Which really came first? The answer might surprise you. (See article.)
Creation.com graphics.
Posted on 01/22/2014 12:45:10 PM PST by fishtank
Evolutionists divided over coexistence of placental mammals and dinosaurs
by David Catchpoole
Published: 21 January 2014 (GMT+10)
If you can remember being taught as ‘fact’ that only small, ‘primitive’ mammals were around at the demise of the dinosaurs (supposedly 65 million years ago), because placental mammals1 didn’t evolve until afterwards, you’re not alone. There are many people who remember that. In fact, many textbooks still teach it.
However, if you’re aware that for some years now the evolutionary fraternity has shifted the existence of ‘modern’ mammals to overlap that of dinosaurs, then we would say that you are actually more evolution-savvy than some of today’s ‘authorities’ on evolution! We can point to a recent (January 2014) Nature News item, written by senior reporter Ewen Callaway, as an example of this.2
Its headline reads: “Debate over which mammals roamed with the dinosaurs: Genetic tree challenges fossil-based conclusion that placental mammals emerged only after mass extinction.”
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
Which really came first? The answer might surprise you. (See article.)
Creation.com graphics.
Catchpoole - sure.
More jokes from the Institute for Creative Research.
And the babes were hot back then, too!
They’re getting radiocarbon dates of -20K - -40K years these days. Evolution is a bunch of BS and so are the dating schemes we’ve read about all our lives.
Hey!!! I’d arm-wrestle him for her ANY DAY!!!
Why the tan lines?
Noah after woodpecker: 
Evolutionists are a bunch of pied pipers following their God-hating leader Charles Darwin!
Here's a picture:
Mock all you want. I’ll just sit over here and shake my head.
The complexity of reproduction would certainly have taken beeleeons and beeleeons of years, because two entities (male and female) would have to develop in sync to procreate. In that long, long wait there would be death instead of procreation. The world would definitely be “void” of life.
I love it when they stomp on those tiny Japanese toy cars.
They were highly evolved. :-))
Did you read the article?
The honest scientists are no longer denying that placentals and dinos co-existed.
Oh, also, it’s from Creation Ministries International. There’s more than one creationist organization in all of creation.
So what?
If that is the case, it doesn’t disprove evolution. Any placental mammals around then would have been primitive creatures, not cows and lions and elephants.
We’ll just have to wait until that POS Øbama weighs in on this important social topic and tells us what we should beleive . . .
So what?
If that is the case, it doesn’t disprove evolution. Any placental mammals around then would have been primitive creatures, not cows and lions and elephants.
Your driving curiosity and sense inquiry is astounding.
Sure, nothing disproves evolution, but it’s still not very advanced as a science, not much more than hand waving and assumptions.
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.