Nephilimfree 3

nailo1 Says:

Jul 30, 2008 - "The soft tissues are collagen, a connective protein. Amino acid sequencing of several samples have shown matches with the known collagens of chickens, frogs, newts and other animals" no organs have been reported. but one thing is that scientists accept this now, she said it flies in the face of what we know about decay thats what we will have to look at. lastly in recent arcticles they are finding more connections with birds now becuase of this

sweatytoothmadman Says:

Jul 30, 2008 - "no organs have been reported." He is revering to a video in his favorites about a mummified dinosaur.

sweatytoothmadman Says:

Jul 30, 2008 - Neph is basing his argument on a single interview Mary Schweitzer did where she said "It looks like but further testing needs to be done." well she did the testing and it turns out that it was not soft tissue. If you ask Neph for a source on those multiple tissue samples found he will not give you one. Have fun. Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex Schweitzer et al. Science 25 March 2005: 1952-1955 DOI: 10.1126/science.1108397

nailo1 Says:

Jul 30, 2008 - yea i just watched his new favorites and uploaded my new video thanks for pointing it out

nailo1 Says:

Jul 30, 2008 - yea i found a few sources just from the wiki article. the one about the link between the modern bird and the fossil found. though when doing a yahoo search i only get creationist sources

sweatytoothmadman Says:

Jul 30, 2008 - That article is her findings in which I've tried to show Neph many times but he doesn't read it and he is currently ignoring me.

nailo1 Says:

Jul 30, 2008 - well i can't say im not surprised, his comment up there was just soft tissue

NephilimFree Says:

Jul 31, 2008 - "The soft tissues are collagen, a connective protein." And blood cells and blood vessels. "Amino acid sequencing of several samples have shown matches with the known collagens of chickens, frogs, newts and other animals" That shouldn't surprise anyone. "no organs have been reported." Wrong again! Mummified dinos with organs! watch?v=sJZaOsnf5nI&feature=related watch?v=etS0dQg41Og

NephilimFree Says:

Jul 31, 2008 - "but one thing is that scientists accept this now" Evolutionists deny that bones with moit tissues, such as blood vessels and blood cells cannot be millions of yrs old or they would be dry as a *caugh* bone. That's how evos deny science to promote falicy. Perfect evidence. Thanks for bringing it up!

NephilimFree Says:

Jul 31, 2008 - "she said it flies in the face of what we know about decay" It does. It's not the only fino fossil that does. Mummified dino skin in more than one find and organs also destroy the evo contention about the age of dino fossils. "lastly in recent arcticles they are finding more connections with birds now becuase of this" No, they are creating more assumptions. Dinosaurs are not related to birds. They are seperate kinds.

NephilimFree Says:

Jul 31, 2008 - nailo, in our brief time talking you have made a number of false statements. You've stated the soft tissue found was not blood cells and vessels by stating it was something else. This is false. You've stated that dinosaur fossils have not been found with organs. I know you're wrong about everything else relating to evolution. You simply need to learn it. Take care. Drop a line when you finish the challenge. Next year perhaps.

nailo1 Says:

Jul 31, 2008 - yes i did state that no organs are found but in my defense i thought you were talking about that video i saw in the your new favorites were it does state that and i apologise for that

nailo1 Says:

Jul 31, 2008 - You've stated the soft tissue found was not blood cells and vessels by stating it was something else but i did not say anything about this i only qouted my source

nailo1 Says:

Jul 31, 2008 - it's weird i qouted my source but they are looking for the blood vessels now "known for leading the groups which discovered the remains of blood cells in dinosaur fossils and later discovered soft tissue remains in the Tyrannosaurus rex specimen MOR" her earlier discovery had the blood so far they are just looking for it in the fossil that was in the video

nailo1 Says:

Jul 31, 2008 - No, they are creating more assumptions. Dinosaurs are not related to birds. They are seperate kinds. foundational bias you are saying that which shows you'll use the parts of the find that suit your needs and throw out the rest

nailo1 Says:

Jul 31, 2008 - and to sum up this which you said you would not debate me until now which you are making alot of attacks on me personally instead of just proving me wrong and making me look bad. soft tissue can be muscles, tendons, ligaments, fascia, nerves, fibrous tissues, fat, blood vessels, and synovial membranes. now just saying im wrong about everything else so if i am then tell me or please be quiet

NephilimFree Says:

Jul 31, 2008 - "soft tissue can be muscles..." They found blood vessels and blood cells, as I told you. w w w . smithsonianmag . c o m / science-nature / dinosaur . h t m l Think of how many other things you're wrong about. Then you argue it against creation? You're far from ready for a serious debate.

NephilimFree Says:

Jul 31, 2008 - I'm not going to debate someone who's making false claims simply because they don't know because they have not studied something and based upon what they BELIVE alone, and not upon what science has demonstrated to us, make claims and use them as evidence against creation or creationist assertions.

NephilimFree Says:

Jul 31, 2008 - You're not even willing to concede blood vessels and what appear to be cells were found. How can you debate when you claim something observed in science is something it's not for the sake of presenting your angle? Who'd be interested in debating someone willing to do that? Can you get more informed or more honest before you ask me to debate you at some point in the futture?

NephilimFree Says:

Jul 31, 2008 - Do you see the problem here? Fix it if you want to debate me. I am not going to be a tutor. Debate should be about what the evidence means, not about things that are not evidence for evolution as if they were. Understand? CYA in a year and we'll see if you are ready to debate properly. Misinformation is not something I debate. It can't be millions of years old. Molecular rotation, vibration, and interaction would have turned it into dust after even 1 million years.

nailo1 Says:

Aug 1, 2008 - i said i was sorry and that was the end of it i qouted my source in the video so i see no point in changing it though i will put a note in the box. yes as of yet i can't say anything about why it would have lasted so i will concede the point right now, since it is your challenge. lastly you said in my first video you were not going to debate me, but if you want to debate all of a sudden please address my point in the first video of this series

nailo1 Says:

Aug 1, 2008 - You're not even willing to concede blood vessels and what appear to be cells were found. i never said they did not, the source i qouted from called it collagen and a few others but left out blood cells so i looked harder and later posted where they found the blood vessels in an earlier dig, so right now i will point you agian to the point where i said it can be soft tissue about 3 hours before you posted. ok please let that die i already corrected myself there

ravnosss Says:

Aug 3, 2008 - Just to let you know it was FOSSILIZED soft tissue, not SOFT soft tissue.

nailo1 Says:

Aug 4, 2008 - that does help thank you for your insight

FSAthe1st Says:

Aug 12, 2008 - "Think of how many other things you're wrong about. Then you argue it against creation? You're far from ready for a serious debate." You like to insult people, don't you Nephi?