Harmony Central Forums
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Want to fight climate change? Have fewer children

Collapse



X
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post
    OK! The key word is fossils! This is very easy. I explained it in the past and in the post above. Here it is again:

    They're not the actual flesh that was once alive on Earth. Other elements in the Earth slowly biodegraded the flesh; in the process, these other elements filled in where the flesh had been, and in doing so, it filled out the exact shape and patterns that the flesh had had.

    This process is fossilization. Fossils are physical imprints of what was buried. Fossils are not made of the once-living flesh. They are made of earthly elements that do last for millions of years, holding the same shape.
    I know what a fossil is and for that matter I took chemistry at the U of Akron... I am talking about organic flesh / bone material not yet fossilized. It simply cannot be millions of years old. Original scales stuck in the mummified skin have been found in North Dakota (hadrosaur said to be 68 million years old,,,,,really?) We have a mix of unmineralised tissue and mineralized. Why is the evidence being ignored, like the mosasaur taken from Kansas? It's chemistry was tested finding original but partly decayed hemoglobin and still-purple retina cells.
    Last edited by LARRY L; 09-19-2017, 01:25 PM.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by LARRY L View Post
      I know what a fossil is and for that matter I took chemistry at the U of Akron... I am talking about organic flesh / bone material not yet fossilized. It simply cannot be millions of years old. Original scales stuck in the mummified skin have been found in North Dakota (hadrosaur said to be 68 million years old,,,,,really?) We have a mix of unmineralised tissue and mineralized. Why is the evidence being ignored, like the mosasaur taken from Kansas. It's chemistry was tested finding original but partly decayed hemoglobin and still-purple retina cells.

      Then you're going to have to provide a link so we know specifically what you're talking about.

      Comment


      • LARRY L
        LARRY L commented
        Editing a comment
        Do writings still count? Mummifed dinosaur skin yields up new secrets, U of Manchester press release 7 -1 2009

    • #78
      Originally posted by LARRY L View Post
      I know what a fossil is and for that matter I took chemistry at the U of Akron... I am talking about organic flesh / bone material not yet fossilized. It simply cannot be millions of years old. Original scales stuck in the mummified skin have been found in North Dakota (hadrosaur said to be 68 million years old,,,,,really?) We have a mix of unmineralised tissue and mineralized. Why is the evidence being ignored, like the mosasaur taken from Kansas? It's chemistry was tested finding original but partly decayed hemoglobin and still-purple retina cells.

      Yes, it can.

      https://www.livescience.com/41537-t-...ft-tissue.html
      ______________

      Comment


      • #79
        those so-called scientists need to get right with God.
        To you I'm an atheist; but to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.

        Comment


        • #80
          Originally posted by RogueGnome View Post
          those so-called scientists need to get right with God.

          The paleontologist who made these discoveries is an evangelical Christian and a creationist.


          Schweitzer's first forays into paleontology were "a total hook," she says. Not only was she fascinated by the science, but to her, digging into ancient strata seemed like reading the history of God's handiwork. Schweitzer worships at two churches—an evangelical church in Montana and a nondenominational one when she is back home in North Carolina—and when she talks about her faith, her bristly demeanor falls away. "God is so multidimensional," she says. "I see a sense of humor. I see His compassion in the world around me. It makes me curious, because the creator is revealed in the creation." Unlike many creationists, she finds the notion of a world evolving over billions of years theologically exhilarating: "That makes God a lot bigger than thinking of Him as a magician that pulled everything out in one fell swoop."​

          http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna
          Last edited by guido61; 09-19-2017, 01:46 PM.
          ______________

          Comment


          • #81
            Originally posted by LARRY L View Post
            I know what a fossil is and for that matter I took chemistry at the U of Akron... I am talking about organic flesh / bone material not yet fossilized. It simply cannot be millions of years old. Original scales stuck in the mummified skin have been found in North Dakota (hadrosaur said to be 68 million years old,,,,,really?) We have a mix of unmineralised tissue and mineralized. Why is the evidence being ignored, like the mosasaur taken from Kansas? It's chemistry was tested finding original but partly decayed hemoglobin and still-purple retina cells.
            Oh, pardon me!
            Well, perhaps our idea that 'it simply cannot be' just isn't correct. I'm not sure what the term 'mummified' means here, but apparently there are a number of them. The first Google result for North Dakota hadrosaur is http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...ebut-48137217/ and it discusses how the actual flesh material is a small fraction of the otherwise fossilized material. And they say that scientists will be studying a lot of mummified fossils to figure out how some organic material 'survived.' That Smithsonian article is 10 years old, so maybe they've got more knowledge now. I myself do not.

            But! Ultimately, if we get new data that challenges our old ideas (such as the old ideas that organic material cannot survive millions of years, or that a human's entire experience of gender is determined strictly by one of their 46 chromosomes) then we change our thinking to fit with the new data. If we've got millions-years-old organic material within the fossilized material but we still see nuclear decay rates and other factors going into geological dating telling us that the location of those fossils is x millions of years old, then the thing we most likely had wrong was the idea that the organic material couldn't survive for so long.

            Thanks for pointing that finding out to me. I might try to read up some more and see if I can find any conclusions about the mummification process and keeping organic material alive when most of the body is fossilized.
            Last edited by arcadesonfire; 09-19-2017, 01:48 PM.
            My band!:
            www.steelphantoms.com/
            my stage stuff:
            fender jimmie vaughan strat, korg dt-10, ts-9, keeley rat, thoroughly modded big muff, 4ms tremulus lune, eventide timefactor running stereo to a traynor bassmaster (w hotplate) and a fender HRD. Everything ('cept the TimeFactor and dt-10) is modded, with much help from folks at Harmony Central. Thanks everybody!

            Comment


            • #82
              Originally posted by guido61 View Post


              You remember that kid in school who thought everyone was laughing WITH him when they were instead all laughing AT him....?
              ​Kinda like we're all doing now?
              ~~I was not. I was. I am not. I do not care

              Comment


              • #83
                Originally posted by guido61 View Post


                The paleontologist who made these discoveries is an evangelical Christian and a creationist.

                [/URL]
                I wouldn't go walking around outdoors in a thunderstorm if I was her.​

                To you I'm an atheist; but to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition.

                Comment


                • #84
                  Originally posted by guido61 View Post


                  So do we throw out the Arrhenius equation that has been pretty reliable, actual tests of known data for decay rates?

                  Comment


                  • #85
                    Originally posted by LARRY L View Post



                    So do we throw out the Arrhenius equation that has been pretty reliable, actual tests of known data for decay rates?
                    No.
                    ______________

                    Comment


                    • #86
                      Originally posted by LARRY L View Post



                      So do we throw out the Arrhenius equation that has been pretty reliable, actual tests of known data for decay rates?
                      Huh?? Guido's link discusses how there appears to have been more chemically occurring in these samples than we had known. It discusses natural elements preserving the organic material in a natural way and thereby preventing decay. There's nothing law-breaking in that article's proposal.
                      My band!:
                      www.steelphantoms.com/
                      my stage stuff:
                      fender jimmie vaughan strat, korg dt-10, ts-9, keeley rat, thoroughly modded big muff, 4ms tremulus lune, eventide timefactor running stereo to a traynor bassmaster (w hotplate) and a fender HRD. Everything ('cept the TimeFactor and dt-10) is modded, with much help from folks at Harmony Central. Thanks everybody!

                      Comment


                      • #87
                        Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post
                        Oh, pardon me!
                        Well, perhaps our idea that 'it simply cannot be' just isn't correct. I'm not sure what the term 'mummified' means here, but apparently there are a number of them. The first Google result for North Dakota hadrosaur is http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...ebut-48137217/ and it discusses how the actual flesh material is a small fraction of the otherwise fossilized material. And they say that scientists will be studying a lot of mummified fossils to figure out how some organic material 'survived.' That Smithsonian article is 10 years old, so maybe they've got more knowledge now. I myself do not.

                        But! Ultimately, if we get new data that challenges our old ideas (such as the old ideas that organic material cannot survive millions of years, or that a human's entire experience of gender is determined strictly by one of their 46 chromosomes) then we change our thinking to fit with the new data. If we've got millions-years-old organic material within the fossilized material but we still see nuclear decay rates and other factors going into geological dating telling us that the location of those fossils is x millions of years old, then the thing we most likely had wrong was the idea that the organic material couldn't survive for so long.

                        Thanks for pointing that finding out to me. I might try to read up some more and see if I can find any conclusions about the mummification process and keeping organic material alive when most of the body is fossilized.
                        Science should not contradict itself. If you were to wipe the slate clean and go on known testable data for the foundations, with no assumptions allowed, we then would have something to build on. The Arrhenius equation has been a standard for decay, and it shows a relative fast decay rate With all radio dating methods we extrapolate far distance dates with an ASSUMED closed system, as in hoping nothing contaminated things beyond the real time data, and assume starting values, we are now open to the end results that are as only speculations at best.

                        Much of the science community has speculated the millions / billions of years old dates yet calls them a fact. We were not there to actually time the events. We also have with animals / fossils that were similar assumed to have evolved to the next step never assumed they were made out of the box two different but similar animals. The fossil record lacks big time in that, yet still could not ever prove evolution.

                        You are trying to figure out the past by what we you now you are trying to understand today. For me, I take the time and date of a known past event say like the great flood, then work it forward to understand what I see today. It all falls perfectly in place for me and takes the guess work out.

                        BTW as far as gender, I have cut 9 umbilical cords, so I do not need to know about chromosomes to understand any better what makes a women a women and a man a man.

                        Comment


                        • Komandi
                          Komandi commented
                          Editing a comment
                          'Known past event'. Uggggg!!

                          'The flood' is fiction. Evolution is fact. Learn the difference already. Sheesh!

                      • #88
                        Originally posted by arcadesonfire View Post
                        Huh?? Guido's link discusses how there appears to have been more chemically occurring in these samples than we had known. It discusses natural elements preserving the organic material in a natural way and thereby preventing decay. There's nothing law-breaking in that article's proposal.
                        "It's unclear how the organic material is preserved, but iron might help the proteins become cross-linked and unrecognizable, or unavailable to the bacteria that would otherwise consume them, Lacovara said. "
                        I also read in the link "2 years with no decay"
                        You guys have no problem with far out speculations and extrapolations that into the millions of times over. Do you not see all of this as a BIG reach, another "Hail Mary" pass?


                        Maybe I am too simple and cannot dream big, idono?
                        Last edited by LARRY L; 09-19-2017, 04:52 PM.

                        Comment


                        • #89
                          Originally posted by LARRY L View Post

                          "It's unclear how the organic material is preserved, but iron might help the proteins become cross-linked and unrecognizable, or unavailable to the bacteria that would otherwise consume them, Lacovara said. "
                          I also read in the link "2 years with no decay"
                          You guys have no problem with far out speculations and extrapolations that into the millions of times over. Do you not see all of this as a BIG reach, another "Hail Mary" pass?


                          Maybe I am too simple and cannot dream big, idono?
                          no. I have no problem with extrapolations that stretch back millions of years as long as the math and the science works.

                          The "big reach" is constantly ignoring scientific discoveries and pulling "theories" out of thin air that can't be supported in order to fit everything in a myth written thousands of years ago.

                          But don't argue with me about it. Argue with the evangelical creationist who both discovered this tissue and the explanation for why it did not decay.
                          Last edited by guido61; 09-19-2017, 05:30 PM.
                          ______________

                          Comment


                          • #90
                            Originally posted by LARRY L View Post
                            Science should not contradict itself. If you were to wipe the slate clean and go on known testable data for the foundations, with no assumptions allowed, we then would have something to build on. The Arrhenius equation has been a standard for decay, and it shows a relative fast decay rate With all radio dating methods we extrapolate far distance dates with an ASSUMED closed system, as in hoping nothing contaminated things beyond the real time data, and assume starting values, we are now open to the end results that are as only speculations at best.

                            Much of the science community has speculated the millions / billions of years old dates yet calls them a fact. We were not there to actually time the events. We also have with animals / fossils that were similar assumed to have evolved to the next step never assumed they were made out of the box two different but similar animals. The fossil record lacks big time in that, yet still could not ever prove evolution.

                            You are trying to figure out the past by what we you now you are trying to understand today. For me, I take the time and date of a known past event say like the great flood, then work it forward to understand what I see today. It all falls perfectly in place for me and takes the guess work out.

                            BTW as far as gender, I have cut 9 umbilical cords, so I do not need to know about chromosomes to understand any better what makes a women a women and a man a man.
                            You understand gender because you've cut nine umbilical cords?
                            ______________

                            Comment













                            Working...
                            X