Dinosaur Soft Tissue

by Sea Breeze 67 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Anony Mous

  I find some of this very amusing. A genetic word doesn’t exist, all genes are expressed with 4 bases, but they don’t form words, as they only allow up to 24 possible combinations.

  Putting them together isn’t that complex, some bacteria require just 180-ish protein coding genes with 160,000 base pairs and that’s a very complex life form already. In the lab as low as 60 protein coding genes can be useful for synthetic life forms and then we haven’t talked yet about the things such as viruses that aren’t life forms but still replicate.
• 

  Sea Breeze

  Putting them together isn’t that complex, some bacteria require just 180-ish protein coding genes with 160,000 base pairs

  Number of base pairs in the human genome	3 billion
  Number of base pairs in a gene	300 to over 1 million
  Number of base pairs in a codon	3
  Number of codons in a gene	64 possible
  Number of amino acids	20

  And just getting 8 out of those 160,000 base pairs you mention in the correct order through natural selection would take longer than the supposed age of the universe to achieve.

  No, it hasn't. Having claims published in YEC journals is not peer-review.

  TonusOH,

  Peer review is made up of "peers"... people who have the same level of education from reputable universities. What difference does it make if a journal is characterized by some as Old earth or young earth?
  
  Regardless.... it doesn't matter. Below is a link to a long list of peer reviewed papers, the majority are just secular journals - like Nature, National Academy of Sciences, Paleontology etc.

  
  https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eXtKzjWP2B1FMDVrsJ_992ITFK8H3LXfPFNM1ll-Yiw/edit?pli=1&gid=0#gid=0

  I believe you are experiencing disorientation due to the paradigm shift that is taking place in our scientific community. Claiming things are untrue may make you feel better, but it doesn't address the astounding findings that have been brought to the fore on this thread.
  
  Deal with it.
  
  
• 

  DATA-DOG

  Peer reviewed studies said the Covid Jabs were safe, so…..

  DD
• 

  Sea Breeze

  DD,

  Which peer reviewed articles are you referring to that Covid vaccines are safe?
• 

  TonusOH

  Sea Breeze: What difference does it make if a journal is characterized by some as Old earth or young earth?

  One journal is based knowledge gained via the scientific method, the other deliberately limits itself by rejecting knowledge if it is at odds with the Bible. The latter is not science.

  Sea Breeze: I believe you are experiencing disorientation due to the paradigm shift that is taking place in our scientific community.

  There is no paradigm shift. This is what YEC sites claim, but cannot demonstrate.

  Also, a spreadsheet with a long list of peer-reviewed papers is great! So, which are the ones that have upended the scientific community? Which specific ones are creating a new paradigm that has secular scientists all in a tizzy?
• 

  Sea Breeze

  One journal is based knowledge gained via the scientific method,

  @TonusOH

  So, what do you think about all the peer reviewed journals that you would accept that published data confirming Dinosaur soft tissue? Are those all false too?
• 

  TonusOH

  Have those papers upended science? Changed any paradigms? What are experts in the relevant fields saying?

  What I think about them is meaningless. I'm not a biologist, or an astrophysicist, or a geologist, and so forth. This is why the process of peer-review is so important. It allows people who know the subject to test new claims and either discard them or open up new avenues of discovery. It gives the people making these claims the opportunity to find out if they have any merit.

  The discoveries of dinosaur soft tissue-- what changes has this led to in the relevant sciences? Has it caused those fields to embrace a young Earth, or shorter geological time scales, or anything like that? Or is this only what YEC sites are claiming? Who are the experts in the relevant fields, and what do they say about this? These are legitimate questions, because this is a crucial step in making the case for a young Earth. Are YEC sites answering --or even asking-- these questions?
• 

  Sea Breeze

  Have those papers upended science? Changed any paradigms? What are experts in the relevant fields saying?

  I already posted what scientists are saying who have a bias towards MOY's

  "It turns out we found something so unexpected it actually creates problems for science. It calls the whole picture of early galaxy formation into question."

  The study was published in the journal Nature on Wednesday (Feb. 22).
• 

  TonusOH

  So, they are claiming that the universe is young? What are the new estimates for the age of the universe?

  It sounds like they are admitting that they need to update or change their theories about galaxy formation, specifically in the early stages of the universe after the big bang. I don't see where they are saying that this indicates a shorter timescale. There could well be whole new avenues of discovery and learning as a result of this new information. But I'm not seeing where it leads us to a young universe.
• 

  Sea Breeze

  Below are images of footprints from the Carboniferous Pennsylvania Sandstone :

  Richard Dawkins said, authenticated evidence of humans in the Carboniferous would “blow the theory of evolution out of the water.” (Dawkins, Free Inquiry, vol. 21, no. 4, 2001.)

  

  

  

  James Webb Space Telescope Images Challenge Theories of How Universe Evolved

  "JWST has presented astronomers with an unsettling problem. If the masses and time since the Big Bang are confirmed for these galaxies, fundamental changes to the reigning model of cosmology"

  Evolutionary and deep age assumptions are not getting their predictions fulfilled by the evidence. Biblical statements about our origins are confirmed by science. No need to rewrite the bible. Need to rewrite science.