• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged Icebear's Evolution Thread

icebear said:
Raw meat in dinosaur remains:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html
http://media.smithsonianmag.com/images/dinosaur_main_388.jpg

That's also consistent with the good representations of known dinosaur types which are sometimes found in Amerind petroglyphs, e.g. the stegosaur glyph at Agawa Rock, Massinaw Lake Superior:

http://i.istockimg.com/file_thumbvi...2007-agawa-pictographs-canoe-and-serpents.jpg

I'm aware that stegosaurs did not have horns... Indians were always in the habit of touching those glyphs up every few years, and the horns were added long after the animal himself became extinct by an artist who simply figured an animal that size needed them.

Indian oral traditions describe the stegosaur ("Mishi-pishu", or 'water panther') as having had a saw-blade back, red fur, a cat-like face, and a "great spiked tail" which he used as a weapon (Vine Deloria, "Red Earth, White Lies"). Louis and Clark described their Indian guides as being in mortal terror of Mishi-pishu glyphs around the Mississippi; the original intent was "Caution, one of these things LIVES here".
Click to expand...

Right, and of course all oral traditions involving monsters are true, which is why I no longer swim in Lake Champlain, for fear of being eaten by Champ, and why I wait until daylight to take the garbage out back, for fear of being eaten by a bigfoot, and why every zoo in the southwest includes a thunderbird. Missed it? Turn right at the chupacabra exhibit, it's right behind the cattawampus.

So let's get this straight. We have a hieroglyphic of a creature without scale, with two prominent features, a sawtoothed back and horns, and it's a "good" representation of a known dinosaur that did not have horns, in an area swarming with lizards of all shapes and sizes, including even some that have sawtooth backs and horns.

Do you not consider it just a little bit ironic that, after publicly excoriating all who believe in evolution as utterly stupid, you find it advantageous to cite an article by the obviously very stupid Smithsonian magazine, in which evolution is supported, and more specifically an article which makes clear its disdain of the improper hijacking of the research by young earth creationists, by a person who is both a believer in evolution and a Christian? Can you really not find any good evidence that is not provided by those you condemn as idiots? Have you no shame?
 
Last edited:
icebear said:
Raw meat is easy enough to discern from stones and petrified materials...

raw meat:
http://www.todayifoundout.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/raw-meat.jpg

stone:
http://www.rallyrace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/stone.jpg
Click to expand...

Agreed! Now, what does that plainly observable fact have to do with the Smithsonian article you posted linked upthread?*

*ETA: ... which depicts a "tiny blob of stretchy brown matter" that "suggests the specimen had not completely decomposed", and discusses a scientist's purported "evidence of heme in the bones—additional support for the idea that [what she found] were red blood cells"? Note the careful use of language in the article: "suggests" and "support for the idea", not "certifies 100% that" or "this is raw dinosaur meat". Surely you see the distinction?
 
Last edited:
icebear said:
Raw meat in dinosaur remains:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html
http://media.smithsonianmag.com/images/dinosaur_main_388.jpg
Click to expand...
That is a continued "BONDAGE to ignorance", icebear.
There is no "raw meat" in the article or picture. There are the remains of soft tissue. And you obviously did not read the article:
Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”
Click to expand...
The total "BONDAGE to ignorance" gets worse, icebear :eek:!
  • The article is about T Rex not stegosaur's.
  • There are no stegosaur at Agawa Rock, Massinaw Lake Superior except in the deluded fantasies of creationists.
Are you going to cite the myths about dragons as evidence for recent dinosaurs next, icebear :jaw-dropp!
How about Nessie, icebear !
 
To expound on what Reality Check has posted, above, the linked article makes it clear that the scientist herself, Schweitzer, who discovered what may be soft tissue in the core of a 68-MY-old Tyrannosaur fossil, is a Christian who deplores creationists' "twisting her words" to support their errant world view:

Young-earth creationists ... claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. ...“They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”
​
 
Last edited:
icebear said:
Raw meat is easy enough to discern from stones and petrified materials...
Click to expand...
The fact remains that there is no raw meat in dinosaurs, icebear, as your "BONDAGE to ignorance" insists. Marrow is not meat.
There are no chunks of dinosaur meat found.
There are not even dinosaur marrow found in the dinosaur bones.
There are the remains of soft tissue that were extracted by basically dissolving the contents of the bones in acid.
 
Apes lack tails. Evolution wins.
Click to expand...

Ah, but some of the apes known as H. sapiens occasionally exhibit tiny tails. Which proves - something about embryology, which is not my area of expertise.

I think a lot of people, especially those with creationist tendencies, think that evolution has to have a purpose, that more complex organisms are somehow "better". It took me a long time to wrap my head around the concept that changes in organisms were random and without any overall plan from a higher being. Yeah, 4 billion years of evolution went into producing me, but the same 4 billion years resulted in my demented cat, the moth she refuses to catch and the strawberry plants in my garden that seem more interested in world domination than producing fruit. If a trait pops up and it helps an organism produce more offspring it's encouraged; if it kills off an organism before it reproduces, it's lost. And that's about it.

About transitional species: my favorites are tree kangaroos, which always look extremely uncertain about why they're arboreal, and the anhinga, which wants to be a diving bird but is more of a falling-off-a-low-branch-into-the-water bird. Maybe someday one of them will get than mutation for waterproof feathers so they don't have to hang around being alligator bait after they scramble out of the water...
 
Retrograde said:
Ah, but some of the apes known as H. sapiens occasionally exhibit tiny tails. Which proves - something about embryology, which is not my area of expertise.
Click to expand...

It proves nothing of the sort! It's usually a congenital deformity, a fatty tumor with no relationship to simian tails.
 
Vortigern99 said:
It proves nothing of the sort! It's usually a congenital deformity, a fatty tumor with no relationship to simian tails.
Click to expand...

Hmm?
Le Wiki said:
Infrequently, a child is born with a "soft tail", which contains no vertebrae, but only blood vessels, muscles, and nerves, although there have been several documented cases of tails containing cartilage or up to five vertebrae.
Click to expand...
...which was my understanding. It may not be a fully formed tail, but it's certainly not a "fatty tumor"?
 
Cainkane1 said:
There was once a moth that turned dark after being white in a polluted environment and white again when the polution went away. Birds were able to see the moths when they were white on a dark surface and when the pollution went away they went white again to match their environments.
Click to expand...

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/the-peppered-moth-story-is-solid/

The link above changed my opinion about this. The original experiments were not very well conducted and criticism could have been levelled at it by creationists, however subsequent studies have confirmed the underlying premise. Good old science eh!

I sometimes get the f.carbonaria form of the peppered moth come to my moth trap (but always more of the normal form) and it always gives me a thrill to see them!
 
Vortigern99 said:
To expound on what Reality Check has posted, above, the linked article makes it clear that the scientist herself, Schweitzer, who discovered what may be soft tissue in the core of a 68-MY-old Tyrannosaur fossil, is a Christian who deplores creationists' "twisting her words" to support their errant world view.....
[/INDENT]
Click to expand...


Irrelevant, meat is meat.

http://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/050324/050324_trex_softtissue_hlg10a.hlarge.jpg

http://dinodiyar.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/soft-tissue.jpg
 
CriticalSock said:
The link above changed my opinion about this. The original experiments were not very well conducted and criticism could have been levelled at it by creationists, however subsequent studies have confirmed the underlying premise. Good old science eh!
Click to expand...

The key part there is... "could have been." I'm under the distinct impression that there was and is very little in the way of valid criticism regarding nearly anything related to evolution coming from Creationists.
 
icebear said:
<gibbersnip>/quote]
Seriously? You're quoking a cretin like ReMine? The man who helped fabricate baraminology just to prop up god botherer nonsense like Noah's ark?
:rolleyes:

icebear said:
I mean, you've got an ideological doctrine which needs quadrillions of years
Click to expand...
Lie.
icebear said:
and only has a few thousand or a few tens of thousands, tops:
Click to expand...
Seriously you're a young earther too?
:rolleyes:
icebear said:
how retarded does somebody need to be to actually BELIEVE that kind of BS??
Click to expand...
I don't know. I don't suffer from religion.
Click to expand...
 
Aridas said:
The key part there is... "could have been." I'm under the distinct impression that there was and is very little in the way of valid criticism regarding nearly anything related to evolution coming from Creationists.
Click to expand...

The key part of your post is "valid". :) There's loads of criticism which is why it's so good that science refines its theories and if something is a bit shaky it smashes it with hammers far more aggressively than the woolly headed attacks from creationists until the end result is as close to true as we can get.

Remember Piltdown man? It wasn't creationists who found that hoax out...
 
icebear said:
A single BENEFICIAL mutation at a time. That's the assumption evolution works with. The vast and overwhelming bulk of all mutations are harmful or fatal or, best case, don't really do much of anything.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting thing to say.
Where did you learn that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom