Dinosaur skeleton found with skin and soft tissues intact

[Greg]

These "experts" couldn't predict what would happen at y2k with the computers they designed and wrote the software for.  They spent half a trillion dollars "fixing" a "problem" that other advanced countries completely ignored without any real negative consequences.

It was a giant con.  Hyped up by the fake news media.  And the most arrogant, richest countries got scammed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/440754.stm

Yet we are supposed to believe that minds no more intelligent can work out complex biological processes and long term weather and temperature patterns that they DID NOT design and program?

Computers are a lot simpler and easier to test and model than nature.

[misericonfit]

Under certain conditions organic tissue can be preserved for extremely long periods of time. This isn't too schocking.

After 65M years ? is that possible ? Are there known examples of this ?

[John Lamb]

So in reality the words in the Bible were taken seriously enough that for most of Catholic history denying the belief of a created Adam and Eve would have got you censured, kicked out of school or seminary, or even punished for heresy.

The same was true for geocentrism.

Genetic science says we have no first parents.  We are products of lots of parents, and beasts, who could not have committed any sin, nor been free of sin before they committed it.

No, it doesn't.  It says our genetic ancestry can't be traced back to just two, which is a different  thing.

Humani Generis, Pope Pius XII, 1950

When, however, there is question of another conjectural opinion, namely polygenism, the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty. For the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents. Now it is no no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled with that which the sources of revealed truth and the documents of the Teaching Authority of the Church propose with regard to original sin, which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own (Cf. Romans, 5:12-19; Council of Trent, Session V, canon 1-4).

I personally have not seen good evidence for evolution. Most in favor just assert it is an established fact and make allusions to some supposed evidence. The evidence that has been presented to me has been debunked like vestigial organs.

The evidence for directed evolution exists, whether you personally admit it to be good or not.  Vestigial organs (and "junk" DNA, etc.) haven't been "debunked" just because some function has been found for them, contrary to what answersingenesis and the like may triumphantly proclaim.

First, evolution at small scales clearly happens.  It is directly observed.  It is why there is antibiotic-resistant bacteria and nylonase and malarial resistance to quinine.

Before we can even begin to talk about evolution at larger scales which is inferred and not directly observed, we need to agree on the definitions of "good evidence" and "evolution" itself. 

Given two time epochs, with different types of animals existing in each one, there are really only two hypotheses in play (from a theist perspective).

1.  The new animals arose via common descent from the old ones.
2.  The new animals were created de novo by God.

(Combinations of 1. and 2. for different animal types are of course possible).

...

There's two kinds of "evolution".

Micro-evolution, i.e. adaptation.
Macro-evolution, i.e. transformation.

Adaptation and transformation are two essentially different acts/processes.
Adaptation involves changing the accidents or properties of a thing; transformation involves changing its form or nature.

For example,
Adaptation = giving the car a new coat of paint.
Transformation = turning the car into an aeroplane.
Similarly,
Adaptation = a butterfly with bigger wings.
Transformation = a butterfly becomes a rhino.

Micro-evolution / adaptation is within the bounds of nature; Macro-evolution / transformation is not.
It's possible for Micro-evolution to result in wide morphological variance, e.g. the difference between a wolf and a poodle, however, they still belong to the same species.

So yes, the present day species may be very different in appearance to their ancestors due to a long series of Micro-evolutions / adaptations; however, they still belong to the same created species.
Macro-evolution / transformation does not occur in nature and cannot account for the origin of (any) species.