Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Personal' started by lexus300, Apr 23, 2020.
Made me think.
An insult to a person's intelligence.
All this bible thumper stuff starts with a mistaken assumption, then goes on for hours or pages based on that trying to weave real fact in with their own self-motivated bull. It fails every time.
As Captain Blackadder might say, "There is a tiny flaw in the argument; it's boll.ocks!"
I don't get what he's trying to say. Something magical preserved the tissue. I can't see why tissue shouldn't last millions of years if it's fossilised.
The bit at the end where he says that iron is key to preservation of the soft tissue and then rejects it, he was so close. The soft tissues are not the original proteins they have been chemically transformed into polymers (AGEs and ALEs). Which is why you can not do any protein sequencing on them, however their structures remain.
Also finding soft tissue structures in dinosaur bones is extremely rare which is why it was only recently found and only a few such samples exist. To get it out is a lot harder than he allegedly shows in the trike horn fossil (which I doubt is even that) and you don't get huge structures like he demonstrated in the video.
I am guessing this video was produced before 2018 though.
Thanks, I will treat with caution.
Just so you know, creationism in all it's forms is a combination of stupidity, mythology and a large dose of wishful thinking by people suffering from religion.
It's quite sad seeing folk demanding that reality bend, because they can't cope with the universe not being about them.
It's a very confused explanation. It's not bone, he says. It's horn (that's keratin, isn't it?). Later, when showing a sample under a special microscope, he starts talking about the properties of bone that are being seen.
Not interesting research - lunacy.
I thought I saw a date of 2012 on it.
That explains where Darwin went wrong.
It certainly explains why he sat on his theory for so long.
The act of fossilisation replaces the original tissues with something more durable- usually rock. or as Stiltskin explains:
For me, the most interesting aspect of this issue is the mystery of consciousness. For materialists, the mind is the product of the brain and therefore a product of the evolutionary process.
The most hardline variant of this position that I know of is probably eliminative materialism.
But authors like Philip Goff take a different line. This is what he says about his latest book (Galileo's Error):
'I argue that the traditional approaches of materialism (consciousness can be explained in terms of physical processes in the brain) and dualism (consciousness is separate from the body and brain) face insuperable difficulties. On the basis of this I defend a form of panpsychism, the view that consciousness is a fundamental and ubiquitous feature of the physical world. It sounds a bit crazy, but I try to show that it avoids the difficulties faced by its rivals.'
Haven't had time to delve into this myself recently. A few years ago I read Susan Blackmore's textbook on Consciousness but that's all.
MMM! You would rather it bend reality towards your belief I see.
That's just one of the elements of confusion in that video.
And yes, horn is keratin. Same stuff hair and nails are made of.
Not so much, I bend my views to fit with reality. It's called being rational.
It's sounds like the author is a stoner laying out his ideas about what it's really about, man.
Define your reality.