Structures of Skeletal Muscle Fibers Found in Meteorite NWA 998

@bewildered,

bewildered wrote:

It's no rock, rock guys. It's fossils. Fossils are not rocks, rock guys.

I don't think you know what a fossil is. And I'm not sure you know what a rock is either.

0 Replies

My claim can be disproved only by identifying and proving the structures marked in my figures as minerals (or non-life material). No one can ever do that. So, my claim is correct.

2 Replies

@bewildered,

Your c,aim is disproved just by the [resence of igneous minerals (by EDAX and X ray diffraction and several other photochemical scanning devices) No igneous fossils, can you remember that ?
Im not gonna do any further arguing because your playing with an empty toolbox. Everything youve been sserting is you playing fantasy pocket-pool

1 Reply

@farmerman,

I repeat no other way can disprove my claim.

1 Reply

@bewildered,

Why speculate ? I noticed no biochemical evidence was presented to indicate that the fibers, etc were actually muscle fibers. Until such evidence is presented,
lets just say that the specimens look like earth-associated muscle fibers.

Don't take the whole thing much further.

1 Reply

@bewildered,

bewildered wrote:

I repeat no other way can disprove my claim.

I noticed certain people have claimed you are crazy. Until you provide a certificate from a certified medical doctor showing you aren't crazy, I guess we can assume you are crazy. It seems there can be no other way to disprove the claim that you are crazy.

Or perhaps, we can assume something doesn't exist until it is proven to exist.
ergo.. there are no skeletal muscle fibers in meteorites and you aren't crazy.

(But that assumes the 2 are not mutually exclusive.)

0 Replies

@bewildered,

bewildered wrote:

My claim can be disproved only by identifying and proving the structures marked in my figures as minerals (or non-life material). No one can ever do that. So, my claim is correct.

My claim is that there is a miniature unicorn in orbit around Pluto. And no one can disprove it. So, my claim is correct.

(do you see now why your statement is irrational)

((since you posted the same comment on two threads, I will do the same))

0 Replies

@Miller,

If you know anatomy, you should know the uniqueness of the structures/morphology of animal cells. Do you know what is meant by uniqueness?
What is the use of biochemical evidence when morphology is unique?
Do you know that fossils can be 100% minerals when animal cells are completely replaced with mineals during fossilization? In such a case of fossils being 100% minerals, what is the use of biochemical evidence?
Why do you insist on biochemical evidence when you have no confidence in anatomy?

1 Reply

@bewildered,

In order for the animal cells to be replaced with minerals there has to be a process by which that occurs. Since you have no way for the minerals to replace the cells, how can this be a fossil?

Rocks look like a lot of things. It doesn't mean they are those things just because they might resemble them.

1 Reply

@parados,

Facts are facts. Shitting children cannot recognize facts or disprove facts. All you and farmer did was beating about the bush. You are not a direct person who knows what is direct.

2 Replies

@bewildered,

bewildered wrote:

Facts are facts. Shitting children cannot recognize facts or disprove facts. All you and farmer did was beating about the bush. You are not a direct person who knows what is direct.

Ok, if you don't appreciate meaningful analogies...

You're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts, and that's what you're trying to do here is make up your own facts.

The facts you have listed are in many cases unproven and unrelated, the logic you have displayed is unsound, and your conclusions are unfounded and preposterous. Is that direct enough for you?

0 Replies

@bewildered,

Yes facts are facts.

You haven't presented facts however. If you want to call yourself a shitting child, who am I to argue?

Fact - often things resemble something they aren't.

see the following....

0 Replies

Your Fifteen minutes are up!!

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Humans may never, or not in the foreseeable future, know why igneous rocks from Mars contain fossil cells. But this should not deny or disprove or block the fact that there are structures of muscle fibers in NWA 998.

3 Replies

@bewildered,

How is it that you don't know fossils are from sedimentary rocks, not igneous rocks?

1 Reply

@wayne,

Wretch fossil is not from sedimentary rocks.

0 Replies

@bewildered,

bewildered wrote:

Humans may never, or not in the foreseeable future, know why igneous rocks from Mars contain fossil cells. But this should not deny or disprove or block the fact that there are structures of muscle fibers in NWA 998.

How do you propose that the process required for fossilization occurred in igneous rock? Was it magic?

0 Replies

@bewildered,

Quote:

Humans may never, or not in the foreseeable future, know why igneous rocks from Mars contain fossil cells. But this should not deny or disprove or block the fact that there are structures of muscle fibers in NWA 998.

Is this something that you gleaned from Gods Books?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
Humans may never, or not in the foreseeable future, know why igneous rocks from Mars contain fossil cells. But this should not deny or disprove or block the fact that there are structures of muscle fibers in NWA 998.
Is this something that you gleaned from Gods Books?

He thinks he's proven that there are muscle fibres in NWA998. Notice he said "muscle fibers" and not "fossils of muscle fibers". I don't think this guy knows what a fossil is. He seems to think fossils are rocks which contain actual biological material.

0 Replies

Structures of Martian skeletal muscle fibers are found in the meteorite possibly because the parent rock of the meteorite originally solidified around fossilized muscle fibers on Mars.

2 Replies

Structures of Skeletal Muscle Fibers Found in Meteorite NWA 998

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know