Evolution & Mutation in front of our eyes

Well now let me tell you something, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, had their scientist carbon date some common dinosaur bones, Guess what? They did not come back 70 millions years old, the age of the bones were determined to be 3,000 years old. So what did your believers in Evolution do with that evidence? That's right, they threw out that results because they still believed dinosaurs had to be 70 million years old. Then they used potassium argon, and dated the fossil again. Then they got 150 million years. Hows that for an "exact science" They then pick the date they like the most based on a preconceived notion. So here again when the date does not fit the theory they change the facts. According to science an Allosaurus bone was supposed to be around 140,000,000 years old, yet when it was sent to the lab the end result was 9,890 years old. This test was done on Aug. 10, 1990 by the University of Arizona.

The discoveries of blood or soft tissue have been so numerous it is beyond the scope of this article to detail them all. The fact that biochemicals are unstable and would degrade rapidly is well established in mainstream science. See the article "Instability and decay of the primary structure of DNA" by T. Lindahl in Nature 362(6422):709, 1993.
The soft tissue finds are not isolated events. Which means that for you to believe this was just a rare chance occurance would be a false assumption on your part.

And again you might have to put your thinking cap on for this one, but people today can make copies of dinosaurs, and they know what they looked like because we have drawings of them, and models that are based on reconstruction of found evidence. 1500 years ago the tribes of Mexico did not have that kind of evidence. They had no publications, no museums, no schools of study dedicated to ancient dinosaurs. Yet they could make figurines that accurately show what dinosaurs looked like. And some of those figurines were of dinosaurs that would not be discovered until after 1944. As I have stated before.

Also Paluxy River site is not the only site where they are finding human tracks alone side dinosaur tracks. So again this is not an isolated event either. Dinosaur images are found around the world in many cultures. To believe that the many similarities are just done by chance would be foolish.

And you hold up the Inca stone showing it to be a fake, yet you have said nothing about the fake evidence from the Evolution camp. Pages and chapters could be dedicated to that subject. And many of the links between dinosaurs and birds have already been exposed as fakes, or have you not heard about that yet?

The first humans did not have fully operational steel mills, or the experience to build large sky scrapers as we have today, yet the Bible tells us they did build some wonderful structures with what they did have. Actually, all around the world we find remarkable structures of great size that date back thousands of years. Large cities can be found made of stone that go back some 13,000 years, but after that, nothing. WHY?

This one's easy.

Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"The current maximum radiocarbon age limit lies in the range between 58,000 and 62,000 years (approximately 10 half-lives). This limit is encountered when the radioactivity of the residual 14C in a sample is too low to be distinguished from the background radiation."

If you are dating something you know is older than 60,000 years, then carbon dating is totally inapplicable. You can carbon date fossils all you want, but you won't get accurate results.

Next:


Potassium-argon dating - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Due to the long half-life, the technique is most applicable for dating minerals and rocks >100,000 years old.

That's the time you're aiming for.

Even if the bones were only a few millenia old, this technique would date them rather accurately, even more so than carbon dating.



Okay. Done. I found this part to be rather neat, referencing his work, in fact.

DNA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Unfortunately, there is no direct evidence of ancient genetic systems, as recovery of DNA from most fossils is impossible. This is because DNA will survive in the environment for less than one million years and slowly degrades into short fragments in solution. Although claims for older DNA have been made, most notably a report of the isolation of a viable bacterium from a salt crystal 250-million years old, these claims are controversial and have been disputed."

That's a little debunker on your claim. They will survive in the environment for less than one million years. That's a whole lotta room to miss on your part.

However DNA isn't what we're all after.

Here's science's answers and theories.

Many Dino Fossils Could Have Soft Tissue Inside

Actually a good read.



Have you seen a dinosaur? Has anyone living today seen a dinosaur? Then how do you know what they look like? For the longest time (break out your old toys!) we thought the T-Rex was a vicious carnivore and was able to stand upright. Now we know Rexie was a scavenger that was not able to stand upright for any real length of time.

So we today are still figuring out what they looked like. Yet we're good at making figurines of dinosaurs...

I always liked the dinosaur toys that could bite chunks out of each other.



That link I posted deals with them all.

Also, wouldn't you think that they'd hunt the little bastards? Wouldn't you find evidence (and I mean like things made out of dinosaur) that they pointed the sharp end of their sticks at a dino, much like they did with just about every other animal... either for defense or food.

You would find HARD CORE evidence of that if man walked with dinosaurs.



Links. Please.

So you are saying we evolved to steel mills and they intelligence to create such a thing?

DNA WILL SURVIVE IN THE ENVIRONMENT FOR LESS THAN ONE MILLION YEARS?

So then, are you now saying you agree with the Christians that dinosaurs have roamed the earth just thousands of years ago and not 70 million years ago?

Because according to the New York Times November 14, 2007, a scientist at Brigham Young University has successfully for the first time Isolated Dinosaur DNA. From 80 million year old dinosaur bones

The surprise was that the recovered DNA bore little or no resemblance to that of any modern animals. It is "like nothing we've ever seen before." said Dr. Scott R. Woodward, an assiciate professor of microbiology at the university in Provo, Utah, who directed the study.

Well looks like it's time for the believers in Evolution to get ready for another big change in another Theory. Here we go folks. Remember, you heard it here first. Now the believers in Evolution will tell you that DNA not only can last a million years, but now it can last 80 million years. LOL Yeah, this is real science. It's time again to do the old song and dance routine. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, and were not in Kansas anymore todo.

And Yes I have seen a dinosaur. I saw one when I went to the Field Museum in Chicago. It was assembled from evidence found. To bad the tribes of Mexico did not have that kind of evidence 1500 years ago. However, they were able to make ceramic dinosaurs that looked just like the one I saw in the Museum. I wonder what Museum they saw theirs at?

Well what I am saying is that early man was already highly intelligent. They may of not had the ability to build sky scrapers but they were already building large structures from the very beginning. Science believes that there was a pre-Columbian civilization that existed more than 12,000 years before the present era. These people knew trigometry, and how to measure angles and their functions. They were also able to calculate square roots, and fractions. Now based on this, you have to ask your self, why do we not find any evidence of man before 12,000 or so years? Early man was not stupid, and could of built cities thousands of years before this time. Yet we see nothing. WHY?

why do we not find any evidence of man before 12,000 or so years?

Million =! thousands. Besides, DNA can be preserved in things such as amber for several millions of years. It survives in the environment for roughly a million flat.

Just like meat will survive in the environment for a day or two. Freeze it, vac seal it, and you get it to last longer.

Same concept.



A Scientist Says He Has Isolated Dinosaur DNA - New York Times

"After two years of painstaking analysis and hundreds of unsuccessful attempts, a scientist at Brigham Young University has extracted the genetic material DNA from what he thinks are bone fragments of 80-million-year-old dinosaurs."



Same link

"The bone fragments, possibly from a limb bone and a rib of a large animal or animals, were found in a coal mine in eastern Utah. They were embedded in rock that is associated with dinosaur fossils when found in other areas. But the fragments were too small to be identified definitely as dinosaurian."



Same link again.

"Granted they have something, but I have no idea what it really is," said Dr. Mark A. Norell, a paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History in Manhattan. "I don't think they can show definitely that those are dinosaur bone."

"Dr. Woodward said other laboratories would be given samples for independent testing. But much of the material was destroyed in the tests already done, and a collapsed tunnel has closed the coal mine, preventing the search for more bone fragments."

So many holes!



Wow!!!

Did you pet it? Did you feed it? Did they only have one? I'm sure it was only one... they're hard to come across these days.


Try again

Dinosaurs are hard to come across these days?

The American Museum of Natural History will have 40 real dinosaur skeletons on display. New York Times May 23, 1997

Do you have any idea what your even talking about? And could you tell me where the ancient tribes of Mexico 1500 years ago went to see their Dinosaur reconstructions?

And the heads of Brigham Young University came out in the article and restated that the DNA is for real so even if other scientist who are not envolved with the study doubt this DNA, they only do so because they know that DNA cannot last 80 million years. So this is going to be another big problem fou you believers in Evolution. LOL

Ever tried to adopt a dinosaur? Tough, I tell ya.



That's great. You've seen dino bones. Ever seen a LIVE dino?



See above link. When it comes to authenticating artifacts, who's the scientific community and world gonna believe... a creationist or an archaeologist?



Can they prove their findings? Can they be reproduced. The short answer is no. The long answer is no, and they never were able to from the start.

Also... link please!

I have disproved everything put before me by you and you say *I* have the big problem? Why have you dodged every question I have posed, not even commented on the solid evidence put forth?

C'mon! Make this at least a little bit difficult for me!

Ever try to adopt a dinosaur?

If you can't believe in the found remains of dinosaurs then please don't waste my time with your Evolution Theory. I don't need to see a living dinosaur, we have enought fossil evidence to know what they looked like, and much more evidence then the Theory of Evolution.

I believe, your are a blind faith believer in Evolution. All evidence that might disprove the Theory must be dismissed. And when it comes to who people are going to believe. I guess for you, it's not about what is true, it's how to hide or deny the other obvious evidence.

And that's why you come here asking me if I ever adopted a dinosaur. That's how stupid your arguements have sank to. The only thing you have proven to me is how much you can lie to yourself and deny what is obvious and embrace the obscure.

You can see the remains of a dinosaurs and not believe that, but then you talk about Evolution which has no fossil evidence, and to you, that is true. What you see you don't believe, what you can't see, that you believe. Can they prove their findings?

Sorry friend, they did it again. Science Daily (April 12, 2007) Scientists (have confirmed the existence of protein) in soft tissue recovered from the fossil bones of a 68 million year old Tyrannosaurus rex (T.rex) and a half million-year-old mastodon.

Tyrannosaurus Rex And Mastodon Protein Fragments Discovered, Sequenced

HA HA!! check this out:

"All scientific ideas must be capable of being proved or disproved, of course, but the demand for proof in the case of evolution goes far beyond the usual rigors of science. In fact, at this point, the people demanding proof are not scientists but certain sectors of the population as a whole?in particular, religious groups or individuals who fear evolution as a challenge to their beliefs.

By contrast, quantum mechanics, though it encompasses ideas completely opposed to common sense, has not sustained anything approaching the same challenge or the demand for proof that evolution has encountered from nonscientists. A theory in physics and chemistry that details the characteristics of energy and matter at a subatomic level, quantum mechanics goes against such common assumptions as the idea that we can know both the location and the speed of an object. It is as though science had proved that down was up and up was down. If there were ever a "dangerous" theory, inasmuch as it undermines all our assumptions about the world, it is quantum mechanics not evolution, which is a fairly straightforward idea by comparison."



A great deal of evidence for evolution appeared in the seminal text of evolutionary theory (mentioned previously), On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, which Darwin published in 1859. In fact, he had collected much of the evidence he discusses in this volume nearly three decades earlier, from 1831 to 1836, aboard a scientific research vessel off the coast of South America. (He delayed publication because he rightly feared the controversy that would ensue and resolved to present his ideas only when he learned that Wallace had developed his own theory of evolution.)

Evidence:
"Just 22 years old, Darwin traveled on the HMS Beagle, from which he collected samples of marine life. His most significant work was done on the Gal?pagos Islands some 563 mi. (900 km) west of Ecuador. As he studied organisms there, Darwin found that they resembled species in other parts of the world, but they were also unique and incapable of interbreeding with similar species on the mainland. He began to suspect that for any particular environment, certain traits came to the forefront, favored for survival by nature.

Back in England, he already had seen such a mechanism at work in the artificial breeding of pigeons, whereby breeders favored certain gene pools?for instance, white-tailed birds?over others. (Breeders of dogs and other animals today still employ artificial-selection techniques to produce desirable strains.) Darwin posited a similar process of selection in nature, only this one was not artificial, directed by a goal-oriented human intelligence, but natural and guided by the need for survival."


-Answers.com

And Darwin predicted that IF his Theory of Evolution was true, there would be an abundance of trans species found in the fossil record. SO, WHERE ARE THEY?

Just wondering... since you've seen them and know for a fact what they look like, you obviously have witnessed a live dino. So, tell me... where'd you see the little bugger? :rollinglaugh:




Who's this "we" that has all this fossil evidence? I though we (the scientists) were all about this. And if *YOU* cannot believe in the found remains of dinosaurs (you know... the ones proven to be hundreds of millions of years old), then don't waste my time with your young-earth theory.

Please post your evidence!!!!



Watch this!

"I believe, your are a blind faith believer in Christianity. All evidence that might disprove the Bible must be dismissed. And when it comes to who people are going to believe. I guess for you, it's not about what is true, it's how to hide or deny the other obvious evidence."

TADA! That's why you haven't posted one solid bit of evidence that can be 100% proven.



"I believe, your are a blind faith believer in Christianity. All evidence that might disprove the Bible must be dismissed."



Evolution has plenty of fossil evidence.


List of human evolution fossils - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




I will ask one single question that will blow away your argument with this link:

Why isn't anyone challenging the age of this fossil? If it is in fact 68 million years old (and remember, nobody is questioning that), it kinda sinks your little ship.

I'm sorry to see your argument degrade to this level. No links, no debating any of the points I have brought up (including the constant dropping of "talking points" after I shatter them to bits). Just plugging your ears and telling me that I have no evidence.

Your "man-tracks"... a farce.
The figurines... blown away.
No record of man over 12K years ago... utterly destroyed.
BYU's DNA find... sacked.
Cave art... not even a chance.

I ask you to post links of your evolution hoaxes and the "coverup" of your so-called evidence... nothing. All you have shown me is that proteins survive longer than we thought. Even helped us find a dino-bird link.