Should at Least Make Evolutionists Consider

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Why, and how, does the muntjac deer have only seven pairs of chromosomes?

Please don't look this up, at least until you've considered for a moment how weird this is. Imagine you have 20 pairs of chromosomes, and you have a baby that has sixteen pairs. He shouldn't be able to breed with the rest of your species.

Is this at least weird? A regular deer has around 40-70 chromosomes. Is it at least strange that he can even be alive having lost that much genetic information? One more halving and he'll be a fruit fly (they have 4 pairs).

[Clownboat]

Until recently secularists refused to believe soft tissues could be found in dinosaur remains because everyone knows soft tissues cannot survive millions of years.

Two modern discoveries about dinosaur bones both refuted the long held erroneous assumption that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.

Do you have any evidence for the claims that you made? If not, you may want to do your due diligence before making them as this is a debate site and we all should expect to have our claims questioned.

Marke: Evolutionists at first refused to believe Mary Schweitzer had found soft tissues but they were forced to alter their assumptions and beliefs over the next several years as Mary's conclusion about soft tissues was proven beyond doubt.

AI Overview
Learn more
Scientists initially questioned Mary Schweitzer's discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils because it was widely believed that organic material like soft tissue could not survive for millions of years, making the idea of finding preserved blood vessels and collagen in a dinosaur bone seemingly impossible according to the established understanding of fossilization processes; this raised concerns about contamination and the validity of her findings.
Key points about the skepticism surrounding Schweitzer's discovery:
• Time scale:
The prevailing scientific view was that soft tissues would rapidly decompose, leaving only mineralized bone structures after millions of years.
• Contamination concerns:
Critics worried that the observed soft tissue could be a result of contamination from modern organisms introduced during the fossil extraction process.
• Lack of precedent:
Prior to Schweitzer's research, no one had reported finding such well-preserved soft tissue in dinosaur fossils, making her discovery seem groundbreaking and initially difficult to accept.

Please follow this up with: "Therefore ......."
That way you will have at least tried to make a point. At this time all you are doing is providing known info. Do you know why you provide it? I sure don't, because you fail to tell us.

Until you do such a thing, I will leave you with this:
"Sunlight reaches Earth's atmosphere and is scattered in all directions by all the gases and particles in the air. Blue light is scattered more than the other colors because it travels as shorter, smaller waves. This is why we see a blue sky most of the time."

[EYR]

[Replying to marke in post #66]

I base my claims on the Bible - even if it upsets nonbelievers.

[EYR]

[Replying to Diagoras in post #70]

My,, aren't you the clever one!

[marke]

Rejecting science submitted by Christians

Please show where this happened or admit that you offer nothing but distractions in place of debate.

does not refute the facts that undermine popular evolutionist assumptions and narratives.

Do you even know what popular evolutionists assumptions and narratives are? If you do, please supply them so I can fight against them. I say this, because if a scientist is just going to assume things, they might as well use 'faith' and faith is required in order to believe in things that are false. Scientists (I assume that is what you mean by evolutionist) are not doing science if they are using faith and assuming things and need to be brought to task. I thank you in advance for bringing these terrible acts to our attention.

Until recently secularists refused to believe soft tissues could be found in dinosaur remains because everyone knows soft tissues cannot survive millions of years.

Why did you take the time to type these words? What should they mean to the rest of us and why did you once again quote a post of mine without addressing it. It's rude.

Marke: I mention the huge backlash Schweitzer received when she first posted her evidence of dinosaur soft tissues. Evolutionists had been sure dinosaur bones were so old that soft tissues could not possibly have been found. It turns out, as proved by diverse evidence, that dinosaur bones are not nearly old as men had assumed for so long.

[Clownboat]

Marke: I mention the huge backlash Schweitzer received when she first posted her evidence of dinosaur soft tissues. Evolutionists had been sure dinosaur bones were so old that soft tissues could not possibly have been found. It turns out, as proved by diverse evidence, that dinosaur bones are not nearly old as men had assumed for so long.

Thank you for clarifying why you provided what you did.
Please show that what you said above in bold is true and that dinosaurs have in fact not been here for around 240 million years as we currently understand. I ask because I'm very aware of the soft tissue and what it means.

Young earth creationists have widely cited these findings as evidence that dinosaur fossils cannot really be millions of years old, and so the rock layers (radioactively dated to more than 65 million years of age) cannot really be millions of years old—and so, it is claimed, the whole old-earth dating edifice collapses. There are multiple reasons why these claims are false. I have read through most of Schweitzer’s papers on this topic, and reviewed the key findings from them in a 25-page article, which is posted on the Letters to Creationists blog as “Dinosaur Soft Tissue.” For lots of data and literature references, that is the place to go. For those who do not want to wade through all that information, here are some key takeaways.

I appreciate the work of BioLogos in helping Christians to understand that we can welcome, rather than fear, the findings of modern science.
https://biologos.org/articles/soft-tiss ... really-say

[marke]

Marke: I mention the huge backlash Schweitzer received when she first posted her evidence of dinosaur soft tissues. Evolutionists had been sure dinosaur bones were so old that soft tissues could not possibly have been found. It turns out, as proved by diverse evidence, that dinosaur bones are not nearly old as men had assumed for so long.

Thank you for clarifying why you provided what you did.
Please show that what you said above in bold is true and that dinosaurs have in fact not been here for around 240 million years as we currently understand. I ask because I'm very aware of the soft tissue and what it means.

Young earth creationists have widely cited these findings as evidence that dinosaur fossils cannot really be millions of years old, and so the rock layers (radioactively dated to more than 65 million years of age) cannot really be millions of years old—and so, it is claimed, the whole old-earth dating edifice collapses. There are multiple reasons why these claims are false. I have read through most of Schweitzer’s papers on this topic, and reviewed the key findings from them in a 25-page article, which is posted on the Letters to Creationists blog as “Dinosaur Soft Tissue.” For lots of data and literature references, that is the place to go. For those who do not want to wade through all that information, here are some key takeaways.

I appreciate the work of BioLogos in helping Christians to understand that we can welcome, rather than fear, the findings of modern science.
https://biologos.org/articles/soft-tiss ... really-say

Marke: Not only did Schweitzer turn the scientific world upside down by discovering relatively young soft tissues in dionosaur bones, a reputable university lab in Georgia shocked the scientific world by testing dinosaur bones and reporting them to be younger than 50,000 years old.

[The Barbarian]

Marke: I mention the huge backlash Schweitzer received when she first posted her evidence of dinosaur soft tissues. Evolutionists had been sure dinosaur bones were so old that soft tissues could not possibly have been found. It turns out, as proved by diverse evidence, that dinosaur bones are not nearly old as men had assumed for so long.

Thank you for clarifying why you provided what you did.
Please show that what you said above in bold is true and that dinosaurs have in fact not been here for around 240 million years as we currently understand. I ask because I'm very aware of the soft tissue and what it means.

Young earth creationists have widely cited these findings as evidence that dinosaur fossils cannot really be millions of years old, and so the rock layers (radioactively dated to more than 65 million years of age) cannot really be millions of years old—and so, it is claimed, the whole old-earth dating edifice collapses. There are multiple reasons why these claims are false. I have read through most of Schweitzer’s papers on this topic, and reviewed the key findings from them in a 25-page article, which is posted on the Letters to Creationists blog as “Dinosaur Soft Tissue.” For lots of data and literature references, that is the place to go. For those who do not want to wade through all that information, here are some key takeaways.

I appreciate the work of BioLogos in helping Christians to understand that we can welcome, rather than fear, the findings of modern science.
https://biologos.org/articles/soft-tiss ... really-say

Marke: Not only did Schweitzer turn the scientific world upside down by discovering relatively young soft tissues in dionosaur bones, a reputable university lab in Georgia shocked the scientific world by testing dinosaur bones and reporting them to be younger than 50,000 years old.

Actually, it's not tissue.
Tissue is a group of cells that have similar structure and that function together as a unit.
https://www.google.com/search?q=scienti ... s-wiz-serp

It's just some organic material (heme) that chemists say can exist for millions of years in high-iron concentrations. The interesting thing is, it once again confirms the prediction that birds evolved from other dinosaurs.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC21042/

And someone submitted the material to the lab to be tested for C-15. The lab reported it as "older than 50,000 years" since that method has a limit of 50,000 years.

[marke]

Marke: I mention the huge backlash Schweitzer received when she first posted her evidence of dinosaur soft tissues. Evolutionists had been sure dinosaur bones were so old that soft tissues could not possibly have been found. It turns out, as proved by diverse evidence, that dinosaur bones are not nearly old as men had assumed for so long.

Thank you for clarifying why you provided what you did.
Please show that what you said above in bold is true and that dinosaurs have in fact not been here for around 240 million years as we currently understand. I ask because I'm very aware of the soft tissue and what it means.

Young earth creationists have widely cited these findings as evidence that dinosaur fossils cannot really be millions of years old, and so the rock layers (radioactively dated to more than 65 million years of age) cannot really be millions of years old—and so, it is claimed, the whole old-earth dating edifice collapses. There are multiple reasons why these claims are false. I have read through most of Schweitzer’s papers on this topic, and reviewed the key findings from them in a 25-page article, which is posted on the Letters to Creationists blog as “Dinosaur Soft Tissue.” For lots of data and literature references, that is the place to go. For those who do not want to wade through all that information, here are some key takeaways.

I appreciate the work of BioLogos in helping Christians to understand that we can welcome, rather than fear, the findings of modern science.
https://biologos.org/articles/soft-tiss ... really-say

Marke: Not only did Schweitzer turn the scientific world upside down by discovering relatively young soft tissues in dionosaur bones, a reputable university lab in Georgia shocked the scientific world by testing dinosaur bones and reporting them to be younger than 50,000 years old.

Actually, it's not tissue.

Marke: AI Overview
Learn more
Yes, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer made a landmark discovery of preserved soft tissues, including what appeared to be blood vessels and bone cells, inside a fossilized Tyrannosaurus Rex leg bone, marking the first time viable soft tissue was found in a dinosaur fossil; this discovery challenged the conventional understanding of fossilization process where only hard bones should remain preserved after millions of years.
Key points about Schweitzer's discovery:
Tissue type:
The soft tissues found were described as collagen fibers and structures resembling blood vessels.
Significance:
This discovery opened up new avenues for studying dinosaur biology and physiology by potentially allowing analysis of proteins and other organic molecules preserved within the fossil.
Controversy:
While widely accepted, some scientists initially questioned the authenticity of the findings due to the unexpected nature of preserving soft tissue in such an ancient fossil.
Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery - Barry Yeoman
Apr 1, 2006

Barry Yeoman
Not So Dry Bones: An interview with Mary Schweitzer - BioLogos
Jul 21, 2014 — In 2005, paleontologist Mary Schweitzer made a landmark discovery—the first evidence for soft tissues in a 68-million-

BioLogos
How did scientists find soft tissue in dinosaur fossils? | HowStuffWorks
Jun 9, 2023 — The soft tissues themselves are completely gone, and only stone remains. At least, that's the conventional wisdom. But ...

HowStuffWorks
Show all

Tissue is a group of cells that have similar structure and that function together as a unit.
https://www.google.com/search?q=scienti ... s-wiz-serp

It's just some organic material (heme) that chemists say can exist for millions of years in high-iron concentrations. The interesting thing is, it once again confirms the prediction that birds evolved from other dinosaurs.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC21042/

Marke: AI Overview
Learn more
No, the discovery of dinosaur soft tissues does not prove that dinosaurs evolved from birds, but it does strongly support the widely accepted theory that birds evolved from a specific group of dinosaurs, as the preserved soft tissues often show similarities to bird tissues, providing further evidence for their close evolutionary relationship; essentially, the soft tissue discovery strengthens the idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs, not the other way around.
Key points to remember:
Evidence from soft tissues:
Analysis of preserved dinosaur soft tissues, like collagen proteins, has shown similarities to the proteins found in modern birds, bolstering the connection between the two groups.
Feathered dinosaurs:
Fossil evidence of feathered dinosaurs, which are considered a key link between non-avian dinosaurs and birds, further supports this evolutionary relationship.
Skeletal similarities:
The bone structure of many dinosaurs, particularly theropods, shares characteristics with modern birds, like hollow bones and wishbones.
It's official: birds are literally dinosaurs. Here's how we know
Dec 21, 2021 — There's no longer really any doubt that birds are a type of dinosaur. These days, the debate is about details. The str...

BirdLife International
Molecular analysis confirms T. Rex's evolutionary link to birds
Apr 24, 2008 — Putting more meat on the theory that dinosaurs' closest living relatives are modern-day birds, molecular analysis of a...

Harvard Gazette
Review The Origin and Diversification of Birds - ScienceDirect.com
Oct 5, 2015 — Birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs during the Jurassic (around 165–150 million years ago) and their classic small, l...

ScienceDirect.com
Show all


And someone submitted the material to the lab to be tested for C-15. The lab reported it as "older than 50,000 years" since that method has a limit of 50,000 years.

Marke: The lab was given bones from dinosaurs without knowing the bones were dinosaur bones. Did the test break the lab equipment? No. Did the experts recognize the bones were too old to test? No. Did the lab find out the bones were too old to test while testing? No. Did the lab know the bones were supposedly too old to test after they tested the bones? Not immediately. Did the lab guarantee their test results were accurate and not affected by contamination? Yes. How did the lab finally discover the bones were too old to test? Someone finally told them the bones were from dinosaurs.

[Clownboat]

Marke: I mention the huge backlash Schweitzer received when she first posted her evidence of dinosaur soft tissues. Evolutionists had been sure dinosaur bones were so old that soft tissues could not possibly have been found. It turns out, as proved by diverse evidence, that dinosaur bones are not nearly old as men had assumed for so long.

Thank you for clarifying why you provided what you did.
Please show that what you said above in bold is true and that dinosaurs have in fact not been here for around 240 million years as we currently understand. I ask because I'm very aware of the soft tissue and what it means.

Young earth creationists have widely cited these findings as evidence that dinosaur fossils cannot really be millions of years old, and so the rock layers (radioactively dated to more than 65 million years of age) cannot really be millions of years old—and so, it is claimed, the whole old-earth dating edifice collapses. There are multiple reasons why these claims are false. I have read through most of Schweitzer’s papers on this topic, and reviewed the key findings from them in a 25-page article, which is posted on the Letters to Creationists blog as “Dinosaur Soft Tissue.” For lots of data and literature references, that is the place to go. For those who do not want to wade through all that information, here are some key takeaways.

I appreciate the work of BioLogos in helping Christians to understand that we can welcome, rather than fear, the findings of modern science.
https://biologos.org/articles/soft-tiss ... really-say

Marke: Not only did Schweitzer turn the scientific world upside down by discovering relatively young soft tissues in dionosaur bones, a reputable university lab in Georgia shocked the scientific world by testing dinosaur bones and reporting them to be younger than 50,000 years old.

You seem to have your head buried so far into the sand that you forgot that the claims are false.
I even found a religious site to explain this to you.
No one here nor from your own community is taking you seriously.

You failed to show that what you claimed earlier was true (underlined above for reference) and you failed to show that dinosaurs have not been on this planet for around 240 million years. That you have a super power for rejecting established science (and not being able to figure out the quoting system) is all you are displaying here. Science that even your own community accepts as I have shown you and yet you still carry on.

[The Barbarian]

The lab was given bones from dinosaurs without knowing the bones were dinosaur bones.

They likely would have warned the creationist who submitted the bones that their equipment could not date material that age.

Did the test break the lab equipment?

Perhaps you don't know how this works. It only measures the amount of C-14 in the sample. If they don't find anything more than miniscule traces, they merely report it as older than 50,000 years, which is the current sensitivity of the method. Anything older than that just registers as 50,000 years plus. Think of it as being like an old analog speedometer on a car with a top number of 125 mph. If you put a rocket engine on the car, and it goes over 200 mph, it will only register 125 mph.

Did the experts recognize the bones were too old to test? Did the lab find out the bones were too old to test while testing? Did the lab know the bones were supposedly too old to test after they tested the bones?

That's not what they are there for. They make it clear the limits of C-14 testing and expect the people submitting samples to be aware of that.

Did the lab guarantee their test results were accurate and not affected by contamination?

No, and they can't. Contaminated samples will always give a false reading. For example, mollusks often get their carbon from geologic sources. So C-14 testing of mollusks will usually give an age of "greater than 50,000 years.

How did the lab finally discover the bones were too old to test? Someone finally told them the bones were from dinosaurs.[/b]

And their response, was undoubtedly "We told you that sort of thing wouldn't give an accurate date with our method."