Evolution has some splaining to do Lucy....

[Skylar]

What was that about fish learning to walk?

Evolutionists: 'Oops! We May Have Been Wrong All Along'

Thanks to a new study, evolutionists and their disciples are having to reexamine some of their most revered dogma. Particularly, evolutionists are now having to make sense of conclusions stating that almost all animal species, as well as humans, showed up on the stage of human history at the same time.
------

A study published in the journal Human Evolution is causing quite the stir. In the words of Phys.org, "The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago."

So startling, in fact, that according to David Thaler, one of the lead authors of the study, "This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could.

All DNA evidence shows no evidence of evolution. In fact, it shows distinct segregation of species. Evolution has no scientific evidence to support it.

In comparison to what? The 'Jesus did it!' theory?

I figured that would be your level of rebuttal.

Given that 'God did it' has already been forwarded in the thread, its on the table.

And you won't touch it with a 10 foot pole. Deny god twice more and we can have a bible story reenactment!

Very unscientific if you to try to validate a theory by attacking another competing theory.

Stop attacking science and instead embrace it.

So you've denied god twice. Shocker.

Yeah, I wouldn't touch 'Jesus did it!' with a 10 foot pole either.

 

[candycorn]

What was that about fish learning to walk?

Evolutionists: 'Oops! We May Have Been Wrong All Along'

Thanks to a new study, evolutionists and their disciples are having to reexamine some of their most revered dogma. Particularly, evolutionists are now having to make sense of conclusions stating that almost all animal species, as well as humans, showed up on the stage of human history at the same time.
------

A study published in the journal Human Evolution is causing quite the stir. In the words of Phys.org, "The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago."

So startling, in fact, that according to David Thaler, one of the lead authors of the study, "This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could.

Kind of kills that 6000 year timeline in the bible doesnt it?

"The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.""

The bible does not say 6000 years. And only a small crazy segment of Christians believe that. Try again stupid.

Ok...how old is the earth?

 

[Aba Incieni]

 

[Weatherman2020]

They're finding living DNA and pliable skin in dinosaur bones. Hard to be living after having died off billions of years ago.

No, they aren't finding 'living DNA' in dinosaur bones.

And Dinosaurs didn't die of 'billions of years ago'. But tens of millions.

Soft tissue of Dino’s have been found.

Soft tissue and 'living DNA' aren't the same thing. They're not even close to the same thing.

Soft tissue supposedly being ‘75 million years old’ is.

Show me the evidence that the soft tissue contains 'living DNA'.

You'll find when you move from the realm of imagination to the real world, your claims don't work.

After you explain soft tissue inside of Dino bones and a carving of a Dino from 1000AD.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Related Articles:

DNA and bone cells found in dinosaur bone http://creation.com/dino-dna-bone-cells

Best ever find of soft tissue (muscle and blood) in a fossil http://creation.com/muscle-and-blood-...

Dinosaur soft tissue http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue

 

[Skylar]

No, they aren't finding 'living DNA' in dinosaur bones.

And Dinosaurs didn't die of 'billions of years ago'. But tens of millions.

Soft tissue of Dino’s have been found.

Soft tissue and 'living DNA' aren't the same thing. They're not even close to the same thing.

Soft tissue supposedly being ‘75 million years old’ is.

Show me the evidence that the soft tissue contains 'living DNA'.

You'll find when you move from the realm of imagination to the real world, your claims don't work.

After you explain soft tissue inside of Dino bones and a carving of a Dino from 1000AD.

So hapless excuses for why you can't show us that the samples contained 'living DNA'?

Color me shocked yet again. It doesn't take much to run you off.

And if you wanted explanations for soft tissue, all you had to do was look around for a moment or two. But since you lack the intellectual curiosity to do 20 seconds of google work, I'll gladly do the hard work for you, baby bird.

Open your little maw:

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

 

[Weatherman2020]

Soft tissue of Dino’s have been found.

Soft tissue and 'living DNA' aren't the same thing. They're not even close to the same thing.

Soft tissue supposedly being ‘75 million years old’ is.

Show me the evidence that the soft tissue contains 'living DNA'.

You'll find when you move from the realm of imagination to the real world, your claims don't work.

After you explain soft tissue inside of Dino bones and a carving of a Dino from 1000AD.

So hapless excuses for why you can't show us that the samples contained 'living DNA'?

Color me shocked yet again. It doesn't take much to run you off.

And if you wanted explanations for soft tissue, all you had to do was look around for a moment or two. But since you lack the intellectual curiosity to do 20 seconds of google work, I'll gladly do the hard work for you, baby bird.

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

Not my claim, and I laugh at iron being credited as a preservative.

Go put a piece of raw iron outside for a week and see what happens.

 

[Skylar]

Soft tissue and 'living DNA' aren't the same thing. They're not even close to the same thing.

Soft tissue supposedly being ‘75 million years old’ is.

Show me the evidence that the soft tissue contains 'living DNA'.

You'll find when you move from the realm of imagination to the real world, your claims don't work.

After you explain soft tissue inside of Dino bones and a carving of a Dino from 1000AD.

So hapless excuses for why you can't show us that the samples contained 'living DNA'?

Color me shocked yet again. It doesn't take much to run you off.

And if you wanted explanations for soft tissue, all you had to do was look around for a moment or two. But since you lack the intellectual curiosity to do 20 seconds of google work, I'll gladly do the hard work for you, baby bird.

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

Not my claim, and I laugh at iron being credited as a preservative.

So you've abandoned the 'living DNA' bullshit. That was easy.

And your 'laughter' isn't a rational retort. Its an excuse for one.

Go put a piece of raw iron outside for a week and see what happens.

Yeah, you clearly didn't read the article. As they don't claim it was a 'piece of iron'.

"Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years. "

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

Ignore as you will. All you do is demonstrate that willful ignorance is your standard of 'science'.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Soft tissue supposedly being ‘75 million years old’ is.

Show me the evidence that the soft tissue contains 'living DNA'.

You'll find when you move from the realm of imagination to the real world, your claims don't work.

After you explain soft tissue inside of Dino bones and a carving of a Dino from 1000AD.

So hapless excuses for why you can't show us that the samples contained 'living DNA'?

Color me shocked yet again. It doesn't take much to run you off.

And if you wanted explanations for soft tissue, all you had to do was look around for a moment or two. But since you lack the intellectual curiosity to do 20 seconds of google work, I'll gladly do the hard work for you, baby bird.

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

Not my claim, and I laugh at iron being credited as a preservative.

So you've abandoned the 'living DNA' bullshit. That was easy.

And your 'laughter' isn't a rational retort. Its an excuse for one.

Go put a piece of raw iron outside for a week and see what happens.

Yeah, you clearly didn't read the article. As they don't claim it was a 'piece of iron'.

"Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years. "

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

Ignore as you will. All you do is demonstrate that willful ignorance is your standard of 'science'.

Crappy strawman. I never mentioned DNA.

And you’re just another unthinking puppet who parrots without thinking.

You’re pathetic buying a 2 year experiment can be equated to 75 million years.

An experiment that has not been repeated. Why? We know why.

 

[Skylar]

Show me the evidence that the soft tissue contains 'living DNA'.

You'll find when you move from the realm of imagination to the real world, your claims don't work.

After you explain soft tissue inside of Dino bones and a carving of a Dino from 1000AD.

So hapless excuses for why you can't show us that the samples contained 'living DNA'?

Color me shocked yet again. It doesn't take much to run you off.

And if you wanted explanations for soft tissue, all you had to do was look around for a moment or two. But since you lack the intellectual curiosity to do 20 seconds of google work, I'll gladly do the hard work for you, baby bird.

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

Not my claim, and I laugh at iron being credited as a preservative.

So you've abandoned the 'living DNA' bullshit. That was easy.

And your 'laughter' isn't a rational retort. Its an excuse for one.

Go put a piece of raw iron outside for a week and see what happens.

Yeah, you clearly didn't read the article. As they don't claim it was a 'piece of iron'.

"Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years. "

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

Ignore as you will. All you do is demonstrate that willful ignorance is your standard of 'science'.

Crappy strawman. I never mentioned DNA.

And you’re just another unthinking puppet who parrots without thinking.

I simply consider Schweitzer and her colleagues far more credible than I do you. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

But tell us more about how 'Jesus did it!'. We can all use a giggle.

 

[Weatherman2020]

After you explain soft tissue inside of Dino bones and a carving of a Dino from 1000AD.

So hapless excuses for why you can't show us that the samples contained 'living DNA'?

Color me shocked yet again. It doesn't take much to run you off.

And if you wanted explanations for soft tissue, all you had to do was look around for a moment or two. But since you lack the intellectual curiosity to do 20 seconds of google work, I'll gladly do the hard work for you, baby bird.

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

Not my claim, and I laugh at iron being credited as a preservative.

So you've abandoned the 'living DNA' bullshit. That was easy.

And your 'laughter' isn't a rational retort. Its an excuse for one.

Go put a piece of raw iron outside for a week and see what happens.

Yeah, you clearly didn't read the article. As they don't claim it was a 'piece of iron'.

"Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years. "

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

Ignore as you will. All you do is demonstrate that willful ignorance is your standard of 'science'.

Crappy strawman. I never mentioned DNA.

And you’re just another unthinking puppet who parrots without thinking.

I simply consider Schweitzer and her colleagues far more credible than I do you. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

But tell us more about how 'Jesus did it!'. We can all use a giggle.

Good pawn.

 

[Skylar]

So hapless excuses for why you can't show us that the samples contained 'living DNA'?

Color me shocked yet again. It doesn't take much to run you off.

And if you wanted explanations for soft tissue, all you had to do was look around for a moment or two. But since you lack the intellectual curiosity to do 20 seconds of google work, I'll gladly do the hard work for you, baby bird.

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

Not my claim, and I laugh at iron being credited as a preservative.

So you've abandoned the 'living DNA' bullshit. That was easy.

And your 'laughter' isn't a rational retort. Its an excuse for one.

Go put a piece of raw iron outside for a week and see what happens.

Yeah, you clearly didn't read the article. As they don't claim it was a 'piece of iron'.

"Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years. "

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

Ignore as you will. All you do is demonstrate that willful ignorance is your standard of 'science'.

Crappy strawman. I never mentioned DNA.

And you’re just another unthinking puppet who parrots without thinking.

I simply consider Schweitzer and her colleagues far more credible than I do you. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

But tell us more about how 'Jesus did it!'. We can all use a giggle.

Good pawn.

Because I won't accept your laughter and babble about 'two pieces of iron left outside' over Schweitzer and her colleagues and their scientific research about iron nanoparticles?

Get used to the idea. Even you won't touch the 'Jesus did it!' nonsense.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Not my claim, and I laugh at iron being credited as a preservative.

So you've abandoned the 'living DNA' bullshit. That was easy.

And your 'laughter' isn't a rational retort. Its an excuse for one.

Go put a piece of raw iron outside for a week and see what happens.

Yeah, you clearly didn't read the article. As they don't claim it was a 'piece of iron'.

"Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years. "

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

Ignore as you will. All you do is demonstrate that willful ignorance is your standard of 'science'.

Crappy strawman. I never mentioned DNA.

And you’re just another unthinking puppet who parrots without thinking.

I simply consider Schweitzer and her colleagues far more credible than I do you. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

But tell us more about how 'Jesus did it!'. We can all use a giggle.

Good pawn.

Because I won't accept your laughter and babble about 'two pieces of iron left outside' over Schweitzer and her colleagues and their scientific research about iron nanoparticles?

Get used to the idea. Even you won't touch the 'Jesus did it!' nonsense.

Others have found dino blood and tissue. Explain its tens of millions of years of extinct existence.

 

[danielpalos]

What was that about fish learning to walk?

Evolutionists: 'Oops! We May Have Been Wrong All Along'

Thanks to a new study, evolutionists and their disciples are having to reexamine some of their most revered dogma. Particularly, evolutionists are now having to make sense of conclusions stating that almost all animal species, as well as humans, showed up on the stage of human history at the same time.
------

A study published in the journal Human Evolution is causing quite the stir. In the words of Phys.org, "The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago."

So startling, in fact, that according to David Thaler, one of the lead authors of the study, "This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could.

anarcho-capitalism could claim, it is about conditions for a transaction to occur.

The Miller-Urey experiment proved, "anarcho-capitalism" will happen, given a market environment conducive to it.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Not my claim, and I laugh at iron being credited as a preservative.

So you've abandoned the 'living DNA' bullshit. That was easy.

And your 'laughter' isn't a rational retort. Its an excuse for one.

Go put a piece of raw iron outside for a week and see what happens.

Yeah, you clearly didn't read the article. As they don't claim it was a 'piece of iron'.

"Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years. "

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

Ignore as you will. All you do is demonstrate that willful ignorance is your standard of 'science'.

Crappy strawman. I never mentioned DNA.

And you’re just another unthinking puppet who parrots without thinking.

I simply consider Schweitzer and her colleagues far more credible than I do you. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

But tell us more about how 'Jesus did it!'. We can all use a giggle.

Good pawn.

Because I won't accept your laughter and babble about 'two pieces of iron left outside' over Schweitzer and her colleagues and their scientific research about iron nanoparticles?

Get used to the idea. Even you won't touch the 'Jesus did it!' nonsense.

You’re a fine example of how people switch off their brain when someone puts on a lab coat and starts babbling to you. Bobble head Syndrome.

 

[Erinwltr]

So you've abandoned the 'living DNA' bullshit. That was easy.

And your 'laughter' isn't a rational retort. Its an excuse for one.

Yeah, you clearly didn't read the article. As they don't claim it was a 'piece of iron'.

"Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years. "

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

Ignore as you will. All you do is demonstrate that willful ignorance is your standard of 'science'.

Crappy strawman. I never mentioned DNA.

And you’re just another unthinking puppet who parrots without thinking.

I simply consider Schweitzer and her colleagues far more credible than I do you. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

But tell us more about how 'Jesus did it!'. We can all use a giggle.

Good pawn.

Because I won't accept your laughter and babble about 'two pieces of iron left outside' over Schweitzer and her colleagues and their scientific research about iron nanoparticles?

Get used to the idea. Even you won't touch the 'Jesus did it!' nonsense.

You’re a fine example of how people switch off their brain when someone puts on a lab coat and starts babbling to you. Bobble head Syndrome.

Nothing like being handed your hat and shown the door.

 

[Taz]

What was that about fish learning to walk?

Evolutionists: 'Oops! We May Have Been Wrong All Along'

Thanks to a new study, evolutionists and their disciples are having to reexamine some of their most revered dogma. Particularly, evolutionists are now having to make sense of conclusions stating that almost all animal species, as well as humans, showed up on the stage of human history at the same time.
------

A study published in the journal Human Evolution is causing quite the stir. In the words of Phys.org, "The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago."

So startling, in fact, that according to David Thaler, one of the lead authors of the study, "This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could.

And they didn't have guns back then and were perfectly fine. How can that happen?

 

[Syriusly]

Not my claim, and I laugh at iron being credited as a preservative.

So you've abandoned the 'living DNA' bullshit. That was easy.

And your 'laughter' isn't a rational retort. Its an excuse for one.

Go put a piece of raw iron outside for a week and see what happens.

Yeah, you clearly didn't read the article. As they don't claim it was a 'piece of iron'.

"Schweitzer and her colleagues found that dinosaur soft tissue is closely associated with iron nanoparticles in both the T. rex and another soft-tissue specimen from Brachylophosaurus canadensis, a type of duck-billed dinosaur. They then tested the iron-as-preservative idea using modern ostrich blood vessels. They soaked one group of blood vessels in iron-rich liquid made of red blood cells and another group in water. The blood vessels left in water turned into a disgusting mess within days. The blood vessels soaked in red blood cells remain recognizable after sitting at room temperature for two years. "

Controversial T. Rex Soft Tissue Find Finally Explained

Ignore as you will. All you do is demonstrate that willful ignorance is your standard of 'science'.

Crappy strawman. I never mentioned DNA.

And you’re just another unthinking puppet who parrots without thinking.

I simply consider Schweitzer and her colleagues far more credible than I do you. As you have no idea what you're talking about.

But tell us more about how 'Jesus did it!'. We can all use a giggle.

Good pawn.

Because I won't accept your laughter and babble about 'two pieces of iron left outside' over Schweitzer and her colleagues and their scientific research about iron nanoparticles?

Get used to the idea. Even you won't touch the 'Jesus did it!' nonsense.

Trying to get folks like Weatherman to understand science is as likely to succeed as teaching algebra to a turtle.

But I applaud your efforts.

I do find it fascinating how he always falls back on everyone else is an unthinking puppet- when he parrots the talking points of the Trumpsters and the Creationists.

 

[Syriusly]

What was that about fish learning to walk?

Evolutionists: 'Oops! We May Have Been Wrong All Along'

Thanks to a new study, evolutionists and their disciples are having to reexamine some of their most revered dogma. Particularly, evolutionists are now having to make sense of conclusions stating that almost all animal species, as well as humans, showed up on the stage of human history at the same time.
------

A study published in the journal Human Evolution is causing quite the stir. In the words of Phys.org, "The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago."

So startling, in fact, that according to David Thaler, one of the lead authors of the study, "This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could.

All DNA evidence shows no evidence of evolution. In fact, it shows distinct segregation of species. Evolution has no scientific evidence to support it.

lol

 

[AvgGuyIA]

What was that about fish learning to walk?

Evolutionists: 'Oops! We May Have Been Wrong All Along'

Thanks to a new study, evolutionists and their disciples are having to reexamine some of their most revered dogma. Particularly, evolutionists are now having to make sense of conclusions stating that almost all animal species, as well as humans, showed up on the stage of human history at the same time.
------

A study published in the journal Human Evolution is causing quite the stir. In the words of Phys.org, "The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago."

So startling, in fact, that according to David Thaler, one of the lead authors of the study, "This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could.

Kind of kills that 6000 year timeline in the bible doesnt it?

"The study's most startling result, perhaps, is that nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago.""

The bible does not say 6000 years. And only a small crazy segment of Christians believe that. Try again stupid.

The time line of the Holy Bible is very clear that The Beginning occurred nearly 6000 years ago when God spoke the Universe into existence. Believe it or don't believe it but don't insult people of Faith just because they do. It doesn't make them crazy.