LisaRose

Joined

• started 38 topics
• posted 6,078 times   see topics posted on
• send a message

Posts by LisaRose

• 
  26

  Will Bro. Rogers be DF'd posthumously for drug addiction?

  by ShirleyW in

  1. jw
  2. friends

  some have been df'd for suspicion of smoking cigarettes, yet bro.

  rogers death is because of an addiction, fentanyl is what they are saying is the drug that did him in which was reported on the news as being more potent than heroine.

  why is it that some nosy sister can report you because someone who looked like you was in the parking lot the same time as she was, yet bro.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  LisaRose

  Seriously, what do you expect they would do at this point? He overdosed on painkillers, it happens. Yes, they probably are giving him a pass because of his celebrity, but it's hard to disfellowship a dead person anyway, so who knows what would have happened if he had been a regular person? Do you honestly expect the Watchtower to bring more attention to his tragic death by saying anything at this point?

  Whatever his demons were it's obvious the religion didn't help him any. Maybe he had been struggling with this and was afraid to say anything knowing how judgemental the elders would be. To me he is just another victim of the Watchtower.
• 
  114

  Evidence for a Young Earth

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  LisaRose

  This is another article that discusses this issue. Basically what they are saying is that while soft tissue usually degrades in a certain number of years, in some cases , under some conditions it does not.

  Bottom line: Soft tissue in fossils do not prove that the fossilization happened quickly, it just means that tissue does not degrade quickly in certain environments.

  http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Soft_tissue_preservation
  

  The common thread in this claim is the great irony of creationists dogmatically adhering to the results of lab studies using uniformitarianpreconceptions of processes lasting millions of years which nobody has directly observed.
• 
  114

  Evidence for a Young Earth

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  LisaRose

  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/27/t-rex-soft-tissue-discovery_n_4349214.html

  This is an article from the Huffington post. It discusses how they figured out what happened. It appears the iron in the blood preserved the tissue.

  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.
• 
  114

  Evidence for a Young Earth

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  LisaRose

  I admit I went through your post too quickly and didn't really understand what you were getting at, in my defence it was a bit confusing. I understand now about fossils and tissue, see my answer above.

  But you aren't reading my posts either. I have already said if you have a pile of calcium carbonate you can form stalagtites very quickly. The problem is that in limestone caves you don't have a pile of carbonate, it gets extracted slowly.
• 
  114

  Evidence for a Young Earth

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  LisaRose

  I found some information on the Hell Creek dinosaurs.

  The scientist who claims to have found tissue in fossils admits that she needs more work to prove this. Critics believe that the fossils were contaminated.

  This is where the scientific method works. This person comes up with these findings and it's interesting. But she has a long way to go before her findings are accepted in the scientific community. If what she found really happened she will be able to duplicate her results and other scientists will be able to duplicate the results using her methods. If true, they would have to revise common scientific thought on things. But that hasn't happened yet, it's one person, one experiment.

  Meanwhile, in the religious community of evolution deniers, this is passed off as proven science, because it confirms what they want to believe.

  
  Scientists agree on one aspect of Mary Schweitzer's research. The tissues she found shouldn't have been there, at least according to basic concepts of fossilization. Because of this, critics assert that what Schweitzer really found was a contaminated sample, not a breakthrough. Over 65 million years, there's plenty of time for other life forms to contaminate the bones of a dinosaur. Fossils also come into contact with human and other tissues during excavation. This presents a challenge for researchers trying to prove that a cell, tissue sample or DNA strand came from a specificextinct animal.
  After Schweitzer's first paper appeared in Science, some critics suggested that she published it before conducting enough analysis. Schweitzer agreed with this claim at least in part. She explained that the team published its findings as step to securing funding for later work [source:Yeoman].
• 
  114

  Evidence for a Young Earth

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  LisaRose

  
  Millions of years is pretty slow!
  It is amazing how the mineral deposits know how to grow slowly in caves but quickly in environments that contradict the naturalism ideology.
  Conspiracy!

  I have explained it to you, but you don't want to accept it.

  One last time, then I give up.

  If you have a big pile of calcium carbonate just sitting there you can form stalagtites quickly.

  But if you have a limestone cave, the carbonate is not just sitting there, it has to get out of the limestone, and that process is very, very slow. It's a chemical reaction, it takes time. The stalagtites can only grow as fast as the carbonate is freed up from the limestone.
• 
  114

  Evidence for a Young Earth

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  LisaRose

  was working with a T. rex skeleton harvested from Hell Creek, she noticed that the fossil exuded a distinctly organic odor. "It smelled just like one of the cadavers [dead bodies] we had in the lab who had been treated with chemotherapy before he died," she says. Given the conventional wisdom that such fossils were made up entirely of minerals, Schweitzer was anxious when mentioning this to Horner. "But he said, 'Oh, yeah, all Hell Creek bones smell,'" she says. To most old-line paleontologists, the smell of death didn't even register. - Discover Magazine

  
  

  I am not sure what point you are trying to make with the dinosaur DNA. Somebody claims some Dino bones somewhere had an odor? So what? What proof is there the odor was decay? We're they tested? Do you have a lab report showing tissue with DNA were found in a stalagtite cave believed to be 100,000 years old? Really it sounds like some kind of modern urban legend, "The Fossils That Had an Odor!"

  You have just cut and pasted some things that prove nothing.
• 
  114

  Evidence for a Young Earth

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  LisaRose

  But that is not the case at the monument. It is made of limesone quarried just six miles from a famous cave with identical formations.
  Also, there was no concrete in the farmers field pipe that made the big teepee mound in wyoming.
  Sounds like another "just so" explanation that doesn't add up.

  Because you will never accept any explanation.

  The stalagtites in the building could be from the mortar used in the building, water runs over the surface and picks it up and deposits it in the basement.

  I assume the farmers field had minerals that had already dissolved somewhere, maybe in an underground cave. Some water forced it to the surface where it could quickly build up. The carbonate is already there, it just needed to be picked up by the water.

  It doesn't matter because the point is that the process that takes time is the limestone naturally dissolving into carbonate to form the stalagtites. If the mineral is already dissolved, then stalagtites formation can be much faster. You can take limestone and manually crush it and add acids to dissolve it and form stalagtites quickly, but that just doesn't happen naturally in a cave, which is a set process that takes a set amount of time.
• 
  114

  Evidence for a Young Earth

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  LisaRose

  How can dinosaur DNA be detected when DNA has been proven to have a half life of only 521 years, meaning nothing could be detected after 100,000 yrs. at most?

  
  

  They have found Dino DNA in Ice cores, the ice preserves the DNA. The record is 500,000 years . How could you have raised this as an issue without at least looking to see a possible explanation?
  
  
• 
  114

  Evidence for a Young Earth

  by Perry in

  1. watchtower
  2. beliefs

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  for additional information:.

  1. 
  2. 
  3. 
• 

  LisaRose

  
  Then it should be easy for you to explain why they take "millions of years" to form in caves and just a few decades in basements.

  I did, but I guess you didn't read the explanation. I will try again.

  Limestone caves dissolves very slowly because limestone does not dissolve in water. There is a chemical interaction going on, only a tiny amount of calcium carbonate gets freed up from the limestone to form the stalagtites, it's a very slow process. In the case of cement, all that carbonate is already all freed up, so the stalagtites can form much, much faster. It is not the formation of the stalagtites per se that is slow, but the conversion of limestone to carbonate that takes a long time, and that process takes a set about of time.