What hugene is not telling you is that later work (the further analises that mary mentiones), showed that the soft tissue was not actually soft tissue.
This is how science works, and this is what hugenex is not telling us.
@emrobot Their conclusions that this fossil is 70 million years old is Certainly NOT based on any empirical evidence but rather because their theory says so. It is quite obvious that the theory is more important to them than the actual evidence because the theory fails to explain the evidence. More importantly, the evidence contradicts the theory.
@hugenex2000 Geologists knew the earth was millions of years old before Darwin and before radiometric dating. Geologists are the ones who say the earth is old and there was no global flood. Not the TOE.
Dinosaurs ruled the earth for 160 million years. The theory of evolution explains that fact.
You deny the fossil record, geology and the facts.
Tell us it is all a world view LOL Or we all have the same evidence but have different interpratations.
@gregrutz How exactly do they know it wasn't contaminated remains from a different animal? I don't understand how it's simply interpretation between Creationists and Scientists. The overwhelming majority of evidence from every field relating to the age of the earth point to an old earth. Finding the newest gap/problem isn't honest science or "thinking for yourself." If you personally believe that with your limited understanding, fine. But you seem quite arrogant to call it proof.
@hugenex2000 Correct, It never crossed their minds that the dinosaur was less than 70 million years old. The age of the dinosaurs is too well established, Fact.
@emrobot So, if "all of the chemistry and all of the molecular breakdown experiments that we've done don't allow for this" AND they are using the protein sequences found in this fossil as evidence for a dinosaur/bird connection because they believe it actually is remnants of the dinosaur then why do they believe it is as old as they say it is when all the chemistry and all the experiments say otherwise?
hugene, it's already been pointed out to you, numerous times, where your logic fails here, and what the subsequent following research has revealed.
I'm not going to argue facts with you hugene, you selectively ignore them. I was pointing out for your readers that you are disingenuous and incomplete in your presentation of information. you have essentially lied, but again, that's your choice.
@emrobot You're not going to argue the facts with me because you know you will lose. In fact, you have already lost. My logic is solid and you know it so your only recourse is to accuse me of lying. Except that what I say is true. My viewers and readers can check into it for themselves as I did and learn for themselves what frauds are perpetrated in the name of Darwin.
oh, and hugene, try not to adopt a position of logical superiority, don't forget that YOU are the one making the blind assertion here, and THEN attempting to force observation to comply.
We both know this is a logical failure in the extreme, so your little house of cards is rather tiresome.
Hugene, I don't need to talk to you more here, you are routinely, intelligently and utterly debunked & exposed on examiner.
@emrobot If the subsequent analyses to which you refer is the supposition that the soft tissue is actually a bacterial biofilm then you should be made aware of the fact that Mary Schweitzer has rejected the biofilm idea entirely. Also, the proteins found in the soft tissue specimen have been compared to the collagen protein signature of an ostrich. You can't have it both ways. You say it isn't soft tissue but they compare it to ostrich. If it isn't dino soft tissue as they think then what is it?
Oh yes, right you are, collagen is indeed soft tissue. An oversight on my behalf, and I'll submit a correction to my initial post:
What hugenex2000 is not telling you is that later work found the soft tissue was actually merely collagen. Later work showed that the the decay properties of collagen were not correct, and the current state of knowledge is now a more complete understanding of the decay of collagen as a whole.
1. you've accepted a scientific model of decay - you've also implictly accepted the scientific method.
2. the scientific model of decay is tested, and found lacking. According to the SM - that you have accepted, this then demands that the model be modified.
3. The model is modified - according to the SM that you've previously accepted.
@gregrutz The found red blood cells, soft tissue, pliable blood vessels and collagen bone matrix. The also found and sequenced proteins and compared them to ostridge.
So,how old is this specimen? How many million years old?
habfan24 1 month ago
@habfan24 The presence of soft tissue would indicate thousands of years at the very most. My guess is about 4,600 years.
hugenex2000 1 month ago
@hugenex2000 lol How could that be??? But,but but i don't understand, that's not what the intelligent people who wrote the text books taught me???
Oh no, what am I going to do now???
habfan24 1 month ago
@habfan24 Well, maybe the intelligent people who wrote the text books were wrong! Hard to believe but it's happened before.
What are you going to do now, you ask.
Think for yourself and don't believe everything you hear.
But you already knew that didn't you.
(grin)
hugenex2000 1 month ago
What hugene is not telling you is that later work (the further analises that mary mentiones), showed that the soft tissue was not actually soft tissue.
This is how science works, and this is what hugenex is not telling us.
emrobot 1 year ago
@emrobot Their conclusions that this fossil is 70 million years old is Certainly NOT based on any empirical evidence but rather because their theory says so. It is quite obvious that the theory is more important to them than the actual evidence because the theory fails to explain the evidence. More importantly, the evidence contradicts the theory.
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 Geologists knew the earth was millions of years old before Darwin and before radiometric dating. Geologists are the ones who say the earth is old and there was no global flood. Not the TOE.
Dinosaurs ruled the earth for 160 million years. The theory of evolution explains that fact.
You deny the fossil record, geology and the facts.
Tell us it is all a world view LOL Or we all have the same evidence but have different interpratations.
gregrutz 2 months ago in playlist More videos from hugenex2000
@gregrutz How exactly do they know it wasn't contaminated remains from a different animal? I don't understand how it's simply interpretation between Creationists and Scientists. The overwhelming majority of evidence from every field relating to the age of the earth point to an old earth. Finding the newest gap/problem isn't honest science or "thinking for yourself." If you personally believe that with your limited understanding, fine. But you seem quite arrogant to call it proof.
RuinSonic 2 weeks ago
@RuinSonic The rock chips came from inside a 70 million year old fossil.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@hugenex2000 Correct, It never crossed their minds that the dinosaur was less than 70 million years old. The age of the dinosaurs is too well established, Fact.
gregrutz 2 months ago in playlist More videos from hugenex2000
@emrobot So, if "all of the chemistry and all of the molecular breakdown experiments that we've done don't allow for this" AND they are using the protein sequences found in this fossil as evidence for a dinosaur/bird connection because they believe it actually is remnants of the dinosaur then why do they believe it is as old as they say it is when all the chemistry and all the experiments say otherwise?
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000
hugene, it's already been pointed out to you, numerous times, where your logic fails here, and what the subsequent following research has revealed.
I'm not going to argue facts with you hugene, you selectively ignore them. I was pointing out for your readers that you are disingenuous and incomplete in your presentation of information. you have essentially lied, but again, that's your choice.
emrobot 1 year ago
@emrobot You're not going to argue the facts with me because you know you will lose. In fact, you have already lost. My logic is solid and you know it so your only recourse is to accuse me of lying. Except that what I say is true. My viewers and readers can check into it for themselves as I did and learn for themselves what frauds are perpetrated in the name of Darwin.
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000
oh, and hugene, try not to adopt a position of logical superiority, don't forget that YOU are the one making the blind assertion here, and THEN attempting to force observation to comply.
We both know this is a logical failure in the extreme, so your little house of cards is rather tiresome.
Hugene, I don't need to talk to you more here, you are routinely, intelligently and utterly debunked & exposed on examiner.
emrobot 1 year ago
@emrobot If the subsequent analyses to which you refer is the supposition that the soft tissue is actually a bacterial biofilm then you should be made aware of the fact that Mary Schweitzer has rejected the biofilm idea entirely. Also, the proteins found in the soft tissue specimen have been compared to the collagen protein signature of an ostrich. You can't have it both ways. You say it isn't soft tissue but they compare it to ostrich. If it isn't dino soft tissue as they think then what is it?
hugenex2000 1 year ago
@hugenex2000
Oh yes, right you are, collagen is indeed soft tissue. An oversight on my behalf, and I'll submit a correction to my initial post:
What hugenex2000 is not telling you is that later work found the soft tissue was actually merely collagen. Later work showed that the the decay properties of collagen were not correct, and the current state of knowledge is now a more complete understanding of the decay of collagen as a whole.
emrobot 1 year ago
@hugenex2000
but okay, let's talk logic.
here is what you've done.
1. you've accepted a scientific model of decay - you've also implictly accepted the scientific method.
2. the scientific model of decay is tested, and found lacking. According to the SM - that you have accepted, this then demands that the model be modified.
3. The model is modified - according to the SM that you've previously accepted.
4. now you reject the scientific model of decay
fail.
emrobot 1 year ago
@hugenex2000 It was brake down products, No red blood cells, No tissue.
gregrutz 2 months ago in playlist More videos from hugenex2000
@gregrutz The found red blood cells, soft tissue, pliable blood vessels and collagen bone matrix. The also found and sequenced proteins and compared them to ostridge.
hugenex2000 2 months ago
@hugenex2000 Ahhhhh NO. NO they did NOT find red blood cells. Red blood cells deteriorate in less than 2 weeks.
See what they found at > watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
gregrutz 2 months ago
Wow, Ronnie is a real evolutionist; Neither speak, nor hear, nor see any contradicting evidence.
TheLORDismySheperd1 1 year ago
@TheLORDismySheperd1
And there are plenty of contradictions.
hugenex2000 1 year ago
Thanks for sharing Brother :)
BlessedShreder911 1 year ago
@BlessedShreder911
You are very welcome.
hugenex2000 1 year ago