Wednesday, December 21, 2011

Smithsonian:  Jurassic Park vs. Darwin

This article has to do with soft tissues that are being found in dinosaur fossils.  The general metanarrative is that all soft tissues would have been removed from bones that were millions of years old and replaced with minerals, leaving only an outline.  Unfortunately for Darwinistas, and fortunately for Jurassic Park Rangers, this is not the case.  It has been a long time since I had a shouting match with one of the Darwin Worshippers, but this article at least acknowledges the existence of those who think that preserved soft tissues from dinosaurs implies a problem.  I am of the general opinion that the Darwin worshippers used a ouija board to settle on the ages of dinosaur bones in the 19th century, and then (a half century or more later) concocted radioactive dating formulas to confirm what was necessary for their religion.

6 comments:

Delirious said...

Oh come on Looney, don't hold back how you feel, tell us what you really think. ;)

Ha ha, that is very interesting. But they will probably just ignore the facts for awhile until they can find a way to make it jive with their religion...oops, I mean science.

But hey, after reading Jurassic park, I think it is pretty cool that they can study the soft tissue!

Looney said...

I want to have a cute little dino to take for a walk around the neighborhood. Not sure how much the pet food will cost ...

Max Coutinho said...

Hi Looney,

LOL LOL LOL LOL spectacular! LOL LOL LOL You have a spectacular sense of humour.

"Darwin Worshippers" - oh come on...how brilliant is that?

Little by little these Darwin Followers will realise that their Master was dead wrong. Ok, since we are in the Miracle Season I'll be kinder: soon they will realise that their "god" was just bored when he penned down his theories (which do not make sense to me at all).

So, you had a shouting match with one of these Science-pushers, eh? That must have been a real treat!

Cheers

Looney said...

Yes, it is usually a theologian who lectures me on science, never mind that I have spent a career in R&D!

Reading Lucretius' work describing Epicureanism and their worship of Epicurus so reminded me of the pathologies of Darwinists that I took that viewpoint. The Epicureans labeled all their opinions "science", whereas anything they disagreed with was "superstition". Sadly they were one of the most resilient of the classical schools, while also being by far the most arrogant and simultaneously the most ignorant.

Vid said...

And of course the scientists who peer-reviewed and then published the Bible had calculated exactly how old the Earth is. They aren't using new data to justify their beliefs at all [sarcasm].

Looney said...

Vid, I was hinting at the "peer review" process. The dates were all assigned to the fossils in the 19th century - more than half a century before the dating methods were invented. Thus, when the dating methods were developed they were massaged to make them acceptable to the "peers".

I don't like to talk about my work on the blog, but I am a generalist scientific/engineering programmer. People who write peer reviewed papers are specialists. The gap between their paper product and the real world applications is filled by people like me, who are much rarer and less conspicuous. Thus, I can tell you plenty of horror stories about the peer review process and the paper product that is produced. It ain't like what they told us in elementary school!