Dinosaur soft tissue
biblear...@hotmail.com
jillery
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXfKCnDCf50
That's because the Viagra wore off.
Dana Tweedy
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXfKCnDCf50
>
As pointed out before when you brought this up, at most it represents
nothing more than an unusual instance of preservation. Even if
dinosaurs were younger than 65 million years old, all that would mean is
that some species survived the K/T extinction.
What do you imagine that this information says about evolution?
DJT
richardal...@gmail.com
> On 4/30/11 8:49 PM, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXfKCnDCf50
>
> As pointed out before when you brought this up, at most it represents
> nothing more than an unusual instance of preservation. Even if
> dinosaurs were younger than 65 million years old, all that would mean is
> that some species survived the K/T extinction.
>
They did. We call them "birds".
RF
jillery
<richardalanforr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 1, 5:06 am, Dana Tweedy <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > On 4/30/11 8:49 PM, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXfKCnDCf50
>
> > As pointed out before when you brought this up, at most it represents
> > nothing more than an unusual instance of preservation. Even if
> > dinosaurs were younger than 65 million years old, all that would mean is
> > that some species survived the K/T extinction.
>
> They did. We call them "birds".
That's just your inner fish talking :)
John S. Wilkins
It's his monkey brain.
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
biblear...@hotmail.com
> On 4/30/11 8:49 PM, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXfKCnDCf50
>
> nothing more than an unusual instance of preservation. Even if
John Bode
> > Even if dinosaurs were younger than 65 million years old, which I presuppose
It's not a presupposition. There are multiple lines of evidence (physical, biological, geological, etc.) that give an ancient age for dinosaurs.
The fact that *you* don't understand that evidence doesn't mean it's wrong.
Bob Casanova
talk.origins, posted by jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S.
Wilkins):
>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 1, 5:09 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
>> <richardalanforr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On May 1, 5:06 am, Dana Tweedy <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 4/30/11 8:49 PM, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> >
>> > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXfKCnDCf50
>> >
>> > > As pointed out before when you brought this up, at most it represents
>> > > nothing more than an unusual instance of preservation. Even if
>> > > dinosaurs were younger than 65 million years old, all that would mean is
>> > > that some species survived the K/T extinction.
>> >
>> > They did. We call them "birds".
>>
>>
>> That's just your inner fish talking :)
>
>It's his monkey brain.
Whereas the OP is controlled by his lizard hindbrain.
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Kermit
Nope; the evidence is pretty clear that the non-avian dinosaurs died
out 65 MYA. It's conceivable that some survived for a while, but this
T-Rex femur looks instead to be an uncommon process of preservation.
Allow me to quote the first response to this YouTube post:
"where is this clip from? You lecture people about 'academia' (see
below) then select a section of someone else's work, cynically rename
it to misrepresent the person quoted in the title and don't even cite
it!
I've read Shweitzer's paper, she never ONCE even mused about this
discovery casting doubt on an old earth. I smell a big big rat. The
presentation of this un-named video with this title is so close to a
lie as makes no difference. This is why Creationists are shunned."
Says it as well as I could; maybe better. I was raised by people like
you, and literally cannot fathom how your minds work. You work very
hard to deceive yourselves, and are seemingly unaware of it.
If you open a jar of jelly from the shelf, with dust on the lid and a
three-year old "use by" date, and find the jelly apparently fresh and
edible, it would make as much sense to claim that it therefore is only
a couple of days old.
Sheesh.
Kermit
David Hare-Scott
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXfKCnDCf50
So what is your explanation for the origin of the variety of life we see on
the earth today?
David
Kermit
Obviously, hyper-fast evolution of the few hundred animals kept alive
on the Ark. And miraculously kept alive afterwards. And miraculously
distributed after they evolved into the present species.
And recreated as necessary (unless the plants were also kept
miraculously alive while submerged by saltwater for a year).
Kermit
Nathan Levesque
jillery
Excellent analogy. To that I add another sheesh and a half.
Shweitzer's claim is for a previously unknown process of
preservation. Add to that her public denunciations of interpretations
of this discovery as evidence for creationism. This is just another
case of creationists grasping at straws.
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by
[No content from BA]
Well, the intelligence of your posts is improving...
Bob Casanova
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Kermit
<unrestra...@hotmail.com>:
Be fair; it wasn't salt water.
Of course, that presents its own problems for marine
species. Oops, I mean "kinds".
AGW Facts
Wilkins) wrote:
> jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 5:09 am, "richardalanforr...@googlemail.com"
> > <richardalanforr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On May 1, 5:06 am, Dana Tweedy <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 4/30/11 8:49 PM, biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXfKCnDCf50
> > >
> > > > As pointed out before when you brought this up, at most it represents
> > > > nothing more than an unusual instance of preservation. Even if
> > > > dinosaurs were younger than 65 million years old, all that would mean is
> > > > that some species survived the K/T extinction.
> > >
> > > They did. We call them "birds".
> >
> >
> > That's just your inner fish talking :)
> It's his monkey brain.
Worm!
JTEM
j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> It's his monkey brain.
If we evolved from monkey brains then why are
there still brains?
--
Check out my friend's lame ass show:
JTEM
biblearcheol...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Dana Tweedy <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
>
> > As pointed out before when you brought this up, at
> > most it represents (in my opinion) nothing more
> > than an unusual instance of preservation. Even if
> > dinosaurs were younger than 65 million years old,
> > which I presuppose, all that would mean is
> > that some species survived the K/T extinction.
You're wrong, of course. It's not opinion.
--
Check out my friend's lame ass show:
http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/4294769618
JTEM
Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> biblearcheol...@hotmail.com:
>
> > Dana Tweedy <reddfr...@bresnan.net> wrote:
> >> As pointed out before when you brought this up, at
> >> most it represents (in my opinion) nothing more
> >> than an unusual instance of preservation. Even if
> >> dinosaurs were younger than 65 million years old,
> >> which I presuppose, all that would mean is
> >> that some species survived the K/T extinction.
> [No content from BA]
He added the words "in my opinion" to the quoted text.
JTEM
John Bode <jfbode1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's not a presupposition. There are multiple lines
> of evidence (physical, biological, geological, etc.)
> that give an ancient age for dinosaurs.
There isn't even any legitimate evidence for a dinosaur
surviving past the K.T. boundary.
Such evidence could only take the form of an articulated
skeleton. The same forces that weather out fossils
today (and help us to find them) have been weathering
out fossils since before there was any such thing as
dinosaurs. And it's always been a case where some of
those fossils get re-buried, re-preserved in a much
younger layer. About the only thing that could exclude
this possibility would be to find an articulated
skeleton, such as this one:
http://flaggedrevs.labs.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Stenops.jpg
When you find remains like this -- basically laying
the way the animal died -- you know the bones haven't
been weathered out and re-buried. They couldn't be
together like this if they had.
If dinosaurs survived the K.T. boundary we should find
at least SOME articulated remains...
Mark Isaak
>
> j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>
>> It's his monkey brain.
>
> If we evolved from monkey brains then why are there still brains?
Intelligent design -- God's plan for a world ruled by zombies.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume