per usual, NOONE discusses the actual evidences discussed in the article- apparently because al lthey have to defend agaisnt it is “We ‘should be seeing’ soft tissue” Lol- Yep- everyone knows soft tissue remains in bones for millions of years- lol Sorry- but ‘We ‘should see’ soft tissue’ isn’t a scientific arguement supporting long ages- I remember reading the macroevolutionists ‘scientific explanations’ for hte soft tissue, and they were equally as lame, claiming AFTER the fact (once again- but apparently noone minds ‘scientists’ being armchair hidnsighters) ‘we predicted this’- Bull! They gave absolutely NO explanation for how soft tissue could have survived for millions of years- all they gave were improbable just so stories DEVOID of actual fact and evidence to support their fairytails
Is it any wonder the HMS Beagle is sinking ever more rapidly with each passing day? The Evos must be in an utter panic!