mark francis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2021
- Messages
- 27,698
Quote where that article proves more votes than registered voters
Scientists were shocked to discover dinosaur fossils in Alaska several decades ago, contrary to previous commonly accepted evolutionist assumptions. Then evolutionists were shocked to discover (many evolutionists refused to believe the factual discovery for years) dinosaur bones with remaining soft tissues that almost every scientist of the day knew could not have survived for even 1 million years after the death of the dinosaur.What undisputed facts? List them
Questioning debatable evolutionist speculations, theories, and assumptions is a wise thing to do.Scientists never stop questioning.
Which is how they differ from religionists who think their religion is 100 percent accurate and unchanging lol
As long as nobody can disprove the report, I see no need to further prove it.Quote where that article proves more votes than registered voters
How does that disprove the age of the earth? LolScientists were shocked to discover dinosaur fossils in Alaska several decades ago, contrary to previous commonly accepted evolutionist assumptions. Then evolutionists were shocked to discover (many evolutionists refused to believe the factual discovery for years) dinosaur bones with remaining soft tissues that almost every scientist of the day knew could not have survived for even 1 million years after the death of the dinosaur.
Of course you see no need not to look like a liarAs long as nobody can disprove the report, I see no need to further prove it.
As long as the alternative isn't religious bs lolQuestioning debatable evolutionist speculations, theories, and assumptions is a wise thing to do.
How can we try to date the age of the earth? By radioactive element decay? That is debatable since we have no way of knowing whether or not rates of decay could have changed over long periods of time, and especially when we date a rock from a formation geologically dated at millions of years old only to discover when tested that the single rock sample is not yet 50 years old.How does that disprove the age of the earth? Lol
You post the dumbest things
The controversial discovery of 68-million-year-old soft tissue from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex finally has a physical explanation. According to new research, iron in the dinosaur's body preserved the tissue before it could decay.
So once more science explains things lol
You still prove you cannot refute the evidence with facts and logic.Of course you see no need not to look like a liar
You have no shame
You sound like Dawkins who claimed he willing to accept any speculation about the origin of life on earth except the possibility that God created original life on earth.As long as the alternative isn't religious bs lol
Science ***** attempts arm waving science argument lolHow can we try to date the age of the earth? By radioactive element decay? That is debatable since we have no way of knowing whether or not rates of decay could have changed over long periods of time, and especially when we date a rock from a formation geologically dated at millions of years old only to discover when tested that the single rock sample is not yet 50 years old.
God creating life is so vague its not scienceYou sound like Dawkins who claimed he willing to accept any speculation about the origin of life on earth except the possibility that God created original life on earth.