-Removed-No.
You know, I'm just going to stop assuming that you actually *read* other people's posts, and that you really *are* absolutely as clueless as you make yourself seem.
I've written many times in this forum how the "creation vs. evolution" argument is monumentally stupid. Both sides are right, but neither side wants to give even a millimeter to the other side.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead
So, basically because other people are sceptical, you are also sceptical?
I have to note that at no point in that video is any actual scientific reason given why soft tissue could not survive a long time. All that is given is a lot of people expressing scepticism.
So, basically because other people are sceptical, you are also sceptical?
"skeptical" - human error there.
Basically what I said was "You gotta wonder".
I have to note that at no point in that video is any actual scientific reason given why soft tissue could not survive a long time.
At one point in the video he said a debate over this was raging.
Why was she reluctant to show her supervisor her findings if only a shrug should have been the scientific response ?
Originally posted by sonshipCorrect. Yet no explanation as to why, and no scientific reasons given to support either side of 'debate'.
At one point in the video he said a debate over this was raging.
Why was she reluctant to show her supervisor her findings if only a shrug should have been the scientific response ?
I don't know why she was reluctant to show her supervisor. It seems rather odd behaviour to me. Normally a finding that goes against the current understanding is jumped upon by scientists. Of course they are very careful not to draw too many conclusions too quickly. So a typical scientist would say that they have found interesting structures when the bones are treated a certain way, but would be reluctant to claim that they are blood vessels without further analysis.
Still, it remains the case that there is no scientific reason given why such structures would not exist. If anything we have only the medias view to go on and you know what the media is like.
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadStill, it remains the case that there is no scientific reason given why such structures would not exist. If anything we have only the medias view to go on and you know what the media is like.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That and your shrug.
Sixty five million year old soft tissue....
1 edit
Originally posted by sonshipYes, that PROVES the world is only 6000 years old, right?
[b] Still, it remains the case that there is no scientific reason given why such structures would not exist. If anything we have only the medias view to go on and you know what the media is like.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That and your shrug.
Sixty five million year old soft tissue....[/b]
It isn't even SLIGHTLY possible the soft tissue is actually 65 mil years old right?
