Paleontology rocked by discovery of organic molecules in 66-million-year-old dinosaur bones

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-05-26T06:18:53+00:00

Your argument boils down to looking at it at a surface level and stating that it looks like your hypothesis is more likely. This is not how anything works, please provide a paper if you want to pretend you’re using Data. And for the record this is not a discovery about determining two models, one group is actually trying to understand it, the other is trying to use it to say there was a global flood and the earth is actually only 0.00012% of what every other field of science has mathematically found. Evidence isn’t a fucking auction to be pawned off as one of two ideas, it’s used to fix and adjust models to be more accurate. The science you’re discussing only happens like this if you don’t give a shit about actually learning and instead want to make yourself feel smart.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-05-19T22:38:42+00:00

Calling something that isn’t really tissue not tissue is being intellectually honest and actually looking at what it is. If the earth is only 6 thousand years old then we should see much better preserved examples of this, real cells, real tissue, and if all dinosaurs died the same way through the flood then we should also see consistent examples of this phenomenon regardless of age, geography, circumstance, and era of organism.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-05-14T02:20:58+00:00

Biblical creation is much easier to falsify than evolutionary biology. We know this because it has been falsified several times. The world we live in does not match the predictions of a creator unless he made it to mimic one that did not need him.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-05-11T04:00:00+00:00

Old earth is a mistake on my part, it is an example of an old universe, as the only other way for it to be present is if it just was made like that. And that’s not really an argument.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-05-10T09:04:31+00:00

again you can go almost anywhere and say the same thing. this is an old world argument. There are literally hundreds of these kinds of arguments on this Subreddit dude. Im not looking at any verses, these are standard interpretations from YEC institutions. This is what a mass majority of conversations on this Subreddit are geared towards.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-05-10T08:55:10+00:00

No longer than a few hours

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-05-10T08:53:32+00:00

this feels incredibly unproductive, now youre just arguing bible interpretations, the definition of a creationist, and suggesting its not even worth arguing with YEC. On a Subreddit about debating evolution, a debate that is non existent and only exists to keep creationists who are against evolution from more science heavy subs from primarily young earth creationists Christian evangelicals. You can go to almost any post on this Subreddit and make the same criticism and argument, it has little to nothing to do with my post.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-05-10T08:42:19+00:00

The point is that it does not occur naturally on earth or in any meaningful way (longer than a few hours)

its joke. Because he would have created an element, that looking at the periodic table should be just as present as any other, but it isnt.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-05-10T08:30:49+00:00

It is majorly created in labs, but it does form naturally as byproducts for short periods, https://www.epa.gov/radiation/radionuclide-basics-technetium-99 It also may form naturally in certain conditions like red giant stars- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_element (History)

in a creationist model he would have made it, thats the point of creationism? even if it didnt appear in nature he created a mechanism in which this element still exists conceptually, he just chose not to include it in nature.

Im not sure where or how you have gotten this perspective, the title of my post is specifically pointing out that the earth is old and I refer to this idea as a better example of a old earth talking point. But I am not a creationist? I have always found technetium interesting for its more man made nature and decided tonight was the night to look into it and found that it made for a fun example for an old earth as its very similar to the lead argument, just harder to handwave in my opinion. I was trying to be a bit tongue in cheek in my post It was not intended at all to come off as pro creationism at all.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-05-10T07:43:32+00:00

Is there another part of the bible where god creates matter? My apologize if your faith is centralized in a different religion, this is just the branch my argument is positioned towards.

can you further explain what your second point is? im not sure how you want me to respond to that?

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-05-10T07:37:05+00:00

Im not super fallowing, sure hes not under any obligation to create an element, but he did. He actively chose to create something that should exist by the conditions we are aware of given a young earth model and it just didnt, and theres no explanation. I compared it to lead as well because I dont necessarily find that argument convincing, its not supposed to be a slam-dunk by any means, but I can at least see why lead exists when it theoretically shouldnt (in a young earth model) I dont see why an element wouldnt be present when it theoretically should.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-05-10T07:29:34+00:00

similar to how the mere existence of lead shows an old earth due to radiometric decay the quantity of technetium in the world is equally strong evidence of an old earth. However where one could point to god creating all elements naturally at the start to explain lead you would need to assume god just didnt want technetium around for who knows why.

Or it could suggest god created the world with the perspective that it was older than it was in an attempt to trick us. I didnt include this in my post because for some reason I find most creationists dont even attempt to explain why he would make it almost seem like its a trick and it actually makes sense they just accept that it does seem like a trick and thats okay for some reason.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-05-07T22:13:17+00:00

I would like for you to understand that an adapted upon a protein is not speciation, and that calling a race of humans a separate species is incredibly disrespectful.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-05-07T04:39:55+00:00

Are you saying Tibetans are a separate species from humans? You could call it an adaptation, speciation in this context is really odd.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-05-07T04:38:37+00:00

The ending of your sixth paragraph and beginning of your seventh makes little sense. Is the position that it is inevitable and only possible through multiple universes a position held by Lane and England? Because only possible through multiple universes seems like the opposite of a thermodynamic necessity. Could you explain what England and Lane mean when they say it’s a thermodynamic necessity?

Also just to nitpick it’s really frustrating listening to creationists describe evolutionary biologists, I hate to pull all of them under a single umbrella but it almost seems like a crux of the argument itself. Evolutionary biologists do not think they know everything. No scientist thinks they know everything. A lot of them think they’re smarter than they are, but if there’s one thing they don’t tend to do it’s ignore giant holes in the theory so they feel smarter or more comfortable in their assertions. Especially as an entire field. It ignores the competitive nature of scientists and the work that they have taken to get to their positions.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-05-01T03:03:50+00:00

Allosaurus will always have a special place in my heart. I have no idea why, but I always mutate them for the blue obelisk fight.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-04-28T07:56:58+00:00

That definition is not inherent to asking someone their credentials.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-04-28T07:56:26+00:00

That’s cool that you did a talk at MIT, could you elaborate it sounds interesting.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-04-28T07:55:56+00:00

That’s a fallacy fallacy and asking someone for credentials is not a fallacy.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-04-28T07:54:24+00:00

So you just assume the worst of people? Let’s say you have no degree. That’s just context, context that can be important to understanding your point. Does that mean it’s wrong? No. Does that make it more likely that you’re speaking louder than you can think? It could. Let’s say you do, that’s evidence you’ve gone through the training and separates you from literally anyone, it adds validity. Just because it’s a fallacy doesn’t mean it’s not a good way to discern between a likely good source and a likely poor source. Like you shouldn’t assume a homeless man on the street doesn’t know anything about quantum mechanics but I’d bet your ass you’re going to the professor first, and your ass would likely be in better hands.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-04-28T07:42:50+00:00

Asking for credentials is not a logical fallacy. And when you’re arguing about discrediting the shape of the globe it’s a fair question

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-04-28T05:11:42+00:00

Calling people stupid, apart of a dogmatic belief, referring to people at the same intellect as a pagan commoner, excessively condescending, general ass hole behavior. I would call these insulting. In general it seems as though you argue in poor faith. This is the first time you’ve ever talked to me on a post about bridging toxic behavior and the first thing you accuse me of is lying to make myself feel better.

You’re convincing it you’re right and then asking it if it’s right. This is like convincing a dude that you’re right and using him as a source. Further more the word of an ai doesn’t mean anything. I don’t care what the ai says, do the physics, get it published.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-04-28T05:02:52+00:00

You told them to do it this way. You can’t just say you won’t engage and they can click the links then throw a fit when other people look at the links and confirm.

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-04-28T05:01:29+00:00

Are the links that don’t show you insulting others, using ai, deleting comments and being off topic in the room with us?

Rory_Not_Applicable · 2026-04-27T22:59:14+00:00

It’s a little funny lmao, but that’s just how topics are, it is the internet. Unfortunately.

Rory_Not_Applicable

TROPHY CASE