Tell me coyote- is it scientific fact that the tissue found in this thread links dinos with birds? Has that been established? No? Then I guess we should discount ALL evo sites that state ANY thing that even resembles ‘dinos might be related to birds’ because all they’re doing is presenting OPINION and not scientific fact- right? All they’re doing is playing apologists for the evo movement.
You’ll find PLENTY of sound scientific fact on answersingenesis as well as several other Creation/ID sites, as well as equally valid OPINION about what that science means- but if you need to wave the hand about it to feel more secure in your own stance on teh matter- then by all means keep waving, and keep those biased blinders on and crying there’s no sound science to be had anywhere outside of the rank and file evo hypothesis/dogma
Care to tackle any of the following from AIG?
“Here are some other interesting differences between the human and chimp genomes which are often not reported:
The chimp genome is 12% larger than the human genome.
Only 2.4 billion bases have been aligned between the two genomes, leaving a maximum similarity of 68–77%.
In many areas of the genome, it appears major rearrangements of DNA sequences have occurred, accounting for another 10–20% dissimilarity.
Chimps have 46 chromosomes and humans have 44 chromosomes (excluding sex chromosomes for both species).
To save money and time, the chimp genome was assembled using the human genome as a template (because of the presupposition that humans evolved from the same line as chimps); it is currently unknown if the pieces of the chimp genome “puzzle” were put together properly.”
Or perhaps the following tackling the FALSE assumption of evolution advocates that ‘vestigial organs’ are useless left-over organs resulting from evolving structures and no longer needed:
“Seems to regulate the function of other important glands—including the pituitary, the gonads, the adrenals and the thyroid.
Plays a central role in the circadian (night and day) rhythm. The synthesis of various compounds in the gland is markedly affected by exposure to or deprivation of light. The pineal undergoes a transformation immediately after birth which seems to be affected by depriving the organism of light.
Has a relationship (not understood) with some malignant tumors.
Affects the contractility of several types of involuntary muscle.
Far from being a useless hangover of antiquity, we see the pineal as an extremely active organ.”
Or is it juts easier to wave the magic dismissal wand and declare that there is no sound science presented on AIG, and that the study of the sound science is illigitimate because folks at AIG have opinions about the scientific facts that don’t jive with your own assumptions you’ve formed without any proofs to back those assumptions up?