0
   

Sunset of Darwinism

 
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Sun 21 Dec, 2008 06:52 am
@Shirakawasuna,
Folk wisdom.

Fluffy, fleecy, light, airy, frothy, blowin' in the wind.

Doesn't fit into the same thought as "bitterness". That jars literary sensibilities like "cat herding" did.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2008 07:06 am
@gungasnake,
I see that your arguments have degraded into childish pronouncements. How come we dont see mammoth fossils in lower sediment layers, or why dont we see dinosaurs contemporary with mammoth fossils.
gungasnake
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2008 09:44 am
@farmerman,
The only claim I've ever made is that the ages of dinosaurs and mammals overlap; not that they were identical. Midrashic sources describe dinosaurs as oddities and I assume what they had was handsfull of leftover dinosaurs walking around just prior to the flood. I'd assume the true main age of dinosaurs was a few thousands or tens of thousands of years back, but not 70 million. Soft tissue like they found in that one tyrannosaur bone isn't going to survive 70M years.
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2008 03:19 pm
@farmerman,
Farmerman,

Since we don't have PMs and no one seems to have your email address, I'm leaving some breadcrumbs in the threads where you've been most recently posting. Hopefully you'll return to them soon and find that Bob and Diane are requesting a telephone call with you. Details can be found here:

http://able2know.org/topic/125176-17#post-3511541
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Dec, 2008 05:51 pm
@Butrflynet,
Just post it in the mail. Address it "Top Nutjob". Penn.

It'll get there.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2008 05:51 am
In reading the Sci Am issue, I was amused at Neil SHubin's article of how our body retains a number of piscine structures in a fashion similar to how old buildings are rehabbed for more modern usage.
His parallel was perfect for us that have adapted old "gas stations" to act as equipment garages and older food markets to serve as laboratories. All the early structures reminiscent of our fish and amphibian ancestrors are retained in our bodies and have merely been modeified for other tasks.
Also, the issue of whethwer evolution is a reflection of mutation has been presented, as weve been saying herein for years, "mutations are mostly inconsequential and they occur at a huge rate that makes the availability of genomic patterns a matter more like a supermarkets cereal aisle". Mutations arent the driving mechanism, modification of features is.
0 Replies
 
Shirakawasuna
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2008 06:20 am
@gungasnake,
You assume a lot of things, things which don't make a lot of sense. Considering the flood, you find a small rationalization ('Midrashic sources') in the prior coexistence of dinosaurs and mammals (nothing new), yet you still ignore the obvious problem of why the fossil record mirrors the molecular phylogenetic analyses of extant organisms and NOT in a way which would be suggested by a flood - sorted by density, size, etc. You know that common reference, no rabbits in the precambrian? I have yet to see a creationist actually address that in a way that doesn't result in them simply throwing the evidence out of the window and exposing themselves as hypocrites.

Why wouldn't soft tissues like those found in the tyrannosaurus femur survive 70 million years? Do you have knowledge of the patterns and variations in fossilization that is deeper than the foremost experts in the related fields, as would be necessary? The original author of the paper, while pointing out the similarities between her discoveries and what you would expect from original preserved tissue, makes her statements tentatively because alternative hypotheses have not been excluded, such as bacterial biofilms, etc.

Of course you, a random creationist, know better. Have fun with your assumptions.
Shirakawasuna
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2008 06:30 am
@spendius,
Fluff is insubstantial. Things can be insubstantial and bitter. I'll keep these corrections simple. Jesus forbid you use a dictionary or even the slightest bit of imagination.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2008 07:04 am
@Shirakawasuna,
The T rex femur that yielded the first "soft tissue" was not exactly that from the outset. The inner material from the joint had to be dissolved in HF to remove the silica crystalline material , and the remaining "soft tissue" was not anything like what gunga described. The colors in the NAture article were enhanced with reds and other warm tones. This gave a phony ""Meat like" look to the specimens. In actuality they are kinda grey and still show a crystalline matrix only with a large amount of waxy material similar to the keragen deposits of the Green River.

There will be a new book on the findings and the forensic work that followed. Several U and private labs were involved and the results will allow a new dimension of how fossils can be studied to learn more about internal wiring etc.




Gunga and several Creationists have been sitting on the fossil succession question for about 4 years with no discussion. Gunga and his ilk like to post, but when actually accosted with evidence and questions re their "science", they run away and hide for a while, only to resurface and post the same damn crap over and over.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2008 09:25 am
@Shirakawasuna,
Quote:
Jesus forbid you use a dictionary or even the slightest bit of imagination.


Ya WHAT!!?? Jesus created imagination. And died to make it stick. That's why there are lines of crosses in the military cemetries.

You blaspheme sir.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2008 09:33 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Gunga and his ilk like to post, but when actually accosted with evidence and questions re their "science", they run away and hide for a while, only to resurface and post the same damn crap over and over.


You love it effemm. It provides you with a springboard to post that crap up above which you've got from some source or other. What you're on about is the tiniest floating fluff in the ocean of evolution's infinite scheme. One you happened to have been directed to by some force or other.

I can't see it preventing the sunset of Darwinism.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2008 09:50 am
@spendius,
Quote:
I can't see it preventing the sunset of Darwinism.
.

Well, remind me never to ask you to pick a stock, if youre that much a fool to believe the thesis of this thread then you are not as bright as you portray yourself.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2008 09:55 am
@gungasnake,
Quote:
The only claim I've ever made is that the ages of dinosaurs and mammals overlap;
Wow, I just saw this post. Where can you provide ANY evidence that mammoths and dinosaurs OVELAPPED.
CAn you provide any evidence that placental or even marsupial mammals overlapped with dinosaurs? EVIDENCE not some Mythopoecy
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2008 11:38 am
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
CAn you provide any evidence that placental or even marsupial mammals overlapped with dinosaurs? EVIDENCE not some Mythopoecy

Gunga's usual level of "proof":
http://users.bigpond.net.au/jellery/flintstones.gif
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2008 11:48 am
@rosborne979,
DAmn, That Flintstone fella always screws up our theories
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Tue 23 Dec, 2008 12:17 pm
@farmerman,
What's a dinosaur effemm?
Shirakawasuna
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 02:58 am
@farmerman,
I know that the fossil had to be treated to get the tissue, however after treatment, it did retain a ... tissue-like quality. My vocabulary doesn't allow me to explain it better at the moment, however the original paper stated that the extracted matter could be poked, prodded, and pulled, then return to its original shape and volume. It's nothing like the creationists try to spin it as, but it's still pretty amazing.
0 Replies
 
Shirakawasuna
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 03:14 am
@spendius,
If I'll be spending any time in the threads you troll, I think I'll need to come up with an appropriate nonreponse to your irrelevant lyrical masturbation. It's only fair that you decide on what it should be. I'm thinking, 'so was it good for you? Being inane, that is.'

If you won't (can't?) write a straightforward sentence which describes your *on-topic* views and then defend them so, you might as well be spamming pictures of your genitalia and remarking on their composition for how much those views are worth.
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 04:58 am
@Shirakawasuna,
What's that all about? Masturbation and genitalia maybe. It's hard to tell.

Mathos wrote like that.
Shirakawasuna
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Dec, 2008 12:07 pm
@spendius,
Sober up and it might make a bit more sense.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2023 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/31/2023 at 11:51:25