The Definition of Real Science

[CrowCross]

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

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.

Frank, Get back to me when you can show what I posted is wrong about what they did to the biomaterial and iron....and you accepted as fact.

 

[ChristB4us]

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

There is evidence for a young earth Biblically. The genealogy is a clue. Jesus's words confirming scripture that cannot be broken is another.

There is no evidence of an old earth if you look at it with the Bible since the universe was created on the fourth day and so God created them for the purpose that her lights shine on the earth that day for governing of signs, seasons, days and years. You cannot tell teh age f the universe by that speed of light.

As for the age of the earth, the radiometric dating is done under the assumption that there was no global calamity within the last 55,000 years, thus science is overlooking the Biblical global flood.

Radiocarbon is key to understanding Earth's past.

So how is that going to work for determining the age of the earth that way? None if you believe Jesus's words and Peter's about the global flood as a warning for saved believers to be ready to go or else get left behind for when God judges the earth with fire.

Luke 17:26-37 KJV

2 Peter 3:3-15 KJV

 

[CrowCross]

As for the age of the earth, the radiometric dating is done under the assumption that there was no global calamity within the last 55,000 years, thus science is overlooking the Biblical global flood.

I agree 100%.

We don't know the ratio of C14 to C12 pre-flood. After the flood a new equilibrium of the two began to be established and tens to screw up the early dates.

 

[Frank Robert]

Frank, Get back to me when you can show what I posted is wrong about what they did to the biomaterial and iron....and you accepted as fac

As far as I can tell your claim is merely not understanding the science.

If I remember correctly, your claim had something to do with the blood they used and I addressed that.

 

[CrowCross]

If I remember correctly, your claim had something to do with the blood they used and I addressed that.

Are you referring to the cut and paste article that only parroted what others had said about the blood and iron...which was refuted by my post 95?

 

[Frank Robert]

There is evidence for a young earth Biblically. The genealogy is a clue. Jesus's words confirming scripture that cannot be broken is another.

There is no evidence of an old earth if you look at it with the Bible since the universe was created on the fourth day and so God created them for the purpose that her lights shine on the earth that day for governing of signs, seasons, days and years. You cannot tell teh age f the universe by that speed of light.

As for the age of the earth, the radiometric dating is done under the assumption that there was no global calamity within the last 55,000 years, thus science is overlooking the Biblical global flood.

You are assuming a literal interpretation of the OT. Many Christians do not share your belief.

Radiocarbon is key to understanding Earth's past.

So how is that going to work for determining the age of the earth that way? None if you believe Jesus's words and Peter's about the global flood as a warning for saved believers to be ready to go or else get left behind for when God judges the earth with fire.

Luke 17:26-37 KJV

2 Peter 3:3-15 KJV

There are not as many problems with radiometric dating of earth's age as you have been led to believe. Do a simple goggle search for yourself.

 

[Frank Robert]

Are you referring to the cut and paste article that only parroted what others had said about the blood and iron...which was refuted by my post 95?

No I am referring to a recent scientific article from a peer review journal.

 

[Gus Bovona]

Why do you have a problem with that?

I don't have a problem with that (yet). I merely asked how do we know that iron isn't available after blood has clotted/hardened?

 

[Gus Bovona]

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.

Exactly what am I taking at fact value?

And exactly what geological chart are you talking about?

 

[Gus Bovona]

Do you hold to a common ancestor?

Yes, although I vaguely recall seeing some new research that suggests there might have been more than one. I don't have a link.

If you do, then macroevolution must be a word contained within the theory of evolution.

Macro-evolution is word and a concept that is used by those who reject evolution; it's not used (generally) by those who accept evolution.

Speciation does not allow for one kind of species to evolve into another kind of species.

The very definition of speciation means that some species, through genetic mutation and natural selection, and often involving physical isolation, become incapable of producing fertile offspring with the rest of the species it is (often) isolated from, thereby producing a new species. That may happen within one genus, but, when that happens multiple times over millions of years, the resulting species can be significantly different from each other.

You can breed dogs and come up with different breeds, but never a cat will come from breeding dogs.

Evolution doesn't say a cat will come from a dog, but it does say that cats and dogs came from an ancestor species around 50 million years ago.

I think that scientists who hold to the theory of evolution are being dis-honest with themselves

You can't get inside the mind of scientists, especially not the thousands and thousands of scientists since Darwin who accept evolution. You're not a mind-reader. It's fine to disagree with them (in a certain sense), but you don't have to impugn their motives to disagree.

and have left logic behind.

I'm going to believe the thousands and thousands of biologists who accept evolution over someone who makes the beginner's mistake of implying that evolution says that cats could come from dogs.

The universe like any other created thing i.e., buildings, paintings, automobiles etc. point to a creator.

Only if you assume it was created.

Order does not come from chaos without intervention.

Of course it does.

Flip a fair penny millions of times and you'll get long, long strings of heads or tails in a row. No one intervenes to deliberately choose head or tails.

Shake a jar of water with sand and pebbles, etc., of different sizes, and the finer particles will separate themselves out to the bottom with the larger particles forming layers as you go up, creating quite a nice order from merely shaking the jar (not as if someone deliberately sorted all the particles).

After an explosion, you are left with chaos, this will never become order.

Correct, but that some processes don't create order doesn't mean that none do.

The law of entropy alone will prevent this.

Entropy only increase in an isolated system. But we're continually getting energy from the sun.

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

See above.

 

[ChristB4us]

You are assuming a literal interpretation of the OT. Many Christians do not share your belief.

Many Christians would be wrong when believing the evolution theory as if it is real science when the phenomenon of macroevolution has never been observed nor proven which means it does not pass the definition of real science.

But they are doing it anyway thinking like Hitler that if you say a lie often enough and loud enough, people will believe it to be true.

There are not as many problems with radiometric dating of earth's age as you have been led to believe. Do a simple goggle search for yourself.

Do you believe in the Biblical global flood that covered the mountains or not? Jesus did. Peter did. Why don't you?

 

[Gus Bovona]

Many Christians would be wrong when believing the evolution theory as if it is real science when the phenomenon of macroevolution has never been observed nor proven which means it does not pass the definition of real science.

Either you merely missed me mentioning this:

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.

or you ignored it because you have no response. Or something else. Can you clarify?

 

[ChristB4us]

Either you merely missed me mentioning this:

or you ignored it because you have no response. Or something else. Can you clarify?

I call it side stepping the authority of what real science has been defined as.

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.

You may believe that rationalization but I do not. If you do not hold them to that definition, then you can fall for anything theoretical as if it is practical science. What does one should do when you have a runaway theory all based on a series of unproven hypothesis? A fairy tale.

Some say it takes more faith to believe in the evolution theory than the Bible. In light of His words, I'd say that is true.

You either believe Jesus's words in Luke 17:26-37 as validating the Biblical global flood for why He is warning saved believers to be ready or else be left behind for when that fire comes on the earth and to believe Peter's words about the global flood and warning about the coming fiery judgment to endure to the end to escape that fire coming on the earth in 2 Peter 3:3-15 or you are believing the lies Satan is using the evolution theory for which is to hide His future fiery judgment that is coming on the earth and you know it not.

 

[Gus Bovona]

I call it side stepping the authority of what real science has been defined as.

You may believe that rationalization but I do not. If you do not hold them to that definition, then you can fall for anything theoretical as if it is practical science. What does one should do when you have a runaway theory all based on a series of unproven hypothesis? A fairy tale.

So how do homicide detectives pull it off when there is no eyewitness? Luck? Guessing?

 

[Gus Bovona]

I call it side stepping the authority of what real science has been defined as.

You may believe that rationalization but I do not. If you do not hold them to that definition, then you can fall for anything theoretical as if it is practical science. What does one should do when you have a runaway theory all based on a series of unproven hypothesis? A fairy tale.

If you wake up one morning, look out your window, and see that everything is wet, you can't promptly conclude it rained overnight because you weren't an eyewitness it to?

 

[Gus Bovona]

I call it side stepping the authority of what real science has been defined as.

Can you cite an authority that says **all** of science has to only make conclusions about what is directly observed, and that no proper conclusions about something not directly observed can **ever** be made?

 

[Frank Robert]

Many Christians would be wrong when believing the evolution theory as if it is real science when the phenomenon of macroevolution has never been observed nor proven which means it does not pass the definition of real science.

Microevolution and macroevolution are not different processes. Common sense tells us we can not observe something that takes over decades to centuries. Seeing them as different processes is creationist misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the term.

But they are doing it anyway thinking like Hitler that if you say a lie often enough and loud enough, people will believe it to be true.

No one is preventing parents from teaching and/or sending their children to schools and churches that treat evolution as a farce.

Do you believe in the Biblical global flood that covered the mountains or not?

If there were a worldwide flood there should be evidence of one. There isn't. On the other hand, there is evidence that people reached America 13,000 years ago (perhaps as early as 33,000 years ago) and Australia 48,000 years ago. The beginnings of the Indian civilization has been traced back to about 7000 B.C. in remains that have been uncovered in Mehrgarh and other sites.

For someone like myself, with my background, believing in worldwide flood would also be believing God deceived us by removing all evidence of the flood and leaving or planting evidence of other civilizations dating back thousands of years.

Jesus did. Peter did.
Why don't you?

I went to a Catholic elementary school and a Catholic college. The Catholic Church does not prohibit interpretations of Genesis 6-8 that include a worldwide flood, but neither does the Church require there to be a worldwide flood in all interpretations of these passages.

 

[Frank Robert]

Many Christians would be wrong when believing the evolution theory as if it is real science when the phenomenon of macroevolution has never been observed nor proven which means it does not pass the definition of real science.

You can not observe what you label macro that takes decades and sometimes centuries in the wild.

But they are doing it anyway thinking like Hitler that if you say a lie often enough and loud enough, people will believe it to be true.

The is no need to use inflammatory rhetoric to make your point.

Do you believe in the Biblical global flood that covered the mountains or not? Jesus did. Peter did. Why don't you?

Because there is no need for me to do so and if I did it would be flying in the face of solid evidence precluding a worldwide flood.

 

[Frank Robert]

Are you referring to the cut and paste article that only parroted what others had said about the blood and iron...which was refuted by my post 95?

Here is the article I was referring to:
Mechanisms of soft tissue and protein preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex | Scientific Reports (2019)

Mechanisms of soft tissue and protein preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex - Scientific Reports

The idea that original soft tissue structures and the native structural proteins comprising them can persist across geological time is controversial, in part because rigorous and testable mechanisms that can occur under natural conditions, resulting in such preservation, have not been well...

www.nature.com

The research report is long. In a previous post I included the Abstract, here are the conclusions.

Conclusions

These data represent the first comprehensive chemical and molecular characterisation of vascular tissues recovered from this T. rex specimen (USNM 555000). By combining synchrotron and laboratory techniques with verified and well-understood immunological, diffraction, and microscope imaging methods, we provide the first identification of reducible, intramolecular (immature) and irreducible, intermolecular (mature) crosslinks in preserved, ancient vessel tissues. These data strongly support the previous hypothesis10 invoking transition metal (Fe)-mediated mechanisms as an agent of vessel preservation. Exposure of extant chicken type I collagen tissues to Fenton chemistry and transition metal-catalysed glycation rapidly induces chemical modifications also observed in the dinosaur tissues studied here.​

​

In addition to these inherent molecular features conferring resistance to degradation in tissues that possess them, the sequestration of proteinaceous components within mineralised tissue has also been demonstrated to promote longevity, by restricting degradative pathways in the immediate and long-term post mortem environment69,70. We hypothesize that the enzymatic and non-enzymatic pathways described herein, coupled with adsorbance to the mineralized components of bone, can result in exceptional preservation of the original organic components of dinosaurian vascular tissues.​

​

This report is example of real science. I recommend you get a drink of choice and comfortable chair when reading the report.

I am sure that if there is not already a creationist apologetic on this there will be one at some point.

 

[CrowCross]

I don't have a problem with that (yet). I merely asked how do we know that iron isn't available after blood has clotted/hardened?

Don't you think any dino blood would have clotted within hours....or do you think it would have taken 65+ MY's to clot?