the size of a hippo, the dinosaur is supposedly 66 million years old. But its skin says otherwise, a find that paleontologist and the study’s co-author Phil Manning called “absolutely gobsmacking.”2

Like many other young-looking dinosaur remains,3,4,5,6 this specimen was “extremely well preserved” and contained “soft-tissue replacement structures and associated organic compounds.” Using various advanced techniques, the researchers established the “survival and presence of macromolecules.”1 They were even able to compare the dinosaur’s skin structure with that of living creatures, finding that it is similar to the two-layered structure of modern birds and reptiles.

What is “gobsmacking” about this find is that given the millions of years this dinosaur has supposedly been dead, these soft tissue structures should absolutely not be there anymore. What is known empirically about Dakota, Leonardo,4 “B. rex,” and other dinosaur remains is that they contain organic molecules, including either intact or partially-decayed proteins from the original dinosaur.

The very presence of such materials counters the “millions of years” assigned to them. Nonetheless, scientists have tried to support long-age interpretations by inventing special caveats. This time, “the power of sediments” was hailed as a magical preservative of the tissues.8

But Dakota shows no signs of being 66 million years old, or even one million years old. The most logical explanation for the presence of preserved organic skin molecules is that these remains are from a creature that died relatively recently. Biblical data not only provides the timeframe for its demise in Flood deposits a few thousand years ago, but also a mode of deposition in agreement with what the study’s authors described as a dinosaur that “fell into a watery grave.”2

Assuming all such creatures died in the flood at Noah's time is not believable. Radio carbon dates for dinosaurs appear mostly to fall into a 25K - 40K range.

Again when you view this evidence alongside the evidence of petroglyphs, you have a big picture view which is incompatible with the 65M year thing you learned in school books.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟46,731.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Assuming all such creatures died in the flood at Noah's time is not believable. Radio carbon dates for dinosaurs appear mostly to fall into a 25K - 40K range.
Absolute poppycock. If you're going to make it up as you go along, at least try to be believeable.

Again when you view this evidence alongside the evidence of petroglyphs, you have a big picture view which is incompatible with the 65M year thing you learned in school books.
Petroglyphs? WHAT petroglyphs? Do you know how skilled ancient cave-painters actually were?

These are actual petroglyphs:

chauvet-cave-painting-wallpaper-art-wallpaper.jpg


The rhinos there are unmistakeable and incredibly detailed. Yet these are the pteroglyphs that Creationists see:

petro-dino.jpg


This is a smudge on the wall. It's not a cave-painting of a dinosaur.

The petroglyph argument is one of the weakest and silliest arguments to come from Creationists circles.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
Vine DeLoria, the well-known Native American author and past president of the National Council of Amnerican Indians informs us that Indian oral traditions speak of Indian ancestors having to deal with dinosaurs on a regular basis, and that Indians view the 70 million year thing as a sort of a whiteman's fairytale:

Red Earth, White Lies: Native Americans and the Myth of Scientific Fact: Vine Deloria Jr.: 9781555913885: Amazon.com: Books

Since that first case, more and more of this soft tissue in dinosaur remains has been turning up, Another take:

Dinosaur Soft Tissue is Original Biological Material | Bob Enyart Live

All of that is consistent with our finding images of known dinosaur types in Amerind petroglyphs.

Vine DeLoria notes ("Red Earth, White Lies") that Indian traditions describe the stegosaur (Mishipishu) as having red fur, a sawblade back, and a "great spiked tail" which he used as a weapon.

In fact you find pictures (petroglyphs) of Mishipishu around rivers and lakes and Lewis and Clark noted that their Indian guides were in mortal terror of these since they originally signified as much as "One of these LIVES here, be careful".

The pictograph at Agawa Rock at Lake Superior shows the sawblade back fairly clearly:

4836604472_5cf0574276_z.jpg


and the close-eyed will note that stegosaurs did not have horns; nonetheless such glyphs survive only because Indians have always gone back and touched them up every couple of decades, and the horns were added very much later after the creature itself had perished from the Earth.

Something is massively wrong with the common perception that dinosaurs died out tens of millions of years ago.
I say the sawblades were added with the horns "very much later." Prove me wrong. Also, where are the tail spikes? Why did the Indian description include red hair, when dinosaurs had no hair? And finally, why would they be in mortal terror of a plant eater with a tiny brain?
 
Upvote 0