Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

originally posted by: peter vlar

You keep repeating this half lie as if it were wholly true. Was there soft tissue found because idiots in the last simply assumed that it couldn’t be preserved? No, absolutely. Is that soft tissue permineralized (fossilized)??? You bet your sweet behind that it is.

You have to accept the fact that soft tissue was found in dinosaur bones. They found organic material, likely collagen since it was in the bone matrix, and it was still stretchy. It is textbook soft tissue:



"The bone matrix was stretchy and flexible, she said. Also, there were long structures like blood vessels. What appeared to be individual cells were visible." source

Researchers in China also found collagen and protein fragments in dinosaur bones: source

and so did researchers in Britain (Regarding dinosaur bones from Canada): source

a reply to: cooperton

And of course you will cite the papers associated with those finds? Right?

a reply to: Noinden

probably not... but I will

i'd read about this before, but I don't know if its legit or not... that's why I was asking Peter

www.livescience.com...

www.smithsonianmag.com...

www.history.com...

a reply to: Akragon

Oh I've seen it too. I read a little out of interest from papers published. But I want to see if coop is willing to post the scientific findings. You know as oppose to post something incomplete Google scholar shows a lot, since I doubt he has acess to Scifinder or Reaxys.

a reply to: Noinden

Oh and while we are at it. When someone brings up that DNA has been isolated from the bones, it helps to read a wee bit further

a reply to: Noinden

yeah... I already told him on the last page the dating wasn't in question... said bone was still from a trex 70 mil some odd years old...

the question was why and how the soft tissue was preserved... they figured it was the rich iron content in the blood

IF it was even a legit find... again, that's why I was asking peter... I believe that is his field

a reply to: Akragon

Yep, I saw that. These posts are always for the interested seeker, not the member of the zealous creationist missionaries here

originally posted by: Barcs
Again science follows evidence and there is TONS of it. LMAO @ claming they are trying to make evidence fit, when they DO adjust the theory when new information becomes available. The problem is pretty much all evidence fits, and that's a problem for you, so instead of addressing it, you deny it blindly and spew more lies.

A theory that wants to find out how life on Earth became so diverse....assumes life was not diverse, long ago.

It's assumed life came to exist in a primitive, simplistic form, which magically crafted millions of other living organisms, so intricate and complex, in comparison, because life takes a very long time to expand itself, into another form of life. Every life comes to exist, after a very long, long period of time....


This theory doesn't have any valid evidence, and it never will have any valid evidence.


It ignores all the valid evidence, in fact.


Every species on Earth is evidence, the real, true, valid evidence.

Invented 'evidence' is all they hold up, and it's pure crap.

a reply to: cooperton

I fully accept that permineralized soft tissue has been found in ancient fossils. I’ve never disputed it. You are the one claiming that it’s fresh tissue so support your claim.

a reply to: turbonium1

You are absolutely correct. Every bacteria, furry creature, scaly creature, aquatic creature, plant, fungus and flowering cacti is damning and incriminating evidence. Evidence of a single point of origin over 3 billion years ago.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: turbonium1

You are absolutely correct. Every bacteria, furry creature, scaly creature, aquatic creature, plant, fungus and flowering cacti is damning and incriminating evidence. Evidence of a single point of origin over 3 billion years ago.

Speculation and assumptions.

And your creation story is not?

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

I fully accept that permineralized soft tissue has been found in ancient fossils. I’ve never disputed it. You are the one claiming that it’s fresh tissue so support your claim.

I'm glad you are now admitting that it is soft tissue. Because before you did dispute it, trying to deny science to maintain your evolution fairy tale:

originally posted by: peter vlar
(yes, it's fossilized. It's not still soft tissue and has undergone permineralization).

The permineralized scales are starting to come off your eyes.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
And your creation story is not?

I admit that "my Creation" story is taken on faith.
Can you do the same with your evolution story?

I can do better than faith alone, I have several million pages of peer-reviewed research and study coupled with evidence of a DNA family tree of every living thing reaching back over 3 billion years.

I think that aces the desperate hope placed on a dusty set of ancient scrolls claimed by three different warring and violent religions worshipping three different dispassionate gods who willingly sanction slavery, incest, murder, female oppression and just about every other inhumane act one could inflict on another.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: cooperton

I fully accept that permineralized soft tissue has been found in ancient fossils. I’ve never disputed it. You are the one claiming that it’s fresh tissue so support your claim.

I'm glad you are now admitting that it is soft tissue. Because before you did dispute it,

Please don’t reinterpret what I said and pretend that you’re on to something. I never disputed that soft tissue could be preserved. You’re the one claiming that it is not ancient tissue and that fossilized soft tissue is somehow reach tissue that invalidates the MES. You still refuse to address your own claims. Not a surprise considering it’s your basic MO in every post or thread

trying to deny science to maintain your evolution fairy tale:

Are you a child using your moms laptop without permission? Because you clearly aren’t an adult and wouldn’t know science if it gave you a lap dance.

The permineralized scales are starting to come off your eyes.

So are you refusing to address your own claims or are you simply incapable of supporting them? Not worry, anyone who has taken 10th grade biology knows that it’s the latter not the former so don’t hurt yourself thinking about that one

originally posted by: TerraLiga
I can do better than faith alone, I have several million pages of peer-reviewed research and study coupled with evidence of a DNA family tree of every living thing reaching back over 3 billion years.

I am afraid not. What you have is evidence of adaptation and a code that could not possibility have written itself, by chance.

I think that aces the desperate hope placed on a dusty set of ancient scrolls claimed by three different warring and violent religions worshipping three different dispassionate gods who willingly sanction slavery, incest, murder, female oppression and just about every other inhumane act one could inflict on another.

Look at all the people that have been killed and the atrocities that have been done through science!
The simple fact is that MAN will find a way to do bad things, whether they do it in the name of science or religion.
It is not the fault of science or religion. It is the fault of MAN and our sinful nature.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
I can do better than faith alone, I have several million pages of peer-reviewed research and study coupled with evidence of a DNA family tree of every living thing reaching back over 3 billion years.

Several million pages of peer-reviewed research and not one example of an organism evolving into another organism.

The truth is not measured in quantity of words.

originally posted by: peter vlar
venomous words

I was going to respond with substance, but you provided nothing but comments about my intelligence and a small tidbit about my mom. Great job Pete!

Can you give me an example of the type of change you are wanting to see? Evolution and adaptation are pretty simple concepts to understand, but none of them involve changing one genus into another.

a reply to: TerraLiga

So no common ancestor then, and evolution confined and very limited and not at all as it’s portrayed to be...
Well done...