The assertion of "common sense" without specifics, in the face of consistent evidence is exactly as valid as just saying "nuh-uh".You haven't been paying attention.
So, to sum up, you're argument for why this can't happen is basically: 'Nuh-uh'.
The assertion of "common sense" without specifics, in the face of consistent evidence is exactly as valid as just saying "nuh-uh".
Preserved, minralised, not unchanged and fresh.Show me proof soft tissue can remain just that for 30 million yrs?
Preserved, minralised, not unchanged and fresh.
Also, this came from me linking you a scientific paper about exactly that.
No... It's a literal fossil in sedimentary rock bracketed by igneous rock that can be dated with radio isotopes.Then just another big 'Nuh-uh' to what I claimed, and no proof otherwise?
No... It's a literal fossil in sedimentary rock bracketed by igneous rock that can be dated with radio isotopes.
Did you just try a "I know you are, but what an I?"? Really?
So multiple people submit published scientific conclusions and evidence... and you respond with exclusively laughter and denial.No, that doesn't even resemble what I said. lol It's so far off I first thought you were answering the wrong post.
I answered the same way you two were answering me, and it appears your answer is still 'Nuh-uh', that is unless you can prove what you're presenting is accurate
I think you are aware of the arguments against the dating, and I'm certainly not taking your word for it..
I think you are aware of the arguments against the dating, and I'm certainly not taking your word for it..
It’s the best he’s got.So multiple people submit published scientific conclusions and evidence... and you respond with exclusively laughter and denial.
And you think that's an equivalent exchange?
So multiple people submit published scientific conclusions and evidence... and you respond with exclusively laughter and denial.
And you think that's an equivalent exchange?
Someone finally gets it.Are you? (Edit: are you aware of the arguments?)
Let me guess.... "Assumptions!"
Except for one thing I did not respond exclusively with laughter/denial. Why are you responding exclusively with false accusations?
Now stick with the subject and prove the dating process is infallible. I've seen to much to just buy this stuff without question.
Sorry but your "equivalent exchange" comment, under the circumstances, really is laughable, so don't blame me when I do.
Asking forward evidence or details, then laughing and centring them is all you have done.Except for one thing I did not respond exclusively with laughter/denial. Why are you responding exclusively with false accusations?
Now stick with the subject and prove the dating process is infallible. I've seen to much to just buy this stuff without question.
Sorry but your "equivalent exchange" comment, under the circumstances, really is laughable, so don't blame me when I do.
Asking forward evidence or details, then laughing and centring them is all you have done.
If you can list post number in this thread where you respond with any actual evidence or analysis I will apologise. Till then, I am confident that any readers will see that you have nothing but arrogance and ignorance.
Your response has been laughter and denial... someone characterised your response as "Nuh-uh", which while insulting is accurate with regards to the content of your arguments.You accused me of some "I know you are but what am I" nonsense comment, and I told you that didn't happen, and laughed.
I also laughed at the idea soft tissue could last 30 million yrs. Both very laughable then and now. Now what were you trying to turn that into? Just more of a waste of our time?
So, yes, you most definitely used the "I know you are, but what am I?"
I explained my reasoning, there;s nothing more to be said.If you think I'm going to get into a no I didn't/yes you did thing over this, nope.
The paper describes how they identified it and how they demonstrated that some of the original chitin was present in the mineralised remains.Think I'll stick with my gut on the soft tissue, but your welcome to prove me wrong, something I can't seem to get you to do..
I explained my reasoning, there;s nothing more to be said.
The paper describes how they identified it and how they demonstrated that some of the original chitin was present in the mineralised remains.
So we have some scientists studying fossils, animals and chemical compositions... I'm at a loss as to why i should doubt that when all we have is Kenny'sID's gut feeling, presumably informed by his religious preferences.
Gut feeling aka truthiness.
Truthiness - Wikipedia
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?