Evolution is a lie

So we find all sorts of examples of unfossilized dinosaur bones containing intact blood vessels, blood cells, muscle, and DNA, and despite repeatable experiments showing these cant last longer than a few thousand years, anyone who suggests they aren't millions of years old is ridiculed as being "anti-science". So much for fair and objective "science".

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgk8UdV7GQ0
google.ca/amp/amp.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html?client
smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/
youtube.com/watch?v=LwHAK_HJO0I
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Source?

>unfossilized dinosaur bones
wrong, they are fossilized.
>intact blood vessels
wrong, they are fossilized

you dont understand fossilization do you? Did you even attempt googling 'fossilized blood vessels'?

>Of course you didnt, now stop being a faggot and go learn.

> despite repeatable experiments

Wait, so do you trust science or not? Because it seems like you're trying to say that science proved science is false.

But I guess expecting logic from a creationist is too much.

p.s. all of your information is bupkis.

K

Show me an example of some intact dinosaur DNA.

>dinosaur soft tissue has been found
>dinosaurs are all millions of years old
pick one

look up 'dinosaur soft tissue'

>Be OP, bad at science and retarded. Goes on the internet and make a retarded thread about evolution.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zgk8UdV7GQ0

First off, all those can last longer than few thousand years if the conditions for preservation are right. Soft tissue can be found in amber and soft earth. Soft tissue impressions can be embedded in rock formed originally with soft earth, like clay, mud, tar, etc. You can pick both, cuck. DNA can last more than few thousand years, but it has a relatively short half life so the soft tissue remains of dinosaurs have totally unusable DNA or its decayed beyond acquisition.
Here's where "anti-science" cucks like you fail to even understand the basics of the objective process. Where are your "repeatable experiments"? Just mentioning them does not qualify. All the information I am providing and others are providing can be found on wikipedia, which then has further sources for its information. You can open up any science book or textbook and get verification for its statements as well. Unsourced "Repeatable experiments" is meaningless fucking evidence because even the experiments linking autism to vaccines is technically "repeatable," but it doesn't matter because i'm autistic enough to reply this much to a garbage trollbot shitting up the worst corner of the internet

>damage control
not anti-science. but science cucks who choose to believe that every claim made in the name of science is objective fact need to shut up and realize where they're wrong

also carbon dating is only accurate up to 50,000 years. beyond that is more or less a gamble in terms of estimation

A FUCKING LEAF

also
>dead soft tissue can last for millions of year
top lul. you're about as anti-science as your own claim

That's why carbon dating isn't the only form of radioisotope based dating.

...

it's the most popular because it's been the most accurate and covers the longest timespan

Nuke canada now

why is this pekka so triggered by facts

No it doesn't argon dating covers a much large timespan.
And yeah it's accurate when used under 50 000 years, so what's the problem?

Well muhammed lee I am doing more work than you are.

lol. That picture looks like a little pizza.
mama mia rofl. Now I'm hungry for pizza!

>evolution means dinosaur fossils
Why do idiots think this? Evolution means you look like your parents and their parents. Even if you could prove that dinosaurs never existed, it would say nothing about evolution.

I said the process is objective, not the results from the process are objective, retard. You didn't comprehend a word I said. Science is defined by the collection of evidence to support an idea, and there's plenty of verifiable, reliable evidence to support my claims, and my conclusions. Science can be wrong in traditional logic, where the evidence is sound but the conclusion is false. Likewise, the evidence can be inconclusive yet the conclusion can be sound. I don't know how retards like you exist for 2 seconds without mommy and daddy when you are stumbling through life seeing verifiable evidence supporting verifiable claims and conclusions and going "WRONG WRONG WRONG" like a screeching she-boon.
Also, still waiting on that evidence of yours. If it's verifiable and sound, and the evidence leads to your logical conclusion, i'd believe you. But that's where fucking retards like you fail, because you have none, or very little at best, and your claims that contradict all other logically sound claims are built upon a mountain of stupidity that's been building up ever since your mommy and daddy fed you the stupid pill.
Explain pic you fucking mong.

A leaf...

Why is it always A FUCKING LEAF

>mfw people actually think picrelated (quite lovely insect might I add :^) evolved from a regular non-leaf looking insect

If evolution was real, there would be more insect with leaf camo out there.

>also
Why the hell do some snakes have useless flashy colors? All snakes should be green/brown/shit-colored as it's the best camo. Why are flamingos pink/white?
If evolution is real, then all the current animals won when countless of their peers failed. Now the hell do chicken still exist? They're garbage and they suck. They can't even fly for fuck's sake, talk about a lame bird

argon dating is impractical because it requires there to not be argon initially found in the sample tested and when you look at the fact that ultramafic rock from magma displaces its argon from fossils then the whole test gets muddied. as far as all other radiometric dating goes, it's not nearly as accurate as carbon dating because carbon is so plentiful in comparison but it has a rather short half-life

>damage control post #2
nothing you said has even acknowledged soft tissue decay or that dinosaurs that are supposedly millions of years old and have only existed millions of years ago have been exhumed with soft tissue which should be otherwise completely decomposed by bacteria within 50000 years or so. you're just ranting like a blithering idiot
>amber
not all dinosaur soft tissue was encased in amber you moron. amber fossilization is a different process from the type of rock-mineral fossilization that some of these samples of soft tissue has been found with

>DNA

Have you ever seen chickens in the wild?

Dude.

He's obviously talking about bones being found, and soft tissue, and connective tissue. Of dinosaurs. Including T-Rex.

Not mineralized, not fossilized, as though they had just died a few years ago.

If you can't fucking Google "t rex connective tissue found", then you can't be helped.

Can you please explain to me how you think evolution works?

>it's another guaranteed 350 replies to a troll thread episode

>Half life of DNA 521 years.

>Show me dino DNA.

That's you. That's how dumb you are.

How do you know it's not megafauna from before the Ice Age?

>what is an impression

>why am i posting to a leaf

Aye, the argon dating that dated igneous rocks created at the eruption of Mt. St. Helen's in the 1980's to be 3,000,000 years old was super impressive.

impression of soft tissue =/= actual soft tissue

>Still no source
I feel sorry for that guy you're arguing with. People like you are honestly impossible to deal with, I hope he gets the idea and stops wasting his time. I'm just here to point out you're avoiding the biggest issue at hand.

WHY

I'm no expert, but I think there are many different methods of dating and scientists use whichever one best suits the situation, kind of like a tool belt :D

The age of the earth was determined by measuring the levels of lead in a meteorite. That dated the earths age to 4.5 billion years weeee

>source
are you retarded or something. all you'd have to do is look up 'dinosaur soft tissue'

where's your source that soft tissue can last millions of years without being bio-chemically encased

>1 post
>no source

fuck off

I did some light reading and apparently iron can preserve soft tissue for much longer than previously believed.

google.ca/amp/amp.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html?client

>retards and leaves posting /x/ content on Sup Forums because it'd be banned instantly on /sci/ for being so fucking stupid

It's true.
smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/

Dinosaurs exist.

Australia has a living, breathing dinosaur with feathers known as the Cassowary.

so the iron in the blood somehow preserved the soft tissue. i don't think so and that study is obviously biased because there's no control group to test the contrary. the iron itself would've recrystalized by then and its molecular attachment to the soft tissue molecules wouldn't have lasted for that long

>everything i disagree with is '/x/ content'
>/sci/
>le *tip*

science is bullshit

YES

I approve

That's a good fucking question about the flamingos you FUCKING RETARD.

I laways wondered about stuff like that too. If turtles are supposedly winning and losing based on the length of their neck according to darwin, then explain how turkeys survived in woods full of coyotes and wolves while being brightly colored, near flightless and slow as fuck.

No goy evolutionism is true, it's just.... There was some sort of preservation believe me!!

Haha I know what you mean :-)

Nigger, I am a plant breeder. We analyze evplution statistically and calculate how fast it can happen in your crops. We can apply evolution

youtube.com/watch?v=LwHAK_HJO0I

That picture made me think this was a pizzagate thread.

>So we find all sorts of examples of unfossilized dinosaur bones containing intact blood vessels, blood cells, muscle, and DNA
Can creationists argue without blatantly lying?

Evolution is a conscious process on the part of the organism.

Yes, that is why I asked for an example.