Why do people deny evolution?

heres a little bit of quiz for you gunga.

1the fossils that were sent to U of Georgia for C14, what were they made of?
A; they were entirely a conversion of bone to SILICA.

2Where then does this CArbon 14 come from because its obviously NOT from the bone because there IS NO C12/13/or 14 in the fossils. Get It? or are you just being obtuse for your creationist fans.

3The sediments that were surrounding the Ceratopsians weer also dated and clearly showed the 180 million year old dates from zircons included in lower layers and 125 my to 90 my from the layers above.

I saw thw refutation produced by the Georgia Tech labs that they would not accept any samples from these "New Geology" guys, because they are merely there trying to deceive .

NO-BELL prize for gungasnake.

Gunga believes that the triceratops " fossil bones" were actually bone.

I haven't tried to define science. There's dictionaries for that. What you've got is red mini syndrome, if you look for something long enough you'll see it. Keep an eye out for red minis , you'll start seeing more and more of them.

Assuming divine intervention and purpose is no different from any other assumption. Instead of finding out how something works you're trying to prove why God wants something to work. Science should stay out of churches, and religion needs to stay out of the laboratory.

dinosaur soft tissue:


The sound of evolosers squealing as the wheels come off their bullshit theory:

Mary SChweitzer's team that discovered the T rex and severql other collagen reserved specimens , and several other teams from other instirtutions have come up with several means of long term preservation and a new type pf fossilization heretofore unrecognized.
Its quite common to see "fossil waxes" that go back to the Carboniferous period over 300 mya. Its no doubt that the "soft tissue" is of the geological age identified. The radioisotope data confirms the 80 mya date for the surrounding sediments. The fossilization process seems to involve cross linking of collgaen by Haem group chains of iron polymers.

Scheitzer herself is aware of the silliness that Cretionists are trying to conclude by fraudulent "milk" her findings. Shes kind of annoyed at these clowns (BTW she is a devout Christian who leaves her religion at the lab door).
All the matrix tests out to the age of insoaurs. How then can the cross linked collagen be younger especially since the samples had to be acid etched out of hard rock which was the silica matrix of the samples.

HEY gunga , why not write Dr SChweitzer and ask if shes found any C14

Whatever happened to William Dembski. He was an ID proponent and used computer "ese" to make his points.
He was a mathematician puter guy who used probability crap to deny evolution and abiogenesis. It all boiled down to Fundamentalist Christian doggiema.

I knew he was stationed at Some Southern Baptist U and he denied a "Worldwide Flood" because he agreed with science that evidence was just not there. That got him into trouble, BUT that was like 8 years ago. He just seems to have disappeared.

I knew he was a single dad with several kids, two of whom were challenged in some fashion so He needed employment to keep up their care. I assume his kids are more independent and grown by now.

Somebody call the ALCU! Those redneck segregationists are at it AGAIN !

And you've got Gorilla tape over yours

Oh God, dragged into the mud again...

We've never had segregation over here. If you do a bit of research first you're less likely to post such inane nonsense.

So much for the Brits vaunted sense of humor

There's absolutely nothing wrong with my sense of humour.

The British empire's basic idea of segregating people was to ship them off to Australia or to plantations in the Americas...

People were transported to the colonies because of criminality, not race. Your history is almost as atrocious as your science. I can see why you stick to primitive superstition and atavism.

Its interesting that Method naturalism yields itself to a means by which research can actually go forward. HOW, Im really curious, does ID/Creationist thinking even get about the planning stage to conduct any meaningful research with that huge" methodological mythology" hanging over its head??.

You really have to carefully think about that before trying to respond with something merely snappy. If we critically look at it, all the "research" that the IDers have tried to unertake is nothing more than trying to fond fault with scientific methodology and results.
The IDers had "promised us" , back in the early 2000's that we would be swimming in evidence about "universal intelligence" qnd their first shot out of the barrel was the concept of "irreducible complexity" . All that led to was a deeper understanding of how the "irreducibility" could be traced back to earlier organism's function wherein that specific "irreducibility" had other (often unrelated) earlier functions that had been modified by selection in a new environment.

We dont hear much about irreducible complexity anymore. I assume Dr Behe is still peddling it without any bandwagon any longer

For example . I looked back onto gungasnakes pictures of the reddish tissue that was extrcted out of the hard rock matrix that wqs dated clearly as 8o+mya.
Gungas entire group argument is that
"Soft tissue cannot be as old as 65 million years" Therefore its gotta be young. NOW REALLY, How does anyone even arrive at that statement scientifically? No efforts have been made by anyone (Of whom Im familiar) to cover us with evidence that, indeed, anything "soft" can only be so many yers old and no older. NO DATA or evidence has been forwarded . Its all done by arm waving and an appeal to some form of "Creationit common sense"

Indeedd, we know that there are many forms of very old fossil materials that ARE as "soft" as the samples that Dr SChweitzer had found in Hell Creek (Carboniferous waxws and "adipossier", amber, glossopteris fossil leaves from the Permian, soft coal).
Im sure there are others (especially in the plnt kingdom.

These lend themselves to careful study of how they were formed. Dr SChweitzers team has, recently reported, that the specific fossilization of the tissue in the T rex , was a result of iron complexing and preservation. NOW shes out looking for more fossil knee joints inthe HEll Creek and other deposits (like the Morison Fm) where science can lern qbout an entirely new means of preservation of "soft tissue" and perhaps, ven proteinaceous material.

Big Pronouncements require big proof. SCience works that way, I feel that the anti-science crowd should obey the same rules and not merely engage in alternative facts.

Thats what I mean. when you adopt some myth as the basis for "research" nothing will be of any value.

Dr. Anderson is currently Director of the Van Andel Creation Research Center, as well as project leader of the Creation Research Society’s iDINO project; an investigation of the preservation of tissue in dinosaur fossils.

PHd is not a guarantee of anything . We earn our reputations after dissertations are published. Saying that"Soft tissue denies dating techniques" Shows vast ignorance of '
1dating techniques

2understning of tissue fossilization/

A big Duhhh for "Dr Anderson"

Somehow gunga, you confuse graphic presentation an bumper sticker post ups with actual evidence..

You're right, farmerman. DNA can be studied from dinosaur fossils.
http://www.livescience.com/23861-fossil-dna-half-life.html

My memory isn't all that good any more, but there was a PBS program on DNA and fossils not long ago.

https://www.pbslearningmedia.org/resource/ess05.sci.ess.earthsys.fossilcollage/fossils/#.WQs824jyvBU

If I said that , Im sorry. I didnt mean to say that dinosaur DNA is still around.