Documentary About The Flood and Noah's Ark

by Blue Grass 121 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Leolaia

    You should provide a link rather than copy and paste a copyrighted article in its entirety.

    And please see my comments above which explain why you are wrong.

    Mary Schweitzer also recommends that you consult her scientific publications rather than popularizing treatments: "YOU SHOULD ALWAYS READ THE ORIGINAL PUBLICATIONS, RATHER THAN THE NEWS MEDIA INTERPRETATIONS OR ANY (EVEN REPUTABLE) SYNOPSES. THEN YOU CAN SEE WHAT REALLY WAS AND WAS NOT CLAIMED" (via email).

  • The Almighty Homer
    The Almighty Homer

    So Perry what do you conclude of this newly discovered science. ?

    Does this one bit evidence now reverse all thinking of the age of dinosaurs previously discovered and documented ?

  • villabolo

    Perry, concerning the challenge that you made, I was on another thread and came back here a little late. I as going to mention what leolaia said but I'm glad she beat me too it since she's more knowledgeable than I.

    This reminds me of that Creationist argument about perfectly preserved woolly mammoths who somehow managed to live in a warm greenhouse world without dropping dead from heatstroke. That shaggy wool coat is the equivalent of you wearing a parka and taking a jog through a dessert.

    I am disturbed, though not surprised, at your statement about reading only one book and disparaging the rest. Never mind the arrogance of seeking ignorance for yourself the logical consequences are that you should have nothing to contribute to the argument if you don't know what the other side is saying. If you don't read the books why do you listen to us "liars"? In fact your statement is an echo of the JW position about not reading anything it does not publish.


  • AdaMakawee

    I'm confused why you would rather believe an article about what Mary purports to have found and said, which has been spun to conform to someone's agenda, rather than her very own words which have been forwarded directly to you in response to your claims here in this thread.


  • Perry
    I am disturbed


  • Leolaia
    I really doesn't matter if one specific sample doesn't smell like a corpse if "all" or most of them do according to dinosar Jack Horner, does it?

    What matters is that you assume that if a bone smells, it is decomposing or "rotting".

    Mary Schweitzer's reaction to this claim of yours is "Huh?" She explains in detail in her scientific articles how organic compounds inside the protected microenvironment of dense cortical bone may remain in chemical stasis with the process of decomposition arrested. The smell indicates the probable presence of soft tissue remnants, not that the bone is "rotting".

  • darkl1ght3r

    "Seen your link before dark...utter nonsense."

    That link reflects the consensus of the scientific community regarding your, "evidence". OK, so it's you vs. the entire scientific community. Sure, you convinced me.

    That is why humans are so scary, they can force themselves into total deception at will."

    Hearing that statement come from a young earth creationist just destroyed all of the irony-meters within a 20 mile radius.

    "Recent examples of "stinking", "rotting" dinosaur tissue, soft tissue, hemoglobin and protein fragments just add to the fossil record of dinosaurs and humans co-existing, destroying many evolutionary claims."

    Leolaia already handled this one nicely.

    "That's why I went Glen Rose, Tx myself, saw the evidence, talked with Dr. Baugh."

    So, if an untrained layperson cant get the full scope from a picture, then that same untrained layperson can aquire some insight that he couldn't before by staring at it through glass? Ok.

    If evolutionary scientists are going to make an "unassailable" theory of our uniform/non-catostrophic history it ought to at least have something better to present than denial and accusations of "liar".

    They most certainly do have something better to present. And maybe someday you'll work up the courage to investigate the REAL science with an open mind. Scientists call creationists "liars" because that's what many of them are (See Kent Hovind, Duane Gish, and the WTB&TS).

    The reality is that these discoveries and others like them, while not disproving an old age for the earth, do provide evidence that evolutionary scientists can and do see what they want to.... just like everyone else.

    The reality is... these discoveries and others like them have been debunked over and over by REAL scientists (not like your creationist diploma-mill Ph.Ds), and therefore mean nothing. The few remaining anomolies, in and of themselves are not enough to outweigh the clear and unambiguous mountain of evidence in favor of evolution and an old universe.

    I'd also like to inform you that Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, and now head of the NIH, and himself a fundamentalist Christian, and a GOOD scientist, has stated that even with out a fossil record, DNA evidence alone is enough to confirm common ancestry. This guy has forgotten more about DNA than you or I will ever know.

    I'd love to stay a post more but I've got a philosophy paper due tomorrow! Peace out!!!

    Don't drink the Kool-Aide!

    Too late! You've already polished it off!!!

  • Perry
    I'm confused

    That's because you apparently don't know much about what drives scientists funding.

  • Leolaia

    AdaMakawee....I should note that my email correspondence with Professor Schweitzer was a few years ago. Perry makes these claims every so often in this forum.

  • The Almighty Homer
    The Almighty Homer

    Gee what drives religionists funding ? .............oh yeah I remember fear and ignorance

Share this