Actually, here we have the young earth creationist David Willis giving us a good case in point example demonstrating how he and other young earthMessage 1 of 1 , Jul 5, 2010View SourceActually, here we have the young earth creationist David Willis giving us a good "case in point" example demonstrating how he and other young earth creationists are all the time making misrepresentative false statements based on their own lack of comprehension of what has been stated (because they're ignorant of the science, they're ignorant of the terminology, and they're ignorant of the context of discussion). (Additionally, when you point out their errors, they just defiantly refuse to acknowledge and correct their errors and then continue to deliberately promote their misrepresentative false statements - which is how young earth creationists demonstrate the corrupt deceitful nature of their belief system.)
Schweitzer is stating that she believes that the structures she's being asked are blood vessels WHICH ARE FEATURES OF THE FOSSIL. She is not saying they are blood vessels NOW, but that they are the features of blood vessels IN THE FOSSIL. David, due to his ignorance and lack of comprehension, and his desire to try to pretend that his empirically-falsified-over-200-years-ago religious doctrine has some scientific credibility, wrongly portrays Schweitzer as saying that the features are still blood vessels now, unfossilized. And then he has the gall - typical idiot young earth creationist gall - to pretend that it's Schweitzer who's "doing the Kubaki dance" because he and his fellow young earth creationists are too ignorant and stupid of the science and the context to comprehend what she's saying.
This would be like, for example, if a paleontologist such as Nick Longrich was on some radio or television program talking about fossil specimens of Sinosauropteryx and in reference to the detailed fossilization of proto-feathers (note that with some of the specimens the fossils are so detailed that the features can be examined at the microscopic level), which is referred to in the context of paleontological terminology the "fossilization of soft tissue" being asked, "Are those primitive features?" and Longrich would reply, "Yes, those are primitive feathers" - and along would come some zany young earth creationist like David Willis, ignorant and taking everything out of context, and making some stupid misrepresentative remark such as, "Scientists have discovered still existing soft tissue in a dinosaur fossil, and since it's impossible for soft tissue to be preserved for 65 million years, this is proof that geologists are wrong by several orders of magnitude about the ages of geological strata".
When dealing with young earth creationists, this is the sheer ignorance and stupidity we're dealing with. No joke.
- Todd Greene
--- In coCBanned, David Willis wrote (post #23155):
> DW here,
> Last night on 60 Minutes they replayed the story about
> Jack Horner and Mary Schweitzer's finding of soft dino
> tissue. As MS showed the more recent find regarding an 80
> myo hadrosaur, the reporter asks, "are THOSE blood
> vessels?" and MS replies "yes, those are blood vessels."
> She often tries to "cover herself" in describing what she
> found by NOT saying that she really found dino blood
> vessels or blood cells. She'll use terms (IIRC) such as
> "round nucleated microstructures" (blood cells) or
> something like "elongated hollow tubes" rather than saying
> what they really ARE.
> But this time she slipped up. Actually she slips up that
> way a LOT. She should just quit doing the Kabuki dance.