Would you believe Dinosaurs and Humans coexisted if there were evidence? (translation, hell)

[Vizion28]

According to the evolutionists' story/scenario, dinosaurs died out millions of years ago which supposedly paved the way for mammals to evolve. As a Bible believing Christian I tried to reconcile this with my beliefs. It wasn't until I did a little research that I found out that there is a lot of information you won't find in your textbooks. Something is not quite right with that story with recent dino discoveries which points to dinosaurs dying relatively recently and co-existing with man.


What's also interesting is that the Bible does describe creatures that are dinosaurs (read the Book of Job).

Scientists have discovered a dino cadaver that still retained its stench and still has fossilized red blood cells:

""The guy looked at it and said, 'Do you realize you've got red blood cells in that bone?' " Schweitzer remembers.

Once, when she was working with a T. rex skeleton harvested from Hell Creek?, she noticed that the fossil exuded a distinctly organic odor. "It smelled just like one of the cadavers we had in the lab who had been treated with chemotherapy before he died," she says."

Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery | Dinosaurs | DISCOVER Magazine

Here is video of Schweitzer and her dino discovery
Dinosaur Soft Tissue Destroys Millions of Years Ideas - HD - YouTube

What do some scientists have to say about it?

Dr. David Menton, Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University? wrote that "it certainly taxes one's imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history. this would be a tall order, even if they were kept frozen in liquid nitrogen in a lab."

Jeffrey Bada, an organic geochemist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego: "Even if the T. rex had died in a colder, drier climate than Hell Creek, environmental radiation would have degraded its body....Bones absorb uranium and thorium like crazy. You've got an internal dose that will wipe out biomolecules."

Mary Schweitzer? said herself "um well, it is it's very amazing it's utterly shocking actually, because it flies in the face of everything we understand about how cells, and tissues degrade..."

"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, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?"

Can anyone with a sound, rational mind say with a straight face these dinos died 65+ million years ago? I'm talking about SIXTY FIVE MILLION YEARS! That's an awfully lot of years. I think it's time to give up the evolution fairy tale story and develop a new paradigm.

Another scientists discovered a supposed 67 million year 3D dino mummy that still retained skin structure and may possibly retained its organs. Oh, they suspect the dino was buried rapidly. Hmmm could it have been Noah's Flood?

Info on the the Dino mummy:

Video
What is a Dino Mummy? - YouTube

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/12/dino_mu (broken link)

Dinosaurs/Dragons in writing hundreds of years ago Dragons in History | Genesis Park

Art depictions of dinosaurs/dragons throughout the world
Ancient Dinosaur Depictions | Genesis Park

Several examples off the website











An interesting video about the evidence of Dinosaurs coexisted with humans

Origins 805 Dinosaurs - YouTube

[Huckleberry3911948]

i think they did but that is when humans became very scarce from all that dinosaur people eating.

[TRANSPONDER]

Only if the evidence were strong enough to outweigh the even stronger evidence that dinosaurs did not co -exist with humans.

I have seen this business of posting a string of photos and supposing they made a case.

The argument from Dino mummy and T- Rex organic tissue has been shown to be overdrawn. The mummy was misnamed for fossilised skin tissue. The T-Rex was fossilised soft tissue but not organically soft. C34's ongoing case for ancient Ica stones as existing in spanish museums before the tourist fakes was never supported and Acambara figurines failed to address the questions and I believe rifleman investigated the latter and roundly exposed the dating claim as false.

Trotting out representations of mythical beings that look like dinosaurs is arguable and rather outweighed by the lack of any non - fossilised remains other than frozen or in tar -pits where preservation, not fossilisation, would be the result - and that with mammals, not dinosaurs.

The idea of a snarling somewhat scaly mythical beast goes back to Mespotamian times and Tiamat (hardly describing a roaming dinosaur) turned up on the walls of Babylon as a religious symbol not a picture of a co -existing dinosaur. Egyptians represented animals in profusion. Not a single dinosaur. Roman representations of circus animals. No dinosaurs.

Now, it is possible that there might be the odd living fossil - the world is full of them, but dinosaurs as a substantial species, existing up to recent times and then suddenly vanishing? No. the evidence doesn't support that.

[whoppers]

When I was a religious youth, I had the common love for dinosaurs that most young boys have. This love for dinosaurs clashed with what my religious teachers taught me - for obvious reasons. Then I foolishly stumbled upon some books in our school library. They consisted of the usual non-scientific claims that there had been found footprints of both man and dinosaurs in the same river bed. Oh how exciting! Too bad the evidence was... faulty.

The next hope that was offered was the mention in the Book of Job of the Leviathan and the Behemoth. Dear old Scofield, in his boring manner of destroying young boy's beliefs in dinosaurs, posited that these animals were the crocodile (Leviathan) and the hippo (Behemoth). I wondered how the hippo could "swing his tail like a cedar" and then proceeded to conclude that these references were, indeed, proof of dinosaurs! Some of these same school library books even suggested such a thing.

My science teacher, on the other hand, firmly stated that Paleontologists were all in the pay of the Devil and were free to chisel out any shape they wished in some secret effort to undermine faith by making up dinosaurs.
Harumph, I said! Many of my school science projects were directly based on dinosaurs, and one was on their existence in the Book of Job.


Alas! The references in Job are important, but are in no way proof of dinosaurs. Instead, they represent mythical creatures that were common images in the ancient Near East. Arequipa mentioned their importance in the above post, with Tiamat being the great mother-goddess/dragon who represented the sea and chaos. In the Hebrew Bible many references are made of Yahweh destroying this creature when he created the universe, using her body to create the earth with (see many of the Psalms, for example). This initially comes from the Mesopotamian stories of Marduk defeating Tiamat. We also find stories of Ba'al defeating the Sea (Yamm or Judge Nahar) and his serpentine cohorts (Rahab, Lotan = Leviathan) in Ugaritic myths. Further stories tell how Yahweh will feed the many with the corpse of Leviathan, in a future eschaton.

The Behemoth's tail - oh, how shameful. What I took to be evidence for some sort of Brachiosaurus (or some other sauropod with a long tail) is actually a veiled-reference to the creature's virility and power: his penis. The Behemoth (with his strange feminine-plural ending) was a symbol of masculine strength, and his loins were legendary. Why did my teachers noit correct my youthful indiscretion? Well, either out of shame or because they did not know themselves.

Behold now Behemoth,
Which I made as well as you;
Grass he eats like an ox.
See the strength in his loins,
The power in his massive belly.
His tail arches like a cedar;
The thews of his thighs interwtine.
His bones are tubes of bronze,
His gristles like iron bars.
(Job 40:15-18, AB)

Oh yes - the Behemoth ladies would have liked Mr Behemoth. We are far removed from the euphemistic language used here, but it's there.

Suffice it to say - one could spend endless words on the mythological referents that are being used when Leviathon is being invoked in scripture, and elsewhere. Sadly, these are not evidences of dinosaurs - merely great mythical beings that the gods variously fought against. I can understand how some people would wish to believe otherwise, though - they are still in the stage of reconciling their beliefs with science, and they like to feel that they have some sort of key (the Bible) that the scientists are missing in their calculations.

[Fred314X]

Originally Posted by whoppers

Behold now Behemoth,
Which I made as well as you;
Grass he eats like an ox.
See the strength in his loins,
The power in his massive belly.
His tail arches like a cedar;
The thews of his thighs interwtine.
His bones are tubes of bronze,
His gristles like iron bars.
(Job 40:15-18, AB)

It's strange--that could almost be a description of Megatherium (the giant ground sloth), which had probably not become extinct in the time of humans.

That's not to imply Job was describing one; the passage could easily be a repetition of a much older source. I'm just speculating.

[mensaguy]

Well, the dinosaurs went extinct sometime between 65 and 70 million years ago. The earliest time I recall seeing for the appearance of humans was about 300,000 years ago.

Until something puts dinosaurs and humans within a reasonable amount of time to coexist (like, say, 1 million years), them my bet is that it didn't happen.

[sanspeur]

Yes, I would believe anything if there is evidence that can be peer reviewed and confirmed....Do you have any?

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by Fred314X

It's strange--that could almost be a description of Megatherium (the giant ground sloth), which had probably not become extinct in the time of humans.

That's not to imply Job was describing one; the passage could easily be a repetition of a much older source. I'm just speculating.


[/indent]

Yes, you're correct - the description is vague enough to apply to many a prehistoric creature. The important issue here is that in the passage I quoted, there is much sexual imagery - and this sexual imagery has been (as I demonstrated above) typically confused with physical features that could be used to identify an actual "beast". The Behemoth is a strange creature because of the feminine plural form of the feminine noun (coming from behemah = "beast, cattle" - [-ah is the singular feminine ending, while -oth is the plural feminine ending), even though 3ms verbs are used with the noun [third-person, masculine singular]). I hope that makes a modicum of sense. It's similar to the manner in which Asherah is referred to in her plural form in the Bible.

Both creatures are mentioned in other texts in an eschatological context (Enoch 60:7-9; 4th Ezra 6:49-52) in which their flesh shall serve as food for the righteous once the messianic age has come; this tends to help bolster the idea that they were both mythical, rather than ordinary (even if prehistoric) animals. While it is true that the Behemoth is spoken of in scripture in non-mythological terms (Psalm 8:8, 50:10, 73:22; Joel 1:20, 2:22; Habbakuk 2:17), the over-arching theme of the complete references to it are mythological in tone.

It's possible that the Behemoth is based on previous myths from the ancient Near East, such as the Bull of Heaven that Gilgamesh and Enkidu fight, or the "Eaters" and "Devourers" of the Ugaritic myth of Baal hunting them - only to be felled himself by the marshy swamp.

As to the sexual imagery, it's been noted in the past by other readers - Albertus Magnus being a famous example. We have several terms and phrases that server hyperbolically to represent the Behemoth as the epitomy of sexuality and male power:
- "the strength in his loins" - the seat of power and strength in a being, especially of sexual power and strength.
- "power in his massive belly" - the hebrew word for "massive" being a derivative of an Akkadian term denoting "private" parts. See Song of Songs 7:3
"his tail arches like a massive cedar" - "tail" is a usual euphemism for the penis; "arches" has cognates denoting "to desire" or "to strive hard", and it's fairly certain that the line refers to an erect member.
"the thews of his thighs intertwine" - "thighs": the Targum of Job uses this word for "testicles".
For a more detailed look at some of these concepts, I recomend Marvin Pope's translation and commentary.

In the end - as a youngster desperately trying to find an animal counterpart to the mythological beasts of Job, I was eager to show that the Behemoth was not a hippopotamus or a buffalo, but that it was a prehistoric creature. I further went on to suggest that this proved that dinosaurs (and the like) existed alongside humans at one point. It was my mistake to be a youngster, unskilled in Hebrew, unfamiliar with hyperbole and euphemisms, and entirely unaware of the mythological background of much of the Bible's stories and themes.

You may be correct that the story in Job is a repetition of a much older source describing an animal (I think Megatheriums are cool heh heh), but given the above discussion and it's pairing with the Leviathon (which has definate, proven mythological cognates in the Ancient Near East), and other biblical and extra-biblical references - I personally think that very little in the way of physical description is to be found in the passage. What we at first take to be physical attributes, turn out to be nothing more than an image of a mighty creature of God, a potent, virile creature that no other can match. This would have been perfectly in line with the speech of God in which he is shock and aweing Job into submission with demonstrations of the great things He has done.

[Old Gringo]

Originally Posted by Vizion28

According to the evolutionists' story/scenario, dinosaurs died out millions of years ago which supposedly paved the way for mammals to evolve. As a Bible believing Christian I tried to reconcile this with my beliefs. It wasn't until I did a little research that I found out that there is a lot of information you won't find in your textbooks. Something is not quite right with that story with recent dino discoveries which points to dinosaurs dying relatively recently and co-existing with man.


What's also interesting is that the Bible does describe creatures that are dinosaurs (read the Book of Job).

Scientists have discovered a dino cadaver that still retained its stench and still has fossilized red blood cells:

""The guy looked at it and said, 'Do you realize you've got red blood cells in that bone?' " Schweitzer remembers.

Once, when she was working with a T. rex skeleton harvested from Hell Creek?, she noticed that the fossil exuded a distinctly organic odor. "It smelled just like one of the cadavers we had in the lab who had been treated with chemotherapy before he died," she says."

Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery | Dinosaurs | DISCOVER Magazine

Here is video of Schweitzer and her dino discovery
Dinosaur Soft Tissue Destroys Millions of Years Ideas - HD - YouTube

What do some scientists have to say about it?

Dr. David Menton, Ph.D. in cell biology from Brown University? wrote that "it certainly taxes one's imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells could remain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years of supposed evolutionary history. this would be a tall order, even if they were kept frozen in liquid nitrogen in a lab."

Jeffrey Bada, an organic geochemist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego: "Even if the T. rex had died in a colder, drier climate than Hell Creek, environmental radiation would have degraded its body....Bones absorb uranium and thorium like crazy. You've got an internal dose that will wipe out biomolecules."

Mary Schweitzer? said herself "um well, it is it's very amazing it's utterly shocking actually, because it flies in the face of everything we understand about how cells, and tissues degrade..."

"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, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?"

Can anyone with a sound, rational mind say with a straight face these dinos died 65+ million years ago? I'm talking about SIXTY FIVE MILLION YEARS! That's an awfully lot of years. I think it's time to give up the evolution fairy tale story and develop a new paradigm.

Another scientists discovered a supposed 67 million year 3D dino mummy that still retained skin structure and may possibly retained its organs. Oh, they suspect the dino was buried rapidly. Hmmm could it have been Noah's Flood?

Info on the the Dino mummy:

Video
What is a Dino Mummy? - YouTube

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/12/dino_mu (broken link)

Dinosaurs/Dragons in writing hundreds of years ago Dragons in History | Genesis Park

Art depictions of dinosaurs/dragons throughout the world
Ancient Dinosaur Depictions | Genesis Park

Several examples off the website











An interesting video about the evidence of Dinosaurs coexisted with humans

Origins 805 Dinosaurs - YouTube

Isn't it true that Adam and Eve rode to Sunday school on their pet dinos?

[rifleman]

Just FYI Vizion28: Mary's own commentary some years later confirm that she NEVER asserted she had an uncontaminated sample to work with, or that she had done all the necessary "slam-dink" tests. She also had only about 19 allele pairs of out multi-millions that an organism carries, so it was a shot in the dark. Near-identical DNA shows up in modern birds, like the wild turkeys that inhabit the Hell Creek site. You been there? I have, with some U. of MT biologist friends. Mary does confirm, however, that in order to get further funding back then (Note: a sad commentary on some aspects of research science in the US) she had to publish SOMETHING! So this is what it came down to.

But just to confirm here: she never said she'd found dino-DNA. And since then, the entire story has kinda wilted, since there were too many obvious flaws in the work, and no-one has subsequently been able to confirm the idea. Instead, it's been pretty much debunked, but it's also not my job to provide a full-on and detailed educational seminar to unwilling but Assumptive-Denialist-Creationists (ADCs! I like it! Let's go with it, n'kay?) beyond my admittedly sarcastic [but nonetheless scientifically valid..] too-long comments that follow. Still; read it if you dare...

Read (from:http://www.barryyeoman.com/articles/schweitzer.html): (broken link)

"Others question Schweitzer's thoroughness. "The pictures were stunning, but the paper fell quite short," says Hendrik Poinar, a molecular evolutionary geneticist at McMaster University in Ontario. Schweitzer has not proved that the elastic tissue she found actually consists of molecules from the original dinosaur. Poinar ticks off a list of tests Schweitzer could have conducted, including searching for the building blocks of proteins and then sequencing them to determine their origin. "I understand you want to get your papers out quick and flashy," Poinar says, "but I'm more in favor of longer work with slam-dunk authenticity."

Schweitzer agrees. "I am a slam-dunk scientist," she says. "I would have much rather held the paper back until we had reams and reams of data." But without publishing a journal article, she says, she could never have hoped for funding. "Without the papers in Science, I didn't stand a chance," she says. "That's the saddest part about doing science in America: You are totally driven by what gets you funding." Since publishing, Schweitzer has conducted many of the analyses Poinar suggests, with initially promising results.

For a scientist, the ultimate test is having independent researchers replicate your results. So far, there hasn't been a mad rush to do so—few have expertise in both molecular biology and paleontology, not to mention the passion needed to carry out such work. But there is activity. Patrick Orr at University College Dublin is bringing together geologists and organic geochemists to look for soft tissue in a 10-million-year-old frog fossil. Paleontologists at the University of Chicago are setting up a laboratory to look for similar tissue in more T. rex remains; Horner is starting to decalcify other dinosaur bones. In the dinosaur lab at the Children's Museum of Indianapolis, Bakker has taken some peeks. "I haven't found anything yet," he says, "but wouldn't be a bit surprised if soon somebody comes up with more sticky, bouncy stuff."

Noting that this was all waaaayyyyy back in 2006, the entire issue and controversy has marched on.

Like this, a direct quote from other scientific elements:

"And in fact, many paleontologists are skeptical that Woodward has isolated dinosaur DNA at all. Some flat out don’t believe that it’s possible to recover 80-million-year-old DNA. Others, like Rob DeSalle of the American Museum of Natural History, who studies DNA from insects preserved in amber, grant that Woodward’s DNA might be that old but doubt it’s from a dinosaur. I am willing to believe they have gotten ancient DNA out of bone because the way they’ve described their experiment seems adequate for obtaining DNA, says DeSalle. But they have simply not shown that they have dinosaur DNA. There is no way. I don’t think there is enough information in the small sequence they have to do this kind of analysis. If they got a lot more sequence and showed that the DNA came out as either the sister group to reptiles or the sister group to birds, then that would convince me."
And this commentary:

"Horner and Schweitzer were cautious about their find. The DNA, they said, might have come from a fungus or plant that had contaminated the bone--either in the ground or in the lab--rather than from the dinosaur itself."

Then this telling commentary, from Mary's own supervising prof:

"Some scientists had attempted to retrieve DNA from insects in amber, and unfortunately, they had not found it possible. In 1993, when the movie was released, my graduate student Mary Schweitzer and I got a National Science Foundation grant to attempt to extract DNA from a Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton.

Alas, we didn't find DNA in the dinosaur either, but Mary went on to discover soft tissues and even proteins in another T-rex we excavated in 2001.

But even though we didn't find DNA in an extinct dinosaur, I decided to see if we could retro-engineer a living dinosaur -- all birds are living dinosaurs -- and make it look like an extinct dinosaur."

Hmmm. The DNA soup thickens, but then we have the dedicated ADC types. [Wow! Quite the intellectually at-odds combo, huh?][/b] who regularly debunk and criticize all scientific studies that uniformly confim that dinosaurs existed, but only multi-millions of years ago. According to the ADCs, all, and I mean ALL, of science's combined, replicated, peer-reviewed and independently done work is ALL (I gotta use that word often since the ADCs do as well) inherently biased, fraudulent and off-base.

And yet, along comes a study that, by it's author's own subsequent admission, was hastily done with the possibility of contamination from birds, amphibs, etc., and where she does not then ever conclude it WAS a dinosaur's sample, or that she had actually found DNA, and suddenly, why... Science is Golden! (but its a limited-time engagement, so hurry and get your pet theories in!)

But...so.. then... uhmmm... are ALL those radioactive & other atomic and molecular studies [not to mention they are ALL buriied and then found far deeper/older in any undisturbed geological columns...] on the ages of dinosaurs and other ancient artifacts ALL rubbish? Even when the ancient multi-million year old dates are independently confirmed but by significantly different but also well-proven dating & aging methodologies?

Wow! How fascinating! Why, why... its a VAST Global World-Wide Science Conspiracy!! You betcha, Vizion!

Or, does science work just fine in some labs, but not in others? Or is it just the stuff you don't like that's ALL faulty, and just not the work of a grad student hoping for better funding?

Just curious. As a career and professional scientist who has done lots of research & publishing, and who knows that yah can't just get away with anything you want to say, I'm very interested in The Truth as you see it!

This is, of course, unlike the Creationist Religion who doesn't seem to want or need to verify anything. ALL their stuff is summarily irrefutable I'm assuming.

Well, you know: I'm just curious. Lemme know my dear lad. I have an Inquiring Mind!
__________________________________

And just btw; archeologists regularly find animal bone fragments in old firepits that we dig down to uncover [ oh, and then radio-carbon or Pot-Arg or Fission-tracking or X-Ray Fluorescence and on and on...] date

("But that's ALL wrong too, I tell you!").

To date, anywhere on this planet, no-one has EVER found such artifacts, despite those guys and girls having uncovered literally tens of thousands of such pits and communal living sites showing early hominid social cultures and activities, tools and weapons and bone fragment evidence of what they were eating. But... guess what type of animal bones we've NEVER found? Go ahead: guess!

(Also noting that what they have found, for example, are wholly mammoth bones with spear tips in them! Ouchy! Unlikely that those tips were from anyone else but an evolving local hominid. Then we also find some cultural firepits and camp sites near creeks, etc., where we also find identical spear points in various degrees of manufacture, that also (OMG! Here it comes!) Pott-Argon or C14 date to the same age as the ones found in the mastodon's ribcage. Then we find some very primitive hominid skeletons, right there! Pre-ME Jesus-type humans at that! Amazing huh?. You know where all this evidence leads, of course, but you don't want to know. Quite the intellectual conundrum, huh?)

http://images.search.yahoo.com/image...mb=S9I.UWuJaIc

Not one tiny bit of any evidence that shows the use, consumption or interaction between any dinos EVER, yet of which there were literally a million different species, many quite small and, being bird-like, (Duhhh! They evolved later to be birds, after all.. DNA confirms that lineage track!) would have been very edible.

Yum: Dino Roast! It's what's for dinner, hunney! But would you first chew the hide offa it for me? My teeth's are all going sorta bad these days....)

Nor have we EVER found hominid remains in any T-Rex or other highly carnivorous or predatory dinosaur lizards' stomachs. Assuming the Rex would prob'ly win out in a one-on-one, or even 10-on-one battle...

Sorry, no go. EPIC FAIL, Vizion28 Far too selective, all of it gleaned from the way out-of-date [2006? My god, man!] articles in various ill-informed and intentionally dumbed down Creationist sites. Not to mention it's wildly illogical at it's every turn, and oh yeah; provably so.