"The older people that one admires seem to be fearless. They go right out into the world. It's astounding. Maybe they can't see or they can't hear, but they walk out into the street and take life as it comes. They're models of courage, in a strange way." -James Hillman
The scientific enterprise has uncovered a huge number of astounding, surprising and yet fundamental truths about our Universe, what composes it and the way it works. From the formation and evolution of life on Earth to the existence and behavior of subatomic particles to the birth of the matter and radiation filling our Universe today, the amount we've learned is amazing.
Image credit: NASA/WMAP science team.
Yet one astounding fact stands out above all the rest, and it isn't that the atoms that compose our body were formed in stars and recycled into the Universe. No, more astounding than that -- and more fundamental to knowledge itself -- is this: the fact that the entire Universe, on all scales, in all places, and at all times, obeys the same fundamental laws of nature.
Image credit: U.S. DOE, NSF, CPEP and LBNL, retrieved from http://physics.gla.ac.uk/.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
@Ethan
It is an interesting fact, but I must note there is one exception to all of the marvelously consistent mathematical predictability to all things in the universe large and small. It is that on the tiniest scales, paraphrasing Hawking; 'God does play dice, and he sometimes throws them where they cannot be seen.' The entire predictable castle of our universe is built on the craziest foundation that can be imagined.
What is the most astounding fact about the Universe?
That it exists.
Perhaps the second most astounding fact is that many people believe they are, ultimately, the natural result of a Big Bang of hydrogen, helium, etc.
Yes, it is astounding that many people understand and appreciate science. Too bad you've never tried.
SN:
Okay, so what was it? You going to just argue a negative, shielding your beliefs from criticism by hiding them, or are you actually going to tell lurkers your alternative? Let your light shine, SN! Or are you afraid to do so?
I can't locate a source for this somewhat contrarian quote, but it does seem quite widespread:
"Then again, e=mc^2 may only be a local phenomenon."
-- Albert Einstein
To eric #4:
Did you ever stop to think that the entire evolution extravaganza (biological and cosmological) stands on one thing, and one thing only.
It’s not biology, or anything that’s ever been observed in nature or in a lab.
It’s not paleontology, or anything that’s ever been observed in the rocks and fields.
It’s not cosmology, or anything that’s ever been observed in this or any heavenly space.
And it’s certainly not Scripture or any of the 5,000 years of Judeo-Christian religious and theological tradition.
No.
It’s none of those things.
The entire edifice of evolution stands on one thing: TIME.
Specifically, on man’s presumed *infallible* measurement of deep TIME.
I wrote a little song 'bout it, like to heah it? Heah it go:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rL3AgkwbYgo
„Nicht wie die Welt ist, ist das Mystische, sondern dass sie ist.“ Wittgenstein, Tractatus logico-philosophicus (6.44)
“We should always endeavor to wonder at the permanent thing, not at the mere exception. We should be startled by the sun, and not by the eclipse. We should wonder less at the earthquake, and wonder more at the earth.”
– G.K. Chesterton
SN:
Okay, so lay out your alternative. C'mon man! If you want to convince the lurkers that you're right, you're eventually going to have to tell them what you want to convince them of. Or are you scared to tell us what your alternative is?
To eric #9:
Firstly, for some reason, you failed to show my whole quote, which includes a key *second* sentence:
“The entire edifice of evolution stands on one thing: TIME.
*Specifically, on man’s presumed *infallible* measurement of deep TIME.*”
Secondly, c’mon, man!
I think you already know my alternative: Jesus Christ.
I’m just trying to show that *your* alternative depends *entirely* on the validity of deep time.
Without deep time, the entire façade of cosmological and biological evolution crumples to dust.
Poof!
Eric, do you believe the scientists’ estimations of millions/billions of years is *infallible*?
If so, then some folks may have a legitimate “bone” to pick with you.
If you want to convince the lurkers that you’re right, you’re eventually going to have to show them why, for instance, T-Rex bones, allegedly 70 million years-old, have soft, unfossilized tissue inside them.
And why, for instance, dinosaur eggs, allegedly 200 million years old, have soft, unfossilized organic remains.
And also why these ground-breaking discoveries were never subjected to blind carbon-14 dating.
@See Noknowledge #10: Still can't come out and fully admit your crackpot ideas, eh? "I think you already know my alternative." What a load of mealy-mouthed crap. If you don't have the confidence to spell out your assertion unequivocally, why should we think you even believe it yourself?
Finally, none of your latter assertions are even true.
1) There are no "T-Rex [sic] bones" with "soft, unfossiliized tissue". There are examples of various bones found containing unaltered _molecules_ (such as collagen and melanin) in the fossilized matrix. If you can cite an actual paper (and not YEC propaganda) otherwise, please do so.
2) See above.
3) The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,760 years. The fact that you don't know that is a clear demonstration of your ignorance. The fact that you do know it, and make these statements anyway, is a clear demonstration that you are a deliberate liar, who cannot even obey the tenets of your own religion.
test.
Ethan,
My attempted responsse to Michael's #11 aren't appearing.
Why?
To Michael the SLAC-er #11:
“Finally, none of your latter assertions are even true. There are no “T-Rex [sic] bones” with “soft, unfossiliized tissue”. There are examples of various bones found containing unaltered _molecules_ (such as collagen and melanin) in the fossilized matrix. If you can cite an actual paper (and not YEC propaganda) otherwise, please do so.”
The papers and articles (and not YEC propaganda) on this *shocking discovery* are legion.
A quick Google shows these, for instance:
“A Tyrannosaurus rex fossil has yielded what appear to be the only *preserved soft tissues* ever recovered from a dinosaur. Taken from a 70-million-year-old thighbone, the structures look like the blood vessels, cells, and proteins involved in bone formation. Most fossils preserve an organism's hard tissues, such as shell or bone. Finding preserved soft tissue is *unheard of* in a dinosaur-age specimen.”
– from National Geographic, March 2005.
“The *conventional wisdom* states that *no original organic components* remains associated with Mesozoic vertebrate bones over geological time…Recently, Schweitzer and her colleagues, following up on these early investigations, *identified soft tissues* in dinosaur bones consistent with collagenous matrices, bone cells (osteocytes), blood vessels, and intravascular contents high in iron.”
-From PLOS (Public Library of Science), March 15, 2016
..................
“The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,760 years. The fact that you don’t know that is a clear demonstration of your ignorance. The fact that you do know it, and make these statements anyway, is a clear demonstration that you are a deliberate liar, who cannot even obey the tenets of your own religion.”
I’m well aware of the fact that the half-life of carbon-14 is 5,760 years, Einstein.
And aware of the fact that such a dating methodology is useful *only* for specimens less than about 50,000 years old. But this is just the point.
See if you can follow this, slacker. I’ll try to go slow:
1)At the time of this shocking discovery, principally two pieces of conventional scientific wisdom were in play:
a) This T Rex bone is 70 million years-old, and
b) When and if fossilization occurs, it does so in the blink of an eye in terms of deep geologic time. [Numbers are hard to come by, but for discussion purposes, let’s use a probably way too big – but nice and round – number of less than 10,000 years.]
2)The researchers had to admit they (and the rest of such scientists) were very, very, very wrong about their conventional scientific wisdom.
Like 7,000x wrong (i.e. 70,000,000 years / 10,000 years). (The egg discovery would triple this already outrageous error factor.)
3)But why did ALL of the scientists assume they were wrong ONLY about the fossilization process and the time it requires?
In other words, why instead did NOT ONE OF THEM ask: Maybe this T Rex bone is a LOT younger than 70 million years old?
4)Why not pursue that *universally unasked* (in the evolutionary science community) question by submitting the T Rex specimen to a blind C-14 test? After all, they have nothing to fear. They’re just pursuing the truth, wherever it leads, right?
Yeah, right.
Maybe they *do* have something to fear.
I mean, what if they got shocked yet again, and the blind C-14 test dated the specimen at 5,000 to 10,000 years?
‘No. Can't have that. It ain’t gonna happen.
Besides, we already KNOW (essentially infallibly) that the d*$# thing is about 70 million YO, yo.
It would be a waste of time and our precious financial resources!’
Yeah, right.
*Sounds* good!
sn, you congenital liar: you've had this pointed out every effing time you raised the issue - the same as with every other topic you don't want to understand because choosing to lie about it makes you feel better.
Try to read, and actually understand. Then be decent and take your ignorant, dishonest, creationist low life self away someplace to think about attempting some honesty in your life.
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
https://student.societyforscience.org/article/more-dinosaur-bones-yield…
Were you born this dishonest or have you simply honed your skills over years of being a fundamentalist?
If you can cite an actual paper (and not YEC propaganda) otherwise, please do so.
Screw that. He's regurgitated all this before and is just looking for attention.
Remember when he was being petulant about being served up, in effect, the value of the Hubble parameter? The age of the universe basically follows immediately. All S.N. has to do is take that apart from first principles. In his own words.
^ Blockquote fail, I hope, is obvious. My feline assistant is a bit possessive about the keyboard.
sn has raised the "young dinosaur" complaint multiple times in the past. Each time he was given the appropriate links to summaries of research and explanations for what was found. Each time he denied that those explanations "made sense", then stopped talking about them until (it seems) he feels people have forgotten, then he brings them up again.
It's just par for his dishonest and willfully uninformed course.
@See Noknowledge #14: You cite news articles, not the actual paper (M. H. Schweitzer et al., Science 316 (5288) pp 277-280.
1b) Fossilization of bone doesn't necessarily occur "in the blink of an eye" (geologically speaking). Nearly all hominid fossils, going back several million years, are not fossilized at all. The bones have not been lithified, but remain essentially the same aragonite (calcium carbonate) minerals as when they grew. What does almost always happen "in the blink of an eye" is that organic matter is eaten by bacteria, and/or degrades away chemically, due to the (non-fossil) environment. Avoiding that situation requires a fairly narrow environment: anoxic conditions, very rapid sedimentation, and rapid compression of sediment to exclude water. Most of the soft-bodied fossils known (which go back 500+ million years, see below) are fairly small. What was unexpected about the tyrannosaurid find was that it was such a _large_ animal with exceptional preservation, not the preservation itself.
3) You clearly know nothing about stratigraphy, nor about the many, many dating methods available. I encourage you to take a basic undergratuate course in petrology and stratigraphy, if you aren't afraid to reduce your ignorance.
SN:
Infallible? No. Far more credible than YECism? Yes.
Michael has answered you on your fossil claims. But since you refused to link or cite a reference, here is one.
Probably for many reasons, but one immediately springs to mind. There are multiple, independent cosmological, geological, and radiochemistry lines of evidence for deep time. So it was very reasonable to view a single point of inconsistent biological data and respond to that by exploring how it may be much more likely to be wrong or misinterpreted than everything else being wrong and coincidentally yielding the identical wrong answer. And that exploration turned out to be the right approach to take; if you read my link, you'll find that paleontologists and biologists found further evidence that backed up the conclusion that one of our original assumptions (no preservation of organics) was wrong; iron helps preserve organics. And when they tested that hypothesis, they found it was true in other samples too. So, result explained with no need to overturn huge chunks of science.
Michael explained this to you, but you obviously didn't get it because you just responded to him with an insult rather than showing any understanding. A C-14 test is going to return a result of "50,000+ years" for anything 50,000 years of age or older.
But again, you're ignoring or forgetting the multiple lines of evidence issue. If one technique occasionally produces results at variance with many other techniques (that are consistent with each other as well as independent of each other), the obvious and sensible approach to take is to explore why the one may be wrong, not assume it's right and the multiple independents are all wrong and coincidentally yield the same wrong result.
To Mikey the slacker #18:
“Nearly all hominid fossils, going back several million years, are not fossilized at all.”
That could be a good trivia question – Are all fossils fossilized?
Maybe you should instead say
‘Nearly all hominid *remains*, going back several million years, are not fossilized at all.’
But even if you did, I’d probably ask:
How many of the hominid remains, going back several million years, still contain *soft tissue*?
..................
“What does almost always happen “in the blink of an eye” is that organic matter is eaten by bacteria, and/or degrades away chemically, due to the (non-fossil) environment. Avoiding that situation requires a fairly narrow environment: anoxic conditions, very rapid sedimentation, and rapid compression of sediment to exclude water.”
A “fairly narrow environment” which seems to have happened many times in locations all over the world.
What caused this “very rapid sedimentation, and rapid compression of sediment” all over the world?
How rapid does “rapid” need to be?
………….
“You clearly know nothing about stratigraphy, nor about the many, many dating methods available.”
You’re no doubt right. I probably have much to learn about the science of stratigraphy.
But then, so do the geologists:
“As a paradigm, sequence stratigraphy is both method and model, and it is certainly possible in this case to progress from careful, objective observation to interpretation following certain theoretical models. However, it is also possible, as Kuhn (1962) points out, that THE PARADIGM DOMINATES THINKING AND OBSERVATION, to the extent that it can make sufficiently OBJECTIVE OBSERVATION and independent testing of the model elements DIFFICULT. In which case, it is very important to constantly review the various elements of the paradigm to check that they are performing well, and to encourage modifications or additional elements, to include new developments from theory and experiment, and to address relatively WEAK AREAS. Madof et al. is an example of a POSSIBLY USEFUL additional element to the method, and this and other areas for possible modification are discussed here.
… Science is about a progression of ideas, methods, and data, and even well-established paradigms change, sometimes through evolution, and sometimes through RAPID REVOLUTION. Given this, it seems HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT SEQUENCE STRATIGRAPHY WILL STAY AS IT IS.”
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/44/4/335.full
Don’t worry though. Even if the strata get turned upside down, so to speak, they’ll make sure they still tell a tale of millions/billions of years. That part can’t change, for it is Darwinian dogma.
Oh, Slacker, and speaking of “many dating methods available”,
it seems that, as time goes by, irritating issues arise. Here’s a recent example:
“Trace elements diffuse negligible distances through the pristine crystal lattice in minerals: this is a FUNDAMENTAL ASSUMPTION when using them to decipher geological processes.
… Our findings have IMPORTANT IMPLICATIONS FOR THE USE OF zircon as a GEOCHRONOMETER, and highlight the importance of deformation on trace element redistribution in minerals and engineering materials.
… Hence, nominally immobile elements can become locally extremely mobile. Not only does our study confirm recent speculation that an understanding of the deformation microstructures within zircon grains is a necessity for subsequent, robust geochronological analyses but it also sheds light on POTENTIAL PIT-FALLS when utilizing element concentrations and ratios for geological studies. Our results have FAR-REACHING IMPLICATIONS FOR THE INTERPRETATION of local elemental variations in not only deformed minerals but also a range of engineering materials.”
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2016/160212/ncomms10490/full/ncomms10490.h…
But again, I doubt the ‘pit-falls and far-reaching implications for interpretation using zircon geochronometry’ will ever seriously challenge the millions/billions of years story.
At least not publicly.
After all, they probably want to keep their jobs.
To eric #19:
Me: “Eric, do you believe the scientists’ estimations of millions/billions of years is *infallible*?”
You: “Infallible? No. Far more credible than YECism? Yes.”
So, you’re saying YEC *could* be true.
I guess that’s progress.
…………
“Michael has answered you on your fossil claims. But since you refused to link or cite a reference, here is one.”
You link to an article titled
“Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained”.
Oh boy. I’m in trouble.
Until I read the body of the article and see
“Schweitzer THINKS she has the answer: Iron.
… They then tested the iron-as-preservative IDEA using MODERN ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of 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.
Dinosaurs' iron-rich blood, combined with a good environment for fossilization, MAY explain the AMAZING existence of soft tissue from the Cretaceous (a period that lasted from about 65.5 million to 145.5 million years ago) and even earlier. The specimens Schweitzer works with, including skin, show evidence of EXCELLENT PRESERVATION. The bones of these various specimens are articulated, not scattered, suggesting THEY WERE BURIED QUICKLY. They're also buried in sandstone, which is porous and MAY wick away bacteria and reactive enzymes that would otherwise degrade the bone.
… To preserve the chemistry of potential soft tissue, the specimens must not be treated with preservatives or glue, as most fossil bones are, she said. And they NEED TO BE TESTED QUICKLY, AS SOFT TISSUE COULD DEGRADE ONCE EXPOSED TO MODERN AIR AND HUMIDITY.”
Well, in short, there’s a big difference between “explained” and demonstrated conclusively/proved.
Two years preservation does not 200 million years make. Also, lots of “thinks” and “may”s from Ms. Schweitzer.
But as an evolutionist, you’re good with “thinks” and “may”s.
…………….
Me: “But why did ALL of the scientists assume they were wrong ONLY about the fossilization process and the time it requires?”
You: “Probably for many reasons, but one immediately springs to mind. There are multiple, independent cosmological, geological, and radiochemistry lines of evidence for deep time.”
Each of which relies on assumptions of uniformitarianism, a philosophical and non-empirical supposition.
And each of which is struggling to deal with problematic anomalies in the real world of observation.
…………
“A C-14 test is going to return a result of “50,000+ years” for anything 50,000 years of age or older.”
Yes, it would, PROVIDED it’s really greater than 50,000 years old.
And you *completely* missed the point.
………….
“But again, you’re ignoring or forgetting the multiple lines of evidence issue.”
Ah, yes. In other words, the proverbial ‘mountain of evidence’ for evolution.
My experience in exploring this issue over the last dozen or more years - in reading the scientists’ own evolutionary words on biology, genetics, paleontology, geology, radiometric dating, cosmology - is like... like a...
*Bad Dream*:
I’m walking along through the country side, and then smell something “funny.”
I’m startled by a farmer who appears from behind a mountain of manure.
He’s extending to me something in his hand, saying “Here, try this. It’s good!”
I look at what he’s got, and quickly realize it’s a cow chip.
I say to him “No, thanks. I’m not interested.”
I then try to move away slowly.
But he continues: “Really? That’s OK. I got plenty of others. Let me get a different one for ya.”
As he turns to go back to the pile of manure, I start running the other way. Away from him and the smell.
And then I wake up.
………….
Good night, eric.
Hey, SN, is this your offering for the most astounding fact about the Universe??
:(
Its not an assumption, its a (provisional) conclusion drawn from the empirical observation that the same physical laws held yesterday as held today. And those same physical laws held the day before that, and the day before that, etc., etc., etc.
Look if you want to argue "Hume's problem of induction, therefore no certainty in science" just do it and be done with it. Yes, science relies on induction; drawing conclusions about the past based on present observations. Is that the best you've got? Let me point out that "Induction not certain, therefore YEC Jesus" doesn't rationally work, since your theology relies on inductive inferences too (did humans write that bible? How do you know it wasn't magically produced ex nihilo by fairies?), the key difference being scientific inductions are testable and credible while YEC ones are not.
“We should always endeavor to wonder at the permanent thing"
There is no permanent thing.
So, next.
"Hey, SN, is this your offering for the most astounding fact about the Universe??"
IMO the most astounding thing about the universe is that it's big enough to contain something so monumentally stupid as see nowt, AND LET IT SURVIVE.
If there's on argument against the welfare state and civilisation, it's that retards like see nowt would not survive without the effforts of everyone around them to make the world safer for idiots to live in.
If we tore off the warning labels off bags, I can't help but think that SN would not have lasted long.
To eric #25:
Me: “Each of which [i.e. ‘multiple lines of evidence for deep time’] relies on assumptions of uniformitarianism, a philosophical and non-empirical supposition.”
You: “Its not an assumption, its a (provisional) conclusion drawn from the empirical observation that the same physical laws held yesterday as held today…”
Then, by *your own* reasoning, it’s a (provisional) conclusion that abiogenesis did NOT happen.
For abiogenesis has never been observed today or yesterday or the day before that, and the day before that, etc., etc., etc.
I guess that’s progress.
Now, do you have any (provisional) conclusion as to the identity of the life form which is responsible for the first life on earth?
…………………..
“…your theology relies on inductive inferences too… the key difference being scientific inductions are testable and credible while YEC ones are not.”
You seem to be pushing at least two falsehoods.
1)That YEC is not credible.
This is false.
For YEC is certainly credible to me and to many other educated and sensible people.
2)That the only true things are *testable* things, or,
that the only things which are reasonable to believe in are those things which are *testable*.
This is false.
I suppose I could go on at length on this, but, for now, I’ll just give the previously mentioned example of abiogenesis - the *un-testable* idea of abiogenesis *being the cause of the first life on earth*. Lots of people at this site think it’s reasonable to believe in abiogenesis, despite its being un-testable.
Yec is credible to you and others as dense as you because you want it to be. The fact that nothing in geology, physics, chemistry or biology supports it doesn't seem to matter to you.
People like you, willfully uneducated and intentionally dishonest may be happy to continue to lie about the science and what it says, that's your choice. You want be taken seriously, but that isn't possible. You are simply the data points that identify creationists as dense and dishonest. You wear that mantle well.
Chemical reactions happen. Miracles do not. Thus when seeking an explanation for the unobserved and unknown formation of a new chemical compound, induction supports 'chemical reaction' as far more likely than 'miracle.'
...but you don't have the time to delve more deeply than to just assert it, eh?
I never said either. There may be many true untestable things. Such as life on another planet orbiting some far away star. There may even be some untestable reasonable beliefs. But YECism is supposed to be an explanation for observed phenomena, not just a belief. And as an explanation for observed phenomena, yes it should be testable and yes it is unreasonable to believe or accept it as a phenomenological explanation if its untestable.
There's nothing like an unconfined failure event.
To eric #30:
Me: “Then, by *your own* reasoning, it’s a (provisional) conclusion that abiogenesis did NOT happen.”
You: “Chemical reactions happen. Miracles do not.”
Yes and No.
Yes, we do agree that chemical reactions happen. Principally,
because we have OBSERVED them happening.
No, we do NOT agree that miracles do NOT happen. Principally, because I think the absence of observation of an occurrence does not logically necessitate the absence of the occurrence. (And besides, many people, including MDs, have witnessed what they consider miracles (e.g. completely unexpected and inexplicable healings.).)
……
“Thus when seeking an explanation for the unobserved and unknown formation of a new chemical compound, induction supports ‘chemical reaction’ as far more likely than ‘miracle.’”
Who’s looking for a new chemical compound in this context? No one I know of.
Or are you implying that *life itself* is nothing but a chemical compound?
I hope not.
But if so, and you want to play that game, then,
my “chemical compounds” say your “chemical compounds” are wrong and my “chemical compounds” are right.
Or at a bare minimum, mine are as good and right as yours. Because, chemicals is chemicals.
No such thing as “good” or “right” or “true” for a chemical.
They just is, man.
……………
Me: “1) That YEC is not credible. This is false. For YEC is certainly credible to me and to many other educated and sensible people.”
You: “…but you don’t have the time to delve more deeply than to just assert it, eh?”
If you consider the time, and the probably tens of thousands of words (including about 3,000 now on this thread), I’ve spent at ScienceBlogs to *not* be ‘time to delve deeply’,
then, yes, I suppose I don’t have the time.
…………
“There may even be some untestable reasonable beliefs. But YECism is supposed to be an explanation for observed phenomena, not just a belief.”
YEC *does* explain observed phenomena.
One exception, in the eyes of many, is a phenomena which many people believe in, namely “deep time.”
(And I’ve tried to explain why I and many others have reservations about deep time.)
………
“And as an explanation for observed phenomena, yes [YEC] should be testable and yes it is unreasonable to believe or accept it as a phenomenological explanation if its untestable.”
So, again, using *your reasoning*, it is unreasonable to believe or accept abiogenesis, for example, as a phenomenological explanation (for the observed phenomena of living things), because it is *not* testable.
Again, progress.
And if you think about it, using *your reasoning*, it is unreasonable to believe or accept existence itself (i.e. Me, and you and the lurkers out there, and this big universe.), or at least the phenomenological explanation for it.
I mean, phenomenological explanations come in what might be called different degrees.
For instance, a superficial phenomenological explanation for your existence might be your parents and their parents.
A deeper phenomenological explanation might deal with how man himself came to be.
A still deeper phenomenological explanation might be…
... gosh, and we’re back to where I began in #2 above:
“Perhaps the second most astounding fact is that many people believe they are, ultimately, the natural result of a Big Bang of hydrogen, helium, etc.”
But, obviously, there is deeper still.
Hey, SN, in the world of radio communications where people talk to each other, a person who prattled on as yourself tends to, would be called a 'ratchet-jaw'.
As for YEC, who would want to pay them ~$1000 just to have them agree with your POV ?
:)
A fascinating fact, but we must keep in mind that we may exist in a multi-verse, and other universes may contain differing laws of physics. So we will likely be subject to even more astonishment! Also, I believe the most astounding fact about the universe is that not only we, but even the universe itself, exists. Thanks be to GOD! :)
"You: “Chemical reactions happen. Miracles do not.”
Yes and No."
No and no.
"No, we do NOT agree that miracles do NOT happen. "
Yes, but you are a moron. Give us some evidence to support a miracle happened.
"Or are you implying that *life itself* is nothing but a chemical compound?
I hope not."
Why?
"my “chemical compounds” say your “chemical compounds” are wrong and my “chemical compounds” are right."
Proving solely that chemical compounds are the right answer.
"No such thing as “good” or “right” or “true” for a chemical."
Indeed not. It's also not true for anything else.
ANY. THING.
"So, again, using *your reasoning*, it is unreasonable to believe or accept abiogenesis,"
WRONG. You're not using eric's reasoning. You're using your own.
"because it is *not* testable."
It definitely is. Miller-Urey was the first attempt to do so, proving that the building blocks are plentiful. And there have been massive advancements from both sides of the "abiogenisis" divide. Whereas the godbothering moron side hasn't managed a single thing.
"And if you think about it, using *your reasoning*, it is unreasonable to believe or accept existence itself"
WRONG AGAIN.
Solipsism gets you nowhere.
"But, obviously, there is deeper still."
Obviously not, since you would have been able to formulate it if it existed.
"I believe the most astounding fact about the universe is that not only we, but even the universe itself, exists. Thanks be to GOD"
Why? Do you thank the tooth fairy for your kids milk teeth falling out???? Why then pick on your specific fantasy to thank for a reality it had no hand in creating???
Michael says "There are no “T-Rex [sic] bones” with “soft, unfossiliized tissue”.
This did in fact happen. A recent explanation involves iron in the TRex's body acting on the tissue like a preservative before it had a chance to decay see here:
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
A very interesting documentary was made about the find. I'll have a look on YouTube and will pass on the link if result.
"Michael says “There are no “T-Rex [sic] bones” with “soft, unfossiliized tissue”.
This did in fact happen."
In fact this did not happen. Tell me, before you replied, did you read the post you were saying was incorrect?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhX7MzbCY_I
Wow - I skimmed the same piece I drew the quote from. Admittedly skimming is not reading. Did I miss something? If it's the part about it not being soft tissue instead molecules...the way it turned out I think, was in fact soft tissue.
p.s. that issue is mentioned in the article
Boy, oh boy; T Rex must be the most astounding fact in the UNIVERSE ......
As you admit, you didn't read it, Chris. Before claiming what is said, it's rather important to check if you got it right.
Wow - in my judgement I did not think it was necessary to 'read'. Anyway, what does a word mean? The quality of my 'skimming' may be twice as good as the quality of the next person's 'reading'.
I didn't get anything wrong. If you think I did then don't be shy - tell me.
Ugh- yeah I just read the comment very carefully and I didn't miss anything. The second (b) is irrelevant (had relevance to something see Novo must have said aside).
The first point (a) is essentially that it wasn't soft tissue. That question was dominant at an earlier time but it has since been resolved and the way it concluded was that it's reasonable to speak of soft tissue.
You're such a little wind up merchant. I always fall for your charm Wow. You respond to a couple of comments in a manner that is reasonable. I buy into it and interact with you. And immediately get my fingers burnt.
Uh, yeah, you did.
See it now?
I even found it by searching for the quote you supplied in your response to his post. So you can't explain it away as "I meant another post".
"See it now"?
Sure - and I provided an article that explained why it really was soft-tissue. It's not really clear what distinction you wish to make. They obviously weren't talking about flesh in its original condition. But what was found included proteins and what was unusual was that it was soft and flexible. No one had looked before because it was assumed nothing of the sort could survive, and that's what made it news. It's referred to as soft tissue because it's soft and flexible and has been confirmed to be a remnant of the soft tissue of the TRex.
Michael's point had the distinctiveness of context that he was countering a religious interpretation of the evidence as support for a young earth (I think). I was just talking about the scientific sense of calling it soft tissue. Which was obvious enough I think by the article I posted.
Notice: Michael doesn't appear to have had a problem with my comment and may have appreciated the documentary.
No clue what bee is in your bonnet
@Chris Mannering #47 (and previous): The authors of the original paper used "tissue" in a sense similar to what you're saying you meant as well -- molecules and collections of molecules which retained their form and layout in a matter similar to living bone (collagen matrix, microscopic blood vessels, and so on).
What See Noknowledge was claiming, in trying to support his YEC magic, was preservation more akin to mummification. Which is neither true, nor accurate. The bones found were fully remineralized on their exterior. What was unusual (and unexpected) was that remineralization, in the presence of iron, encased structures which had not been remineralized.
"Sure – and I provided an article that explained why it really was soft-tissue"
And it's really NOT soft tissue.
Or see Mike's post above that.