I love how you guys think this is fabricated and a hoax. You do realize that when this finding occurred it shook the entire scientific community in 2005 right? I remember the morning this came out and I still have saved every article on every major new network, I have downloads from MSNBC, FOX, CNN, ABC news sites. This was a huge finding. And guess how the scientific community responded. ...The sound of nothing but crickets.
The findings suggest the "Blood Cells and Soft Tissue" found in the fossils are bacterial biofilm. I love Creationist lying douche-bags. They're sad and funny, but not funny haw haw.
@bigboy45454545 Bacteria biofilm? LOL! Apparently you missed the article put out by the EVOLUTIONARY biologist's findings on this matter. Any other make believe stuff you want to make up?
@cctman Here's the thing. Nobody cares what an uneducated halfwit American Creationist thinks. Twaddle from twits is meaningless. That's why you're here looking at garbage and spreading your disinformation to other twits in the hope they'll join the Creationist party. Not much of a party at all with ignorance afoot in a sea of inbreeding and banjo music. That's not only your sister, she's also you wife. Dad wasn't going to pay for two weddings
Changing the age of the fossils did not even cross their minds. These are the people who see evolution every day. They see dinosaurs changing over 160 million years.
There is no way to date anything past 1000 years, CARBON DATING IS A FRAUD, THEY FOUND NEWLY DEAD SEALS THAT WERE 25,000 YEARS OLD ACCORDING TO CARBON DATING. A Man they found , his skin was 50,000 years old while his legs were 20,000 years old. 2 wooly Mammoths Found side by side, one was 100,000 years old while the other 25,000 its a FRAUD wake up
@SonofJaphet Please show me the original Pagan transcripts detailing the Theory of Evolution. Or admit you're making an assertion with no evidence. Or (and this is BY FAR the most likely), run away and don't respond to me.
@ProblemHonorStudent "These are the principles on which living creatures change and have changed into one another, the transformation depending on the loss or gain of understanding or folly." (Plato, Timaeus 49: 80-108).or Anaximander (610-540BC) believed that people had evolved from fish! or Empedocles (490-430BC), stated, "The greater part of the members of animals came but by chance.Or Brahman (the Universe) spontaneously evolved by itself like a seed Or read Aristotle
@SonofJaphet Woah, hang on. These were all spiritual metaphors these guys were using, not assertions of reality, any more than Jesus parable about the seeds on the wayside means to throw seeds. And it's not even a solid quote of evolution, is it? Anymore than me saying the Hindus are all actualy Judeo-Christians because they call there god, who is 3 parts yet one, the 'I AM'. I tip my hat to you for returning with your reasons, but I question your interpretation. Read the entire manuscripts.
@ProblemHonorStudent This is just to prove that Darwin was not the genius that you think he was in fact i consider him as a fraud who stole his ideas from others before him but they dont teach that.This is just to say that Evolutionism comes from the ancient mystery Babylonian religion
@ProblemHonorStudent Darwin didnt read these ancient books but Evolutionism is found in the Kabalah religion .Anyway we could go on and on but its just to say that Darwin didnt invent anything he just compiled what was before him and further more he was a racist read The Descent of Man
@gregrutz Natural Selection is observable and we argree on this but for example a fish evolving into a non-fish is scientifically impossible how can the fish aquatic respirational system change into a non-aquatic one?
@gregrutz Darwin did nt discovered Natural Selection ,Thomas Malthus did .Alfred Russel Wallace conceived thetheory of evolution but Wallace made a mistake :He sent Darwin his essay but Darwin,Charles Lyell and Joseph Dalton Hooker sent his essay (without Wallace knowledge) to the Linnean Society to be read and Darwin took the credit for it and Wallace died broken
@SonofJaphet Thomas Malthus was basically an economist and knew nothing of Natural History or Natural Selection. It was Darwin who realised that the argument of "survival of the fittest" was a form of Natural Selection that explained how evolution works. About 20 years later Alfred Wallace independently worked out pretty much the same thing and unfortunately Darwin had not completed his book on the subject. So both men got equal credit but the book made Darwin famous later.
@SonofJaphet Everyone was a racist by modern standards in those days. There are several instances of Abraham Lincoln, in his own handwriting, using the 'N' word. And he freed the slaves. Now Jesus was a racist. Ask the Samaritan woman he called a dog.
And Darwin compiled nothing. He formulated a hypothesis, and evidence has pushed it into being a theory.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter if Darwin is a chold molester. His THEORY is sound, and his personal life doesn't affect that at all.
@SonofJaphet All Europeans were racist in those days. Even HG Wells the great Humanist writer and intellectual 50 years later had some racist views. They believed that the greater the civilisation (based on their own standard) the greater the intellectual bearing of the race. But there is evidence Darwin showed compassion to indiginous populations he met on his travels.
@SonofJaphet Actually I have a better explanation. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults. The only difference is that their fairy tale has a little god called time and random chance.
@george7981 THEY DON'T TEACH THIS IN SCHOOL BECAUSE THIS IS A BIG FAT LIE!!!
We do update the material. This is why evolution, and not magicy-sky-buddies, is taught nowadays. It is YOU who needs to update the info, and look at all sides of the story, not just one.
Evolutionists are in some serious denial man. Think if the tables were turned, they be hailing this discovery. Look at what they did with all of their hoaxes.. lol. Repent..
You've dishonestly taken a short quote from popular media and ignored the actual research paper from which it's sourced.
Here's a fun quote from the abstract of that very publication:
"We propose a possible chemical pathway that may contribute to this preservation. The presence of endogenous protein in dinosaur bone may validate hypotheses about evolutionary relationships, rates, and patterns of molecular change and degradation, as well as the chemical stability of molecules over time."
docretardable when you dig up a bone thats been buried under solid ice and it been frozen since the trex died it like the meat you get out of your freezer it still eatable you ignorant bigot, that for the one up above, and there our mammoth that are deicing in Russia now that the wolf's are feeding on now and people our selling the ivory, man you evolution are in dream land even darwin did not believe his own theory page 126 he was appalled that it was a fantasy.deccent from darwinism list next
That's why science doesn't take mythologies seriously, cause theyre just that, fairy tales. That's why science absolutely disregards religion along with it's dogma and lies, and prove wrong facts.
THIS PROVES IS!! ISN'T IT? yeah it does!. It proves that religious people and creationist are plain retarded because they believe dinosaurs lived with men xD!
@Kamyu03 yeah your right..i mean evolution has all the planets just teaming with life..knowing earth is younger than all the other planets and how life is just abundant here..its great to see every planet we have found so much ??? oh yeah..for some reason we have never found even a living fungi anywhere else..does Evolution only happen on earth ? surely if we survived the big bang and grew from a rock..the other planets should be way more advanced thanus right ? what happen ?
@Projectinsighter I don´t know what you're talking about. Planets like Jupiter which is giant planet with no surface couldn't have life like Earth of course. And is quite known know that Mars had a huge ocean over 3 billions years ago, and btw liquid water has been found in Europe, so there is a huge probability that there could be life on that planet.
Oh, and btw only stupid people could believe that life evolve from a rock, and btw you're confusing evolution with abyogenesis.
@Kamyu03 What im talking about is..If Evolution were any truth to it...Life would find a way to start on just about any surface of any planet ..we have very extreme conditions on earth and life within it..These planets are much older that Earth..and not a sign of life..which kinda says .You cannot get life from a rock,planet or anything else..unless it has been created to live there..is that hard for you to understand ?? cause its quite simple..Evolution of life ,nothing could stop if true.
@Projectinsighter You don't understand what abyogenesis is and you're mixing it with evolution. Evolution doesn't account for the origin of life on any planet, it has never been and it never will.
Those planet don't have the conditions to support life on' em. They are either way to close or fay from the sun, between many other variants. You seem to believe that life comes from rock, which is ridiculous, creation are just fairy tales from mythologies all over the world.
@Kamyu03 "Those planet don't have the conditions to support life on' em" It's easy to see how evolutionists contradicts themselves: on the one hand you indirectly claim the anthropic principle as a defense argument, but when christians postulate the anthropic principle you simply say that life just evolved to adapt to the existing conditions. Then why this explanation is not valid for the rest of the universe?
@raponte1955 I have never once seen a Xtian invoke the anthropic principle. Cause it destroys the very thing they lean on: 'The universe is fine-tuned for life.'
@raponte1955 OK, since ad hominem is par for you, I will elaborate. The anthropic principle in every circumastance, removes the 'logical neccessity' for an intelligent designer. Yes, we are in the perfect spot for life in our solar system. How could beings from a planet not fit for life exist to ask the questions we are?
I have NEVER seen in used to support the notion of a god intelligently. Prove to me otherwise, or you could just call me a kid again. Whatever.
@ProblemHonorStudent The universe appears to have been carefully engineered in order to produce carbon-based life forms including man. Period. The odds of this happening by chance are unsurmountable. The only possible logical explanation resides in the multiverse and string theories. Since multiverse appears to be an unproven fairy tale hypothesis, the only logical explanation is pretty obvious. And sorry for the name calling. It was not my intention to insult.
@raponte1955 You call the multiverse an 'unproven fairy tale hypothesis', and postulate 'Therefore, it's obvious (meaning god).' Not scientific at all. We call that 'god of the gaps', cause he only exists in holes in scientific knowledge. And, there is actually mathematic evidence for string theory and multiverses, unlike ANY creator myth. And honestly, the universe is 99.9999% devoid of life. How is this 'engineered for life'? That means we are lucky to be here, but again, anthropic principle.
@ProblemHonorStudent "And honestly, the universe is 99.9999% devoid of life. How is this 'engineered for life'?" ...that's precisely the point. The universe was only engineered for earthly life, which includes humans and all other forms of life on earth. The infinitesimal precise fine tuning of the universe constants are responsible for this miracle.
@raponte1955 That is not a scientific point of inquiry, that is a religious one. 'I BELIEVE the univers is tuned for life, despite all the evidence...'
Still waiting to see the anthropic principle work for and not against you. The fact is life probably does happen elsewhere, just not frequently. And honestly, what does the Galaxy Andromeda have to do with this life on earth?
Just because we are ignorant of some things don't mean god did it. That's not science. That's lazy science.
@ProblemHonorStudent Who's pretending this to be a scientific debate, for God's sake? Believers look around at the natural world and see nature declaring the glory of God, while unbelievers insist in a naturalistic, God-devoided explanation. For example, the Big Bang clearly points to a beginning, but the atheist will seek explanations to this beginning which are much more complex and unrealistic than a simple "In the Beginning God.."
@raponte1955 Sir, if you say 'God did it', you are making a scientific hypothesis, one that will either have evidence or not. Whether or not you wish it to be a scientific debate is irrelevant.
And calling god as a first cause 'simple' is smoke and mirrors to invoke Occam's Razor. If the universe is too complex to have happened on it's own (like you say), then how much more complex the being that designed it? It's an infinite regression. Excluding god from the regression is a logical fallacy.
@ProblemHonorStudent Of course Occam's razor is invoked as the primary philosphical argumentation against the infinite regression of first causes, and no, excluding God is not a logical fallacy, since it is consistent with the nature of God, who does not need a creator. Otherwise, He would not be God, duhhhh!!!
@raponte1955 Don't you see what you just did? That's like me saying 'Of course David Koresh was sent by god, he said so!' You assert an IDEA of what you would like to believe, and try to use logic and cherry-picked science to support this hypothesis turned assertion. If you say I cannot exist without a creator, then how can a being capable of creating me, the entire universe, and hear prayers exist without precedent?
Bye-bye to Occam's. Infinity is anything but simple.
@ProblemHonorStudent God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. But your premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created.
@raponte1955 Exchange the word 'God' with 'David Koresh', and assume that's my stance. How would you prove I'm delusional?
He exists outside of time. Sure, he died, but he rose. Don't believe me? Need evidence?
This is the crux, imo. Believe what you like, all you like. However, if you battle science with faith, you're just in the way. And if you want to teach my kids the same, you have forfeited any rights to keep your beliefs out of my crosshairs. MY kids. Seen it happen many a time...
@raponte1955 Then that might explain where the Singularity that started the Big Bang came from. Time began with the Bang so therefore using your logic that means that all the matter of the Universe has always existed as it is outside time. So God is not required as there was no need for Him to create anything!
@geniusrepairman1 Typical case of " non-sequitur". Your reasoning is faulty and a fallacy. I think you should stop taking sleeping pills, since it may be somehow deteriorating your neurones, as per your horrendous attempt to reasoning.
@raponte1955 If God does not need to be created since He is outside time, then as the Universe when a singularity was also outside time (as the time dimesnsion unfolded at the moment of the Big Bang), according to Your logic (not mine) there was no Creation as the matter of the Universe has also always existed. Please show how this reasoning is faulty as opposed to merely declaring it so.
@ProblemHonorStudent Also, I don't see why you have a problem with God existing out of nothing but firmly believe that the laws of physics allowed the universe being created out of nothing via quantum tunneling or whatever. In the town I was raised this was called a contradiction
@raponte1955 But creationists insist that everything that exists needs a creator. So your god needs a creator. Or you're admitting that some things don't need a creator. And if that's true, then the universe didn't need a creator either.
@VesusSheist No, He does not. God exists outside of time, hence He does not need a beggining. Furthermore, If God needs to be caused, He would not be God. It's that easy.
@raponte1955 So there's a definition for 'god' that you cling to... Have any evidence this exists, or is it like Superhero powers? We have an idea of what they are, based on culture. Does that mean they exist?
@raponte1955 If this is true, what makes you think God is YOUR God? God might look like the Hexetorian 8 Frog People of Galaxy 3.56668 that She created in Her image and even now the Hexetorians have regular meetings with God on how to spread their Watery Paradise to other worthy civilisations within their local star cluster.
@DocReasonable..prissy little bitch? I mean youre the one calling everyone a retard on here and you dont expect people to respond? Youre comments have been removed too so I wonder what that says about how you hold a conversation on youtube. Your account name doesnt really describe you very well. Too bad, we, the world, need more people who can make educated good responses to these kind of dumb vids..
This means that your date of the life isn't several thousand years old, but several days.
If you're actually being scientific, you would be able to make an OBSERVATION, and then a CONCLUSION that actually follows from your OBSERVATION: It's still DATED to be 75 million years. Your 'dating method' of cell decay (which is qualitative and subject to circumstances which we haven't discovered yet, as this is an ANOMALY) predicts ages of a few days.
@TheBlueShamen one week ? lol..fact is the died in the flood..The wathers,Gods Angels created the Nephilim and the Nephilim started manipulating all life on Earth by cross breeding..Nephilim created many of the Dinosaurs that we have dug up..it's not hard to figure out..Considering we are digging up giant skeletons all over the planet ranging from 9ft to 36...these are facts and soon will have to come out cause to many people have witnessed the findings
@Projectinsighter Lol, xD ja, ja, ja the flood my cat, you're really funny. I'm sorry but you're just gonna have to suck it, everywhere in the world, in China, India, Japan, Latin America, Russia, Europe, Australia, Africa everywhere... even on stupid America evolution is taught to children in public schools, and it'll remain that way, ju, ju, ju. Cause it's the truth, and people wont teach their children their local mythology.
@Kamyu03 you do know that every Culture from ancient passt of their history book and wriiten and carved in to walls and stone talk about a world flood right ?? so much evidence that its not being ignored as fact anymore..but yeah i did'nt think you would know..talking to Evolutionist are like talking to 6 year olds from the ghetto lol..peace
@Projectinsighter Yes, also that they all invented their gods, myths, dragons, fairys, virgin births, etc. That only proves how mankind is good to create and believe their own fairy tales. Noa's Ark is a rip-off of Greek Mythology deukalion's flood, and that one is a ripoff of a sumerian myth. That's how mythologies are created, it doesn't mean that dragons are real just because the chinese, mayans, europeans and every single culture believe in them.
@Projectinsighter ' every Culture from ancient passt of their history book and wriiten and carved in to walls and stone talk about a world flood right ??'
You also realize most of the people of the old days thought the earth ways VERY small. If it flooded all you could see from the highest hill, the whole world got flooded. And floods happen all over the world. A flood recorded in Japan one year, in MesoAmerica the next and in France 100 years later becomes THE FLOOD!
@raponte1955 Yeah but Mexico is 3rd world. It sucks, and America as well, people are as fat as in Mexico and at least as stupid. And there is drug wars also because of America's consumption and weapons.
No wonder why China is kicking America's ass, what a declining empire, fill with Xtians and religious stupid people, that's why.
@TheBlueShamen if you actually did some research without the hate of God & Bible..you would see just how Stupid Evolution is..it's impossible..we do evolve no doubt..But as God has created us to do..we start out something micro and grow into who we are..thats evolution at its max..But before that we had to be designed and created to get the ball rollin...Nephilim are real..they hide it cause it would end most science & Evolution as a joke,and change the way we have been taught.
@TheBlueShamen Right... because there could be no other possible explanation. (Eyes roll) Do us all a favor and stay clear of the scientific field. People with your false premises are exactly what is killing the fields of science.
@Cainkane1 uhh, yeah. You are wrong. There was soft tissue found in the bones. They have almost 100% irrefutable evidence..where is your proof that this is a lie?
Why is it you morons dismiss ALL of evolutionary science out of hand without understanding the first thing about it, but as soon as some half-assed distorted crap like THIS comes along you swallow it hook, line and sinker??
@DocReasonable Wow...do you even read the other comments i have left on here? No, obviously. I was in a conversation with someone else that you butted into. In my other comments that I have left on here, it is clear that I am in complete SUPPORT for evolution and againt the idea of the Earth only being 6,000 years old. Also, you wouldnt call someone a retard to their face like that, so I probably wouldnt say it over youtube either. It makes people look dumb when they do that..just a suggestion.
@kestkr It was not a bone, it was a 70 million year old fossil. And they did not find red blood cells or soft 'tissue' only breakdown products. The age of the fossil was never questioned, that is too well established. It never crossed their minds it might be younger, these people see evolution every day.
This is a hoax. A deliberate lie. No dinosaur soft tissue has ever been discovered. If dinosaurs were around 6000 years ago and they weren't there would be better preserved remains available. The god believer bunch says that being a liar is a sin but when it comes to plugging their lame uneducated fairy tales it seems permissable.
Look at this athiest fools trying to justify their stupid believes when clearly u see the evidence and u deliberately denied the truth. U know thats more than enough evidence to disprove your stupid evolution theory, u just don't want to except it. This is a live tissue that is not billions nor millions years old this is thousands years old God created all things why do u harden your heart to the truth. This is real not fake tissue. Evolution is a lie from the devil and u fell for the trap
No scientists have ever found red blood cells in Tyrannosaurus rex; the Creationists have deliberately exaggerated and mis-interpreted the graduate research of Schweitzer and Staedter, who never concluded they were RBCs:
"Perhaps the mysterious structures were, at best, derived from blood, modified over the millennia by geological processes."
The fact is no-one knows what they are (except Creationists apparantly, lol).
In fact the claim of red blood cells by the Creationists, by deliberate mis-interpretation of Schweitzer's research, has further been shown to be nonsense:
"Earlier hopes of finding cells in the dinosaur bone have been dashed. Dr. Schweitzer said she could see no direct sign of cells."- New York Times, June 10, 1997
But do you think that would stop Ken Ham from repeating utter false-hoods and mis-information to support his bat-shit crazy Bronze-Age mythology? NOPE.
@gregrutz They didn't find blood cells, your being lied to. Here is the actual real paper so you can look for your self.
Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone, MH Schweitzer.
They found heme (not hemoglobin) pieces. There is nothing in there about finding blood cells. Anyone claiming there is blood cells is simply lieing (and quote mining) to you.
@gregrutz Sorry I was so used to creationist saying there are red blood cells in t-rex bones, and then using that as an argument to support a young earth, that I thought you were doing the same time.
And while the blood cells claim is easily demonstratively false, it amazes me how they can claim it supports a young earth. If it were true, isn't the obvious explanation that there are conditions in which blood cells can last a very long time?
Creationists make no damn sense. How can you claim science is full of shit then try to use science to prove it? Thats so ignorant. Maybe it survived due to the environment it was in? Maybe they never considered looking inside the bones before because they "assumed" nothing would survive that long? Maybe it was contaminated in some way? This is not any proof that dino's are not millions of years old. It is only evidence pointing to it being possible for tissue to survive in the right conditions.
@Lintpocket You make no damn sense. Religious people were the first to use science. Moreover, using science to disprove a current scientific thought is what science is all about. Therefore, it should be apparent that you can't use science to prove anything, only disprove-that is taught in any into science course. So, if it is true that this dinosaurs has red blood cells than it may also true that they not be millions of years as is supposed. Also, do you even know why that is the current theory.
@HaphazardCrappola You can use Science to prove lots of things, like the earth goes around the sun and not like the bible says. They did not find red blood cells and dinos still rulead the earth for 160 million years.
@Lintpocket The billion year old earth theory and thus million year old dinosaur theory is "supported" by the theory of gradualism. Which goes contrary to logic because some events happen due to catastrophes. Gradualism is why evolution works, catastrophism would but a very big whole in the theory.
@HaphazardCrappola The earth is million of years old, that is a fact not a theory. There is no theory of gradualism. Uniformitarianism says the PROCESSES are the same, not that it is gradual or there are no catastrophes. Darwin was wrong about evolution being gradual, he did not know about the great mass extinctions like the one that killed the large dinosaurs.
did you realize that the middle East should b 50 years ahead of us in technolgy right now???
why aren't they???
because about the Renesonse era of Eupoe after the dark ages Ministers in the Middle East pretty much stopped research in everything they said that research is the work of Satan and that's why we can roll striaght into Iraq and wipe out 1000 tanks with out losing 1 tank and take over the whole nation in 3 days
did you realize that the middle East should b 50 years ahead of us in technolgy right now???
why aren't they???
because about the Renesonse era of Eupoe after the dark ages Ministers in the Middle East pretty much stopped research in everything they said that research is the work of Satan and that's why we can roll striaght into Iraq and wipe out 1000 tanks with out losing 1 tank and take over the whole nation in 3 days
If you don't believe this, and think that the world is over 9000 years old, you will go to Hell.
Period!!
Satan and his buddies are fooling you. He can do that.
Want proof? There... he's doing it RAIGHT NOOOW!!
In the end God will triumphantly hold up a fossil, flick it at Satan;s horny little head, knocking him out cold, and there he will fall into The Dark and Fiery Abyss , knocking him out for 1000 years.
Where's your fossils going to be THEN, evolutionISTS?
If it doesn't survive for a week, why would it survive for 6000 years? And if it does survive for 6000 years for some reason, could this not apply for 65 million years too?
@BrightStaroftheDawn not really if the majority of fossils had this then you would have a case... this could be a fluke or a scam! .... or maybe there is a preservative or a perfect sealed fossil with no oxygen to degrade the tissue.. could be many things.. so dont go jumping to a conclusion just yet!
@BrightStaroftheDawn The word is a word, a saying, not much more. Now a fossil, that's pretty real, unless you can demonstrate God in a scientific community, with even minimal validity, keep reading fairy tales. Everyone has their own beliefs, and statements proven over and over are quite believable to some.
@BrightStaroftheDawn For one, it does NOT fit the creationist conclusion. Here's why. blood cells and tissue would not last 65 million years, or 6000 years or even 2 weeks. That's why no blood cells or tissue was found. After they studied what they had found, they found that in FACT that NO blood cells or tissue was found. Read Schweitzer's report yourself. This is just another example of creationist LIES and propaganda.
What you SHOULD believe is that those fossils were put there by Satan and his minions to confuse makind into believing the wolrd is billions of years old, so when Jesus comes down to earth on the flyinfg winged white horse with trumpets a-blazin', and a golden castle descends from the sky,......and the seven eyed lamb opens up that last rolled up piece of vellum
@BrightStaroftheDawn See this is the problem with most Christians. You damn people to hell when the Bible CLEARLY states that you are not supposed to do that. Only God knows my heart. Can you claim to? We are saved by grace through faith. Not in a silly debate over how old the Earth is. I'm sure God left that to common sense. You are the reason why people deny Christianity. They don't want to be like you. Don't worry though. I'm already a Christian.
@BrightStaroftheDawn I've read your other posts and I say this out of concern. Please PLEASE seek medical attention. I seriously think you are a threat to yourself and/or others. There is medication available that can help you. There is nothing wrong with wanting to spread the word of God but right now, you're steering people away from God. If I were an atheist, you're behavior would make me feel justified. You don't really want that do you?
The fact that TRex "unfossilised tissue" has been found, is published in Science MSNBC.com.....a secular science website.
Its hardly a lie, but evolutionists have to believe its a lie because this "story" destroys the ideology that evolution is fact. The palaentologists have no real explanation how the tissue observed was still elastic after 65m years! Dinosaurs were probably around with Fred Flintstone after all.
@JesuismyKing no evolution can still exist all it really puts into question (if its real that is) is the dating system... if they have blood cells then they should be able to clone them right ;0) ... seems more like a BS scam to me
Hey nice of you to provide a link to the smithsonian magazine that CLEARLY states the bone is 64 million years old, and that the YEC's HIGHJACKED the research to claim it proves a young earth. Dumb asses
/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
SomeCanadianGuy01 2 hours ago
they can clone the t-rex its pospible with the tissue of it i saw the same thing online and i really think they can do this
epicproductions36 3 days ago
@epicproductions36 The can't clone it because they did not find ''tissue''. They found breakdown products in the 70 million year old fossils.
gregrutz 1 day ago
Mary is upset with creationists for lying about her work. The did not find red blood cells. Read her paper before you accept the lies in this video.
gregrutz 1 week ago
hmm
MrDatDin 2 weeks ago
It never crossed Mary's mind that the fossils was less than 65 million years old. She sees evolution every day at work.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video is debunked at ... watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
bigboy45454545 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I love how you guys think this is fabricated and a hoax. You do realize that when this finding occurred it shook the entire scientific community in 2005 right? I remember the morning this came out and I still have saved every article on every major new network, I have downloads from MSNBC, FOX, CNN, ABC news sites. This was a huge finding. And guess how the scientific community responded. ...The sound of nothing but crickets.
cctman 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
cctman 2 weeks ago
The findings suggest the "Blood Cells and Soft Tissue" found in the fossils are bacterial biofilm. I love Creationist lying douche-bags. They're sad and funny, but not funny haw haw.
bigboy45454545 3 weeks ago
@bigboy45454545 Bacteria biofilm? LOL! Apparently you missed the article put out by the EVOLUTIONARY biologist's findings on this matter. Any other make believe stuff you want to make up?
cctman 2 weeks ago
@cctman Fuck off you Creationist fucking retard. The whole world laughs at dumb American Creationist morons like you.
bigboy45454545 2 weeks ago
@bigboy45454545 LOL! No wonder where atheist get their bad rep from...
cctman 2 weeks ago
@cctman Here's the thing. Nobody cares what an uneducated halfwit American Creationist thinks. Twaddle from twits is meaningless. That's why you're here looking at garbage and spreading your disinformation to other twits in the hope they'll join the Creationist party. Not much of a party at all with ignorance afoot in a sea of inbreeding and banjo music. That's not only your sister, she's also you wife. Dad wasn't going to pay for two weddings
bigboy45454545 2 weeks ago
will i cant wait tell they find a dinosaur in the condos of africa maybe that will save some souls from hell.
jesussave1979 3 weeks ago
Changing the age of the fossils did not even cross their minds. These are the people who see evolution every day. They see dinosaurs changing over 160 million years.
gregrutz 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
There is no way to date anything past 1000 years, CARBON DATING IS A FRAUD, THEY FOUND NEWLY DEAD SEALS THAT WERE 25,000 YEARS OLD ACCORDING TO CARBON DATING. A Man they found , his skin was 50,000 years old while his legs were 20,000 years old. 2 wooly Mammoths Found side by side, one was 100,000 years old while the other 25,000 its a FRAUD wake up
george7981 3 weeks ago
Evolutionism is just an old pagan myth with morsels of science
SonofJaphet 3 weeks ago
@SonofJaphet Please show me the original Pagan transcripts detailing the Theory of Evolution. Or admit you're making an assertion with no evidence. Or (and this is BY FAR the most likely), run away and don't respond to me.
ProblemHonorStudent 3 weeks ago
@ProblemHonorStudent "These are the principles on which living creatures change and have changed into one another, the transformation depending on the loss or gain of understanding or folly." (Plato, Timaeus 49: 80-108).or Anaximander (610-540BC) believed that people had evolved from fish! or Empedocles (490-430BC), stated, "The greater part of the members of animals came but by chance.Or Brahman (the Universe) spontaneously evolved by itself like a seed Or read Aristotle
SonofJaphet 3 weeks ago
@SonofJaphet Woah, hang on. These were all spiritual metaphors these guys were using, not assertions of reality, any more than Jesus parable about the seeds on the wayside means to throw seeds. And it's not even a solid quote of evolution, is it? Anymore than me saying the Hindus are all actualy Judeo-Christians because they call there god, who is 3 parts yet one, the 'I AM'. I tip my hat to you for returning with your reasons, but I question your interpretation. Read the entire manuscripts.
ProblemHonorStudent 3 weeks ago
@ProblemHonorStudent This is just to prove that Darwin was not the genius that you think he was in fact i consider him as a fraud who stole his ideas from others before him but they dont teach that.This is just to say that Evolutionism comes from the ancient mystery Babylonian religion
SonofJaphet 3 weeks ago
@SonofJaphet Great, call him a fraud. You ever research HOW he came to his conclusions?
It weren't by reading an ancient book, Babylonian or Judiac.
ProblemHonorStudent 3 weeks ago
@ProblemHonorStudent Darwin didnt read these ancient books but Evolutionism is found in the Kabalah religion .Anyway we could go on and on but its just to say that Darwin didnt invent anything he just compiled what was before him and further more he was a racist read The Descent of Man
SonofJaphet 2 weeks ago
@SonofJaphet Darwin discovered what powers Evolution. Natural Selection.
The process of evolution is obvious to anyone who looks.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz Natural Selection is observable and we argree on this but for example a fish evolving into a non-fish is scientifically impossible how can the fish aquatic respirational system change into a non-aquatic one?
SonofJaphet 2 weeks ago
@SonofJaphet It can't be 'scientifiically impossible' since science accepts evolution. Try using some imagination.
gregrutz 2 weeks ago
@gregrutz Science use to mean knowledge but now it means indoctrination,intellectual murder and censorship.
SonofJaphet 1 week ago
@SonofJaphet Students study evolution in every university in the country. How would you know what science is if you have never studied it?
gregrutz 1 week ago
@gregrutz Like ive said ive studied it but later i rejected it because its based on assumptions not facts.
SonofJaphet 1 week ago
@SonofJaphet Tell me why creationists always say 'based on assumptions'' and never list them?
gregrutz 1 week ago
@SonofJaphet Let me guess, you watched 'Expelled' LOL and believed it.
gregrutz 1 week ago
@SonofJaphet
True, it's not like there's any precedent for that in nature, like some strange sort of 'lung-fish' is there...D'oh!
AndyCielecki 1 week ago
@gregrutz Darwin did nt discovered Natural Selection ,Thomas Malthus did .Alfred Russel Wallace conceived thetheory of evolution but Wallace made a mistake :He sent Darwin his essay but Darwin,Charles Lyell and Joseph Dalton Hooker sent his essay (without Wallace knowledge) to the Linnean Society to be read and Darwin took the credit for it and Wallace died broken
SonofJaphet 1 week ago
@SonofJaphet I don't care what happened 150 years ago, Darwin was wrong about some things too, so what?
Darwin did not even publish his book right away because of religion.
gregrutz 1 week ago
@SonofJaphet Thomas Malthus was basically an economist and knew nothing of Natural History or Natural Selection. It was Darwin who realised that the argument of "survival of the fittest" was a form of Natural Selection that explained how evolution works. About 20 years later Alfred Wallace independently worked out pretty much the same thing and unfortunately Darwin had not completed his book on the subject. So both men got equal credit but the book made Darwin famous later.
geniusrepairman1 5 days ago
@SonofJaphet Everyone was a racist by modern standards in those days. There are several instances of Abraham Lincoln, in his own handwriting, using the 'N' word. And he freed the slaves. Now Jesus was a racist. Ask the Samaritan woman he called a dog.
And Darwin compiled nothing. He formulated a hypothesis, and evidence has pushed it into being a theory.
Furthermore, it doesn't matter if Darwin is a chold molester. His THEORY is sound, and his personal life doesn't affect that at all.
ProblemHonorStudent 2 weeks ago
@SonofJaphet All Europeans were racist in those days. Even HG Wells the great Humanist writer and intellectual 50 years later had some racist views. They believed that the greater the civilisation (based on their own standard) the greater the intellectual bearing of the race. But there is evidence Darwin showed compassion to indiginous populations he met on his travels.
geniusrepairman1 5 days ago
@SonofJaphet Actually I have a better explanation. Evolution is a fairy tale for adults. The only difference is that their fairy tale has a little god called time and random chance.
cctman 2 weeks ago
@cctman god of time Cronos and god of chance Tyche....Cronotyche is the god of evolutionism hahaha!!
SonofJaphet 2 weeks ago
I already Know about this, but his EXCITED way about it makes me not care....lol
vormanator 4 weeks ago
WOW THEY ARE IN DENIAL WHY DONT THEY TEACH THIS IN SCHOOL. YOU KNOW UPDATE THE MATERIAL
george7981 1 month ago
@george7981 THEY DON'T TEACH THIS IN SCHOOL BECAUSE THIS IS A BIG FAT LIE!!!
We do update the material. This is why evolution, and not magicy-sky-buddies, is taught nowadays. It is YOU who needs to update the info, and look at all sides of the story, not just one.
'Seek and ye shall find..'--Some guy you pray to.
ProblemHonorStudent 3 weeks ago
LOL 60 million years old, at max its 5,000 if it was in the right evinroment
george7981 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video is debunked at ... watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
gregrutz 1 month ago
Evolutionists are in some serious denial man. Think if the tables were turned, they be hailing this discovery. Look at what they did with all of their hoaxes.. lol. Repent..
Modelmaterial7 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Modelmaterial7 There was only one hoax, Piltdown Man.
They did not find 'red blood cells' Creationists lie. Repent.
This video is debunked at ... watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
gregrutz 1 month ago
You've dishonestly taken a short quote from popular media and ignored the actual research paper from which it's sourced.
Here's a fun quote from the abstract of that very publication:
"We propose a possible chemical pathway that may contribute to this preservation. The presence of endogenous protein in dinosaur bone may validate hypotheses about evolutionary relationships, rates, and patterns of molecular change and degradation, as well as the chemical stability of molecules over time."
Idiot.
billygutter01 1 month ago
docretardable when you dig up a bone thats been buried under solid ice and it been frozen since the trex died it like the meat you get out of your freezer it still eatable you ignorant bigot, that for the one up above, and there our mammoth that are deicing in Russia now that the wolf's are feeding on now and people our selling the ivory, man you evolution are in dream land even darwin did not believe his own theory page 126 he was appalled that it was a fantasy.deccent from darwinism list next
fisher99100 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This video is debunked at ... watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE
gregrutz 1 month ago
lol
elvis633 1 month ago
How they know that the blood cells belonges to T-Rex ? in blood cell there isn't any DNA
adirtuval 1 month ago
Red Blood Cells last about 2 weeks. What was their point about the 70 million year old fossil that was soaked in acid for weeks?
BTW, Mary is pissed.
gregrutz 1 month ago
Creation websites: Where mislead and conned people go to get even more mislead and conned...
ItsEasyIfYouThink 1 month ago
That's why science doesn't take mythologies seriously, cause theyre just that, fairy tales. That's why science absolutely disregards religion along with it's dogma and lies, and prove wrong facts.
Kamyu03 1 month ago
I want to clone this species.
fishrcoolturtles2 2 months ago
THIS PROVES IS!! ISN'T IT? yeah it does!. It proves that religious people and creationist are plain retarded because they believe dinosaurs lived with men xD!
Kamyu03 2 months ago
@Kamyu03 Dinosaurs are just reptiles.. there's nothing retarted about man living with reptiles..
ThisMemory 2 months ago
@Kamyu03 yeah your right..i mean evolution has all the planets just teaming with life..knowing earth is younger than all the other planets and how life is just abundant here..its great to see every planet we have found so much ??? oh yeah..for some reason we have never found even a living fungi anywhere else..does Evolution only happen on earth ? surely if we survived the big bang and grew from a rock..the other planets should be way more advanced thanus right ? what happen ?
Projectinsighter 1 month ago
@Projectinsighter I don´t know what you're talking about. Planets like Jupiter which is giant planet with no surface couldn't have life like Earth of course. And is quite known know that Mars had a huge ocean over 3 billions years ago, and btw liquid water has been found in Europe, so there is a huge probability that there could be life on that planet.
Oh, and btw only stupid people could believe that life evolve from a rock, and btw you're confusing evolution with abyogenesis.
Kamyu03 1 month ago
@Kamyu03 What im talking about is..If Evolution were any truth to it...Life would find a way to start on just about any surface of any planet ..we have very extreme conditions on earth and life within it..These planets are much older that Earth..and not a sign of life..which kinda says .You cannot get life from a rock,planet or anything else..unless it has been created to live there..is that hard for you to understand ?? cause its quite simple..Evolution of life ,nothing could stop if true.
Projectinsighter 1 month ago
@Projectinsighter You don't understand what abyogenesis is and you're mixing it with evolution. Evolution doesn't account for the origin of life on any planet, it has never been and it never will.
Those planet don't have the conditions to support life on' em. They are either way to close or fay from the sun, between many other variants. You seem to believe that life comes from rock, which is ridiculous, creation are just fairy tales from mythologies all over the world.
Kamyu03 1 month ago
@Kamyu03 "Those planet don't have the conditions to support life on' em" It's easy to see how evolutionists contradicts themselves: on the one hand you indirectly claim the anthropic principle as a defense argument, but when christians postulate the anthropic principle you simply say that life just evolved to adapt to the existing conditions. Then why this explanation is not valid for the rest of the universe?
raponte1955 1 month ago
@raponte1955 I have never once seen a Xtian invoke the anthropic principle. Cause it destroys the very thing they lean on: 'The universe is fine-tuned for life.'
Puh-leese.
ProblemHonorStudent 1 month ago
@ProblemHonorStudent I think you are confused, poor boy. Go get your thoughts right before debating on an adult's forum.
raponte1955 1 month ago
@raponte1955 OK, since ad hominem is par for you, I will elaborate. The anthropic principle in every circumastance, removes the 'logical neccessity' for an intelligent designer. Yes, we are in the perfect spot for life in our solar system. How could beings from a planet not fit for life exist to ask the questions we are?
I have NEVER seen in used to support the notion of a god intelligently. Prove to me otherwise, or you could just call me a kid again. Whatever.
ProblemHonorStudent 1 month ago
@ProblemHonorStudent The universe appears to have been carefully engineered in order to produce carbon-based life forms including man. Period. The odds of this happening by chance are unsurmountable. The only possible logical explanation resides in the multiverse and string theories. Since multiverse appears to be an unproven fairy tale hypothesis, the only logical explanation is pretty obvious. And sorry for the name calling. It was not my intention to insult.
raponte1955 1 month ago
@raponte1955 You call the multiverse an 'unproven fairy tale hypothesis', and postulate 'Therefore, it's obvious (meaning god).' Not scientific at all. We call that 'god of the gaps', cause he only exists in holes in scientific knowledge. And, there is actually mathematic evidence for string theory and multiverses, unlike ANY creator myth. And honestly, the universe is 99.9999% devoid of life. How is this 'engineered for life'? That means we are lucky to be here, but again, anthropic principle.
ProblemHonorStudent 1 month ago
@ProblemHonorStudent "And honestly, the universe is 99.9999% devoid of life. How is this 'engineered for life'?" ...that's precisely the point. The universe was only engineered for earthly life, which includes humans and all other forms of life on earth. The infinitesimal precise fine tuning of the universe constants are responsible for this miracle.
raponte1955 1 month ago
@raponte1955 That is not a scientific point of inquiry, that is a religious one. 'I BELIEVE the univers is tuned for life, despite all the evidence...'
Still waiting to see the anthropic principle work for and not against you. The fact is life probably does happen elsewhere, just not frequently. And honestly, what does the Galaxy Andromeda have to do with this life on earth?
Just because we are ignorant of some things don't mean god did it. That's not science. That's lazy science.
ProblemHonorStudent 1 month ago
@ProblemHonorStudent Who's pretending this to be a scientific debate, for God's sake? Believers look around at the natural world and see nature declaring the glory of God, while unbelievers insist in a naturalistic, God-devoided explanation. For example, the Big Bang clearly points to a beginning, but the atheist will seek explanations to this beginning which are much more complex and unrealistic than a simple "In the Beginning God.."
raponte1955 1 month ago
@raponte1955 Sir, if you say 'God did it', you are making a scientific hypothesis, one that will either have evidence or not. Whether or not you wish it to be a scientific debate is irrelevant.
And calling god as a first cause 'simple' is smoke and mirrors to invoke Occam's Razor. If the universe is too complex to have happened on it's own (like you say), then how much more complex the being that designed it? It's an infinite regression. Excluding god from the regression is a logical fallacy.
ProblemHonorStudent 1 month ago
@ProblemHonorStudent Of course Occam's razor is invoked as the primary philosphical argumentation against the infinite regression of first causes, and no, excluding God is not a logical fallacy, since it is consistent with the nature of God, who does not need a creator. Otherwise, He would not be God, duhhhh!!!
raponte1955 1 month ago
@raponte1955 Don't you see what you just did? That's like me saying 'Of course David Koresh was sent by god, he said so!' You assert an IDEA of what you would like to believe, and try to use logic and cherry-picked science to support this hypothesis turned assertion. If you say I cannot exist without a creator, then how can a being capable of creating me, the entire universe, and hear prayers exist without precedent?
Bye-bye to Occam's. Infinity is anything but simple.
ProblemHonorStudent 1 month ago
@ProblemHonorStudent God exists outside of time. Since we live in a universe of cause and effect, we naturally assume that this is the only way in which any kind of existence can function. But your premise is false. Without the dimension of time, there is no cause and effect, and all things that could exist in such a realm would have no need of being caused, but would have always existed. Therefore, God has no need of being created.
raponte1955 1 month ago
Comment removed
raponte1955 1 month ago
@raponte1955 Exchange the word 'God' with 'David Koresh', and assume that's my stance. How would you prove I'm delusional?
He exists outside of time. Sure, he died, but he rose. Don't believe me? Need evidence?
This is the crux, imo. Believe what you like, all you like. However, if you battle science with faith, you're just in the way. And if you want to teach my kids the same, you have forfeited any rights to keep your beliefs out of my crosshairs. MY kids. Seen it happen many a time...
ProblemHonorStudent 1 month ago
@raponte1955 Allah has no need of being created? How about Zeus?
gregrutz 1 month ago
@gregrutz I'm having a good laugh at your ingenuity...or ignorance.
raponte1955 1 month ago
@raponte1955 Then that might explain where the Singularity that started the Big Bang came from. Time began with the Bang so therefore using your logic that means that all the matter of the Universe has always existed as it is outside time. So God is not required as there was no need for Him to create anything!
geniusrepairman1 5 days ago
@geniusrepairman1 Typical case of " non-sequitur". Your reasoning is faulty and a fallacy. I think you should stop taking sleeping pills, since it may be somehow deteriorating your neurones, as per your horrendous attempt to reasoning.
raponte1955 5 days ago
@raponte1955 If God does not need to be created since He is outside time, then as the Universe when a singularity was also outside time (as the time dimesnsion unfolded at the moment of the Big Bang), according to Your logic (not mine) there was no Creation as the matter of the Universe has also always existed. Please show how this reasoning is faulty as opposed to merely declaring it so.
geniusrepairman1 4 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ProblemHonorStudent Also, I don't see why you have a problem with God existing out of nothing but firmly believe that the laws of physics allowed the universe being created out of nothing via quantum tunneling or whatever. In the town I was raised this was called a contradiction
raponte1955 1 month ago
@raponte1955 But creationists insist that everything that exists needs a creator. So your god needs a creator. Or you're admitting that some things don't need a creator. And if that's true, then the universe didn't need a creator either.
VesusSheist 1 month ago
@VesusSheist No, He does not. God exists outside of time, hence He does not need a beggining. Furthermore, If God needs to be caused, He would not be God. It's that easy.
raponte1955 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@raponte1955 So there's a definition for 'god' that you cling to... Have any evidence this exists, or is it like Superhero powers? We have an idea of what they are, based on culture. Does that mean they exist?
Sheesh, you guys hurt my head sometimes.
ProblemHonorStudent 1 month ago
@raponte1955 If this is true, what makes you think God is YOUR God? God might look like the Hexetorian 8 Frog People of Galaxy 3.56668 that She created in Her image and even now the Hexetorians have regular meetings with God on how to spread their Watery Paradise to other worthy civilisations within their local star cluster.
geniusrepairman1 5 days ago
@VesusSheist
fuck yea. right on the point man
valzap33 1 month ago
@raponte1955 And I understan the immediate insults, par for YT.
ProblemHonorStudent 1 month ago
@raponte1955 It is. Once life begins then evolution takes over wherever the life is in the Universe. BUT EVOLUTION DOES NOT BEGIN LIFE.
geniusrepairman1 4 days ago
@DocReasonable..prissy little bitch? I mean youre the one calling everyone a retard on here and you dont expect people to respond? Youre comments have been removed too so I wonder what that says about how you hold a conversation on youtube. Your account name doesnt really describe you very well. Too bad, we, the world, need more people who can make educated good responses to these kind of dumb vids..
kestkr 2 months ago
@kestkr
My comments have NOT been removed, you lying cocksucker... why don't you pull me off?
DocReasonable 2 months ago
So the "overwhelming proves" of evolution needs to be revised very drastically !
akkafietje 2 months ago
This means that your date of the life isn't several thousand years old, but several days.
If you're actually being scientific, you would be able to make an OBSERVATION, and then a CONCLUSION that actually follows from your OBSERVATION: It's still DATED to be 75 million years. Your 'dating method' of cell decay (which is qualitative and subject to circumstances which we haven't discovered yet, as this is an ANOMALY) predicts ages of a few days.
So 75 million years?
Or three days?[Creationists!]
TheBlueShamen 2 months ago
If this claim is accurate, as you say, this dinosaur died less than one week ago.
So you haven't made an explanation. You're simply ignorant of what preserved it.
TheBlueShamen 2 months ago 9
@TheBlueShamen The blood wasn't sitting out in the open so of course it was preserved.
randont 2 months ago
@TheBlueShamen one week ? lol..fact is the died in the flood..The wathers,Gods Angels created the Nephilim and the Nephilim started manipulating all life on Earth by cross breeding..Nephilim created many of the Dinosaurs that we have dug up..it's not hard to figure out..Considering we are digging up giant skeletons all over the planet ranging from 9ft to 36...these are facts and soon will have to come out cause to many people have witnessed the findings
Projectinsighter 1 month ago
@Projectinsighter Lol, xD ja, ja, ja the flood my cat, you're really funny. I'm sorry but you're just gonna have to suck it, everywhere in the world, in China, India, Japan, Latin America, Russia, Europe, Australia, Africa everywhere... even on stupid America evolution is taught to children in public schools, and it'll remain that way, ju, ju, ju. Cause it's the truth, and people wont teach their children their local mythology.
Kamyu03 1 month ago
@Kamyu03 you do know that every Culture from ancient passt of their history book and wriiten and carved in to walls and stone talk about a world flood right ?? so much evidence that its not being ignored as fact anymore..but yeah i did'nt think you would know..talking to Evolutionist are like talking to 6 year olds from the ghetto lol..peace
Projectinsighter 1 month ago
@Projectinsighter Yes, also that they all invented their gods, myths, dragons, fairys, virgin births, etc. That only proves how mankind is good to create and believe their own fairy tales. Noa's Ark is a rip-off of Greek Mythology deukalion's flood, and that one is a ripoff of a sumerian myth. That's how mythologies are created, it doesn't mean that dragons are real just because the chinese, mayans, europeans and every single culture believe in them.
Kamyu03 1 month ago
@Projectinsighter ' every Culture from ancient passt of their history book and wriiten and carved in to walls and stone talk about a world flood right ??'
You also realize most of the people of the old days thought the earth ways VERY small. If it flooded all you could see from the highest hill, the whole world got flooded. And floods happen all over the world. A flood recorded in Japan one year, in MesoAmerica the next and in France 100 years later becomes THE FLOOD!
Skepticism finds truth.
ProblemHonorStudent 1 month ago
@Kamyu03 Stupid America? What about stupid, underdeveloped, narco-state Mexico?
raponte1955 1 month ago
@raponte1955 Yeah but Mexico is 3rd world. It sucks, and America as well, people are as fat as in Mexico and at least as stupid. And there is drug wars also because of America's consumption and weapons.
No wonder why China is kicking America's ass, what a declining empire, fill with Xtians and religious stupid people, that's why.
Kamyu03 1 month ago
@TheBlueShamen if you actually did some research without the hate of God & Bible..you would see just how Stupid Evolution is..it's impossible..we do evolve no doubt..But as God has created us to do..we start out something micro and grow into who we are..thats evolution at its max..But before that we had to be designed and created to get the ball rollin...Nephilim are real..they hide it cause it would end most science & Evolution as a joke,and change the way we have been taught.
Projectinsighter 1 month ago
@TheBlueShamen Maybe it did.
literallarry2011 1 month ago
@TheBlueShamen Right... because there could be no other possible explanation. (Eyes roll) Do us all a favor and stay clear of the scientific field. People with your false premises are exactly what is killing the fields of science.
cctman 2 weeks ago
But... does it taste like chicken?
greyspot00 3 months ago 3
@Bailey828282 you are also incorrect. This tissue is millions of years old...not thousands. Scientists have proof of this.
kestkr 3 months ago
@kestkr
Not quite.
greyspot00 3 months ago
@Cainkane1 uhh, yeah. You are wrong. There was soft tissue found in the bones. They have almost 100% irrefutable evidence..where is your proof that this is a lie?
kestkr 3 months ago
@kestkr
You're a fucking retard.
Why is it you morons dismiss ALL of evolutionary science out of hand without understanding the first thing about it, but as soon as some half-assed distorted crap like THIS comes along you swallow it hook, line and sinker??
DocReasonable 2 months ago 10
@DocReasonable Wow...do you even read the other comments i have left on here? No, obviously. I was in a conversation with someone else that you butted into. In my other comments that I have left on here, it is clear that I am in complete SUPPORT for evolution and againt the idea of the Earth only being 6,000 years old. Also, you wouldnt call someone a retard to their face like that, so I probably wouldnt say it over youtube either. It makes people look dumb when they do that..just a suggestion.
kestkr 2 months ago
Comment removed
DocReasonable 2 months ago
@kestkr It was not a bone, it was a 70 million year old fossil. And they did not find red blood cells or soft 'tissue' only breakdown products. The age of the fossil was never questioned, that is too well established. It never crossed their minds it might be younger, these people see evolution every day.
gregrutz 2 months ago
it's not a fraud if the bones aren't as old as they claim. think about it.
CoopersQuill 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CoopersQuill 'it's not a fraud if the bones aren't as old as they claim. think about it'
They're not bones, they are SOLID ROCK. The 'soft tissue' is NOT soft tissue, it's the fossilized IMPRESSION of soft tissue.
Fucking retards...
DocReasonable 2 months ago
This is a hoax. A deliberate lie. No dinosaur soft tissue has ever been discovered. If dinosaurs were around 6000 years ago and they weren't there would be better preserved remains available. The god believer bunch says that being a liar is a sin but when it comes to plugging their lame uneducated fairy tales it seems permissable.
Cainkane1 3 months ago
Look at this athiest fools trying to justify their stupid believes when clearly u see the evidence and u deliberately denied the truth. U know thats more than enough evidence to disprove your stupid evolution theory, u just don't want to except it. This is a live tissue that is not billions nor millions years old this is thousands years old God created all things why do u harden your heart to the truth. This is real not fake tissue. Evolution is a lie from the devil and u fell for the trap
Bailey828282 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
No scientists have ever found red blood cells in Tyrannosaurus rex; the Creationists have deliberately exaggerated and mis-interpreted the graduate research of Schweitzer and Staedter, who never concluded they were RBCs:
"Perhaps the mysterious structures were, at best, derived from blood, modified over the millennia by geological processes."
The fact is no-one knows what they are (except Creationists apparantly, lol).
OrthodoxDarwinist 3 months ago
"If you take a blood sample and stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week"
Does this prove this T-Rex died less then a week ago? (sarcasm) :D
Even finding a live dinosaur wouldn't disprove evolution, it would only prove that not all dinosaurs died out.
On the other hand the only thing that could possibly prove creationism if god himself went door to door to tell people. :)
lanthasmj 4 months ago
In fact the claim of red blood cells by the Creationists, by deliberate mis-interpretation of Schweitzer's research, has further been shown to be nonsense:
"Earlier hopes of finding cells in the dinosaur bone have been dashed. Dr. Schweitzer said she could see no direct sign of cells."- New York Times, June 10, 1997
But do you think that would stop Ken Ham from repeating utter false-hoods and mis-information to support his bat-shit crazy Bronze-Age mythology? NOPE.
OrthodoxDarwinist 3 months ago
Blood cells last 2 weeks. The fossil is still 68 million years old.
gregrutz 4 months ago
@gregrutz They didn't find blood cells, your being lied to. Here is the actual real paper so you can look for your self.
Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone, MH Schweitzer.
They found heme (not hemoglobin) pieces. There is nothing in there about finding blood cells. Anyone claiming there is blood cells is simply lieing (and quote mining) to you.
Craigmw45 4 months ago
@Craigmw45 That was the point, blood cells last 2 weeks, no longer. They did not find ''red blood cells''
The rock was soaked in strong acid for weeks, there was nothing ''fresh''.
gregrutz 4 months ago
@gregrutz Sorry I was so used to creationist saying there are red blood cells in t-rex bones, and then using that as an argument to support a young earth, that I thought you were doing the same time.
And while the blood cells claim is easily demonstratively false, it amazes me how they can claim it supports a young earth. If it were true, isn't the obvious explanation that there are conditions in which blood cells can last a very long time?
Craigmw45 4 months ago
Creationists make no damn sense. How can you claim science is full of shit then try to use science to prove it? Thats so ignorant. Maybe it survived due to the environment it was in? Maybe they never considered looking inside the bones before because they "assumed" nothing would survive that long? Maybe it was contaminated in some way? This is not any proof that dino's are not millions of years old. It is only evidence pointing to it being possible for tissue to survive in the right conditions.
Lintpocket 4 months ago
@Lintpocket You make no damn sense. Religious people were the first to use science. Moreover, using science to disprove a current scientific thought is what science is all about. Therefore, it should be apparent that you can't use science to prove anything, only disprove-that is taught in any into science course. So, if it is true that this dinosaurs has red blood cells than it may also true that they not be millions of years as is supposed. Also, do you even know why that is the current theory.
HaphazardCrappola 4 months ago
@HaphazardCrappola You can use Science to prove lots of things, like the earth goes around the sun and not like the bible says. They did not find red blood cells and dinos still rulead the earth for 160 million years.
gregrutz 4 months ago
@Lintpocket The billion year old earth theory and thus million year old dinosaur theory is "supported" by the theory of gradualism. Which goes contrary to logic because some events happen due to catastrophes. Gradualism is why evolution works, catastrophism would but a very big whole in the theory.
HaphazardCrappola 4 months ago
@HaphazardCrappola The earth is million of years old, that is a fact not a theory. There is no theory of gradualism. Uniformitarianism says the PROCESSES are the same, not that it is gradual or there are no catastrophes. Darwin was wrong about evolution being gradual, he did not know about the great mass extinctions like the one that killed the large dinosaurs.
gregrutz 4 months ago
did you realize that the middle East should b 50 years ahead of us in technolgy right now???
why aren't they???
because about the Renesonse era of Eupoe after the dark ages Ministers in the Middle East pretty much stopped research in everything they said that research is the work of Satan and that's why we can roll striaght into Iraq and wipe out 1000 tanks with out losing 1 tank and take over the whole nation in 3 days
shut up Christains!!!!!!!!!
490er 5 months ago
did you realize that the middle East should b 50 years ahead of us in technolgy right now???
why aren't they???
because about the Renesonse era of Eupoe after the dark ages Ministers in the Middle East pretty much stopped research in everything they said that research is the work of Satan and that's why we can roll striaght into Iraq and wipe out 1000 tanks with out losing 1 tank and take over the whole nation in 3 days
shut up Christains!!!!!!!!!
490er 5 months ago
ATTENTION:
If you don't believe this, and think that the world is over 9000 years old, you will go to Hell.
Period!!
Satan and his buddies are fooling you. He can do that.
Want proof? There... he's doing it RAIGHT NOOOW!!
In the end God will triumphantly hold up a fossil, flick it at Satan;s horny little head, knocking him out cold, and there he will fall into The Dark and Fiery Abyss , knocking him out for 1000 years.
Where's your fossils going to be THEN, evolutionISTS?
Ha HA!!!
BrightStaroftheDawn 5 months ago
What a crock of shit. They didn't find red blood cells. The fossil is still 68 million years old, no one is questioning that.
gregrutz 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
stop saying bible and word of god!!
larst102 5 months ago
Mary said what? '' The bones are 65 million years old''. And she still says they are old.
gregrutz 5 months ago
If it doesn't survive for a week, why would it survive for 6000 years? And if it does survive for 6000 years for some reason, could this not apply for 65 million years too?
TheGingermeister 5 months ago
Excellent
oopscanada 6 months ago
CYROgenics .................easy answer.
aTnavarrow 7 months ago
I bet the "evolutionists" are just quaking in their boots now with this little nugget of unexperimental non data.
Well it just HAS to be less that a million years old....... because it fits the creationist conclusion.
BrightStaroftheDawn 7 months ago
@BrightStaroftheDawn not really if the majority of fossils had this then you would have a case... this could be a fluke or a scam! .... or maybe there is a preservative or a perfect sealed fossil with no oxygen to degrade the tissue.. could be many things.. so dont go jumping to a conclusion just yet!
jammapcb 6 months ago
@jammapcb
You mean to tell me they could have gotten this fossil from amber, or sub freezing temperatures?
;)
You mean of the four types of fossils , unaltered, altered, impressions, and traces....THIS would be the unaltered one?
NAH,,,,,you're kidding me!!
There is no data of where they got it, so.........it means the Bible is TRUE! Ta da!!
BrightStaroftheDawn 6 months ago
@BrightStaroftheDawn lol
jammapcb 6 months ago
@BrightStaroftheDawn The bible has nothing to do with 68 million year old fossils.
Go back to your silly flood story.
Galileo proved the bible wrong hundreds of years ago.
gregrutz 5 months ago
@gregrutz
The Bible is true, because it says it is, because it's says it's the Word of God, and it's true because it says it is.
Period!
You CAN'T prove humans WEREN'T made out of dirt and a ribcage NOT in the Garden of Eden, neither can you prove to me that you can't prove a negative.
I am logical.
BrightStaroftheDawn 5 months ago
@BrightStaroftheDawn The word is a word, a saying, not much more. Now a fossil, that's pretty real, unless you can demonstrate God in a scientific community, with even minimal validity, keep reading fairy tales. Everyone has their own beliefs, and statements proven over and over are quite believable to some.
SuperBadwilly 5 months ago
@SuperBadwilly
The Bird is the Word.
BrightStaroftheDawn 5 months ago
@BrightStaroftheDawn For one, it does NOT fit the creationist conclusion. Here's why. blood cells and tissue would not last 65 million years, or 6000 years or even 2 weeks. That's why no blood cells or tissue was found. After they studied what they had found, they found that in FACT that NO blood cells or tissue was found. Read Schweitzer's report yourself. This is just another example of creationist LIES and propaganda.
joecane6340 5 months ago
@joecane6340
You're shittin' me!!
Really??
BrightStaroftheDawn 5 months ago
@joecane6340
You evolutionists will believe anything.
What you SHOULD believe is that those fossils were put there by Satan and his minions to confuse makind into believing the wolrd is billions of years old, so when Jesus comes down to earth on the flyinfg winged white horse with trumpets a-blazin', and a golden castle descends from the sky,......and the seven eyed lamb opens up that last rolled up piece of vellum
....you'll be going to Hell.
BrightStaroftheDawn 5 months ago
@BrightStaroftheDawn See this is the problem with most Christians. You damn people to hell when the Bible CLEARLY states that you are not supposed to do that. Only God knows my heart. Can you claim to? We are saved by grace through faith. Not in a silly debate over how old the Earth is. I'm sure God left that to common sense. You are the reason why people deny Christianity. They don't want to be like you. Don't worry though. I'm already a Christian.
joecane6340 5 months ago
@joecane6340
God SPOKE to me, and said "All fossils are of the Devil, except this one"
Then I saw a vision of this moist looking scab-like piece.....and the I KNEW!!
Lord I knew I was being guided by the Powerful God Almighty Himself!!
HalleLUjah!!
* spazzing out in the Holy Spirit*
BrightStaroftheDawn 5 months ago
@BrightStaroftheDawn oh...you're one of those.
joecane6340 5 months ago
@BrightStaroftheDawn I've read your other posts and I say this out of concern. Please PLEASE seek medical attention. I seriously think you are a threat to yourself and/or others. There is medication available that can help you. There is nothing wrong with wanting to spread the word of God but right now, you're steering people away from God. If I were an atheist, you're behavior would make me feel justified. You don't really want that do you?
joecane6340 5 months ago
@joecane6340
What I want to do is get out of this straight jacket.
Typing with my toes is a bitch.
BrightStaroftheDawn 5 months ago
@BrightStaroftheDawn Now that's funny! You do have a sense of humor.
joecane6340 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@joecane6340
I'll be here all week.
BrightStaroftheDawn 5 months ago
Red blood cells can't survive more than MAXIMUM two months, what a silly hoax, perhaps this guy suggests dinosaurs still exist.
4FunPlayin 7 months ago
The fact that TRex "unfossilised tissue" has been found, is published in Science MSNBC.com.....a secular science website.
Its hardly a lie, but evolutionists have to believe its a lie because this "story" destroys the ideology that evolution is fact. The palaentologists have no real explanation how the tissue observed was still elastic after 65m years! Dinosaurs were probably around with Fred Flintstone after all.
JesuismyKing 7 months ago
@JesuismyKing lol.
4FunPlayin 7 months ago
@4FunPlayin
(;
JesuismyKing 7 months ago
@JesuismyKing no evolution can still exist all it really puts into question (if its real that is) is the dating system... if they have blood cells then they should be able to clone them right ;0) ... seems more like a BS scam to me
jammapcb 6 months ago
Hey nice of you to provide a link to the smithsonian magazine that CLEARLY states the bone is 64 million years old, and that the YEC's HIGHJACKED the research to claim it proves a young earth. Dumb asses
redwolf602 7 months ago 2