[Jefferson]

T-Rex SOFT TISSUE! YESsss!

Monday August 7th, 2006. This is show #156.

Summary:
* Dinosaur Soft Tissue?: This photo is among the startling photographs from the Tyrannosaurus Rex soft tissue find by Montana State University. Wow. Add this to the list of blatant proofs against evolutionist million-year old dates! (Yes, Bob IS a year behind the news, and hadn't heard about MSU's Museum of the Rockies excavation of a Tyrannosaurus Rex with soft tissue, blood cells, and blood vessels!)

Educated Man: What's that? Butcher shop scraps?

Evolutionist: No, it's a T-Rex fossil.

Educated Man: That can't be a T-Rex fossil. Dinosaur fossils are over
65 million years old. They survive so long because
they've turned to stone!

Evolutionist: Nope, this is Tyrannosaurus soft tissue excavated by
Montana State University!

Educated Man: It can't be.

Evolutionist: I hate to say it, but... it is.

Educated Man: Well, either THIS IS NOT REALLY T-Rex remains,
or dinosaurs ARE NOT 65 million years old.
So, which is it?

Evolutionist: Well...

Educated Man: And why isn't this the biggest science story
of the decade?

Evolutionist: Well...

Educated Man: Okay, so I'm starting to see the picture here...

* Walt Brown's 20 Questions: Bob gets a kick out of Walt Brown's questions to evolutionists [page down].
* Myra from Camden AK: A murderer killed a co-worker's 7-year-old granddaughter, and Bob discussed the Age of Accountability with Myra, and lamented the Christians who see God's hand in every wickedness and perversion.
Today's Resource: Read Bob Enyart's FAVORITE anti-evolution, creation and Flood book, In the Beginning, by Dr. Walt Brown! You'll LOVE it or your money back!

[Servo]

Wow!!!

[Knight]

Originally Posted by Jefferson

(Yes, Bob IS a year behind the news, and hadn't heard about MSU's Museum of the Rockies excavation of a Tyrannosaurus Rex with soft tissue, blood cells, and blood vessels!)

It's better to be one year behind than 65 million behind.

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Originally Posted by Jefferson

Add this to the list of blatant proofs against evolutionist million-year old dates!

I thought this had already been discussed. Oh well.

So, Jeffy, just why is it a "blatant [proof] against evolutionist million-year old dates"?

[Knight]

Originally Posted by Dr. Hfuhruhurr

I thought this had already been discussed. Oh well.

So, Jeffy, just why is it a "blatant [proof] against evolutionist million-year old dates"?

I rest my case.

[lovemeorhateme]

Originally Posted by Knight

It's better to be one year behind than 65 million behind.

[death2impiety]

Originally Posted by Dr. Hfuhruhurr

I thought this had already been discussed. Oh well.

So, Jeffy, just why is it a "blatant [proof] against evolutionist million-year old dates"?

Talk about willfull ignorance...

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Obviously the question is too much of a stumper for some of the kids here---falling back on ad homs being the dead give away of course.
I think I best wait until the adults show up. But, thanks anyway for giving me a peek at the upper limits of your intellect. Kind of explains why you believe in Christianity. (There aren't all that many reasons, you know, and the inability to think for one's self ranks right up there near the top. Happy lock-step-thinking-to-the-pied-piper, guys.)

[Lucky]

Originally Posted by Dr. Hfuhruhurr

Obviously the question is too much of a stumper for some of the kids here---falling back on ad homs being the dead give away of course.
I think I best wait until the adults show up. But, thanks anyway for giving me a peek at the upper limits of your intellect. Kind of explains why you believe in Christianity. (There aren't all that many reasons, you know, and the inability to think for one's self ranks right up there near the top. Happy lock-step-thinking-to-the-pied-piper, guys.)

How to make a hypocritical post in 2 easy steps!

Step 1: Make it known you don't approve of using ad hominem.
Step 2: Use ad hominem.

[Stripe]

dinosaur bones are proof of christ's divinity .. you heard it direct from doc. huffingpuff.

[heartless_Adam]

I dont get it? The link says the fossil is 70 million years old. It also speaks about the simalarity between dino and bird cells, which there shouldnt be if evolution doesnt link the two. Im just not seeing the argument here, are you saying its because it should have been stone because it was fossilised? well 'how' had it been fossilised? where did thet find it? was it in the ice? in a marsh? these things naturally mumify the subjects.

[heartless_Adam]

Thew second link also talks about assumptions that come with theorys, that this wasn't unique, but it had never been checked for before because it was just expected not to be there. So the idea that fossilisation leads to being completely changed to stone = an asumption. so How can you say that millions of years worth of fossilisation = being completely being turned to stone?

[heartless_Adam]

And dont get me wrong here, I know I sound exactly like the sceptics the second link refers to who refuse to change their view. I'm not being dissmissive, I'm just curious, I also note that the first link is nbc (which i know isnt a great news center or anything, but at least its to an extent objective) where as the second site is evolutionist to begin with, and doesnt actually seem to have any of the first hand opinions of any of the people doing the actual research.

[Granite]

Citing the almighty Walt Brown does nothing to help Enyart's credibility...

[Stripe]

of what ive read theres not much wrong with what walt brown has written