Death pose

[Anonymous No.15311973]

Non-avian dinosaur and bird fossils are frequently found in a characteristic posture consisting of head thrown back, tail extended, and mouth wide open. The cause of this posture—often called a "death pose"—has been a matter of scientific debate.

A study conducted by Alicia Cutler, Brooks B. Britt, and colleagues from Brigham Young University in Provo, Utah, suggests that the pose is a result of submersion in water after death.[4] Seconds after placing chicken carcasses in water, the bodies assumed the "death pose." The reduction of friction to allow ligaments and tendons to contract to their typical positions causes dorsoflexion of the head and tail of the animal. They also found that the chickens' claws contracted, likely due to the same cause (reduction of friction in water allows ligaments to return to their original positions, and death releases muscle tension that would have held the neck and claws in different positions in life). The experiment was replicated with an emu, which produced the same results. When the intervertebral ligaments of the chickens' necks were cut, they did not assume the death pose.

[Anonymous No.15311984]

Marine fossils are found well above sea level all over the world, including the peaks of mountains.

This is because a global flood once covered the Earth

https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/high-dry-sea-creatures/

[Anonymous No.15311988]

Soft tissue and blood cells are found in dinosaur bones

No, it's not fake

Evolutionists wanted to claim it's fake but now have shifted their stance to "soft tissue can just be preserved 60 million years" (it can't)

https://youtu.be/UM82qxxskZE?t=3510

[Anonymous No.15311993]

Carbon-14 is found in diamonds, fossils, and coal, despite carbon-14 being able to last at most a few hundred thousands years

No, it's not contamination

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/7-carbon-14-in-fossils-coal-and-diamonds/

[Anonymous No.15311994]

The only evidence for old Earth dates comes from radiometric dating, which is based on false assumptions

Rocks of known age give drastically wrong dates

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/

[Anonymous No.15311998]

There is layers of rocks supposedly laid down separately over millions of years that are bent

If this was true they couldn't bend, they would crack.

These layers were formed rapidly during the global flood.

PhD geologist and young-earth creationist:

https://answersresearchjournal.org/geology/carbon-canyon-fold-arizona/

[Anonymous No.15312011]

Coelacanths were thought to have become extinct in the Late Cretaceous, around 66 million years ago, but were discovered living off the coast of South Africa in 1938.

Guess science was wrong on that one huh?

[Anonymous No.15312015]

This is a stegosaur carving from a temple in cambodia ~900 years ago

It is next to other average animals like goats

There is countless depictions of people in the not-too-distant past living with dinosaurs

https://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/

[Anonymous No.15312090]

>>15311973
Thanks for the info on death pose
Everything else here is garbage info

[Anonymous No.15312140]

>>15311984
Not gonna comment on the flood, but this body strongly suggests they must have walked upright after all.

[Anonymous No.15312239]

>>15311984
>This is because a global flood once covered the Earth
No, retard, it's because tectonics pushed land that was once underwater upwards.

[Anonymous No.15312242]

>>15312239
No it's because the specific God that my parents made me worship created the Earth 5000 years ago and then flooded it to kill all the giants, unicorns and homosexuals. The bible is immutable fact as written in the original American language and literally impossible to disprove (this makes it better than science which is falsifiable by definition)

[Anonymous No.15312278]

>>15312090
>>15312140
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235972937_Re-evaluating_Moodie's_Opisthotonic-Posture_Hypothesis_in_Fossil_Vertebrates_Part_I_Reptiles-the_taphonomy_of_the_bipedal_dinosaurs_Compsognathus_longipes_and_Juravenator_starki_from_the_Solnhofen_Arc

It's a result of buyancy and dying in water. Which is where the overwhelming majority of our fossils originate from, though not absolutely all of them. So no upright walking needed either. Obviously the disparate time table, differences in sedimentation, and "literally everything the fuck else" precludes a global flood. Not even worth bothering on that.

[Anonymous No.15312309]

>>15312278
Why are there no dinasaurs in the bible then?

[Anonymous No.15312312]

>>15312309
And also human and mammoth fossils with the same characteristics?

[Anonymous No.15312319]

>>15312312
There are mammoths flash-frozen in ice with the food in their stomachs still fresh.

[Anonymous No.15312331]

>>15312278
I'm not talking about the posture as it appears in tje fosil. It seems completely impossible that something with this body geometry could walk horizontally without falling on its face.

[Anonymous No.15312333]

>>15312319
Yes, but where are the fossils? If they lived around the same time as the dinasaurs there should be the same type of fossils, right?
Fully turner into stone and stuff

[Anonymous No.15312341]

>>15312333
>Yes, but where are the fossils?
What do you mean "where are the fossils?" Have you never seen a mammoth fossil before? They're very common.

[Anonymous No.15312369]

>>15312331
Oh that. Sorry that's just kind of out of left field. Don't know about that. Just happened to know that factoid regarding opisthotonic posture.

[Anonymous No.15312395]

>>15311988
Fascinating documentary.

[Anonymous No.15312420]

>>15312341
But are they indistinguishable from dinasaur fossils in terms of their physical and chemical properties?

[Anonymous No.15312422]

>>15312420
Are you asking this question genuinely?

[Anonymous No.15312435]

Did you think you were going to somehow trick people with a normal informative OP followed by your gay christcuck nonsense?

[Anonymous No.15312493]

>>15312422
Yes, I'm ignorant on the subject

[Anonymous No.15312496]

>>15312493
Then for as much as it concerns a layman, yes. There are mammoth fossils in the sense you understand the existence of dinosaur fossils.

[Anonymous No.15312516]

>>15312496
I'm not a layman, just not an archaeologist. I have biological background
Well why then there are both mammoth fossils and mammoth bones and even flash frozen mammoths, but no such thing for dinasaurs? You would expect at least some small bone to not fossilize if they went extinct not long ago

You see where I'm going with this, right?
Or are you the adherent of the Curvier theory of mass cataclysms?

[Anonymous No.15312543]

>>15312420
>But are they indistinguishable from dinasaur fossils in terms of their physical and chemical properties?
NTA. If you truly do have a biological background you should know the importance of having an overview to contextualize particulars, as well as understand them and their relation to the whole picture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil#Fossilization_processes
With respect to fossilization processes the ones you would see from dinosaurs prior to the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event, and I assume you primarily mean the non-avian dinosaurs. You're of course not going to find something like a mammoth fossilized exactly as something 66 million years old or older. Naturally the younger your examples get within standard windows, so we're not talking about exceptional cases here, you see degrees and gradients of those processes.

So to answer your question in a way that makes sense, yes fossils are fossils and how old they are determines the matter of the degree of the various processes of course. So yes, yes they are. "Fossil" is not synonymous with "permineralized" keep that in mind, in case there was confusion on that.
>Well why then there are both mammoth fossils and mammoth bones and even flash frozen mammoths, but no such thing for dinasaurs?
Because Earth tends to get very hot as well as very cold, and to have any such kind would have required sudden rapid freezing that stuck until modern day. Plus all kinds of implausible luck and happenstance to somehow preserve such a specimen over hundreds millions of years or even ten million years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_glaciation
As you'll note, the cretaceous was an interglacial period and had no glaciers to speak of.

So for anything of the kind to occur would first require extremely cold weather adapted species, sudden freezing and stable burial of some kind, and never thawing out thereafter or otherwise being disturbed or subsumed by any other process.

[Anonymous No.15312578]

>>15312516
Why are there flash-frozen mammoths at all? Their diet indicates they were eating temperate meadow flowers when they died, and yet they were struck with a sudden cold snap so severe that it created the permafrost layer they were buried in which lasts until this very day. It's a mystery for the ages.

[Anonymous No.15312579]

>>15312543
>wikipedia
low iq & gullible
>Estimated IQ: 107
and in the iq range of ppl who can't tell the difference between fiction and nonfiction

[Anonymous No.15312599]

>>15312578
>Why are there flash-frozen mammoths at all? Their diet indicates they were eating temperate meadow flowers when they died, and yet they were struck with a sudden cold snap so severe that it created the permafrost layer they were buried in which lasts until this very day. It's a mystery for the ages.
NTA. I'm unfamiliar with this one. I swear I've seen some myth like it parroted around before in the days of yore but I can't for the life of me remember.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammoth_specimens
Which mammoth specimen are you even referring to?

[Anonymous No.15312622]

>>15311994
T. Low iq christian redneck who doesn't understand evolutionary biology

[Anonymous No.15312943]

>>15312239
How did the fossils get there in that position explicitly? Fossilization takes place in only very specific conditions. One requires that the animals were submerged in water, mud, tar, etc in a specific way such that they don't decay. At the same time, these were all land animals who are found in places that were never believed to be submerged in water according to the timeline proposed in geology. Rather those places were above water for the vast majority of time.

[Anonymous No.15312964]

>>15312943
>At the same time, these were all land animals who are found in places that were never believed to be submerged in water according to the timeline proposed in geology. Rather those places were above water for the vast majority of time.
Name one single example rather than vague generalities and asspull claims.

[Anonymous No.15312974]

>>15312622
Basic logic implies that your statement is so far form being an argument that it doesn't mean anything. If a theory requires a minimum geological timeline and that timeline can be called into question, then there is a challenge to the validity of the theory regardless of whatever mechanistic processes are claimed to be part of the theory's proposed processes. You do not even have to understand any mechanistic processes to question a theory. You can question it on premises alone. If premises are found faulty, then that is sufficient reason for anyone to reject the conclusions of a theory. And yes, all of these geological, evolutionary, and cosmological theories have assumptions. Some like to pretend these assumptions do exist, but they are there for anyone who is not gullible enough to fall of for the blatantly false claim that "science does not rely on assumptions."

[Anonymous No.15312980]

>>15312964
Most of the land that composes North America where many of those fossils are found for example was above sea level.

[Anonymous No.15312987]

>>15312980
>Most of the land that composes North America where many of those fossils are found for example was above sea level.
NOW. They are above sea level NOW. Always the same lies with you people.

[Anonymous No.15313020]

>>15312309
Behemoth is explicitly a sauropod, no other animal living or extinct matches the description, they had hollow neck bones like "tubes" btw.

“Behold, Behemoth, which I made as well as you;
He eats grass like an ox.
Behold, his strength in his waist,
And his power in the muscles of his belly.
He hangs his tail like a cedar;
The tendons of his thighs are knit together.
His bones are tubes of bronze;
His limbs are like bars of iron.
“He is the first of the ways of God;
Let his Maker bring His sword near.
Indeed the mountains bring him food,
And all the animals of the field play there.
He lies down under the lotus plants,
In the hiding place of the reeds and the marsh.
The lotus plants cover him with shade;
The willows of the brook surround him.
If a river rages, he is not alarmed;
He is confident, though the Jordan rushes to his mouth.
Can anyone capture him when he is on watch,
Can anyone pierce his nose with barbs?

[Anonymous No.15313033]

[Anonymous No.15313052]

>>15311984
>https://answersingenesis.org
Mmm, credible.

[Anonymous No.15313058]

>>15313020
>Behemoth is explicitly a sauropod
No, actually, it's a hippo. If you don't use a shit translation that deliberately twists the description or mistranslates the words via ignorance of local fauna the description matches a hippo.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/behemoth
Also the etymology is probably derivative or shared with egyptian or similar meaning hippo.

[Anonymous No.15313064]

>>15313058
Fun fact: "hippopotamus" is Greek for "water horse."

The Greeks were kind of shit at naming things.

[Anonymous No.15313073]

>>15313058
Hippos and elephants have tiny tails

Certainly not tails like a cedar tree

[Anonymous No.15313077]

>>15313064
Well a lot of cultures kind of went with things like that, and most of the names for things were in some form descriptive compound words that became nonsense and so became words we use now. Egyptian for example meant water-ox.

Meanwhile now "Behemoth" means nothing to us except as a string of letters with a given definition.

[Anonymous No.15313095]

>>15313073
>Certainly not tails like a cedar tree
"Moves like" is not "big as". Do you really just ignore everything but what fits your narrative?

[Anonymous No.15313096]

>>15313095
Well, hangs like a cedar I meant. Same thing if you consider hanging a kind of movement but in any case you know what I meant.

[Anonymous No.15313106]

>>15313095
>Do you really just ignore everything but what fits your narrative?

Highly ironic considering you're ignoring that every translation says it has a tail like a cedar tree

This rules out hippos and elephants, you can just drop that idea.

[Anonymous No.15313110]

>>15313106
>Highly ironic considering you're ignoring that every translation says it has a tail like a cedar tree
No, I am not. I went with your translation. The hebrew, sofar as I can figure, doesn't say anything about hanging or movement.

But that means you've a whole new problem: In WHAT WAY is it like a cedar tree? You shot yourself in the foot and frankly I was just about to mention the hebrew thing if you kept harping on that stupidity.
>This rules out hippos and elephants, you can just drop that idea.
Nope. Doesn't specify in what way it is. The etymology is either from or in common with hippos.

Plus that whole little problem where non-avian dinosaurs died out ~66 million years ago?

[Anonymous No.15313124]

>>15313106
>This rules out hippos and elephants, you can just drop that idea.
I'm also just fed up with the stupidity of ignoring half the description. Let's just re-quote your own scripture shall we?
--
He lies down under the lotus plants,
In the hiding place of the reeds and the marsh.
The lotus plants cover him with shade;
The willows of the brook surround him.
If a river rages, he is not alarmed;
He is confident, though the Jordan rushes to his mouth.
Can anyone capture him when he is on watch,
Can anyone pierce his nose with barbs?
--
Gee that totally doesn't sound like a hippo at all I guess-- no wait that is literally a fucking hippo numbnuts. What the fuck else do you think lives in rivers among reeds and marshes.

By the way, exactly what fucking lotus plants could hide a sauropod? What reeds? In what universe?
>>15313106
>Highly ironic
That you ignore half your own bible's description just to peddle a lie.

[Anonymous No.15313144]

>>15313124
>By the way, exactly what fucking lotus plants could hide a sauropod? What reeds? In what universe?
A sauropod sitting in a large river, mostly submerged.

The Jordan is something like 15% as big as it once was btw

Not all saurpods were that massive either.

[Anonymous No.15313150]

>>15313144
>A sauropod sitting in a large river, mostly submerged.
Reeds grow in shallow water, numbnuts.
>Not all saurpods were that massive either.
You know what makes a lot more sense than claiming it was describing a baby sauropod? A hippo.

[Anonymous No.15313158]

>>15313150
>Reeds grow in shallow water, numbnuts.

Are you just pretending to be dumb?

>In the hiding place of the reeds and the marsh.

This means directly right under the reeds? You're clearly too dumb to read the bible even as a skeptic.

It can't be a hippo, elephant, giraffe, or rhino because they all have small tails and behemoth has a tail like a cedar tree. Why are you so upset? You can just drop that idea.

[Anonymous No.15313188]

>>15313158
>Are you just pretending to be dumb?
>This means directly right under the reeds? You're clearly too dumb to read the bible even as a skeptic.
Are you a bot or something? A hippo can hide in marshes among reeds because it's small enough to be obscured by them. A sauropod sure as fuck could not.

[Anonymous No.15313212]

>>15311993
>No, it's not contamination
The signals are below threshold of measurement uncertainty. It's practically impossible for a measurement to come out to exactly zero.

[Anonymous No.15313215]

>>15311998
>they couldn't bend, they would crack
says who?

[Anonymous No.15313222]

>>15312011
>Guess science was wrong on that one huh?
Not anymore, because its conclusions can change with new information. How's the bible's creation myth holding up?

[Anonymous No.15313223]

>>15313020
In Russian behemoth (бeгeмoт) is the word hippo, anon

[Anonymous No.15313249]

>>15313064
English would never do such a thing.

[Anonymous No.15313258]

>>15312987
>>15312239
But why would a land animal like the one in the pic somehow get to a plate deep underwater?

[Anonymous No.15313277]

>>15313258
NTA. These animals most likely died in marshy environments and sank into mud where there would be very little oxygen.

[Anonymous No.15313378]

>>15313258
>But why would a land animal like the one in the pic somehow get to a plate deep underwater?
What got where underwater? What? See >>15313277 the vast majority of fossil finds are marine animals, probably over 99%, and of land animals they're overwhelmingly fragmentary with exceptionally few extremely lucky (unlucky for the animal) cases of very rapid preservation. Such as with sudden mud slides or floods managing to bury animals in mud and the like as examples.

[Anonymous No.15313667]

>>15311973
This is based OP. We should have honest discussions about interesting things like this or the things Discovery Institute writes about. They are progressive creationists I think.

[Anonymous No.15313682]

>>15311994
People will never address this point (because they can't). The inability to date objects of known age is the bane of all scientists, from climate science to paleontology.

[Anonymous No.15313754]

>>15312015
or a crocodile

[Anonymous No.15315489]

>most "fossils" in displayed in museums are openly plaster sculptures
>they have been making fake "fossils" in china for decade as commodities
>"fossils" appeared exactly when the theories they are integral to were fabricated
>mfw dinosaurs

[Anonymous No.15315498]

>>15312974
>rocks bending slowly would cause them to crack unlike bending them quickly
youre an english major at best who just wants to troll /sci/ with religion v science posting to stroke your ego thinking you got one over the mods and the plebs

shut the fuck up faggot

[Anonymous No.15315600]

>>15313754
What kind of fucked up Crocs have you been looking at?

[Anonymous No.15316617]

>>15313667
>They are progressive creationists I think.
Nvm the Discovery Institute doesn't have a fixed view on how creation happened but they all believe in intelligent design.

[Anonymous No.15316676]

this is a discord tranny thread, but creationists, isn't it?
you're all a bunch of 13-17 year old discord users who think you're based and redpilled, lmao.

[Anonymous No.15316692]

>>15316617
>Nvm the Discovery Institute doesn't have a fixed view on how creation happened but they all believe in intelligent design.
That institution is the embodiment of motte-and-bailey rhetoric.

[Anonymous No.15317083]

>>15312242
The so-called Great flood story predates Christianity, and exists in cultures and religions across the globe. That doesn't mean it's true, for example the reason that all these stories supposedly happened about the same time could just be a particularly rainy period where a lot of different, smaller floods happened in a number of places.

In the future, keep your snark and sarcasm for topics you actually know about, if any. Or, if you just want to rebel against your parents by complaining about Christianity, I recommend /r/atheism

I'm not even Christian, but smug midwits who post generic bullshit in search of social approval, like yourself, are insufferable.

[Anonymous No.15317118]

>>15311973
>anything that died in water must have died in the flood. Forget the fact rivers provide good preservation conditions and are frequented by large animals
>>15312011
>but were discovered living off the coast of South Africa in 1938.
The coelacanth species alive today only popped up relatively recently, they did not exist 66 million years ago
>>15311998
>If this was true they couldn't bend, they would crack.
That’s exactly why they can bend. What makes you think they could bend rapidly but not slowly?
>>15312015
>animal with large ears, small sloped tail, short neck and massive head is a stegosaurus
>stegosaurus had no ears, a large erect tail, a long neck and a tiny head
>also stegosaurus didn’t live in Asia
That carving is of a likely of wild boar or rhino, all the other animal carvings in the same temple have plants behind them. The plates are leaves

[Anonymous No.15317122]

>>15317083
Or alternatively different cultures have different flood stories because places in different parts of the world tend to flood occasionally. Kinda like how lots of different cultures have stories about how the stars, sun, moon, etc exist because we can all see the moon, or stories about why earthquakes and volcanic eruptions happen

[Anonymous No.15317126]

>>15315489
>you can find your own fossils relatively easily if you know where to look
I don’t know how to tell you this anon, but a T. rex is not a Jewish conspiracy

[Anonymous No.15317128]

>>15313158
>behemoth has a tail like a cedar tree
You may want to read up on the translation, because it can also be interpreted as having a penis like a cedar tree. Go look up elephant cocks

[Anonymous No.15317756]

>>15317128
>Go look up elephant cocks
No.

[Anonymous No.15317948]

>>15317118
>That carving is of a likely of wild boar or rhino, all the other animal carvings in the same temple have plants behind them. The plates are leaves

There's another carving at the same temple

"The plates are leaves" is debunked

https://www.genesispark.com/the-stegosaur-engravings-at-ta-prohm/

[Anonymous No.15317960]

>>15317118
>The coelacanth species alive today only popped up relatively recently, they did not exist 66 million years ago

They look exactly the same as the fossils dating to 60 million years ago. They are the same animal.

Horseshoe crabs also look the same as fossils of them dating 400 million years ago, evolutionists cope by saying "they're just perfect so they didn't need to change" even though that same biological force (random mutation) supposedly turned fish into humans in 200 million years.

What we observe is animals lose genetic information time by the way, not gain it.

>What makes you think they could bend rapidly but not slowly?

Go lay down concrete, let it harden, then try to bend it.

[Anonymous No.15317968]

>>15311973
So this implies they were drowned?

I guess some type of flood may have killed most of them.

[Anonymous No.15318286]

>>15317960
>They look exactly the same as the fossils dating to 60 million years ago. They are the same animal.
That isn't how that works. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth#Timeline_of_genera
Notice how the fossil evidence and estimated timeline for divergences continue to show further derivation? It is neither the same animal genetically nor is it truly the same animal morphologically. Rather, it is an example of convergent evolution.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/bies.201200145
Which you'd know if you were honest. "Living fossil" does not mean "is literally the same species".
>Horseshoe crabs also look the same as fossils of them dating 400 million years ago, evolutionists cope by saying "they're just perfect so they didn't need to change"
Your lying about what scientists say is not anyone coping but you.

[Anonymous No.15319453]

>>15317948
>plates are leaves are debunked
So every other carving of an animal or person just has leaves except the “stegosaurus” that was living half a world away from where stegosaurus actually lived?
>>15317960
>They look exactly the same as the fossils dating to 60 million years ago. They are the same animal.
>Horseshoe crabs also look the same as fossils of them dating 400 million years ago
No they don’t, at least not to anyone who knows anything about anatomy. Coelacanths from prehistory showed a huge amount of diversity, these ones only appeared in the Pleistocene. You couldn’t tell the difference between two species of modern coelacanths or horseshoe crabs just by looking at them, what makes you think you can identify the extinct ones to species level and that they’re the same as the modern species?
>evolutionists cope by saying "they're just perfect so they didn't need to change" even though that same biological force (random mutation) supposedly turned fish into humans in 200 million years.
Way to show you have no fucking idea what you’re talking about
>Go lay down concrete, let it harden, then try to bend it.
>how can the earth under the foundations of my house have shifted? The ground hasn’t even cracked!
Kek

[Anonymous No.15319457]

>>15319453
>So every other carving of an animal or person just has leaves except the “stegosaurus” that was living half a world away from where stegosaurus actually lived?
Those look nothing alike. You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to pass that off as the same kind of carving.

[Anonymous No.15319461]

>>15311984
>This is because a global flood once covered the Earth
Behold! A worldwide flood!

[Anonymous No.15319466]

>>15319457
But they’re from the same temple in the exact same style with the exact same leaves behind people and other animals? They are the same type of carving. Regardless even the first one looks nothing like a stegosaurus if you actually know what a stegosaurus looked like, last I checked they don’t have big ears and a fat head

[Anonymous No.15319468]

>>15319466
>with the exact same leaves
Anon, you showed us a photograph. If you're going to lie you usually pretend not to have evidence instead of showing evidence that proves you're lying.

[Anonymous No.15319484]

>>15319468
I’m sorry anon, I didn’t realise you’re visually impaired. Do you want me to go break a chunk of rock off the ancient temple so you can touch it?

[Anonymous No.15319658]

>>15317948
>"The plates are leaves" is debunked
Cope

[Anonymous No.15319663]

>>15319484
>Do you want me to go break a chunk of rock off the ancient temple so you can touch it?
Not him, but yes, I'd love this so long as I get to keep it afterward.

[Anonymous No.15319666]

>>15319484
>want me to
Saves me the defacement or looting charges.

[Anonymous No.15319952]

>>15319666
>devil’s trips
You are clearly a false creationist sent here to make god’s children look dumb. While you are certainly dumb, you can’t trick us Satan

[Anonymous No.15319957]

>>15319468
>If you're going to lie you usually pretend not to have evidence instead of showing evidence that proves you're lying.
what the fuck does this mean? In what way is posting a picture not evidence, you posted pictures of the carvings to back your point up as well retard

[Anonymous No.15319982]

>>15311973
>A study conducted by Alicia Cutler, Brooks B. Britt, and colleagues from Brigham Young University
stopped reading there
mormonoids are subhuman

[Anonymous No.15319988]

>>15311973
Most fossils are created by mud so inherently most fossils came from animals that drowned.

[Anonymous No.15319991]

>>15312309
Because it's a Jewish cope book made up to make themselves feel better about being blown the fuck out by Babylon.

[Anonymous No.15320052]

>>15319991
Are Babylonians the reptilians?

[Anonymous No.15321570]

>this kills the creationist

[Anonymous No.15321648]

>>15321570
How? This is just a chart of different animals.

Different animals have similarities just like an engineer re-uses design concepts

If all cats were extinct today, they'd line up their remains and make the same baseless claim that they evolved into one another.

[Anonymous No.15321740]

>>15321648
Cat skulls don't vary as much as those fossil proto-whales.
Anyway why talk to you, you're a glownigger sent to ruin /sci/. Tomorrow you'll be posting chitin threads on /pol/

[Anonymous No.15321838]

>>15311973
How do you expect a fossil to be formed other than in water?

[Anonymous No.15322242]

>>15321648
>If all cats were extinct today, they'd line up their remains and make the same baseless claim that they evolved into one another.
That’s a very roundabout way to say you don’t understand how anatomy works