Dinosaur conspiracy!?

[Dcopymope]

No way.
It is just what makes sense. it fits for me.
With the age of the earth and our belief in the Bible....They have shown us how old the earth is...these Dino's where clumping about so long ago. The 'grunting man' were here so long ago too.
I sure do NOT believe in evolution.. this is just common sense. Nothing spiritual.
Forgotten what "without form and void" means...but that is the only way I personally could fit in the Dino's and prehistoric man..before the without form and void..
Obviously "back then" when I was younger I cared...haha!!
But now I no longer care.

No one can "prove" anything anyway..it is all pointless, no one has ever come up with anything better that makes me want to change my mind.

I'm not sure if this information below would change your mind at all concerning the alleged age of Dinosaurs. It is the nail in the coffin as far as I and many others are concerned, one of many. Lets take a look at what they have found over the years with this article:

Scientists have discovered what appear to be red blood cells and collagen fibres in the fossilised remains of dinosaurs that lived 75 million years ago.

Traces of the soft tissues were found by accident when researchers at Imperial College in London analysed eight rather shabby fossils that had been dug up in Canada a century ago before finding their way to the Natural History Museum in London.

The finding suggests that scores of dinosaur fossils in museums around the world could retain soft tissues, and with it the answers to major questions about dinosaur physiology and evolution. More speculatively, it has made scientists ponder whether dinosaur DNA might also survive............If collagen and red blood cells can survive for 75 million years, what about dinosaur DNA, bearing the genetic code to design, or potentially even resurrect, the beasts?

Link: 75-million-year-old dinosaur blood and collagen discovered in fossil fragments

Lets ignore the fantasies of making the Jurassic movies come true and get down to the bottom of just how disingenuous articles such as this really are. They are lying by omission of the facts. At no point in this article did they ever bother to mention the numerous reports showing the actual lifespan of DNA and collagen. Even under the most ideal conditions, neither one would last anywhere near 75 million years. At most, DNA would only last 125,000 years, and Collagen would last no more than three million years. They can't have it both ways, either the dinosaurs aren't nearly as old as they claim they are, or their dating methods are flawed.

Link: http://www.biochemist.org/bio/02403/0012/024030012.pdf

Gen 4:16 And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.
Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son, Enoch.

seems there was enough time to fill a city with people. there is a lot teh bible does not say, as for dinos

dinsoaur carvings in peru, what more evidence does one need

How about this little gem from an old temple in Cambodia. The world claims that man never walked with dinosaurs, yet here they are carving deadly accurate images of a stegosaurus.

 

[mjrhealth]

I'm not sure if this information below would change your mind at all concerning the alleged age of Dinosaurs. It is the nail in the coffin as far as I and many others are concerned, one of many. Lets take a look at what they have found over the years with this article:



Link: 75-million-year-old dinosaur blood and collagen discovered in fossil fragments

Lets ignore the fantasies of making the Jurassic movies come true and get down to the bottom of just how disingenuous articles such as this really are. They are lying by omission of the facts. At no point in this article did they ever bother to mention the numerous reports showing the actual lifespan of DNA and collagen. Even under the most ideal conditions, neither one would last anywhere near 75 million years. At most, DNA would only last 125,000 years, and Collagen would last no more than three million years. They can't have it both ways, either the dinosaurs aren't nearly as old as they claim they are, or their dating methods are flawed.

Link: http://www.biochemist.org/bio/02403/0012/024030012.pdf



How about this little gem from an old temple in Cambodia. The world claims that man never walked with dinosaurs, yet here they are carving deadly accurate images of a stegosaurus.

seeing that one too.

 

[Rollo Tamasi]

@"ByGrace" I have not been able to get a handle or a full reply about this yet, but it did recently occur to me, that the generations, up to and including Noah, all lived for immense periods of time...Methuselah, almost 1000 years wasn't it ?........so by the time the flood came, wouldn't it have already been 6000 years ? Who came up with the 6000 year theory, do you know ? Is it because of the listed genealogy in Matthew? I have heard it from many varied fellowships, so it must be one of the standards in faith by churches ? Of course you are also right, that not one soul can say for certain what or when anything happened....Hahaha, we do get curious at times though, don't we ?

Hi Pia, the Jews follow their calendar dating from Adam to the present day.
Their year right now is 5778, which is close to the 6000 years we speak of.

 

[bbyrd009]

I sure do NOT believe in evolution.. this is just common sense. Nothing spiritual.

here's a pitcher of your tail, to think about

more human tail - Google Search

 

[amadeus]

I used to know it cold. But as you also said elsewhere, the older I have gotten, the more I realize just how pitiful my knowledge is. Especially compared to when I was younger! <grin>

Genealogies and timelines I always found interesting, as well as revealing. It helped [to me anyway] to bring about a more complete picture and to fit things together.

Like the simple question: How long was Noah in the ark?

Or, what is the significance of the 30th year in Ezekiel 1:1?

A number of years ago, I spent many hours plotting out timeline charts of those listed as the first born in the genealogies on an Excel program. It took me hours and now it for the most part just sits there [in my computer of course]. [I also have copies of similar timelines from people who did finish theirs.] I do not believe I finished it because... hmmm, now why was that again?

Actually I still spent a lot of time in my Bible every day, but my mind cannot keep up. The good thing is that the One that is Good continues to help me.

Give God the glory!

 

[Helen]

@bbyrd009 maybe your tail...but not "mine"

 

[bbyrd009]

@bbyrd009 maybe your tail...but not "mine"

ha ok, so you say

we are not waiting for the truth, the truth waits for us, i guess

 

[Ally.s.j]

Hi Pia, the Jews follow their calendar dating from Adam to the present day.
Their year right now is 5778, which is close to the 6000 years we speak of.

Its called the year of th lions roar. Last year was the years when the Eagle soars. we have cards each year and a banner in our church.

 

[Windmillcharge]

You got a source for that claim? And i hope you are not refering to the Discovery Institute

try:-
Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard.

 

[bbyrd009]

Hi Pia, the Jews follow their calendar dating from Adam to the present day.
Their year right now is 5778, which is close to the 6000 years we speak of.

wow, the official beginning of the Age of Aquarius is about that same distance away, a couple hundred years plus a little bit hmm

i guess that was the intent there tho lol

 

[Richard_oti]

interesting topic. let's throw something into the pot and stir it up. the bible clearly states man was "Formed" before the animals on day 3. so man was here before any animals, and evolution is just that, a theory.
OCY

Crickets eh?

 

[aspen]

try:-
Dissent from Darwin – There is a scientific dissent from Darwinism and it deserves to be heard.

1. Biology and evolution theory has come along way since Darwin.

2. I have no problems looking at the flaws found is Darwin’s ideas.

 

[Windmillcharge]

1. Biology and evolution theory has come along way since Darwin.

2. I have no problems looking at the flaws found is Darwin’s ideas.

Re comment 2. I would be gratefull if you could explain how new information arises in the genes of a creature.
For example. A winged horse would need to know how to make feathers, how to lighten its bones and how to make the wing structure.
Additional information is needed to say how to place the extra skin, musceles, nerves, blood supply and new areas made in the brain to cope with flight.

It is a silly example but it shows only to clearly the glaring flaw in Darwins idea.

 

[101G]

Genetic material, the building blocks of life is of God. and he did it. and there are evidence in the scriptures that point to microevolution, as well as adaptations. first plants, Genesis 1:11 & 12 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so. 2 "And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good".
Now, Animals, Genesis 1:20-22 "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. 21 "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. 22 "And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth". his and "THEIR" KIND, in combinatation with let the earth bring forth, to me, this dictate variety in genetic encoding of different species. and the scripture to back this up with is, John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made". now, if anything pops up, it's because of God work in Genesis.

PCY

 

[aspen]

Re comment 2. I would be gratefull if you could explain how new information arises in the genes of a creature.
For example. A winged horse would need to know how to make feathers, how to lighten its bones and how to make the wing structure.
Additional information is needed to say how to place the extra skin, musceles, nerves, blood supply and new areas made in the brain to cope with flight.

It is a silly example but it shows only to clearly the glaring flaw in Darwins idea.

I am not a scientist.
I believe that natural selection and mutation play a role. It would have to be an advantage for horses to fly for flying horses to pass along their genes

 

[Windmillcharge]

I am not a scientist.
I believe that natural selection and mutation play a role. It would have to be an advantage for horses to fly for flying horses to pass along their genes

So you believe by faith that an unsuported idea is true.
Natural selection can only select from what is there. eg if you are playing cards you can only deal from the pack. You can not change from a normal pack of cards to a uno pack of cards.

Mutation is damage to the information that is already there. So shooting with your BB gun at a pack of cards is not going to change them into a uno pack of cards.

 

[aspen]

So you believe by faith that an unsuported idea is true.
Natural selection can only select from what is there. eg if you are playing cards you can only deal from the pack. You can not change from a normal pack of cards to a uno pack of cards.

Mutation is damage to the information that is already there. So shooting with your BB gun at a pack of cards is not going to change them into a uno pack of cards.

I am not a scientist, yet even I can see your understanding of natural selection is terrible.

Within a gene pool of a population, there is genetic variation, due to mutation. This leads to phenotypic variation. Some individuals will be better adapted to the environment than others and will therefore be more likely to breed and pass on their alleles to the next generation. This means that each generation will be slightly better adapted to the environment than the last, and thus evolution occurs. If a population is divided, and each fragment is isolated from each other (for example a river separating them, or continental drift), then they cannot interbreed. Each new populaion will face a different environment and therefore different selection pressures. This means that each population will begin to evolve different adaptations to suit their environment, and will eventually be so physically and genetically different that they can't breed and produce live, fertile offspring. This means that the two populations are now two seperate species, and speciation has occured. If they are reintroduced to each other (the isolating feature is lost), they will not interbreed.

 

[Windmillcharge]

I am not a scientist, yet even I can see your understanding of natural selection is terrible.

Within a gene pool of a population, there is genetic variation, due to mutation. This leads to phenotypic variation. Some individuals will be better adapted to the environment than others and will therefore be more likely to breed and pass on their alleles to the next generation. This means that each generation will be slightly better adapted to the environment than the last, and thus evolution occurs. If a population is divided, and each fragment is isolated from each other (for example a river separating them, or continental drift), then they cannot interbreed. Each new populaion will face a different environment and therefore different selection pressures. This means that each population will begin to evolve different adaptations to suit their environment, and will eventually be so physically and genetically different that they can't breed and produce live, fertile offspring. This means that the two populations are now two seperate species, and speciation has occured. If they are reintroduced to each other (the isolating feature is lost), they will not interbreed.

As I said natural selection can only select from what is already there.
I am aware of only one species that has evolved so that the original species cannot mate with the resultant evolved species, but it is important to note that they started out as seagulls and are still seagulls.
Every other example of evolution within a species is fertile and are still horses, fish, doigs, bears etc etc.

 

[aspen]

As I said natural selection can only select from what is already there.
I am aware of only one species that has evolved so that the original species cannot mate with the resultant evolved species, but it is important to note that they started out as seagulls and are still seagulls.
Every other example of evolution within a species is fertile and are still horses, fish, doigs, bears etc etc.

scientists can also analyze DNA to discover how closely organisms are related. Every living creature has DNA, which has a lot of inherited information about how the body builds itself. Scientists can compare the DNA of two organisms; the more similar the DNA, the more closely related the organisms. This method can also help when looks are deceptive. One example of looks being deceptive is: The bat and the crow both have wings, and the squirrel does not. From this, one may think that bats and crows are more closely related than bats and squirrels, while the opposite is indeed the case.

Also, please explain why human embryos have gill slits, like fish embryos?

 

[aspen]

Selection from Genetics | The Smithsonian Institution's Human Origins Program

“While the genetic difference between individual humans today is minuscule – about 0.1%, on average – study of the same aspects of the chimpanzee genome indicates a difference of about 1.2%. The bonobo (Pan paniscus), which is the close cousin of chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes), differs from humans to the same degree. The DNA difference with gorillas, another of the African apes, is about 1.6%. Most importantly, chimpanzees, bonobos, andhumans all show this same amount of difference from gorillas. A difference of 3.1% distinguishes us and the African apes from the Asian great ape, the orangutan. How do the monkeys stack up? All of the great apes and humans differ from rhesus monkeys, for example, by about 7% in their DNA.

Geneticists have come up with a variety of ways of calculating the percentages, which give different impressions about how similar chimpanzees and humans are. The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, for example, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes.

No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes.”

This is more than blind faith, Windmill