Is it really your contention that these two are illustrative of all creation believers?
You are clean, but not all of you.
It’s a big house.
I did not say “all.”
When the house shrinks.
Bwahahaha! What a complete self-pwning site. It quotes the Ica Stones as evidence! The Ica stones are fakes, and well documented as fakes. A site with such completely lax quality control cannot be relied on.
Living fossils are not a problem for evolution. Sharks are also living fossils, and we have known about sharks for a long time. Evolution does not require the ancestral line to go extinct. It may do so, but it is not required. some Americans are descended from Europeans, but that does not mean that Europeans no longer exist.
I hope everybody watches this video. Incredible stuff.
That’s the thing about science - when you have a vast body of evidence that points to one conclusion - the age of dinosaur fossils, for example - and a single piece of evidence that doesn’t seem to fit with the overall picture - soft tissue preserved in fossils - then the more likely conclusion is the one supported by the weight of evidence, ie: that we were wrong to think that soft tissue could not be preserved over millions of years, rather than that we are wrong to think that the dinosaur fossils are millions of years old.
Or else, it is proof that in certain, rare, circumstances soft tissue can survive for 65 million years.
I believe they did. They is ample evidence from history as well as modern scientific data to reasonably draw that conclusion.
I saw some dinosaurs flying by my window earlier today. Non-avian dinosaurs went extinct a long time before humans appeared.
I saw two avian dinosaurs (Corvus brachyrhynchos) attacking a third dinosaur of a different species (Buteo jamaicensis) high above my house last week. It was a most impressive sight!
If there were any evidence that dinosaur fossils are 65 million years old then I would agree with you. But there is not a shred of evidence. Unfortunately you have been spooked into believing this modern day fairy tale. Soft tissue cannot prevail for 65 million years. You know that. Again you are being spooked into believing something which defies your own common sense and instinct.
If only that were true. However science has built up its own body of dogma to which it bows. It slavishly follows that dogma and will not change even when presented with soft tissue in dinosaur bones.
I must admit I do find a kind of glee when I see one established dogma of science set into direct opposition to another. In this case we have the established dogma that soft tissue cannot survive more than about 10,000 years (Dogma A) vs. the established dogma Dinosaur bones are 65 million years old (Dogma B). Who will win the great battle when a dangerous discovery is made that soft tissue is found in dinosaur bones? First strategy is to discredit the scientist who made the dangerous discovery but when that does not work because the evidence is overwhelming then which dogma will give way Dogma A or Dogma B?
So what was understood yesterday as an established scientific fact, today is disparaged as faith and dogma, to make way for the new scientific fact of tomorrow.
This is another of the ridiculous claims which was made on that video that Buffalo posted. That birds are dinosaurs. OK, so they have the same feet as some dinosaurs. Bid deal. They are in all other respects completely different. When I show pictures to my 3 year old son of a bird he says “bird”, when I show him a picture of velociraptor (which is supposed to be the ancestor of the bird") he says “dinosaur”. My three year old knows more than the scientists.
There is a great deal of evidence. Your creationist sources are lying to you. Why do you trust lying sources?
How do you know this? Where is your evidence that it cannot happen. Everyone agrees that it is a rare event, but we do have positive evidence that soft tissue can last for that long. Your real problem is different. If all fossils are less than 10,000 years old, then why is soft tissue so rare? With much younger fossils, we should find preserved soft tissue inside teeth and bones much more frequently than we do. Soft tissue is evidence against YEC timescales.
You three year old may well know more than the young earth creationists who pump out this rubbish. Remember also that there is more than one way to reconstruct a Velociraptor:
What do you expect from a three-year-old? He’s only as informed or ignorant as the people who take care of him.
Please provide evidence. I cannot find any.
The scientist repeated the experiment and has found soft tissue in scores of samples. The only reason that soft tissue is not found in a great many bone samples is because nobody wants to break the bones and disolve them using the technique that Schweitzer developed.
You can’t tell the difference between that and a bird? So you think that you can stick some feathers on an elephant and it will look like a bird? A three year old would quickly notice that this creature has four legs and a tail whereas a bird has only two legs and no tail.
Schweitzer was not the first scientist to find soft tissue. Another scientist was the first to sample a DNA sequence from a dinosaur bone. By rights this guy should have been hailed a hero in scientific circles and his name should be in lights. However his work was discredited because he discovered an inconvenient truth that dinosaur DNA is more closely related to mammal (in particular, whales) than it is to reptiles or birds.
Then you need to look harder:
Of course I can. Just as I can tell the difference between my grandfather and myself. That does not mean that I am not descended from my grandfather. I merely posted a more accurate impression of Velociraptor, one which showed its feathers.
First, show me a fossil elephant with feathers. I can show you fossil dinosaurs with feathers:
Both have four limbs. In birds, the front two limbs are wings, rather than arms. Notice that the Velociraptor’s forelimbs are not used for walking, but are more like arms than legs. As for birds with tails, very early birds did have bony tails, just have a look at Archaeopteryx.
The Tyrannosaur proteins, collagen IIRC, were sequenced and the best match was found to be chicken. A similar match was found later with proteins extracted from a Hadrosaur fossil. See Biomolecular Characterization and Protein Sequences of the Campanian Hadrosaur B. canadensis.
It probably was contaminated. See sciencemag.org/content/268/5214/1192.2 for two letters on the subject. There were some very early mammals alive at the time, though their bones were smaller than the one tested. However, it is possible that some proto-mammal DNA got into the sample and contaminated it. Modern contamination is more likely.
Your grandfather is recognisably human I assume just like you. Therefore you are both recognisably of the same species. You are simply proving my point.
Lemurs and Tarsiers are both recognisably primates. Kangaroos and Elephants are both recognisably mammals. Salamanders and whales are both recognisably tetrapods. There are many levels on which organisms can be classified.
Your impression is incorrect. It is rare to find dinosaur material in amber, though some dino feathers have been found.
Not radical at all. Birds did live among dinosaurs. Birds evolved from Dinosaurs before the K-T extinction, obviously.
A feathered mammal would be the smoking gun proof that creationists have been looking for, for a long time, that would disprove evolution. We see feathers in birds, and in the dinosaurian ancestors of birds. We do not see feathers in mammals or in the ancestors of mammals. This is a result of the nested hierarchy, that has been developed since Linnaeus.
Your three year old is not a biologist. Once you child learns what a pentadactyl limb is, then legs, wings and arms will seem more similar.
You are making a common mistake. A transitional species does not have to be an ancestral species, though it may be. Archaeopteryx is not ancestral to modern birds. Modern birds are all classified as Neornithes, and Arche has always been on a side branch. It recently moved to a slightly more distant side branch, due to some new fossils being found that fitted in between Arche and modern birds. It had to be moved to make room for the new arrivals in their correct place in the hierarchy.
How else do you think your computer works? Do you sacrifice a chicken to your internet connection every full moon just to make sure it keeps working? Or maybe you trust the science instead.