paleontology, for those who loves dinosaurs

[james bond]

This should be case closed.

"Figure 1. Salkhit skullcap found in Mongolia.
Image credit: Copyright © Institute of History and Archaeology, Mongolian Academy of Sciences. Used in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder."

"Image credit: Russian boxer Nikolai Valuev. Copyright © 2015 Allrus.me. Used in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder."

"A skull fossil found in Mongolia in 2006 was linked to evolutionary icons like H. neanderthalensis and H. erectus because of its alleged “archaic” features. A recent study now dates it at about 34,000 years, which puts it in the same age range (evolutionarily speaking) as very recent humans.1 This study also extracted mitochondrial DNA from the skull and placed it within the range of modern Eurasian humans. Considering that secular scientists have dated other human skulls with “anatomically modern” features at over 300,000 years,2 these new findings of “recent” humans with archaic features highlight the abject futility of the human evolution story."

Recent Humans with Archaic Features Upend Evolution

 

[james bond]

So that already discussed dead guy is still your alleged peer reviewed "author", except not in the "creation science" arena? ... "work by AIG" was peer reviewed, not his work in particular? Here's some peer review of AIG:
https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Employee-Review-AIG-RVW2987517.htm
Is that what you meant?
Incoherent.

I'll put you down as diarrhea of the fingers and avoiding the question/issue which is a fallacy.

Already did. You not liking my rebuttal doesn't make it nonexistent.

Which post was that? Like I said diarrhea of the fingers makes it hard to read, but easy to skip. Also, you've been caught with the false attribution fallacy.

Already covered too. There's no such thing as a creation scientist.

Ignorance is no excuse and see above.

I suppose this wraps up and summarizes your evolution is fact posts.

 

[james bond]

So something scientists apparently now acknowledge to be erroneous serves, not as evidence that science is always a work in progress, nor as an example of how peer review is necessary, albeit often slow,.. no, no.. you somehow take it as evidence there simply must be a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Fabulous!

You guys made up the Flying Spaghetti Monster that exists in people's imaginations just like evolution. It's just just like you made up what the too old foot fossil was, the fake homo rudolfensis, Piltdown Man, and more:

.

Why don't you let creation scientists peer-review the work?

What "article"? What "author"? Links? Quotes? Anything?

Too advanced, eh? What's your degree, Doctor of Incoherence and Smear?

Why don't you briefly rebut? What did you say your background was again lol? So far, I connect you with Fort Fun Indiana who thinks he made it to 7th grade (but still in 4th).

The Rise and Fall of Skull KNM-ER 1470

You're a little cornfused, James. Heidelberg Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Cro-Magnon, etc., these are all only references to specimens found at specific locations, not as distinct, separate species. But the evidence is clear that man evolved from the same ancestry that apes came from and part of what helped them advance was both their learning to stand on two legs to see farther as well as giving up berries and fruits to become a hunter which the added protein gave a higher quality food source to support a larger brain.

You know very well Piltdown Man was fraud. Do you want to go over the rest, too haha?

And I've been saying all along that the layers that all the fossils in the fossil record that were found refer to location and not time chronology.

 

[Grumblenuts]

diarrhea of the

I've been saying

 

[james bond]

Two old fossils. See the resemblance? There you go.

 

[Hollie]

So something scientists apparently now acknowledge to be erroneous serves, not as evidence that science is always a work in progress, nor as an example of how peer review is necessary, albeit often slow,.. no, no.. you somehow take it as evidence there simply must be a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Fabulous!

You guys made up the Flying Spaghetti Monster that exists in people's imaginations just like evolution. It's just just like you made up what the too old foot fossil was, the fake homo rudolfensis, Piltdown Man, and more:

.

Why don't you let creation scientists peer-review the work?

What "article"? What "author"? Links? Quotes? Anything?

Too advanced, eh? What's your degree, Doctor of Incoherence and Smear?

Why don't you briefly rebut? What did you say your background was again lol? So far, I connect you with Fort Fun Indiana who thinks he made it to 7th grade (but still in 4th).

The Rise and Fall of Skull KNM-ER 1470

You're a little cornfused, James. Heidelberg Man, Piltdown Man, Peking Man, Cro-Magnon, etc., these are all only references to specimens found at specific locations, not as distinct, separate species. But the evidence is clear that man evolved from the same ancestry that apes came from and part of what helped them advance was both their learning to stand on two legs to see farther as well as giving up berries and fruits to become a hunter which the added protein gave a higher quality food source to support a larger brain.

You know very well Piltdown Man was fraud. Do you want to go over the rest, too haha?

And I've been saying all along that the layers that all the fossils in the fossil record that were found refer to location and not time chronology.

You have been saying a lot of things that are nonsensical. Your "sayings" are right out of the most notorious fundamentalist ministries, totally unsupported and absent verification.

 

[Hollie]

This should be case closed.

"Figure 1. Salkhit skullcap found in Mongolia.
Image credit: Copyright © Institute of History and Archaeology, Mongolian Academy of Sciences. Used in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder."

"Image credit: Russian boxer Nikolai Valuev. Copyright © 2015 Allrus.me. Used in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder."

"A skull fossil found in Mongolia in 2006 was linked to evolutionary icons like H. neanderthalensis and H. erectus because of its alleged “archaic” features. A recent study now dates it at about 34,000 years, which puts it in the same age range (evolutionarily speaking) as very recent humans.1 This study also extracted mitochondrial DNA from the skull and placed it within the range of modern Eurasian humans. Considering that secular scientists have dated other human skulls with “anatomically modern” features at over 300,000 years,2 these new findings of “recent” humans with archaic features highlight the abject futility of the human evolution story."

Recent Humans with Archaic Features Upend Evolution

Pretty funny stuff from quacks at the ICR. Can you link to any peer reviewed journals that the ICR submitted their data to?

 

[dannyboys]

Hello Dalia, what is your position on recreating dino's from DNA. Me, I think we can do without them roaming about. I have read that they would be horrible household pets.

It's been done pal.
Didn't you watch the 'BREAKING NEWS BOMBSHELL' report CNN/MSNBC/NYT/WP all did on the story. They all titled their BOMBSHELLS 'Jurassic Park'.
It was none other than Brian Williams who first broke the story when he was pinned down by enemy machine gun fire somewhere in the south pacific.

 

[dannyboys]

Hi Dalia, what did the dinosaurs evolve from.

Hello, the oldest family is the Herrerasauridae, the first family of dinosaurs.

Did they live in what is now Israel?
I'm sure I saw their name in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

[james bond]

BTW you cannot even rebut what the article stated,

You can't even rebut that's it's a blog. If you had made any sort of reasonable attempt I could have easily conceded that it's actually a full featured website posing as a legitimate discussion spot for scientists. Unfortunately for you, it appears Fort Fun is absolutely correct. There's nothing published by any of those pathetic posers in the peer reviewed scientific journals, FAICT.

Just as I thought. No rebuttal from nuts boy. Nor your butt buddy Fort Fun Indiana. Creation scientists have to peer review their own work since they have been eliminated from fake science. That's why you guys are wrong on human fossils. My evidence is observable and not artists' fake representations made to fit the theory.

 

[Hollie]

BTW you cannot even rebut what the article stated,

You can't even rebut that's it's a blog. If you had made any sort of reasonable attempt I could have easily conceded that it's actually a full featured website posing as a legitimate discussion spot for scientists. Unfortunately for you, it appears Fort Fun is absolutely correct. There's nothing published by any of those pathetic posers in the peer reviewed scientific journals, FAICT.

Just as I thought. No rebuttal from nuts boy. Nor your butt buddy Fort Fun Indiana. Creation scientists have to peer review their own work since they have been eliminated from fake science. That's why you guys are wrong on human fossils. My evidence is observable and not artists' fake representations made to fit the theory.

Fundamentist hacks don't submit anything for peer review by the relevant science community because they do no research, perform no experiments or submit to science journals.

Your revulsion for science is obvious but don't let your biases give credibility to your silly conspiracy theories.

 

[Hollie]

This should be case closed.

"Figure 1. Salkhit skullcap found in Mongolia.
Image credit: Copyright © Institute of History and Archaeology, Mongolian Academy of Sciences. Used in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder."

"Image credit: Russian boxer Nikolai Valuev. Copyright © 2015 Allrus.me. Used in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holder."

"A skull fossil found in Mongolia in 2006 was linked to evolutionary icons like H. neanderthalensis and H. erectus because of its alleged “archaic” features. A recent study now dates it at about 34,000 years, which puts it in the same age range (evolutionarily speaking) as very recent humans.1 This study also extracted mitochondrial DNA from the skull and placed it within the range of modern Eurasian humans. Considering that secular scientists have dated other human skulls with “anatomically modern” features at over 300,000 years,2 these new findings of “recent” humans with archaic features highlight the abject futility of the human evolution story."

Recent Humans with Archaic Features Upend Evolution

Pretty funny stuff from quacks at the ICR. Can you link to any peer reviewed journals that the ICR submitted their data to?

So the obvious is no. Christian fundamentalist hacks cannot withstand the rigor of peer review.

 

[Grumblenuts]

When you have faith you can just make it all up as you go along. The next world is all that really matters so why sweat the details here?

Look at these heads here.. We've obviously evolved from foods!

 

[james bond]

When you have faith you can just make it all up as you go along. The next world is all that really matters so why sweat the details here?

Nuts boy, aren't you a silly little man? None of this is made up. It is the word of God. He didn't discuss science, but science backs up what he said. The word of God cannot change.

Maybe you will understand this too late when you are about to take your last breath. To the contrary, it is evos who make it all up as they go along. I already presented evidence of the human foot fossil that was too old to be human. They made up a silly story to explain it and fit their fake theory. The human fossil records isn't three million years old. As I forecast, I can guarantee that your evo scientists will be making these records even older along with the Earth and universe. They think that we will be hit by a giant asteroid and die. That's catastrophism which is what creation science teaches. What happened to AGW lol?

If all of this evolution is true, then we should see people getting stronger and living longer. They are living shorter. They can't even make it to 120 yrs old anymore.

For you, I have the following to review. At least, it won't strain your brain like a peer review, even if it is a fake evo one. Do you know the six basic concepts of evolution haha?

Chick.com: Big Daddy?

Thus, we can see that you are wrong and have been wrong.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Pffft!

Btw, I happen to agree that gluons are silliness, but Goddidit is far sillier.

 

[Hollie]

When you have faith you can just make it all up as you go along. The next world is all that really matters so why sweat the details here?

Nuts boy, aren't you a silly little man? None of this is made up. It is the word of God. He didn't discuss science, but science backs up what he said. The word of God cannot change.

Maybe you will understand this too late when you are about to take your last breath. To the contrary, it is evos who make it all up as they go along. I already presented evidence of the human foot fossil that was too old to be human. They made up a silly story to explain it and fit their fake theory. The human fossil records isn't three million years old. As I forecast, I can guarantee that your evo scientists will be making these records even older along with the Earth and universe. They think that we will be hit by a giant asteroid and die. That's catastrophism which is what creation science teaches. What happened to AGW lol?

If all of this evolution is true, then we should see people getting stronger and living longer. They are living shorter. They can't even make it to 120 yrs old anymore.

For you, I have the following to review. At least, it won't strain your brain like a peer review, even if it is a fake evo one. Do you know the six basic concepts of evolution haha?

Chick.com: Big Daddy?

Thus, we can see that you are wrong and have been wrong.

All of your usual conspiracy theory ramblings.

 

[Grumblenuts]

 

[james bond]

This is so wrong as it was demonstrated using the scientific method that the chicken came before the egg in 2017. You're behind the times Grandpa Nutz Boy.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Arguing with Perry now? You do understand He's just a roofer, right? Don't forget to pay Him!

 

[james bond]

Arguing with Perry now? You do understand He's just a roofer, right? Don't forget to pay Him!

Not Perry, but the idiot who posted the dumb cartoon.with his diarrhea fingers Grandpa Nutz Boi.

Here's something to put in your pipe and think about the next time...