The Definition of Real Science

[Frank Robert]

Frank Robert looks to be more knowledgable than I am on this topic, so I'll just make one point: How do we know that clotted and hardened blood (is hardened the same as clotted, or is it something different?) can't be available to iron in a chemical process?

There is a trove of information on this at the Christian website BioLogos.
"Soft Tissue" in Dinosaur Bones: What Does the Evidence Really Say?

"Soft Tissue" in Dinosaur Bones: What Does the Evidence Really Say? - Article - BioLogos

Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer found evidence of soft tissue in dinosaur bones. Does that mean the dinosaurs only lived a few thousand years ago?

biologos.org

 

[ChristB4us]

You're only digging your hole deeper because now you have to show that it is true that government funding favors (unfairly, or in a biased manner) support for evolution.

You don't understand how science works, yet I'll bet you understand how successful it is. Science is designed to weed out its own biased mindsets. How is religion try to handle its own biases?

Since I cannot find direct proof right now as they were forward about it back then in the media in how they had favor giving grants to evolution research; let us look to the spirit behind such funding and for the evolution theory being taught in schools.

Note how the Department of Education is pushing critical race theory in schools and even talks about how much to teach in history?

Critical Race Theory and the Fight Over History Standards: 6 Things to Know

Note how one state took Covid 19 funding for schools to apply it to promoting Critical Race Theory instead?

Blue States Diverted Billions of COVID Relief Dollars to Teach CRT in Public Schools - Report

Before that came transgenderism to be taught to little kids.

Before that they were introducing same sex parents booklets to little kids in schools for accepting children with same sex "parents".

Before that; the evolution theory to be taught originally as another theory but now being taught as a fact in schools. Do not expect bullying to go away any time soon as that weeding out the weak & the vulnerable and distancing God in creation from them as some random chance by nature; and you wonder why there is so many dog eat dog going on out there along with king of the hill mentality in the work place and even at home?

I also remember that the American psychiatric Association in the Southwest had stated in national news that homosexuality was a mental illness of a sort. I could not recall right now the exact word like maybe it was sexual aberration or whatever that the homosexual community took offense to, because that day they had announced it, they had phone called that work place in giving threats and then they found out who worked there & where they had lives to call them at their homes, and on top of that, one of them bothered to drive to one of the residence to throw a brick in the window before that place recanted in National news the next day. I cannot find it anywhere on the internet. I can see why they would want to bury to though given the woke controlled media and the search algorithm may steer such a search away unless otherwise deleted from the internet.

I had come across such articles in the newspaper about government funding evolution science research and some scientists attest, even one dishonestly, to aligning their finding pf a meteorite fossil from Mars in favoring the evolution theory in getting that funding.

I had a hard time finding that latter one as I had to reword that a couple of times in that search engine to find a link at the bottom of the page from all that fossils found on Mars when I was looking for that meteorite one with supposed evidence of life as if coming from Mars.

Case Study: Fossil Microbes on Mars?

Later I read an article where in reality, it had been sitting on a shelf for a long time before it was "rediscovered", and when it got its research grant in time, before it was debunked but not media wise, and put back on the shelf. Can't find that one; not with all of that one about fossils found on Mars gumming up the search results.

I cannot prove it to you. Maybe some day The Lord will have you will come across it without the woke control media keeping you from it.

All I can do is point to why they would fund it as it is being used today for the radical left for abortion, need for climate control, and all the radical Left agenda as if they are the people behind the Georgia Guidestones.

I just believe the evil people behind the coming New World Order are here now but they will not come into power until after God comes at the rapture event to judge His House first and the world when He sends that fire to burn a third of the earth which I discern it to be the western hemisphere for why USA is fallen Babylon in Revelation 18th chapter as occurring in Revelation 14:8 after the pre great tribulation rapture event.

So I cannot open your eyes to all of this deception and how the evolution theory is being used to deny God's judgment on the world in the past by that Biblical global flood, when Jesus referred to it as a warning to believers to be ready or else in Luke 17:26-37 & Peter did too in 2 Peter 3:3-15, but the Lord can open your eyes if He is so willing.

Luke 17:26-37 & 2 Peter 3:3-15

 

[Gus Bovona]

. . . .

Before that; the evolution theory to be taught originally as another theory but now being taught as a fact in schools.

That some things may or may not be facts has **nothing** to do with the massive amount of evidence there is for evolution. Remember this? (I don't think you ever replied to this):

In the 150 years since Darwin published "On the Origin of Species," scientists in

• geology
• physics
• paleontology
• chemistry
• embryology
• genetics, and
• molecular biology; and
• all major university biology departments,
• every major science journal
• the American Academy of Sciences, and
• every major science organization in the world

have all confirmed Darwins theory of evolution by means of independent and inter-dependent tests (that is, findings in one discipline about evolution confirm the findings about evolution from another. They all concur: evolution happened (and continues to happen).

What do you have to put up against that that would outweigh that?

What do you say about that?

Do not expect bullying to go away any time soon as that weeding out the weak & the vulnerable and distancing God in creation from them as some random chance by nature; and you wonder why there is so many dog eat dog going on out there along with king of the hill mentality in the work place and even at home?

Bullying - as well as empathy and looking out for others well-being - happens regardless of whether evolution is true or not.

I also remember that the American psychiatric Association in the Southwest had stated in national news that homosexuality was a mental illness of a sort.

At one time the entire APA listed homosexuality as a mental illness. They've since thought better of that and have retracted that.

I could not recall right now the exact word like maybe it was sexual aberration or whatever that the homosexual community took offense to, because that day they had announced it, they had phone called that work place in giving threats and then they found out who worked there & where they had lives to call them at their homes, and on top of that, one of them bothered to drive to one of the residence to throw a brick in the window before that place recanted in National news the next day. I cannot find it anywhere on the internet. I can see why they would want to bury to though given the woke controlled media and the search algorithm may steer such a search away unless otherwise deleted from the internet.

No one should be harassing people like that, but whether harrassments or not is irrelevant as to whether homosexuality should be considered a mental illness or not.

I had come across such articles in the newspaper about government funding evolution science research and some scientists attest, even one dishonestly, to aligning their finding pf a meteorite fossil from Mars in favoring the evolution theory in getting that funding.

Humans do science, so there will be screw-ups, fraud, and the like. The great thing about science, though, is that there is a built-in mechanism for rooting out all the bad science.

. . . .

So I cannot open your eyes to all of this deception and how the evolution theory is being used to deny God's judgment on the world in the past by that Biblical global flood, when Jesus referred to it as a warning to believers to be ready or else in Luke 17:26-37 & Peter did too in 2 Peter 3:3-15, but the Lord can open your eyes if He is so willing.

Luke 17:26-37 & 2 Peter 3:3-15

I should believe you that evolution is a deception instead of the thousands (if not millions) if scientists in all the fields I listed above, for over 150 years, who have dedicated their professional lives to trying to find the truth as far as actual evidence will allow?

 

[ChristB4us]

That some things may or may not be facts has **nothing** to do with the massive amount of evidence there is for evolution. Remember this? (I don't think you ever replied to this):

What do you say about that?

When the evolution theory has pervaded every field of science, I call it tainted education.

Bullying - as well as empathy and looking out for others well-being - happens regardless of whether evolution is true or not.

It sure does not help.

At one time the entire APA listed homosexuality as a mental illness. They've since thought better of that and have retracted that.

Care to share why? What I saw in the national news and even the newspapers before that one organization did is why. Nazis tactics if you ask me.

No one should be harassing people like that, but whether harrassments or not is irrelevant as to whether homosexuality should be considered a mental illness or not.

For a while there, I had thought that field of science was trying to find natural ways for why a person would be gay as dependent of the role model of one or the other parent as strong or weak, and I was reading some pretty good explanation for why I wonder about what the Bible says is why and that was because they loved the creature more than the Creator for why God gave them up to that reprobate mind to do that which is inconvenient since they cannot have children by that same sex way. But that was done away with. I almost believed that lie.

Humans do science, so there will be screw-ups, fraud, and the like. The great thing about science, though, is that there is a built-in mechanism for rooting out all the bad science.

We have the Bible to root out heresy but where is the authority like that in science except by the definition of what real science is.. what can be observed and proven. And yet the keep side stepping that in favor of macroevolution which said phenomenon can never be observed.

I should believe you that evolution is a deception instead of the thousands (if not millions) if scientists in all the fields I listed above, for over 150 years, who have dedicated their professional lives to trying to find the truth as far as actual evidence will allow?

I believe the Law of Biogenesis where life does not come from nothing, but life comes from similar life. It disproves spontaneous generation.

So have you come across any scientific report of when extra genetic information has been added to a living organism?

 

[Gus Bovona]

When the evolution theory has pervaded every field of science, I call it tainted education.

You have it wrong. Those fields operate independently of evolution, and then biologists see if the findings in those other fields contradict or confirm what evolution says. For instance, in the 1790s, long before Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species,

the French comparative anatomist Georges Cuvier assisted by his colleague Alexandre Brogniart at the École des Mines de Paris realized that the relative ages of fossils could be determined from a geological standpoint; in terms of what layer of rock the fossils are located and the distance these layers of rock are from the surface of the earth.

Source

It sure does not help.

It surely does not help the person being bullied, but it does no damage whatsoever to whether evolution is true or not.

Care to share why? What I saw in the national news and even the newspapers before that one organization did is why. Nazis tactics if you ask me.

I'm not familiar as to why.

For a while there, I had thought that field of science was trying to find natural ways for why a person would be gay as dependent of the role model of one or the other parent as strong or weak, and I was reading some pretty good explanation for why I wonder about what the Bible says is why and that was because they loved the creature more than the Creator for why God gave them up to that reprobate mind to do that which is inconvenient since they cannot have children by that same sex way. But that was done away with. I almost believed that lie.

We have the Bible to root out heresy but where is the authority like that in science except by the definition of what real science is.. what can be observed and proven.

I'm not aware of any process Christianity uses to root out mis-information, which means that dogma will remain what it is no matter what new information comes in.

And yet the keep side stepping that in favor of macroevolution which said phenomenon can never be observed.

A concept or object of study or phenomenon, like evolution, does not have to be directly observed in order for us to have strong confidence that it occurred, just like homocide detectives often do not need an eyewitness to solve a crime.

I believe the Law of Biogenesis where life does not come from nothing, but life comes from similar life. It disproves spontaneous generation.

You might as well offer up the Law of White Swans to prove that all swans are white, but that is an error of logic.

So have you come across any scientific report of when extra genetic information has been added to a living organism?

I haven't read many scientific reports.

 

[CrowCross]

Please supply a link to a peer reviewed scientific journal that supports your claim.

Go watch the video. Tell me where's it wrong. 'Cause the next thing I'm gonna do is demand a peered review paper from you that shows iron can preserve biomaterial that is supposed to be 65+ MY's old.

I not saying there isn't any only that I have not been able to find one. The nearest I have found is "it's still controversial." As far as I can, as a lay person can determine that evolution makes no predictions about how long organic material can be expected to last under different conditions.

Evolution makes no prediction...because if they did evo-ism would fall in this category and then would have to be thrown on the heaping pile of other fallen evo theories.

To be honest I think basic common sense tells us the biomaterial cold survive for such a long, long, long period of time.
Thing is....you need it to be so..or else you'll be forced to concede that the dino's didn't die out 65+MY's ago and the evo dating techniques are severely flawed.

 

[CrowCross]

Frank Robert looks to be more knowledgable than I am on this topic,

With all due respect, Frank hasn't impressed me.

so I'll just make one point: How do we know that clotted and hardened blood (is hardened the same as clotted, or is it something different?) can't be available to iron in a chemical process?

Oh how the evos try to simplify their concepts. Didn't you read what the evos had to do to get "iron"..and solve the solution.

Thing is...you can always re-post your article....and in doing so hope to convince the ignorant while NEVER explaining what happens behind the evo-scenes.

Post 95 has not been addressed.

 

[Gus Bovona]

With all due respect, Frank hasn't impressed me.

The point wasn't whether Frank impressed you.

Oh how the evos try to simplify their concepts. Didn't you read what the evos had to do to get "iron"..and solve the solution.

That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about **your** claim that clotting/hardening presented some challenge for iron availability, and I'm asking you to support that claim.

Thing is...you can always re-post your article....and in doing so hope to convince the ignorant while NEVER explaining what happens behind the evo-scenes.

Post 95 has not been addressed.

 

[CrowCross]

The point wasn't whether Frank impressed you.


That's not what I was talking about. I was talking about **your** claim that clotting/hardening presented some challenge for iron availability, and I'm asking you to support that claim.

What line from post 95 are you referring to?

 

[Gus Bovona]

What line from post 95 are you referring to?

This one:

But, as we all very well know in the natural conditions the blood would have clotted and hardened and the iron would not have been available.

 

[Frank Robert]

Go watch the video. Tell me where's it wrong. 'Cause the next thing I'm gonna do is demand a peered review paper from you that shows iron can preserve biomaterial that is supposed to be 65+ MY's old.

I do not doubt the claim that evidence was found for bio material, only that it is not evidence for creationist claims.

Evolution makes no prediction...because if they did evo-ism would fall in this category and then would have to be thrown on the heaping pile of other fallen evo theories.
To be honest I think basic common sense tells us the biomaterial cold survive for such a long, long, long period of time.
Thing is....you need it to be so..or else you'll be forced to concede that the dino's didn't die out 65+MY's ago and the evo dating techniques are severely flawed.

Evolution makes no predictions about how long organic material can be expected to last under different conditions for the simple reason we do not know. But that may have changed.

Berkeley Lab Helps Reveal How Dinosaur Blood Vessels Can Preserve Through the Ages - Berkeley Lab

A team of scientists have determined the chemical mechanisms that allow soft tissue structures to persist for millions of years.

newscenter.lbl.gov

That T. rex skeleton is approximately 66 million years old, well beyond the “upper limit” of one million years that scientists have generally projected for the survival of soft tissue structures and proteins in fossils, Boatman said.​

​

However, the paper details for the first time two mechanisms that could have preserved the blood vessels — protein crosslinking by Fenton chemistry and glycation. Iron, a component of hemoglobin in vertebrate blood, plays a central role in both, and both mechanisms are also known to occur during aging and with diabetes, for example, in humans.​

​

The paper also provides microscopic images of blood vessels from the T. rex, which was unearthed in Montana by a team from the Museum of the Rockies.​

​

“The body of evidence is convincing now,” Boatman said, noting that over the years, there have been “a lot of skeptics” across the scientific disciplines that blood vessels could be preserved. Initially, the use of materials science techniques to explore this question wasn’t widespread, but importantly their application offered a new perspective for studying fossil remains.​

​

(Emphasis added)​

 

[CrowCross]

This one:

Why do you have a problem with that?

 

[CrowCross]

Iron, a component of hemoglobin in vertebrate blood, plays a central role in both

Post 95 showed IRON isn't the answer....will all you evos stop using it. Basically all you have done is presented from a cut and paste site and pretended you have an answer.

 

[Frank Robert]

Post 95 showed IRON isn't the answer....will all you evos stop using it. Basically all you have done is presented from a cut and paste site and pretended you have an answer.

Post 95 made a claim w/o evidence and I provided a recent study with scientific evidence that iron is part of the answer.

If you are claiming that iron is not part of the answer it is up to you to provide the evidence for your claim. I don't believe that that is any.

 

[ChristB4us]

You have it wrong. Those fields operate independently of evolution, and then biologists see if the findings in those other fields contradict or confirm what evolution says. For instance, in the 1790s, long before Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species,

Source

Problem here is that you are taking that at face value when there is no place in the world where you are going to find that geological chart in that way hence the evolution theory tainted that field of science.

 

[CrowCross]

Post 95 made a claim w/o evidence and I provided a recent study with scientific evidence that iron is part of the answer.

Did you not read...and watch...what they had to do to MAKE, force, it to be part of the "answer"?
Was what they did with the "iron" natural? As you know that answer is NO!

If you are claiming that iron is not part of the answer it is up to you to provide the evidence for your claim. I don't believe that that is any.

What I posted showed you how they had to "force"...manipulate.

From my post..."
They used Chicken and Ostrich blood because they thought they were the closest to dinosaurs.
Put in an anti-coagulant
Put it in a centrifuge to remove serum.
Put it in a centrifuge to take out platelets
Took out white blood cells
Purified and broke down the red blood cells and added a chemical to expose the hemoglobin which contains iron atoms to do the preserving."

As i asked...is this natural? You know the answer....NO!!!

 

[Manfred]

Macroevolution is not a word that is part of the theory of evolution, although that depends on exactly how you define it. Speciation is part of evolution, and speciation has been observed.

Do you hold to a common ancestor?
If you do, then macroevolution must be a word contained within the theory of evolution. Speciation does not allow for one kind of species to evolve into another kind of species.
You can breed dogs and come up with different breeds, but never a cat will come from breeding dogs.

I think that scientists who hold to the theory of evolution are being dis-honest with themselves and have left logic behind.

The universe like any other created thing i.e., buildings, paintings, automobiles etc. point to a creator.
Order does not come from chaos without intervention. After an explosion, you are left with chaos, this will never become order. The law of entropy alone will prevent this.

Sadly scientists are deceiving themselves and the greater populace with fairytale thinking and not with real science.

 

[Frank Robert]

Did you not read...and watch...what they had to do to MAKE, force, it to be part of the "answer"?
Was what they did with the "iron" natural? As you know that answer is NO!

What I posted showed you how they had to "force"...manipulate.

Which is evidence that blood can be preserved. What you are doing is denying the science which is what Kent Hovind is known for.

Kent Hovind is not credible, not even among many YECs. He is "a controversial figure in the Young Earth creationist movement whose ministry focuses on denial of scientific theories in the fields of biology (evolution and abiogenesis), geophysics, and cosmology in favor of a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative found in the Bible. Hovind's views, which combine elements of creation science and conspiracy theory, are dismissed by the scientific community as fringe theory and pseudo-scholarship. He is controversial within the Young Earth Creationist movement; and, Answers in Genesis openly criticized him for continued use of discredited arguments abandoned by others in the movement.​

From my post..."
They used Chicken and Ostrich blood because they thought they were the closest to dinosaurs.
Put in an anti-coagulant
Put it in a centrifuge to remove serum.
Put it in a centrifuge to take out platelets
Took out white blood cells
Purified and broke down the red blood cells and added a chemical to expose the hemoglobin which contains iron atoms to do the preserving."

As i asked...is this natural? You know the answer....NO!!!

Dino blood has not been available for over 60 million years ago. Since birds are descendants of dino's they tested the nearest blood that is presently available. They also used photographs of the Montana dino as additional evidence for how dino blood coagulates. Is this absolute proof? No, but it is the best there is.

I find it interesting that some people want to believe in a young earth even in light no evidence for a young earth.

 

[CrowCross]

Which is evidence that blood can be preserved. What you are doing is denying the science which is what Kent Hovind is known for.

Kent Hovind is not credible, not even among many YECs. He is "a controversial figure in the Young Earth creationist movement whose ministry focuses on denial of scientific theories in the fields of biology (evolution and abiogenesis), geophysics, and cosmology in favor of a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative found in the Bible. Hovind's views, which combine elements of creation science and conspiracy theory, are dismissed by the scientific community as fringe theory and pseudo-scholarship. He is controversial within the Young Earth Creationist movement; and, Answers in Genesis openly criticized him for continued use of discredited arguments abandoned by others in the movement.​

Dino blood has not been available for over 60 million years ago. Since birds are descendants of dino's they tested the nearest blood that is presently available. They also used photographs of the Montana dino as additional evidence for how dino blood coagulates. Is this absolute proof? No, but it is the best there is.

This thread isn't about Ken Hovind. rather, it is about you needing to prove that the dino biomaterial could have been preserved for over 65+ MY's.
Now, I do see you are having problems expressing that point...but there is no need to move the goalpost and point it at Hovind.

I find it interesting that some people want to believe in a young earth even in light no evidence for a young earth.

Chimney rock is one example.

 

[Frank Robert]

This thread isn't about Ken Hovind. rather, it is about you needing to prove that the dino biomaterial could have been preserved for over 65+ MY's.
Now, I do see you are having problems expressing that point...but there is no need to move the goalpost and point it at Hovind.

You are denying the evidence w/o supply any contradicting evidence. You claim that re: dino is not supported.

Chimney rock is one example.

You appear to have the idea that all you need to do is to present something that could be questionable as evidence when it is often mere apologetics. If you have an testable hypothesis you need to present it because we are not mind readers.