User Profile: am123

am123

Member Since: January 25, 2012

CommentsDisplaying 20 of am123's most recent comments.

  • February 7, 2014 at 3:01pm

    So scientists are hard at work “proving” that soft tissue is millions of years old? They can’t prove that unless they reproduce it.

  • February 7, 2014 at 2:24pm

    How do you know it was encased in rock? And just how does an animal die and its bones become encased in rock and all the while with soft tissue remaining intact?

  • February 7, 2014 at 1:52pm

    Since you purport to have greater understanding, would you like to explain how soft tissue can remain around for millions of years?

  • February 7, 2014 at 1:08pm

    What is baseless is your claim that the T-rex bone found with soft tissue that is purported to be 68 million years old will be challenged. In one of the examples I cited above, the claim was that they found soft tissue that was a HALF BILLION years old, and that was claimed in 2008 and here we are 6 years later and that ludicrous claim has not been questioned.

    And you’re trying to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes saying that dinosaur bones that were thousands of years old wouldn’t upset the evolutionary apple cart.

    Responses (9) +
  • February 7, 2014 at 12:34pm

    Well if the problem of dating is with Atomic theory, what I am saying is don’t look for Atomic theory scientists or evolutionists, especially evolutionists, to try and dispute such absurd claims as above. If someone came out and said the soft tissue in the above absurd cases is not millions of years old, they would be scorned and castigated by the evolutionary branch of the scientific establishment, who would charge with blasphemy anyone who would deny their religion.

  • February 7, 2014 at 11:54am

    More foolishness claims from evolutionists:

    “525 Million-Year-Old Fossil Discovered in China” (with soft tissue):

    http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/news-525-million-year-old-fossil-feathered-helmet-beyond-clouds-1

    “Proteins, Soft Tissue from 80 Million-Year-Old Hadrosaur Add Weight to Theory that Molecules Preserve Over Time”

    http://www.physorg.com/news160320581.html

  • February 7, 2014 at 11:52am

    I’m skeptical that scientists will TRY and refute the absurd claim that soft tissue is millions of years old because that would upset the evolution paradigm and they have shown no inclination to try and dispute other absurd soft tissue claims like the following:

    “The mystery of soft tissue fossils 500 million years in Canada”

    http://en.wikinoticia.com/culture-science/Science/10709-the-mystery-of-soft-tissue-fossils-500-million-years-in-canada

  • February 7, 2014 at 11:49am

    I’m skeptical that scientists will TRY and refute the absurd claim that soft tissue is millions of years old because that would upset the evolution paradigm and they have shown no inclination to try and dispute other absurd soft tissue claims like the following:

    “The mystery of soft tissue fossils 500 million years in Canada”

    http://en.wikinoticia.com/culture-science/Science/10709-the-mystery-of-soft-tissue-fossils-500-million-years-in-canada

    “Proteins, Soft Tissue from 80 Million-Year-Old Hadrosaur Add Weight to Theory that Molecules Preserve Over Time”

    http://www.physorg.com/news160320581.html

    “Infrared mapping resolves soft tissue preservation in 50 million year-old reptile skin”

    http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2011/03/12/rspb.2011.0135

    “Soft-Tissue Preservation in a 95 Million Year Old Marine Lizard …”

    http://www.jstor.org/stable/4524795

    “Ancient Fossils with Preserved Soft Tissues and DNA”

    http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilizeddna.html

    “525 Million-Year-Old Fossil Discovered in China” (with soft tissue):

    http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/news-525-million-year-old-fossil-feathered-helmet-beyond-clouds-1

    You are naive if you think soft tissue can be millions of years old and the above claims will be disputed.

  • February 7, 2014 at 11:26am

    Well, like I said before. Don’t look for scientists to try and refute the absurd claim of soft tissue being millions of years old.

  • February 7, 2014 at 11:09am

    While it is clear you are an intelligent human being, intelligence is not necessarily an indicator of common sense. Common sense tells us that stretchy and pliable soft tissue cannot be 68 million years old.

  • February 7, 2014 at 11:05am

    Well, if you read from the link I provided about the gap theory, you’ll understand better.

    But disregarding that for the moment, given that they measure the age of the earth by the age of meteors and not rocks from the earth itself, shouldn’t we be leery of date calculations of the earth?

  • February 7, 2014 at 10:44am

    I’ll try asking again. Do you believe the T-rex bone they found with soft tissue on it is actually 68 million years old?

  • February 7, 2014 at 10:43am

    No, your understanding is wrong.

  • February 7, 2014 at 10:35am

    Actually, they have found a dinosaur bone newer than 65 million years old, they just won’t admit it. Or do you actually believe that soft, stretchable, pliable soft tissue is actually 68 million years old?

  • February 7, 2014 at 10:32am

    Regarding the age of the earth, the Bible does not claim the earth is only 6,000 years old. It merely claims the Adamic race is about 6,000 years old. There is something called the “gap theory” which allows for an old earth:

    http://www.kjvbible.org/gap_theory.html

  • February 7, 2014 at 9:49am

    Another more important question is this: Why wouldn’t the dating calculations be questioned when someone says soft tissue from a dinosaur bone is 68 million years old? Here is why: Because a dinosaur bone that is not millions of years old would contradict the millions of years old paradigm of the evolutionary model and evolutionists won’t let that happen to their religion. They’d rather look like fools claiming soft tissue is millions of years old rather than give up their ridiculous theories. So don’t look for science to contradict such an absurd claim.

    Responses (7) +
  • February 7, 2014 at 9:40am

    QUESTION FOR EVOLUTIONISTS:
    When evolutionists find a dinosaur bone with soft tissue that they claim is 68 million years old (I kid you not, see http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html ) and the tissue is still pliable and stretchy, do they straight away put it into a zip-lock plastic bag in order to prevent spoilage?

    Responses (4) +
  • February 6, 2014 at 11:03am

    “The killing of the innocent is never fulfilling God’s will.”

    Then why doesn’t the hypocrite speak out about him Muslim buddies killing innocent Christians in Egypt and around the world?

    Responses (1) +
  • January 23, 2014 at 12:37am

    After all is said and done, the position of the pro-choice/choose-death-over-life crowd boils down to this: abortion is taking this wonderful blood-pumping, cells multiplying and growing reacting to outside stimuli thing we call life :) ……and terminating it :(

    Anyone who has searched the depths of their soul and is honest about it cannot deny that fact that we’re talking about murder here, the taking an innocent life.

  • December 7, 2013 at 6:52pm

    He should make a same-sex wedding cake that is obnoxious and foul-smelling something like an open sewer and with writing on it something to the effect “The stench from this cake is like a bouquet of roses compared to the stench that wafts up to the nostrils of the Most High from your perverse same-sex wedding ceremony. Repent from your perverse lifestyle lest you end up in the lake of fire”.

    BTW, the picture included in this story is sickening.