Even more updated info on blood cells in dinos:


http://creation.com/dino-proteins-and-blood-vessels-are-they-a-big-deal

The 'biofilms' issue

http://creation.com/doubting-doubts-about-the-squishosaur

Hey 74leps, how about taking a look at some other websites every once in a while.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080729234140.htm

They conducted a comparison using infrared mass spectroscopy and determined the structures were more closely related to modern biofilm than modern collagen, extracellular proteins associated with bone. Carbon dating placed the origin at around 1960.

...

"From this evidence, we could determine that what had previously been reported as dinosaurian soft tissues were in fact biofilms, or slime," Kaye said.

Here is another great source:

http://animals.howstuffworks.com/dinosaurs/soft-tissue-dinosaur-fossil.htm

Bigred1995 wrote: Hey 74leps, how about taking a look at some other websites every once in a while.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080729234140.htm

They conducted a comparison using infrared mass spectroscopy and determined the structures were more closely related to modern biofilm than modern collagen, extracellular proteins associated with bone. Carbon dating placed the origin at around 1960.

...

"From this evidence, we could determine that what had previously been reported as dinosaurian soft tissues were in fact biofilms, or slime," Kaye said.

Here is another great source:

http://animals.howstuffworks.com/dinosaurs/soft-tissue-dinosaur-fossil.htm

And you can't possibly have looked at the links I provided which shows damning evidence that it is blood and blood vessels, and that refers to the other sites claiming they are biofilms, and that they are twisting the evidence.

From one of the links I provided above, even Dr. Sweitzer says:

Our scepticism is shared by Dr Schweitzer herself, (and some other scientists, judging by the blogs). For instance, she says, quite reasonably:

Kaye et al. did not address our immunological data, and controls. They did not address the phylogenetic analyses of sequence as reported by Organ et al., 2008 or offer any explanation for how ‘biofilm’ proteins from dinosaur could cluster with chicken, while ‘biofilm’ from mammoth and mastodon cluster with elephant. Nor did they explain the internal, or ‘intracellular’ structure we report for observed osteocytes. And finally, they did not state how the rounded structures we reported could persist free floating in a hollow biofilm as we described for the ‘vascular’ inclusions in dinosaur vessels. Indeed, it seems that they only addressed aspects of our study that fit conveniently with their preconceived ideas, as they pick and chose what to focus on. As we stated often after our paper came out, morphology alone is insufficient to make any claims about the origin of such material, hence we provided a host of other data to support the hypothesis of endogeneity. Kaye et al. did less than this to support their claim that the material they observed is biofilm.
Then she continued in a technical area about spectroscopy, and my colleague Jonathan Sarfati, whose Ph.D. thesis specialized in vibrational spectroscopy, thinks she is right:

Kaye et al. also overstate their FTIR data, and show a misunderstanding of what these data can be used to say. There are many different molecular vibrations and rotational vibrational modes in a heterogenous sample as represented by their dinosaur material. It is far from a pure sample. In this case, IR absorption peaks overlie each other, and resolution of the spectrum is not high enough to separate them. The spectrum is dependent upon both the composition of the mixture and the relative concentrations as well. Combining all these variables to conclude that one reading is more similar to one than another is really meaningless, especially when trying to interpret peaks in the fingerprint region of 1500–400 cm–1. The low resolution IR spectra figured in this paper is not adequate to draw any conclusions about a heterogenous sample.

Here's from a different source:

http://scintilla.nature.com/node/380683

What Dr. Schweitzer herself says about those claiming 'biofilms' - here's an extract:
While Kaye et al. address the morphology of the structures we observed, and find their own explanations for these, they do not address the considerable chemical and molecular data we put forth to support our hypothesis of endogeneity. We did propose biofilm production as a possible explanation for the material that we see, but we determined that based upon the data we had, microbial biofilms were not a parsimonious explanation for the data (see Schweitzer et al., 2007, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B). Subsequent studies (paper in preparation) are examining material that was collected from deeply buried specimens and examined by multiple assays, again conducted independently by many investigators, within a month of recovering this material. Looking at all data _together_, the idea that biofilms are completely and solely responsible for the origin or source of the structures we reported is not supported. For example, there is no evidence in the literature that biofilms form branching _hollow _tubes as we observe. Biofilms are universally reported and indeed defined, as flat films containing microbial bodies and their exopolymeric secretions. Kaye et al. state that no microbial bodies were observed, only an ‘undulating’ film. Furthermore, because of gravitational “down’ in the positioning of these bones, it is highly unlikely that a biofilm would be evenly distributed across the channels as we report. Rather a biofilm would almost certainly be thicker at gravitational ‘bottom’, something we did not observe. While Kaye et al, confirm that their 14C data indicate a recent biofilm they do not identify microbial bodies, a hallmark of biofilm. I have seen similar features to what they figure in specimens that have EDTA residue remaining–ie insufficiently rinsed.

The atheists will get their wish, die and then decompose...and the believers will get their wish, die and have eternal life. That way, both sides are happy.

I believe in something.

But to deny science over folklore is absolutley ridiculous.

To bend science, whether it be intelligent design or global warming is foolhardy.

ManO'War wrote:

The story of Christ was foretold from Genesis, long before the other middle eastern religions.

Read some Biblical apologetics sometime; apparently none of the people at that link have, or the people in Bill's video.

irish_buffalo wrote: I believe in something.

But to deny science over folklore is absolutley ridiculous.

To bend science, whether it be intelligent design or global warming is foolhardy.

Bending science is saying life can come from non-life.

Bending science is saying that Darwinian evolution is true, when there is no 'real world' evidence that molecules to man evolution is possible. In fact, the opposite is what is observed.

Evolution is the basis for religions.

Evolution is based on faith and uses circular reasoning (eg. rocks dated by fossils, and fossils dated by rocks).

The professing evolutionist begins with the premise that evolution is true, then makes the 'facts' fit their belief.

Intelligent design is based on the logic that life only comes from life, which IS WHAT IS OBSERVED.

Intelligent design is based on a creator being responsible, which is sufficient cause for the effect of everything that is; while those proposing evolution base their fairy tale on 'nothing' being the cause for everything.

The stories told by those proposing evolution and presenting it on tv and in schools are pretty wild - 'first there was nothing, then an explosion occurred' HOW CAN NOTHING EXPLODE. 'OH, wait, there was this tiny ball of matter.' REALLY? WHERE DID IT COME FROM? 'Uhm, it was just - there . . .' 'Then, some electric explosion made order from non-order' (LOL, give me an example where an explosion ever increased order in the real world) 'Then this slime stuff somehow increased its complexity.' GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE. 'Uhm, when galapagus finches' beaks got larger.' OK - CREATIONISTS BELIEVE IN VARIATION, (also known as 'mIcro-evolution'), but NEVER IS OBSERVED ANYTHING LIVING GAINING GENETIC COMPLEXITY DUE TO 'NEW INFORMATION' BEING ADDED. A BIRD'S BEAK CAN GET BIGGER OR SMALLER, FEATHERS BE DIFFERENT COLORS, EYES DIFFERENT COLORS, ETC. BUT IT WILL ALWAYS BE A BIRD - ITS GENETIC CODE ACTIVELY PREVENTS IT FROM BECOMING ANYTHING ELSE.

I've provided links before, I'll do it one more time and then leave this thread as there's no one to challenge me with any real science.

www.scienceagainstevolution.org

www.trueorigin.org - this site is for those who use talkorigins as their bible, and here's a link to trueorigins responses - http://www.trueorigin.org/#to

www.creation.com

Any claims by those professing evolution can be shown wrong at these sites, backed by testable, observable science. The reason some of you don't want to read anything there is because you don't want to believe it whether it's true or not.

Maybe some extra radiation will help you evolve into a higher being - go get some. Maybe some new information will enter into your system - by the way, where does the 'new' information come from that causes things to evolve from lower levels to higher? No one has ever documented a single example that has passed peer review. All there is, is variation, limited by the code. The code has information. Information implies intelligence.

Have a nice day.

And here is a good one for the road that made me laugh and has some of that Ad Hominem Jmog likes to complain about so much.

jmog;292128 wrote:...His talk on "Adam and Eve" is hilarious. 1st, they did die, just awhile after that. They were originally to live forever but due to eating the fruit they eventually died. 2, it wasn't just a "snake", it was, according to the Bible, Lucifer in the form of a snake, so yeah, it would be able to talk...

This moron should at least google some of this crap before he says it.

You two supporting this joker have just lost a ton of credibility, he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about and is using so many talking points that have no merit its funny.

^^^^Why this forum is still worth coming to :RpS_lol:

krazie45;222704 wrote:Stemming off of the youth and religion topic I wanted to know what everyone thought about the validness of the theory of intelligent design. Is it viable scientifically to believe the Earth and life was created specifically with purpose (most famous example is the watch analogy: you find a watch in a field, you notice its complexity with gears and such, you conclude it was built and not randomly generated), or is intelligent design just a rewording of religious creationism in an attempt to have it taught in public schools? Thoughts?

I've been told I'm intelligent design person ... does this help...

I just saw this and I'm sitting here dumbfounded by the second post on the thread where jmog calls himself a "scientist". Really? On your W2 it says your profession is "scientist"? I find that laughable.

So we are digging into posts 5 years old? Wow, some of us have too much time on our hands.

Tiernan-My BS in Applied Mathematics, BS in Chemical Engineering, MS in Chemical Engineering and 3 published papers in peer reviewed journals says that I am an engineer/scientist.

If you actually read that post you are referring to, I originally stated that I do NOT believe that Intelligent Design or Creationism should be taught in a science class, as it is not testable science as per the Scientific Method. They could be taught in a philosophy class and use logic/reason to determine belief systems.

jmog;1759692 wrote:So we are digging into posts 5 years old? Wow, some of us have too much time on our hands.

Tiernan-My BS in Applied Mathematics, BS in Chemical Engineering, MS in Chemical Engineering and 3 published papers in peer reviewed journals says that I am an engineer/scientist.

If you actually read that post you are referring to, I originally stated that I do NOT believe that Intelligent Design or Creationism should be taught in a science class, as it is not testable science as per the Scientific Method. They could be taught in a philosophy class and use logic/reason to determine belief systems.

Why so racist?