Can you prove evolution wrong? -- Part 2

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: Akragon

This is the evidence

Made up characters and fiction do not bring such happiness and joy and hope.

No... no its not... Music is not evidence, theres tons of music that get people all choked up... even i have a few songs that get at the heart

wonderful that people have faith in your beliefs.... but evidence is not people getting all fluffy and teary eyed

care to try again?

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: Akragon

Truth needs no evidence pal.

Actually, it's the exact opposite. Truth demands evidence. And the video that you posted... is only evidence that people like music. It doesn't support anything remotely theistic let alone your particular spin on faith.

originally posted by: Randyvine2
a reply to: Akragon

Truth needs no evidence pal.

Only truth needs evidence. Otherwise it's opinion, hearsay, superstition or lies.

originally posted by: cooperton
Soft tissue in dinosaur proves that the evolutionary lineage is incorrect. Carbon dating the material to less than 45,000 years old affirms that dinosaurs lived more recently than we were led to believe. Archaeological evidence also supports the fact that humans co-existed with dinosaurs:
[edited out ambiguous pictures]
Our origins are important for understanding our future. This is good news that we're not a mutated accident.

I had heard about this find before, but the source of the C-14 signal was never certain, as far as I was aware. I was hoping that soft tissue could be preserved, as that would be quite incredible and could open up areas of some fascinating areas of research.

Unfortunately it's not true.
journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0002808

originally posted by: TerraLiga

I had heard about this find before, but the source of the C-14 signal was never certain, as far as I was aware. I was hoping that soft tissue could be preserved, as that would be quite incredible and could open up areas of some fascinating areas of research.

Unfortunately it's not true.
journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0002808

You posted a couple pages ago a more recent article (from 2018) that proved that soft tissue persists in dinosaur remains. Your paper showed it was actual nerve tissue, blood vessels, and collagen from the dinosaur. What's hilarious is many of the blind evolutionists starred these posts, not knowing it proved my argument. This shows the blind faith you guys have. As opposed to the paper you just provided in the post above which is old, 2008, and they're trying to do the same thing you're trying to do by wishing away the inconvenient truth that soft tissue is in dinosaur remains.

This is from this paper that YOU posted on the prior page:

"Paleonisciform ganoid scale showing articulated blood vessels of the dentine and organic matrix with peripheral aligned and ordered (otpn), or unordered (utnp), tubular nerve projections."

This proves there is native carbon in dinosaur samples. Also further proof there was no bacterial contamination comes from figure 1, where their microscopy is zoomed enough to be able to see microbes if there were any.

They also explicitly show in Figure 4 that ""Fossil Soft Tissues are not the product of contamination"

originally posted by: peter vlar

Actually, it's the exact opposite. Truth demands evidence.

originally posted by: Akragon
evidence

So if we find native soft tissue in dinosaur bones, and it is all carbon-dated to less than 45,000 years, can you not start to see the truth? This evidence is staring you in the face but you ignore it because it interrupts your beliefs. Archaeological evidence also proves beyond reasonable doubt that humans saw dinosaurs:





Be a real scientist and follow the evidence. The mutant ape fantasy is over.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TerraLiga

I had heard about this find before, but the source of the C-14 signal was never certain, as far as I was aware. I was hoping that soft tissue could be preserved, as that would be quite incredible and could open up areas of some fascinating areas of research.

Unfortunately it's not true.
journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0002808

You posted a couple pages ago a more recent article (from 2018) that proved that soft tissue persists in dinosaur remains. Your paper showed it was actual nerve tissue, blood vessels, and collagen from the dinosaur. What's hilarious is many of the blind evolutionists starred these posts, not knowing it proved my argument. This shows the blind faith you guys have. As opposed to the paper you just provided in the post above which is old, 2008, and they're trying to do the same thing you're trying to do by wishing away the inconvenient truth that soft tissue is in dinosaur remains.

This is from this paper that YOU posted on the prior page:

"Paleonisciform ganoid scale showing articulated blood vessels of the dentine and organic matrix with peripheral aligned and ordered (otpn), or unordered (utnp), tubular nerve projections."

This proves there is native carbon in dinosaur samples. Also further proof there was no bacterial contamination comes from figure 1, where their microscopy is zoomed enough to be able to see microbes if there were any.

They also explicitly show in Figure 4 that ""Fossil Soft Tissues are not the product of contamination"

originally posted by: peter vlar

Actually, it's the exact opposite. Truth demands evidence.

originally posted by: Akragon
evidence

So if we find native soft tissue in dinosaur bones, and it is all carbon-dated to less than 45,000 years, can you not start to see the truth? This evidence is staring you in the face but you ignore it because it interrupts your beliefs. Archaeological evidence also proves beyond reasonable doubt that humans saw dinosaurs:

Be a real scientist and follow the evidence. The mutant ape fantasy is over.

I do follow the evidence which is how I know you're completely wrong on all counts. Apparently you glossed over the paper you cited above where it talks about diagenetic transformation. Do you know what diagenesis is? Perminetalization. In plain speak that means that the soft tissue was preserved in the same fashion that the hard tissue is. Perminetalization is a fancy word for fossilization since you clearly aren't as up to date on the science as you like to think you are while cherry picking key words and phrases that you think support your willfully ignorant YEC stance. You have to read and understand the entire paper and it's context and not just pick out random portions that sound like they support your argument.

Please feel free to post a real citation, that isn't a YouTube video, that claims that permineralized soft tissue is less than 45 Ka

originally posted by: peter vlar

I do follow the evidence which is how I know you're completely wrong on all counts. Apparently you glossed over the paper you cited above where it talks about diagenetic transformation. Do you know what diagenesis is? Perminetalization. In plain speak that means that the soft tissue was preserved in the same fashion that the hard tissue is. Perminetalization is a fancy word for fossilization since you clearly aren't as up to date on the science as you like to think you are while cherry picking key words and phrases that you think support your willfully ignorant YEC stance. You have to read and understand the entire paper and it's context and not just pick out random portions that sound like they support your argument.

You're resorting to semantics. There is an abundance of soft tissue within the fossil. It is still "proteinaceous". This shouldn't be the case if the sample is actually millions of years old. You seem to be the only evolutionist who isn't troubled by this finding. They wanted to take down Mary Schweitzer for even reporting the data, that's how damning it is to the evolutionary narrative.

Please feel free to post a real citation, that isn't a YouTube video, that claims that permineralized soft tissue is less than 45 Ka

Both are accredited AMS labs that were dating dinosaur bones that reinforce the notion that dinosaurs are younger than previously assumed. It's also amusing that you continually ignore all the archaeological evidence that shows humans witnessed dinosaurs.

a reply to: Akragon

The fact that anyone has faith in someone and only one of
the thousands upon thousands of people executed at the hands
of the Romans. Two thousand years after his death in obscurity.
I think it 's the best evidence. You can put your faith in evolution.
And it will never do nothing for you. It will never make you happy.
There is no joy in it. It offers no hope and it can do nothing with impossible.

a reply to: Akragon

Can you prove evolution wrong?

I can... using science, Quantum Physics says there is no fixed truth, reality is not Objective.

So, has evolution been proved wrong yet? Didn't think so. Just the same ol' characters spewing the same ol' nonsense. You'd think after 10+ years of delusion, people would stop making the same debunked arguments, but alas intelligence and honesty is not a thing for them.