|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:01 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
You know, I think this is one of the reasons why, apart from just being wrong, creationism is also bad for Christianity. Firstly, it makes a lot of honest, sincere Christians look foolish, not only to non-Christians, but to other Christians as well; and secondly, it means that a lot of intelligent, well-educated and scientifically literate Christians will end up having to make a choice between accurate scientific knowledge and their faith - and over a relatively minor part of doctrine at that. Ultimately I'd say Creationism does more to harm Christianity than anything else, and it will be a very divisive issue in coming decades. The New Atheism is in part a response to it, for example. |
My problem with creationism, it's a Harry Potter god. Christians are more than willing to write off "I prayed but my mother still died horribly and painfully of cancer" as "god works in mysterious ways" but then they some how need to reduce their god to this Sturm und klang god of the B movies.
A god whose hand can be detected behind probability and natural mechanism and still can work a plan is a way more powerful god than a god that doesn't challenge the mind of anyone over the age of 8. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| edoras wrote: |
I used this article because Wielend's rebuttal to Moore illustrates that it�s still safe to say that the evidence is highly consistent with red blood cells having been found in T. rex fossils. After all, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, it is usually safe to say we have a duck.
Do you still claim thats its completely and utterly impossible that they are red blood cells? This would seem like blind faith to me. |
Ahem. From the article you "read":
| Quote: |
The manipulation of Schweitzer's research by AiG predates the articles discussed below, as two minor anonymous mentions of dino-blood had been made earlier in Creation, one of the AiG house organs. Each of these early mentions of Schweitzer's work was prompted by a news interview around the time that a new episode of the Crichton/Spielberg "Jurassic Park" series was released. It is quite clear that Mary H. Schweitzer enjoyed presenting her on-going work to reporters in very speculative and even grandiose terms. A 1993 interview with Virginia Morell resulted in a news item published by Science (Morell 1993), and in 1995 Richard Monastersky wrote "Squeezing blood from a stone" for Science News (Monastersky 1995). Each of these news items was commented on by AiG. The AiG response to Monastersky's story was titled 'Blood Chemicals' found in dino bone (AiG 1996). This short piece is of some interest as it already exhibits every feature of the pattern we examined in detail below. It refers to a non-technical news item as if it were an actual scientific paper. It misrepresents the findings claiming that there were "obvious, fresh-looking blood cells" seen in dinosaur bone. It asserts that organic molecules found in ancient material disproves all independent dating methods and therefore implies the Earth is a scant thousands of years old.
Carl Wieland is the major creationist "dino-blood" source and has presented his distorted interpretations of dinosaur biomolecule research through the Answers in Genesis Ministry: Creation Ex Nihilo (Wieland 1997) Creation (Wieland 1999) and the Answers in Genesis Ministry Webpages (Wieland 2002). His first article we will consider in detail, Sensational dinosaur blood report, opens with the following:
ACTUAL red blood cells in fossil bones from a Tyrannosaurus rex? With traces of the blood protein hemoglobin (which makes blood red and carries oxygen)? It sounds preposterous to those who believe that these dinosaur remains are at least 65 million years old.
It is of course much less of a surprise to those who believe Genesis, in which case dinosaur remains are at most only a few thousands of years old.
And he ends with
Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable shapes of red blood cells, in unfossilized dinosaur bone is powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible's account of a recent creation. [Wieland 1997]
These sentences are quite revealing. In barely two text pages, Wieland has shifted from "fossil bones" to "unfossilized dinosaur bone" and claims that a popularized account of one paleontological study is reason enough to abandon the sciences. What possible basis for these wild claims could Wieland have had? His entire claim of cellular preservation in dinosaur age fossils originated from a selective misrepresentation of a popular magazine account of research by Mary Schweitzer titled "The Real Jurassic Park" (Schweitzer and Staedter 1997). This article was published in 1997 by a magazine called Earth, a for-profit magazine focused on geology and paleontology for the general public. The magazine folded after three volumes. The former Editor, Josh Flishman, has personally acknowledged to me that Earth was a popularization, and not a scientific journal. But in 1997, the popularity of Steven Speilberg's film "Jurassic Park" prompted a tie-in theme at Earth magazine featuring Mary Schweitzer's preliminary analysis of an exceptionallywell preserved portion of a bone from a remarkably well preserved skeleton of a Tyrannosaurus rex. There were no red blood cells present, and this speaks volumes for the respect for truth shown at Answers in Genesis Ministry.
Typical of a science popularization, Schweitzer and Staedter (1997) are initially coy as to whether there are any fossilized cells, or not, and the short article refers twice to unidentified people who thought that they saw red blood cells in a thin section slide prepared from tabular bone from a T. rex. Secondly, there is also a photograph of the slide in question with the caption "Blood from Rock" that said -
Looking suspiciously like red blood cells, these mysterious spheres tucked into the blood vessel chambers of a 65-million-year-old Tyrannosaurus rex fossil could contain fragments of DNA and proteins.
Nonetheless, Schweitzer and Staedter clearly stated in the very first print column -
Perhaps the mysterious structures were, at best, derived from blood, modified over the millennia by geological processes. [pg: 55]
However, they are categorically clear in the conclusion of the article where they state -
But more work needs to be done before we are confident enough to come right out and say, "Yes, this T. rex has blood compounds left in its tissues." [Schweitzer and Staedter 1997 pg. 57]
They have clearly stated they could not even assert that there were residual blood products, but Wieland falsely claimed Schweitzer asserted there were actual cells. The lack of permineralization (the infilling of the intravascular spaces with minerals, and recrystalization of the bone mineral itself) is the reason that Schweitzer could loosely refer to the bone as "not completely fossilized" in The Real Jurassic Park. Wieland grossly exaggerates this as "unfossilized". [1997: pg. 42]
Schweitzer and Staedter (1997) is most charitably characterized as a dumbed down version of the scientific publications published the same year (Schweitzer, et al. 1997A, B, C). Schweitzer, et al., "Heme compounds in dinosaur Trabecular bone" (1997A) gives us a straight forward data presentation,and concludes that there were heme, and hemoglobin protein fragments sufficiently well preserved in a small portion of a particularly well preserved bone from which they could produce an immunological response in rats. There is no indication that there were "blood cells" found in the bone. Further, from the discussion -
Geochemical interactions with biomolecules preserved in fossil bone over millions of years are to be expected, and the presence of additional, nonhemoglobin signals detected by the various physical methods is not unexpected given the highly degraded and diagenetically altered biological compounds in the bone. [references deleted] [pg. 6295]
Schweitzer, et al., "Blood from a Stone" (1997B), apart from a provocative title, is equally clear that neither hemoglobin nor red blood cells were discovered -
Additionally, we have not identified the origin of the small vascular microstructures, and have not linked them to the heme signals we detect to these structures. [pg. 104]
Schweitzer, et al., "Preservation of biomolecules in cancellous bone of Tyrannosaurus rex" (1997C) is just as clear, from the abstract -
An exceptionally well preserved specimen of the tyrantnosaurid dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex Osborn shows little evidence of permineralization or other diagenetic effects.
And
While some of the biomolecules are most likely contaminants, the probable presence of collagen type I suggests that some molecules of dinosaurian origin remain in these tissues. [pg. 349]
Permineralization is the infilling of the open structure (e.g. the marrow) of a bone with minerals, and "diagenetic effects" are postmortem changes to bone such as dissolving/remineralizing, cracking or crushing and may include biological alteration by scavengers, or microbes. That the fossil was not permineralized could at best have been misread by Wieland as "unfossilized". But there is no evidence that Wieland ever bothered to read the scientific literature concerning this research and instead relied on his poor comprehension of a single popular magazine article.
All the analysis published in the science literature by Mary H. Schweitzer and her colleagues through 1997 demonstrate that they have found a very well preserved bone that had little or no water penetration into the core area from where they drew their biomolecule samples. Schweitzer has told me that she was very surprised that the creationists would latch on to her work like this, as hers is not the oldest reported biomolecule data. In fact, there were prior publications of DNA extracted from samples twice as old as her T. rex sample (for example Polinar et al. 1994). There were also prior reports of immunological responses from biomolecules extracted from dinosaur bone, for example Muyzer et al. 1992.
Even had Wieland merely read the New York Times as of June 10, 1997 he could have learned that -
Earlier hopes of finding cells in the dinosaur bone have been dashed. Dr. Schweitzer said she could see no direct sign of cells, although a chemical stain that recognizes DNA picked up something in the holes where the bone cells would have rested.
But she said she had been unable to retrieve DNA that could be identified as originating in a dinosaur. She and her colleagues had better luck in looking for heme, the oxygen carrying part of the hemoglobin molecule of the blood. [Wade 1997]
It is apparent that Wieland limited his reading to popular magazines and news items, and this is very poor scholarship. Equally clear is that Wieland grossly distorted that research. Contrary to the clear publication record, Wieland claimed that Schweitzer discovered "traces of real blood" and "traces of hemoglobin" in "unfossilized dinosaur bone". This was simply not true. |
Sorry, edoras. Your man Wieland is a fraud. You've been taken in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| edoras wrote: |
Do you still claim thats its completely and utterly impossible that they are red blood cells? This would seem like blind faith to me. |
Who claimed that? If true, provide good evidence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think it's quite clear that when "gang ah jee" gave off negative, offensive vibes while uttering "Rteacher" to the water, it reacted to his extremely cold-blooded attitude by freezing as it defiantly extended its middle finger ...
We also have an indication of how meticulous a researcher he is. He claims that he could get a PhD. from Open International University of Alternative Medicine for a mere $350.
Nice try, sonny, but it'll cost ya at least $850!
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN ALTERNATIVE MEDICINES- Ph.D. (A.M.)
Eligibility :
Those persons who have passed any degree course from an authentic institution.
OR
Those persons who have completed the M.B.B.S., D.M.S., D.H.M.S., B.A.M.S., B.U.M.S., N.D., D.O. etc.
*Practitioners/Research Workers who are practising for the last 10 years. Minimum basic qualification is exempted
Requirement for the Award : The candidate has to submit an original & authentic research work (thesis) of at least 300 pages (on full scape paper) in any branch of alternative medicine under the guidance of a competent person or institution after obtaining the prior approval of this institute.
Duration: One Year.
Medium of instruction: English.
Total Fees : The total fees is U.S.$850. Full fees should be sent with the Form.
http://www.altmeduniversity.com/courses/index.html
(I suspect that quite a few forum members have their B.U.M.S. certification ...)
And besides, there have been great scientific discoveries made by people without any academic degrees...
Did you know that . . that the woman who discovered the largest and most complete T. rex fossil on record was a high-school dropout who became one of the world's greatest fossil hunters? . . . that the great British scientist Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith and had very little formal education? . . . that Gregor Mendel had time to study inherited traits in garden peas because he failed the test to qualify as a high school science teacher?
Also the guy that discovered television, Philo Farnsworth, had no college degree ...
http://www.time.com/time/time100/scientist/profile/farnsworth.html
Of course, the lack of an academic degree from a respected university does not assure scientific competence. If methodology is off and experimental results can't be replicated, then even interesting studies have limited value ...[/url] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Of course Farnsworth is a textbook example of how NOT to try and sell/market your invention. A little education in business might have helped him see that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 10, 2007 10:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rteacher wrote: |
I think it's quite clear that when "gang ah jee" gave off negative, offensive vibes while uttering "Rteacher" to the water, it reacted to his extremely cold-blooded attitude by freezing as it defiantly extended its middle finger ... |
Ok, this made me laugh out loud. Well played.
And nice spotting my mistake with the fees. I have to be honest here - my diploma from that diploma mill is a fake. I made it in Microsoft Word.
I'm not taking it down off my bedroom wall though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
edoras
Joined: 26 Jan 2004
Location: Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| Quote: |
It is apparent that Wieland limited his reading to popular magazines and news items, and this is very poor scholarship. Equally clear is that Wieland grossly distorted that research. Contrary to the clear publication record, Wieland claimed that Schweitzer discovered "traces of real blood" and "traces of hemoglobin" in "unfossilized dinosaur bone". This was simply not true. |
Sorry, edoras. Your man Wieland is a fraud. You've been taken in. |
What partcular point makes you say he is a fraud? That Wieland referred to some publications that were not considered scientific publications?
Lets have a quick look:
"Wieland claimed that Schweitzer discovered "traces of real blood""
Did Wieland claim this? The original article says:
"In a recent article, scientists from Montana State University, seemingly struggling to allow professional caution to restrain their obvious excitement at the findings, report on the evidence which seems to strongly suggest that traces of real blood from a T. rex have actually been found."
Does this constitute a claim?
Schweitzer, et al., say that "... apart from a provocative title, is equally clear that neither hemoglobin nor red blood cells were discovered -".
but did anybody claim that fresh hemoglobin or freshly oozing red blood cells were discovered?
"Actual red blood cells in fossil bones from a Tyrannosaurus rex? With traces of the blood protein hemoglobin (which makes blood red and carries oxygen)? It sounds preposterous..."[Wieland]
Does a question constitute a claim?
Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable shapes of red blood cells, in unfossilized dinosaur bone is powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible's account of a recent creation. [Wieland 1997]
Is this a claim that there are freshly oozing "hemoglobin and red blood cells"?
"That the fossil was not permineralized could at best have been misread by Wieland as "unfossilized".
Perhaps someone could enlighten us as to the difference between "not permineralized" and "unfossilized".
Rather than show he is a fraud, they have done a good job at hair splitting and misrepresentation.
The latest article on this very issue was published today.
"Squishosaur scepticism squashed"
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/5060
"Not only do evolutionists have to appeal to unknown �special conditions� to save the proteins, but they must remain in that condition for 68 million years! " |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
