University fires scientist, July 2014

Of course, the burden-of-proof isn't upon anyone to prove a "recent dinosaur", unless one assumes that fragmentary and tenuous, inductive, historical evidence "proves old dinosaurs". Which it doesn't of course, the only people to believe it does are people who conflate the term, "proof" with "evidence" like the person who started the thread did.Any materialist conclusion is acceptable, no matter how silly, (example: abiogenesis) and any Theistic offerings are rejected, no matter how sound.(Overt information code in organisms)As long as people don't confuse the soundness of a claim with all those that are accepted by mainstream science, as opposed to an actual syllogistic offering, then I'm happy. After all, if history had went the other way, then Darwin would have been thrown out if he was alive today. This in itself tells us nothing about the legitimacy of a claim. It should also be pointed out that evolutionists should try to avoid the Ad Logicam fallacy, which they should read up about if they want to know how that would potentially pertain to an issue such as this. I agree. It would be confirmation evidence represented by the consequent in a conditional implication, because we would expect to find preserved, "less old" tissue if the earth and life is younger, as opposed to millions of years older, because it doesn't makes sense to suspend scientific-laws on behalf of a theory.Dinosaur soft tissue and protein--even more confirmation! - creation.com
worm fossils still soft - creation.comOf course the claims in the links, I wouldn't say are "final proof" by any means. Anyone silly enough to take out a strawman-policy against mike might regret it. my only point is that there are genuine scientists that argue strong arguments in favour of young-dinosaurs.I concede the technicality that this would only prove a younger dinosaur, so you made two logically correct statements;1. It wouldn't be proof.
2. It would be evidence of a young organism.

Whereas Percy letting you back into this forum is perhaps not funny, given the majority of your posts seem to contain one sentence and some sort of epithet within that sentence."Loony" and "stupid" are two epithets you have recently used pertaining to Christians that accept the bible as plainly read.Of course epithets are usually used by genuinely stupid people, because the key to an epithet is that the person just has to use an emotive word rather than having to form some sort of argument.

I know, it's one of my weirdisms. I have peculiar creative bursts, then I shut down. I can write a lot NOW while I have the energy, but tomorrow you won't be able to get one sentence out of me, because the energy will be ZERO.I don't value the claims of the opening post, I would say, in fact I haven't even looked into them. But I have to provide some sort of balance so that the Creation-camp are represented in some manner.Nobody can really treat this type of fragmentary evidence as "conclusive" IMHO. There is a great induction of tenuous geo-chronometers for a young earth and an old earth, and in my opinion it's basically a choice one makes. For example, starlight indicates an old universe, but I would employ Modulous's technicality, that this wouldn't necessarily preclude a young earth. Technically one could have an old universe and a young earth. I myself, in regards to the "age-issue" can only give an honest answer, I CHOOSE to accept the young view by faith. I can't know - of course I can't! Nobody can fully know what happened in the past when it comes to such things. IMHO.