Fossil fuel is found in massive pockets: Oil: decomposed dead animals - all together - millions of gallons in one place. And coal, massive 'seams' of dead trees - all squashed together. These pockets are found at depths ranging from quite near the surface, to up to 6 and 10 kms deep - on land and under the bottom of our oceans. Observation show similar life forms, destroyed quickly, buried at random depths and heavily compressed by soil and rock. The slow process you describe doesn't satisfy.
at 9:38 she says, "this was impossible!" She's right, but not if earth were far younger and we've been lied to about pretty much everything to do with our history and who we are and what we live on. I'd have never thought the lies could go as deep as they do. Soft tissue has been found in many other samples too since this aired. It's become the norm.
instead of assuming "it exists so apparently it survived for millions of years " they should realize "elastic soft tissue doesn't survive for 70 million years therfore we need to correct our beliefs"
But that's not the case. We learned how iron in the body can preserve the cartilage like formaldehyde for longer than we realized. The age of the bones and tissues was still correct.
@@josiahgil You don't prove a negative. Something must be verifiable and falsifiable to be proven. You can insert whatever you want instead of the word "creation" into your sentence and end up with all sorts of absurdity. "Prove that there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun." Instead you have to prove creation _IS_ true before accepting any of it. Same for evolution, etc.
Evolutionists don't ever want to question their atheistic religion of evolution. They will go to great lengths to live in denial of reality: dinosaurs did not die out 65 mil years ago. Dinosaurs lived with humans within the last 4000 years. But oh, wait, they claim that's based on "religion" and they only believe "science". Science backs the bible. When soft dino tissue was found, creation scientists were not surprised, since they already knew dinosaurs lived in the last 4000 years. See who science backs the more we find evidence? Creation scientists who know the bible is factual. This world is around 6000 years old. That's it. Fossils? Look no further than the global flood in Noahs time for those fossils we now see today.
??? Scientists are supposed to test EVERYTHING, question EVERYTHING... why didn't they question the age of the bones? Maybe it would confirm the present theory on the age- or maybe it would blow open a whole new theory and area of study and change everything we have ever thought we knew about it. Happens all the time in other areas of science. If this discovery was my "toy" I would just have to wear this thing out- it is just too cool!
The "science community" is too prideful to say, we were wrong. There timelines are melting like minerals as we move forward in the quest for truth in science these days. .
You’re absolutely right but if they question the age .. evolution will be dead and they don’t want that everyone wanted to push his ideaology in science which is very dangerous path
Carbon dating is what you are looking for. They do test the bones of the dinosaurs, how else did people come up with the different time periods of dinosaurs. Carbon dating does only go back so far, but you can add what years you do know of a given time to the depth of the soil and add the years accordingly. Plus I wouldn't go to jack horner for much. Go look up Robert t. Bakker or Phil curry for actual scientific work. Plus the scientific world isn't falling apart its ever expanding. As technology improves so does our understanding of the world around us. I don't believe a cosmic being made us and then purposely put dino bones here to trick us. Sounds stupid to me actually for a all loving god to create us to just punish us for believing in things he purposely put here to trick us.
@@BETjurassicAN Hi, Corey- yes, I heard the theory about the dino bones "trick" and totally agree with you. Sounds nutty to me. I actually believe dinos were around more recently than most science texts want us to accept- we dug up bones one of the last fossil digs I was on... long story short- there were some things that were supposed to be fossilized that were not and when we followed reporting procedures all such items were confiscated. Haven't been able to get them back yet. I don't mind that there are different views- my theories could be incorrect, but I don't like when the avenue of inquiry is cut off. That is not what science was supposed to be about. Questions- especially questions that are irreverent to the accepted dogma should be embraced. I am not ignorant of carbon dating. I just find it highly problematic if you do not buy in 100% to uniformatarianism- which I don't. I think there is plenty of recent science that demonstrates why we should not accept that as the gold standard (the events of Mt. St. Helens and Spirit Lake provide one cod example). And even if you could be 100% on a uniform decay rate (which you can't), there are too many assumptions on a starting quantity. But really absolutely FRIES me on the whole carbon dating issue is the complete lack of intellectual honesty in the science community regarding this dating method. C14 should be present in NOTHING older than a million years old because of its tremendous decay rate. Yet it is constantly found in "billion-year-old" things. They claim it is through "contamination"- even in center of substances that are so rock and under so many layers of earth- you gotta wonder why they can't get a clean sample. All this is fine except they aren't upfront about it. They don't present theory as theory- they present theory as fact and execute anyone who steps a toe out of the party-line. Science isn't science anymore. It is heartbreaking.
"so that must have been heart breaking cutting the femur in half" "no not really, I mean, you get a chance to see inside" LOL, just the way he says it is fantastic.
"existing rules of science" think how crazy it would be to see something like this, something you grew up knowing was impossible yet it's right in front of your face.
Funny how these so-called experts can be so wrong simply because they have a preconceived notion that these bones are 68 million years old. The simple answer is that they are not millions of years old. But they can't see that answer because they are brainwashed by the evolutionary world view.
It's poorly phrased. It doesn't break any existing "rules of science." That's not even a thing. It's a show written for laymen. Science is just asking questions and comparing against evidence to find answers that evolve over time as we work towards understanding things. No dogma.
@@error.418 Evidence backing Creation scientists who always claimed dinosaurs lived within the last 2000 to 4000 years with humans. Evolutionary mythologists are proven wrong the more evidence comes about. Jack Horner was offered around $10,000 (phone call is recorded and online today, I'll tell you where if you wanna hear it) to carbon date the soft dinosaur tissue many years back but they refused to do it because he knew they'd find carbon inside, which would further prove that dinosaurs did not die out millions of years ago, but only thousands at most. They claim creation scientists only believe "religion" and not science, yet the more science gathers evidence, the more it backs those "religious" creationists. Amazing.
This makes me so curious to know what lies under, that we can't see and can't access ! I can feel the excitement from the scientists' when I watch theses videos ahah I love it (:
Funny how these so-called experts can be so wrong simply because they have a preconceived notion that these bones are 68 million years old. The simple answer is that they are not millions of years old. But they can't see that answer because they are brainwashed by the evolutionary world view.
Hi Doodelay. Embracing the evidence? If you assess the evidence of what they found - a bone sticking out of a cliff, some distance from, and apparently millions of years removed from the sedimentary layer, of the rest of the dig and with dried blood still present - wouldn't this be reason to shift your thinking to reassess "what you actually CAN see? Can you see how this visible evidence MIGHT, MAYBE suggest: 1) A fast formed, deep deposit of mud, and 2) maybe it's not as old as we think.
Of course, when you find living tissue, you assume that tissue can last 80 million years. Did anyone stop to think, hey, we're digging this out of lightly packed sandstone and the bone was just sticking out of the cliff, surely this isn't very old? To me, that would be a much more sensible conclusion.
You're forgetting about plate tectonics and other mechanisms for how layers of earth are moved and exposed while still fitting the understood timeline. The evidence is still very much in favor of the original age estimates continuing to be correct.
I saw a comment somewhere that a university in UK has been able to make a chicken with a dinosaur snout by turning the gene on. I'mna try to find that.
Imagine the surprise of these paleontologists when pass on to the next world and ask the question. Who are you? Only to be answered: The One who created the dinosaurs. I cant even wrap my pea sized brain around the level of shock that is going to flood their soul.
The next world?.............According to what religion?......Let me guess. The religion you just happened o be born into. You know, the real, true religion.
I even had the pleasure of taking Mary Sweitzter fly fishing a few times when she was at Montana State . A very enjoyable and smart lady who knew much about these magnificent creatures from millions of years ago.
Me - I don't think these fossils are as old as they are telling us. And I don't think this site was formed slowly. They have found a large pocket (community) of animals, of all age, all buried together, and they are concluding things about their lifestyles, where they should be asking, 1) why this site is so close to surface when we find all the rest of the dead dinosaurs 6km down (oil) and, 2) how they all died at the same and were all buried at once? those are the burning questions for me?
I wonderful why this episode ignores a questions not asked....maybe these things aren't as old we had previously thought....how could any dna survive millions of years...goes against everything that was always believed. Still if they bring back one..please not in my area...I cherish my pets. :)
Because we readily determined age isn't what's in question, but preservation mechanisms. In this case, we learned that iron in the body can preserve cartilage similar to the mechanism of formaldehyde. The age of the tissue continues to be confirmed. Nothing went against belief as the scientific method isn't based on belief, just asking questions and looking for evidence. No dogma. Questions about the age of things and techniques for determining age often come up and continue to be studied, it's not ignored. 60 Minutes is produced for laymen so doesn't go in to every detail.
It's since been learned that the soft tissue(s) were isolated by iron thus protected from deterioration and that the age of the dinosaurs / samples remain as previously dated. Furthermore, Mary Schweitzer is on record agreeing with this and opposed to Young Earth Creationism. Finally, she still believes in God and is adamant evolution does not affect her faith in "Salvation"....
No, this is 60 Minutes, it's produced for laymen and leaves out a lot of detail. Timelines and methods for determining timelines are always being questioned and researched and still all the evidence continues to support the age stated. This discovery led to understanding a preservation mechanism that wasn't previously observed or understood.
@@error.418 They don't ask the obvious question...and you think that is OK since it is produced for "laymen". The evidence does not support the millions of years of age. All dating methods are based on unknown assumptions of past environments. All of them.
@@jamespowers9251 Oh I'm not defending 60 Minutes, but they're also not a science show, really. Yes, the evidence does support the 68 million years of age. No, methods are not based on unknown assumptions.
i refer to the video, where, at some dist. from the dig site, in the side of a 50' cliff, they find another dinosaur, which is a assumed to be part of the same site. If layers represent vast periods of time... how can that be so? There is no explanation. This should have triggered one of two conclusions - A) it's a different site from a different time, or B) it's from the same site, which may have formed much faster than we think. Either way, discussion is required.
They don’t ever want to talk about impacts on time periods & dating… no matter how much amazing or compelling new evidence comes to light (whether it be red blood cells & a myriad of other soft tissue structures, or discrepancies in rock layers/sediment, etc.)
@@brandybiscoff9685 False, they talk about this all the time. Science is all about questioning everything. No evidence has come to light to question the age. This is 60 Minutes, it's produced for laymen and skips a lot of information.
The scientific community always reacts poorly when you first push a new idea that goes against conventional wisdom at the time. They come around though if the evidence and follow tests show the same thing.
Hmmm, so not withstanding subsequent explanations of finding soft tissue which is reportedly over 65 million years old, there is no explanation for the suspension of "autolysis" which would destroy any soft tissue in a fraction of that time....the obvious answer is that the fossils are not that old...
@@davemwangi05 actually that is fairly easy to explain, normal lysis of colagen can take up to one million years, according to several "leading" "scientists, but no one believes it will last onver 66 million years....
@@mfddoc And you posted that as a rebuttal. Now If you can buy into the one million year threshold, then you do realize that it's older than the young earth creationist timeline of 6000 years? Now most creationists will not agree with whatever you've written above because their approach is, "as long as it falls outside the year of Noahs flodo reject it."
@@davemwangi05 it was a perfectly good rebuttal if you were paying attention. They think that it could take that long. Which means anything less than 1 million years old (including 6000 years old) could have collagen. Your statement means nothing.
@@TigBittyOG Of course he quoted autolysis as evidence, >>> Autolysis is much much faster, meaning let's give it three months and you don't expect any dinosaur soft tissue. But we know dinosaurs haven't been seen alive at least for the last 2000 years. So how did the suspension of autolysis occur for those 2000 years? Or for something more familiar, maybe since Noah's flood? Oh and it was found some 20 meters below the ground.
So the fact that it still has blood vessels and cells must mean that they can last for millions of years because it can’t possibly mean that the bones are not that old?😂🤦🏻♀️
No, this is 60 Minutes, it's produced for laymen and leaves out a lot of detail. Timelines and methods for determining timelines are always being questioned and researched and still all the evidence continues to support the age stated. This discovery led to understanding a preservation mechanism that wasn't previously observed or understood.
Twelve years ago when this video came out, Jack said that he thought that there will be a dino chicken within the next five years. He sure got that one wrong.
If she didn't come up with and go along with what she's told to conclude, then she knows, because of what has happened to other teachers and scientists, that her funding will be squashed.
Organic Dino material has been dug up for decades,in some cases , permineralized "raw" bones have even been found in Alaska.Someone will one day rewrite the book on Dinos in terms of their time-line relative to human history.Medieval accounts exist of the last "Dragons" hunted and finally killed out. All very fascinating.
Here's how to explain it away folks... a scientist in the future figured out time travel so he traveled back to year 65 million bc and brought back a t-rex but ended up in year 1800 on an island, the t-rex ate the scientist, ruled the island for a few years, died a sad lonely death and turned into a weird fossil. Mystery solved.
sure a tyrannosaur and other theropods (with the exception of hadrosaurs and dryosaurs) resembles a bird, but what about a stegosaur or triceratops or ankylosaur or even a sauropod. i don't see how a trike, stego, sauropod or ankylosaurs resemble birds.
@@nogravegonnaholdmedown4280 Ok... Prove that it can't. This is how science works. If you can't prove that, then the alternative is that its possible that some tissue can be preserved in this way.
@@travisfrazier3407 lol.. "prove that it can't." How does the burden of proof fall on me for stating what normally happens? I'm just living in reality. I admire your faith though.
they have made wooly mammoth blood this is what the scientist said "The resulting hemoglobin molecules are no different than taking a blood sample from a real woolly mammoth" they also said this The concept could conceivably be used for any extinct species, as long as scientists have DNA samples
Oh stop, they are. You know how you know? The blood. Dinosaurs laid eggs but had mammal blood. Mammals don't lay eggs. Considering all life on this planet has all the same genetic markers save a few changes, I would suggest it proves evolution. Much in the same way the second useless tendon in the forearm has evolved for most down to one.
@@phillipstroll7385 No one can do experiments on Evolution. Science does experiments to disprove hypotheses. Evolution is not science. (Neither by the way is creationism)
@@mikedebell2242 oh Jesus Christ. Learn reading comprehension. At no point did I mention doing experiments on evolution. We evolve period. We can see it happening in humans today. All one need do is look at their wrist. Some people have an additional muscle in the wrist / forearm. The palmaris longus muscle is evolving or of humans. About 14% of the human population has evolved to no longer need this muscle. The remaining 86% haven't evolved yet. They might not at all. Just like Neanderthals. They'll just recess out. It's easy to see if you have it or not. No experiments needed.
6:34 "Has landed them in one of the biggest controversies paleontologists have seen in years" Really? Name any 'controversy' that was slightly bigger? -- what, that dinosaurs brooded their young? Not even close. Nothing is as big a deal as this, it is like having access to an alternate dimension or something. It even promises to revolutionize what we know about simple decay of soft tissues, at a chemistry level. And Jurassic Park type experiments may even be possible if they have found intact whole cells.
Million, billions of years are only the fruit of godless imagination of man: this is the only and true lesson we can learn from this saga (frozen DNA at minus 5 can decently resist for a maximum of 6.8 Ma)
@@EddieSchultz62 umm what about that human foot prints alongside theopods ? They were destroyed after Atlanta uni confirmed their validity. They were in the same strata x rays showed this etc.why destroy them if they were a hoax?
@@715michala Are you talking about this? www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html paleo.cc/paluxy/rebutt.htm If it is, please read it with an un bias mind and tell me your thoughts.
Let's talk the science of evolution their religion. Have you ever taken the time to study DNA or RNA the Molecular make up and the complexity of the nucleotides that make up the DNA/RNA stand? That each nucleotide contains a phosphate group, a sugar group and a nitrogen base and that the order of these bases is what determines DNA's instructions, or genetic code. The entire human genome contains about 3 billion bases and about 20,000 genes. Any deviation from these base codes is a mutation. Mutations in any genome does not enhance a species, (unless you are an X-men fan) Down syndrome is an example Chromosome 21 is double copied. As far a darwin is concerned cells were just plasma "sarcode" and contained no life. He even stated himself "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." well that was proven.
It’s strange how once people have been taught by people who raped robbed pillaged the earth destroyed and rewrote history reject what goes against their teachings COMMON SENSE AINT SO COMMON
Evolution is a religion and the high priest can change the dogma whenever they need to change it. There have been honest evolution priests who have admitted that their theory doesn't work but the alternative of God is completely unacceptable to them. None of this is true science.
That would be great - but it hasn't happened yet... too much backlash. These scientists haven't been able to discuss the possibility that old science theories regarding 'millions of years' just doesn't fit the discoveries. They are trapped by funding into finding out why flexible tissue can last millions of years, rather than following the obvious trail of facts - these things we're calling dinosaurs were never reptiles in the fist place...they are large birds (the MOA (flightless bird) is 4 feet taller than a basketball hoop! And now come to find out, these birds weren't actually that old in the first place. All because a scientist is willing to test the inside of a bone? Come on people! What 'science' are they doing if they weren't willing to look inside the bones? Brainwashing of a falsely reported age to dupe the masses into believing the Bible isn't accurate? Uggh. Let's keep straight what is hypotheses, what is theory, and what is actual fact. That's true science...
I have had email correspondence with Mary, she's got to be one of the most humble individuals I have met. I told her that I though she was one of the greatest scientist of our time. You have to understand what her discovery means in relation to "who" she is as a scientist and as a born again Christian, yes, she does claim to know Jesus Christ as her personal savior! Though, I do believe an evolutionist can be a born again Christian, I do find that after time they will have to somehow deal with The Word of God (6 days of creation) vs the millions of years taught in evolution. She has taken heat from "both" sides of this discovery. I believe Jack Horner stated to her that the Christians were going to love her.....I have the quote somewhere. Sadly, some professed Christians have sent her some bad comments....to the point that some of her colleagues have made the statement that if they treat you like that, I don't want anything to do with it. At any rate, some of the areas they dug up dinosaur bones the area smelled of decomposing tissue! What an amazing find and what an amazing woman! She's a sweet lady and God bless her for admitting some of the problems traditional thinking on fossilization has in relation to the soft tissue preservation in these fossils. The very stones are crying out...there is a God, believe it or not.
Haven't ye yet noticed? These scientist, in order to defend their beloved creature, aka the "deep time" (millions, billions of years), are becoming like those flat-earth supporters, trying the most incredible desperate and ridicolous explanation in order to convince you that "flat" (millions of years) is the origin of everything.
Instead of continuing to state how blood vessels and soft tissue could not survive millions of years which is by any measure, obviously true, perhaps they need to broaden their thinking to consider that indeed they cannot survive millions of years, but can survive thousands. As carbon dating has been shown to be inconsistent at best and extremely in accurate at worse, there is a growing body of evidence that the Earth and hence it’s inhabitants are merely thousands of years old, not millions.
Yes, geneticists now know from the human male Y chromosome that there is less that 200 generations from us back to Adam and Eve: ua-cam.com/video/KIYmcyxbAZ4/v-deo.html
Mary Schweitzer from a recent interview at BioLogos: "“One thing that does bother me, though, is that young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and misrepresented the data. They’re looking at this research in terms of a false dichotomy [science versus faith] and that doesn’t do anybody any favors.”" IOW, YECs are dishonest. Duh!
@MegaRobloxian I do to. (I got nerd of the year at my high school. Not that thats a bad thing.) I admit though I don't 100% agree with his theory, but it's pretty damn good theory, and it gave me some inspiration to form my own theory on how to bring back dinosaurs. I wish you good luck if that ever does happen.
@@Diviance replied, "Diviance 2 hours ago Bro, you literally believe that something talked at dirt and poof, humans." At least we have an Intelligent causal Agent, God. What does the evolutionist have? chemicals, time and chance, which cannot make anything beyond the sophistication of snowflakes, and crystals.
@@hwd71 "At least we have an Intelligent causal Agent, God." *Who magics things into existence.* *lol* "What does the evolutionist have? chemicals, time and chance, which cannot make anything beyond the sophistication of snowflakes, and crystals." *And yet... chemicals and time created the entire Universe as we know it today.*
@@Diviance replied, "And yet... chemicals and time created the entire Universe as we know it today..." You do have reproducible, observable scientific evidence for this unsubstantiated assertion dont you? Where falsifiability ends, storytelling begins.
@@Diviance replied, "And yet... chemicals and time created the entire Universe as we know it today." Reification fallacy. Did chemicals make themselves? Where falsification ends, storytelling begins. Or do you have empirical, observable, scientific evidence to support your just- so storytelling claims?
Please can anyone tell me how I should pursue getting into vertarate Paleontology? (I want to specialize in large theropods.) Mabey I'm just over thinking this or something along the same lines, but everywhere I look it just looks like geology, petrology, ect. Sorry I just have to ask, I've wanted this job ever since I was a little kid.
Spend 15 years in the desert. Find something that looks bone-shape-ish. Unearth it and call it something big and hypotheSIZE on how huge it was, what it ate for breakfast, the amount of breaths it took in an hour, how it combed its hair. Present it all as fact. Then sell it to a museum. Learn how to apply for grants since you now have an important discovery under your belt. It will be great! It's just too bad you had to have those 'dinosaur jammies' in the first place. That encouraged you to hang on every word the teachers taught out of books that were written to uphold what you are just about to embark upon - a witch hunt to create a job that will never produce facts, just lots of hypotheses that will be presented as facts. Good luck!
amazing blinding faith. Although no possible way for blood vessels to survive this long, proving a young earth. She is trying to figure out how they survived that long. Give God the Glory !!!
Why is there "no possible way"? Please show me your scientific qualifications to make that claim, otherwise I'm going to assume that you are just parroting someone else that also doesn't know what they are talking about.
Because it isn't just tested once. The conclusion on the age of the fossils goes through the scientific method, then peer reviewed and tested by scientists all over the world. When they all come up with the same numbers, then it becomes fact. Sorry that creationists can't see that or accept it, but that's just the way it is.
@@EddieSchultz62 Then why is Carbon-14 *consistently* found in dinosaur bones? Even the best preserved bones have it. Sounds like you don't want to accept the simple fact (found also in monuments and Asian artwork) that dinosaurs were never millions of years old.
Gotta say, my opinion of Horner has gone down the toilet. He had some accomplishments like the Maiasaura discoveries and mentoring students like Schweitzer, but is too obsessed with being contrarian. Examples include the scavenger T.rex idea and Torosaurus is Triceratops idea. Not to mention marrying an undergrad student and dividing the JP fandom with that Spinosaurus fight.
Simply squeezing and shifting the evidence to arrive at the same conclusion about how this site was formed and overlooking the serious questions it raises, is very, very unscientific.
I think this is a classic example of journalist, because of being overcome with biases, not willing to ask the most obvious of questions.
Fossil fuel is found in massive pockets: Oil: decomposed dead animals - all together - millions of gallons in one place. And coal, massive 'seams' of dead trees - all squashed together. These pockets are found at depths ranging from quite near the surface, to up to 6 and 10 kms deep - on land and under the bottom of our oceans. Observation show similar life forms, destroyed quickly, buried at random depths and heavily compressed by soil and rock. The slow process you describe doesn't satisfy.
man I like this guy, breaking his eggs apart. good dude. curiosity is so important, question everything
at 9:38 she says, "this was impossible!" She's right, but not if earth were far younger and we've been lied to about pretty much everything to do with our history and who we are and what we live on. I'd have never thought the lies could go as deep as they do. Soft tissue has been found in many other samples too since this aired. It's become the norm.
No we have not been lied to the earth is not that young contrary to what you believe there’s just a fossilization process we’ve yet to understand
Yep indeed the lies they spew are astronomical.
@@when_daybreaksbethanna1545 Apparently she just doesn’t want to accept the truth
Just because we don’t understand everything does not mean our entire understanding is wrong.
@@jamessparkman6604 always the same, instead of changing the hipótesis, you cannot just not accept the reality. The evolución is a LIE
instead of assuming "it exists so apparently it survived for millions of years " they should realize "elastic soft tissue doesn't survive for 70 million years therfore we need to correct our beliefs"
Prove that it cant survive. If you cant then correct your beliefs
@@travisfrazier3407 prove that creation isn't true, if you can't then correct your beliefs.
But that's not the case. We learned how iron in the body can preserve the cartilage like formaldehyde for longer than we realized. The age of the bones and tissues was still correct.
@@josiahgil You don't prove a negative. Something must be verifiable and falsifiable to be proven. You can insert whatever you want instead of the word "creation" into your sentence and end up with all sorts of absurdity. "Prove that there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun." Instead you have to prove creation _IS_ true before accepting any of it. Same for evolution, etc.
Evolutionists don't ever want to question their atheistic religion of evolution. They will go to great lengths to live in denial of reality: dinosaurs did not die out 65 mil years ago. Dinosaurs lived with humans within the last 4000 years. But oh, wait, they claim that's based on "religion" and they only believe "science". Science backs the bible. When soft dino tissue was found, creation scientists were not surprised, since they already knew dinosaurs lived in the last 4000 years. See who science backs the more we find evidence? Creation scientists who know the bible is factual. This world is around 6000 years old. That's it. Fossils? Look no further than the global flood in Noahs time for those fossils we now see today.
Mary is the Hottest Paleo-Girl on the planet!
??? Scientists are supposed to test EVERYTHING, question EVERYTHING... why didn't they question the age of the bones? Maybe it would confirm the present theory on the age- or maybe it would blow open a whole new theory and area of study and change everything we have ever thought we knew about it. Happens all the time in other areas of science. If this discovery was my "toy" I would just have to wear this thing out- it is just too cool!
The "science community" is too prideful to say, we were wrong. There timelines are melting like minerals as we move forward in the quest for truth in science these days. .
You’re absolutely right but if they question the age .. evolution will be dead and they don’t want that everyone wanted to push his ideaology in science which is very dangerous path
Carbon dating is what you are looking for. They do test the bones of the dinosaurs, how else did people come up with the different time periods of dinosaurs. Carbon dating does only go back so far, but you can add what years you do know of a given time to the depth of the soil and add the years accordingly. Plus I wouldn't go to jack horner for much. Go look up Robert t. Bakker or Phil curry for actual scientific work. Plus the scientific world isn't falling apart its ever expanding. As technology improves so does our understanding of the world around us. I don't believe a cosmic being made us and then purposely put dino bones here to trick us. Sounds stupid to me actually for a all loving god to create us to just punish us for believing in things he purposely put here to trick us.
@@BETjurassicAN Hi, Corey- yes, I heard the theory about the dino bones "trick" and totally agree with you. Sounds nutty to me.
I actually believe dinos were around more recently than most science texts want us to accept- we dug up bones one of the last fossil digs I was on... long story short- there were some things that were supposed to be fossilized that were not and when we followed reporting procedures all such items were confiscated. Haven't been able to get them back yet. I don't mind that there are different views- my theories could be incorrect, but I don't like when the avenue of inquiry is cut off. That is not what science was supposed to be about. Questions- especially questions that are irreverent to the accepted dogma should be embraced.
I am not ignorant of carbon dating. I just find it highly problematic if you do not buy in 100% to uniformatarianism- which I don't. I think there is plenty of recent science that demonstrates why we should not accept that as the gold standard (the events of Mt. St. Helens and Spirit Lake provide one cod example). And even if you could be 100% on a uniform decay rate (which you can't), there are too many assumptions on a starting quantity. But really absolutely FRIES me on the whole carbon dating issue is the complete lack of intellectual honesty in the science community regarding this dating method. C14 should be present in NOTHING older than a million years old because of its tremendous decay rate. Yet it is constantly found in "billion-year-old" things. They claim it is through "contamination"- even in center of substances that are so rock and under so many layers of earth- you gotta wonder why they can't get a clean sample. All this is fine except they aren't upfront about it. They don't present theory as theory- they present theory as fact and execute anyone who steps a toe out of the party-line. Science isn't science anymore. It is heartbreaking.
They didn't question the age of the bones because they know the age of the rocks they came from.
"so that must have been heart breaking cutting the femur in half"
"no not really, I mean, you get a chance to see inside"
LOL, just the way he says it is fantastic.
"existing rules of science" think how crazy it would be to see something like this, something you grew up knowing was impossible yet it's right in front of your face.
Now imagine a man standing infront of God whom he thought didnt exist.
Funny how these so-called experts can be so wrong simply because they have a preconceived notion that these bones are 68 million years old. The simple answer is that they are not millions of years old. But they can't see that answer because they are brainwashed by the evolutionary world view.
God is a human construct, quite obviously@@edmundrussell6044
It's poorly phrased. It doesn't break any existing "rules of science." That's not even a thing. It's a show written for laymen. Science is just asking questions and comparing against evidence to find answers that evolve over time as we work towards understanding things. No dogma.
@@error.418 Evidence backing Creation scientists who always claimed dinosaurs lived within the last 2000 to 4000 years with humans. Evolutionary mythologists are proven wrong the more evidence comes about. Jack Horner was offered around $10,000 (phone call is recorded and online today, I'll tell you where if you wanna hear it) to carbon date the soft dinosaur tissue many years back but they refused to do it because he knew they'd find carbon inside, which would further prove that dinosaurs did not die out millions of years ago, but only thousands at most.
They claim creation scientists only believe "religion" and not science, yet the more science gathers evidence, the more it backs those "religious" creationists. Amazing.
Well, it's five years since he predicted we'd have a dino-chicken within five years.
8 now!
joshbots profile I think because he's making an extra crispy it's going to take a little bit longer
There might have been a glitch in the audio, and we missed the word 'million'. So perhaps he said 5 million years?
@@joshbottube 9
It's been 10
This makes me so curious to know what lies under, that we can't see and can't access ! I can feel the excitement from the scientists' when I watch theses videos ahah I love it (:
Funny how these so-called experts can be so wrong simply because they have a preconceived notion that these bones are 68 million years old. The simple answer is that they are not millions of years old. But they can't see that answer because they are brainwashed by the evolutionary world view.
Hi Doodelay. Embracing the evidence? If you assess the evidence of what they found - a bone sticking out of a cliff, some distance from, and apparently millions of years removed from the sedimentary layer, of the rest of the dig and with dried blood still present - wouldn't this be reason to shift your thinking to reassess "what you actually CAN see?
Can you see how this visible evidence MIGHT, MAYBE suggest: 1) A fast formed, deep deposit of mud, and 2) maybe it's not as old as we think.
Of course, when you find living tissue, you assume that tissue can last 80 million years. Did anyone stop to think, hey, we're digging this out of lightly packed sandstone and the bone was just sticking out of the cliff, surely this isn't very old? To me, that would be a much more sensible conclusion.
You're forgetting about plate tectonics and other mechanisms for how layers of earth are moved and exposed while still fitting the understood timeline. The evidence is still very much in favor of the original age estimates continuing to be correct.
Its been 7 years. Where's the chicken? Come on CBS do a follow up.
they have been slacking off
and they probably have people against this idea .... i on the other hand would like a pet dino chicken , as long its in a chicken coop
I saw a comment somewhere that a university in UK has been able to make a chicken with a dinosaur snout by turning the gene on. I'mna try to find that.
@@davemwangi05 any luck finding the dino snout chicken video ? :)
Divad Ignawm are you still searching?
Imagine the surprise of these paleontologists when pass on to the next world and ask the question.
Who are you?
Only to be answered:
The One who created the dinosaurs.
I cant even wrap my pea sized brain around the level of shock that is going to flood their soul.
The next world?.............According to what religion?......Let me guess. The religion you just happened o be born into. You know, the real, true religion.
I even had the pleasure of taking Mary Sweitzter fly fishing a few times when she was at Montana State . A very enjoyable and smart lady who knew much about these magnificent creatures from millions of years ago.
*_millions of years ago_* Ya.... If you think so.
Lol, soft biological tissue degenerates much quicker than a million years.
@@joewaldner6986 That continues to be what all the evidence points to, sitting in your armchair and saying otherwise is silly.
@@error.418 There is no *_evidence_* there is a ton of speculation.
ua-cam.com/video/p5T7kYXIGj8/v-deo.htmlsi=mQGRJIr5qNKbvSOw
Me - I don't think these fossils are as old as they are telling us. And I don't think this site was formed slowly. They have found a large pocket (community) of animals, of all age, all buried together, and they are concluding things about their lifestyles, where they should be asking, 1) why this site is so close to surface when we find all the rest of the dead dinosaurs 6km down (oil) and, 2) how they all died at the same and were all buried at once? those are the burning questions for me?
OR.... the bones are not millions of years old. Interesting that NO ONE brought that up, eh?!
I wonderful why this episode ignores a questions not asked....maybe these things aren't as old we had previously thought....how could any dna survive millions of years...goes against everything that was always believed. Still if they bring back one..please not in my area...I cherish my pets. :)
Because we readily determined age isn't what's in question, but preservation mechanisms. In this case, we learned that iron in the body can preserve cartilage similar to the mechanism of formaldehyde. The age of the tissue continues to be confirmed. Nothing went against belief as the scientific method isn't based on belief, just asking questions and looking for evidence. No dogma. Questions about the age of things and techniques for determining age often come up and continue to be studied, it's not ignored. 60 Minutes is produced for laymen so doesn't go in to every detail.
Kentucky Fried Dino Chicken . serves a family of TEN.
Charles T Lawson hahahah good one
The one obvious question they never ask..."Maybe it really isn't as old as you think?"
It's since been learned that the soft tissue(s) were isolated by iron thus protected from deterioration and that the age of the dinosaurs / samples remain as previously dated. Furthermore, Mary Schweitzer is on record agreeing with this and opposed to Young Earth Creationism. Finally, she still believes in God and is adamant evolution does not affect her faith in "Salvation"....
No, this is 60 Minutes, it's produced for laymen and leaves out a lot of detail. Timelines and methods for determining timelines are always being questioned and researched and still all the evidence continues to support the age stated. This discovery led to understanding a preservation mechanism that wasn't previously observed or understood.
@@error.418 They don't ask the obvious question...and you think that is OK since it is produced for "laymen". The evidence does not support the millions of years of age. All dating methods are based on unknown assumptions of past environments. All of them.
@@jamespowers9251 Oh I'm not defending 60 Minutes, but they're also not a science show, really. Yes, the evidence does support the 68 million years of age. No, methods are not based on unknown assumptions.
@@error.418 So you actually believe that soft tissue can survive for 68 million years...really?
The assistant discovered the soft tissue. Why isn't she credited with discovering it?
i refer to the video, where, at some dist. from the dig site, in the side of a 50' cliff, they find another dinosaur, which is a assumed to be part of the same site. If layers represent vast periods of time... how can that be so? There is no explanation. This should have triggered one of two conclusions - A) it's a different site from a different time, or B) it's from the same site, which may have formed much faster than we think. Either way, discussion is required.
They don’t ever want to talk about impacts on time periods & dating… no matter how much amazing or compelling new evidence comes to light (whether it be red blood cells & a myriad of other soft tissue structures, or discrepancies in rock layers/sediment, etc.)
@@brandybiscoff9685 False, they talk about this all the time. Science is all about questioning everything. No evidence has come to light to question the age. This is 60 Minutes, it's produced for laymen and skips a lot of information.
this is soo interesting wow !!
I don't care if you're atheist or not....how is acceptable for a scientist to be afraid to publish results? Can anyone explain?
The scientific community always reacts poorly when you first push a new idea that goes against conventional wisdom at the time. They come around though if the evidence and follow tests show the same thing.
They are not 80 million years old wake up people
Hmmm, so not withstanding subsequent explanations of finding soft tissue which is reportedly over 65 million years old, there is no explanation for the suspension of "autolysis" which would destroy any soft tissue in a fraction of that time....the obvious answer is that the fossils are not that old...
neither does your idea, or an idea of a young earth creationist, as in a great flood, explain how the soft tissue has survived 3,000 years.
@@davemwangi05 actually that is fairly easy to explain, normal lysis of colagen can take up to one million years, according to several "leading" "scientists, but no one believes it will last onver 66 million years....
@@mfddoc And you posted that as a rebuttal. Now If you can buy into the one million year threshold, then you do realize that it's older than the young earth creationist timeline of 6000 years?
Now most creationists will not agree with whatever you've written above because their approach is, "as long as it falls outside the year of Noahs flodo reject it."
@@davemwangi05 it was a perfectly good rebuttal if you were paying attention. They think that it could take that long. Which means anything less than 1 million years old (including 6000 years old) could have collagen. Your statement means nothing.
@@TigBittyOG Of course he quoted autolysis as evidence, >>> Autolysis is much much faster, meaning let's give it three months and you don't expect any dinosaur soft tissue. But we know dinosaurs haven't been seen alive at least for the last 2000 years.
So how did the suspension of autolysis occur for those 2000 years? Or for something more familiar, maybe since Noah's flood? Oh and it was found some 20 meters below the ground.
So the fact that it still has blood vessels and cells must mean that they can last for millions of years because it can’t possibly mean that the bones are not that old?😂🤦🏻♀️
No, this is 60 Minutes, it's produced for laymen and leaves out a lot of detail. Timelines and methods for determining timelines are always being questioned and researched and still all the evidence continues to support the age stated. This discovery led to understanding a preservation mechanism that wasn't previously observed or understood.
Twelve years ago when this video came out, Jack said that he thought that there will be a dino chicken within the next five years. He sure got that one wrong.
If she didn't come up with and go along with what she's told to conclude, then she knows, because of what has happened to other teachers and scientists, that her funding will be squashed.
A bold face lie.
anyone who has watched their chickens run could tell you they look exactly like a fluffy viloceraptor.
You've seen a velocoraptor in real life... or just in Hollywood movies?
11 years later....
These type of people that think outside the box are the true leaders in there fields, I love these storeys. Dogma in life can hold a person back.
Lsolarflare the pope doesn’t like this. The Vatican hates the idea of evolution
Organic Dino material has been dug up for decades,in some cases , permineralized "raw" bones have even been found in Alaska.Someone will one day rewrite the book on Dinos in terms of their time-line relative to human history.Medieval accounts exist of the last "Dragons" hunted and finally killed out. All very fascinating.
If t rex had mammal blood how did they turn into birds and how did they lay eggs. Mammals don't lay eggs and they don't grow feathers
@@phillipstroll7385 Platypus. Try again.
already packs of DinoChickens and ChickenSauruses in hangars at Area 51!!
Oh, my gosh... incredible!
Here's how to explain it away folks... a scientist in the future figured out time travel so he traveled back to year 65 million bc and brought back a t-rex but ended up in year 1800 on an island, the t-rex ate the scientist, ruled the island for a few years, died a sad lonely death and turned into a weird fossil. Mystery solved.
Mary Schweitzer. Astounding
That's kinda awesome.
sure a tyrannosaur and other theropods (with the exception of hadrosaurs and dryosaurs) resembles a bird, but what about a stegosaur or triceratops or ankylosaur or even a sauropod. i don't see how a trike, stego, sauropod or ankylosaurs resemble birds.
Sorry not Millions of years old.
Yes millions of years.
your fairy tales are a DEMONSTRABLE lie.
@@devilmonkey427 imagine believing the fairy tale that Dino tissue can last 68 million years..ha.. 🤡
@@nogravegonnaholdmedown4280 Ok... Prove that it can't. This is how science works. If you can't prove that, then the alternative is that its possible that some tissue can be preserved in this way.
@@travisfrazier3407 lol.. "prove that it can't." How does the burden of proof fall on me for stating what normally happens? I'm just living in reality. I admire your faith though.
Paleontology, where you can lick the science :-) Mary is bloody awesome!
they have made wooly mammoth blood this is what the scientist said "The resulting hemoglobin molecules are no different than taking a blood sample from a real woolly mammoth" they also said this The concept could conceivably be used for any extinct species, as long as scientists have DNA samples
Seems that the other option is untenable, that is that the bones are not 86 my old?
Oh stop, they are. You know how you know? The blood. Dinosaurs laid eggs but had mammal blood. Mammals don't lay eggs. Considering all life on this planet has all the same genetic markers save a few changes, I would suggest it proves evolution. Much in the same way the second useless tendon in the forearm has evolved for most down to one.
@@phillipstroll7385 No one can do experiments on Evolution. Science does experiments to disprove hypotheses. Evolution is not science. (Neither by the way is creationism)
@@mikedebell2242 oh Jesus Christ. Learn reading comprehension. At no point did I mention doing experiments on evolution. We evolve period. We can see it happening in humans today. All one need do is look at their wrist. Some people have an additional muscle in the wrist / forearm. The palmaris longus muscle is evolving or of humans. About 14% of the human population has evolved to no longer need this muscle. The remaining 86% haven't evolved yet. They might not at all. Just like Neanderthals. They'll just recess out. It's easy to see if you have it or not. No experiments needed.
@@phillipstroll7385 "We evolve" "God created" Both belief systems. Believe what you like.
Roger from MudfossilUniversity guided me here!!!
6:34
"Has landed them in one of the biggest controversies paleontologists have seen in years"
Really? Name any 'controversy' that was slightly bigger? -- what, that dinosaurs brooded their young? Not even close.
Nothing is as big a deal as this, it is like having access to an alternate dimension or something. It even promises to revolutionize what we know about simple decay of soft tissues, at a chemistry level. And Jurassic Park type experiments may even be possible if they have found intact whole cells.
Million, billions of years are only the fruit of godless imagination of man: this is the only and true lesson we can learn from this saga (frozen DNA at minus 5 can decently resist for a maximum of 6.8 Ma)
I think that dinosaurs were around long after they think...
You got that right.
If they were, they would have been found in a layer of earth higher than they were found.
@@EddieSchultz62 umm what about that human foot prints alongside theopods ? They were destroyed after Atlanta uni confirmed their validity. They were in the same strata x rays showed this etc.why destroy them if they were a hoax?
@@715michala Are you talking about this? www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
paleo.cc/paluxy/rebutt.htm If it is, please read it with an un bias mind and tell me your thoughts.
Let's talk the science of evolution their religion. Have you ever taken the time to study DNA or RNA the Molecular make up and the complexity of the nucleotides that make up the DNA/RNA stand? That each nucleotide contains a phosphate group, a sugar group and a nitrogen base and that the order of these bases is what determines DNA's instructions, or genetic code. The entire human genome contains about 3 billion bases and about 20,000 genes. Any deviation from these base codes is a mutation. Mutations in any genome does not enhance a species, (unless you are an X-men fan) Down syndrome is an example Chromosome 21 is double copied. As far a darwin is concerned cells were just plasma "sarcode" and contained no life. He even stated himself "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." well that was proven.
13:35 "I'm sure there will be a dino chicken within the next 5 years" Well Alan, it's 14 years later, how's it going?
Dino chicken? I'll need to get a bigger deep fryer!!
It’s strange how once people have been taught by people who raped robbed pillaged the earth destroyed and rewrote history reject what goes against their teachings COMMON SENSE AINT SO COMMON
13:39 It's been over ten years, where's the dinochicken?
amazing. now on to study how the chemistry tranforms.
2:45-2:56 if you have ever read the Jurassic park book you will find this familiar
this is so amazing, and inspiring too-- no telling what you'll be able to do if you are fearless
2023 no Dino chicken
80 million years old? Who can say that with certainty?
Evolution is a religion and the high priest can change the dogma whenever they need to change it.
There have been honest evolution priests who have admitted that their theory doesn't work but the alternative of God is completely unacceptable to them. None of this is true science.
68 Million,..I think not.
Agreed. Creationist don't think.
The earth is not millions of years old, Look at the facts honestly.
What facts?
Correct, it's billions of years old, with scientific evidence to support that.
@@EddieSchultz62 Were you there?
@@AgapeDisciple Were you there at world war 1?
@@katamas832 Didn't need to. I read from first hand witnesses. Thankfully our Creator gave us a first hand report in the book of "beginnings."
Jack said he wanted to know everything about dinosaurs, then said birds are dinosaurs...then just study your parrot and they’ll tell you...lol
Guess it wasn't 68,000,000 years old
Apparently you missed the part about "FOSSILS" and how they "DEMINERALIZED" it, in acid.
@@devilmonkey427 you must have missed the part about soft tissue and blood cells
@@TigBittyOG Apparently you missed the part about it was fossilized and it was then demineralized.
*JUST HOW STUPID ARE YOU* ?
Devilmonkey smarter than you apparently. Do you know what fossilization means?
@@TigBittyOG OH I DO... why don't you?
Another fancy word to lear demineralization.
It's good to know that science can produce objective facts of its own accord detached of one group or another.
That would be great - but it hasn't happened yet... too much backlash. These scientists haven't been able to discuss the possibility that old science theories regarding 'millions of years' just doesn't fit the discoveries. They are trapped by funding into finding out why flexible tissue can last millions of years, rather than following the obvious trail of facts - these things we're calling dinosaurs were never reptiles in the fist place...they are large birds (the MOA (flightless bird) is 4 feet taller than a basketball hoop! And now come to find out, these birds weren't actually that old in the first place. All because a scientist is willing to test the inside of a bone? Come on people! What 'science' are they doing if they weren't willing to look inside the bones? Brainwashing of a falsely reported age to dupe the masses into believing the Bible isn't accurate? Uggh. Let's keep straight what is hypotheses, what is theory, and what is actual fact. That's true science...
@@blessedwithchallenges9917 Well said.
And get fired for it.
yeah! I like this guy because he's not precious about what he's doing. As should be the case with all science of this nature.
I have had email correspondence with Mary, she's got to be one of the most humble individuals I have met. I told her that I though she was one of the greatest scientist of our time. You have to understand what her discovery means in relation to "who" she is as a scientist and as a born again Christian, yes, she does claim to know Jesus Christ as her personal savior! Though, I do believe an evolutionist can be a born again Christian, I do find that after time they will have to somehow deal with The Word of God (6 days of creation) vs the millions of years taught in evolution. She has taken heat from "both" sides of this discovery. I believe Jack Horner stated to her that the Christians were going to love her.....I have the quote somewhere. Sadly, some professed Christians have sent her some bad comments....to the point that some of her colleagues have made the statement that if they treat you like that, I don't want anything to do with it. At any rate, some of the areas they dug up dinosaur bones the area smelled of decomposing tissue! What an amazing find and what an amazing woman! She's a sweet lady and God bless her for admitting some of the problems traditional thinking on fossilization has in relation to the soft tissue preservation in these fossils. The very stones are crying out...there is a God, believe it or not.
If t rex had mammal blood how did they turn into birds and how did they lay eggs. Mammals don't lay eggs and they don't grow feathers
What? Trex didn't have "mammal blood" and there is a mammal that lays eggs. What are you talking about?
“68 million years old”.....🤦🏼♂️
Jurassic Park comes to life literally.🤔 "Instead of asking can we? They should have been asking Should we?"
he was sure there will be a dino chicken ... its been 10yr since now? where is my dino chicken :p
Mary Schweitzer is kinda hot
Brilliant interview ^^
It's 2018, still no dino-chicken.
Haven't ye yet noticed? These scientist, in order to defend their beloved creature, aka the "deep time" (millions, billions of years), are becoming like those flat-earth supporters, trying the most incredible desperate and ridicolous explanation in order to convince you that "flat" (millions of years) is the origin of everything.
How is it ridiculous?
Finding proof that rocks the 'millions of years' dogma is dangerous.
Especially to Mark Harmitage's career.
In the beginning GOD
Amen . also the book of job chapter 40 talks about the behumut(dinosaur) animals
Ah dang...2019, still no Dino-Chicken
2023, still waiting
Still waiting for that Dinochicken.
Brilliant!
Instead of continuing to state how blood vessels and soft tissue could not survive millions of years which is by any measure, obviously true, perhaps they need to broaden their thinking to consider that indeed they cannot survive millions of years, but can survive thousands. As carbon dating has been shown to be inconsistent at best and extremely in accurate at worse, there is a growing body of evidence that the Earth and hence it’s inhabitants are merely thousands of years old, not millions.
Yes, geneticists now know from the human male Y chromosome that there is less that 200 generations from us back to Adam and Eve:
ua-cam.com/video/KIYmcyxbAZ4/v-deo.html
Evolutionists cold sweating😅😅😅
We arent.
so where is the dino chicken? its 2018
There are none.
Reverse engineer a chicken? Money, money, money, money, money, money, money....
Mary Schweitzer from a recent interview at BioLogos: "“One thing that does bother me, though, is that young earth creationists take my research and use it for their own message, and I think they are misleading people about it. Pastors and evangelists, who are in a position of leadership, are doubly responsible for checking facts and getting things right, but they have misquoted me and misrepresented the data. They’re looking at this research in terms of a false dichotomy [science versus faith] and that doesn’t do anybody any favors.”" IOW, YECs are dishonest. Duh!
@MegaRobloxian I do to. (I got nerd of the year at my high school. Not that thats a bad thing.) I admit though I don't 100% agree with his theory, but it's pretty damn good theory, and it gave me some inspiration to form my own theory on how to bring back dinosaurs. I wish you good luck if that ever does happen.
Well as said "5" years r over ,it was published in 2010 so..... Still no Dino chicken .👿
How can you argue with an atheist that believes that frogs turn into Princes, and dinosaurs into KFC?
Bro, you literally believe that something talked at dirt and poof, humans.
@@Diviance replied,
"Diviance
2 hours ago
Bro, you literally believe that something talked at dirt and poof, humans."
At least we have an Intelligent causal Agent, God.
What does the evolutionist have?
chemicals, time and chance, which cannot make anything beyond the sophistication of snowflakes, and crystals.
@@hwd71
"At least we have an Intelligent causal Agent, God."
*Who magics things into existence.*
*lol*
"What does the evolutionist have?
chemicals, time and chance, which cannot make anything beyond the sophistication of snowflakes, and crystals."
*And yet... chemicals and time created the entire Universe as we know it today.*
@@Diviance replied,
"And yet... chemicals and time created the entire Universe as we know it today..."
You do have reproducible, observable scientific evidence for this unsubstantiated assertion dont you?
Where falsifiability ends, storytelling begins.
@@Diviance replied,
"And yet... chemicals and time created the entire Universe as we know it today."
Reification fallacy.
Did chemicals make themselves?
Where falsification ends, storytelling begins.
Or do you have empirical, observable, scientific evidence to support your just- so storytelling claims?
I'm just here to laugh at "crippled with bias" paleontologist and "journalists". The only thing that has gone extinct is true science and journalism.
Please can anyone tell me how I should pursue getting into vertarate Paleontology? (I want to specialize in large theropods.) Mabey I'm just over thinking this or something along the same lines, but everywhere I look it just looks like geology, petrology, ect. Sorry I just have to ask, I've wanted this job ever since I was a little kid.
Spend 15 years in the desert. Find something that looks bone-shape-ish. Unearth it and call it something big and hypotheSIZE on how huge it was, what it ate for breakfast, the amount of breaths it took in an hour, how it combed its hair. Present it all as fact. Then sell it to a museum. Learn how to apply for grants since you now have an important discovery under your belt. It will be great! It's just too bad you had to have those 'dinosaur jammies' in the first place. That encouraged you to hang on every word the teachers taught out of books that were written to uphold what you are just about to embark upon - a witch hunt to create a job that will never produce facts, just lots of hypotheses that will be presented as facts. Good luck!
So proud of Mary. I pray that she will not waver under the ridicule that she will continueto face.
amazing blinding faith. Although no possible way for blood vessels to survive this long, proving a young earth. She is trying to figure out how they survived that long. Give God the Glory !!!
Why is there "no possible way"? Please show me your scientific qualifications to make that claim, otherwise I'm going to assume that you are just parroting someone else that also doesn't know what they are talking about.
What about this question, "How do we know the dating method is truthful?"
We don't.
Because it isn't just tested once. The conclusion on the age of the fossils goes through the scientific method, then peer reviewed and tested by scientists all over the world. When they all come up with the same numbers, then it becomes fact. Sorry that creationists can't see that or accept it, but that's just the way it is.
@@EddieSchultz62 Then why is Carbon-14 *consistently* found in dinosaur bones? Even the best preserved bones have it. Sounds like you don't want to accept the simple fact (found also in monuments and Asian artwork) that dinosaurs were never millions of years old.
Gotta say, my opinion of Horner has gone down the toilet. He had some accomplishments like the Maiasaura discoveries and mentoring students like Schweitzer, but is too obsessed with being contrarian. Examples include the scavenger T.rex idea and Torosaurus is Triceratops idea. Not to mention marrying an undergrad student and dividing the JP fandom with that Spinosaurus fight.
Simply squeezing and shifting the evidence to arrive at the same conclusion about how this site was formed and overlooking the serious questions it raises, is very, very unscientific.
Sooo...this means dna can survive for over a million years?? 🤔
NOPE
Adrian Nelson
But she said “without minerals” 🤔
Where’s the Dino chicken?!
fully developed bird faassles have been found in raacks supposedly 75 million yrs old, birds did not come from dinos !
Links? never heard that
UA-cam babylon is alive and well by David Assherick
are you REALLY asking this question on a UA-cam post from 60 minutes?
ZGo see a careers advisor.. pLEASE!
I love dinosaurs. Their age is meaningless.
Where’s the dino chicken I would love to eat it .. this speculation made me laugh in corona quarantine.
Looks like we might see 'hen's teeth' afterall.
David.