Organic Material Found in T-Rex Fossils—Evidence for Young Earth?

I’m in the middle of reviewing the young-earth Creationist movie Is Genesis History? (part 1 here). I must postpone my shocking conclusion (Is it history? Is it not? Stay tuned!) to pursue one of the movie’s arguments that needs a post of its own.

Paleontologists try to recover dinosaur fossils intact. The last thing they’d want to do is break a precious fossil bone. It’s just mineralized bone—what of interest could possibly be inside? Anyway, cells and proteins degrade even in the most stable environments.

But that turned out to be wrong. Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer published evidence in 1993 of biological molecules like collagen, a common protein in animals, found in Tyrannosaurus rex fossils. In 2005, she published more evidence, this time of soft tissue preservation. (Note that many fossil bones will be completely mineralized. Collagen can only be found in undermineralized fossils.)

Creationist Christmas

Creationists jumped on this discovery. They don’t actually do science, of course, but they love to sift out the bits that they hope support their conclusion. Let’s look at their reaction to this discovery as we explore the science.

Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis said this, shortly after the 2005 research:

The creationists now possess immensely powerful evidence against the well-publicized belief that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and instead have tremendous support for the biblical timeline of a recent creation.

More recently, Creation Ministries International said:

These facts [about soft tissue in fossils] have been a thorn in [scientists’] side for several years now as they are incredibly difficult to explain within an evolutionary (millions of years) timeframe. Needless to say, they fit beautifully within a biblical (young earth) timescale; these are almost certainly the remains of creatures that were buried during the Genesis Flood, approximately 4,400 years ago.

This isn’t a thorn; it’s a new discovery. New discoveries are a good thing, but science must make really, really sure that new ideas are solid before they are accepted. Other paleontologists pushed back. One proposed explanation was that Schweitzer was seeing modern bacterial contamination rather than ancient dinosaur protein, but that has been rejected.

Answers in Genesis observed about Schweitzer: “Her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm,” as if she had been at fault for not immediately leaping to their young-earth conclusion. But questioning is what good scientists do. There might be many ways the result of an experiment could be misunderstood, so of course she questioned the conclusions. The result was a more solid conclusion.

Gloating

There was the obligatory cackling in delight. I suppose that’s expected since Reality so often craps on Creationists.

Evolutionists like [Schweitzer] have been scrambling . . . to explain away this powerful evidence that dinosaurs have been around in relatively recent times.  Source

Long-agers went into intense, but not very effective damage control. Source

The information that there are abundant amounts of soft tissue in creatures supposedly millions of years old is spiralling [sic] out of control. Evolutionists know that they need to confront this dinosaur soft tissue matter head on, and their responses to date have been far from convincing. Source

This is what someone looks like who’s determined to misunderstand the process of science.

What explains this?

If paleontologists think that (1) dinosaur fossils are tens of millions of years and (2) organic material degrades in less time than that, the soft-tissue discovery means either that (1) the fossils aren’t that old or (gasp!) (2) the estimated rate of decay for organic molecules in fossils is wrong. Shocking though it seems, there’s a rather obvious alternative possibility than that the Creationists have been right all along.

The current conclusion is that iron is the key to the soft-tissue puzzle. After death, iron in the dinosaur blood is freed from the blood cells and forms free radicals, which then act like formaldehyde to cross-link the proteins. This cross-linking makes the protein stronger and resistant to decay. One Creationist source sniffed that this iron explanation was an act of “desperation.”

It’s all about the PR

Creationists fight their battles with words, since they don’t have the science on their side. They can imagine that their opponents play the same game.

Such is the power of the evolutionary paradigm that many choose to believe the seemingly impossible rather than accept the obvious implication, that the samples are not as old as they say. Source

Ah, so it’s just a seductive worldview that blinds scientists to the obvious truth. And wouldn’t “We didn’t fully understand how protein degrades” be an even more obvious implication?

About the iron hypothesis:

It’s actually very strategic. By announcing this as ‘the answer’, evolutionists may catch creationists off-balance, lessening the impact of the argument. From now on ‘Joe’ will likely not be surprised if he is presented with the facts of dinosaur soft tissue found in fossils, thinking evolutionary scientists have already explained this. The creationists are crazy to think dinosaurs died out recently! Source

Since Creationists select facts to support their conclusions rather than following those facts to an honest conclusion, they imagine the same deviousness in their enemies. Here they lay out the playbook:

A world that made itself is basic to this religion [of secularism], and it absolutely, definitely needs millions of years. So instead, in the face of this evidence, the desperate search has continued—for some mechanism, even part-way plausible-seeming, to give this belief system some straws to clutch at. Source

Apparently biologists and paleontologists are in the same sad, evidence-denying boat as they are.

The Friendly Atheist summarized this issue a couple of years ago. He came across an article from Ken Ham’s Creation Museum. They’ve been given some dinosaur bones, and David Menton (PhD in cell biology; now a speaker and researcher for Answers in Genesis) plans on looking for organic material inside. The article concludes:

If Dr. Menton finds what he is looking for, you can count on a big write-up for Answers in Genesis in the near future!

In other words, we’ll report on the findings if and only if they support our conclusion.

True to the mission of the museum—“Why God’s infallible Word, rather than man’s faulty assumptions, is the place to begin if we want to make sense of our world”—they have no use for evidence.

Unless they can find a bit that supports their view, in which case they’re all over it.

I would like [this] to be the year when people remembered
that science is a method of investigation,
and NOT a belief system.
— John Cleese

Image credit: Steve Starer, flickr, CC

About Bob Seidensticker
  • busterggi

    So how about the Creationists explain why, if dinosaur (and other) bones are so fresh that they are fossilized at all?

    • Max Doubt

      “So how about the Creationists explain why, if dinosaur (and other) bones are so fresh that they are fossilized at all?”

      Whoa. Isn’t it sufficient that some scientist somewhere doesn’t know everything about everything? Therefore all science that we don’t understand (or don’t want to understand) gets flushed down the toilet and science is eliminated as a method for helping us better understand the universe. Therefore god did it. C’mon, this stuff ain’t so tough.

    • Joe

      Or why did no ancient culture make reference to them?

  • Kevin K

    Of course, they also ignored the fact that Schweitzer is an evangelical Christian. Just not a bat-shit insane one.

  • GubbaBumpkin

    David Menton

    Menton used to be an actual researcher at an actual university. His specialty was electron microscopy. When he retired, he set about lying for Jesus.

    • Kevin K

      Doesn’t take 2 years to crack open dinosaur fossils. If he had found something, we’d know about it by now.

    • rabbit

      Alzheimers?

      • GubbaBumpkin

        Not to my knowledge. Although I am familiar with the institution involved, I did not and do not know Menton well enough to speculate as to whether he is progressing into dementia. Rather, I think he was Christian all along, but that was not apparent in his scientific publication since the peer review process doesn’t let you make fallacious and unsupported claims.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker
      • Tony D’Arcy

        With all respect, please don’t remind me of John Windbag Lennox. I have good blood pressure, but somehow his name raises my blood pressure ! Professor of mathematics at Oxford he might be, but stick to the equations John, please !

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The guy’s got 3 doctorates, but you sure wouldn’t know it given the drivel he’s now sharing.

        • Tony D’Arcy

          There again, if the likes of Lennox, Plantinga, Craig, Swinborn and others are the best Christianity can throw up, then there is good reason for the non-believers to celebrate !

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          If you assign smart people the challenge, “Dig into Christianity and give us the best arguments possible,” you’ll get something. It may not be great, but it’ll be something.

          And yeah, that this is the best they can come up with is pretty damning.

        • Greg G.

          You get the same arguments with more syllables per word.

        • Joe

          I listened to him debate arguments for Christianity on a podcast once. It amounted to an argument from incredulity. I was disappointed.

    • Matt Cavanaugh

      Perhaps he was all along just looking for the angels on the pinhead.

  • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

    This whole strategy is dumb. Just challenge creationists to not partake of any medication or other medical advance which was made because the scientists and doctors involved accepted the theory of evolution. Likewise, challenge them to come up with new medications or other medical advances based on creationism. The proof is in the pudding. Judge a tree by its fruit.

    • Duane Locsin

      This is of course reasonable and would love to put them to the test, but I doubt they would step up to the plate and more inclined to believe what we are actually dealing with here are mostly actors, con artists and scammers.

      A good example is the ‘Psychic challenge’ by magician and myth debunker James Randi. A $1 million dollar prize to those who can demonstrate genuine psychic or telekinetic abilities in a controlled and scrutinized setting and ALL have failed, let alone confirm their psychic ability to win the lottery.

      Not saying all psychics are con artists (some actually mistakenly believe they have psychic abilities), but I put Creationism on a much lower pedestal because of its persistence and extremely insidious nature to effect the minds of younger people and their ability to discern fact from fantasy.

      Professional Creationists will take all the benefits when it comes to STEM for themselves, but continue to rip off gullible believers both financially, intellectually and in some very bad cases at a cost to their health.

      – tell the congregation about the sanctity of marriage~ a few months later get caught in bed smoking crack off a 16 year prostitute’s butt.
      – carry on a campaign to hark on how evil Evolution is, and complain about about the lack of academic freedom and transperancy ~ go to prison for tax evasion and fraud.
      – sell the healing power of miracles and “invest in heaven, get ten fold in return” ~ get caught out for scamming ‘cure for all’ tap water, but continue the scam in a different country later on.

      Surely believers must have read somewhere about charlattans and deceivers in the Bible and what to do about them.

      ***TLDR***

      I’m convinced professional Creationists are con/scam artists ripping believers and the gullible off money and education.

      • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

        There are no doubt some creationist con artists/​scammers. But do you have empirical evidence that they make up of anything like the bulk of creationists? FYI, I used to be a creationist; I was argued out of it via online discussion. If your model of creationists is incorrect, it will hamstring your ability to maximally fight it. Whether or not you care more about your model or more about effectiveness in fighting creationism is up to you. And hey, perhaps there really is empirical evidence that the vast majority of creationist proponents are con artists/​scammers.

        If you want to play hypocrisy wars, we can do that. Shall I expose the patent unscientific nature of many people who claim to be loyal to the evidence and logic? (Or, can we pick the best of the side we’re arguing against instead of the worst?)

        • Tommy

          Duane obviously said “professional” creationists, not “creationist proponents” are con/scam artists. Plus, can you name one professional creationist who to you is not a charlatan and can you explain why you think that person is genuine?

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          I live in a country where people are considered innocent until proven guilty.

        • adam
        • adam
        • adam
        • Tommy

          You did not answer my question. Name one professional creationist who you think is is genuine and explain why you think he/she is.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          I sometimes choose not to answer “Have you stopped beating your wife?”-type questions.

        • adam

          Why?

          Because you havent stopped or because you have?

        • Tommy

          I’ll take your response as an admission that you cannot name any professional creationist who you think is genuine.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          You’re welcome to be irrational.

        • Tommy

          No thanks. You’re living proof of the side effects of irrationality.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          I am beginning to think that you do not understand what the words ‘irrational’ and ‘incoherent’ mean. It seems more parsimonious to understand you as meaning “I dislike X”.

        • Tommy

          I am beginning to think

          Good. Now don’t stop.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          In that case, I should probably interact with you less. Irrationality tends to thwart thinking.

        • Tommy

          You ought to know, Luke. You ought to know.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          Oh I just love the game where by ƒ(person A, person B) = irrational, and then each gets to argue “no u”. It makes the world such a better place, doesn’t it?

        • Tommy

          With you, the world is a less sane place.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          Coming from someone who apparently believes that “Tommy’s club dislikes ⇒ must be incoherent.”, this makes me glad.

        • Susan

          I sometimes choose not to ansswer. “Have you stopped beating your wife?” type questions.</blockquote

          No. You sometimes pretend questions are "Did you stop beating your wife?" when you are cornered.

          It is not a yes or no question.

          It is a request for examples of creationists who is genuine and why you think he/she is.

          From LB:

          I live in a country where people are considered innocent until proven guilty

          In a court of law where someone is accused of violating the law.

          Not in a disucssion. You also live in a country where free speech is (in theory) protected by law and upheld (at high cost).

          Another crappy metaphor, Luke. Theists rely on crappy metaphors when asked perfectly reasonable questions

        • adam

          “You did not answer my question.”

          In case you didnt know, Luke is lying coward.

        • adam
        • Joe

          people are considered innocent until proven guilty.

          Within the legal system.

          In the public domain, I can hold whatever opinion I choose.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          Sure; nobody requires you to engage in evidence-based reasoning or to deploy the kind of reasonableness required for democracy to function.

        • Joe

          Who said my position wasn’t reason based?

          How is having a default position of innocence based on reasoning? That’s an oxymoron.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          I didn’t say “reason”, I said “the kind of reasonableness required for democracy to function”. One can exercise reason while being a dick.

        • Joe

          You also said “evidence based reasoning”, did you not?

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          Sure. You’ve admitted failure on the “evidence” part:

          J: Except we’ve been down this rabbit hole of ‘evidence’, it’s one of your favourite little tricks, and I’m not going there again.

          This gives you carte blanche to make whatever claims you would like about other persons, without supporting them with the burden of proof. I just hope you don’t believe you’re making the world a better place in so acting.

        • Joe

          Nope, we all have experience of you obfuscation, misdirecting, talking bollocks and lying.

          Your gambit is to play the wronged innocent, humbly requesting evidence and being denied by a gang of illogical, unreasonable atheists. It’s totally transparent, we’ve all peeked behind the curtain.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          Nope, we all have experience of you obfuscation, misdirecting, talking bollocks and lying.

          [citation needed]

        • Joe

          No. We went through this before and it was fruitless.

          You get a citation on a quid-pro-quo basis. When you start ponying up evidence and citations, and stop shitting all over threads, I’ll play ball.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          J: Nope, we all have experience of you obfuscation, misdirecting, talking bollocks and lying.

          LB: [citation needed]

          J: No. We went through this before and it was fruitless.

          I doubt you ever produced evidence which would show that I lied.

          You get a citation on a quid-pro-quo basis.

          That sounds absolutely childish. Back up your claims or be known as someone who does not do so.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          When you start ponying up evidence and citations, and stop shitting all over threads, I’ll play ball.

          For what claims which I have made?

    • Tommy

      Who are you and what have you done to the real Luke Breuer?

      • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

        Perhaps your model of me has been wrong for some time.

        • Tommy

          You’re right. I pegged you as a 100% incoherent rambler of nonsense. I was .000001% too high.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          Tommy dislikes ⇒ must be incoherent?

        • Tommy

          I’m far from being the only one.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          Is that supposed to be relevant? I mean, there are a lot of Trump supporters …

        • adam

          But, you are incoherent and dishonest on your own accord.

        • Tommy

          There you go again, rambling incoherent nonsense.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          Ahh: Tommy’s club dislikes ⇒ must be incoherent.

        • Tommy

          Ahh: Tommy’s club dislikes ⇒ must be incoherent.

          Ladies and gentlemen: This is your brain on apologetics.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          You practice apologetics?

        • Tommy

          No. I’ve seen what that does to people.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          In that case, I suggest disassociating “I/we dislike X” from “X is incoherent”. I also suggest engaging in evidence-based reasoning.

        • Tommy

          You first.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          You are welcome to cite and hyperlink any claims I have made for which I did not provide sufficient evidence.

        • Tommy

          Non sequitur jibberish again. You need to stop freebasing apologetics. Say no to mythamphetamines!

        • Joe

          I’ve just blocked the fool. It feels so good, I’m kicking myself for not doing it earlier.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          Oh, so you weren’t implying that I’ve either:

               (1) associated “I/we dislike X” with “X is incoherent”
               (2) failed to engage in evidence-based reasoning

          ? A natural reading of your “You first.” is that I have done (1) and/or (2). But perhaps you merely meant that you need to understand what it’s like to reason properly?

        • Tommy

          Do you never stop jabbering?

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          Do you never stop trolling?

        • Tommy

          Many, many people – including me, where wondering the same about you.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          Let me guess: “You first.” someone doesn’t apply, here?

        • Tommy

          You’re still embarrassing yourself.

        • Tommy

          And yet you can’t answer any simple questions I have.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          You never learned the difference between “can’t” and “won’t”?

        • Tommy

          You never learned to make sense?

        • adam

          No, you are incoherent and dishonest on your own accord.

        • Joe

          No, we all agree here, and we’ve pointed it out to you on multiple occasions.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          Y’all certainly have moaned and groaned on multiple occasions. Whether or not you’ve actually employed logic to demonstrate incoherence is entirely a different matter.

        • Joe

          What else would we employ?

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          Evidence-based reasoning. You know, where you can produce the evidence—enough evidence to properly support the claim.

        • Joe

          Except we’ve been down this rabbit hole of ‘evidence’, it’s one of your favourite little tricks, and I’m not going there again.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          Hey, if you want to be known as someone who does not support his claims with evidence when challenged, that’s your choice. I doubt you’d extend the same privilege to Christians, but humans are notoriously hypocritical.

        • Joe

          Hey, if you want to be known as someone who does not support his claims with evidence when challenged, that’s your choice.

          You already hold that crown. I wouldn’t want to take it from you.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          Care to substantiate that claim? 😀

        • Joe

          When you substantiate a single god claim.

        • http://labreuer.wordpress.com Luke Breuer

          What God claims have I made? On CE, I try rather hard to not make claims which I do not think I can support in a way my interlocutors will accept—no matter how unreasonable I think their standards of acceptance are.

      • Joe

        That’s the most upvotes he’s ever received. It beat his previous best of zero.

    • HairyEyedWordBombThrower
  • rabbit

    This whole thing would be hilarious if it weren’t just pathetic. Those who already believe this rot (Creationism) remain convinced. Everybody else ignores it. I wouldn’t care if there weren’t so many whack-a-doodles in government.

    • Duane Locsin

      Exactly.
      Generally most reasonable people would recognize this as just none sense fantasy (the more scrutinizing would see a con/scam) , but unfortunately the reality it has real world impacts.

      -politicians can further push absurd/corrupt policies not based on hard STEM or even on secular moral arguments but on Religious beliefs.

      -young students can have fundamentally stunted eduction and understanding in STEM (this is a fact that most American Adults actually lag behind most industrialized nations when it comes to very basic STEM fundamentals), which cascades into less ability to get higher college education/qualifications and competitiveness to international students and workforces.

      -financial reasons like Ken Ham’s Ark in Kansas which pretty much cost millions of dollars and left people in the lurch.

      -healthcare, medical and reproductive reasons/choices – anti vaccers (there is a religious component to this), blood transfusions (jehovas witnesses have shown to be against this) and the more usual other issues – abortion, LGBT rights to adopt, contraceptive measures (in particular poor countries in Africa)

      • Michael Neville

        Ham’s Ark is in Kentucky, not Kansas. Otherwise I agree with your post.

        • Greg G.

          It was in Kentucky but that world-wide flood that nobody noticed carried it off to Kansas. Everyone was as oblivious to the flood as the Egyptians and Chinese were to the one in Genesis.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          I just checked the address on line and it appears that Ham’s Ark is back in Kentucky. Must’ve been another flood in the past few days.

        • Greg G.

          I must have been taking a bath because I didn’t notice it.

        • Michael Neville

          If I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard that excuse….

    • Robert Templeton

      Particularly, there seems to be a short link between being a so-called good up-standing Christian and kowtowing to the more fervently radical elements therein. I am not certain if this is just that some of the whack-a-doodles in government believe this themselves or that they are reacting to the loudest, most annoying constituency in their districts.

  • Matt Cavanaugh

    1) The DNA found in fossils add data the “Molecular Clock” which confirms the very long past of evolution;

    2) These trace organic materials were nevertheless found within fossils, (that is, mineral sedimentation replacing the bone or other organic material), which are only produced via process that takes a lot longer than 4,400 years.

    • Rick

      How long does it actually take for fossils to form?

      • Tony D’Arcy

        Two minutes, if you’re a YEC. Much longer otherwise, and well over the Biblical 6000 odd years of the YEC’s universe.

        • Rick

          Is your response based on evidence, or merely snark? Just curious. Evidence is what Bob usually requests.

        • Max Doubt

          “Is your response based on evidence, or merely snark? Just curious.”

          Do you not have access to Google, or are you merely being a smartass?

        • Joe

          I think they’re queuing up for a “nobody has observed fossils forming in real-time” type argument. A-la Ken Ham.

        • Rick

          Thinking of what I’m doing is not the same as evidence. Here is one data point. Feel free to refute. http://www.curiousmeerkat.co.uk/questions/how-long-fossilisation-take/

        • Joe

          What’s there to refute?

          That’s true, and common knowledge. I’m expecting there’s a point to this, or are you just trying to remind us of what we learned in high school?

        • Rick

          I do have access to Google. Thanks for checking. Since you did not provide evidence, here is a link: https://www.reference.com/world-view/long-fossil-form-f4f217114e4a0440#

        • Duane Locsin

          You should actually see a timeline chart of young earth Creationism and how all the events catalogued would fit in a 6000 year period.

          Fossilization occurring in two minutes is not that far off in fantasy land.

        • Tony D’Arcy

          Well my time scale was intended to be humorous, but fair enough if you don’t like it. Seeing as the Earth is some 4.5 billion years old and the earliest known fossils are about 4 bn, and the YECs are claiming the universe to be some 6000+ years, my 2 minute estimate is probably not far off the mark using YEC dating methods.

          But you can check it out for yourself Rick

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil

      • Joe

        Do you actually want to know what scientists think, or are you going to come out with “nobody has observed fossils forming, so how do you know, where you there?”

      • Matt Cavanaugh

        Actually it can be quick so scratch that. The stratum surrounding them is what takes a long time.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        Are you saying that all the T-Rex (and other big dinosaur) fossils took 4000 years to form? Your link says that it can be 1000 years or less, but where does that take us? I’m guessing that that is under particular conditions (soil, water, depth of burial, size of bone, and so on). I’m skeptical that big dinosaur fossils took 4000 years or less, especially since they’re encased in stone, so be sure to show how long that would take as well.

        • Rick

          You can draw your own conclusions. The evidence says that fossils can form rapidly in the right conditions. The evidence says that proteins like collagen don’t last millions of years in any natural process that has been verified. We have a few specific big dinosaur bones that have preserved soft tissue.

          One logical possibility would be that they were formed in a shorter timeline than traditional evolutionary claims state. I don’t know why dinosaurs have to have died out millions of years ago in any case to fit that model, but that seems to be the position of most naturalist who are committed to billions of years of earth history.

          It does not matter to me a great deal how long ago dinosaurs died out, except I’m glad T-Rex is not stalking my dog (or me) today. In any case, they look like fully formed creature that were designed.

          Your article laid out the facts pretty well, until you closed with a position that conflicted with the evidence you had just presented.

        • adam

          ” In any case, they look like fully formed creature that were designed.”

          What are these ‘God’s’ practice creatures?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Read your Bible, my brother! Man came first, then all the animals–see the Garden of Eden story.

          (Unless you’d prefer that the animals came first, and then Man, in which case, see the 6-day-creation story.)

        • Joe

          In any case, they look like fully formed creature that were designed.

          As opposed to what? Creatures that weren’t designed?

        • Robert Templeton

          I’m still waiting for Creationists to tell me the difference between designed and undesigned rocks.

        • Joe

          For me the biggest failure of the “watchmaker fallacy” is that they contrast, say, a watch with nature. Which is apparently also designed.

          You shouldn’t find a watch in the jungle any more remarkable than finding one amongst others in a jewelry store.

        • Greg G.

          If we found a watch in the digestive tract area of a T. rex fossil or in T. rex coprolite, it would be evidence of time travel.

        • Joe

          Why, if God was just designing up things left, right and center?

          A pterosaur with a jet engine? Why not? A fish with propellers? That would be a great design. A land dweller with wheels? That would certainly give it an advantage moving downhill!

          Of course, the designer didn’t bother with this approach, and instead used mostly inefficient, biological mechanisms. He seemed completely unable or unwilling to design things out of non-living material.

        • Max Doubt

          “A pterosaur with a jet engine? Why not?”

          Yep, like Ass Blasters…

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/3e50efd1e19b7f6985c940a43c34ed31750a93b706bb76d7aedd93581ca1b098.jpg

        • Rick

          Evolutionary naturalism, a position held by most contributors on this site, says “creatures” are the result of random chance and natural selection. What is your position?

        • Joe

          My position, and I think I speak for the others here, is that all living matter is a result of very ordered, nonrandom physics and chemistry.

        • Rick

          If it is nonrandom, how do you see it being ordered?

        • Joe

          Nonrandom is ordered. Non meaning not.

          Not random.

        • Pofarmer

          Evolutionary Naturalism isn’t even a thing, except maybe in your home school class.

        • Rick

          What terminology do you prefer?

        • Joe

          Evolution?

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          “As opposed to what? Creatures that weren’t designed?”

          Or, even more puzzling, creatures that weren’t fully formed? What the hell would that look like? Even life forms that perfectly intersect two others will be “fully formed” in whatever state they happen to be in.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The evidence says that proteins like collagen don’t last millions of years in any natural process that has been verified.

          I’ve not read that (except from Creationist sources). You’ll need to back this up.

          One logical possibility would be that they were formed in a shorter timeline than traditional evolutionary claims state. I don’t know why dinosaurs have to have died out millions of years ago in any case to fit that model, but that seems to be the position of most naturalist who are committed to billions of years of earth history.

          There’s that darn evidence again—radioisotope dating of the igneous layers above and below, and so on.

          In any case, they look like fully formed creature that were designed.

          OK. Your challenge is to show that they couldn’t have evolved.

          It does not matter to me a great deal how long ago dinosaurs died out

          That surprises me. I would’ve thought that your worldview would’ve prevented an old-earth conclusion.

          Your article laid out the facts pretty well, until you closed with a position that conflicted with the evidence you had just presented.

          You’ll have to explain that to me.

        • Rick

          You’ll need to back this up.

          Your challenge is to show…

          You’ll have to explain that to me…

          Forgive me, but I don’t have to do any of that. You are the one whose article indicated that the challenges of the scientists like Schweitzer were overblown. That the creationists’ characterization of the iron preservation idea was empty. Show us why. Use evidence, not simply derision.

          One creationist source sniffed…

          Is that the best you’ve got?

          There’s that darn evidence again—radioisotope dating of the igneous layers above and below, and so on.

          OK, so if radiometric evidence shows millions (or billions) of years, does that mean that every fossil must be that old, even the ones with soft tissue? What does your side lose if the dinosaurs became extinct more recently? I guess I don’t see what difference that makes to your arguments about design vs. mutation and natural selection. You’ll have to explain to me what extinction long ago has to do with design. We still don’t have transitional pathways that are evidentiary in nature. They are strictly philosophical guesses until proven.

        • Joe

          OK, so if radiometric evidence shows millions (or billions) of years, does that mean that every fossil must be that old, even the ones with soft tissue?

          Not necessarily, but you’ve got to explain how the bones got there in the first place.

          What does your side lose if the dinosaurs became extinct more recently?

          Nothing. What does your side lose if they are millions of years old?

          You’ll have to explain to me what extinction long ago has to do with design.

          It has nothing to do with design.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You are the one whose article indicated that the challenges of the scientists like Schweitzer were overblown. That the creationists’ characterization of the iron preservation idea was empty. Show us why. Use evidence, not simply derision.

          I have the burden of proof? To do what? Evolution is the scientific consensus, as is 63+ million-year-old dinosaurs. I’m reporting on the scientific consensus, not challenging it. And I’m reporting on Schweitzer’s conclusions. They sound fine to me. If you think that I’ve backed the wrong horse (on either evolution or Schweitzer, that’s fine, but you need to give me evidence why).

          “One creationist source sniffed…”
          Is that the best you’ve got?

          I had two goals with this post: explain the science behind the whole “blood cells in T-Rex bones” thing and give an accurate sense of the Creationists’ arguments, and that includes their tone. That tone was both amusing and telling.

          if radiometric evidence shows millions (or billions) of years, does that mean that every fossil must be that old, even the ones with soft tissue?

          If you’re saying that every conclusion of science is always provisional, even for well-established theories like evolution or Big Bang, then of course you’re right.

          If you’re referring to a fossil that is reliably dated to millions of years old, then, yes, that would have to be that old or the dating technique would be wrong. In this case (T-Rex bones with organic tissue), the dating of the fossils was never questioned, as I understand it, and rightly so, since there was a much more obvious candidate.

          What does your side lose if the dinosaurs became extinct more recently?

          My side? You mean the side of truth? Obviously, I don’t care one way or the other, as long as it’s the truth (or our best approximation thereof). The horse that I’m backing isn’t “old dinosaurs” but “the truth.”

          I guess I don’t see what difference that makes to your arguments about design vs. mutation and natural selection.

          If T-Rex to birds is 4000 years rather than 63M years, then obviously evolution would no longer be the explanation.

          You’ll have to explain to me what extinction long ago has to do with design. We still don’t have transitional pathways that are evidentiary in nature.

          Not sure what “transitional pathways” means. I’m guessing you mean transitions such as that from Eohippus 50M years ago to the modern horse or the transition from a hippo-like land animal to modern whales.

          In that case, I feel an impasse coming on. I’ll say that the evolutionary sequence in these cases is well established and you’ll say it isn’t. I’ll go with the biologists.

          They are strictly philosophical guesses until proven.

          I guess we’ll have a long wait, since science doesn’t prove things.

        • Rick

          Since science doesn’t prove things (an assertion with which I agree) I’m sure you will be backing off your “settled science” and emotionally charged “denier” diatribes. Glad you are in the camp with the rest of us who understand that evolution is not proven but is merely asserted to have been proven and is said to be the consensus.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’m not sure what the issue is. Evolution is both (1) not proven and (2) the consensus. Are you going anywhere interesting with this?

        • Rick

          I’m not sure why you feign ignorance when a comment like this is made, and then you expect others to spell it out. But OK.

          You like to use the term “denier” to describe those who disagree with you. (See your article, A Response to Evolution Deniers: How Complex Comes from Simple) We agree that “Evolution is not proven.” My point in the original post pointing out all the tentative language you need to use to describe what you think happened is that there is little or no evidence on which that consensus is built. It is not settled science and those with differing views ought to be tolerated by your side. That is not the case with you or many of your fellow travelers.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I had no idea this was your point . . . since you didn’t say what your point was. Maybe it’s just that I’m stupid.

          Anyway, now that your point is clear (or clearer): “denier” is appropriate for someone who is not an expert in a technical field (biology, in this case) declaring that the consensus view (of that field of which he’s isn’t an expert) is wrong.

          Let me begin to untangle the confusion displayed in this comment. I was indeed cautious about explaining the causes of the Cambrian Explosion. You may know that the Cambrian Explosion and evolution aren’t the same thing.

          Yes, the causes of the CE aren’t settled. So?

        • Greg G.

          Yes, the causes of the CE aren’t settled. So?

          CE? Cambrian Explosion or Cross Examined?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The cause of Cross Examined is well established, I think.

        • Greg G.

          Science makes predictions on what should be the case if a theory is true. Evolution makes predictions and these predictions can be validated. Intelligent design cannot make predictions. Even you respond with “How do you know the intelligent designer would / would not do that?”

          Yet evolution keeps getting validated the way ID does not.

      • GubbaBumpkin

        Fossils formed in about half an hour
        and they’re delicious!

  • Joe

    Even if true, it would be evidence for a young T-Rex, or old organic material. There are fossils billions of years older, plus other evidence for an old universe.

    • Robert Templeton

      “Prove to me that geological strata and the location of fossils therein denote different time periods of billions of years.” – stated no Creationist.

      YECs simply point to the Noadic flood or Satan to explain the apparent layering and distribution of fossils. Emphasis on ‘simply’.

  • Duane Locsin

    TLDR:

    Creationists are dishonest, cherry pick facts, make up other facts and are there to re-enforce creationist beliefs in Christians and to fool the gullible while also finding ways to ripp them off both financially and intellectually.

    I give creationism as much credibility in tactics and honesty as scam Nigerian emails.

    • Dangitbobby

      They’re experts at cherry picking. They’ve done it to their bible for hundreds of years.

      • Greg G.

        for hundreds thousands of years.

        • Joe

          for hundreds thousands of years as it was being written

        • Robert Templeton

          as it was being written while contemplating writing it.

    • Chuck Johnson

      The Nigerian emails often involve a promise of many millions of dollars.
      So they have created a “Pascal’s Wager” all their own.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Their agenda is hard to put aside, IMO.

  • Eric Collier

    Wait a minute–the iron-cross-link-decay-resistance is the “latest conclusion”. That’s it? That will preserve some soft tissue for 79 million years? Nobody has more contempt for YECs than me, but we better come up with something more substantial than that to explain this phenomenon.

    • Joe

      What’s wrong with that? It’s an explanation that fits into all the other data that we have?

    • Chuck Johnson

      Eric:
      “. . . but we better come up with something more substantial than that to explain this phenomenon.”

      Chuck:
      You are assuming too much.
      You are assuming that you understand, and that scientists understand all of the various possible ways that soft tissue can be naturally degraded or naturally preserved.

      79 million years is involved, and scientists can’t run experiments that last for 79 million years.

      So the long-term durability of soft tissue is one of those “scientific facts” which isn’t all that factual. It is the subject of ongoing research.

      The religionists don’t understand that scientists don’t spend a lot of time trying to win debater’s points. They spend much more time gathering evidence and refining theories.

      Empiricism is pretty much foreign to the creationists. They rely mostly upon political arguments and the tricky use of language.

      Instead of searching for truth and sharing it with their fellow humans (as scientists do), their highest aspiration is to be successfully persuasive.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      I applaud your demand for high-quality evidence.

      I’m no chemist. One of my sources is below. Take a look and see if you’re more convinced.

      http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

      • Kevin K

        Judging by the linked article, I’d say the bigger finding was that scientists have found that soft tissue is preserved a lot longer than they thought it would be/could be under the right circumstances. Looks like they’ve found it in more than one specimen.

        I suspect nobody thought to crack open a dino fossil to see what was inside before this. Because … well … one would expect it to be nothing more than the same minerals that fossilized the outer layers of bone. Surprise!!

        Fun science. Learn something new every day.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The key thing is that this is undermineralized bone–that is, the bone (etc.) haven’t been 100% replaced by dissolved minerals coming in. So there would be some remnants of the bone marrow. It would make sense that they be just dissociated atoms, perhaps. But yeah–who would’ve thought to open one up?

        • Kevin K

          Which makes sense. The conditions under which fossilization occurs requires the presence of such minerals. Run out of minerals … the process stops.

    • Phil Rimmer

      From Rational Wiki.

      Organic molecules—if left undisturbed for thousands if not millions of years—are believed to spontaneously degrade into their component, smaller molecules.[7] However, there is little consensus within the scientific community as to how long this takes. In many cases, traces of organic tissue have been discovered in fossils many millions of years older than the upper limit allowed for by lab experiments.

      The Fe cross-linking makes perfect sense in slowing this chemical (not biological) process.

      Whilst un-testable these decay rates can be modelled these days….

      • chynna

        WIKI is not a reliable source for any information. S I would never quote from there and assume it to be correct.

        • Phil Rimmer

          I assume nothing from any single source.

          There is no such thing as a reliable (single) source of information. (Over the decades “Nature” may prove to be far more hit than miss, but taking a published paper at random, may prove less reliable than a mostly right general wiki article, open for correction.)

          Is your complaint about a source that is a wiki rather than a conventional encyclopaedia say? or

          anout a source that is committed to promoting science and evidential even-handedness? or

          a source that promotes the view that currently little consensus exists on this matter? (The other facts are mostly uncontentious, repeated often enough elswhere.)

          I could have written this entry myself. Would that be more acceptable?

          My point was to imply that the new mode of modelling the physical behaviour of chemistry is at last a means of testing the idea of a chemical compound lifespan with some rigour, overcoming somewhat the current disagreement and that preservative partial chemical changes are indeed a thing (Fe attachment. polymerisation etc.)

    • blogcom

      Agreed

    • Lark62

      Check out Talk Origins. They did not find “Soft Tissue” as we would envision soft tissue. What they found were microscopic bits that look a little bit like tissue and that can be made soft with chemical manipulation. Not quite what the creationists are feeding their followers /money tree.

      • Eric Collier

        That’s another thing I find a little off-putting. Ive seen several different theories to explain this finding (its not really soft tissue; its soft tissue but we must have been wrong about how long soft tissue can remain soft, etc) and the sources putting the theories forward sound like they are guessing. They sound stumped.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’m new at this myself, but I found compelling the hypothesis that the proteins are cross-linked (that is, not the original protein but a mass of randomly interconnected amino acids). The cause is iron-based free radicals.

          Are there other compelling theories?

  • Dangitbobby

    My question is…if their entire belief system is supposed to be founded on faith, if Jesus lauded faith and demanded his followers believe through faith alone…why are christian’s so desperate for evidence?

    • Tommy

      Because deep down they know faith is not a path to truth.

      • RichardSRussell

        Correct. Nobody cites faith if they have evidence.

    • blogcom

      Aren’t you the ones normally demanding evidence? So you turn the tables now.

      • Tommy

        Wrong. What @disqus_Z8HGMhc5O3:disqus is saying is that their doctrine of faith being sufficient for the truth of their beliefs and evidence is not required is contradicted by the fact that they are constantly appealing to “evidence” as confirmation for their beliefs.

      • Dangitbobby

        Back when I was a fundy, I listened to sermon after sermon after sermon about faith alone. How we were to believe not because of evidence, because of faith. Blah blah blah blah blah.

        Whole bible studies dedicated to the topic of faith. Countless NT verses talking about believing by faith alone.

        I have never, in any discussion with a christian, ever heard one utter the words “I don’t have evidence, I believe due to faith.”

        That, at least for me, would garner a bit more respect than one who attempts to heap worthless, illogical, pretzel-twisted apologetics and convoluted/mistaken or subjective “evidence” on me; that only points to their own doubts, instead of evidence for the truth.

        I don’t believe in god/jesus/sin because there is no evidence and I think believing by faith alone is silly and possibly dangerous. But at least a christian is doing what their jesus told them by believing on faith alone. And by doing so, they would be far more intellectually honest.

        • Pofarmer

          “I don’t have evidence, I believe due to faith.”

          MnB used to refer me to Kierkegard for this very view. If you have faith, you have faith, you don’t need evidence.

        • chynna

          Faith is the denial of reality

    • Iain Lovejoy

      Because “faith” doesn’t (to all but possibly a few fundangelicals ignorant of nearly 2000 years of Christian thought) mean “belief without evidence”, contrary to the (ironically largely unevidenced) belief of many atheists. It in fact means principally “trust” and refers to the willingness to act on belief. The difference between “faith” and simple belief is not believing without evidence but the difference between believing a plane will fly and actually getting on it.

      • Dangitbobby

        Trust in what though?

        In order to TRUST something, you have to actually BELIEVE it to be real.

        I believe that plane is real. I can see it. I can touch it. I can watch it take off and land. I can talk to people who’ve been on it. I can get on it myself. I can talk to the pilot and ask him about his experiences, his education, and such. I can talk to the engineers who design the planes. I can talk to people who build the planes. I can look at the math behind the physics that makes the plane fly. I can see the tiny model planes fly and can watch videos of the test versions flying.

        Christians must ultimately believe without evidence – because there is simply is *none*. No evidence that will stand up to objective scrutiny.

        You believe because you want to believe. It’s simple as that. Anything else is intellectual dishonesty. Any evidence you present for your god can be presented for any other god from any other religion in the world, from the most fundy to the most liberal. And all of them are just as “right” as you are.

        So no, you are very incorrect. And you’re being intellectually dishonest. You believe despite zero evidence. You might believe because you accept cognitive biases as evidence, but I just covered that above. You might want to believe that you believe via evidence, but that’s so you can feel justified, logically, in your belief.

        But hey, if you want to lie to yourself to feel comfortable believing in something without evidence, be my guest. If it helps you sleep better at night, having “…confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see” have at it.

      • Sagrav

        Every Christian believer that I’ve spoken to on this subject literally stated that faith is belief without evidence. Us nonbelievers typically use that definition of the word ‘faith’ because this is the definition that we are typically given.

        • Deryl Fisher

          That is the Biblical definition. Anyone can look it up if they wish. I am not going to waste my time I have more important things to do such as walk the plants and water the dog.

        • Only Some Stardust

          Definitions evolve over time. Most people aren’t still speaking Hebrew.

      • Michael Neville

        So what’s your evidence that any god exists? Remember there’s more than the sadistic bully you worship. The collection of myths, fables and lies called the Bible isn’t evidence. Please don’t give me Josephus. The Testimonium Flavianum is a 4th Century forgery. So what’s your evidence that your faith isn’t based on wishful thinking?

      • Dangitbobby

        A few other points:

        1. I believe Donald “Pussygrabber” Trump is real. Since we are talking about “faith” as defined as trust, though, then I have “zero” faith in Donald Trump. But I know the man is real. Therein lies the difference.

        2. If you can supply REAL objective evidence that your god actually exists, then I am fully willing to accept this god as real.

        But…your job is only half done.

        You would then need to provide evidence that this god is worthy of worship. My worship isn’t for sale just to the most powerful. If this deity is real, then whether or not I trust in it to do what I believe is the right and, therefore, worthy of my worship, I need evidence that it isn’t some fucked up joker like it sure seems to be.

        However, did you notice the order of importance?

        First – I need evidence, real evidence, that this god even exists.
        Only AFTER that, will I look at evidence that this god is worthy of worship. Because I can’t worship something that isn’t real.

  • Kuno

    If the organic material in this one fossil means that the Earth is only 6000 years old, how do you explain all those other fossils which are completely mineralized?

    • Robert Templeton

      Exactly the argumentative question I was going to propose. So, one of millions and millions of fossils has nearly-improbable preserved soft-tissue. Yeah. Nearly improbable – not impossible!

      It is analogous to someone stepping on a spot in a demarcated mine-field that doesn’t have a mine and declaring that there are no mines – except that in this case, the mines are contiguously planted but for that one spot.

  • blogcom

    Of course if the projected dates of the dinosaur fossils are considerably out, say millions of years against a max of between 10 000 to 20 000 its not only embarrassing but does blow the evolutionary time frame right out of the water however one spins it.

    • Joe

      say millions of years against a max of between 10 000 to 20 000 its not only

      Who says they’re millions of years out?

      does blow the evolutionary time frame right out of the water

      How?

    • KelpieLass

      There is no magic fairy that poofs away all existing evidence everytime a new piece of evidence is found.

      When scientists come across something new, their revised explanation must account for ALL of the evidence not merely the new data point.

      • Max Doubt

        “There is no magic fairy that poofs away all existing evidence everytime a new piece of evidence is found.”

        Well dammit, speaking on behalf of all god believers everywhere, that rule sorta sucks, don’t it?

        • chynna

          No it does not suck at all. The new evidence is evaluated and added to the mountains of evidence already in existence. There are not gaps in the evolutionary
          theory. Just hundreds of thousand of different samples and research that all add up to the exact same conclusion.

          What really does suck is the fact that there is absolutely nothing to support any claims to a young earth idea. But that does not stop the idiots who want to believe in fantasies. The facts remain that the bible has never been verified and none of the original authors are known. It is nothing more than a book of fiction written by men who wanted to be more important that they really were. They were superstitious uneducated sheep herders who did not know where the sun went at night.

          “One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:
          A few words need to be said about the “theory of evolution,” which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, “theory” often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, “theory” means “a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.” as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors–the historical reality of evolution–is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth’s revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved “facthood” as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled “New evidence for evolution;” it simply has not been an issue for a century.”
          – Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

          “One of the best introductory books on evolution (as opposed to introductory biology) is that by Douglas J. Futuyma, and he makes the following comment:
          A few words need to be said about the “theory of evolution,” which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, “theory” often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, “theory” means “a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed.” as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors–the historical reality of evolution–is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth’s revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved “facthood” as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled “New evidence for evolution;” it simply has not been an issue for a century. ”
          – Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986, Sinauer Associates, p. 15

        • Only Some Stardust

          Only if you hate existing evidence and wish it didn’t exist.

          It’s like seeing something fly upward and wishing this made all the existing evidence for gravity disappear. It wouldn’t; the other gravity phenomena and evidence would still have to be explained by whatever new paradigm develops to explain the thing flying upward.

          What you really want is something that can’t fit in with the existing theory in any way – say a crocodile-duck-rabbit hybrid in the Pre-Cambrian era that shoots laser beams. Even then, as one point of data, it would be hard to say it wasn’t just a one-off hoax; you’d want more than one, found independently by different people, and then verified rigorously again, just like people did with the Platypus. Science is a painstaking process.

    • epeeist

      Of course if the projected dates of the dinosaur fossils are
      considerably out, say millions of years against a max of between 10 000
      to 20 000

      What you disregard is the idea of consonance, the fact that we don’t have multiple sets of isolated data points. What we do have is a mesh of evidence from many sources and disciplines.

      Is it possible a single data point could falsify this? Theoretically yes, but practically extremely unlikely.

    • Kevin K

      Um. No. That’s just … wrong.

      Go ahead, say “carbon dating”. I DARE you.

    • RichardSRussell

      And if frogs had wings, they wouldn’t whomp their butts every time they jump.

      If.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Why are the conventional dates of the fossils out? Why not just hypothesize that we misunderstood what happens to bone marrow in undermineralized fossils? Isn’t that the obvious answer?

  • Guthrum

    Does this mean that cloning is more possible ?

    • Joe

      No, there’s no organic material left.

      • mikehorn

        Careful about “organic”. More accurately, there isn’t anything genetic left, nothing that would help in a cloning.

  • Lark62

    Note. A quick search of Talk Origins produced several articles on “dinosaur DNA.” These articles are a few years old. Factual info has been readily available for a while.

    These were long and technical. The major takeaways (that I could understand):

    1. No “globs” of tissue were found. None. Nothing was visible to the naked eye. There were microscopic bits found in the bone that after a few weeks of chemical manipulation in a lab looked kinda sorta like microscopic bits of soft tissue.

    2. Creationists consistently misrepresent what was found, how big it was, what it looked like, what it was made of, and the amount of laboratory manipulation required to reconstitute it as something that looked like soft tissue.

    Leaving the creationists with nothing to say but “We would have gotten away with it if it weren’t for those meddling facts.” Scooby dooby doo.

    The finding is interesting, but does not negate any existing paleontologal evidence.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Right. My mental image is of proteins that became interlocked into a mass of amino acids.

      If the mineralization has stopped, those atoms aren’t going anywhere and are trapped there for 63 million years (or whatever it is). They’ll be in some form. It’s quite interesting that they’ve turned into something that looks tissue-y, but that’s it.

      http://willbunnett.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/umasked.jpg

      • Lark62

        Gee, I wonder why reading the creationists reports left me with the idea that they found a big soggy of bloody tissue? Would they lie???

      • Jim Jones

        If wanna watch tele, you should watch Scooby Doo.
        That show was so cool
        because every time there was a church with a ghoul
        Or a ghost in a school
        They looked beneath the mask and what was inside?
        The fucking janitor or the dude who ran the water-slide.
        Because throughout history
        Every mystery
        EVER solved has turned out to be
        Not Magic.

        — Tim Minchin, Storm

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          “Do you know what they call alternative medicine that’s been proven to work?

          “Medicine.”

        • Greg G.

          Alternative medicine is based on alternative facts.

  • Susana Gonzalez

    Bob….Do you believe un ghosts?

  • Susana Gonzalez

    Is the same question i posed to an atheist friend. He said yes, there is evidence for ghosts. Your opinion Bob…

    • chynna

      There have been thousand of people investigating ghosts and other phenomena. No evidence exists.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      I see no evidence anything supernatural, ghosts included.

      • Susana Gonzalez

        Not even the videos from cameras filmed for real and the witnessing of hundreds of people ? Are you dismissing all this proofs ?

        • Michael Neville

          Have you contacted the James Randi people to claim the million dollar prize? If you had real, unfaked film of ghosts then you’d win it. Somehow I doubt you do.

        • Joe

          Which ones are real?

          Hundreds of people witnessed David Copperfield make the statue of Liberty disappear.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yes, I’m dismissing all these “proofs.” Michael’s comment was on target: if there’s proof of the supernatural, don’t waste time yakking to me–go get the JREF prize. Not only do you get $1 million, but you get scientific validation for your supernatural claims.

        • Jim Jones

          Never happened.

        • Max Doubt

          “Not even the videos from cameras filmed for real and the witnessing of hundreds of people ? Are you dismissing all this proofs?”

          Is your use of the word “proof” here as loose a use of language as your act of writing “fact” in your comment above?

        • Susana Gonzalez

          My point is, what is your opinion of those videos with spiritual entities..?

        • Max Doubt

          “My point is, what is your opinion of those videos with spiritual entities..?”

          Not sure I’ve ever seen a video with a spiritual entity. I’m betting you can’t, but go ahead and try to define “spiritual entities” in an unambiguous way.

      • Susana Gonzalez

        My atheist friend mentioned to me: I do believe in ghost, but I do not believe in God. Then I responded to him: ghosts are from another dimension, we call the spiritual world. He seemed to agree with this. Still he never admitted the fact God is a spiritual Being.

        • Joe

          Then I responded to him: ghosts are from another dimension

          Are they? You have evidence of this?

          Still he never admitted the fact God is a spiritual Being.

          Why would he?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I guess I don’t think like your atheist friend, so I your response to him may not convince me.

        • Greg G.

          How do you know that ghosts are from another dimension? What research has been done? Are you getting your information from fake ghost hunters on cable TV?

        • Joe

          It’s funny how the information people have on ghosts is the same as their societies’ cultural view of ghosts?

          Same as people’s intimate knowledge of god is exactly the same as currently existing theology.

        • Nullifidian

          Susana,, here is a proof that ‘God’ does not exist. (This is a practical proof: absolute proofs are only possible within a formal system of logic, such as mathematics.)

          First we must define the term ‘God’. It necessarily refers solely to a theistic god, (that is, one that interferes in human affairs). A deistic god doesn’t cut the mustard; it would be, with our present level of scientific understanding, indistinguishable from the unknown process that begat the laws of nature. The same goes for a pantheistic god. So, we are therefore concerned with the likes of Allah, Amun-Ra, Athena, Brahma, Gitche-Manitou, Quetzalcoatl, Wotan, Yahweh, Zeus, and many others.

          The first question to be addressed is whether or not these are all the same being. From what I have heard, many of the followers of these gods would have it that they are not the same. This notion is reinforced by the consideration that, if it were the same god, then it wouldn’t reveal itself in different guises, not when that leads to warfare between opposing followers, and the appallingly sadistic treatment of those well-meaning folk accused of heresy. And it surely wouldn’t fail to reveal itself to all those folks who are, or were, followers of animistic religions, or who are just plain atheists. That just wouldn’t be fair when rewards are held to be available to the true believers, and sometimes, punishment for the unbelievers, whose only ‘crimes’ are being unaware of a revelation, or being rational, and truthful to themselves.

          The bottom line is that the various gods are deemed to have particular qualities, such as omniscience and omnipotence, if they are monotheistic. If they are, supposedly, members of a pantheon, then they have more human-like attributes, although to a superhuman degree. It is therefore safe to conclude that the list of names quoted above, and thousands more that are un-named, refer to different gods. Now, it is obvious that they can’t all be running human affairs, (although there was a time when it was commonly believed that the known gods were trying to do just that, and were competing against each other). Ba’al and Yahweh and Moloch were supposed to be heavily involved in the human politics of Mesopotamia and other regions of the Middle East. But our modern understanding of sciences such as geology and astronomy, and of history, geography, and psychology, now preclude that sort of scenario. The evidence, as now interpreted, clearly rules out the existence of a host of competing gods, so we are able to conclude that there is either only one god, (or one group of related gods, which is effectively the same thing), or else there are none at all.

          We are now in a position to determine whether or not there is a theistic god. The believer has either to point to its effects upon the World and the affairs of man, or define it as an ontological necessity. The former course is not tenable since Darwin clearly showed that the complexity and apparent design in living organisms is possible due to the effects of natural selection. Cosmology has shown us a Universe of incomprehensible size and complexity, dwarfing our solar system, and this universe may be part of a Multiverse. And simply claiming that there is a god, according to a believer’s definition, no matter how theologically convoluted that might be, is no proof that such a being exists. Historically, all such attempts have failed. The devotee’s feeling of the immanence of such a being is also no proof, because that is merely a psychological state of theirs. The fact of the universe’s existence, that there is something rather than nothing, does not require a god. After all, a god would be a something too. It is sufficient to say that we do not presently understand why there is something rather than nothing, but we will try to find out.

          Another consideration is that the existence of a god entails an additional type of substance in the universe, namely ‘spirit’, in addition to matter and energy. Otherwise, any gods would simply be part of the natural universe, and wouldn’t be supernatural at all. There is, of course, no evidence of such a substance. Occam’s razor is not an irrefutable principle of logic, but it does suggest that explanations of the universe that specify the existence of a god, when such an entity isn’t necessary to explain what we observe, should be abandoned in favour of a less complex explanation. The godless explanation is actually more reasonable, being more in accord with the Universe as we find it, that is to say, completely indifferent to the aspirations of man, or to anything else.

          It therefore follows that there is no evidence for the specific god that a particular theist might posit. A host of other gods have been proposed too, so, clearly, gods are created by man, rather than vice versa. From this it follows that there are no theistic gods that accord to anyone’s definition. It’s no good claiming that the deity is a trickster god, because that’s not what the faithful believe in. Admittedly, the polytheists’ gods were capable of trickery: consider, also, the minor god Satan in the Christian religion. But the boss god was supposed to maintain order, by being the most powerful. We can, therefore, safely conclude that there is no “God”. This is just as strong a claim as that made for the non-existence of fairies at the bottom of the garden, which is about as robust a claim as anyone can possibly make.

        • Max Doubt

          “Still he never admitted the fact God is a spiritual Being.”

          A fact? It is a fact that some being named God is a spiritual being? So is there a difference between being a being and being a Being, or is your choice to use the upper case “B” arbitrary? And as far as calling that a fact, wouldn’t you agree the word “fact” should only apply if the alleged being can be shown to actually exist and if the word “spiritual” can actually be defined? It seems pretty certain you are unable to do either. Care to entertain us by giving it a shot?

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          “Still he never admitted the fact God is a spiritual Being.”

          Why would he?

          For the sake of argument, I’ll play along: ghosts exist and are from a spiritual dimension. Why does it follow that another hypothesized spiritual being exists? Does that mean our physical dimension must contain all conceived physical beings?

          EDIT: Can anyone tell me how to create bold and italic text?

        • Greg G.

          EDIT: Can anyone tell me how to create bold and italic text?

          Some HTML works in Disqus but not all.

          <b>bold</b> = bold
          <i>italics</i> = italics
          <u>underline</u> = underline
          <blockquote>blockquote</blockquote> =

          blockquote

          <strike>strike</strike> = strike
          <spoiler>spoiler</spoiler> = spoiler

          The slash is very important in the closing part of the tag. “Blockquote” must be spelled correctly. “Spoiler” is for Disqus only and is not standard HTML.

          PS:
          <u><i><b>this</b></i></u> = this

          <a href=”webaddress”>Title or text</a> = an active link

          <removetypos>removetpyos</removetypos> = removetpyos < still not working

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          Thanks! Let me know when they finally add that typo code. :)

        • Hawkmoon

          thanks

        • Greg G.

          You’re welcome!

        • Susana Gonzalez

          Hi. I believe you have already the answer. If you classify ghosts from spiritual dimension, so apostle Paul:
          Ephesians 6:2 “For we are not fighting against flesh-and-blood enemies, but against evil rulers and authorities of the unseen world, against mighty powers in this dark world, and against evil spirits in the heavenly places.”

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          This doesn’t address the question I asked.

        • Max Doubt

          “This doesn’t address the question I asked.”

          Funny how that’s predictably the sort of response we all too frequently get from people who believe gods exist.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          “Does that mean our physical dimension must contain all conceived physical beings?” Spiritual beings are and have always been in our “physical dimension” is just that we do cannot see them. Some children, and grown people, some animals can see them. Strangely also people in drugs. Since ancient times mshrooms have been used as a door to contact the spirits around us. There is another Spiritual dimension where God resides. Beyond our physical earth. The uncountable stories of “gods” through human history do not come from imagination./ They are real./ *have always existed*

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          This is just as unrelated and nonsensical as before, but you included my question this time so I guess that’s progress.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          We are going in circles. you will ask me an evidence of God and I will ask you an evidence of “that GOD does not exist” Since ancient times, men has built empires and believed in any sort of a god. (any name, does not matter). Billions of people believing yesterday, today and tomorrow. The burden to prove that there is no god, relies on the tiny minority of godless people. The truth is that you cannot prove that God does not exist. Besides by logic, you cannot deny something you do not believe exist…

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          We aren’t going in circles, you just keep offering responses that have nothing to do with the question being asked.

        • epeeist

          I will ask you an evidence of “that GOD does not exist”

          Let’s try this one. On an unnamed planet in IOK-1 live a race of sentient, free floating gas bags. They have been around a lot longer than us and they know that their god exists and that all other gods are simply made up.

          Prove that their god does not exist.

          Billions of people believing yesterday, today and tomorrow.

          Lots of people believed that the sun went around the earth, it didn’t make it true. Just because people believe something doesn’t make it true.

          The burden to prove that there is no god

          No, the person making the ontological commitment has the burden of proof.

          Besides by logic, you cannot deny something you do not believe exist.

          So who taught you logic? Whoever it was did a very poor job.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          “Prove that their god does not exist.” There is only ONE GOD. People has named in different ways, it does not matter, the point is that people believed, believes and will believe in GOD. Example. The indigenous people in Canada used to believe in the GREAT SPIRIT. Christians call God the Holy Spirit. They do not differ much, we only show them, that his name on earth was Jesus.

          “No, the person making the ontological commitment has the burden of proof.” Billions of people believe in GOD. Because is real. /just because a tiny minority does not believe in GOD, the burden of proof goes to you.

          If you claim that life comes from a series of coincidences, then you are out of any rational claim. Life only comes from the source of life. You came to existence because of your mother and father and so on… until Adan and Eve. 2 living beings perfectly created, with so much magnificence by a living GOD.
          Because as Adan and Eve, you did not create yourself, did you?
          you came from 2 mini-cells where all your heritage of your ancestors was written and encoded in your DNA. See? this is what evolution claim so far. That “humans”came from micro-cells that through billions of years from a series of coincidence, mutation etc evolved to a human.
          But your evolution from 2 mini cells to a human being, only took 9 months in your mom womb!
          Evolution debunked. :)
          This world has so much intelligence in any single cell, that you still cannot understand. Neither I.

        • epeeist

          There is only ONE GOD.

          Unsubstantiated assertion and by no means an answer to the question I raised.

          Billions of people believe in GOD.

          Argumentum ad Populum. As I said, at one time everybody believed that the sun went round the earth, they were wrong. Just because many people believe in something doesn’t make it true.

          Life only comes from the source of life.

          Unsubstantiated assertion.

          until Adan and Eve. 2 living beings perfectly created, with so much magnificence by a living GOD.

          Unsubstantiated assertion. Oh, and the Adam and Eve? Didn’t exist.

          That “humans”came from micro-cells that through billions of years from a
          series of coincidence, mutation etc evolved to a human.

          Gibberish, unsubstantiated assertion and straw man.

          Evolution debunked. :)

          Unsubstantiated assertion.

          Frankly I don’t think you could debunk yourself out of a wet paper bag never mind debunk a theory for which there is a mass of evidence and which has passed critical testing over and over again.

          Neither I.

          Well that is rather obvious.

          Is this all you have got, a mess of gibberish, unsubstantiated assertions, logical fallacies and ignorance?

        • busterggi

          “Is this all you have got, a mess of gibberish, unsubstantiated assertions, logical fallacies and ignorance?”

          no, she also has faith in an invisible giant who lives in the sky. sanity, not so much.

        • Michael Neville

          There is only ONE GOD.

          That’s not what the Hindus say. So why are you right and they are wrong?

          Billions of people believe in GOD. Because is real. /just because a tiny minority does not believe in GOD, the burden of proof goes to you.

          The argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy.

          Two things about the burden of proof:

          It’s generally accepted that it’s impossible to prove a negative, so the burden of proof is on the people making the positive claim, in this case that there is a god.

          You seem confused about two different claims. We do not say “gods do not exist”, which is a claim which requires the same sorts of evidence as the claim that gods do exist. Rather we say “we do not believe that gods exist.” The only evidence required is our statements of belief.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          “That’s not what the Hindus say. So why are you right and they are wrong?”
          I am not saying they are wrong. I am saying there is only ONE GOD.
          Known by many names. Read again my response.
          “The only evidence required is our statements of belief.” Yes you base your knowledge in belief. Not very different from believers.

        • Michael Neville

          The Hindus say there are 30 million gods. Even without taking off my shoes I can determine that’s about 29,999,999 more gods than your one god.

          Yes you base your knowledge in belief. Not very different from believers.

          There’s one major difference. We know why we don’t believe in gods, there’s no evidence for their existence. You also know there’s not evidence for gods so you fall back on faith to support your belief in imaginary, fictitious, non-existent gods. If you had evidence you wouldn’t need faith. Over the centuries theologians, priests, shamans, and other assorted godbotherers have convinced the gullible that this faith is actually a good thing.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Billions of people believe in GOD. Because is real.

          Not really. You and your billions can’t even agree on how many gods there are, or their name(s), or how to placate them.

          Oops.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          oh there are many impostors deities for sure! (demons) but there is only one GOD. What is matter is the fact that they believe in a superior being.

        • Michael Neville

          So what’s your evidence that your favorite god is the one and only true god? Remember that the collection of myths, fables and lies called the Bible is not evidence.

        • Susana Gonzalez
        • Michael Neville

          Lots of serious historians dismiss the Bible as a historical document.

          Hint: Links to Christian apologetics sites do not support your arguments. Try linking to unbiased sites like this one. Joel Hoffman is a historian.

          History and fiction mingle throughout the Old Testament, so these divisions are just rough guides. Jeremiah’s historical description of the siege on Jerusalem is not the same as Ezekiel’s non-historical vision of the dry bones, just as there are historical elements (like the invention of fire-hardened bricks) even in the non-historical account of the Tower of Babel.

          The interesting point here is not that some of these stories happened and some didn’t (though that’s almost certainly true). The point is that the Bible itself portrays them differently, only presenting some of them as having happened. In other words, sometimes “believing the Bible” means believing that a story in it didn’t happen.

          All of this is important for people who want to believe, for instance, that a man named Jesus was crucified in ancient Jerusalem (as described in the Gospels) even if they don’t believe that a donkey spoke aloud (Numbers); or that Jews lived in Jerusalem during the first millennium BC (Kings, for example) even if they didn’t leave Egypt 600,000 strong (Exodus).

          More generally, this recognition that Bible stories are not all the same is part of understanding the essence of the Bible, and is crucial for people who believe that the Bible remains relevant even if parts of it aren’t true.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          How lucky that you were born into the right religion! And how curious that billions of other people think the same thing but worship different god(s).

        • Susana Gonzalez

          That is the reason we have a duty: Mathew 28
          18Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to Me. 19Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, 20and teaching them to obey all that I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”…

        • Michael Neville

          You do realize that atheists do not consider the Bible to be authoritative.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Who was Jesus addressing? Hint: it wasn’t you.

          The Great Commission was given to the apostles.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          Do you really think apostles would live until the end of the world?

          Mathew 24:14 “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the **end will come.”

          So who exactly is doing the preaching of the Gospel to a testimony of all nations today?

          Paul tell to the churches..
          1 Corinthians 9:14
          In the same way, the Lord commanded that those who proclaim the gospel should get their living by the gospel.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I don’t think that the apostles would live until the end, but the story says that Jesus did. He certainly got that prophecy wrong.

        • Greg G.

          So who taught you logic? Whoever it was did a very poor job.

          Unless she is self-taught, I wouldn’t blame the teacher.

        • epeeist

          Well that’s the problem with auto-didacts isn’t it, the quality of the teaching is so poor.

        • epeeist

          This doesn’t address the question I asked.

          She isn’t here to answer questions, she is here to preach.

      • Jim Jones

        Supernatural is a null word. — Heinlein.

    • Joe

      Atheists can still believe in ghosts, UFO’s and more.

      Most of them don’t. Myself included.

    • Dys

      Young earth creationism has been thoroughly debunked. That’s not an opinion, that’s simply the truth.

      • Rick

        Really? With evidence or simply with derision? The two are different as far as I can tell.

        • Pofarmer

          The first, then the later.

        • Joe

          With evidence or simply with derision?

          Why not both?

          *Cue fiesta music*

        • Dys

          Evidence. Geology and cosmology have both rendered it a completely untenable position. Young earth creationism isn’t a scientific position, it’s a religious one.

    • BillYeager

      He said yes, there is evidence for ghosts.

      Did he then go on to provide the details of what that supposed evidence consisted of? I’m betting he either didn’t or he cited the kind of ‘evidence’ that has to be put in scare-quotes because it is so ludicrously dishonest and fallacious.

      While being atheist does not necessarily preclude one from believing in the unbelievable, it is quite unusual for a person to be reasonable enough to understand the stinking pile of bronze-age fallacies which coalesced to form what we know as religion, only to then fail to maintain intellectual integrity when considering the extraordinary claims made towards the ‘paranormal’.

      Nutshell: There has never been any evidence to support the existence of the ‘paranormal’.

    • epeeist

      Your opinion

      My opinion? Ghosts are supposedly non-material, yes?

      So, you have a non-material entity which manages to stay in the same place on an earth that is rotating on its axis, orbiting the sun and also moving through the galaxy. How does this work?

      You also have these purported ghosts interacting with the material, speaking to us, making noises, throwing things about. So how does the interaction between the non-material and the material work.

      Let’s also consider things like conservation laws, if these ghosts do exist then presumably they have energy requirements in the same way as everything else especially if they interact with the material, so where does the energy come from and how does that effect things like Noether’s theorem. If the claim is that they do not conform to the “laws of physics” then what laws (if any) do they conform to?

      • Kodie

        Plus, they are often reported as wearing clothes. Ghosts of clothes.

        I have to admit, I used to be agnostic about whether ghosts existed. I was sure if they did, there would be some scientific explanation for, what has long been apparently canon in movies where ghosts are real – the traumatic separation of something I guess a soul, and the body at death. I didn’t think anything spiritual about it, otherworldly realm or such, and I guess naively, that the part being called a soul, or whatever, might be something that normally dies with the body but sometimes doesn’t, in the case of ghosts.

        Anyway, it was an explanation such as yours that did it for me. If a ghost can talk, it needs a voice box, but that’s part of the body. Lacking material whatsoever, haunting places by looking out the window or jiggling doorknobs or rocking in chairs, appearing as though it still had a body for some reason, wearing clothes that are also immaterial, is all pretty silly to me now, but yeah, it had to be pointed out to me, and despite me not thinking it was a spiritual type of belief, it turns out it is. When the brain dies, that mind activity that religious people think of as a soul is shut off. It doesn’t live in your old house or the abandoned psychiatric hospital or the cemetery.

        Part of my beliefs about ghosts had an awful lot to do with what I wished for after I died – to fuck with people. Lol.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’d not thought of clothes having ghosts as well (ghosts can’t have real clothes, I suppose; otherwise, they’d be opaque). I guess that makes as much sense as all the rest of it.

        • JustAnotherAtheist2

          Ha! Ghosts of clothes! I never heard or thought of that before. :)

      • freethinker666

        He Saw a Ghost it occupied that awful thing
        the path that he was following
        he fell as fall the early good
        unmoved that awful vision stood.
        The stars that danced before his ken
        he wildly brushed away and THEN
        he saw post.

      • Susana Gonzalez

        ” so where does the energy come from” Is the same energy that sustain all things together. The one that keeps universe working, the one that makes a seed to become a tree. some people call it “mother nature” others call “series of coincidences.” We theists know this energy is GOD Himself.

        • epeeist

          Is the same energy that sustain all things together.

          Which answers none of the questions I raised. Your response is so vague as to be meaningless.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          Colosians 1:17 “16For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. “

        • epeeist

          And this is meant to demonstrate what precisely?

          Why should I take anything from the mythos of an obscure Middle Eastern tribe as being true in any way?

        • Susana Gonzalez

          IS not a “obscure” myth of a Middle Eastern Tribe. Is a group of people who contributed greatly to shape countries laws through the Bible and its 6 billions of copy already distributed with 2500 language translations. You should wonder why a 3800 book still impact people life. Nobody will ever said that this is a myth, the Bible has many archeological and historical proofs, that you as well informed person, should look and investigate before to issue such statements.
          And your opinion of being truthful or not, will not change this fact. What it demonstrate? that a simply true written 2000 years ago, confirm what science now today./ WE are surrounded of invisible things that we start to study and discover

        • epeeist

          IS not a “obscure” myth of a Middle Eastern Tribe.

          Well no, not completely. It also contains abstracted material from the Enuma Elish and the Epic of Gilgamesh.

          Is a group of people who contributed greatly to shape countries laws through the Bible

          Well yes there are countries that derive elements of their culture and laws from the bible. Equally there are countries that derive their culture and laws from the Vedas, Confucian Analects, the Quran or the sayings of the Buddha. And we shouldn’t neglect the derivation of elements of Western culture from philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle or from the laws and practices of, say, the world’s oldest parliament the Alþingi.

          the Bible has many archeological and historical proofs

          Proofs of what precisely? Am I prepared to accept that the bible mentions cities like Jericho and Jerusalem? Of course. How about things like the Exodus or the Noachic flood? Let’s be charitable and say there is no evidence for these and certainly for the latter lots of evidence against.

          WE are surrounded of invisible things that we start to study and discover

          You mean things like muons or the Higgs field? Yes, I can go with those, lots of evidence for those. Ghosts and spirits? No substantive evidence for either of those I am afraid. You could prove me wrong of course, but I doubt you are able to do so.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          “How about things like the Exodus or the Noachic flood?”
          You should read more about the flood. Actually (now with the current subject of climate change) the flood caused a tremendous climate change. WE got the seasons after.
          Now..many cultures describe the flood. IS not only in the Bible. You cannot deny that the flood was real for ancient people.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_flood_myths

          http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533

          Ark of Noah: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJCqqMsy1xM

        • epeeist

          Your first link is to a list of floods, unless you can show that they each have the same spatio-temporal location then they are different floods, not different views of the same flood.

          Your second link is to a discussion of a single, local flood not a global flood.

          There is considerable evidence against a global flood, I produced this for one of your fellow creotards:

          1. There are written records from China, Egypt, Babylon, and
          Mesopotamia for the period of “the Flood”, and yet not of these
          civilisations seemed to have noticed it.

          2. The largest wooden ship ever built, the Wyoming was incredibly unseaworthy and eventually sank with the loss of all hands. And yet “the Ark” was supposedly bigger.

          3. There are hundreds of millions of species, and yet Noah managed to take all of them on board of the ark. To be blunt, this is simply not possible.

          4. If only two of each animal survived then we would expect to see genetic bottlenecks for each and every species on earth, furthermore these would all occur at the same time. We don’t see genetic bottlenecks for one species for the period of “the Flood”, never mind all of them.

          5. Most fish are sensitive to the salinity of the water they live in, sea fish cannot tolerate fresh water and river and lake fish cannot tolerate sea water. Depending on whether “the Flood” was fresh or salt water we would expect to see the die off of one type of fish. Needless to say we don’t.

          6. Certain species are indigenous to specific parts of the earth, for example marsupials only occur in Australia, polar bears in the Arctic etc. So where did Noah get these and after “the Flood” how did they get back to their habitats without leaving any trace of their passage from Mesopotamia?

          7. Of course many species require specific habitats in order to survive, for example cave dwelling species require 100% humidity. How did they get this in the desert conditions of Mesopotamia?

          8. Insects are a problem for the account, many are short lived, others are hive based. Two would simply not be sufficient for the survival of species.

          9. The majority of corals live in shallow waters, a global flood
          sufficient to put Mt. Everest under water would kill them off. Needless to say we see no evidence of this.

          10. To put Mt. Everest under water in 40 days would require rain to fall at the rate of 15cm/minute. At this rate this would have completely overwhelmed “the Ark”.

          11. Rainfall at that sort of rate would also render the atmosphere toxic and hence kill all the people on “the Ark”.

          12. Eight people would not have been sufficient to repopulate the world in order for the “Tower of Babel” story some one or two centuries later.

          13. We have examples of lake and river varves from all of the world
          including Japan (a country not mentioned in the bible), Norway (also
          missing from the bible) and America (definitely not mentioned in the
          bible). These can be dated by comparison with known events such as volcanic eruptions (which are not mentioned in the bible). They show no evidence of a global flood.

          14. Similarly with ice cores from both the Arctic and the Antarctic (the authors of the bible did not seem to be aware of large amounts of ice at the poles). These can be dated from known events such as supernovae (noticed by the Chinese, but not by theauthors of the bible). Again, no evidence of a global flood from these.

          15. Noah isn’t recorded to have taken any plants on to “the Ark”, can you imagine what a column of water nearly 9Km high would have done to the plant population of the earth? And yet Noah releases the animals from “the Ark” and they survive. Hardly possible.

          16. If you look at the biblical chronology it turns out that the flood took place at the same time as the Egyptians were involved in building pyramids. Now we have evidence for the pyramids…

          17. Creationists make claims for fossils being created during “the Flood”. If you take something like the Karroo Formation in Africa. According to creationists this is supposed to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrate animal. A quick calculation shows that this is equivalent to over 50 animals per square hectare for the whole of the land area of earth. A rather large number from a single small area don’t you think?

          18. Fossils occur in strata, they are not laid down in a single event. Further they are laid down in the expected order for evolution.

          19. The Epic of Gilgamesh contains the account of a flood in which Gilgamesh meets Utnapishtim, a man who built a boat which he stocked with animals and grain. He took his family on board and survived a great flood. He gives Gilgamesh a “tree of life” but this is stolen from him by a “talking serpent”. Given that the Epic of Gilgamesh is older than the biblical account of the flood it is rather obvious that the authors of the bible simply ripped off the story and rebranded it as their own.

          In other words, the “Noachic flood” is simply a story stolen from another culture and never happened.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          1. You contradict yourself with point 19. You should read more about ancient stories:
          Read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html

          2. The largest wooden ship ever built, the Wyoming was incredibly unseaworthy and eventually sank with the loss of all hands. And yet “the Ark” was supposedly bigger.
          R=“Did you know that the ARK has the perfect measures ? btw someone had the brilliant idea to rebuild the ark of Gilgamesh. IT SUNK.
          https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/thinking-outside-the-box/

          3,4 There are hundreds of millions of species, and yet Noah managed to take all of them on board of the ark. To be blunt, this is simply not possible..
          R=Why? Not all animals were saved (example some dinosaurs). Scientifics says that all dog races came from the wolf.

          5. Most fish are sensitive to the salinity of the water they live in, sea fish cannot tolerate fresh water and river and lake fish cannot tolerate sea water.
          R=Simple example: Salmon can tolerate both…

          6. Certain species are indigenous to specific parts of the earth, for example marsupials only occur in Australia, polar bears in the Arctic etc. So where did Noah get these and after “the Flood” how did they get back to their habitats without leaving any trace of their passage from Mesopotamia?
          R=Many animals came to Noah. The “survival couple” could have migrated to one part of the world. And because there was only one couple, that kind of animal cannot be found beyond.

          7. Of course many species require specific habitats in order to survive, for example cave dwelling species require 100% humidity. How did they get this in the desert conditions of Mesopotamia?
          R=Mesopotamia is a desert now. But is not the case in the ancient times. In fact Mesopotamia, had 3 rivers. Euphrates is mentioned in the Bible. The Garden of Eden was in Mesopotamia. It was a paradise.

          8. Insects are a problem for the account, many are short lived, others are hive based. Two would simply not be sufficient for the survival of species.
          R= Noah only saved those in the “surface of all the earth” many insects live deep in the ground.

          9, 10.13,14 The majority of corals live in shallow waters, a global flood sufficient to put Mt. Everest under water would kill them off. Needless to say we see no evidence of this.
          R= Read this: https://www.icr.org/article/520
          11. Rainfall at that sort of rate would also render the atmosphere toxic and hence kill all the people on “the Ark”.
          R= you have no evidence for this.
          12. Eight people would not have been sufficient to repopulate the world in order for the “Tower of Babel” story some one or two centuries later.
          R= genetics says we come from one couple..
          13. We have examples of lake and river varves from all of the world including Japan (a country not mentioned in the bible), Norway (also missing from the bible) and America (definitely not mentioned in the bible). These can be dated by comparison with known events such as volcanic eruptions (which are not mentioned in the bible). They show no evidence of a global flood.
          15. Noah isn’t recorded to have taken any plants on to “the Ark”, can you imagine what a column of water nearly 9Km high would have done to the plant population of the earth? And yet Noah releases the animals from “the Ark” and they survive. Hardly possible.
          16. If you look at the biblical chronology it turns out that the flood took place at the same time as the Egyptians were involved in building pyramids. Now we have evidence for the pyramids…
          R+ Is possible that Egypt and pyramids were already built before the flood.

          17. Creationists make claims for fossils being created during “the Flood”. If you take something like the Karroo Formation in Africa. According to creationists this is supposed to contain the remains of 800 billion vertebrate animal. A quick calculation shows that this is equivalent to over 50 animals per square hectare for the whole of the land area of earth. A rather large number from a single small area don’t you think?
          R= in the Amazon, there are 1,600 bird species (more than anywhere else in the world) and up to 40,000 insect species by 10,000 square meter.
          http://raoni.com/biodiversity.php

          18. Fossils occur in strata, they are not laid down in a single event. Further they are laid down in the expected order for evolution.
          R= No. The fossil record does communicate sudden appearance of basic types, complete with all the features which characterize them. At least 95 percent of all animal fossils are of marine invertebrates. And many “living fossils “are still alive today. Evolution is a hoax. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9CBnBJ2ZrA

          19. The Epic of Gilgamesh contains the account of a flood in which Gilgamesh meets Utnapishtim, a man who built a boat which he stocked with animals and grain. He took his family on board and survived a great flood. He gives Gilgamesh a “tree of life” but this is stolen from him by a “talking serpent”. Given that theEpic of Gilgamesh is older than the biblical account of the flood it is rather obvious that the authors of the bible simply ripped off the story and rebranded it as their own.

          R= It may be ancient but is not the accurate one. AS I said before, the ark of Gilgamesh was built, using the measures of the Mesopotamia account and you know what happened? It simply sunk in the following 15 minutes.
          But the ark of Noah floats perfectly and its measures have served to build ships in the ancient times.
          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3582799/One-biblical-project-Staggering-pictures-90million-replica-Noah-s-Ark-construction-flagship-attraction-Kentucky-amusement-park.html

          Which narrative will you believe?

        • epeeist

          Read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/

          Just because there are lots of flood myths doesn’t show that they were all aspects of the same flood. If you want to claim this then it is down to you to demonstrate it.

          R=“Did you know that the ARK has the perfect measures ?

          Which doesn’t address the point I made, namely that “the Ark” was larger than an iron braced wooden ship that was grossly unseaworthy and eventually sank with all hands.

          btw someone had the brilliant idea to rebuild the ark of Gilgamesh. IT SUNK.

          So what plans has Ken Ham to try his ark out in a rough sea?

          R=Why? Not all animals were saved (example some dinosaurs).

          Seriously, you are claiming that millions of species would fit inside a structure with a maximum volume of 16500m^3? You can provide a calculation that shows this is possible I presume.

          Scientifics says that all dog races came from the wolf.

          Ah, so you are claiming that evolution occurred after “the Flood”.

          R=Simple example: Salmon can tolerate both…

          So they can, but even they must undergo acclimatisation before they can move from salt to fresh water. But this is one example, what about the other 30,000+ species of fish, of which there are 15,000 or so freshwater only species?

          R=Many animals came to Noah.

          So how long would it take for, say, a lemming to get from the Arctic to Mespotamia?

          The “survival couple” could have migrated to one part of the world. And because there was only one couple, that kind of animal cannot be found beyond.

          So how does that work for, say, web spinning spiders whose lifetime may be as short as a year. How long would it take for a funnel web spider to get back from Mesopotamia to Australia.

          And of course this is compounded for species like butterflies and damsel flies with an even shorter lifetime.

          R= Noah only saved those in the “surface of all the earth” many insects live deep in the ground.

          And these insects survived with nearly 900Kg cm^2 of water on top of them, how did they breathe? What did they eat while the earth was supposedly flooded?

          R=Mesopotamia is a desert now. But is not the case in the ancient times.

          So what happened to all the plants and animals that were not suited to this “paradise”, those from desert climes, from the icecaps etc.

          R= Read this: https://www.icr.org/article

          Which provides no answers to the points I made.

          R= you have no evidence for this.

          It is a fairly simple calculation, if you have that amount of water in the atmosphere then the partial pressures of nitrogen and oxygen would be raised to toxic levels.

          R= genetics says we come from one couple..

          Citation required, and a proper one with some actual scientific backing.

          R+ Is possible that Egypt and pyramids were already built before the flood.

          You are saying that the historians who have been through all the evidence are wrong in their dating? You have your own evidence to show this?

          R= in the Amazon, there are 1,600 bird species (more than anywhere else in the world) and up to 40,000 insect species by 10,000 square meter.

          And this shows my point is wrong how exactly?

          R= No. The fossil record does communicate sudden appearance of basic types, complete with all the features which characterize them.

          Which says nothing about the fact that fossils appear in strata.

          R= It may be ancient but is not the accurate one.

          I made no claim to its accuracy, only to the fact that the bible plagiarised the story. But it seems you agree that the bible account cannot be accurate since it was drawn from another, inaccurate story.

          But the ark of Noah floats perfectly

          Does it? As Ham actually had it in the water?

          http://www.dailymail.co.uk/

          Ah, the Daily Mail, a publication not exactly known for a positive attitude towards truth.

          Which narrative will you believe?

          Well I am glad you think both the biblical and Gilgamesh accounts are “narratives”.

          I actually believe that both narratives are simply stories drawn from the mythos of two primitive tribes, with the biblical account being plagiarised from the Gilgamesh account. When it comes to either of them being true then belief doesn’t come into it, the evidence is against both of them.

          Let’s finish off with a question to you.

          Which of Noah’s sons married the Chinese woman?

        • Susana Gonzalez

          “Seriously, you are claiming that millions of species would fit inside a structure with a maximum volume of 16500m^3?”
          Not all species entered to the ark. Fishes and insects were not in the ark. Not all dogs races or salamanders kind entered to the ark. Only ONE couple according to their kind.

          “And these insects survived with nearly 900Kg cm^2 of water on top of them, how did they breathe? What did they eat while the earth was supposedly flooded?”
          https://www.thoughtco.com/how-do-insects-breathe-1968478
          Never heard of Tardigrades?

          “Ah, so you are claiming that evolution occurred after “the Flood”.”
          I do not believe in evolution because is a hoax. All dogs races came from one couple of dogs and this is can be demonstrated.

          “R=Simple example: Salmon can tolerate both…”So they can”
          End of story.

          “So how long would it take for, say, a lemming to get from the Arctic to Mespotamia?”
          The world was different as the world we know now. All was reunited in one HUGE continent. After the flood continents emerged.

          “Citation required, and a proper one with some actual scientific backing.”
          Mitochondrial Eve. Never heard of this? of course the biased scientific community (going against the Bible story) will say that only “EVE” among “others EVES” survived to pass her genetics. The reality is the there was ONLY one EVE and one ADAN who passed its genetics to everyone.

          “R+ Is possible that Egypt and pyramids were already built before the flood.
          You are saying that the historians who have been through all the evidence are wrong i their dating? You have your own evidence to show this?”

          I said is possible. And yes historians denies the pre-flood Egyptian stories in purpose.
          They take very seriously the Egyptian timeline **after the flood not before.

          “Just because there are lots of flood myths doesn’t show that they were all aspects of the same flood. If you want to claim this then it is down to you to demonstrate it.”

          Wrong. The fact that there are many many stories about the flood confirms the Biblical narrative. You need to put aside your own pride and embrace the TRUE: The Bible is telling you that there was a flood, and **all, yes you read perfectly ALL human races are saying it with different words. IF the stories of one of the most traumatic events, does not mean anything for you, then there is nothing else to be said. You are dismissing thousands of years of ancient evidence in forma of narratives because you pride is to dismiss the Bible. You are biased. Just think how people in different places knew there was a flood long time ago.

          “Let’s finish off with a question to you. Which of Noah’s sons married the Chinese woman?”
          Is there a new fossil or new human being called “chinese woman”? Can you provide more information about it?

          Look, Chinese people comes from Japhet, son of Noah. Yes is possible people existed with different genetics. They are descendants from the pre-flood societies. Most of the time are people of larger size.

        • Michael Neville

          Chinese people comes from Japhet, son of Noah

          Where did you pull this interesting bit of information from? Your rosy red rectum would be my guess.

        • epeeist

          Not all species entered to the ark. Fishes and insects were not in the ark.

          I asked you to provide a calculation, you have failed to do so. There is no problem therefore dismissing your claim out of hand.

          https://www.thoughtco.com/h

          Did you actually read that page before you linked to it, here is the first sentence:

          Insects require oxygen to live, and produce carbon dioxide as a waste product, just as humans.

          So where do they get the oxygen while they are under 9Km of water? And you seem to have missed telling me what they eat.

          End of story.

          This would be funny if it wasn’t so crassly stupid. Effectively you are saying all fish have the same characteristics as salmon.

          Let’s try another example shall we, my daughters used to have a guinea pig, which is a mammal. Can we therefore say all mammals have exactly the same characteristics as guinea pigs?

          Total idiocy made up in attempt to disguise the fact that the evidence runs against the bible story.

          Never heard of Tardigrades?

          Indeed I have. And this shows what precisely?

          The world was different as the world we know now.

          You were asked how long it would take a lemming to get from the Arctic to Mesopotamia. Once again you fail to answer the question put to you.

          Mitochondrial Eve. Never heard of this?

          Yep. However all this says is that there exists a direct female line. What it doesn’t say is that there were no other women alive at the time. Nuclear DNA studies also show that human populations have never dropped below tens of thousands of people.

          Oh, and just to point out the hypocrisy of a creationist using one part of the theory of evolution, namely genetics.

          Wrong. The fact that there are many many stories about the flood confirms the Biblical narrative.

          Again the crass stupidity. I have friends living in a town called Hebden Bridge that was flooded in 2012 and 2015. By your “logic” these would count as a single flood.

          “There are multiple stories about floods, therefore they must all be about the same flood”. Seriously?

          Look, Chinese people comes from Japhet, son of Noah.

          So Japhet wasn’t Semitic, he was Oriental?

          How about Russians, which of Noah’s sons was Caucasian?

          How about Ghanians, which of Noah’s sons was Negroid?

          How to characterise your posts on this matter? A mixture of stupidity, lies and stuff you made up on the spot in order to avoid admitting there is no evidence for a “global flood” and lots of evidence against.

        • Greg G.

          So Japhet wasn’t Semitic, he was Oriental?

          How about Russians, which of Noah’s sons was Caucasian?

          How about Ghanians, which of Noah’s sons was Negroid?

          I am wondering which of Adam and Eve was Asian, which was Caucasian, and which was Negroid?

        • epeeist

          Even better than my question.

          I think it was pofarmer who said something like “all creationists should be assumed to be lying until shown otherwise”. The latest set we have certainly corroborate the statement.

        • Greg G.

          I think that was MNb’s assumption.

        • epeeist

          Fair does, I couldn’t remember and I wasn’t going back to search through the Disqus oubliette to find out.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          “Not all species entered to the ark. Fishes and insects were not in the ark.” I asked you to provide a calculation, you have failed to do so.

          No at all. I expected you could make a research. You always say you do research but I do not see it, you keep asking questions. So some says abour 16,000 animals. Read this.

          http://creation.com/how-did-all-the-animals-fit-on-noahs-ark

          Look I do not know if insects were in the ark. This site says yes, maybe not. But read what this site says:

          “But at the same time, insects can survive low levels of oxygen for a comparatively long time.”

          https://phys.org/news/2007-04-easy-oxygen-bug-life-full.html

          This would be funny if it wasn’t so crassly stupid. Effectively you are saying all fish have the same characteristics as salmon.

          No, but this site https://www.livescience.com/32167-can-saltwater-fish-live-in-fresh-water.html explains that some species can survive. Now we are in a world catastrophic event, where GOD is taking care of His creatures, those creatures were closed to perfection and perfection means adaptability in all environments.

          “Never heard of Tardigrades?Indeed I have. And this shows what precisely?”

          Well you clearly failed to notice why I brought up these creatures to the conversation. They can survive hostile environments. Same as insects can survive long periods of time without breathing, who knows maybe they were in a lethargic state on earth or in the ark. Knowing this or not will not make any difference.

          “You were asked how long it would take a lemming to get from the Arctic to Mesopotamia. Once again you fail to answer the question put to you.”

          The world was different. I mentioned it. IS a proven fact. Can you understand this? Not all continents existed, not all animals lived far from Eden. They were created to live in the EDEN, in the time of flood most animals as people lived closely.

          “Mitochondrial Eve. Never heard of this? Yep. However all this says is that there exists a direct female line. What it doesn’t say is that there were no other women alive at the time. “

          Perfect, While your scientists find the “Eve”, then by now, the evidence points, that there was only ONE EVE. Period.

          “Oh, and just to point out the hypocrisy of a creationist using one part of the theory of evolution, namely genetics.”

          What are you talking about it? Most scientist that have contributed to science and the science of genetics were Christians. There is no record on ancient atheists. How they have kidnapped the science and the great Universities founded once by Christian people Is beyond me. Are Christians who advanced Science, while atheists were pariahs.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christians_in_science_and_technology

          “Wrong. The fact that there are many many stories about the flood confirms the Biblical narrative. “Again the crass stupidity. I have friends living in a town called Hebden Bridge that was flooded in 2012 and 2015. By your “logic” these would count as a single flood.

          You are the one failing with logic. We are talking about ancient narratives of a worldwide flood. Never talked about local flood. We are talking about an ancient flood narrated in the Bible, where an aprox of 16,000 animals and 8 people survived. This ancient flood is written in many ancient cultures. Do you understand this fact? So to avoid any misunderstanding mockery from your side I will refer now, as the ancient flood. When you refer to Noah children is clear we are referring to the ancient flood that happened 5000 years ago. I have to give emphasis to this fact, before you start thinking that any modern flood can be compared to the ancient Flood of Noah.

          How to characterise your posts on this matter? A mixture of stupidity, lies and stuff you made up on the spot in order to avoid admitting there is no evidence for a “global flood” and lots of evidence against.

          Well , let me tell you. You are the one belittling and insulting out of arguments. You treated me now as a liar and making things up in spite of providing you scientific sites that you cannot rebuke. Remember some of the 10 atheist’s commandments

          1. Be open-minded and be willing to alter your beliefs with new evidence.

          2. Strive to understand what is most likely to be true, not to believe what you wish to be true.

          3. The scientific method is the most reliable way of understanding the natural world.

          7. Treat others as you would want them to treat you, and can reasonably expect them to want to be treated. Think about their perspective.

          If you do not live by the moral code of the Bible, at least live by your own moral atheist code.

          For you to ask about insects breathing instead of the real question, show me, how you have missed the point all this time along: you should ask why God wiped out godless wicked people. This is by far the most important question. And you should ask yourself, why all ancient cultures recorded this ANCIENT 5000 years ago catastrophic event and in all of the ancient narratives, they mentioned it as GOD intervention. You came from this ancient people. For them this was real. They believed.

          I do not know how you lost your faith. Maybe you were influenced at school or you went through something hard in your life. The human is born to worship God and is in our genes. We were created to worship God. If you do not worship God, you will worship something else. Soccer, Football or the ape of evolution.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_gene

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGMkadUGIWE

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBeCxKzYiIA

        • Greg G.

          Come on, Susana, saying some insects could survive without oxygen for a short time does not explain how all extant insects could have survived. Saying that some fish can survive in saltwater is ignoring that most freshwater fish cannot survive that long.

          You have a link that points to a page that relies on Woodmorappe. Here is a review of his book by a Christian:

          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/woodmorappe-review.html

        • epeeist

          No at all. I expected you could make a research.

          And here we have a classical example of the dishonesty of the creationist.

          You contend that millions of species would have fitted in “the Ark” but when challenged to show that this is possible you avoid any attempt to do so and tell me to do my own research.

          So why should I treat your claim as anything else but made up on the spur of the moment in order to protect the bible account?

          Read this

          http://creation.com/how-did

          I did, Sarfati doesn’t come off too well in the comments does he. As it is this is arse end first. He calculates the volume of the “the Ark” and then works out the maximum number of animals he can get in there.

          Again, another piece of crass dishonesty.

          https://phys.org/news/2007-

          Says nothing about insects breathing under pressure, especially the pressure of a 9Km water column.

          Let’s close this one down. You cannot produce evidence that insects can breathe under this amount of pressure. In other words this is yet another on the spot fabrication to try and salvage the biblical account.

          No, but this site https://www.livescience.com… explains that some species can survive.

          A very small number of species are euryhaline, as it says in your link, “Most fish that can only tolerate narrow ranges of salinity and are highly sensitive to any changes in the levels of salt to the water in which they dwell.”

          In other words, most species of fish will die. Yet again you make something up in order to save the biblical account.

          The world was different.

          You were asked how long it would take for a lemming to get from the Arctic to Mesopotamia, this you have signally failed to do.

          I was at the Ainsdale Dunes on the North-West coast of England yesterday. There is a species of Tiger beetle (one of 40,000 or so species of ground beetle) there that is unique to the location. How long would it have taken that to get there after “the Flood” given their short life span?

          Perfect, While your scientists find the “Eve”, then by now, the evidence points, that there was only ONE EVE. Period.

          Nope, “Mitochondrial Eve” is the maternal most recent common ancestor, not the only ancestor (this paper gives further details).

          What are you talking about it? Most scientist that have contributed to science and the science of genetics were Christians.

          Mendel was Christian, Haldane and Bernal (to name two) were not.

          Your hypocrisy stems from the fact that you want to appropriate a name (“Mitochondrial Eve”) in an attempt to shore up the biblical account but at the same time discard the findings of the genetics, namely that it shows a population (not a single female) coming out of Africa some hundreds of thousands of years ago (not some 6,000 years ago).

          We are talking about an ancient flood narrated in the Bible, where an aprox of 16,000 animals and 8 people survived. This ancient flood is written in many ancient cultures.

          Nope, there are are records of floods in ancient cultures, this does not show they were the same flood. In order to demonstrate this you have to show that they all occurred at the same time. This again you have singularly failed to do.

          Well , let me tell you. You are the one belittling and insulting out of arguments. You treated me now as a liar and making things up in spite of providing you scientific sites that you cannot rebuke.

          And there is a reason for this. I gave you 18 reasons why the so called “global flood” never took place. You have been unable to counter any of them. Instead you have made things up, linked to material that doesn’t support the claims you make and generally avoided answering the questions I put to you.

          you should ask why God wiped out godless wicked people.

          Oh that one is easy, your god wiped out 99.99996% of the world’s population at the time with the rest of the biosphere as collateral damage because it is a sadistic monster.

        • Michael Neville
          you should ask why God wiped out godless wicked people.

          Oh that one is easy, your god wiped out 99.99996% of the world’s population at the time with the rest of the biosphere as collateral damage because it is a sadistic monster.

          I guess the Egyptians, Sumerians and Chinese weren’t “godless wicked people” because they weren’t wiped out in the Flud. These people failed to mention in their records that they’d all been drowned.

        • Greg G.

          Mitochondrial Eve

          Even under the Noah theory, the “Mitochondrial Eve” is not necessarily the Eve from the Garden of Eden. If Noah’s sons had married three sisters, their mother would be the Mitochondrial Eve. They might have all come from a continuous maternal line from one of Eve’s daughters, granddaughters, or great-granddaughters, and that one would be the Mitochondrial Eve.

          you should ask why God wiped out godless wicked people.

          Don’t forget the innocent babies.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          So…there is ONLY ONE Eve? uh that supports the Bible not the evolution!

          “Don’t forget the innocent babies.”
          WE all have a death sentence already. Everyone dies physically. Early or late, it does not change the fact we all die one day. However avoiding the children to become as evil as the parents, would mean taking out their life, this way they were saved in an eternal life. Unless you would have preferred , that they grew up and became evil and go to hell.

        • Greg G.

          You do not understand anything.You can go back through any maternal line, each daughter had a mother. Eventually, you reach the one who has a direct maternal line to all living women. That Mitochondrial Eve was not the Mitochondrial Eve of her generation as there were many other females, each with a direct maternal line to a distant ancestor.

          How do you know that babies are not sent to hell? Cite the verses that lead to that conclusion.

        • Susana Gonzalez

          Greg there is only one EVE. This is a fact written in the Bible 4500 years ago. And Science supports the “Mitochondrial Eve”. There is no other “EVEs”, as evolution claims. See ? we believe this fact since thousands of years. ah the mother of Noah sons had her own mother and so on, going back to the original Eve. Science will never find another Eve, no one, because God created man and female.

        • Greg G.

          You don’t know what you are talking about. Mitochondria come from the ovum from the mother. It is not the DNA from the chromosomes. Since everyone has a mother, there will be one maternal for everybody and when one goes back far enough, we all have the same great-great….great grandmother. It can be determined by the mitochondrial DNA. It has nothing to do with the Bible fairy tale Eve.

          It’s the same with the Y-chromosome that can only come from the father. The Y-chromosome Adam has nothing to do with the Bible fairy tale either.

          The names are given whimsically. If they went by the Bible, it would be Y-chromosome Noah. But the evidence shows that Mitochondrial Eve lived about 60,000 years before Y-chromosome Adam.

        • Irving Chies

          who says science supports “mithochondrial eve”? give your sources and don’t quote any striclty relogious website

        • Michael Neville

          The Garden of Eden was in Mesopotamia.

          According to the Mormons the Garden of Eden was in Missouri.

          https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Joseph_Smith/Garden_of_Eden_in_Missouri

        • Susana Gonzalez

          too bad that Euphrates river is not in America to prove their Mormon theory…..http://www.israel-a-history-of.com/biblical-garden-of-eden.html

        • Michael Neville

          Don’t argue with me, argue with the Mormons. I don’t believe the Garden of Eden ever existed since there’s zip point zero evidence for it other than the collection of myths, fables and lies called the Bible.

  • safetynet2razorwire

    Dinosaurs are red herrings … at least when dealing with the biblical mythology. Debunking the myth is as easy as digging a hole … in any of many places only stones’ throw from their holy land’s epicentre. Jericho for one. The Jericho that mythic Joshua laid ruin with bad big band music is, today, a thoroughly studied archaeological site where the ruins of that tribal origin myth sit atop a mound of earlier towns and villages dating back to over 8000 years prior (to 4000 years before their creation myth’s birth of the universe). Other cities, e.g. Catal Huyuk,
    the evidently egalitarian city of 8000 that flourished between 7400 and 9500 yrs. ago in central Turkey. Catal Huyuk had risen, prospered for over 2000 years – a
    full millennium prior to that mythic Saturday morning in 4400 BCE. Gobekli Tepe. Gobekli Tepe is a temple/observatory site excavated in Turkey that dates back 11,000 years (predating the Christian origin of everything in the universe by the somewhat significant tally of nearly five millennia.

    Of course, if (and this is an ‘if’ that could be used to test sanity) one dismissed
    those same scientific realities that make your smart watch, smarter phone and really smart laptop work (or not only observing but orchestrating speciation in a reproducible laboratory process) – IF one were able to disavow the observable natural realities – then there would be no more likelihood of restoration to sanity for that person than for someone suffering the intractable form of schizophrenia.

    Happily, only a small minority share such extreme rebellion against reality – most religious people do not – despite the absence of an iota of anything but the wish – “know that my redeemer liveth” to borrow from Handel. The overwhelming hoste of churchgoers are, in their heart of hearts, agnostics who, like the X-Files sign declares, “want to believe”.So very few put their trust in their god that they don’t take their sick child a hospital or a lame one to their pastor to cure their injury – those who do are so very few they make the national news out of weirdness.

    Mentally healthy homo sapiens are, above all, the result of aeons of sense.

  • mikehorn

    Simple: soft tissue is not evidence for a young earth.

    It is a demonstration of how complex the real world is. It’s amazing, and will further our understanding of life tens and hundreds of millions of years ago. Start scanning those old fossils!

  • Linguagroover

    ‘Spiralling’ is a British English formation that veteran Aussie woomeister Ken Ham might prefer. So arguably he got one tiny thing sort of right. But in his native land’s finest ad hominem tradition, I’d like to add that he’s as useless as tits on a bull.

  • http://secure93.com Henrik Crawford

    I stop working at shopritte and after that at this moment I am generating $75-$97 each and every hour. How? I am just working on the net! My work did not make me happy thus I decided to take a possibility on something new…after four years it wasn’t simple to resign my day work however right now I couldn’t be more joyful.>>> learn more by clicking here right now

  • metroid_fetish

    Everyone knows the planet is only 45 minutes old.

    • Phil Rimmer

      Oh yes, its Thursday!

      • JustAnotherAtheist2

        Wasn’t it last Thursday, though? Or does it renew every week?

        • MarquisDeMoo

          It has to because it takes god takes 6 days to do it and then he needs to rest for a day.

  • Jim Jones

    > have been a thorn in [scientists’] side for several years now

    This is why Ken Ham is stupid.

    Science begins when a scientist says, “Hmm. That’s odd.” That’s when they start investigating. They’ll usually (although possibly reluctantly) reject a theory that doesn’t match all the facts.

    Only crackpots have “thorns in their sides” from facts. That’s when they start making up bullshit to maintain their beliefs.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Reading these Creationist articles made clear to me for the first time how their own attitude (that this is all just a PR campaign) colors how they imagine their opponents thinking.

      • Michael Neville

        The other thing that amazes me about creationists is they only see “creationism vs evolution” as a zero sum game. They know that if a hole is breached in creationism then it will fail and imagine the same thing would happen to evolution. They fail to understand that poking holes in theories is a feature, not a bug. Creationism is not self-correcting and so they don’t understand how self-correction works in science.

        • MarquisDeMoo

          They desperately need certainty. They cannot handle a world where there is no permanence and things evolve or change. It is why they are small ‘c’ conservative and why they cannot get to grips with ‘we don’t know yet’ being a perfectly good answer.

  • rtgmath

    Creationism demands that belief in creationism be a prerequisite to salvation. That makes it an addition to the gospel of Christ, and thus a heresy.

    • Michael Neville

      I believe that many creationists, aka Biblical literalists, worship the book rather than God.

      • adam

        Not just the book, but Paul himself OVER Jesus….

  • freethinker666

    God did that to test for your faith.

  • Reddish Brown

    That’s how creationists define science.

    Creationist Science: finding stuff that you can spin for Jesus.

    • Pital Pitoke

      In the heralds of the gospel international school, Sao Paulo Brazil, a teacher was questioned by young boy (12yo): “if Noes Ark is the answer, where are the dinosaurs? God told Noe to take a pair of every animal….”
      “No, dinosaurs were to big, impossible to put inside…” (SIC!!!!!)
      Theology is wonderful. Always have a answer as easy and … stupid as so many half crazy people is ready to believe.
      The boys tell the fact to their families. They became so worry that the school promised to send home the teacher (a religious of the sect Heralds…)

  • Shea McDuff

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE&index=32&list=PL6C777687264351D8
    Potholer54, aka Peter Sinclair geologist journalist, debunks creationist claims by the radical step of comparing creo claims with what Schweitzer et al actually showed and wrote in the scientifi
    c paper that is the subject of discussion.
    This video is 7 years old.

  • Warren Lauzon

    Creationism has been debunked thousands of times, yet it persists – even to the point where the US Vice President is a a believer. No matter how much evidence is presented, many people will resist giving up long held beliefs no matter how insane they might seem. It’s not just religion, I see the same thing when it comes to organic food, vaccines, Trump supporters, climate change, GMO’s, and many other beliefs. The big question for me is why do so many people totally dismiss any and all evidence even if it is 1000 to 1 against them?

  • Gregory Mullaley

    Wheeee, this science stuff is easy!!!