DieHardBrownsFan Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 http://www.naturalnews.com/046315_dinosaur_fossils_soft_tissue_wrongful_termination.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 For the science, check: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/ The science, btw, does *not* in any way imply that the dinosaur bones are only 4000 years old. The science implies that what we thought we knew about decay of soft tissues in fossils was wrong and warrants further investigation. Seems like the defendant here took that and tried to claim it as proof of a young earth, started talking to students about that kind of stuff. Seems like his new boss blew a gasket over that (wrongly, imo - students should be able to think for themselves, it's not like he's indoctrinating them) and suddenly this guy finds he's no longer required. All a bit suspect, if you ask me - he was doing his job well enough, it's just when he started stating his beliefs that he got fired, and that's the kind of shit that doesn't go down well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 "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. " Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 http://freethoughtblogs.com/amilliongods/2014/07/28/mark-armitage-creationism-and-bad-science/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 So, they found "soft tissue" on a dinosaur for the first time ever? How did he test the age? Wouldn't a new technique, or a slightly tweaked one, be required? Is this where the discrepancy came from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 So, they found "soft tissue" on a dinosaur for the first time ever? How did he test the age? Wouldn't a new technique, or a slightly tweaked one, be required? Is this where the discrepancy came from? The generally held belief was that soft tissue couldn't survive for very long after death, and therefore his conclusion was that they hadn't been dead long. The rest of the scientific world is saying 'well, we probably misunderstood how tissue decays under those conditions' rather than leaping to proof of a young earth, which would contradict mountains of evidence suggesting otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 Sounds like agenda-driven rationalizing away scientific evidence that doesn't fit. Not the first time... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gftChris Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 Sounds like agenda-driven rationalizing away scientific evidence that doesn't fit. Not the first time... Whereas to me it sounds like a guy taking one detail of a report completely out of context and trying to shoe-horn the rest of it in to fitting his beliefs. If this was evidence of a young earth, the discoverer would have a nobel prize of 5 by now. It's proof of god, basically. But in fact, it isn't proof of a young earth. The original discoveries, made about 20 years ago, were of tissue inside a dinosaur bone that had been carbon dated to 68 million years old, which in turn was inside a rock formation that had been aged by geologists at about 68 million years as well. So what's more likely? Everything we thought we knew about geology, and everything we thought we knew about radiation, carbon, nuclear physics and the rest is wrong, or what we thought we knew about soft tissue decay in these very specific conditions was wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 Whats the agenda......logic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 Whats the agenda......logic? Anti-Christian. They're a persecuted minority... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 I don't get it, anti-christian belief and science are not synonymous. Science has no beef with religion. It may mess with the credibility of the timelines within the bible, but the overall concept of the book goes untouched in science. Although I don't believe in the bible, there is no way of disproving the existence of a god who demands to work off faith. I have no problem with people believing in it, so long as they understand it is THEIR belief. Save the missionary shit and its all good. Proposing that their is a portion of the international community that has banded together to deny the Earth is only a few thousand years old to piss off Christians is preposterous. Yes there is a small percentage of politically motivated people among all sorts of groups, and I can understand the mmgw skepticism, but to say there is an agenda to cover up one dinosaur bone that discredits everything we know about dinosaur bones is well.....something I might expect from the bottom 1% of the stupid people on this planet. If anything science will improve from this discovery. Probably will figure something out about slowing down the aging process, etc. Btw..................how the hell does a dinosaur bone prove anything about the existence of God. Did I miss something. Doesn't the existence of dinosaurs long ago or recently kind of elude the bible anyways? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 That was a tongue in cheek joke based on comments I've read here. I guess saying "Young Earth Creationists" or something would have been more accurate. The Bible doesn't contradict science, depending on how directly you take it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 I got that woody......the question was really for cal. But then I remembered a story about a Magic Donkey and wished I never asked the question in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted August 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 Science is nothing more then helping man understand God's work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 How come you don't understand shit then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted August 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 How come you don't understand shit then? I understand you're an asshole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 I get that way when I converse with bottomfeeders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted August 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 Okay, a dick sucker then? Obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted August 5, 2014 Report Share Posted August 5, 2014 I was never a priest??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 6, 2014 Report Share Posted August 6, 2014 I got that woody......the question was really for cal. But then I remembered a story about a Magic Donkey and wished I never asked the question in the first place. Oh, gotcha. I missed that. Yeah, the magic donkey story was... well... magical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 6, 2014 Report Share Posted August 6, 2014 I was never a priest??? Hey now, come on. We don't know that for sure. Just that they molested little boys.... very vague Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted August 6, 2014 Report Share Posted August 6, 2014 Science is nothing more then helping man understand God's work. What happens when the scientific method leads us to results that conflict with "God's work"... do we throw out the science? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browns149 Posted August 6, 2014 Report Share Posted August 6, 2014 What happens when the scientific method leads us to results that conflict with "God's work"... do we throw out the science? of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
htownbrown Posted August 6, 2014 Report Share Posted August 6, 2014 What happens when the scientific method leads us to results that conflict with "God's work"... do we throw out the science? No you rewrite the bible and call it the King Bush version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.