Dinosaur Shocker (YEC say dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years)

Smithsonian Magazine ^ | May 1, 2006 | Helen Fields

[AndrewC]

I've suspected you were ex-cons.

[AndrewC]

Therefore, is what you are saying the following...that evolution should be able to be falsifiable, but it cannot be falsifiable, because the evidence is always being manipulated or hidden in such a way, as to prevent the possibility of falsifiability?

Fairly close. We all "know" that the MSM is all "fair and balanced".

[Coyoteman]

Is your posting of this image to me another invitation that I "buzz off"?

That's not very nice!

But, no problem. I'll just post some more evidence for evolution. Enjoy!:

---

Herto skulls (Homo sapiens idaltu)

Some new fossils from Herto in Ethiopia, are the oldest known modern human fossils, at 160,000 yrs. The discoverers have assigned them to a new subspecies, Homo sapiens idaltu, and say that they are anatomically and chronologically intermediate between older archaic humans and more recent fully modern humans. Their age and anatomy is cited as strong evidence for the emergence of modern humans from Africa, and against the multiregional theory which argues that modern humans evolved in many places around the world.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/herto.html

[Liberal Classic]

I can contend that evidence against it is suppressed so as to make Darwinism non-falsifiable.

To me, this sounds as paranoid as the writings of Lyndon LaRouche, who believes the international drug trade is controlled by Zionists in London.

No conspiracy of this magnitude could ever succeed, because according to Poor Richard, "Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead."

[andysandmikesmom]

Do you hint at some sort of conspiracy theory?(actually, I was beginning to think this myself, that this was somehow involved)

[AndrewC]

And you've still not discovered that for a contention to be taken seriously,

"Junk DNA" with no function supports Darwinism. "Junk DNA" with a function supports Darwinism.

[andysandmikesmom]

And to what would you attribute this?...it does sound like a conspiracy theory,(and I in no way am being snide, but this really does sound like some sort of deliberate conspiracy)

[Coyoteman]

"Junk DNA" with no function supports Darwinism. "Junk DNA" with a function supports Darwinism.

So the fact that scientists are learning about previously unknown functions of "Junk DNA" is supposed to be a problem for evolution?

Science adds new data and tests/corrects its theories all the time. That is one of the main strengths of science.

And you are claiming this process, and these new discoveries, are a problem for evolution????

[CarolinaGuitarman]

""Junk DNA" with no function supports Darwinism. "Junk DNA" with a function supports Darwinism."

You have still not shown evidence that goes against evolution that is being suppressed, nor have you shown evidence that has been faked. You have shown evidence that is neutral. You need to show HOW either statement goes against the theory.

Your contention is still unsupported.

[AndrewC]

British royal family, drugs, death, Lyndon Larouche, drugs again, and death again.(not to mention Zionists and London)

[AndrewC]

And to what would you attribute this?...it does sound like a conspiracy theory.

Yeah, right. No-kin-to-monkeys, [clack][clack]

[andysandmikesmom]

OK, you dont want to answer, thats fine...

[AndrewC]

[Heartlander]

That is mind-bogglingly stupid. Because it doesn't include God, anyone who doesn't believe in God must subscribe to it?

You should take a few moments to step out and laugh at yourself from time to time.

[Dengar01]

Where's Carl Everett?

[AndrewC]

OK, you dont want to answer, thats fine...

You asked me for someone else's motivation. I am not a mind reader. But there are conspiracies.

[Liberal Classic]

I don't know for sure, but it sounds that way. Take the statements "evidence against it is suppressed" and "evidence is manipulable." How else does one interpret them? Someone's doing the manipulating. Someone's doing the suppression. What are they suppressing? Evidence against evolution. Who is doing the suppression? The scientific community? The government? It just sounds paranoid to me.

[AndrewC]

Your contention is still unsupported.

Oh horrors!

[Coyoteman]

My image is on topic, not a rude invitation to "bug off."

Enjoy! (And out for the night.)

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images © 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern

[higgmeister]

However, we know from the Bible that God created all animals, including dinosaurs, to be vegetarians. It was only after sin and the resulting curse were introduced that animals began to eat each other. Before that there would have been no reason to fear a 40’ long, 12’ tall T-Rex!

Before that there would have been no reason for a 40’ long, 12’ tall T-Rex to evolve!

Wait a minute! I bet theropods just killed for sport way back then.