Confirmed Dinosaur Blood on Ancient Fossil Astonishes Evolutionists

DinosaurRALEIGH, N.C. – Researchers have confirmed that biomaterial discovered on an ancient fossil is in fact preserved dinosaur blood, astonishing evolutionists who continue to believe the fossil is 80 million years old.

Over the past decade, scientists have unearthed a number of dinosaur fossils with preserved blood vessels and soft tissue. Many evolutionists initially treated such discoveries with skepticism and incredulity—while others rejected them outright—due to their seeming incompatibility with the evolutionary timeframe.

In a November 23 journal article published in “Journal of Proteome Research,” scientists from North Carolina State University confirmed that blood vessels found on the fossil of a hadrosaur (B. canadensis) are in fact dinosaur blood—not contaminants from some other source.

“Their findings add to the growing body of evidence that structures like blood vessels and cells can persist over millions of years,” the university announced in a press release last week.

In their journal article, the researchers confessed that they initially thought protein-filled blood vessels could not possibly survive in any dinosaur fossil for millions of years.

“The [discovery of tissue] from Tyrannosaurus rex was controversial when first reported,” they wrote. “The survival of proteins from the Cretaceous Period (66–145 million years ago) was not thought to be possible.”

“Although soft tissue vessels and cells have been observed in multiple fossil specimens … continued skepticism on the prevalence and endogeneity of ancient soft tissues and their composite molecules persists,” they added.

  • Connect with Christian News

After tediously analyzing the blood vessels to ensure they were in fact from the dinosaur, the researchers wrote that their observations “support the hypothesis that these molecules derive directly from the B. canadensis blood vessels and are not from environmental or laboratory contamination.”

“Our results add further, robust support to the identification of these still soft, hollow structures as remnant blood vessels produced by the once living dinosaur,” they concluded.

Now that the identification of the dinosaur blood vessels has been confirmed, scientists are left with two possible explanations: either the dinosaur blood somehow defied expectations and survived for 80 million years, or the dinosaur fossil is not nearly as old as most people believe.

The most likely scenario, say many Christian scientists, is the second explanation: that dinosaurs lived much more recently than evolutionists allege. Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, said that these discoveries of preserved dinosaur blood vessels and soft tissue should come as no surprise to Bible-believing Christians.

“This … is consistent with the young age of the Earth as described in God’s Word and in no way confirms evolutionary ideas about the past,” he wrote on his blog in reference to a similar discovery. “Of course evolutionists can’t even consider the possibility that these bones are not millions of years old, as they have to have their supposed millions of years to propose their ideas of molecules-to-man evolution. Actually, believing in millions of years is a necessary part of the religion of naturalism (atheism).”

“Are evolutionists questioning their assumptions?” Ham asked. “Of course not! Instead, they simply assume the materials somehow survived for [millions of] years because they believe on the basis of their evolutionary presuppositions that the fossil is that old.”

“We can trust God’s Word to provide us with an accurate history of Earth,” Ham proposed.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Michael C

    “The most likely scenario […] is the second explanation: that dinosaurs lived much more recently than evolutionists [sic] allege.”

    Why is the idea that dinosaurs existed only a few thousand years ago “the most likely scenario?” What scientific evidence leads people like Ken Ham to believe that dinosaurs existed a few thousand years ago? Is there some sort of dating process that Ham has researched that places dinosaurs within the past few thousand years?

    • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

      I concur. I think it’s time to hold Mr. Hamm’s feet to the fire and ask him to show us a SCRIPTURAL reason to believe that God made the universe appear much, much older than his interpretation of the Bible makes it out to be.

      • Oboehner

        The key word is APPEAR. Appearance can be, and is deceiving.

        • John N

          So your god is in fact a liar, deceiving all scientists by making the universe appear much older than it actually is? Is that what you mean to say?

          • Oboehner

            Tell that to Piltdown Man.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            Red herring. Stick to the question.

          • Oboehner

            When “scientists” make assumptions on the age of the earth based on their religious worldview, that’s deceiving – themselves as well as others following the same religion.

          • John N

            So your god is allowed to lie and deceive, Oboehner?

            And again, what assumptions do scientists make while measuring the age of the earth? You haven’t given us one.

          • Oboehner

            Assumed all the argon gas escaped during formation, the initial amount of argon gas – assumes it was zero, assumes any argon gas found is a result of the radioactive decay of potassium, assumed the portion of the rock he’s testing was sealed avoiding contamination, etc, etc.

          • John N

            Assuming? Now, making sure it was. That is what scientists do, you know. Creating repeatable test results.

            You really seem touched by the K-Ar dating method, Oboehner. I guess you are still stuck to what Morris falsely claimed in 1974 about this method. That was 40 years ago, you know. Science has moved on, other dating methods are being used now. And guess what: the still give the same results in age calculations.

          • Oboehner

            Repeating the same assumptions is hardly a scientific test result. So where is the test on the rock with the known age to measure the accuracy of those with the unknown age? The only one I ever head of was off by a few million years.

          • John N

            The only one repeating untested claims here is you, Oboehner. And you only know of one dating test? Could it be the one that Morris claimed wrong back in 1974, more than 50 years ago? Well, it turned out that Morris didn’t know what he was talking about. And it looks like history is repeating itself.

          • Oboehner

            So what is the calibration to determine the accuracy of these “dating” procedures? How do they know they are even close to being correct? Where is the tests of volcanic rock of a known age? Were they there bazillions of years ago at the beginning or am I just supposed to take it – like everything else – on faith?

          • Michael C

            You should never accept any scientific understanding on faith. That’s not how science works.

          • Oboehner

            Then you’re admitting evolutionism isn’t science.

          • John N

            ‘Evolutionism’ isn’t even an existing word. Your fantasy is working overtime, Oboehner.

          • Meepestos

            Sounds weird like gravityism or Plate tectonicism.

          • Valri

            It’s the fundamentalist Christian way. Make up your own language, and everything is backwards-land. You have a completely unsupportable, faith-based belief system? Just accuse your opponent of the same thing. Doesn’t matter if it doesn’t make a lick of sense. You’ll at least be able to look smug and self-satisfied about it.

          • Oboehner

            Right, and Neanderthals actually existed, or whatever…

          • John N

            Oh, we found some nice skeletons of them in Europe, you know. And some nice genes of them in your own DNA. It looks like one your grandgrandgrand…fathers or -mothers … wel you get the picture.

          • Oboehner

            *well*
            So are they like Lucy – 10% baboon bones and 90% plaster of paris? Pig’s tooth? Dolphin rib? Human skull grafted to an orangutan jawbone?

            “The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.'” – Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley).

          • John N

            Oh I see, the Gish Galop in action.
            If you can’t stay on topic I consider you ran out of arguments and this discussion closed.

          • Oboehner

            It was on topic, lame cop out – not surprised though, when the appeal to authority arguments and the ad hominem comments run out, evolutionists have nothing.

          • John N

            Lucy’s bones made of plaster?. Pig tooths? Dolphin rib? Anythng else?

            What about talking snakes? Four-legged insects? Feathered bats? Herbivore mosquitos? Giant humans? Smelly snails? Flying serpents? Did you already correct these mistakes?

          • Oboehner

            Two possibilities on your reply. One, it demonstrated remarkable ignorance or two it is an attempt to derail an argument based on your lack of substance by being obtuse. Which could it be…

          • Michael C

            Your comment truly saddens me.

          • Oboehner

            Well isn’t that precious.

          • Valri

            No, because he is not admitting it’s being “taken on faith”. He and everyone except yourself knows it is factual and scientific.

          • Oboehner

            Factual and scientific, sorry, you can say that all you want but it doesn’t make it true. There is NO proof it ever happened -none. If there was you wouldn’t be yammering on about nothing.

          • Valri

            It DOES make it true because it is. Look at everyone I’ve got on my side: The education system, the whole of science, history books, medical journals, fossils, rock strata, the dictionary. What have YOU got? Funny how you never want to answer that question. PLEASE explain to me why the laundry list of things I gave you ARE faith, but your fundamentalist Christian God is NOT faith.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzz……. More popular opinion. Fossils? Hardly, there is no evidence that any fossilized species ever “evolved” into something else, that’s just religious belief. All a fossil proves is that some creature existed, that’s all.

            Rock strata:
            “The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling that explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism.” – J. E. O’Rourks, “Pragmatism versus materialism in stratigraphy”. American Journal of Science

            “Funny how you never want to answer that question.” I’ll answer that even though my beliefs are not being fraudulently taught as scientific fact, it’s my belief. No how about the question you keep running in fear from – How did it all begin if there was no exploding dot?

          • Valri

            No, Oboehner, when you go to an accepted and valid and trusted source you are not “appealing” to anything, you are not dealing with opinion but acceptance. It is not religion because it provides no criteria whatsoever for BEING religion.

            In fact no one knows how it began yet, but first of all no one thinks it was an exploding dot but yourself, and secondly, it’s not relevant to this discussion because it’s got nothing to do with evolution as you’ve been told over and over now.

          • Oboehner

            “an accepted and valid and trusted source” – appeal to authority argument. Acceptance, blind faith in the vast majority of cases, like your case – you can’t even tell me how it all began, yet you blindly follow it like the rest of the lemmings.

            “The Big Bang (EXPLODING) theory is the prevailing cosmological model for the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale EVOLUTION. The model accounts for the fact that the universe expanded from a very high density(DOT) and high temperature state…” – Wikipedia. Nobody except those who believe in evolutionism. It is highly relevant and part of the religion.

          • Valri

            “an accepted and valid and trusted source” – appeal to authority argument.”

            Don’t be ridiculous, OK? Would you call looking something up in the dictionary an appeal to authority, or would you call it what it is – obtaining accepted information?

            The capitalized words you added to the Wikipedia entry show your flaws. You shouldn’t have capitalized “evolution” for the desired effect, you should have capitalized “through”. In other words, evolution isn’t where things begin.

            “Very high density” does not mean DOT.

            Try again.

          • Oboehner

            Fluoridation is accepted despite studies that show it is just an industrial waste that is lowering the IQ’s in our children as well as causing other health problems.
            http://www.hsph.harvard. edu/news/features/fluoride-childrens-health-grandjean-choi/
            Very high density refers to the dot that exploded if you would have read your grade school text book. No need to try again, it’s right out of your accepted religion.

          • John N

            They know they are close to being correct because independent measurements by different teams using dating methods based on different parent-daughter isotopes give consistent results.

            They know they are close to being correct because the results of radiometric dating methods are consistent with those of other methods like the luminescence dating method.

            They know they are close to being correct because the results of radiometric dating methods are consistent with other findings like tectonic plate movement or the Milankovitch cycles.

            They know they are close to being correct because nowhere we find geological strata out of sequence.

            In short, they know they are close to being correct because they use the scientific method.

            And unless YOU were there all those million years ago to disprove it, you have nothing but a silly story from an old book.

          • Valri

            They know lots of things. Oboehner prefers not to know. He has literally DECIDED not to know. He’s like Wendy Wright screeching “show me the evidence, show me the evidence” at Richard Dawkins as he was showing her the evidence.

          • Oboehner

            There is no proof to show, now conclusive evidence, NOTHING. Merely assumption speculation and religious belief.

          • Valri

            How and why you choose to ignore the mountains of foundational material on the subject is both shocking and depressing, but you DO tend to say the same things over and over.

          • Oboehner

            How you choose to ignore the mountains of assumptions, speculation and just plain guesswork on the subject is both shocking and depressing, but you DO tend to say the same things over and over.

          • Oboehner

            Consistent results on a worthless system, how quaint. Nobody knows if it is right or wrong as they have no constant to measure it by – convenient, but not worth the paper it’s printed on. “And unless YOU were there all those million years ago to disprove it…” Like I said, worthless religious speculation and assumption.
            And for the umpteenth time, hacking on others beliefs doesn’t prove yours – it just makes you look foolish.

          • John N

            Does it, Oboehner? In that case, hacking on general accepted knowledge and general accepted methods to aquire that knowledge to prove your completely unsupported beliefs would make you look double foolish. Please reread your comments and find out what a mighty big fool you are.

            I guess everybody has the right to remain ignorant, for whatever reason he or she prefers. Nobody should be allowed to push their ignorance on others, like yourself and other religious fundamentalists try to do.

          • Oboehner

            General accepted “knowledge”? Popular opinion is proof now? LOL. Trying prove your completely unsupported beliefs with popular opinion would make you look double foolish. Please reread your comments and find out what a mighty big fool you are.
            I guess everybody has the right to remain ignorant, for whatever reason he or she prefers. Nobody should be allowed to push their ignorance on others, like yourself and other religious evolutionists try to do in government schools at taxpayer expense.

          • Valri

            You’ve been told so many times now that it’s obvious you don’t care, but proof is not “popular opinion” – you are thinking of religion. Proof is proof, and is provided by science.

          • Oboehner

            Again, there is NO proof, only religious belief, or perhaps you could produce an 8X10 glossy of the “common ancestor”.

          • John N

            I’m not talking about popularity proofs. I’ talking about methods and evidence accepted by the large majority of the worlds’ scientist. Which you are clearly not.

            If you want too fight arguments of popularity, the bible is supposed to be one of the most ‘popular’ books ever. So stating that it is must make you what exactly Oboehner?

          • Oboehner

            I’m not talking about popularity proofs. I’ talking about methods and evidence accepted by the large majority of the worlds’ scientist (popularity proofs).
            Again, for the umpteenth time, what I do or don’t believe has absolutely no relevance to your religion whatsoever, you can stop the desperation move of trying to make yours look more believable by lame comparisons.

          • gizmo23

            Proven by science to be a fake. What’s your point?

          • Oboehner

            For years it was proof until the cat got out of the bag…

          • gizmo23

            So was bleeding and electro shock.
            Until science preveiled. That is the beauty of acience it is ever changing

          • Oboehner

            Hopefully science will again prevail against the pathetic religious belief of evolutionism.

          • Cady555

            Piltdown man is merely the scientific method at work. A claim is made, the claim is evaluated in light of other evidence, claims that cannot withstand scrutiny are rejected and discarded. This is how science works.

          • Oboehner

            “Piltdown man is merely the scientific method at work.” A manufactured, deliberate fraud, that is definitely how evolutionism works.

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          So appearance is deceiving? You are saying that God is a deceiver? Because the apparent ages of the universe and of the Earth appear again and again, through different independent observations, to be much older than 6000 years, By a factor of 1000000/1.

          • Oboehner

            You mean through assumptions made based on the evolutionary religious belief of whomever “tested” it?

          • DavWell

            He is not saying God is a deceiver, He said appearances are–due to our own ignorance. When God reveals to us what He did and how everything came about, that is not deception.The deception comes as a result of not believing what He tells you plainly. You are deceiving yourself by opting for an explanation based upon a logical fallacy (circular reasoning). You casually dismiss the Word of The Living Word of God for the so called testimonies of inanimate objects.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            Nope.

      • michael ferrel

        Hi Friend. I like your logic 1B1B. Ken Hams “reasoning” doesn’t come from scripture exclusively. I believe he relies on the speed of light hypothesis to conquer the “radio active decay” type dating methods. Like you, I don’t buy the 6000 year earth theory either.

        Michael C, I believe this answers you question about Ken Ham as well.

  • The Skeptical Chymist

    Ham asked “Are evolutionists questioning their assumptions?” The answer to that question is yes. They have revised their assumption that soft tissue cannot survive for millions of years. This was an assumption that had not been tested (indeed, it is hard to find a way to test this one).

    One of the following two propositions had to be rejected when this evidence came to light: (1) Dinosaur fossils are millions of years old or (2) soft tissue cannot survive without complete degradation for millions of years, under any geological circumstances. As there is a great deal of evidence that dinosaur fossils are millions of years old, and no reliable data that soft tissue cannot survive under the correct circumstances, it was proposition (2) that was rejected.

    By the way, this article is scientifically quite imprecise. Throughout, the author refers to dinosaur blood being found in the fossils. In contrast, the scientists claim that the remains of blood vessels have been found in the fossils. Why can’t people like Ken Ham get the details right?

    • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

      You are quite correct. The age of the fossil matrix can be determined by other proven dating methods such as potassium/argon. One would have to believe that God created rocks with an isotopic ratio indicative of an old earth just a few thousand years ago. Perhaps Ken Hamm can give us a BIBLICAL reason to believe that God made the world look older than it “is.” William of Occam must be rolling in his grave.

      • Oboehner

        Potassium/argon dating – based on assumptions (hardly scientific) How ever does one know the starting point or any events that may affected the levels of potassium/argon in any given sample? They don’t, more assumptions and speculation.

        • John N

          So what assumptions do scientists take when using radiometric dating methods, Oboehner? Why should one know the starting point? Which events do you think would affect the levels of potassium /argon in a sample?

          • Oboehner

            Assumed all the argon gas escaped during formation, the initial amount of argon gas – assumes it was zero, assumes any argon gas found is a result of the radioactive decay of potassium, assumed the portion of the rock he’s testing was sealed avoiding contamination, etc, etc.
            So why don’t you tell me which events could affect the level of radioactivity and it’s decay in a sample.

          • John N

            I’m sorry, these ar not assumptions but sources of error well known by scientists for ages. And these specifically are only a risk for the K-Ar dating method, which has mostly been replaced by more reliable methods like Ar-Ar dating.

            And no known process affects the rate of radioactive decay large enough to change the outcome of the dating methods. If it was, different radiometric dating methods would not give consistent results.

          • Oboehner

            Assumptive errors still used to BS the public, the whole process is in error.

            “And no known process affects the rate of radioactive decay large enough to change the outcome of the dating methods.” Just more assumptions there wasn’t any – not scientific.

          • John N

            >’…the whole process is in error.’
            … he claims without the slightest bit of evidence.

            >’Just more assumptions there wasn’t any – not scientific.’
            So please give us the scientific evidence that the rate of radioactive decay did change in the past, and that it did impact our age estimations. And please also explain why that change impact all radiometric dating methods in suc a way that they still give consistent results.

            If you’ve got any time left, we would also like to know how the rate of radioactive decay needed to support your young earth, didn’t melt away the whole earth and everything on it.

            And no, Oboehner, ‘goddidit’ is not considered a valid scientific explanation.

          • Oboehner

            So please give us the scientific evidence that the beginning amount of radioactivity bazillions of years ago is a constant and that there was absolutely no affect from any outside source. Please explain how you know through assumptions that anything could be true other than blind faith.
            You don’t know the starting amount of radiation with any certainty, thus any conclusions drawn are non-factual.
            And no, John N, *POOF* it just happened all by accident and random chance is not considered a valid scientific explanation – neither is Bill Nye’s “probably, somehow”.

          • John N

            Why? You are making the bold claim here that radioactive decay has been much much higher in the past, and that against all current evidence. It is up to you to support that claim, not vice versa.

            Why would we need to know the ‘starting amount of radioactivity’? What does that even mean? Do you think radioactivity comes in liters?

            And then the oldy but still-not-deceased strawman of ‘evolution happening by accident and random chance’. Come on Oboehner, you can do better than that. Why not use the second law of thermodynamics? Or why are there still monkeys?

          • Oboehner

            Do show the data from a million years ago showing the decay rate, complete with atmospheric and other conditions, then show the records on anything from a comet, to whatever that may or may not have affected the radiation levels from day one to the present.
            “Why would we need to know the ‘starting amount of radioactivity’? What does that even mean? Do you think radioactivity comes in liters?” *SIGH* The radiation levels of the rock at it’s creation, you know what it started with to determine how much has actually decayed.
            “And then the oldy but still-not-deceased strawman of ‘evolution happening by accident and random chance’. Come on Oboehner, you can do better than that. Why not use the second law of thermodynamics? Or why are there still monkeys?” Instead of this useless psychobabble, why not fill me in on what really happened from the beginning, show pictures of the observable, testable repeatable “science” at the beginning. Was there an exploding dot like it says in high school textbooks or what?

          • John N

            Again, you are the one making unsupported claims that radioactive decay rates a few thousand years ago were immensly higher than today, against all evidence at hand , just to make your silly story work. You are the one needing evidence. You a are the one who needs to explain how this extreme high level of radioactivity in the recent past went completely unnoticed.

            But if you want some of the actual evidence, the Oklo natural nuclear reactor has shown us decay rates have not changed significantly in the last two billion years. No try to explain that away.

            You don’t need to know the initial radiation levels of the rock to determine the age because we know the decay rate. You only need to know the ratio of daughter vs. Parent isotope. That can be checked using isochrone dating methods.

            And there is the scraping sounds of moving goal posts now. The beginning has nothing to do with the age of dinosaurs, nor with radiometric dating methods, nor with the theory of evolution. Did you run out of relevant arguments already?

          • Oboehner

            Save the psychobabble speech and just show me the data on the beginning radiation levels on these bazillion year old rocks. I want to know how it was tested all those years ago. And again I want to see the data on anything that might have had any affect on the radiation levels over the course of those bazillion years.
            So you have nothing then on how this all started? Looks like you ran out.

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          Since you are obviously think you are a physicist, please address the specific errors in the Wikipedia article. You can find it by googling potassium argon dating.

          All scientific theories are based on falsifiable assumptions. The practice of modern medicine is based on assumptions. Would you propose abandoning medicine because it is based on “assumptions?” The science of aerodynamics is based on assumptions. Does that keep you from getting on an airplane?

          • Oboehner

            One doesn’t need to be a physicist to see the gaping assumption holes in potassium argon dating.
            Evolutionism is not scientific, it is a religion with the label “science” slapped on it. But since you seem to believe it is falsifiable, why don’t you give an example of a single cell organism “evolving” into a mammal – be sure to include pictures as medicine can for its theories after all you are attempting to equate your religion with medicine.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            A. I am not talking about evolution. I am discussing the age of fossiliferous rock.
            B. I am a Christian. Just because I don’t see things your way does not give you the authority to judge me.

          • Oboehner

            If you are a Christian as you claim, you would know the earth is not bazillions of years old. Perhaps you should do a little reading. You’re not catholic by any chance are you?

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            I forgot what a petty little man you are. I won’t trouble you further.

          • Oboehner

            Run along now, I think some other apostate fallacy is calling you.

          • Valri

            Why don’t you do the same, o snake handling one?

          • Oboehner

            You enjoy your religion now, remember it’s not science.

          • Valri

            Yeah, except it’s really too bad every single school in the known universe disagrees with you. Guess that must be “popular opinion”, huh?

          • Oboehner

            Yup, and not scientific – just popular religious belief as it is preached in government schools bamboozling many.

          • Valri

            And what reason on earth would they have to “bamboozle” anyone? Is there money to be had from it or something?
            They wouldn’t be ALLOWED to teach it in science class if it was “popular religious belief”, do you not GET that?

          • Oboehner

            There is an agenda to be pushed, that’s what is going on, some zealots’ opinions being shoved on the masses.
            They are teaching that religion in science class already, do you not GET that?

          • Valri

            No, that is completely unfounded Christian supremacist conspiracy theory nonsense. And you know it. If they were teaching religion in science class, people would be speaking up. No one is.

          • Oboehner

            Zzzzzz….

            “If they were teaching religion in science class, people would be speaking up.” They are on both counts.

          • Valri

            And being laughed out the door.

          • Oboehner

            It’s your religion, believe what you want.

            “We cannot identify ancestors or ‘missing links,’ and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about. Gee is adamant that all the popular stories about how the first amphibians conquered the dry land, how the birds developed wings and feathers for flying, how the dinosaurs went extinct, and how humans evolved from apes are just products of our imagination, driven by prejudices and preconceptions.” – Bowler, Peter J., Review of In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee (Free Press, 1999), American Scientist (vol. 88, March/April 2000), p. 169.

          • Valri

            It’s not religion, and you’ll have a hard time getting ANYONE to say that it is except the most hardened and bigoted fundamentalist Christians.

            What YOU have is religion.

          • Oboehner

            “bigoted fundamentalist Christians” Ad hominem again, you people really need a new playbook. Of course those who are emotionally invested in their religion aren’t going to call it what it is.

          • Valri

            You hate evolution. Fact.
            You hate Catholics. Fact.
            You hate homosexuals. Fact.
            You hate liberals. Fact.

            And I know I missed a bunch. But this is YOUR playbook, it’s a house of cards built on hatred and fear. Don’t try to pretend you’re anything resembling a Christian with values like these, not to mention shameful willful ignorance of science.

          • Oboehner

            Evolutionism is a religion, I’m tired of being lied to and told it’s some kind of “fact” when it is not even close.
            I don’t hate catholics, I pity them, they have been sold a false religion.
            Homosexuals are NOT born that way, I am tired of then shoving that lie down my throat and expecting me to accept it. I’m not high on pedophiles or any other deviants either.
            Liberals are out of touch with reality, but then so are neocons and blind party loyalists.
            Christianity is Bible based, anything that contradicts the Bible is most assuredly not “Christian Values”. I am not ignoratnt of science, those who think we evolved from a rock 4.6 billion years ago are ignorant of science.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            qed

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            q.e.d.

          • Oboehner

            I’ll believe that when I see it.

          • Valri

            Don’t take it another step further with this guy unless you want to see it descend into the worst anti-Catholic name callling you’ve ever encountered. Trust me on this one.

          • Valri

            Oh, there it is. Oboehner’s three pet hates: Evolution, Catholics, and being proven wrong. Going to call him “Mary worshiper” or one of your other fun euphemisms?

          • Oboehner

            How would you know about “being proven wrong”?
            You mean like snake handler, or fundie, or…?

  • Emmanuel

    This is not real science. That university is wrong and needs to be discredited. How dare they say that Dinosaurs lived only a couple thousands of years ago. 😉

    • charis2

      Are you joshing..? or just saying that their science is not as good or truthful as your science? Too many state, “Science says..” when science says nothing. Different scientists look at the same data and provide different diagnosis or theories, Are they led by their presuppositions…but the evidence remains the same. Dinosaur bones have been found to be not totally fossilized and now blood is found in an investigative form. And yet the truth is repressed. Rom.1:18-22

      • Crusader Ron :E

        He’s supporting what you are saying in a sarcastic way… Silly!!!

  • The Last Trump

    No worries, dogmatic followers of the religion of evolution.
    Your blind faith in magic has never allowed little things like scientific facts to slow you down before. Why should this be any different?

    And my, oh my! Look at the expected reactions here from the faithful flock of evolution “believers”! Proving Ken Ham correct once again.
    Hee, hee! Poor blokes just can’t help themselves! 🙁

    • John N

      >’Your blind faith in magic has never allowed little things like scientific facts to slow you down before.’

      Now that’s precisely the description of the creationist belief. Except, of course, for the fact there never has been any scientific facts for creation to begin with.

      Now I’m very curious how creationists explain the total absence of non-avian dinosaurs in all geological strata younger than the Cretaceous, using only scientific methods and evidence. Oh, yeah, and if mentioning the global flood and following ice age, don’t forget to mention the evidence for that too.

      • The Last Trump

        Ahh yes. Classic evolutionist tactic.
        Never deal directly with scientific evidence that absolutely refutes your silly and completely unsubstantiated claims.
        Just change the topic.
        And try to muddy those waters back up a bit eh?
        Hee, hee! Nice try.

        Hey, I know! Just to be different, this time how about we try to stay on topic and all of you religious zealots simply explain for the rest of us common folk how this dinosaur blood is still around?
        Thanks John!

        (BTW, just to throw you a bone, the greatest scientific minds of the twentieth century refused to believe that the universe had a beginning. Until scientific discovery went ahead, regardless of their bias, and proved it anyway. 🙁

        Creation account in the Bible has told us for thousands of years that our universe, indeed, had a beginning. Sadly, it took science up until just very recently, to catch up. You may not want to mock such an extraordinary book with such an unprecedented track record for accuracy.
        You won’t look so foolish that way.)

        • John N

          Now I was thinking this article was about dinosaurs and how long ago they vanished from the earth.

          You don’t agree with the scientific explanation, which is that they were driven to extinction very probably by a meteorite hitting earth at the end of the Cretaceous. You think the remains of soft tissue in fossils is evidence for dinosaurs existing until recently.

          So the obvious question is, and quite on topic, how do you explain they were never found in younger strata?

        • WorldGoneCrazy

          “BTW, just to throw you a bone, the greatest scientific minds of the twentieth century refused to believe that the universe had a beginning. Until scientific discovery went ahead, regardless of their bias, and proved it anyway.”

          Indeed! See my comment below. Must I break out the Atheist Creed tonight?!? Or just Doctrine 3: “Minds and morals evolved from molecules through monkeys.” 🙂

      • Oboehner

        Do share some scientific facts, I have as of yet seen ANY proof of evolutionism.

        • Valri

          People do constantly, and you ignore them. It’s your whole game here.

          • Oboehner

            Cop-out, no facts have ever been presented, just because you have faith doesn’t make them facts.

          • Valri

            It’s NOT faith. Faith is what you have in the cult of the talking snake. What I have is acceptance, since we know it to be true. We have the tests, we have the fossils, we have the proof, we have it all. What we DON’T have is a holy book or a magic leader. That’s you guys. So it’s high time you stopped switching them around. How very Satanic of you.

          • Oboehner

            “We have the tests (based on assumption and speculation), we have the fossils (only prove something existed – not that it ‘evolved’), we have the proof (nope, none), we have it all.” You have nothing but blind faith, assumption, speculation, fraud, lies, etc. You don’t even have one humanoid fossil, not one, just a pile of bones that keep turning out to be other than human (Lucy the baboon).

          • Valri

            Tests are not assumption nor are the speculation, they are reliable data.

            There are transitional fossils showing change. You lose AGAIN.

            This is the OPPOSITE of blind faith. That’s what you’ve got with your talking snake.

          • Oboehner

            Reliable data from bazillions of years ago, and you expect me to swallow that crap?

            “There are transitional fossils showing change.” Wrong, they are BELIEVED to show change as it can NOT be proven that any of the fossils had offspring let alone “evolved”, it is nothing more than blind faith, speculation and unsubstantiated claims.

            This is blind faith. That’s what you’ve got with your exploding dot, life spontaneously popping up out of some ooze, and accidental random chance creating all of the known and unknown complexities of life.

            “The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that ‘a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein’.” – Sir Fred Hoyle (English astronomer, Professor of Astronomy at Cambridge University)

  • Josey

    It is amazing to me how God keeps revealing in these last days more and more evidence to the Biblical account, there will be none w/out excuse when they meet God, I hope and pray you are on the right side.

    • John N

      Please cite the chapter and verse of your bible account mentioning dinosaurs went extinct 4000 years ago.

      • RyAce77

        Genesis 6. Look it up. And you are misrepresenting the premise.

        • John N

          Did I? Where?

          Let’s check Genesis 6. I’m sorry, no mentioning of dinosaurs there. Unless you think they were called giants back then.

        • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

          Genesis 6 makes the statement about a flood wiping out all men and animals, it does not refer to dinosaurs, which were destroyed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Think about this, Josey: over the last 150 years, even secular scientists have been moved to the universe having a beginning, as past eternal cosmology models have died one death after another. Now, it is downright absurd in most scientific circles, given the overwhelming weight of evidence, to think that the universe did not have a beginning. Thus, it has taken scientists this long to verify the first 3 words of the Bible.

      “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” ― Robert Jastrow, God and the Astronomers

  • http://www.washingtondcevangelists.com Washington DC Evangelists

    Well what you know, biomaterial can last millions of years. #MovingTheGoalposts

    • JGC

      When phosphatized or otherwise preserved by natural mechanisms, that is what the latest evidence indicates.

  • RyAce77

    I find it interesting that those who blatantly attack people like Ken Ham and other like minded believers fail to know their position without resorting to some kind of ad-hom or fallacious statements.

    Assumptions are HUGE regarding origins and ancient time and peoples belief about such things show religious protection no matter what side of the fence they stand. This may be due to peoples outlook on origins being something that is strongly tied to one’s core worldview which directly effects their outlook on life.

    Btw it’s not always an either/or situation as scientific investigation should allow for changing hypothosis. Perhaps evolutionary naturalism is not the sole proprietor of life or deep time assumptions are false in general. And this therein is a problem I have with the naturalist; they cannot or will not accept anything other than deep time assumptions. It is a necessary piece in their arbitrary tale about life.

    • Wayne Snell

      2 Peter 3:3-7 knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 but the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.This tells the whole story as to why the evolutionists still accept this dumb theory in spite of the mountain of evidence that keeps getting bigger. They scoff at the Bible and it’s account of history because they are “walking after their own lusts.” They scoff at the Flood and “willingly are ignorant” of it even though it is the best explanation as to why all of these fossils were buried and preserved so well with soft tissue and blood that shouldn’t be there if it were millions of years old. They scoff at that judgement of God on the earth and they scoff at the coming judgement because then they would be judged for their actions. They don’t want to be liable for their actions. It is not a matter of evidence, it is a matter of wanting to keep in their sin without fear of judgement. That’s the bottom line!

      • Cady555

        There is no evidence for a 6000 year old earth.

        • Crusader Ron :E

          “Evidence” requires a standard of truth. Where is the standard of truth in … wait.. where’s the evidence that an explosion creates everything from nothing. Oh… never mind.. you hate God so what difference does it make?

          • John N

            I’m afraid your mixing up science and creationism again. No scientist ever has claimed an explosion created ‘everything’ from ‘nothing’. Only creationists do claim that kind of things – without any evidence, of course.

          • michael ferrel

            It’s called the Big Bang Theory John. Scientist have been scratching their heads for decades wondering “How or even why does anything even exist”

            They all rightly believe that 0 (Zero) is divisible into (+1) and (-1) which is the description of a hydrogen atom. In other words, if the hydrogen atom collapsed, the positive charged nucleus and negative electron shell would cancel each other out just like matter and antimatter, and the atom would cease to exist. In the same way, an unknown force could produce an electron and a proton field out of nothing. The protons and electrons have no locality, since they are not actually particles, but vibrational energy fields, and could be manipulated into a balance or virtual balance (orbit) with each other.

            Try the Big Bang on for size. If it doesn’t fit, wait for the Great Expansion.

          • John N

            Like stated here before, the Big Bang theory describes the inflation of our universe from an initial state, the singularity. It was not an explosion, nor a creation out of nothing, nor a creation of everything – in the first phase of the Big bang only elementary particles were formed, not even atoms. What happened before that we still don’t know.

          • George Jenkins

            What a ridiculous statement.!!!!!!!! “In other words, if the hydrogen atom collapsed, the positive charged nucleus and negative electron shell would cancel each other out just like matter and antimatter, and the atom would cease to exist. The charges may cancel one another; but the masses would not cancel out like matter and antimatter as you state, although they could be converted to energy under the right conditions. Having been converted to energy, that energy has not ceased to exist. You really need to study Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle before you say that “protons and electrons have no locality, since they are not actually particles,”. The SuperSTEM lab claims “So we can regularly see single atoms and atomic columns.” I wonder how they do that if protons have no locality. Everything can have a vibrational frequency associated with it, including a building. This does not mean it has no “locality”. Of course, you may have some weird definition of “locality”. Even light ,when it acts as a photon, can be designated as a particle and empirically acts like a particle. You have so much pseudo
            -fact mixed with nonsense that Pauli’s words apply to what you have written……….it is not even wrong.

          • Crusader Ron :E

            UhhhhhHHHHhhhhHHHHHHH… BIG BANG… uuuuhhhhhhhhHHHHHh…

            My dear lord… you squirm from your own shame of evolutionism.

          • John N

            Already out of arguments Crusader?

          • Crusader Ron :E

            No. I whipped you and because you look through lenses darkly, you can’t tell.

          • John N

            So your way of convincing people is to whip them?

            Makes me wonder why your religion is slowly fading away.

          • Crusader Ron :E

            In the discussion. You ever hear of hyperbole?

            I don’t wonder… in the Bible it says you would come.. mocking and scoffing, a one world order, a communist dictatorship that would go directly against God, deny Noah’s flood, and rule with an iron fist. I don’t wonder why at all.

          • John N

            Well, mocking is for me the best reaction to blind faith and willfull ignorance.

            As for the iron fist, are you not mixing me up with one of your popes of old?

          • Glenn Griffith

            Religion does take blind faith and so does Evolution. You’re on the other side of the same coin my ignorant friend.

          • John N

            Does it? Now where in the definition or description of evolution is something like ‘blind faith’ mentioned?

            Do you only see ‘blind faith’ in the theory of evolution, or in all of biology, geology, astronomy, chemistry, physics and history?

            Because, you know, they all disprove your ‘blind faith’.

          • Glenn Griffith

            ROFL

        • Wayne Snell

          “There is no evidence for a 6000 year old earth”, is.a broad sweeping statement that has no basis in fact. There are many evidences. I have a giant 6 part power point presentation that I had to greatly shorten to fit into a 2 hour slot. It is your presupposition that leads you to that conclusion, not evidence.

          • John N

            Fantastic. Now write down your arguments and supporting evidences in a scientific article an submit it for peer review to a scientific journal. If it passes, a Noble price is waiting for you.

            That is what all scientists do, you know.

          • Wayne Snell

            There are already a multitude of peer review articles supporting a young earth. Where are you living? In evolution propaganda world? And don’t commit the “No True Scotsman” fallacy when they are presented.

          • John N

            ‘Real science says that these blood cells …
            First reread the article (the original) and show us were actual blood cells were found in fossiled dinosaurs.

            Next, you don’t mind giving a reference of a article were real scientist say this, do you? Until then, real science has never said such a thing.

            And you still need to give an actual reference of a peer reviewed article in a real scientific journal giving evidence of a creation 6000 years ago. Since there is a multitude of them, it can not be that hard, can it?

            I’m still holding my breath.

          • D.M.S.

            I guess it depends on who considers who is a real scientist. I believe man has been on earth less than 50,000 years. Where’s the scripture that states how old the earth is?

          • John N

            Well I guess ‘real scientists’ are those doing ‘real science’. So you should ask Wayne.

            What you believe is up to you. But you should know that reality is not on your side.

            And you ask me for scripture? You mean the Silmarillion I presume?

          • Glenn Griffith

            Please provide me proof that you can create a Ferrari from a stick of TNT from a junkyard. Then you’ll have some proof the “big bang” was possible. It’s so hilarious that you take a THEORY so seriously.

          • John N

            Oh, I take all scientific theories seriously. It is the best we have.

            On the other hand, I never heard of a theory describing the creation of a Ferrari from a stick of TNT from a junkyard. I guess that is something more like creating a human out of dust or a female out of a man’s rib. So wrong department.

          • Kena

            I am a scientist and I would never submit a peer review. Nor would I ever share with a band of witches and wizards anything which I’ve discovered, period.

          • D.M.S.

            I haven’t the faintest idea what you’re talking about or care.

          • Kena

            If you read the scriptures you will find that there is a very good lineage recounted with births ages when their children were born and age at death. If you are interested enough to study it you will find that indeed man has been on the earth roughly 6000 years and that God formed the earth from a blob of materials floating in space. At this same time light was created as well as the planets, stars and the rest of the universe. Also implied is the creation of gravity.

          • D.M.S.

            Between you and me I don’t believe for a second that GOD told us everything.

          • Glenn Griffith

            Good God don’t hold your breath. Your brain needs as much O2 as it can get.

          • Kena

            Learn how to write before throwing rocks son. It helps if you look more intelligent if you’re going to talk big.

          • Glenn Griffith

            What a nobel price?

          • Reasonable Conservative

            Peer review journals are utterly dominated by people with an anti-supernatural bias. Anything that thwarts that “faith assumption,” is rejected out of hand.

            But then.. you knew that.

        • ort

          Soft tissue and blood cannot survive for millions of years.
          There is no evidence for evolution.

        • Kena

          Sure there is, lots. And of course eye witnesses to the account. I know one and fully believe him.

        • D.M.S.

          Were you here 7000 years ago. To be sure of that statement. Do you believe that you have the capability to prove to all people that it’s much older?

      • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

        Definitely read these verses again very carefully. “For this they are willfully ignorant that the heavens were of OLD and the earth standing out of the water and in the water 6 whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water perished: 7 but the HEAVENS AND EARTH, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the judgment of ungodly men,” hints that the heavens and earth prior were judged. The heavens were not judged during Noah’s Flood, and that was basically the same system we have today, wicked men. This image clearly depicts the world between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2, and is clearly not referring to Noah’s Flood.

        • Wayne Snell

          You are clearly twisting scripture to fit evolution and/or billions of years into the Bible when the clear, plain reading of the Word contradicts it.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            Actually when you read that verse it is very clear that it is talking about Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. When one reads the surface of this verse, then yes, it seems to be indicating Noah’s Flood. However, when one reads it very carefully it becomes clear that it is not referring to this event, but something prior. 2 Peter 3:16 states “Also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable rest, as they do to the rest of the scriptures to their own destruction.” Here is clear that some things are very hard to be understood, which nullifies this so called “plain reading” of the verse. Which they that are unlearned and unstable rest, is a clear showing of people who do not know what the scripture actually says. I have done the research, known people who were devout Christians, who grew up on Ken Ham, and Kent Hovind, then went into the scientific field and did the actual work and study in the fields of Geology, Biology, Astronomy and such. The harsh truth is nearly all of them became either old earth creationist or atheist. This said, those who were unstable were knocked into atheism, and from what I observed those who became OEC, really struggled to understand what the scriptures actually say, confirming the above passage. While it is possible that some evidence for a global flood exists on the surface, there is no way that one flood, even global, would lay down the rock layers and fossils the way we find them today.

          • Wayne Snell

            First of all, the rock layers and the hydrological sorting of the animals in them are best explained by a year long Global Flood. The belief in an “old earth” presents a plethora of theological and doctrinal problems that conflict with he Bible. An OEC view destroys the doctrine of original sin. if there was death before sin, then why did Jesus sacrifice Himself? And why would God call His creation very good if there was millions of years of death, suffering, and diseases before Adam? We all have the same evidences, It is a presupposition that causes you to interpret the evidence in light of your worldview.And because your worldview says the earth is billions of years old you have to do damage to the scriptures to fit in long ages into the Bible.You have taken man’s word as truth over God’s Word.

          • Adam Schmitt

            One could accuse you of taking man’s word as “God’s word”, but you can’t accuse scientists of taking “man’s word” because it’s not from man that they derive their theories, but from observable nature. The rock strata is more than enough proof of an earth older than whatever arbitrary number the “young earth creationists” want to claim.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            Well, within the geologic record we find that we have assortments like sandstone being above shale, granite being below the shale, then sandstone being below the shale and so forth. If this was the result of one big flood, then all the sandstone, shale, limestone, granite etc would be layered from heaviest on the bottom, to the lightest on the top. This is not what we see in geology. Also, we should have T rex’s mixed in with mammoths, brachiosaurs, indrictotheres, sabertooth tigers, man, apes etc all jumbled together. Also, the Coconino sandstone contains the footprints of millipedes and other small animals which could only be preserved if the desert soil in which they were walking on was soft, and the wind blew more soil over it while it was damp. Over time, the sand piled on those tiny prints and preserved them. If a global flood did this, these features would not be present. Also, the Coconino sandstone was formed by wind, not water, further nullifying the global flood as its cause. This along with many other evidences point to an old earth. As for the doctoring of Christ, this has no contradiction to it whatsoever. First of all, God says very good, not perfect. These are two totally different word choices. Also, God tells Adam to subdue the earth, which seems to indicate that it wasn’t subdued and thus was wild and untamed. Romans 5:12 states “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for all have sinned:” is very clear that this is referring to human/ spiritual death, not animal or plant death, because plants and animals don’t sin. Also, the world between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 was under a different system than the present system, thus would not contradict any scriptures relating to this topic.

          • Wayne Snell

            Evidence is all still a matter of interpretation. Then Jesus. by your time line must be a liar. Mark 10:6,7 says “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife.” So if the creation of man wasn’t in the beginning then you have a huge problem because Jesus who is God in the flesh doesn’t lie.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            The context of that verse was relating to marriage not the creation of the world. Also, this is referring to the creation of man which took place after Genesis 1:2 which clearly would not contradict scripture. When God is relating to man he is very specific in what he is dealing with, thus the context is the creation of man, not the universe.

          • JGC

            “First of all, the rock layers and the hydrological sorting of the animals in them are best explained by a year long Global Flood.”

            No, they’re not. In fact, the geologic evidence argues against the occurrence of a catastrophic global flood at anytime within the last 20 million years (google the Green River and Lake Suigetsu varve formations, for example) and is totally incompatible with the fossil record being an artifact of hydrological sorting (for example, hydrologic sorting would require all fossil pollens to be preserved in a single narrow strata, whereas we instead see pollen distributed throughout the entire geologic column).

            “And why would God call His creation very good if there was millions of years of death, suffering, and diseases before Adam?”

            There’s no evidence that god actually exists or called anything good, Wayne: the idea that he does and did is an article of religious faith indistinguishable from any other superstitious belief.

    • WorldGoneCrazy

      Indeed. Evolutionary naturalism is the only game in town for atheists. Therefore, in their minds, it MUST be true. (I am a former atheist, BTW.)

    • Cady555

      The evidence is overwhelming that the earth is approximately 4.56 billion years old. While that number will likely be improved upon and refined, the answer will remain in the multiple billions.

      In the same way, we continually learn more about the solar system. We learn more about the number and types of objects in the solar system. But no matter how much more we learn, we will not return to a point where a serious person claims the moon is made of swiss cheese because there is clear evidence that that statement is not true.

      Likewise, regardless of how much more we learn, science will never support a 6000 year old earth because it is patently untrue.

      • D.M.S.

        In your mind. Thank GOD that everyone doesn’t have to believe what you believe.

    • Valri

      No, Ryan Case. People attack Ken Ham because he doesn’t provide a shred of evidence for anything he says, just points at the Bible and expects everyone to believe it. No ad homs whatsoever.

  • Bill Ludlow

    When did fossilized blood vessels become “blood?” Creationists act like we are finding dino bones with raw meat hanging off them when in fact every preserved soft tissue find ends up being explained as it has for the past 50 years. They just don’t like the answers.

    • Nick

      “Explained”? More like “explained away”.

      • Bill Ludlow

        Like I said, you just don’t like the answers.

  • acontraryview

    So this is another confirmation that the “young earth” theory is incorrect.

  • J. B. Ferguson

    Dinosaurs do not have to be young for the Bible to be absolutely correct. When did this fallacy begin? The Gap Theory/Restoration is scriptural and theological truth and accounts for the great ago of the earth and the Adamic timeline.

  • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

    No unfossilized dinosaur bones have been discovered. Every dinosaur bone that is claimed not to be fossilized has been mineralized to the point that the original material is no longer present, thus it is still considered a fossil. As for dinosaur blood, it comes to no surprise to me that it has been found due to the fact that recent finds from the late 2000’s indicate that dinosaur blood contained a lot of iron. When the iron is mixed with the hemoglobin, it’s chemical compounds create a substance that acts like formaldehyde thus preserving the blood and muscle tissue. It is likely that this was also in a low oxygen environment, which would further allow for preservation. By no means does this find indicate that dinosaurs are not millions of years old.

  • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

    No, the big Bang is not an explosion. YEC’s do not understand that the Big Bang is simply an expansion of the universe from an original state (possibly the multiverse) not an explosion.

  • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

    “In the beginning God created the heavens and earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the face of the deep, and the spirit of God was hovering over the waters,” Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. Notice how it says that the waters were already here in this verse. Now, if we look at Jeremiah 4:23, 2 Peter 3:3-7, and Isaiah 45:18 in the original text, we will find a connection between these verses which makes it clear that something was going on here. In Genesis 1:1 we have perfection, in verse 2 we have destruction. Also God does not create in tohu (Hebrew for chaotic, vain, confused etc), Isaiah 45:18, yet in verse 1:2 it says tohu wa bohu in the Hebrew text. This means that the earth was not created in this fashion. Another term for tohu wa bohu is a wilderness, which could be indicating that the earth was turned into a wilderness (most likely by the fall of Lucifer) and was in this state for many many millennia.
    Also Genesis says, let there be, let there be, which in the original translation simply means a granting of permission, Let there be light, let the earth bring forth, and so on. “Let” is not a creative act, but a permissive one. These statements in Genesis do open the door to an interpretation, (which is the most likely one) that at least to some extent, creatures evolved over time. “Let us make man in our image,” simply states that God is going to make A MAN IN HIS IMAGE, and from this perspective Adam would be the first true man, whereas Cro-Magnon and Neanderthals were not created in God’s image and thus not considered by him to be man (as indicated in the Bible). I personally believe that man as we know him evolved, however, at some point in time, God reached down and created a MAN IN HIS IMAGE, which would have similar DNA, features, intellect, and cares as the previous type of man, but would be made directly in the image of God, and thus be a whole new creature. One must take every word that proceeds from the mouth of God and examine it before coming to any conclusions.

  • HardCorePress

    Only an idiot who doesn’t follow the Scientific Method would believe in evolution…I laugh at morons who even think that dino flesh can still be alive or preserved millions upon millions of years later. Talk about being gullible beyond belief.

    • John N

      Dino flesh still ALIVE millions upon millions of years later?

      Let me guess: you’ve been watching the Flintstones?

      • HardCorePress

        I know its laughable that dino flesh would be alive millions upon millions of years later, not thousands….Just further proves evolution is BS!!!

        • John N

          OK I get it. And of course dinosaur flesh being alive after million of years would prove the bible to be scientific correct.

          I guess there must be a prophecy somewhere about it …

          • HardCorePress

            No I can see you’re not reading and understanding what I am writing. To put it bluntly dinosaurs didn’t exist millions and millions of years ago. They existed a few thousand years ago and walked with mankind. There is no way flesh can survive millions of years, thousands of years is more likely. The problem is people believe what they want to believe not what facts and truth tell them.

          • John N

            Of course dinosaurs walked with mankind a couple of thousand years ago. In fact they actually saddled and rode on them too! The proof is all around us, you can see it on television and in the movies! There is even a whole museum built around it, somewhere in Kentucky. How can anybody not accept all this evidence?

            I just can’t find the right chapter an verse in the bible, but of course you can help me with that. I mean the prophecy that dinosaur flesh being alive would be found in 2015. While you are looking, I’m going to finish my fried chicken meal.

          • HardCorePress

            Ah but alas John dear friend no matter what proof you’re given, you will refuse and deny. I know you hate Christ but get over your hate already. Stop being willfully ignorant and actually read the Bible and read the news you will be surprised by what you will understand. Don’t hate Christ because of me or someone else, hate Him because you actually want to reject Him. The problem you have John is you hate Him and you don’t know why.

          • John N

            Do I hate him? That would be a stupid thing to do. I do not hate Santa Clause or purple unicorns either. I do not believe any of them exists. And until you show any evidence for your god (do you dare?), that will remain so.

          • HardCorePress

            Oh but you can prove He doesn’t exist right? Because absence of evidence is therefore evidence of absence. Quit before you dig a hole to deep to get out of.

          • John N

            Nobody can, but that’s not required. You are the one making the exceptional claim gods exist, you provide the evidence. Until that has been done, I see no reason to believe in any mythical characters.

          • HardCorePress

            I don’t see your brain either but I am sure you have one. But again no proof I give to you will suffice because you don’t want to know God. It is this simple. You choose to deny and deny and deny, why argue with you?

          • John N

            Deny what exactly? You keep on repeating that, but when will you actually show your evidence?

            Or do you belief your bible to be evidence of your god? Really?

    • Valri

      Yeah, just so you know, The Flintstones wasn’t autobiographical.

      • John N

        Wasn’t ? I thought there was even a museum about them in Kentucky featuring man and dinosaurs together. So they must have been real, no?

        • Valri

          “But I have this book!” – Ken Ham

      • HardCorePress

        The Flintstones is a cartoon. We are talking about idiotic atheists who think they believe in evolution…stay on track with the argument!!!

        • John N

          Well, The Flintstones prove dino’s were alive together with mankind. That is what you wanted to prove, isn’t it?

          Have you got something better?

          • HardCorePress

            The Flintstones? HAHAHAH nice one but dude wake up and tune into reality!

          • John N

            So you have got nothing better. What a surprise.

          • HardCorePress

            HAHAh you are the one using the Flintstones to mock the truth! Prove to me otherwise! Proof proof proof where is your proof!!!!???

          • John N

            Well, I admit i use the Flintstones to mock willfull ignorance.

            So do you admit you’ve got nothig better to prove dinos were running around with humans a few thousand yeras ago?

  • Phil McDonald

    New Earth views are incompatible with the Bible. Most New Earth, so called Christians have the idea that God is not rational. That is, God can simultaneously allow and reject an event at the same time for the same reason. God can create something for the purpose of destroying it, and at the same time create for an everlasting purpose. This world view of the Bible is sad and destructive to the Christian faith.

  • happy diwali

    Another lie by Christians to prove evolution as false. But nobody is going to believe that lie.

  • http://www.TrustChristOrGoToHell.org VINDICATOR

    God bless the Kent Hovind’s of this wicked world!

    • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

      Interesting statement seeing he is scripturally and scientifically ignorant. Also, many people who have grown up on his materials have become either atheist or old earth creationist because they observed the facts that the world is far older than 6000 years.

      • http://www.TrustChristOrGoToHell.org VINDICATOR

        LOL! Quite the opposite you lying POS. Burn in Hell.

        • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

          Lol. First of all, nice Christ-like attitude. Second, I happen to do actual research on this topic so to say that it my statement is false is silly. Most Christians who grow up on YEC material and become scientist do indeed become OEC’S or agnostic/atheist. Like myself, they have observed the facts all while listening to the arguments of YEC’s. Also, many who become Bible scholars often discover the multiple problems with young Earth as the ancient Hebrew test does not support a new Earth, but a very ancient planet. While some people do come to Christ because of YEC, or accept this doctrine after being saved, more often than not they do accept real science that the world is ancient rather than 6000 years old. I have interviewed people who work in the field and the biggest hindrance of them coming to God is the fact that they believe the Bible teaches the earth is only 6k old which is utter nonsense.

          • http://www.TrustChristOrGoToHell.org VINDICATOR

            Lying POS. Your “science” is false. Further, this earth is not a “planet” u #GlobeTARD. YOU r utter nonsense. GO TO HELL. God hates you & so do I!

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            HAHAHAHA yes, the earth is a planet. Or perhaps its a pancake. Where are you getting your information from? Even Kent Hovind admits the earth is a planet, unless he changed his stance.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            God bless you.

          • http://www.TrustChristOrGoToHell.org VINDICATOR

            Kent needs to also change his view/teaching on this. The evidence is overwhelming and plain to anyone who has eyes to see. Proven over and over.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            God bless you

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            God bless you.

  • Glenn Griffith

    Once again the Evolutionist change the facts to fit their beliefs. First they say that blood could never last millions of years but then when it’s proven dinosaur blood they say that it can. The science points to the truth and they still don’t get it.

  • Katharine

    Too bad a site that claims Christ has such ad material. 🙁

  • jehanne

    Whether the earth is very young or much older is by no means the crux of the real
    issues here that kind of divide Christianity with secular science. The second largest issue that divides us is this — were we created or did we evolve? The largest and most critical issue that divides us is this — even if we evolved was it with God or with no God?

    THAT is what really matters. Are those who believe in evolution bold enough or foolish enough to suggest this all could have happened with God, the Intelligent Designer? Can anyone be that obtuse or that obstinate? You really think molecules could just crash into one another and create DNA, and then cells with a thousand machines inside them working harmoniously together, and then as we move along science’s timeline we find bugs swimming in the water and somehow reproducing, then we have little furry animals who came from those bugs, then we have eyes and ears and spinal cords and livers and spleens, all because of some totally phony cop out description called “natural selection.”

    What is that? Did some earlier mammal think to itself “today would be a good day to start growing a spleen, no one ever had one of those before?” This is preposterous and totally unscientific. Evolutionist high priest Richard Dawkins says in his book – – – “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”

    “…the illusion of design.” — yes, so “scientific.” So convincing. Or is it really, in search of a means to help justify their desired ends? Science needs to come to terms with what they propose or hope for is impossible and untenable without an Intelligent Designer (read: God). Otherwise, their suppositions are as ridiculous and unscientific as they can possibly be.

    • John N

      >’The largest and most critical issue that divides us is this — even if we evolved was it with God or with no God? THAT is what really matters.’

      Well, until you are going to present some empirical, verifiable evidence of your god, this critical issue will and can be very quickly closed.

      >’Are those who believe in evolution …’

      Nobody believes in evolution. Believe is for religious people, where evidence is not available.

      The rest of your post clearlly proves you do not understand what you are trying to attack, which of course make you look a bit foolish. No, molecules did not create DNA. No, mammals did not decide to grow a spleen – you seem to be not aware that practically all vertebrates own a spleen. No, science does not need to come to terms with how what it proposes impossible and untenable without an Intelligent Designer (read: God). Science has done that long ago. And guess what: your god is not needed. Your god could be as well non-existent.

      Now, show us your evidence science is wrong.

      • jehanne

        Your kind of answers always amuse me. You and they are so good at telling me what evolution is not, as though you have just proven what it is. You just assume a spleen was no big deal. Somehow, mindless unintelligent design had the wherewithal to start growing one because…. well, just because. And my what a cool job they did without any thinking involved. Pardon my laughter. And so precise in your creations. I don’t hardly see any trials and misses in that fossil record in any of your osteo masterpieces.

        • John N

          Glad to be of source of amusement. If you really want to know what evolution is, please read a basic book on biology. You’ll find most of the evidence for evolution there. You can use it, that’s for sure.

          So where is your evidence of a spleen being designed by your god creator? If you need an go to design a spleen, what do you need to design your god?

          • jehanne

            I will take your answer as a total diversion from the subject. Because you have no idea how a spleen was made, you retort well if you say God made the spleen then who made your God? My answer: I do not know who made God. But that still does not deny the fact that something had to design and create hyper complex life, and matter itself. We are not so stupid as to think an eyeball or a brain is no big deal for mindless molecules to figure out by chance. It is both insulting to science and to basic common sense.

          • John N

            A spleen was not ‘made’. We know pretty well how and when the spleen evolved from a simpler organ structure in primitive fish. There is not a speck of evidence it was ‘designed’.

            >’But that still does not deny the fact that something had to design and create hyper complex life, and matter itself’

            Care to give any evidence for that?

            >’We are not so stupid as to think an eyeball or a brain is no big deal for mindless molecules to figure out by chance. It is both insulting to science and to basic common sense.’

            It is rather insulting to science and basic commons sense to accept without evidence a complex designer creating a more simple organ like the spleen, the brain or the eyeball, without asking where and how that designer originated. So the first question any rational person should ask is who designed your designer?

          • jehanne

            Just do not accuse Christians of living on faith alone. No one demonstrates more blind faith than a godless evolutionist. It is insulting what you expect us to swallow as fact. Such as — ” We know pretty well how and when the spleen evolved from a simpler organ structure in primitive fish. There is not a speck of evidence it was designed.” —- Right. You see a beautiful painting and could say the same?, not a speck of evidence it was designed? This is so laughable. It is the sign of pure pride. Man is so full of himself he dares defy his creator to impress those around him. How utterly tragic and sad.

            I could try to be nice instead of insulting but why? You have shown your stripes. It is like Chesterton famously said —- “When man stops believing in God he does not then believe in nothing. He will believe in anything.”

          • John N

            Well I know how paintings are made. I’ve seen people make paintings. I know painters. I have evidence they exist. I have seen their workshops. I know why they make paintings. I have actually made paintings myself.

            What about your creator?

            By the way, show me where I insulted you anywhere. But sure you showed your stripes now. It is like Voltaire famously said, “Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.”

          • jehanne

            But had you not seen a painting made, you would still know it had to be created by the mere fact nature could never do something like that on its own. And yet, nature supposedly is creating physiological systems in the body so vast and complex that modern man with all its brain power cannot match “blind chance that has no will.” This is not science, this is nonsense.

            Evolutionist high priest Richard Dawkins says in his book – – – “Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selection overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning.”

            – – – -> “the illusion of design.” — so convincing, so scientific. :O

            What about my Creator? You demand God tell you how He became before you will accept He exists? Kind of brazen of you to say the least.

            Voltaire, I do wish I knew more about this man. Quite fascinating and I believe, sadly, he died in torment of what he was experiencing? I hope I am wrong. But Voltaire was no fool and here is a quote from him from the book “Christian Faith and Life, Volumes 16-17” —-
            A friend once wrote these words to Voltaire: “I have succeeded in getting rid of the idea of hell.” Voltaire replied: “Allow me to congratulate you. I am very far from that.”

            Do make the most of Christmas with your family. Peace.

          • John N

            >’And yet, nature supposedly is creating physiological systems in the body so vast and complex that modern man with all its brain power cannot match “blind chance that has no will.” This is not science, this is nonsense.’

            I’m afraid only your concept of evolution is nonsense. Luckily, reality is not based on your faulty concepts.

            Happy holiday period.

  • jehanne

    To the editors:
    So if someone posts a new comment it then automatically goes near the bottom where the only way it is even seen by anyone is if they keep hitting the “load more comments” button a few times? Is that the normal procedure? If so, I am no longer inspired to put forth the effort. (even though I am on your side on these issues)

  • U.N. Soldier

    Now,now,now we all know the definition of insanity right? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result every time. How is that any different then looking at a cell and expecting it to change into something different and better by just waiting for millions or Billions of years. A organism cannot survive past 5% mutation, and it cannot get past the Law of Entropy. All mutations result in lost information, kind of like your DVD that has a scratch and now the picture is distorted or more likely even missing. Evolutionists would have us believe though that somehow…given enough time…those scratches would add up to a better and even longer movie, maybe even a better plot-line. I hope now you can see the foolishness of such a notion.

  • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

    Interesting statement VIN, and very Christ-like might I add. However, I have done the surveys and they all indicate that people who grow up on YEC material and go into the sciences either become OEC or agnostic/atheist. This is due to the observations made in nature, “Psalm 19,” speaks about this. The reality is YEC is doing more damage than good and while it may be helping a few, it is driving more away because YEC is not Biblical, nor is it scientific.

  • Crusader777

    You take away the “millions of years” and Evolutionists have no theory. Looks like God has once again made “the rocks cry out” about the glory of the Most High God!

  • Reasonable Conservative

    The origin of anything that happened before anyone was there to observe it is a faith assumption. Surprising that so many caught of in claims of “science” and “proof” deny that – purporting that their “theory” rides above this kind of admission, going straight for the absolutist claim of “TRUTH!”

    Childish, really, from those who have so much to lose if they are wrong.