Author Topic: Dinosaur skeleton found with skin and soft tissues intact  (Read 2069 times)

Offline Greg

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 9644
  • Thanked: 4644 times
  • Religion: Kung Fu
Re: Dinosaur skeleton found with skin and soft tissues intact
« Reply #45 on: May 18, 2017, 12:33:47 AM »
A thing can be poetically true without being historically true

Either there were two original parents who propagated the entire human race or there were not.  Both statements cannot be true.

You need two original parents to have a consistent understanding of a truth the Catholic Church taught as an historical truth.  It never taught it as a poetic truth for 1900 years.  One would not be bound to believe it if it were poetic.

Original Sin cannot be real due to a biblical poem.

How would you respond if the Resurrection or Virgin birth was termed a "poetic truth"?
 
The following users thanked this post: Habitual_Ritual, Gardener, clau clau, queen.saints, Carleendiane

Offline Quaremerepulisti

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3107
  • Thanked: 838 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Dinosaur skeleton found with skin and soft tissues intact
« Reply #46 on: May 18, 2017, 10:27:04 AM »
I personally have not seen good evidence for evolution. Most in favor just assert it is an established fact and make allusions to some supposed evidence. The evidence that has been presented to me has been debunked like vestigial organs.

The evidence for directed evolution exists, whether you personally admit it to be good or not.  Vestigial organs (and "junk" DNA, etc.) haven't been "debunked" just because some function has been found for them, contrary to what answersingenesis and the like may triumphantly proclaim.

First, evolution at small scales clearly happens.  It is directly observed.  It is why there is antibiotic-resistant bacteria and nylonase and malarial resistance to quinine.

Before we can even begin to talk about evolution at larger scales which is inferred and not directly observed, we need to agree on the definitions of "good evidence" and "evolution" itself. 

Given two time epochs, with different types of animals existing in each one, there are really only two hypotheses in play (from a theist perspective).

1.  The new animals arose via common descent from the old ones.
2.  The new animals were created de novo by God.

(Combinations of 1. and 2. for different animal types are of course possible).

Now hypothesis 1. differs from the materialist version, which is
1.  The new animals arose via common descent and random mutational processes from the old ones.

But that is not what we are dealing with here, only "evolution" as it means common descent alone.

Now what is good evidence for 1. instead of 2.?  (Please bear with on the math.  It's not necessary to perform an exact mathematical calculation, but it is necessary or at least useful to show the principles involved in making inferences from data. It's OK if you don't understand, but then you should not be so airily confident that evidence presented is merely "supposed" and "debunked".)

Given a priori no reason to prefer either one (both are plausible a priori), good evidence means the likelihood of the observed data given 1. >> the likelihood given 2.  P(D|1) >> P(D|2).  Note it is not the case that good evidence must mean P(D|1) ~ 1 or P(D|2) ~ 0, so claims of good evidence are not debunked by reference to P(D|1) (or P(D|2)) alone.  It's also necessary to avoid the "Texas sharpshooter" fallacy.  We note that hypothesis 2. carries with it more possible combinations of animals (since God is omnipotent) than hypothesis 1, which has with it more constraints on the types of animals. This doesn't mean hypothesis 2 is more likely (any more than if shooter A hits a bigger target with more accuracy than shooter B on a smaller one means he's a better shooter).  Hypothesis 1. is more likely, if the types of animals seen are consistent with its constraints.  Mathematically this can be seen as P(D|1) = P(D|H)P(H|1) marginalized over H, where H is the "hypothesis space" of 1.  If H for 1 is smaller then for 2, then P(D|1) will be larger if P(D|H) is a good "match".

So what do we find?  We find gradual transitions in the fossil record, consistent with the constraints of common descent.  (Without such constraints, why wouldn't mammals be found in nearly every epoch?)  This is especially obvious in things such as the evolution of horses.  (Lest someone ignorantly trot out the "no transitional fossils" argument, it is not relevant here, for directed evolution assumes that new fully-functional species arise via common descent.)

And today, we find vestigial organs and junk DNA, not consistent with the constraints of de novo creation, but consistent with the constraints of common descent.  Yes, they have a function - if they didn't, natural selection pressure would likely get rid of them over time.  But their mere existence still supports common descent over de novo creation.  The functionality is cobbled-together Rube Goldberg-style.  The functionality of "junk" DNA has nothing to do with the actual DNA sequence but only with its position in the genome.  Vestigial organs have the function they do per accidens, but it beggars belief to think they are actually designed, de novo, for that function in particular.  (Yes, creationists will stomp their feet and demand "You think you can design better than God????" but this is mere question-begging.)  Yet such cobbled-together functionality is more consistent with the constraints of common descent, which may produce something with Rube Goldberg functionality since that is the only way to get there.

Quote
Quare, do you have any links that support your claim that science has very strong evidence for evolution.

There are plenty that show gradualism in the fossil record, and you are already familiar with vestigial organs and junk DNA.  There is also plenty of genetic evidence for common descent among primates.

 

Offline Gardener

  • Drink the poison yourself.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5661
  • Thanked: 2075 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Dinosaur skeleton found with skin and soft tissues intact
« Reply #47 on: May 18, 2017, 10:36:22 AM »
One man from whose rib God fashioned one woman, and these two caused the Fall. If that's not true, then Baptism is bullshit and everything falls it would make the very entrance Sacrament into the faith would be based on a lie.

Further, the understanding of Christ as the new Adam and Mary as the new Eve falls to pieces.

So when non-Christians argue it isn't true based on scientific evidence, and therefore Baptism is bullshit and therefore everything else about Christianity is bullshit as well, how do you respond?  You can:

1) Argue that science itself is bullshit (using technology impossible to develop without current scientific understanding).
2) Admit science itself is fine, but rail on about "scientism" (a handy-dandy epithet to use against any scientific conclusion and/or evidence you don't like).
3) Claim, without evidence or argumentation, that naturalistic metaphysical assumptions have been smuggled in (and act like your opponent is a complete idiot when he asks whether God couldn't have used evolution to create animals and humans).
4) State that "revelation trumps" and lecture on how superior theology is to philosophy and philosophy is ot natural science (not realizing that this is begging the question from your opponent's point of view, since what actually is revealed is precisely what is at issue).

Or maybe, just maybe:

5) Show that what your opponent claims are scientific conclusion don't actually follow from the evidence, using proper means of inference.

What do you think?

Which science? The science of 100-200 years ago that has largely been falsified by current science? The inferences drawn that change every 20 years? Do I reference only the scientists who hold to a "non-scientific" view, or somehow try to discredit the orthodox of the new religion? What about the lukewarm in their religion, who want it both ways? Is this the same science that says to cut fat.. no wait, fat is good. Sugar? No wait, sugar is fine. Get more exercise? no wait, that can impact the heart. It's all chemical? no wait, it's nanotech biomechanics. Islands take millions of years to form? Well, except when they pop out of the underwater volcanoes and 10 years later are lush with vegetation. The science which swears we're gonna drown in 100 years from global warming or the science which says, "no, actually we are entering a cold period." The science which says it's impossible that bacteria causes stomach ulcers or the science where the proponent drinks a shot of the stuff, develops them, and then cures them? The medical science which tells women to give birth with no aid of gravity and proper pelvic position, or the one which says, "hey...um, turns out having women flat on their backs is a bad idea."? The shit science of Edison or the almost mystical genius of Nikola Tesla?

What science is what I'd ask them.

Science is useless to me until it makes up its damn mind, as far as this stuff goes.

"And what use are the victories on the battlefield if we are ourselves are defeated in our innermost personal selves?" - St. Maximilian Kolbe
 
The following users thanked this post: Habitual_Ritual, Elizabeth

Offline Quaremerepulisti

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3107
  • Thanked: 838 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Dinosaur skeleton found with skin and soft tissues intact
« Reply #48 on: May 18, 2017, 10:49:05 AM »
Which science? The science of 100-200 years ago that has largely been falsified by current science? The inferences drawn that change every 20 years? Do I reference only the scientists who hold to a "non-scientific" view, or somehow try to discredit the orthodox of the new religion? What about the lukewarm in their religion, who want it both ways? Is this the same science that says to cut fat.. no wait, fat is good. Sugar? No wait, sugar is fine. Get more exercise? no wait, that can impact the heart. It's all chemical? no wait, it's nanotech biomechanics. Islands take millions of years to form? Well, except when they pop out of the underwater volcanoes and 10 years later are lush with vegetation. The science which swears we're gonna drown in 100 years from global warming or the science which says, "no, actually we are entering a cold period." The science which says it's impossible that bacteria causes stomach ulcers or the science where the proponent drinks a shot of the stuff, develops them, and then cures them? The medical science which tells women to give birth with no aid of gravity and proper pelvic position, or the one which says, "hey...um, turns out having women flat on their backs is a bad idea."? The shit science of Edison or the almost mystical genius of Nikola Tesla?

What science is what I'd ask them.

Science is useless to me until it makes up its damn mind, as far as this stuff goes.

So, in other words, you're going to argue for scientific epistemological nihilism (since science doesn't know everything, and sometimes errs in its conclusions, therefore it doesn't know anything) using a computer built based on the knowledge that transistors, semiconductors, etc., work as advertised.  Good luck with that.

 

Online PerEvangelicaDicta

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 1005
  • Thanked: 869 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Dinosaur skeleton found with skin and soft tissues intact
« Reply #49 on: May 18, 2017, 11:57:50 PM »
There must be a category besides scientific epistemological nihilism for healthy skepticism which is based in reason.  Some of Gardener's examples are part of the crisis re: high levels of non-reproducibility in scientific literature nowadays. 'Crisis' is not my term, but that of others in the scientific community.
They shall not be confounded in the evil time; and in the days of famine they shall be filled
Psalms 36:19
 
The following users thanked this post: Habitual_Ritual

Offline Quaremerepulisti

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3107
  • Thanked: 838 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Dinosaur skeleton found with skin and soft tissues intact
« Reply #50 on: May 19, 2017, 08:12:45 AM »
There must be a category besides scientific epistemological nihilism for healthy skepticism which is based in reason. 

Of course there is.  It's called "good science", which involves proper inference.

Quote
Some of Gardener's examples are part of the crisis re: high levels of non-reproducibility in scientific literature nowadays. 'Crisis' is not my term, but that of others in the scientific community.

Some of this is real, and some of this is overblown.  The real part is shoddy experimental design and p-value hacking.  But the overblown part is this: if a study barely reaches statistical significance, the probability of replicating that result (meeting significance) with the same sample size is only 0.5.  So it's hardly a "crisis" if only 40% of similar studies replicate.


 

Offline Habitual_Ritual

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3567
  • Thanked: 542 times
  • Religion: Papist
Re: Dinosaur skeleton found with skin and soft tissues intact
« Reply #51 on: May 19, 2017, 08:56:10 AM »
Quote
Some evolutionists have strongly criticized Schweitzer’s conclusions because they are understandably reluctant to concede the existence of blood vessels, cells with nuclei, tissue elasticity, and intact protein fragments in a dinosaur bone dated at 68 million years old. Other evolutionists, who find Schweitzer’s evidence too compelling to ignore, simply conclude that there is some previously unrecognized form of fossilization that preserves cells and protein fragments over tens of millions of years.1 Needless to say, no evolutionist has publically considered the possibility that dinosaur fossils are not millions of years old.

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/3-soft-tissue-in-fossils/


Quote
It is not just dinosaur soft tissue, either, but the presence of detectable proteins such as collagen, hemoglobin, osteocalcin,3,4 actin, and tubulin that they must account for. These are complex molecules that continually tend to break down to simpler ones.

Not only that, but in many cases, there are fine details of the bone matrix, with microscopically intact-looking bone cells (osteocytes) showing incredible detail. And Schweitzer has even recovered fragments of the even more fragile and complex molecule, DNA. This has been extracted from the bone cells with markers indicating its source such that it is extremely likely to be dinosaur DNA.5

Others have reported the fast-decaying carbon-14 from dino bones—not a single atom should be left after 1 million years.6

Moreover, more recent discoveries show dinosaur soft tissue in samples that are (by their own assumptions) many millions of years older than those in Dr Schweitzer’s original 2005 discovery. As one article states:

“The researchers also analyzed other fossils for the presence of soft tissue, and found it was present in about half of their samples going back to the Jurassic Period, which lasted from 145.5 million to 199.6 million years ago…”7

Quote
Believing proteins could last for tens of millions of years takes enormous faith. According to a report in the science journal The Biochemist, even if collagen were stored at 0°C, it would not be expected to last even three million years.8 But 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



Quote
However, even under moderate scrutiny, Schweitzer’s explanation quickly falls to pieces. In her new paper she discusses experiments that appear totally unrepresentative of the conditions under which these dinosaur remains were actually preserved. Instead, she describes what boils down to a ‘best and worse case scenario’ for soft tissue preservation.

“They soaked one group of (ostrich) blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years.”20
Reading the supplementary material in her article it appears that pure hemoglobin was used, not lysed cells or materials that could be expected to mimic what would be present in an animal carcass. (Blood vessels soaked in laboratory-prepared hemoglobin is hardly representative of decomposing bones).

http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue
« Last Edit: May 19, 2017, 09:50:07 AM by Habitual_Ritual »
" There exists now an enormous religious ignorance. In the times since the Council it is evident we have failed to pass on the content of the Faith.”

(Pope Benedict XVI speaking in October 2002.)
 
The following users thanked this post: Maximilian

Online An aspiring Thomist

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 442
  • Thanked: 90 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Dinosaur skeleton found with skin and soft tissues intact
« Reply #52 on: May 19, 2017, 10:33:59 AM »
From Quare
Quote
Hypothesis 1. is more likely, if the types of animals seen are consistent with its constraints.  Mathematically this can be seen as P(D|1) = P(D|H)P(H|1) marginalized over H, where H is the "hypothesis space" of 1.  If H for 1 is smaller then for 2, then P(D|1) will be larger if P(D|H) is a good "match".

I agree with this if there are no non natural scientific reasons in favor of 2. However, I believe there are non scientific reasons via Scripture, Tradition, and past Magisterium in favor of 2.

Quote
So what do we find?  We find gradual transitions in the fossil record, consistent with the constraints of common descent.  (Without such constraints, why wouldn't mammals be found in nearly every epoch?)

How about the Cambrian explosion? That was not gradual. Besides, fossil record time lines assume that there are not rapid or spontaneous changes, like a world wide flood. Isn't it possible that any transitions we do see in the fossil record have to do with when/where animals were buried during the flood i.e more complex animals were able to not get buried latter than others. Furthermore, there are not enough transition fossils which I would argue are an essential piece of missing evidence for evolution.

Quote
(Lest someone ignorantly trot out the "no transitional fossils" argument, it is not relevant here, for directed evolution assumes that new fully-functional species arise via common descent.)

Can you explain this more? Doesn't Darwinian evolution say the same thing? Is directed evolution the same as punctuated  equilibrium with God guiding it?

Quote
I don't think "junk" DNA or vestigial organs are strong evidence  for evolution are strong evidence against de nova creation. It is slightly ad hoc, but suppose that after the fall when all of creation moaned, our bodies were deformed in such a way as to give us "junk" DNA and vestigial organs. It is not per se inconsistent, if there was a fall. Furthermore, from theistic evolutionary standpoint, if God could be responsible for creating a process which uses death, disease and so forth to go from one imperfect animal A to another imperfect animal B, then why could God not have made B without the long process. WHY is it more reasonable from your perspective, that given B God most likely used a long drawn out process instead of just creating it de novo or perhaps B got deformed by the fall?

Also, it appears that many junk DNA has actually been found to have functionality. So, in the future it is reasonable to suppose that their will be less so called junk DNA



Finally, here is a quote from the Lateran Council IV:

"God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body."


So were dinosaurs created at once from the beginning of time how many billions of year after time started???


 
The following users thanked this post: Habitual_Ritual

Offline Greg

  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 9644
  • Thanked: 4644 times
  • Religion: Kung Fu
Re: Dinosaur skeleton found with skin and soft tissues intact
« Reply #53 on: May 19, 2017, 12:40:11 PM »
Whales' bollocks.

This is very interesting.

Whales have a built-in refrigeration system for their gonads.


I could do with one of those now the summer has arrived.
 
The following users thanked this post: Habitual_Ritual

Offline Quaremerepulisti

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3107
  • Thanked: 838 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Dinosaur skeleton found with skin and soft tissues intact
« Reply #54 on: May 19, 2017, 01:31:21 PM »
I agree with this if there are no non natural scientific reasons in favor of 2. However, I believe there are non scientific reasons via Scripture, Tradition, and past Magisterium in favor of 2.

Fair enough, which would give you a stronger prior probability of 2.  But your belief needs to be justified by objective evidence otherwise this is mere subjectivism.  Then you need to show your stronger prior probability sufficiently counteracts the greater likelihood of 1.

Quote
How about the Cambrian explosion? That was not gradual.

In this context "gradual" does not necessarily mean "slight".  It means "with gradation".  The question is why didn't mammals come about as a result of the Cambrian explosion, but only the species which actually did, if not for constraints resulting from common descent?

Quote
Besides, fossil record time lines assume that there are not rapid or spontaneous changes, like a world wide flood. Isn't it possible that any transitions we do see in the fossil record have to do with when/where animals were buried during the flood i.e more complex animals were able to not get buried latter than others.

Well sure it's possible that some transitions have to do with that.  However the argument here is similar to the main one.  The fossil record is in complete concordance with the constraints resulting from common descent, with different types of animals living in various time periods.  To claim that all fossils are the result of a long world-wide flood instead would be to imply that God miraculously preserved poop from dissolving, and miraculously determined the fossils should lie in the order they do (since that is inconsistent with physics: it is not complexity which would determine burial order, but things like specific gravity, etc.)  Again the hypothesis space is much, much larger (why this order as compared to any other one)?

Quote
Furthermore, there are not enough transition fossils which I would argue are an essential piece of missing evidence for evolution.

Today, that is even a bad argument against straight Darwinian evolution.  Small tweaks in the genotype can produce vast differences in the phenotype.  Of course, it can be argued such tweaks can't come about via Darwinian processes (and has been by the likes of Behe et al.), but one needs genomic, not fossil, data to make that argument, as Behe uses.

Quote
Can you explain this more? Doesn't Darwinian evolution say the same thing? Is directed evolution the same as punctuated  equilibrium with God guiding it?

No, not exactly, for directed evolution explicitly rejects the nominalistic/materialistic assumptions of punk-eek and saltational "hopeful monsters".  It simply says that animal forms have (or had) the potential to create different animal forms (physically embedded in DNA) and that this potential is actualized under certain given (though rare) circumstances.

Quote
I don't think "junk" DNA or vestigial organs are strong evidence  for evolution are strong evidence against de nova creation. It is slightly ad hoc, but suppose that after the fall when all of creation moaned, our bodies were deformed in such a way as to give us "junk" DNA and vestigial organs. It is not per se inconsistent, if there was a fall.

It's not per se inconsistent, but it's still an ad hoc argument.  Not slightly ad hoc, but totally ad hoc.  You're just arguing that something could have happened.  But again common descent puts constraints on the hypothesis space for which vestigial organs and "junk" DNA fit in nicely - whether or not there are functions for each.  But why did God deform bodies and DNA this way instead of that?

Quote
Furthermore, from theistic evolutionary standpoint, if God could be responsible for creating a process which uses death, disease and so forth to go from one imperfect animal A to another imperfect animal B, then why could God not have made B without the long process.

No one is arguing about what God could have done, the question is what He actually did do.

Quote
WHY is it more reasonable from your perspective, that given B God most likely used a long drawn out process instead of just creating it de novo or perhaps B got deformed by the fall?

Again, the hypothesis space and constraints.

Quote
Also, it appears that many junk DNA has actually been found to have functionality.

As I explained, the functionality arises from the position of the DNA, but not from its sequence, which is more concordant with its function being an accidental byproduct of common descent.

Quote
Finally, here is a quote from the Lateran Council IV:

"God…creator of all visible and invisible things, of the spiritual and of the corporal; who by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal, namely, angelic and mundane, and finally the human, constituted as it were, alike of the spirit and the body."

So were dinosaurs created at once from the beginning of time how many billions of year after time started???

Sorry, this type of proof-texting of Magisterial texts (and subsequent demanding type of question) is just what BOD deniers do.  The clear import is that God created each type of creature (spiritual vs. corporal) from nothing in the beginning, and the Church's Magisterium has never condemned the opinion that different animal forms inhabited the earth at various times in earth's history.

 

Online An aspiring Thomist

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 442
  • Thanked: 90 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Dinosaur skeleton found with skin and soft tissues intact
« Reply #55 on: May 20, 2017, 01:23:05 PM »
From Quare:

Quote
Well sure it's possible that some transitions have to do with that.  However the argument here is similar to the main one.  The fossil record is in complete concordance with the constraints resulting from common descent, with different types of animals living in various time periods.  To claim that all fossils are the result of a long world-wide flood instead would be to imply that God miraculously preserved poop from dissolving, and miraculously determined the fossils should lie in the order they do (since that is inconsistent with physics: it is not complexity which would determine burial order, but things like specific gravity, etc.)  Again the hypothesis space is much, much larger (why this order as compared to any other one)?

A dog might be able to run to higher ground than a snail and hence the dog would be buried higher up than the snail. Granted this is not a great counter argument. Also, I have read that some times animals which supposedly came latter are found deeper in the ground than what they should be. Sometimes a species that lived say 20 million years ago is found below one that lived 50 million years ago in the same dig or something to that effect. 

Quote
Today, that is even a bad argument against straight Darwinian evolution.  Small tweaks in the genotype can produce vast differences in the phenotype.  Of course, it can be argued such tweaks can't come about via Darwinian processes (and has been by the likes of Behe et al.), but one needs genomic, not fossil, data to make that argument, as Behe uses.

A few mutations won't get you from ape to man in a single or even multiple generations. So, at least with Darwinian evolution, there should be transition fossils. If that is the case, then scientist should be able to do precisely that in the lab.

Quote
No, not exactly, for directed evolution explicitly rejects the nominalistic/materialistic assumptions of punk-eek and saltational "hopeful monsters".  It simply says that animal forms have (or had) the potential to create different animal forms (physically embedded in DNA) and that this potential is actualized under certain given (though rare) circumstances.

Okay, but there is no proof for this except circumstantial, which I argue is not enough. Furthermore, these rare events would need to happen together so that the new animal offspring could mate.

Quote
As I explained, the functionality arises from the position of the DNA, but not from its sequence, which is more concordant with its function being an accidental byproduct of common descent.

That may be true of some, but some "junk" DNA has actually been found to have actual functionality beside just being a place holder.
http://evidenceweb.net/generic_search_results.php?p_SEARCHTYPE=Science_Report&p_SEARCH=Junk%20DNA

Quote
Sorry, this type of proof-texting of Magisterial texts (and subsequent demanding type of question) is just what BOD deniers do. 

It's not proof texting especially since it is just repeating what Tradition says. Nearly all of the Fathers believed in a six day creation. Augustine believed it was spontaneous, possibly because of a mistranslation and perhaps one or a few fathers interposed day as a literal thousand years. Furthermore, they did not believe in a young earth in a vacuum. The common scientific/philosophical thought of their day was that the earth was old and that there was a kind of cosmic evolution.

Quote
The clear import is that God created each type of creature (spiritual vs. corporal) from nothing in the beginning, and the Church's Magisterium has never condemned the opinion that different animal forms inhabited the earth at various times in earth's history.

Define in the beginning. Does it mean billions of years after the beginning of time? If God created all of the different kinds in the beginning of time, then how does the evolutionary process fit in? Did he let some go extinct and then started the evolutionary process to get them back? Also, it should be noted that the animals were created at once from the beginning of time, which seems to exclude a long process. 

As you said in your first response to me, we have to look at evidence for and against both 1 and 2. As the OP says, soft tissue of dinosaurs has been found. Furthermore, scientists have also found soft tissue of prehistoric worms which are supposedly a half a billion years old. However, the real clinger is that they have done carbon 14 dating on dinosaurs and found them to be about 20-40 thousand years old, which is preposterous if they are in fact millions of years old. Carbon 14 only has a half life of about 5000 years so none should have been found. Also, it should be noted that these tests were done by a reputable lab who did not know what these bones were. Eventually they stopped dating the bones because they found out that the people giving them the bones were creationists. This data is almost completely inconsistent with evolution.
Check out the links below.

http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html


 

Offline Gardener

  • Drink the poison yourself.
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Hauptmann
  • ****
  • Posts: 5661
  • Thanked: 2075 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Dinosaur skeleton found with skin and soft tissues intact
« Reply #56 on: May 20, 2017, 01:36:06 PM »
re: "junk" dna...

Has any data science study been done on this in terms of looking for the possibility they could be used as something analogous to logic bombs, or are vestiges thereof?

After all, DNA is code, and code is definitely going to come from an intelligent being.

Between the nanotech of cellular processes at the molecular level and the codification of DNA, I still cannot fathom how any scientist is an actual atheist; pursuant to that, evolution just seems so... well, romantic and victorian (read: fing stupid)
"And what use are the victories on the battlefield if we are ourselves are defeated in our innermost personal selves?" - St. Maximilian Kolbe
 

Online John Lamb

  • Wachtmeister
  • ***
  • Posts: 710
  • Thanked: 548 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Dinosaur skeleton found with skin and soft tissues intact
« Reply #57 on: May 20, 2017, 04:56:42 PM »
I still cannot fathom how any scientist is an actual atheist.

If there is only brute matter and no real soul / intellectual substance, then physics is the highest of the sciences, which flatters the pride of physicists & material scientists in general. So they call the material sciences "Science", and relegate everything else to mere "philosophy". The Church, on the other hand, says that theology is the highest of the sciences, following Aristotle and the scholastics. This is why the Enlightenment philosophers (naturalists) began by ridiculing theology (inc. the scholastics & Aristotle), and why they held up Newton as the greatest of all minds.

Their commitment to atheism is prior to their scientific investigation.

Quote from: Thomas Nagel
In speaking of the fear of religion, I don’t mean to refer to the entirely reasonable hostility toward certain established religions and religious institutions, in virtue of their objectionable moral doctrines, social policies, and political influence. Nor am I referring to the association of many religious beliefs with superstition and the acceptance of evident empirical falsehoods. I am talking about something much deeper—namely, the fear of religion itself. I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.

Quote from: Thomas Nagel
“Whatever one may think about the possibility of a designer, the prevailing doctrine—that the appearance of life from dead matter and its evolution through accidental mutation and natural selection to its present forms has involved nothing but the operation of physical law—cannot be regarded as unassailable. It is an assumption governing the scientific project rather than a well-confirmed scientific hypothesis.”

more quotes: https://conversantfaith.com/2014/04/28/20-quotes-from-mind-and-cosmos-by-thomas-nagel/
As many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. (John 1:12)
 

Offline Quaremerepulisti

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3107
  • Thanked: 838 times
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Dinosaur skeleton found with skin and soft tissues intact
« Reply #58 on: May 20, 2017, 06:11:54 PM »
A dog might be able to run to higher ground than a snail and hence the dog would be buried higher up than the snail. Granted this is not a great counter argument.

The fossil record is not consistent with that either (more mobile animals found in higher strata).  And, birds can get even higher yet.  They should only be at the very top of the geological column.  And then dogs should be intermixed with dinosaurs, since they can get to higher ground too.  But they aren't.  And surely cheetahs and the like should be found higher than humans and hominids and apes, since they can clearly more easily get to higher ground?  And why is poop found?

Quote
Also, I have read that some times animals which supposedly came latter are found deeper in the ground than what they should be. Sometimes a species that lived say 20 million years ago is found below one that lived 50 million years ago in the same dig or something to that effect. 

Right.  It's called subduction.

Quote
A few mutations won't get you from ape to man in a single or even multiple generations.

You need genomic, not fossil, evidence, to know this.

Quote
So, at least with Darwinian evolution, there should be transition fossils.

You don't know the precise genotype-phenotype relationship.  Fossils which greatly differ may in fact be only a few mutations different in the genotype.  So you can't argue there were more than a few mutations necessary for a given fossil transition based on the fossil evidence alone.

Now, if you're arguing that with Darwinian evolution, there should be transition genotypes, that's something different and a good argument.

Quote
Okay, but there is no proof for this except circumstantial, which I argue is not enough.

We can and do make inferences from circumstantial evidence all the time.  Hand-waving that it is "not enough" doesn't equate to an actual argument that it isn't enough, which means the inference doesn't follow from the data.

Quote
Furthermore, these rare events would need to happen together so that the new animal offspring could mate.

Not necessarily - ontological forms need not absolutely correlate with taxonomic ones, so the new offspring could mate with the other offspring.

Quote
Quote
As I explained, the functionality arises from the position of the DNA, but not from its sequence, which is more concordant with its function being an accidental byproduct of common descent.

That may be true of some, but some "junk" DNA has actually been found to have actual functionality beside just being a place holder.
http://evidenceweb.net/generic_search_results.php?p_SEARCHTYPE=Science_Report&p_SEARCH=Junk%20DNA

Sure, some.  But the functionality found for other junk DNA has nothing to do with the sequence.

Quote
It's not proof texting especially since it is just repeating what Tradition says.

It is proof texting.  The Church has never condemned the idea of an old earth.

Quote
Nearly all of the Fathers believed in a six day creation. Augustine believed it was spontaneous, possibly because of a mistranslation and perhaps one or a few fathers interposed day as a literal thousand years. Furthermore, they did not believe in a young earth in a vacuum. The common scientific/philosophical thought of their day was that the earth was old and that there was a kind of cosmic evolution.

And they were wrong, just like they were regarding geocentrism.

Quote
Define in the beginning. Does it mean billions of years after the beginning of time? If God created all of the different kinds in the beginning of time, then how does the evolutionary process fit in? Did he let some go extinct and then started the evolutionary process to get them back? Also, it should be noted that the animals were created at once from the beginning of time, which seems to exclude a long process. 

But they weren't.  They were all created after the beginning of time, and at different times after the beginning of time, even according to a literal reading of Genesis 1, not "at once from the beginning of time".  Plants were created on the third day - not at the beginning.  Fish and birds were created on the fifth day - after plants.  Land animals were created on the sixth day - after fish and birds.  So it is preposterous to interpret that Magisterial teaching the way you want, and no future Magisterium has interpreted it that way.

Quote
As you said in your first response to me, we have to look at evidence for and against both 1 and 2.

Yes, and that means you need to look at the totality of the evidence, and evaluate its likelihood.  And as I said before, you have to show likelihood of the data under one hypothesis more than the other, not just a low likelihood under your non-preferred one.  And that's where these types of arguments flounder.

I'll also point out that directed evolution can occur in a short as well as a long period of time, so even if scientists are dead wrong about the age of the earth, it doesn't affect my argument too much.

Quote
As the OP says, soft tissue of dinosaurs has been found. Furthermore, scientists have also found soft tissue of prehistoric worms which are supposedly a half a billion years old.

Right.  Now we have yet to hear the YEC explanation of why it decays in virtually all cases over the mere thousands of years old they claim it to be, but is preserved in these specimens.  Because whatever the explanation may be (e.g. a fortuitous location which protects from background radiation) it would be applicable both to OEC and YEC.

Quote
However, the real clinger is that they have done carbon 14 dating on dinosaurs and found them to be about 20-40 thousand years old, which is preposterous if they are in fact millions of years old. Carbon 14 only has a half life of about 5000 years so none should have been found.

If all dinosaurs were buried at the same time, then the C-14 dates should be identical on all the bones tested.  But they're not.  The dates are different (the oldest is almost 2X is old as the youngest), and well outside the statistical margin for error.  If the YEC explanation is that not all C-14 in dinosaur bones could be original to it, then that also makes the trace C-14 compatible with OEC.

And Dr. Schweitzer actually tested the soft tissue (or had it tested) and it came back C-14 dead.  How is this possible, if it is only thousands of years old?
 

Online An aspiring Thomist

  • Korporal
  • **
  • Posts: 442
  • Thanked: 90 times
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Dinosaur skeleton found with skin and soft tissues intact
« Reply #59 on: May 22, 2017, 09:22:29 PM »
Do you have a link for Dr. Schweitzer doing carbon 14 dating? Because from what I read she did not do any, but most of those website articles were from 2014 or so.