Posted on 05/06/2009 8:49:01 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Granted that soft tissue remains present, I’d think that use of the term “fossil” is thrown into question.
I cut and pasted from the article that the Evos (as per usual) didn’t even bother to read. But if you want to have a no-cut-and-paste debate re: creation vs. evolution, I’m game. Why don’t we start with all the philogenetic trees that supposedly establish common descent that are now in shambles because the Evo-prediction that the genome is comprised of 97% fossil/”junk” DNA turned out to be completely false.
Young Earth idiot alert.
LOL!!!
Bible literalists (Hagee, et al, peg the earth's age to be 6,000). A lot of FReepers believe that too...'course, a lot of them also believed George Bush was a great president.
Nobody said it was 6000 years old. But we can show that Adam and Eve were created less than 10,000 years ago, and that a catastrophic event and flood happened fairly recent as well.
Is this a Huckabee thread?
More misinformation and cherry picking from an old article.
From one of your own xtian sites.http://www.answersincreation.org/trex_soft_tissue.htm
” Even more interesting is what Answers in Genesis omits from the original article, as they “pick and choose,” as is their style, only those portions that supports their position....
Carl Wieland of AiG calls this a “stunning rebuttal of millions of years.” Nothing could be further from the truth.....
Even more interesting is what Answers in Genesis omits from the original article, as they “pick and choose,” as is their style, only those portions that supports their position.....
Carl Wieland of AiG calls this a “stunning rebuttal of millions of years.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
The find of T-Rex soft tissue in no way supports a young earth. In fact, when you consider the fact that we should find much more soft tissue in all large dinosaur bones, it actually supports an old earth even better!”
This is becoming like an info-mercial or OxyClean commercial...
PS I thought I saw your brain in there somewhere. You might want to reach in and take it back before they clear them out to make room for the next batch of scrifices:
Actually, Evo's try make it a simple story, and determine a lot of numbers that simply aren't true (so do some believers)
Actually, some Creationists believe that the Bible reads that there was a creation then a “replenishing” that is accounted for in Genesis 2, the Garden of Eden account. This would allow for a much earlier creation event. I don’t know whether the 6 day account was actual or poetic. There are some pretty definite indications that poetic form was used in places of the account. That doesn’t mean that we should read the whole thing as being symbolic. Determining what is symbolic and what is actual needs divine illumination.
The on-going debate between evolution and creation, I think, is futile. Evolution cannot explain the creation of all life forms that exist and creation does not rule out the theory of evolution. Scholars who attempt to rule out creation with theories like Big Boom and evolution fail very basic and fundamental rules of science, as intelligent as they might be. We simply do not know and the secular theories have infinite gaps in them.
For either side of the issue to take a superior and derogatory attitude toward the other is ignorant. I say we leave the attitudes outside the discussion.
LOL from me too. Good one.
Alley Oop may agree with you, science doesn't!
You misunderstand evolution if you believe it is random. Evolution is not a random process. There is nothing random about natural selection.
YEAH dang it! Only Evo's are allowed to cut and paste the same crap over and over again!
That stuff is great, ain’t it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.