Your theories about dinosaurs

my resources have been peer reviewed and subject to close scrutiny. most of yours (Like "Dr HAM" are self published Bible tracts. Free of all evidence

Dont you feel at last a little bit embarrassed that what you recite has not had any verifying field or lab data and is just the tiresome repetition of religious POV's???

o far, all th predictions that ar REAL science based have not had ANY evidence refute it?? Whereas your "science" is not taught at ANY ACCREDITED college or Unversity in Canada or The US??
We have many "Christian Colleges" who, offering biology degrees cannot offer degrees in Bio evolution and (most) dont offer geology majors either , WHYZAT??

I taught economic geology in undergrad and grad programs at a major Uni versity in the US. The accreditation reviews are filled with basic laws of cience including falsification and falaifiability.
I get a kick out of chools in the Bible Belt who offer a few classes in certain natural sciences steeped in Biblical thinking and concepts of Cretionism and Intelligent design. Needless to sy, their ntire biology progrms are limited to nursing or medical technology or agriculture.

What's so terrible about believing alternative theories?

It's better than everyone following a theory solely because "everyone everyone else is doing it." Whren I was a kid, and wanted to fit in with all the popular kids, my folks said " If everyone was jumping off a cliff would you do it? " Apparently, for alot of people the answer is an emphatic yes, anything to fit in. For me, it's more "**** it, I wanna believe and do whatever."

So when a theory is logical but popular opinion goes with something else, I ignore popular opinion. But I'll also believe nonsense if it's interesting.

Satellites Don’t Exist
https://aplanetruth.info/2015/11/24/satellites-dont-exist/

I really care not what you believe. I do not support your efforts to try convincing Me that you have a clue , ince your belief system would result in negating the value of my on career and training and EXPERIENCE in the field.
I suspect youve never really thought deeply about your beliefs in science but say :**** it. I will believe what I want"

I can tell you about th story of Creationist Wildcatter who lost their own as well as investors money big timw .ALL because of their views on BIBLICAL SCIENCE, which was just a waste of time and money.
As I said, I care not what you believe, just dont try acting like a source of valid info because you must be debunked.

Nothing, if you want to look like an ignoramus.

The proper response would be, "No, because it's a stupid idea."

Okay, show me some news stories which cover these allegedly common events.

Like you adopting these dumb ideas helps you fit in with the tinfoil hat crowd.

How refreshingly adolescent — how old are you, sixteen?

So edgy of you.

That's common among religious people. "Resurrecting a dead body...hmm, that sounds like something I could believe in!"

Dinosaurs were around in our recent history.They have found red blood cells and skin tissue on dinosaur bones that were thought to be millions of years old.Any one with an ounce of common sense would at least start considering other possibilities…..get real…..

those fossils with soft tissue were discovered almost 30 years ago and were found WITHIN the venous structure within bony tissue of Several petrified animals and esch was discovered WITHIN the Hell Creek FORMATION of the US west. Weve found more soft tissued specimens from similar formation but none younger than the Cretaceous . (Thats 66 and old MILLION YEARS). Thts sorta why we dont see any dinosaur fossil among the Neogene and more recent.
The iscovery team has published extensively in peer rviewed plaeo rports about ho this "soft tissue" wa s formed and emplaced. :SOFTNESS" isnt a critrion for recent time. Weve got AMBER and insects still retaining the proteinaceous materil in the fossil and some of this goes back to the Devonian. eve also got WAXY deposits from the Carboniferous. so , rather thana kink in the theory, its just another type of fossilization.

weve dated the hell creek by other means including U/Th---Pb (7,8) and it nicely fits into the Cretaceous nd not one week later

Dont forget some training and paleoanatomical and radionuclide dating experience. do you have any of that or are you just wingin it

Nah…just plain old common sense…

Damn it, farmerman; don't you know intuition and spiritual input trumps university learning and work in the field?

You people make me laugh…you only see what you want to see…no common sense whatsoever …I did say possibility….as I say no common sense at all….

Plain old common sense tells one not to trust some unsorted bullshit on the Internet.

Who discovered cells on dinosaur bones, who are they?

You have no sources, no names even, nothing, just a load of wild imaginings, and you tell us to rely on common sense.

Common sense says you're a bloody idiot.

Ha Ha …hello Izzy…I’m not a fool because I have common sense and consider all possibilities….you are getting me mistaken…with the biased educated (lol) crowd and their half possibility ideas ….who only see what they want to see….now we all know that….this has got absolutely nothing at all to do with definitive proof because nobody is remotely close to getting any where near definitive proof…. It is about and has always been about people desperately trying to fit things in with their belief systems……..you lot are hilarious…they have found lots of dinosaur bones with skin tissue and red blood cells…get real for once in your life…I’m not the idiot…lol

No links, no sources, just idiotic ramblings.

You are not looking hard enough…farmerman knows…I’m right..you are boring me as always…I always post real common sense stuff that I can back up totally…

because weve been able to incorporate the other sciences within all the geo disciplines, the geo sciences have gone from being awild ass batch of tales about flloods, living dinosaurs, evil spirits in volcanoes and guess work in resources development, and have emerged a nice maturing 3rd level science .

It didnt take very long to dbunk the hypothesis that soft tissues (which reallly are more like apiece of fireplace ash) in dinosaur fossils of the K period are not an indicator of age proximity, its just that such "soft tissue" represents a novel kind of fossilization, sorta like amber or coal waxes

Lol…yeah right…as I say keep seeing what you want to see …what about the red blood cells….I suppose that’s red wine…lol…as I say you people are hilarious…how can anyone take you seriously….

Thes things ere called "soft tissues" because they are more like dessicated leather. The scientists who foound it were from U of NC and Stanford alonng with genomics an cell bilogy from Max Plank and cambridge.

The folks are real pros and have spent a lot of time looking at the fossil cells tissues and protein. Theyve come up ith the way the fosil material was preserved using a well known iron pathway (almost like the Mesabi range fossils).
As far as the datas that the Creationists are spouting, that was ebunked on day 1.They could never come up with ananswer to a "Common snxes" question that asks
"If the fossil soft tissue is methanogenically sealed within an age dated formation that was set like cement and the fossil dinosaurs were sealed within the wet cement (So the fossils and the sediments are of similar ages), how can the fossils be recent (and bearing casts and molds within the cement) when the sedi,ment has been successfully dated +/- 200K years ,AND all lower sediment layers follow a perfectly determined age of ach laminae, and successive sedimentary layers also are dated using several different radiological, thermochemical, stratigraphical and structural and paleomagnetics data, how and the hell were very younger fossils placed within their burial layers in such a well understood timme sequences that prove the :Young dinosaurs" hypotheses just a bunch of crap

the real story is they found the stuff, the rest of the stuff that JAsper is pumping is jut plain BULLSHIT mae up by Creationist morons. Even the IDers believe in evolution

so far, everything that the geosciences has developed works pretty good for us (As stated by Dawkins and many others) , and all of the Creationistts an IDrs preaching has been shown to only be worth a pinch of spit.
Ive never seen an accredited University have a Creationist ID geo scie school.Only the unaccredited sci programs of the Evangelical Fundamental colleges. Their entire bio and geo programs are prt of theDivinity schools, no applied sciences are invited