(5) On August 2, 2010 at 12:50 pm Emdrgreg [2537] said:
- There was a response indicating that 'creationists' suggest that DNA could not have survived as long as indicated by the standard methods of dating the specimens. I have removed the word 'creationists' because the age observation is not at all unique to believers of the creationist approach, and it is unreasonable to suggest so. It is an opinion of many scientists in general. Also, creationism is based on the categorical acceptance of certain creeds a priori. These creeds are not part of the general scientific heuristic, nor can they be, since they are considered utterly beyond challenge. No assumptions in the general scientific model are considered beyond challenge.
(4) On July 19, 2010 at 8:30 pm Nij [0] said:
- Both Science and the New York Times also well-noted that there is no reliability about whether the remains were actually dinosaur, and that there is no reliability on whether the remains were contaminated. Hence it is very bad science to ignore those facts and say that "this challenges what we know already".
- By the way Pete, if this is truly not an R&S question: why are you mentioning creationism? Everybody knows that they are neither legally or scientifically considered valid science. AS it happens, that comment has been removed for its utter irrelevancy.
(3) On July 19, 2010 at 8:23 am LimeAid [408] said:
- The journal Science only reported that Woodward had sequenced dinosaur DNA. It never reported that Woodward's findings were censored by the "evolutionary establishment." That idea is strictly a Creationist invention. And it's still a conspiracy theory.
- Your main point remains the same: that scientists have dinosaur DNA, but are hiding it, because it proves that evolution isn't real and the world is only 6000 years old. That is a conspiracy theory. There is no evidence to support that claim.
- As you said yourself, "Science progresses by the production and publication of research results which can then be checked and verified or invalidated by others."
- No one was able to validate Woodward's claim that it was, in fact, dinosaur DNA he found. In fact, scientists now contend that what Woodward sequenced was HUMAN DNA, not dinosaur DNA. His sample had been contaminated. See the Related Links.
- So, yes, the journal Science did publish Woodward's report claiming that he had sequenced dinosaur DNA. But when others checked his claims and tried to verify them, they turned out to be false.
- Nor has anyone been able to validate whether Mary Schweitzer actually found soft tissue and red blood cells from a T-rex or not. Exactly what she found remains to be seen. Again, see the Related Links.
- Even if she DID find genuine soft tissue from a T-rex, preserved for 68 million years, it would only prove that what we currently know about the fossilization process isn't accurate, and that soft tissue can indeed be preserved for millions of years, not thousands of years as we currently believe.
- Yet you are claiming that scientists ARE able to validate these findings, but are suppressing the knowledge. You are claiming this without any evidence, but simply because you want it to be true.
- It has everything to do with religion. It's no secret that Creationists view Mary Schweitzer's findings as "indisputable proof" that dinosaurs existed on Earth only a few thousand years ago, not 68 million years ago.
- Despite the fact that radiometric dating of the sample and the surrounding area proves that they are millions and millions of years old, not thousands of years old. And despite the fact that Mary Schweitzer herself, though a Christian, does not believe that her findings constitute evidence that the world is 6000 years old.
- This is a common tactic among Creationists: since all Creationist arguments are sophistry built on false and/or misunderstood science, the only way to lend any kind of credence to them is to promote conspiracy theories about how all real scientists know that evolution isn't real and the world is actually 6000 years old, but won't admit it.
(2) On July 16, 2010 at 12:23 am PeteNco [657] said:
- As indicated in the reference given in the answer on the main page, this has nothing whatsoever to do with religion but science, as the journal Science is a respected mainstream publication-certainly not a creationist or 'conspiracy theory' mouthpiece.
- Science progresses by the production and publication of research results which can then be checked and verified or invalidated by others. Suppressing information does not make the facts go away.
(1) On July 9, 2010 at 3:17 pm LimeAid [408] said:
- First answer has been removed twice now, as it is no more than a conspiracy theory. There is absolutely no evidence to support its claims. Other supers, please refrain from reposting the first answer. Conspiracy theories and wild, unsupported accusations are not an appropriate answer to this question.
- This is not a Religion and Spirituality question. This is a science question. There is a right answer and a wrong answer, and the first answer was the wrong answer.
- This is a science question, and, as per the rules laid out in the Super's forum, "If the question is specifically scientific in nature and is purely academic, then any 'religious dissent' shouldn't be allowed."
- Leaving the first answer in will only confuse readers who are seeking the real answer to this question, and who expect an answer from the mainstream scientific community, not conspiracy theories from special interest groups.
Sign in to add your own comment. (This only takes a few seconds.)
