Dinosaur blood 65 millions years old?

Question

Can dino blood really survive for 65 millions years? http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/606 The evolutionist scientists that discovered it (Mary Schweitzer) cliams there must be some - as yet undiscovered- mechanism which has preserved the cells. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/02/0221_060221_dino_tissue_2.html but isn't a more credible explanation that they are not very old. After all there is much other evidence that man and dinosaurs (aka dragons) have coexisted. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3061/

"The whole subject of DNA preservation in fossils is controversial" they say! Too right - the evidence points to the fact that dinosaurs did not live millions of years ago.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/07/060725-fossil-bone_2.html

Answer 1

There is no way that DNA would be able to surivive for 65 million years unless preserved in ice the whole time, which since there wasn't any ice back then, didn't happen.

Answer 2

What does evolution even have to do with it? The tissue was preserved in sandstone, as the article suggests. It even draws parallels between those and the blood vessels of ostriches. Very interesting article, and I'm very excited to see the DNA results, which may better explain dinosaur phylogeny. But a very strange question. Nothing about this finding does anything to prove or disprove evolution, though investigation of the soft tissue may yield some revelations in favor of evolution, as all scientific investigations do. But it's not like evolutionists need more evidence... we've already mapped out the lines of phylogeny in existing species based on genetic analysis. It's just like how the church lashed out at Copernicus for suggesting the Earth revolves around the sun. We're a very odd culture when it comes to our beliefs.

Answer 3

If it was more credible to think that dinosaurs lived only thousands of years ago, don't you think that most scientists would be pushing that theory?
The overwhelming majority of scientists believe that they died out 65 million years ago.
I refer again to the seventh paragraph in this link: Read about her own feelings on creationist scientists.

http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/may/dinosaur.php?page=3

She thinks creationist scientists are crackpots. She also considers herself "a complete and total christian"

"On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an old testament verse. "For I know the plans I have for you", declares the Lord, "plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future"

"Mean while, Schweitzer's research has been hijacked by "young earth" creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn't possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it's not unusual for a palaentologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer's data, she takes it personally."

http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/may/dinosaur.php?page=1

I ask you: How many members of the creation website you refer to have studied this fossil up close? Where is THEIR data? How did they draw their own conclusions? Where is their empirical evidence?

Why do I get the feeling I've just completely wasted my time?
I don't think you can be convinced.

Answer 4

It is a lot of nonsense ( of course) I refer you to the link below :-

Anyway, you do not want to believe these loony creationist websites. They are run by pseuds and crooks like Kent Hovind ( Dr. Dino ) who just has been sentenced to 10 years in Jail for Tax fraud! (Thou Shalt not steal? ) would you believe him now if he told you dinosaurs were 3000 years old?

Answer 5

Dragons now? Riiight, The men in white coats will come to pick you up if you stay where you are.
If you believe this stuff I have a few investment opportunities you may be intrested in.
Call 0800 IAMAMUPPET now!

Answer 6

Actually, they did not find dino blood from 65 million years ago, it actually was 10,000 years ago, this disprooves a LOT of things, like the whipe out of the dinos, evolution, and a lot of other things, a dinosour cant evolve into a human in 10,000 years, and if that big meteor crashed into the earth, millions of years ago, it didn't kill them all. the only explanation is god. and th3ey didn't find that much, not even a drop, they found VERY little, but enough to tell it was a female, and i think some other stuff.

Answer 7

dna unlikely to survive intact for so long.I think you probably watch too much jurassic park - it's a film you know - no real life

Answer 8

Facts......................
the things that you talk of are either scientifically proven and accepted...or they are not.
Theories don't carry much weight.
We can all have theories.
Is there any real evidence that the remains of creatures from 65 million years ago exists in any form other than a fossil.
I think not.

Answer 9

Nope.

Answer 10

Hmmm..

....it almost like you have some subtly hidden religious agenda here?