10 votes

Did Humans Live With Dinosaurs?

Puff The Magic Dragon...

Lived by the sea...with you and me?

For the ultimate skeptic in all of us, just fast forward to 16 minutes in and watch for 2 minutes.

Seems like the Creationists have more science on their side than Darwin ever had.


http://youtu.be/PHesNW9WnDM



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Theoretically...

If we were to discover a living dinoasaur living in a cave somewhere TOMORROW, evolutionists would still come up with an excuse for it. They would simply call it a evolutionary anomoly. And if we discovered some missing link, Bigfoot-type creature, Creationists would say it is just another of God's creatures, that it does not prove evolution. Anyone who claims to have absolute knowledge about the complete history of the world is foolish. The Theory of Evolution itself has 'evolved' over time and will continue to do so, and Creationism implies faith first, proof second. If your interpretation of facts begins with an unmovable presupposition, you cannot expect others to accept your conclusions unless they begin from the same starting point.

UMmmm

I would also say the Atheist Evolution implies faith first, proof second also .... They start from a FAITH IN a no God point of view,and bend their conclusions to fit this point of view as well ... so i agree If your interpretation of facts begins with an unmovable presupposition, you cannot expect others to accept your conclusions unless they begin from the same starting point.

THEre is NO such thing as neutral like Science should be

Boom! Good comment.

Boom! Good comment.

And can someone silence Mary Schweitzer

because her discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur bones is just making the young earthers more vociferous.

TYpical Atheist

Because that is how they do it .... Look at how the universities Silence the unbelievers of atheism .... They do it all the time ... They fear the TRUTH

What makes you think the problem is with her?

Rather than trying to stop her, try to get those young earth creationists to hear her response to them:

http://barryyeoman.com/2006/04/schweitzers-dangerous-discovery/

WHILE SCIENTISTS STRUGGLED TO MAKE SENSE of the bones, another community had no doubt about how to interpret the results. The reports were quickly embraced by biblical literalists who believe God created life on Earth less than 10,000 years ago. For decades they have been working to place a scientific patina on their ideas. The Institute for Creation Research runs a graduate school near San Diego with 11 instructors who hold doctorates in biochemistry, geology, and other sciences. Conferences offer papers on topics like the physics of the Genesis flood. “Any time there’s empirical evidence, that’s gold for them,” says Ronald Numbers, a professor of the history of science and medicine at the University of Wisconsin at Madison.

To Schweitzer, trying to prove your religious beliefs through empirical evidence is absurd, if not sacrilegious. “If God is who He says He is, He doesn’t need us to twist and contort scientific data,” she says. “The thing that’s most important to God is our faith. Therefore, He’s not going to allow Himself to be proven by scientific methodologies.”

Some creationists, noting Schweitzer’s evangelical faith, have tried to pressure her into siding with them. “It is high time that the ‘Scientific’ community comes clean: meaning that the public is going to hold them ACCOUNTABLE when they find out that they have been misled,” reads a recent e-mail message Schweitzer received. She has received dozens of similar notes, a few of them outright menacing.

These religious attacks wound her far more than the scientific ones. “It rips my guts out,” she says. “These people are claiming to represent the Christ that I love. They’re not doing a very good job. It’s no wonder that a lot of my colleagues are atheists.” She told one zealot, “You know, if the only picture of Christ I had was your attitude towards me, I’d run.”

Ironically, the insides of Cretaceous-era dinosaur bones have only deepened Schweitzer’s faith. “My God has gotten so much bigger since I’ve been a scientist,” she says. “He doesn’t stay in my boxes.”

More here:
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html?c...

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.”

[...]

Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.”

We need more scientists like this, not less.

GoodSamaritan's picture

Dr. Schweitzer is disingenuous

Here's an article published a few months later in response to the article referenced in the one you linked to: http://creation.com/schweitzers-dangerous-discovery.

It is a shame that Dr Schweitzer is so entrapped in the billions-of-years paradigm that she is unwilling to abandon it in the face of huge problems, both biblical and scientific.

And from a 12/2012 article at http://creation.com/dino-dna-bone-cells about her work over the last 15 years:

As she said in a popular TV show:

When you think about it, the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it should be gone, it should be degraded completely.

She doesn't want to believe what's right in front of her eyes despite her own admission that the laws of chemistry and biology preclude her interpretation of what she found.

Estimates of DNA stability put its upper limit of survival at 125,000 years at 0°C, 17,500 years at 10°C and 2,500 years at 20°C.

Yet she would have us believe that DNA lasted 65 million years.

It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones are, after all, 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?”

Right.

More on Schweitzer from a peer-reviewed journal article published this month and reprinted at http://creation.mobi/double-decade-dinosaur-disquiet:

Many dinosaur fossils include real bone—they are not completely mineralized, i.e. are not yet ‘rock’. And what is found inside those dinosaur bones is a huge surprise to many people. A series of discoveries since the early 1990s has revealed dino bones with blood cells, hemoglobin, fragile proteins, and soft tissue such as flexible ligaments and blood vessels. And of special note: DNA and radiocarbon.

This is enormously confronting for evolutionists, because how could such bones possibly be 65 million years old? As one of the researchers involved in the discovery of dinosaur blood cells, Dr Mary Schweitzer, said:

“If you take a blood sample, and you stick it on a shelf, you have nothing recognizable in about a week. So why would there be anything left in dinosaurs?”

The answer is obvious.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

And her answer to that was ...

You can't imagine how she might be honestly looking for the truth about this, even though her understanding of the science involved is far greater than yours. And since she's a devout evangelical Christian you can't just accuse her of furthering an atheist agenda and write her off on that basis.

So you accuse her of being disingenuous, i.e., "not truly honest or sincere : giving the false appearance of being honest or sincere."

These religious attacks wound her far more than the scientific ones. “It rips my guts out,” she says. “These people are claiming to represent the Christ that I love. They’re not doing a very good job. It’s no wonder that a lot of my colleagues are atheists.” She told one zealot, “You know, if the only picture of Christ I had was your attitude towards me, I’d run.”

GoodSamaritan's picture

The evidence says otherwise

From http://creation.com/schweitzers-dangerous-discovery

The article author wrote that Schweitzer is an ‘evangelical Christian’. However, he is only one of many non-Christians to invoke a professing Christian as a ‘useful idiot’ to undermine the Christian faith.

It’s important to understand that both words, ‘evangelical’ and ‘Christian’, have definite meanings, but it’s rare for atheists to use them honestly. For example, the great 20th-century physician-turned-preacher Dr D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones said that an evangelical must (by definition) accept ‘creation, not evolution’, ‘the fact of the historical fall of the first man, and that it happened in the way described in the third chapter of Genesis,’ and ‘assert the fact of the flood.’ This is actually a corollary of the definition that evangelicals accept the inerrancy and sufficiency of Scripture.

Schweitzer’s attitude to Scripture actually reflects a liberal, rather than evangelical approach to the Bible.

...

The article also claims that Schweitzer has suffered ‘religious attacks’ from biblical creationists, although of course not demonstrating that there was any ‘attack’. It is actually not the first time that Discover has resorted to emotionalism as a substitute for argument—see Feduccia v Creationists.

Schweitzer says, ‘It rips my guts out’. [This seems to be saying: ‘Your statement offends me, therefore it must be false’.]

‘These people are claiming to represent the Christ I love’ [though not loved enough to believe what He said about a recent creation (Mark 10:4–9) and global Flood (Luke 17:26–27) and the inerrancy of Scripture (John 10:35).].

‘It’s no wonder that a lot of my colleagues are atheists’ [perhaps it’s because there’s not much incentive to believe the Bible when professing Christians don’t?].

‘You know, if the only picture of Christ I had was your attitude towards me, I’d run [while deploring ‘Christian hatemail’ (if there was any in this instance), it’s worth noting that the biblical Christ was hardly the innocuous wimp he is often portrayed as being—note e.g. his use of the challenge–riposte method—or else no one would likely have bothered to have Him crucified].

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

So she's disingenuous *and* a useful idiot. Nice.

The first paragraph suggests that she's a "'useful idiot' being used to undermine the Christian faith." That's just a few paragraphs above where the author expresses skepticism about her ever *really* having being attacked by creationists.

She's doing science the way science should be done, looking at what she found, and doing it carefully and methodically rather than jumping to conclusions. That's why other researchers who are deeply skeptical about the result are taking her seriously, because she's doing actual science.

What the young earthers seem to want her to do is to to jump to a conclusion not based on what the research itself would justify, but based on a certain interpretation of a religious text. What they wish she would do, and insult her for not doing, wouldn't be science, and would guarantee that her research would not be taken seriously by anyone in the scientific community.

GoodSamaritan's picture

No one is asking her to jump to conclusions

It's your interpretation that's way off base.

What the research justifies is an admission by her that either the dino bones she examined aren't anywhere near 65 million years old or else the estimates for tissue and DNA survival rates are off by orders of magnitude. One or the other is true but not both, which means in either case that a lot of people are responsible for some really bad science. There is no middle ground where she can remain comfortably compromised while trying to appear neutral so as not to upset her atheist colleagues.

She's had two decades to straighten this out but has refused to do so. That's disingenuous. Yet, the more she has discovered the more certain it is that those bones are only thousands of years old, not millions.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

How do you think science works?

The evidence she's putting out there *is* challenging prevailing views on preservation of soft tissue, etc., and because she's doing it scientifically she's getting scientists who are extremely skeptical to take her seriously.

As for the admission you think she should make, research into whether the soft tissues are original or contaminants of more recent origin is still on-going, so right there is a third option you seem to have missed. You seem to think that when a research paper states something then it's a settled fact and you can quote a little snippet from it and act as if that should settle all controversy. That's not how science works.

Not that this stops you from saying she's disingenuous, or that other guy from calling her an idiot.

These religious attacks wound her far more than the scientific ones. “It rips my guts out,” she says. “These people are claiming to represent the Christ that I love. They’re not doing a very good job. It’s no wonder that a lot of my colleagues are atheists.” She told one zealot, “You know, if the only picture of Christ I had was your attitude towards me, I’d run.”

I'm not pretending to keep up with the discoveries

But I do know that simply citing papers arguing for one conclusion doesn't mean "the argument is over." Science is an adversarial process, claims are made, those claims are challenged, etc.. You seem to think that if you find a citation that supports something you want to say (or that you can misrepresent as saying something you want to say) then you just need to quote it and "the argument is over." Furthermore, even if preservation of some kinds of molecules is becoming more widely accepted, thanks to her work, the survival of dinosaur DNA is still highly controversial. You're lumping things together that aren't the same things at all.

Furthermore, doing real science rather than "creation science" means that the next step is to reexamine assumptions about the persistence of such molecules, not to immediately jump to the conclusion that the bones must only be thousands of years old. So for example, here's some more recent work by Schweitzer:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3110760/

She's doing a careful, methodical investigation, challenging lots of prevailing assumptions, and addressing the challenges that arise from pursuing those lines of inquiry. Because she's doing good, solid science she's got a large number of people working in a variety of related fields re-examining some deeply-seated assumptions about fossils, and doing this in spite of some very, very deep skepticism about her work. This is good stuff!

If she did what would get you to stop calling her dishonest, and what would stop that other guy from calling her an idiot, none of this would be happening because if she skipped all the steps you want her to skip it wouldn't be science, and scientists would have no reason to take her seriously.

GoodSamaritan's picture

We agree that she's doing good, important work

I can understand why atheistic evolutionists would conveniently fail to address the science that declares these fossils are 65 million years old vs. the science that declares DNA is completely gone in at most hundreds of thousands of years - assuming there was no postmortem decay from nucleases, steady-state freezing temperature from burial, constant pH, and other unrealistic assumptions.

What I'm objecting to is her silence on the glaring discrepancies after 20 years of research that has since been corroborated repeatedly by other teams. How many more *decades* must pass before it's appropriate for her to speak up?

Your answer to that is:

...doing real science rather than "creation science" means that the next step is to reexamine assumptions about the persistence of such molecules, not to immediately jump to the conclusion that the bones must only be thousands of years old.

So waiting 20+ years while the "assumptions about the persistence of such molecules" are verified over and over again as correct and expecting her to mention the elephant in the room is "[immediately jumping] to the conclusion that the bones must be thousands of years old." Maybe since the soft-tissue evidence isn't looking too good for evolution it would appropriate to wait another 20 years before discussing the obvious so we can keep using the bogus millions of years paradigm until retirement.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

Dude, do you ever admit your'e wrong?

First, you're back to talking about DNA, even though the strongest corroborating evidence you're talking about isn't about DNA, and what has been claimed about DNA from 65 million years ago is highly controversial at best at the moment. Proteins and DNA aren't the same thing.

Second, you talk about 20 years of research repeatedly corroborating her work, as if this has been a settled matter for decades, when in fact one of the recent critical papers was from 2008 and the response was from 2010 (and these weren't about DNA, BTW, they were about proteins and collagen). So as recently as that the question was unsettled, and just because they published a paper claiming one thing in 2010 doesn't mean the question is settled in 2013, much less that it was settled decades ago. You seem very confused about how scientific research actually works.

Third, you're ignoring the point that just because a result challenges prevailing ideas about protein degradation, doesn't mean you immediately jump to the conclusion that the fossils must be young. What she's doing is what a real scientist would do in that situation, which is to re-examine the assumptions that would make the result surprising, and calling those assumptions into question. Note that she's re-examining the most immediate assumptions that are called into question, not jumping to the conclusion that the bones must be young based on a false dichotomy motivated by a particular interpretation of an ancient religious text.

And yet you call her dishonest, and that other guy calls her an idiot. Amazing.

GoodSamaritan's picture

Only when I'm wrong

Which fact is the true fact - the bones are 65 million years old as she emphatically stated or the upper limit of DNA survival is 125,000 years at 0°C, and so on?

She found uncontaminated biological material and verified DNA, as have others, and despite knowing that "...the laws of chemistry and biology and everything else that we know say that it should be gone, it should be degraded completely", she hasn't to my knowledge ever questioned the evolutionary timetable.

As I indicated, I'm not surprised when atheistic evolutionists hide such glaring discrepancies since we've seen numerous hoaxes and frauds come and go over the past century. But she claims to be a Christian. Her sincerity is being questioned because she has failed to make even the slightest suggestion that maybe those bones really aren't anywhere near 65 million years old.

She's had 20 years to publicly question the paradigm since her initial discovery. It's great that "she's re-examining the most immediate assumptions that are called into question" except that she's only questioning one side. Or perhaps you can show me where she's re-examining the 65-million-year assumption. Maybe she'll do that over the next 20 years.

There is no false dichotomy - anyone who believes that biological material of any kind can survive 65 million years is likely brainwashed beyond repair. It doesn't take the word of an ancient religious text to point out the obvious insanity of such a belief.

Thankfully, we don't need to depend on Dr. Schweitzer alone to question all the assumptions. Others have taken the hint, for example: http://www.sciencevsevolution.org/Holzschuh.htm

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father

So that's a "no"

.

No.

Not unless you count crocodiles and birds. Humans are nowhere near the same eras and it's been researched to death. Please keep the religious fanaticism out of political/philosophical discussions.

No train to Stockholm.

AMEN...pun intended

AMEN...pun intended

Amun?

The Cleverly's

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=hillbilly+country+walk+l...

Because: Some animals are more equal than other animals. -Animal Farm-

What the? > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MTIwY3_-ks

The Flinstones isn't a

The Flinstones isn't a documentary dude. They call it faith because you have to believe without facts. Trying to create your own facts just proves you don't really have faith. Let's stick to facts and reason and keep the supernatural for you and your family.

If I didn't know better I would say we are getting flooded with shills spouting religion to drive away those who can be swayed by a good logical argument.

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

The thing is...

Ron Paul attracts libertarian christians. I am not saying all of them, but a large number of them, are "religion firsters" who dislike government because it tries to step in and take the place of their family religion. It's a lot easier to buy into what government is selling when you don't already have an authority you appeal to, i.e. the church. Inversely, it's also very hard to sell government control to people who already adhere to a religious code. The whole "cannot serve 2 masters" thing. The real minority in the world is people who are skeptical of all institutions seeking power, not picking sides with one and disowning the rest.

No train to Stockholm.

A downvote without comment

A downvote without comment just proves how little faith you actually have. Who are you trying to convince?

"In reality, the Constitution itself is incapable of achieving what we would like in limiting government power, no matter how well written."

~ Ron Paul, End the Fed

no one is commenting because you

are not making logical points you are name calling.

Second you are confusing faith and belief.

if you want to start a conversation watch the video and make logical points about why you think its wrong.

The burden of proof is on the people making the claim

And anyone claiming dinosaurs and humans were alive at the same time would be overturning scientific facts that would propel them to the forefront of the scientific community and probably land them a nobel prize. Clearly this is infojunk for creationists/christians to feed on.

No train to Stockholm.

actually good science

does its best to falsify any law or theory. please give a text book example of someone trying to falsify evolution. Everything is about proving evolution hence evolution is not science.

Indeed, they still do

There is a species in Louisiana called Noanusonlipus

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

there is another species that is even more common

Lackosensohumorsaurus

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus