Jump to content


Photo

Another "amazing" Discovery! 70 "million Year Old" Eggs With Perfectly Preserved Embryos Inside!

DINOSAURS

  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 05 December 2017 - 01:14 AM

Thoughts?  When will "Scientists" admit that Dinosaurs just aren't that old!!!    https://www.dailysta...ould-live-again

 

 

 

Jurassic Park? Fossilised prehistoric eggs found with perfectly preserved embryos inside Scientists have discovered a hoard of 70-million-year-old eggs containing perfectly preserved embryos inside.

#2 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 819 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 05 December 2017 - 04:23 AM

I can't open your link but why does this discovery shed doubt on the given age of 70 my ? You must believe that they have been buried and preserved for over 4000 years. If they have remained "perfectly preserved" for that long why must something necessarily happen to prevent them lasting millions ? If they're preserved, they're preserved, unless they get exposed to erosion or erased by metamorphism.



#3 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 05 December 2017 - 10:55 AM

I went to the link and found the contents of the eggs were fossilized.

 

This isn't the first time fossilized dino eggs have been discovered with preserved (and fossilized) contents.

 

Why is this a "problem?"



#4 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 05 December 2017 - 01:02 PM

I went to the link and found the contents of the eggs were fossilized.
 
This isn't the first time fossilized dino eggs have been discovered with preserved (and fossilized) contents.
 
Why is this a "problem?"

The title of the article referenced Jurassic Park, which implies something very different than the actual discovery that was made, but that seem much more like a reason to be careful about how you interpret press coverage of scientific findings than any problems with the actual scientific work.

#5 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 05 December 2017 - 01:19 PM

I went to the link and found the contents of the eggs were fossilized.

This isn't the first time fossilized dino eggs have been discovered with preserved (and fossilized) contents.

Why is this a "problem?"


Oh, it is a BIG problem.. Literally an 800 lb gorilla in the room that you cant see for some reason

(1) How long did it take for them to be "fossilized"?

(2) Due to KNOWN biological decay rates, things continue to biodegrade under the most OPTIMAL of conditions.. IE Laboratory Glove Boxes designed with artifically controlled environments manipulated to create the most sterile conditions possible on Earth.. But then again, we are relying on repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable, observable Empirical Science here, The sworn ENEMY(Along with Irreducible Complexity and Abiogenesis) which of course DOESN'T APPLY "Long ago and far away" into the Nebulousphere of Darwin's science fiction novel...


BTW A POROUS EGG doesnt even come CLOSE to those lab conditions..

How long does Fossilization take? (In your opinion)


What you are doing is what Accidentalists / Oval-Earthers have been doing to us for over a century.. Urinating on our leg and assuring us that it is raining..


"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.....It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief."

(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

#6 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 05 December 2017 - 01:42 PM

I went to the link and found the contents of the eggs were fossilized. This isn't the first time fossilized dino eggs have been discovered with preserved (and fossilized) contents. Why is this a "problem?"

The title of the article referenced Jurassic Park, which implies something very different than the actual discovery that was made, but that seem much more like a reason to be careful about how you interpret press coverage of scientific findings than any problems with the actual scientific work.

Nobody that I know paid any attention to the Title as Jurassic Park is Science Fiction (Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between REAL Science and FICTIONAL Science these days I know) I would just try to focus on the Findings and the Data..

#7 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 05 December 2017 - 02:22 PM

(2) Due to KNOWN biological decay rates, things continue to biodegrade under the most OPTIMAL of conditions.. IE Laboratory Glove Boxes designed with artifically controlled environments manipulated to create the most sterile conditions possible on Earth.. But then again, we are relying on repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable, observable Empirical Science here, The sworn ENEMY(Along with Irreducible Complexity and Abiogenesis) which of course DOESN'T APPLY "Long ago and far away" into the Nebulousphere of Darwin's science fiction novel...

BTW A POROUS EGG doesnt even come CLOSE to those lab conditions..

Is your position here that they would have decayed before they were fossilized?

#8 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 05 December 2017 - 06:08 PM

(2) Due to KNOWN biological decay rates, things continue to biodegrade under the most OPTIMAL of conditions.. IE Laboratory Glove Boxes designed with artifically controlled environments manipulated to create the most sterile conditions possible on Earth.. But then again, we are relying on repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable, observable Empirical Science here, The sworn ENEMY(Along with Irreducible Complexity and Abiogenesis) which of course DOESN'T APPLY "Long ago and far away" into the Nebulousphere of Darwin's science fiction novel...BTW A POROUS EGG doesnt even come CLOSE to those lab conditions..

Is your position here that they would have decayed before they were fossilized?

Of course that would depend on how long it takes for fossilization to occur.. That is why I asked the question which you edited out of my post for some reason..

"How long does Fossilization take? (In your opinion)"

#9 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 05 December 2017 - 06:19 PM

Of course that would depend on how long it takes for fossilization to occur.. That is why I asked the question which you edited out of my post for some reason..

"How long does Fossilization take? (In your opinion)"

I don't really see how that matters. Do you have any particular reason to expect that to be an issue in this case? We already know it's possible for fossils to form before things decay, because fossils still exist. If these fossils exist, they obviously fossilized before they decayed away.

#10 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 05 December 2017 - 07:17 PM

Of course that would depend on how long it takes for fossilization to occur.. That is why I asked the question which you edited out of my post for some reason.."How long does Fossilization take? (In your opinion)"

I don't really see how that matters. Do you have any particular reason to expect that to be an issue in this case? We already know it's possible for fossils to form before things decay, because fossils still exist. If these fossils exist, they obviously fossilized before they decayed away.


I think it matters.. A LOT.. If you dont want to answer the question for obvious reasons, just say so and I wont ask anymore as I dont want to pester you.. One more time?

"How long does Fossilization take? (In your opinion)"

#11 popoi

popoi

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 790 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 33
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Kentucky

Posted 05 December 2017 - 07:28 PM

I think it matters.. A LOT.. If you dont want to answer the question for obvious reasons, just say so and I wont ask anymore as I dont want to pester you.. One more time?

"How long does Fossilization take? (In your opinion)"

If you have a point to make, then make it. I'm not interested in jumping through hoops to try to get you to actually make a coherent argument.

#12 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 05 December 2017 - 10:47 PM

 

I went to the link and found the contents of the eggs were fossilized.
 
This isn't the first time fossilized dino eggs have been discovered with preserved (and fossilized) contents.
 
Why is this a "problem?"

The title of the article referenced Jurassic Park, which implies something very different than the actual discovery that was made, but that seem much more like a reason to be careful about how you interpret press coverage of scientific findings than any problems with the actual scientific work.

It's amusing.  I present an article from a widely respected peer reviewed scientific journal and Blitz dismisses it out of hand.  Then, with a straight face (as much as we can tell such things on the internet) he presents an article from the "Daily Star." ...  a rag with about the seriousness of the "National Enquirer."  Here are some of the (now) current headlines on the home page:

"Giant 'Super Earth' discovered just 111 light years away could be home to ALIEN COLONY."

"Ancient hidden ice city FOUND under Canadian metropolis."

"'The s@x was AMAZING' single woman romped with GHOST from painting."

(Emphasis in original)

 

 

I went back to the article.  This is the complete report:

 

A total of 215 pterosaur eggs were found with some revealing tiny developed skeletons – something being described by experts as “astounding”.

 

Pterosaurs were flying reptiles that went extinct during the Cretaceous-Paleogene period mass extinction event.

 

They were alive during the dinosaur age but are classed as reptiles – not dinosaurs.

 

David Unwin, a pterosaur expert, said: “I’ve been 35 years in palaeontology and seen a lot of great fossils. But this is certainly one of the three or five most interesting and probably most important specimens I’ve ever seen.

“It’s absolutely astounding.”

“They look like hatchlings except they’re inside an egg.

“In terms of proportions, they look very much like they’re ready to go.”

The findings shed light on scientists’ understanding of the mysterious ancient reptiles.

 

Daily Star Online previously revealed how dinosaurs could have survived if the huge asteroid that killed them had hit anywhere else on Earth.

The nine-mile wide asteroid that smacked into the Earth caused a radiation fireball which wiped out 75% of the Earth’s animal species – and everything within 600 miles.

But scientists believe if the asteroid, which lifted the Earth’s crust higher than the Himalayas, had struck anywhere else, the dinosaurs may well have survived.

The asteroid struck 66million years ago 24 miles off the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico, causing a crater 111 miles wide and 20 miles deep

 

That's it.  Not even a reference to the primary paper.



#13 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 05 December 2017 - 11:22 PM

 

Why is this a "problem?"

Oh, it is a BIG problem.. Literally an 800 lb gorilla in the room that you cant see for some reason

That's because it's just as invisible as the pink unicorn in my back yard.  You got no gorilla, Blitz.

 

 

(1) How long did it take for them to be "fossilized"?

It's a lot like biological decay.  Depending on a number of external factors the time can vary by several orders of magnitude.  Frankly, I never gave it much thought but a few minutes research says about 10,000 years seems to be the accepted number.  I do think that under very specific special conditions, such as in a hot mineral spring, that may be reduced to several months.

 

 

(2) Due to KNOWN biological decay rates, things continue to biodegrade under the most OPTIMAL of conditions.. IE Laboratory Glove Boxes designed with artifically controlled environments manipulated to create the most sterile conditions possible on Earth.. But then again, we are relying on repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable, observable Empirical Science here,

Those KNOWN biological decay rates are subject to a number of external variables that cause the rates to also vary by several orders of magnitude.

 

I have trouble understanding how you can (rationally) place so much confidence in biological decay rates that are known to vary due to temperature, humidity, solar exposure, and pH in such a way that samples could decay in time periods from a few days to millions of years. 

 

Yet you dismiss nuclear dating (except the YEC favorite, C14) that are based on decay rates shown to be highly stable by "repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable, observable Empirical Science " 

 

. :dono:

 

 

The sworn ENEMY(Along with Irreducible Complexity and Abiogenesis) which of course DOESN'T APPLY "Long ago and far away" into the Nebulousphere of Darwin's science fiction novel...

You are aware that the dating is based on Newton and Einstein, not Darwin, aren't you?  Evolution could be totally false and it does nothing at all to change the findings that those fossils were 70,000,000 years old, not 6,000.

 

 

BTW A POROUS EGG doesnt even come CLOSE to those lab conditions..

So?

 

What was found was skeletal remains inside an egg shell.  We have known for a long time that bones fossilize.

 

So let me be sure I understand ..... the "800 pound Gorilla" is that they found fossilized bones inside an egg.   Seriously? ? ? ?

 

:rotfl3:  :rotfl3:  :rotfl3:  :rotfl3:



#14 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 06 December 2017 - 12:45 AM

I went to the link and found the contents of the eggs were fossilized.
 
This isn't the first time fossilized dino eggs have been discovered with preserved (and fossilized) contents.
 
Why is this a "problem?"

The title of the article referenced Jurassic Park, which implies something very different than the actual discovery that was made, but that seem much more like a reason to be careful about how you interpret press coverage of scientific findings than any problems with the actual scientific work.
It's amusing.  I present an article from a widely respected peer reviewed scientific journal and Blitz dismisses it out of hand.  Then, with a straight face (as much as we can tell such things on the internet) he presents an article from the "Daily Star." ...  a rag with about the seriousness of the "National Enquirer."  Here are some of the (now) current headlines on the home page:
"Giant 'Super Earth' discovered just 111 light years away could be home to ALIEN COLONY."
"Ancient hidden ice city FOUND under Canadian metropolis."
"'The s@x was AMAZING' single woman romped with GHOST from painting."
(Emphasis in original)
 
 
I went back to the article.  This is the complete report:
 
A total of 215 pterosaur eggs were found with some revealing tiny developed skeletons – something being described by experts as “astounding”.
 
Pterosaurs were flying reptiles that went extinct during the Cretaceous-Paleogene period mass extinction event.
 
They were alive during the dinosaur age but are classed as reptiles – not dinosaurs.
 
David Unwin, a pterosaur expert, said: “I’ve been 35 years in palaeontology and seen a lot of great fossils. But this is certainly one of the three or five most interesting and probably most important specimens I’ve ever seen.
“It’s absolutely astounding.”
“They look like hatchlings except they’re inside an egg.
“In terms of proportions, they look very much like they’re ready to go.”
The findings shed light on scientists’ understanding of the mysterious ancient reptiles.
 
Daily Star Online previously revealed how dinosaurs could have survived if the huge asteroid that killed them had hit anywhere else on Earth.
The nine-mile wide asteroid that smacked into the Earth caused a radiation fireball which wiped out 75% of the Earth’s animal species – and everything within 600 miles.
But scientists believe if the asteroid, which lifted the Earth’s crust higher than the Himalayas, had struck anywhere else, the dinosaurs may well have survived.
The asteroid struck 66million years ago 24 miles off the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico, causing a crater 111 miles wide and 20 miles deep
 
That's it.  Not even a reference to the primary paper.



Here is the same info from Sciencemag.org..

But since the Daily Star posted it as well it MUST be false right?
I believe that Mike the Wiz would point this out as being a classic logical fallacy of "Poisoning the Well"


http://www.sciencema...-trove-suggests

I am not sure what your complaint is.. Are you saying you dont agree with the findings or there WERE NO eggs found that belonged to Pterosaurs OR?... What is your point?


All of your other assertions about how "66 million years" ago the Dinosaurs went extinct due to an asteroid hitting Mexico is just a silly urban myth that keeps getting repeated like the "Big Bang" "Geologic Column" "Vestigial Organs" "Junk DNA" "Embryonic Recapitulation" and lots and lots of other long debunked foolishness..

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."

(Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

#15 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 06 December 2017 - 12:59 AM

Why is this a "problem?"

Oh, it is a BIG problem.. Literally an 800 lb gorilla in the room that you cant see for some reason
That's because it's just as invisible as the pink unicorn in my back yard.  You got no gorilla, Blitz.
 
 

(1) How long did it take for them to be "fossilized"?

It's a lot like biological decay.  Depending on a number of external factors the time can vary by several orders of magnitude.  Frankly, I never gave it much thought but a few minutes research says about 10,000 years seems to be the accepted number.  I do think that under very specific special conditions, such as in a hot mineral spring, that may be reduced to several months.
 
 

(2) Due to KNOWN biological decay rates, things continue to biodegrade under the most OPTIMAL of conditions.. IE Laboratory Glove Boxes designed with artifically controlled environments manipulated to create the most sterile conditions possible on Earth.. But then again, we are relying on repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable, observable Empirical Science here,

Those KNOWN biological decay rates are subject to a number of external variables that cause the rates to also vary by several orders of magnitude.
 
I have trouble understanding how you can (rationally) place so much confidence in biological decay rates that are known to vary due to temperature, humidity, solar exposure, and pH in such a way that samples could decay in time periods from a few days to millions of years. 
 
Yet you dismiss nuclear dating (except the YEC favorite, C14) that are based on decay rates shown to be highly stable by "repeatable, verifiable, falsifiable, observable Empirical Science " 
 
. :dono:
 
 

The sworn ENEMY(Along with Irreducible Complexity and Abiogenesis) which of course DOESN'T APPLY "Long ago and far away" into the Nebulousphere of Darwin's science fiction novel...

You are aware that the dating is based on Newton and Einstein, not Darwin, aren't you?  Evolution could be totally false and it does nothing at all to change the findings that those fossils were 70,000,000 years old, not 6,000.
 
 

BTW A POROUS EGG doesnt even come CLOSE to those lab conditions..

So?
 
What was found was skeletal remains inside an egg shell.  We have known for a long time that bones fossilize.
 
So let me be sure I understand ..... the "800 pound Gorilla" is that they found fossilized bones inside an egg.   Seriously? ? ? ?
 
:rotfl3:  :rotfl3:  :rotfl3:  :rotfl3:


Evolution could be totally false and it does nothing at all to change the findings that those fossils were 70,000,000 years old, not 6,000."

Where is your evidence to support your bare assertion that they were "70,000,000" years old? I am going to get some popcorn.. This is going to be good.. You have my attention! Please proceed..
"

#16 piasan

piasan

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,770 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma
  • Age: 71
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Oklahoma

Posted 06 December 2017 - 01:32 AM

Where is your evidence to support your bare assertion that they were "70,000,000" years old? I am going to get some popcorn.. This is going to be good.. You have my attention! Please proceed..

Don't get too comfy. 

 

It comes from YOUR source.



#17 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 06 December 2017 - 03:18 AM

I went to the link and found the contents of the eggs were fossilized.
 
This isn't the first time fossilized dino eggs have been discovered with preserved (and fossilized) contents.
 
Why is this a "problem?"

The title of the article referenced Jurassic Park, which implies something very different than the actual discovery that was made, but that seem much more like a reason to be careful about how you interpret press coverage of scientific findings than any problems with the actual scientific work.
It's amusing.  I present an article from a widely respected peer reviewed scientific journal and Blitz dismisses it out of hand.  Then, with a straight face (as much as we can tell such things on the internet) he presents an article from the "Daily Star." ...  a rag with about the seriousness of the "National Enquirer."  Here are some of the (now) current headlines on the home page:
"Giant 'Super Earth' discovered just 111 light years away could be home to ALIEN COLONY."
"Ancient hidden ice city FOUND under Canadian metropolis."
"'The s@x was AMAZING' single woman romped with GHOST from painting."
(Emphasis in original)
 
 
I went back to the article.  This is the complete report:
 
A total of 215 pterosaur eggs were found with some revealing tiny developed skeletons – something being described by experts as “astounding”.
 
Pterosaurs were flying reptiles that went extinct during the Cretaceous-Paleogene period mass extinction event.
 
They were alive during the dinosaur age but are classed as reptiles – not dinosaurs.
 
David Unwin, a pterosaur expert, said: “I’ve been 35 years in palaeontology and seen a lot of great fossils. But this is certainly one of the three or five most interesting and probably most important specimens I’ve ever seen.
“It’s absolutely astounding.”
“They look like hatchlings except they’re inside an egg.
“In terms of proportions, they look very much like they’re ready to go.”
The findings shed light on scientists’ understanding of the mysterious ancient reptiles.
 
Daily Star Online previously revealed how dinosaurs could have survived if the huge asteroid that killed them had hit anywhere else on Earth.
The nine-mile wide asteroid that smacked into the Earth caused a radiation fireball which wiped out 75% of the Earth’s animal species – and everything within 600 miles.
But scientists believe if the asteroid, which lifted the Earth’s crust higher than the Himalayas, had struck anywhere else, the dinosaurs may well have survived.
The asteroid struck 66million years ago 24 miles off the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico, causing a crater 111 miles wide and 20 miles deep
 
That's it.  Not even a reference to the primary paper.


"It's amusing. I present an article from a widely respected peer reviewed scientific journal and Blitz dismisses it out of hand"

Yes, but what is amusing is why you think ANY reasonable person should take anything seriously that was written by fools who believe in the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and That they are merely an Accidental Ape that evolved from pond scum for no reason...

"Widely Respected" by WHOM exactly? People who share the neurotic agreement because "We cant let a divine foot in the door"? And "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Atheist"? This isnt about Science.. Never was and never will be...

Save the sales pitch for some gullible 15 year old biology student
It WONT WORK HERE...

Surely you remember the name of the website that you are on right now dont you?

#18 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 06 December 2017 - 03:21 AM

Where is your evidence to support your bare assertion that they were "70,000,000" years old? I am going to get some popcorn.. This is going to be good.. You have my attention! Please proceed..

Don't get too comfy. 
 
It comes from YOUR source.



Which I openly mocked..(For good reason)

Surely you didnt read the OP very well..Did you?

Thoughts? When will "Scientists" admit that Dinosaurs just aren't that old!!! https://www.dailysta...ould-live-again

#19 wibble

wibble

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 819 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 45
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Dorset

Posted 07 December 2017 - 01:36 AM

So are you going to explain how these fossils are a problem to us or are you just trolling ?



#20 Blitzking

Blitzking

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,010 posts
  • Age: 55
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • California

Posted 07 December 2017 - 12:11 PM

So are you going to explain how these fossils are a problem to us or are you just trolling ?



How can they be a problem for you when you can tell us that red blood cells can last for "100,000,000" years?.. A science fiction tale written about "long ago and far away" will never have a problem that cant be fixed with a pencil and erasor..

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A PROBLEM FOR YOUR MYTH!

Not even Abiogenesis..When, even though we KNOW that it is impossible, the science fiction novel of Evilution simply assures us that it does happen.. AND Without a time machine, WHO CAN PROVE YOU WRONG?





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: DINOSAURS

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users