Scientist finds evidence of "hobbit."

[CGM]

LOL. I suppose you have no intention of providing refs to support your claim. Not only do I have to support my claims, I have to support yours as well.

Support what claims? It's a FACT that they have found soft tissue in dinosaur bones. It's a FACT that they have found unfossilied Hadrosaur bones that for over 20 years were discarded as they assumed they were just fresh bison bones from a hundred or so years ago.

What interperations the evolutionists give to this is up to them and you.

I believe it's compelling evidence that they arn't millions of years old but if you wish to believe the scientific account that somehow bones can remain fresh and not deteriorate for 70 million years due to some unknown natural preservatin technique that is fine.

OK Bilbo you talk a good line. You say it's FACT but you continually refuse to provide any supporting references. I provided refs that say otherwise, you provide nada. Zilch. Just some claims that you have carefully studied blah blah blah.

IMO, if there really was proven facts that provided compelling evidence that dinosaurs weren't millions of years old, there would be a lot more publicity, cause I do believe the general public is very interested in that kind of stuff. But I suppose you will say people don't want to know, or maybe just that I don't want to know. That's fine. Whatever you want to believe.

Under the circumstances, I see no point in continuing. I've got better things to do than debate aimlessly. Over and out.

[Kev]

LOL. I suppose you have no intention of providing refs to support your claim. Not only do I have to support my claims, I have to support yours as well.

Support what claims? It's a FACT that they have found soft tissue in dinosaur bones. It's a FACT that they have found unfossilied Hadrosaur bones that for over 20 years were discarded as they assumed they were just fresh bison bones from a hundred or so years ago.

What interperations the evolutionists give to this is up to them and you.

I believe it's compelling evidence that they arn't millions of years old but if you wish to believe the scientific account that somehow bones can remain fresh and not deteriorate for 70 million years due to some unknown natural preservatin technique that is fine.

OK Bilbo you talk a good line. You say it's FACT but you continually refuse to provide any supporting references. I provided refs that say otherwise, you provide nada. Zilch. Just some claims that you have carefully studied blah blah blah.

IMO, if there really was proven facts that provided compelling evidence that dinosaurs weren't millions of years old, there would be a lot more publicity, cause I do believe the general public is very interested in that kind of stuff. But I suppose you will say people don't want to know, or maybe just that I don't want to know. That's fine. Whatever you want to believe.

Under the circumstances, I see no point in continuing. I've got better things to do than debate aimlessly. Over and out.

Seriously? If dinosaurs arn't millions of years old the entire foundation of evolution collapses. It's the absolute LAST thing they want you to hear about.

Interestingly this blood cell in a T Rex was actually reported in 1990, but didn't make it into any major peer review and Schweitzer herself was pilloried for it.

It was only after the creationist movement latched onto it and started to proclaim it as evidence dinosaurs were only thousands of years old that they even acknowledged it.

In the end they had to go public with it and so emphasized the similiarites between the T Rex and an Ostrich, to make it look like it was supporting evolution. But it's a serious challenge to it.

Your article about biofilms isn't really relavent. Even if the soft tissue and collagen is a result of bacteria it doesn't change the fact that the bones are still hollow and unfossilised.

If you want to hear what the discoverer had to say about it watch this video.

And yes she claims an entirely new form of fossilisation hithero unknown to science.

T Rex Soft Tissue Interview With Mary Schweitzer By Msnbc - Google Videos - YouTube MySpace Video - Noolmusic.com


At no point is the age of the bones questioned, but the link to ostriches is raised.

The evoutionary media is very carefully manipulated. Every discovery that supports evoution will make front page news around the world, and when they are shown to be wrong, and in time they ALWAYS are the evolutionary community is silent on the matter.

Go and look up Archeoraptor, the missing link between dinosaurs and birds for example.

But seriously you need to be aware of how the evolutionary community work. They are at war with creationists, even going to court to prevent any talk about creationism or intelligent design being heard in schools or given media time on tv.

It is indoctrination. Websites exist where you can report creationism and have the evolutionary atheistic society take legal action against them and hand out anti creation literature, seriously.

If a scientist says he does not believe in evolution he will lose his job, they will never draw attention to anything that discredits their theory

[Andre]

Support what claims? It's a FACT that they have found soft tissue in dinosaur bones. It's a FACT that they have found unfossilied Hadrosaur bones that for over 20 years were discarded as they assumed they were just fresh bison bones from a hundred or so years ago.

What interperations the evolutionists give to this is up to them and you.

I believe it's compelling evidence that they arn't millions of years old but if you wish to believe the scientific account that somehow bones can remain fresh and not deteriorate for 70 million years due to some unknown natural preservatin technique that is fine.

OK Bilbo you talk a good line. You say it's FACT but you continually refuse to provide any supporting references. I provided refs that say otherwise, you provide nada. Zilch. Just some claims that you have carefully studied blah blah blah.

IMO, if there really was proven facts that provided compelling evidence that dinosaurs weren't millions of years old, there would be a lot more publicity, cause I do believe the general public is very interested in that kind of stuff. But I suppose you will say people don't want to know, or maybe just that I don't want to know. That's fine. Whatever you want to believe.

Under the circumstances, I see no point in continuing. I've got better things to do than debate aimlessly. Over and out.

Seriously? If dinosaurs arn't millions of years old the entire foundation of evolution collapses. It's the absolute LAST thing they want you to hear about.

Interestingly this blood cell in a T Rex was actually reported in 1990, but didn't make it into any major peer review and Schweitzer herself was pilloried for it.

It was only after the creationist movement latched onto it and started to proclaim it as evidence dinosaurs were only thousands of years old that they even acknowledged it.

In the end they had to go public with it and so emphasized the similiarites between the T Rex and an Ostrich, to make it look like it was supporting evolution. But it's a serious challenge to it.

Your article about biofilms isn't really relavent. Even if the soft tissue and collagen is a result of bacteria it doesn't change the fact that the bones are still hollow and unfossilised.

If you want to hear what the discoverer had to say about it watch this video.

And yes she claims an entirely new form of fossilisation hithero unknown to science.

T Rex Soft Tissue Interview With Mary Schweitzer By Msnbc - Google Videos - YouTube MySpace Video - Noolmusic.com


At no point is the age of the bones questioned, but the link to ostriches is raised.

The evoutionary media is very carefully manipulated. Every discovery that supports evoution will make front page news around the world, and when they are shown to be wrong, and in time they ALWAYS are the evolutionary community is silent on the matter.

Go and look up Archeoraptor, the missing link between dinosaurs and birds for example.

But seriously you need to be aware of how the evolutionary community work. They are at war with creationists, even going to court to prevent any talk about creationism or intelligent design being heard in schools or given media time on tv.

It is indoctrination. Websites exist where you can report creationism and have the evolutionary atheistic society take legal action against them and hand out anti creation literature, seriously.

If a scientist says he does not believe in evolution he will lose his job, they will never draw attention to anything that discredits their theory

Dont hold your breath, something is comming their way that cant deny.Should begin late June ,they'll hush it up cause it'll make em look like fools but once the effect takes hold we'll all know the score.

[Kev]

OK Bilbo you talk a good line. You say it's FACT but you continually refuse to provide any supporting references. I provided refs that say otherwise, you provide nada. Zilch. Just some claims that you have carefully studied blah blah blah.

IMO, if there really was proven facts that provided compelling evidence that dinosaurs weren't millions of years old, there would be a lot more publicity, cause I do believe the general public is very interested in that kind of stuff. But I suppose you will say people don't want to know, or maybe just that I don't want to know. That's fine. Whatever you want to believe.

Under the circumstances, I see no point in continuing. I've got better things to do than debate aimlessly. Over and out.

Seriously? If dinosaurs arn't millions of years old the entire foundation of evolution collapses. It's the absolute LAST thing they want you to hear about.

Interestingly this blood cell in a T Rex was actually reported in 1990, but didn't make it into any major peer review and Schweitzer herself was pilloried for it.

It was only after the creationist movement latched onto it and started to proclaim it as evidence dinosaurs were only thousands of years old that they even acknowledged it.

In the end they had to go public with it and so emphasized the similiarites between the T Rex and an Ostrich, to make it look like it was supporting evolution. But it's a serious challenge to it.

Your article about biofilms isn't really relavent. Even if the soft tissue and collagen is a result of bacteria it doesn't change the fact that the bones are still hollow and unfossilised.

If you want to hear what the discoverer had to say about it watch this video.

And yes she claims an entirely new form of fossilisation hithero unknown to science.

T Rex Soft Tissue Interview With Mary Schweitzer By Msnbc - Google Videos - YouTube MySpace Video - Noolmusic.com


At no point is the age of the bones questioned, but the link to ostriches is raised.

The evoutionary media is very carefully manipulated. Every discovery that supports evoution will make front page news around the world, and when they are shown to be wrong, and in time they ALWAYS are the evolutionary community is silent on the matter.

Go and look up Archeoraptor, the missing link between dinosaurs and birds for example.

But seriously you need to be aware of how the evolutionary community work. They are at war with creationists, even going to court to prevent any talk about creationism or intelligent design being heard in schools or given media time on tv.

It is indoctrination. Websites exist where you can report creationism and have the evolutionary atheistic society take legal action against them and hand out anti creation literature, seriously.

If a scientist says he does not believe in evolution he will lose his job, they will never draw attention to anything that discredits their theory

Dont hold your breath, something is comming their way that cant deny.Should begin late June ,they'll hush it up cause it'll make em look like fools but once the effect takes hold we'll all know the score.

[Andre]

<- par for the course Bilbo ; Its one of my posts remember .

[Kev]

<- par for the course Bilbo ; Its one of my posts remember .

So you're not going to tell me what's about to happen next year then?

[Andre]

Just did.

[Kev]

Just did.

Actually I fully expect them to announce they have solved the mysteries to the entire universe next year and now know for absolute certain that the Big Bang theory is correct.

It will make worldwide news and then a few months later the whole research will be completely discredited and the Collider project canned, but the media will observe an almost total blanket of silence regarding any public retraction so the public will go on thinking that the Hadron proved the Big Bang