a while back, I created a topic about bone tissue found in a t-rex. well, check this out...
Many dinosaur fossils include real bone—they are not completely mineralized, i.e. are not yet ‘rock’. And what is found inside those dinosaur bones is a huge surprise to many people. A series of discoveries since the early 1990s has revealed dino bones with blood cells, hemoglobin, fragile proteins, and soft tissue such as flexible ligaments and blood vessels. And of special note: DNA and radiocarbon.
This is enormously confronting for evolutionists, because how could such bones possibly be 65 million years old? As one of the researchers involved in the discovery of dinosaur blood cells, Dr Mary Schweitzer, said:
“If you take a blood sample, and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week. So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs?”1
So entrenched is the evolutionary paradigm in the scientific community, that it soon became known that Dr Schweitzer was having trouble getting her results published.
Why indeed? Unless of course they haven’t been extinct for millions of years, and their remains were preserved quickly under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago, or even more recently. But so entrenched is the evolutionary paradigm in the scientific community, that it soon became known that Dr Schweitzer was having trouble getting her results published. “I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible,” says Schweitzer. “I wrote back and said, ‘Well, what data would convince you?’ And he said, ‘None.’”
Schweitzer recounts how she noticed that a T. rex skeleton (from [censored] Creek, Montana) had a distinctly cadaverous odour. When she mentioned this to long-time paleontologist Jack Horner,2 he said, “Oh yeah, all [censored] Creek bones smell.” But so ingrained is the notion among paleontologists that dinosaur bones must be millions of years old that the ‘smell of death’ didn’t even register with them—despite the evidence being right under their noses.3 Schweitzer herself does not seem able or willing to escape the long-age paradigm, despite her direct involvement in many of the discoveries. Note the timeline of these findings across two decades—pointed and regular reminders that something is very wrong with dinosaur-millions-of-years ideas:
In 1993, dinosaur bone blood cells give Mary Schweitzer ‘goosebumps’.4,5
In 1997, hemoglobin, as well as recognizable red blood cells, in T. rex bone.6,7,8
In 2003, evidence of the protein osteocalcin.9
In 2005, flexible ligaments and blood vessels.10,11,12
In 2007, collagen (an important structural protein in bone) in T. rex bone.13,14
In 2009, the fragile proteins elastin and laminin, and further confirmation of collagen—in a duck-billed dinosaur.15,16 (If the dinosaur fossils really were as old as claimed, none of these proteins should have been present.)
In 2012, bone cells (osteocytes), the proteins actin and tubulin, and DNA(!) were reported.17,18 (Measured rates of decomposition of these proteins, and especially DNA, show that they could not have lasted for the presumed 65 million years since dinosaur extinction. This is more in keeping with the biblical timeframe of thousands of years.)
In 2012, radiocarbon was reported.19,20 (But carbon-14 decays so quickly that if the remains were even 100,000 years old, none should be detectable!)
Note that the attempts by evolutionists to explain away many of these findings as contamination, and also their unconcealed moves to stifle reporting of the radiocarbon result in particular,19,20 testify to an unwillingness to face up to evidence that challenges the long-age paradigm. A truly open-minded observer must surely ask, “Why?
I can't believe I had the same awful signature for nearly 8 years. Sorry for disappearing for 2 months, life happened for a bit.
a while back, I created a topic about bone tissue found in a t-rex. well, check this out...
Many dinosaur fossils include real bone—they are not completely mineralized, i.e. are not yet ‘rock’. And what is found inside those dinosaur bones is a huge surprise to many people. A series of discoveries since the early 1990s has revealed dino bones with blood cells, hemoglobin, fragile proteins, and soft tissue such as flexible ligaments and blood vessels. And of special note: DNA and radiocarbon.
This is enormously confronting for evolutionists, because how could such bones possibly be 65 million years old? As one of the researchers involved in the discovery of dinosaur blood cells, Dr Mary Schweitzer, said:
“If you take a blood sample, and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week. So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs?”1
So entrenched is the evolutionary paradigm in the scientific community, that it soon became known that Dr Schweitzer was having trouble getting her results published.
Why indeed? Unless of course they haven’t been extinct for millions of years, and their remains were preserved quickly under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago, or even more recently. But so entrenched is the evolutionary paradigm in the scientific community, that it soon became known that Dr Schweitzer was having trouble getting her results published. “I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible,” says Schweitzer. “I wrote back and said, ‘Well, what data would convince you?’ And he said, ‘None.’”
Schweitzer recounts how she noticed that a T. rex skeleton (from [censored] Creek, Montana) had a distinctly cadaverous odour. When she mentioned this to long-time paleontologist Jack Horner,2 he said, “Oh yeah, all [censored] Creek bones smell.” But so ingrained is the notion among paleontologists that dinosaur bones must be millions of years old that the ‘smell of death’ didn’t even register with them—despite the evidence being right under their noses.3 Schweitzer herself does not seem able or willing to escape the long-age paradigm, despite her direct involvement in many of the discoveries. Note the timeline of these findings across two decades—pointed and regular reminders that something is very wrong with dinosaur-millions-of-years ideas:
In 1993, dinosaur bone blood cells give Mary Schweitzer ‘goosebumps’.4,5
In 1997, hemoglobin, as well as recognizable red blood cells, in T. rex bone.6,7,8
In 2003, evidence of the protein osteocalcin.9
In 2005, flexible ligaments and blood vessels.10,11,12
In 2007, collagen (an important structural protein in bone) in T. rex bone.13,14
In 2009, the fragile proteins elastin and laminin, and further confirmation of collagen—in a duck-billed dinosaur.15,16 (If the dinosaur fossils really were as old as claimed, none of these proteins should have been present.)
In 2012, bone cells (osteocytes), the proteins actin and tubulin, and DNA(!) were reported.17,18 (Measured rates of decomposition of these proteins, and especially DNA, show that they could not have lasted for the presumed 65 million years since dinosaur extinction. This is more in keeping with the biblical timeframe of thousands of years.)
In 2012, radiocarbon was reported.19,20 (But carbon-14 decays so quickly that if the remains were even 100,000 years old, none should be detectable!)
Note that the attempts by evolutionists to explain away many of these findings as contamination, and also their unconcealed moves to stifle reporting of the radiocarbon result in particular,19,20 testify to an unwillingness to face up to evidence that challenges the long-age paradigm. A truly open-minded observer must surely ask, “Why?
Cause macroevolution is false, obviously. I really don't see why people insist on believing it still.
Would a Theme Park open though? I mean, they might not have enough of the DNA of any Herbivore species (I doubt that anyone is stupid enough to bring back a T-Rex, Raptors or anything of the sort.)
Tul Generas of the Orcs, Darthraxx of the dragon Knights. I RP, and have lots of fun.
a while back, I created a topic about bone tissue found in a t-rex. well, check this out...
Many dinosaur fossils include real bone—they are not completely mineralized, i.e. are not yet ‘rock’. And what is found inside those dinosaur bones is a huge surprise to many people. A series of discoveries since the early 1990s has revealed dino bones with blood cells, hemoglobin, fragile proteins, and soft tissue such as flexible ligaments and blood vessels. And of special note: DNA and radiocarbon.
This is enormously confronting for evolutionists, because how could such bones possibly be 65 million years old? As one of the researchers involved in the discovery of dinosaur blood cells, Dr Mary Schweitzer, said:
“If you take a blood sample, and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week. So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs?”1
So entrenched is the evolutionary paradigm in the scientific community, that it soon became known that Dr Schweitzer was having trouble getting her results published.
Why indeed? Unless of course they haven’t been extinct for millions of years, and their remains were preserved quickly under catastrophic conditions a few thousand years ago, or even more recently. But so entrenched is the evolutionary paradigm in the scientific community, that it soon became known that Dr Schweitzer was having trouble getting her results published. “I had one reviewer tell me that he didn’t care what the data said, he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible,” says Schweitzer. “I wrote back and said, ‘Well, what data would convince you?’ And he said, ‘None.’”
Schweitzer recounts how she noticed that a T. rex skeleton (from [censored] Creek, Montana) had a distinctly cadaverous odour. When she mentioned this to long-time paleontologist Jack Horner,2 he said, “Oh yeah, all [censored] Creek bones smell.” But so ingrained is the notion among paleontologists that dinosaur bones must be millions of years old that the ‘smell of death’ didn’t even register with them—despite the evidence being right under their noses.3 Schweitzer herself does not seem able or willing to escape the long-age paradigm, despite her direct involvement in many of the discoveries. Note the timeline of these findings across two decades—pointed and regular reminders that something is very wrong with dinosaur-millions-of-years ideas:
In 1993, dinosaur bone blood cells give Mary Schweitzer ‘goosebumps’.4,5
In 1997, hemoglobin, as well as recognizable red blood cells, in T. rex bone.6,7,8
In 2003, evidence of the protein osteocalcin.9
In 2005, flexible ligaments and blood vessels.10,11,12
In 2007, collagen (an important structural protein in bone) in T. rex bone.13,14
In 2009, the fragile proteins elastin and laminin, and further confirmation of collagen—in a duck-billed dinosaur.15,16 (If the dinosaur fossils really were as old as claimed, none of these proteins should have been present.)
In 2012, bone cells (osteocytes), the proteins actin and tubulin, and DNA(!) were reported.17,18 (Measured rates of decomposition of these proteins, and especially DNA, show that they could not have lasted for the presumed 65 million years since dinosaur extinction. This is more in keeping with the biblical timeframe of thousands of years.)
In 2012, radiocarbon was reported.19,20 (But carbon-14 decays so quickly that if the remains were even 100,000 years old, none should be detectable!)
Note that the attempts by evolutionists to explain away many of these findings as contamination, and also their unconcealed moves to stifle reporting of the radiocarbon result in particular,19,20 testify to an unwillingness to face up to evidence that challenges the long-age paradigm. A truly open-minded observer must surely ask, “Why?
Cause macroevolution is false, obviously. I really don't see why people insist on believing it still.
because they think it's less crazy then a supernatural being with infinite power that created the universe.
I can't believe I had the same awful signature for nearly 8 years. Sorry for disappearing for 2 months, life happened for a bit.
Would a Theme Park open though? I mean, they might not have enough of the DNA of any Herbivore species (I doubt that anyone is stupid enough to bring back a T-Rex, Raptors or anything of the sort.)
they could fill in the gaps with reptile DNA like in the movies.
I can't believe I had the same awful signature for nearly 8 years. Sorry for disappearing for 2 months, life happened for a bit.
Cause macroevolution is false, obviously. I really don't see why people insist on believing it still.
because they think it's less crazy then a supernatural being with infinite power that created the universe.
The universe is so intricately, perfectly detailed, and if it was one tiny bit different the whole thing would fall apart. (If you don't believe me, take an ecology course.) I think it being designed is more logical than it being randomness. I'm not trying to preach. This is just what I believe and I'd rather you not make fun of it. Unless that's not what you meant to do, in which case, sorry for the misunderstanding.
But, regardless of whether creation is true, I think there's still far too much evidence against macroevolution to take it seriously. Take, for example, the article you posted.
because they think it's less crazy then a supernatural being with infinite power that created the universe.
The universe is so intricately, perfectly detailed, and if it was one tiny bit different the whole thing would fall apart. (If you don't believe me, take an ecology course.) I think it being designed is more logical than it being randomness. I'm not trying to preach. This is just what I believe and I'd rather you not make fun of it. Unless that's not what you meant to do, in which case, sorry for the misunderstanding.
But, regardless of whether creation is true, I think there's still far too much evidence against macroevolution to take it seriously. Take, for example, the article you posted.
I was making fun of evolution.
I can't believe I had the same awful signature for nearly 8 years. Sorry for disappearing for 2 months, life happened for a bit.
The universe is so intricately, perfectly detailed, and if it was one tiny bit different the whole thing would fall apart. (If you don't believe me, take an ecology course.) I think it being designed is more logical than it being randomness. I'm not trying to preach. This is just what I believe and I'd rather you not make fun of it. Unless that's not what you meant to do, in which case, sorry for the misunderstanding.
But, regardless of whether creation is true, I think there's still far too much evidence against macroevolution to take it seriously. Take, for example, the article you posted.
Would a Theme Park open though? I mean, they might not have enough of the DNA of any Herbivore species (I doubt that anyone is stupid enough to bring back a T-Rex, Raptors or anything of the sort.)
they could fill in the gaps with reptile DNA like in the movies.
wait a second. . . You think that you have say. . . 5% of the DNA of an Apatasaurus and then you can just fill it in? 20% maybe. 50% is probably too little. I'd say you probably need about 75-90% of the DNA to actually create a dino.
Tul Generas of the Orcs, Darthraxx of the dragon Knights. I RP, and have lots of fun.