(I am not being sarcastic)
shouldn’t have said that about you, I have was wrong!!
Good enough!
Well I don’t see how they can explain away something like half-fosslized dinosaur bones such as were found in AK and Montana?Or the fact that they found what many have confirmed as dried dino blood? Did these survive for how ever millions of years..?
I though DNA breaks down in H20? Or what about “soft bodied parts of other fossils found?
Millions of years old..? I don’t think so..
What you are seeing is some new discoveries being made in science. These discoveries were not accurately portrayed on the creationist websites, so you may have received the wrong information about what actually was discovered.
The "half-fosslized dinosaur bones" from Alaska were new to me, so I checked into them. I was under the impression that that age would require full fossilization. I am not sure of the exact method (somewhere between freezing and fossilization), but the Alaskan bones were indeed more like bones than fossils. But the age of those finds was still placed in the 65+ million year range, which is where they should be. I would think that the oddity here is the less than complete fossilization rather than an abnormally young age.
"dried dino blood" is a bit of an exaggeration. Leave the creationist sites alone and google the recent scientific accounts of the "red stuff" found in these dinosaur bones. Rather than hamburger, it is very small amounts of largely mineralized material that, when the minerals are dissolved, leaves some minor residual proteins. There is not enough organic material for good DNA sequences, but rather minimal protein sequences. And again, the dating puts this find at 65+ million years old.
I don't find any evidence in either of these cases that the dinosaurs survived significantly later than 65 million years, or that the young earth idea is supported.
But, don't take my word for it. I am not a specialist in dinosaurs or fossils. Google the problem and read the scientific reports and see what they say.
I appreciate your quick response to my post, and that you turned your original post into a serious question. I am always willing to respond to that kind of a question.
(But I reserve the right to apply serious sarcasm to sarcastic posts, and outright scorn to idiotic posts!)
Well I appreciat your rather polite and well discussed post! That’s the way it should be.. (I believe so as a Christian, anyway..).
Coyoteman I think the problem acutally arises when one finds that these “blood”-and yes they aren’t fully examined, but many chemists and biologists haved states these can only have been blood! Like I was saying the real problem comes when one sees that things like blood and DNA easily and readily bio-degrade when left to nature..also that some of these bones were found not only in Alaska (where freezing would (one would presume) considerably lengthen the time that tissue/bone would be preserved), but some bones were found buried in Cretecious rock in MT).
It is an enigma to (darwinists) yet I would contend they were from Dinos that died much later..possibly only thousands of years ago.
How were they “dated” to 65million years (as you say) can you provide me with a link, becuase if it just was by “stratification” or other such dating, well then that may be disputed.
Please provide me with a link.