When the theory is more important than the facts dictate

[Calypsis4]

The date is March 24, 2005 in a college lab.

Creationist: Joe, what would you do if a T-Rex fossil was discovered with human remains in its belly?

Evolutionist: Ridiculous. That will never happen.

Creationist: We will see. But what if a T-Rex was discovered with soft tissue in its bones along with very visible red blood cells?

Evolutionist: That would be equally ridiculous. Science has determined by observation that such tissue could not last even a million yrs much less the 65-70 million yr period since the dinosaurs became extinct.

Creationist: Why?

Evolutionist: Because, 'normally when an animal dies, worms and bugs will quickly eat up anything that is soft. Then, as the remaining bone material gets buried deeper and deeper in the mud, it gets heated, crushed and replaced by minerals - it is turned to stone.' *

Creationist: I see. You better turn on the news. You're in for a surprise.

Evolutionist: Sure, whatever. But I don't think such tissue would last even 20,000 yrs.

Viddler.com - "Fresh" Dinosaur Soft Tissues - Uploaded by Seanpit

Creationist: So why was this such a shocker to the evolutionist world, Joe?

Evolutionist: Amazing, who would ever have thought that was possible?

Creationist: It goes directly against 'observable science' as you stated, right? You were pretty certain about that, Joe.

Evolutionist: So we were wrong about that.

Creationist: Wrong about the tissue endurance or wrong about evolution theory to begin with?

Evolutionist: Are you out of your mind? Evolution is a fact!

Creationist: Right. Excuse me. I'm headed for the football field.

Evolutionist: Why?

Creationist: I am going to move the goalposts on the field.

Evolutionist: What are you talking about?

Creationist: I am going to move the goalposts so that our team can score touchdowns easier and we will win the game tomorrow.



Evolutionist: Are you nuts? You can't move the goalposts!

Creationists: Why not? You just did.

*BBC News March 24, 2005

 

[juvenissun]

Your title of the OP is frequently used by evolutionist to against creationism.

There is a problem with this particular way of argument. It would depend on what fact is discovered. It could go either way.

All facts are subjected to interpretation. Any theory would find tons of facts go against it at any moment. I am not sure how to describe a good theory. But I have an example, which is the Christian theology.

 

[Calypsis4]

Your title of the OP is frequently used by evolutionist to against creationism.

There is a problem with this particular way of argument. It would depend on what fact is discovered. It could go either way.

All facts are subjected to interpretation. Any theory would find tons of facts go against it at any moment. I am not sure how to describe a good theory. But I have an example, which is the Christian theology.

Thank you for the response.

I am not interested in 'theory'. I am interested in fact. And the fact is that evolutionists deliberately move the goal posts when their 'theory' is in question. They feel that they must save the 'theory' and that 'theory' is truly more important than what the facts actually demand.

Best wishes.

 

[Calypsis4]

Isn't interesting (and perhaps revealing) that none of the evolutionists have even attempted to tackle this one?

(Yet:o)

 

[Dark_Lite]

Isn't interesting (and perhaps revealing) that none of the evolutionists have even attempted to tackle this one?

(Yet:o)

Probably because:
1) It's the creationist forum.
2) Like everything else you post, it's been dealt with many, many times.

 

[juvenissun]

Isn't interesting (and perhaps revealing) that none of the evolutionists have even attempted to tackle this one?

(Yet:o)

You put it on the wrong forum. Let me play an evolutionist here:

I love theory. I try to interpret facts to fit my theory.

For example, the dino flesh. That tiny bit of flesh might be kept in a moist, water tight, oxygen free, constant temperature environment. So it could be preserved forever. (Did people ever get pieces of DNA from it?)

 

[shinbits]

I don't understand how the creationist in that little skit concludes that goalposts were being moved. Does the OP even know what moving goalposts means?

 

[Calypsis4]

You put it on the wrong forum. Let me play an evolutionist here:

I love theory. I try to interpret facts to fit my theory.

For example, the dino flesh. That tiny bit of flesh might be kept in a moist, water tight, oxygen free, constant temperature environment. So it could be preserved forever. (Did people ever get pieces of DNA from it?)

How disappointed you will be after the return of the Lord only to find out that evolution does not exist and never did.

 

[Calypsis4]

I don't understand how the creationist in that little skit concludes that goalposts were being moved. Does the OP even know what moving goalposts means?

It's as simple as this: Mary Schweitzer herself said it: "That's impossible!". She knew that the standard scientific position was that no soft tissue nor blood cells would ever last 68 million yrs.

Friend, this is precisely why it was such a big shocker to discover this fact. But rather than admit that the theory is wrong (and it is!) they simply changed their belief that such phenomena can happen in a much, much longer time than they previously thought possible.

Evolutionists do this on occasion.

 

[shinbits]

It's as simple as this: Mary Schweitzer herself said it: "That's impossible!". She knew that the standard scientific position was that no soft tissue nor blood cells would ever last 68 million yrs.

Friend, this is precisely why it was such a big shocker to discover this fact. But rather than admit that the theory is wrong (and it is!) they simply changed their belief that such phenomena can happen in a much, much longer time than they previously thought possible.

Evolutionists do this on occasion.

Even the video said that some scientists have come around and accepted her findings. In due time, if the evidence holds up, there's no reason why the rest of the scientific world wont accept it completely.

Isn't the issue really that you've jumped the gun, just because scientists didn't immediately accept her findings? You're trying to make it seem like sceintists reject evidence, when there's nothing in your video to support that; all that's shown is some healthy skeptism, and even then, the video shows that some scientists have accepted her findings.

 

[Papias]

Shinbits wrote:

Even the video said that some scientists have come around and accepted her findings. In due time, if the evidence holds up, there's no reason why the rest of the scientific world wont accept it completely.

Indeed, she's got a big article about it in this month's Scientific American, where she details many new specimens, including the conditions that are more likely to preserve organic matter. Now how did this article sneak past all those evil black helicopter conspirators?

"Mounting evidence from dinosaur bones shows that, contrary to common belief, organic materials can sometimes survive in fossils for millions of years" From:

Blood from Stone: How Fossils Can Preserve Soft Tissue: Scientific American

Caly wrote:

Isn't interesting (and perhaps revealing) that none of the evolutionists have even attempted to tackle this one?

(Yet

)

I can see it now. Caly runs home, puts his face in his pillow and yells "The earth is flat! The earth is flat!! It's interesting that those darn globalists haven't even attempted to tackle this one!! Ha ha!!"

Maybe try the main forum instead of the echo chamber?


Papias

 

[shinbits]

Shinbits wrote:



Indeed, she's got a big article about it in this month's Scientific American, where she details many new specimens, including the conditions that are more likely to preserve organic matter. Now how did this article sneak past all those evil black helicopter conspirators?

This is a recent discovery, and a recent article that was only posted this month. I said "give it time", but it seems like I was right that you were throwing a fit just because scientists didn't accept "right now".

Read these words carefully: if facts hold up, science will accept it. Your hissie fits only works right now because it's a new discovery. Science is cautious and methodical, but is apparently being punished by opportunists like you, who bash science needlessly, basking in their five minutes of undeserved attention, until evidence refutes them and they have to eat their words.

Like I said, give it time. If the evidence holds up, science will accept it, just like it has every other discovery that holds up to evidence.

EDIT: Lookie here, looks like it's being accepted already:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/ns/technology_and_science-science/

Richard A. Hengst of Purdue University said the finding "opens the door for research into the protein structure of ancient organisms, if nothing else. While we think that nature is conservative in how things are built, this gives scientists an opportunity to observe this at the chemical and cellular level." Hengst was not part of the research team.
John R. Horner of the Museum of the Rockies at Montana State University, said the discovery is "a fantastic specimen..."

Seems like your claim of science not accepting it's been refuted.

Sayonara.

 

[Dark_Lite]

2005 is not recent.

 

[shinbits]

2005 is not recent.

Yeah, just found out it was in 2005. Had I know that in the beginning, it would've been even easier to refute him by just googling whether the facts held up or not...then I would've simply posted a link showing science accepts the evidence and destroyed the OP in one post.

Oh well, the results the same. The OP's rubbish is done with.