End Times and Current Events

General Category => Evolution is a religion => Topic started by: Christian40 on February 18, 2011, 06:37:33 pm

Title: Dinosaurs in the Bible
Post by: Christian40 on February 18, 2011, 06:37:33 pm

By Steve Wolfe. Steve goes through some Scripture passages dealing with leviathan and behemoth, explaining how they can be nothing other than dinosaurs.


Title: Re: Dinosaurs in the Bible
Post by: Mark on February 20, 2011, 12:47:28 pm
After the Flood
by Bill Cooper
Internet Edition


pdf: http://detoxtv.co.uk/data/wp-content/uploads/2008/free-books/spiritism/After_the_Flood.pdf

Title: Re: Dinosaurs in the Bible
Post by: Mark on February 20, 2011, 12:47:49 pm
The mysteries of stunning soft tissue fossil finds

The controversial soft tissue finds of North Carolina State University paleontologist Mary Schweitzer are gaining renown, and for good reason. She found organic material in fossilized dinosaurs and other creatures that should not have existed after having supposedly been buried for millions of years. These groundbreaking discoveries are fascinating, and they raise big questions about the standard understanding of fossils and geology.
In 1992, while peering through a microscope at dinosaur bone fragments that had their hard minerals removed, Schweitzer discovered red discs that appeared identical to reptile red blood cells. She wrote in the December 2010 issue of Scientific American:

And those ruby microscopic structures appeared only in the vessel channels, never in the surrounding bone or in the sediments adjacent to the bones, just as should be true of blood cells.

The find was an utter shock because of the long-held belief that fossilized bones have had all their original materials replaced by external minerals. Thus, a colleague's admonition to prove they aren't red blood cells has motivated Schweitzer's research ever since. So far, she has been unable to do this. She has also been unable to prove that fresh-looking blood vessels, various soft protein samples, and structures identical to bone cells (osteocytes) are anything other than what they appear to be.

These discoveries presented profound mysteries. Researchers had always expected that "after millions of years, buried in sediments and exposed to geochemical conditions that varied over time, what was preserved in these bones might bear little chemical resemblance to what was there when the dinosaur was alive." But this is an extraordinary understatement. In fact, given what is known of tissue and biomolecular decay, after all that time there should be nothing preserved at all and, thus, zero resemblance to any original dinosaur tissue.

Schweitzer summarized the conundrum that her work presented, stating:

Our findings challenged everything scientists thought they knew about the breakdown of cells and molecules. Test-tube studies of organic molecules indicated that proteins should not persist more than a million years or so; DNA had an even shorter life span.

Actually, proteins take much less time than a million years to spontaneously decay. But neither ten thousand nor one million years are anywhere near the millions of years needed to make standard geological long-age scenarios plausible.

Thus, fossil soft tissue is caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, it should not be there at all, based on lab studies. On the other hand, its presence is obvious.

Therefore, to accommodate soft cells from fossils into the standard long-ages view, scientists have had to make a tough choice. One option has been for biochemists to deny that the paleontologists are actually seeing what they claim is evident. Another choice has been for paleontologists to deny what the biochemists' lab experiments have measured.

Schweitzer appears to have favored the second option. She asked, "Why are these materials preserved when all our models say they should be degraded?"1 In this case, modifiable "models" have been substituted for easily repeatable, experimentally derived "data" in a classic case of bait-and-switch.

A third choice has been to play the role of the ostrich with its head buried in the sand and ignore the entire discussion. But there is a fourth option: Once the presumed need for "millions of years" is removed from age estimates, all the data harmonize.

That would also mean that the presence of still-soft original tissues buried in rock layers coincides with biblical records about the timing of earth history, which indicate that all of life was created only thousands of years ago.


Title: Re: Dinosaurs in the Bible
Post by: Mark on February 20, 2011, 12:48:32 pm
Soft tissue dinos are found all over, its just covered up as it doesn't fit in with the mainstream religious beliefs of scientists.


Here's another.


Title: Re: Dinosaurs in the Bible
Post by: Mark on February 20, 2011, 12:48:54 pm
"Evolution could so easily be disproved if just a single fossil turned up in the wrong date order. Evolution has passed this test with flying colours."
— Richard Dawkins (The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution)

foot stepping on trilobite, from the Cambrian age, the foots in a sandal.

Human foot print with a Dinosaur foot print stepping on the human print.

Human and Dinosaur prints together.

There's three examples, he only asked for 1.

Title: Re: Dinosaurs in the Bible
Post by: Christian40 on February 20, 2011, 11:43:17 pm
Buy one, get two free! :D I would like to see these photos seen by everyone on the Internet. Do you read Creation Magazine? It is quite interesting.

This site http://creation.com/ home of Creation Magazine goes into the Science from the Bible.

Title: Re: Dinosaurs in the Bible
Post by: Mark on May 30, 2013, 09:40:40 am
Not a dinosaur, but a 10,000 + year old dead mammoth with soft tissue and blood.  :D love this stuff

Mammoth find: Preserved Ice Age giant found with flowing blood in Siberia

Russian scientists discovered a fully-grown female mammoth with blood and well-preserved muscle tissue trapped in ice in Siberia. The findings come amid debates on whether the extinct species should be resurrected using DNA.

 Scientists say they have managed to find mammoth blood during the excavation of a grown female animal on the Lyakhovsky Islands, the southernmost group of the New Siberian Islands in the Arctic seas of northeastern Russia.
The dark blood was found in ice cavities below the belly of the animal. When researchers broke the cavities with a poll pick, the blood came flowing out. The fact surprised them because the temperature was 10C below zero.
"It can be assumed that the blood of mammoths had some cryo-protective properties,” said Semyon Grigoriev, head of the Museum of Mammoths of the Institute of Applied Ecology of the North at the North Eastern Federal University as cited by Interfax news agency.
The blood was placed in a test tube and a bacteriological analysis of the sample is expected soon.
The muscle tissue of the animal was also well-preserved and had a natural red color of fresh meat, added the scientist. Such preservation can be explained by the fact that the lower part of the mammoth’s body was trapped in pure ice, while the upper part was discovered in the middle of the tundra. The trunk was found separately from the carcass.
The researchers established that the female mammoth was between 50 and 60 years old when it died. Grigoriev noted that this was a unique find likely to prompt international intrigue.

"We are the first in the world to find the carcass of an adult female mammoth. Now she, along with the bones and some ice, weighs about one ton. We assume that during life she weighed about three tons," he acknowledged.
The head of the museum also suggested that the mammoth lived from 10,000 to 15,000 years ago.
Scientists have suggested that perhaps the animal fell through the ice, escaping from predators. However, its thought the predators still feasted on part of trapped mammoth.
Foreign experts are expected to see the unique mammoth material in July, according to reports.
Three adult mammoth carcasses, including the latest discovery of the Yakut scientists, have been found in the history of paleontology. However, despite such a good state of preservation, the scientists have not yet found enough living cells for cloning the species. Grigoriev noted that the repair of DNA is a very complex process that can take years.
The latest discovery and its research heralds the possibility of bringing the animal back to life in the future, though there is a lot of controversy around the issue of cloning.
A team of researchers from Russia and South Korea in September 2012 said they had discovered mammoth tissue fragments buried under meters of permafrost in eastern Siberia that could contain living cells. However the number of cells was too few to achieve successful cloning and the issue was treated with skepticism by many stem cell scientists.
Mammoths are believed to have died off around 4,000 years ago. There is dispute among scientists about the exact cause of the extinction - climate change and hunting by man are frequently cited as causes.
video: http://rt.com/news/mammoth-blood-ice-siberia-908/

Title: Re: Dinosaurs in the Bible
Post by: Kilika on May 30, 2013, 12:31:02 pm
Mammoths are believed to have died off around 4,000 years ago.

Okay, wait a minute. Now they need to settle on a number already! Which is it, mammoths existed 10,000 years ago, or 4,000 years ago? If 4, then that means they were alive in 2000 bc. That's not exactly cave man days!  ::)