Is it possible to clone a dinosaur? Live Science

[Hollie]

What dinosaur sightings have zoologists disregarded?

Who, exactly, has made a recent dinosaur sighting?

You haven't contribute anything to this thread, but harass me. Even if I answered your questions, you would not believe it because you're like Fort Fun Indiana. And what did I say about him?

Your only contribution to the thread amounts to emotional outbursts. This thread is not about your hurt feelings.

Because you’re unable to support your specious claims, you should move on to bible thumping elsewhere.

 

[Hollie]

Evolution or atheist science thinks dinos can be cloned. Creation scientists know this is not possible because one needs a living embryo cell of the dino. Right now, they don't have one until we find a living dino and capture it. There you go.

Religious cranks you call creationists do no research and do not publish in peer reviewed journals.

They know nothing because they research nothing.

There you go.

 

[Hollie]

so one kind of animal changing into a completly different kind of animal isnt supernatural???

well its a natural thing that all animals only give birth to their kind and not to another kind, so to say anything else implies the supernatural

There is no supernatural component to the ToE, whatever you chose to believe. Note that 'kind' is not a scientific concept so you've already gone off the rails.

evolution claiming that a cow turned into a whale is nothing but supernatural,,and many other examples,,the funniest is t-rex turned into a chicken,,,GRRRRRR CLUCK CLUCK,,

Identify specifically where “evolution claiming that a cow turned into a whale”.

I’m presuming this is another of your nonsense claims but here’s a chance to show you’re not making just another nonsense claim.

 

[Hollie]

Nothing supernatural about speciation,,,, Obviously, they didn't touch that subject at your madrassah,,,,,,,,,

Atheists are wrong again. Supernatural only applies to God doing something.

It's not natural when monkeys became humans and dinosaurs became birds. It was also not natural when an universe popped into existence from nothing. You can't replicate any of these things. It's not natural to clone dinosaurs or even extinct species from DNA and no living ancestor to take embryo cells from. It's not natural for nature to create multiverses and aliens. It's not natural to have billions of years old universe and Earth based on assumptions. It's not natural to go back in time. And more!

Monkeys never became humans. Why are you making nonsense claims?

Why are you arguing against the science you don’t understand and have no knowledge of?

It’s not natural to assign your various supernatural gods as the cause of natural events.

Identify a single supernatural occurrence in nature. Just one.

Thanks.

 

[alang1216]

so one kind of animal changing into a completly different kind of animal isnt supernatural???

well its a natural thing that all animals only give birth to their kind and not to another kind, so to say anything else implies the supernatural

There is no supernatural component to the ToE, whatever you chose to believe. Note that 'kind' is not a scientific concept so you've already gone off the rails.

evolution claiming that a cow turned into a whale is nothing but supernatural,,and many other examples,,the funniest is t-rex turned into a chicken,,,GRRRRRR CLUCK CLUCK,,

I think it was a hippo ancestor that turned into a whale but you neglected to mention the million or so species that it turned into on its way to becoming a whale.

 

[progressive hunter]

so one kind of animal changing into a completly different kind of animal isnt supernatural???

well its a natural thing that all animals only give birth to their kind and not to another kind, so to say anything else implies the supernatural

There is no supernatural component to the ToE, whatever you chose to believe. Note that 'kind' is not a scientific concept so you've already gone off the rails.

evolution claiming that a cow turned into a whale is nothing but supernatural,,and many other examples,,the funniest is t-rex turned into a chicken,,,GRRRRRR CLUCK CLUCK,,

I think it was a hippo ancestor that turned into a whale but you neglected to mention the million or so species that it turned into on its way to becoming a whale.

there is no proof they turned into anything before or after,,, thats all a fairy tale

 

[alang1216]

I think it was a hippo ancestor that turned into a whale but you neglected to mention the million or so species that it turned into on its way to becoming a whale.

there is no proof they turned into anything before or after,,, thats all a fairy tale

If you're looking for proof you should study math. If you're looking for fairy tales you should study religion.

If you're looking for evidence of whale evolution look here:

For more than a century, our knowledge of the whale fossil record was so sparse that no one could be certain what the ancestors of whales looked like. Now the tide has turned. In the space of just three decades, a flood of new fossils has filled in the gaps in our knowledge to turn the origin of whales into one of the best-documented examples of large-scale evolutionary change in the fossil record. These ancestral creatures were stranger than anyone ever expected. There was no straight-line march of terrestrial mammals leading up to fully aquatic whales, but an evolutionary riot of amphibious cetaceans that walked and swam along rivers, estuaries and the coasts of prehistoric Asia. As strange as modern whales are, their fossil predecessors were even stranger.
Read more: How Did Whales Evolve? | Science | Smithsonian​

 

[progressive hunter]

I think it was a hippo ancestor that turned into a whale but you neglected to mention the million or so species that it turned into on its way to becoming a whale.

there is no proof they turned into anything before or after,,, thats all a fairy tale

If you're looking for proof you should study math. If you're looking for fairy tales you should study religion.

If you're looking for evidence of whale evolution look here:

For more than a century, our knowledge of the whale fossil record was so sparse that no one could be certain what the ancestors of whales looked like. Now the tide has turned. In the space of just three decades, a flood of new fossils has filled in the gaps in our knowledge to turn the origin of whales into one of the best-documented examples of large-scale evolutionary change in the fossil record. These ancestral creatures were stranger than anyone ever expected. There was no straight-line march of terrestrial mammals leading up to fully aquatic whales, but an evolutionary riot of amphibious cetaceans that walked and swam along rivers, estuaries and the coasts of prehistoric Asia. As strange as modern whales are, their fossil predecessors were even stranger.
Read more: How Did Whales Evolve? | Science | Smithsonian​

fossils dont prove what they gave birth to,,all they prove is something died and got buried,,,
not to mention its not science if you cant observe it,,its religion

 

[alang1216]

fossils dont prove what they gave birth to,,all they prove is something died and got buried,,,
not to mention its not science if you cant observe it,,its religion

Fossils can provide a lot of information to a trained eye. You're obviously not one and don't care to be. Your willful ignorance is apparent.

I guess you consider electrons and gravity to be religious objects and not scientific since neither can be directly observed.

 

[progressive hunter]

fossils dont prove what they gave birth to,,all they prove is something died and got buried,,,
not to mention its not science if you cant observe it,,its religion

Fossils can provide a lot of information to a trained eye. You're obviously not one and don't care to be. Your willful ignorance is apparent.

I guess you consider electrons and gravity to be religious objects and not scientific since neither can be directly observed.

we can observe many things about those two,,but at no time has it ever been observed in any way one kind of animal giving birth to another,,,thats what makes it a fairy tale

 

[alang1216]

we can observe many things about those two,,but at no time has it ever been observed in any way one kind of animal giving birth to another,,,thats what makes it a fairy tale

Again 'kind' is not a science term. A more accurate statement would be that the product of sexual reproduction is never exactly the same as either parent. It is likely that the earliest homo sapiens looked pretty similar. They are still the same species but there is plenty of variation. Where did that variation come from and what if it continues for a million generations?

 

[progressive hunter]

we can observe many things about those two,,but at no time has it ever been observed in any way one kind of animal giving birth to another,,,thats what makes it a fairy tale

Again 'kind' is not a science term. A more accurate statement would be that the product of sexual reproduction is never exactly the same as either parent. It is likely that the earliest homo sapiens looked pretty similar. They are still the same species but there is plenty of variation. Where did that variation come from and what if it continues for a million generations?

if you want to believe in magic then go right ahead,,just dont call it science and teach it as fact at tax payer expense,,,

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

we can observe many things about those two,,but at no time has it ever been observed in any way one kind of animal giving birth to another,,,thats what makes it a fairy tale

Again 'kind' is not a science term. A more accurate statement would be that the product of sexual reproduction is never exactly the same as either parent. It is likely that the earliest homo sapiens looked pretty similar. They are still the same species but there is plenty of variation. Where did that variation come from and what if it continues for a million generations?

if you want to believe in magic then go right ahead,,just dont call it science and teach it as fact at tax payer expense,,,

Haha...tough shit, troll. We do and will continue to do just that.

 

[progressive hunter]

we can observe many things about those two,,but at no time has it ever been observed in any way one kind of animal giving birth to another,,,thats what makes it a fairy tale

Again 'kind' is not a science term. A more accurate statement would be that the product of sexual reproduction is never exactly the same as either parent. It is likely that the earliest homo sapiens looked pretty similar. They are still the same species but there is plenty of variation. Where did that variation come from and what if it continues for a million generations?

if you want to believe in magic then go right ahead,,just dont call it science and teach it as fact at tax payer expense,,,

Haha...tough shit, troll. We do and will continue to do just that.

thanks for admitting its all magic with no proof and only in your mind

 

[alang1216]

Again 'kind' is not a science term. A more accurate statement would be that the product of sexual reproduction is never exactly the same as either parent. It is likely that the earliest homo sapiens looked pretty similar. They are still the same species but there is plenty of variation. Where did that variation come from and what if it continues for a million generations?

if you want to believe in magic then go right ahead,,just dont call it science and teach it as fact at tax payer expense,,,

I believe you can't answer simple questions. Doesn't that concern you? I am certainly worried about you.

 

[progressive hunter]

Again 'kind' is not a science term. A more accurate statement would be that the product of sexual reproduction is never exactly the same as either parent. It is likely that the earliest homo sapiens looked pretty similar. They are still the same species but there is plenty of variation. Where did that variation come from and what if it continues for a million generations?

if you want to believe in magic then go right ahead,,just dont call it science and teach it as fact at tax payer expense,,,

I believe you can't answer simple questions. Doesn't that concern you? I am certainly worried about you.

sorry but I dont play make believe,,,

and "kind" is a perfectly acceptable term, the reason you dont like it is it puts a thorn in the whole evo thing

 

[Hollie]

Again 'kind' is not a science term. A more accurate statement would be that the product of sexual reproduction is never exactly the same as either parent. It is likely that the earliest homo sapiens looked pretty similar. They are still the same species but there is plenty of variation. Where did that variation come from and what if it continues for a million generations?

if you want to believe in magic then go right ahead,,just dont call it science and teach it as fact at tax payer expense,,,

I believe you can't answer simple questions. Doesn't that concern you? I am certainly worried about you.

sorry but I dont play make believe,,,

and "kind" is a perfectly acceptable term, the reason you dont like it is it puts a thorn in the whole evo thing

The term "kind" is a nonsensical slogan used by fundamentalist creation ministries. It makes the user appear quite ignorant.

 

[alang1216]

and "kind" is a perfectly acceptable term, the reason you dont like it is it puts a thorn in the whole evo thing

The term "kind" is a perfectly acceptable term in English Lit. class but not in science class. The reason I don't like it is there is no definition of a "kind". Prove me wrong and give me a definition if you can.

 

[progressive hunter]

and "kind" is a perfectly acceptable term, the reason you dont like it is it puts a thorn in the whole evo thing

The term "kind" is a perfectly acceptable term in English Lit. class but not in science class. The reason I don't like it is there is no definition of a "kind". Prove me wrong and give me a definition if you can.

dog,cat,horse,goat,sheep,ardvark,cow,moose,

would you like me to go on???

 

[alang1216]

and "kind" is a perfectly acceptable term, the reason you dont like it is it puts a thorn in the whole evo thing

The term "kind" is a perfectly acceptable term in English Lit. class but not in science class. The reason I don't like it is there is no definition of a "kind". Prove me wrong and give me a definition if you can.

dog,cat,horse,goat,sheep,ardvark,cow,moose,

would you like me to go on???

No need, you shown you can provide "examples" but not a definition. Surprise!

Is kind the same as species (that's an actual science term, you can look up the definition for yourself)? There are many species of cats. Are they all the same "kind"?