They do, eh? At least 65 million year old bones with red blood cells in them. Really?.
Here is what some tests reported.
-The tissue was colored reddish brown, the color of hemoglobin, as was liquid extracted from the dinosaur tissue.
Hemoglobin contains heme units. Chemical signatures unique to heme were -found in the specimens when certain wavelengths of laser light were applied.
-Because it contains iron, heme reacts to magnetic fields differently from other proteins—extracts from this specimen reacted in the same way as modern heme compounds.
-To ensure that the samples had not been contaminated with certain bacteria which have heme (but never the protein hemoglobin), extracts of the dinosaur fossil were injected over several weeks into rats. If there was even a minute amount of hemoglobin present in the T. Rex sample, the rats' immune system should build up detectable antibodies against this compound.
I am not a supporter of the "young earth" idea as Ophiolite and phlogistician have implied.
I only suggested "these" bones were relatively fresh, not that all dinosaur bones are.
I have no problem with dinosaurs living 65 million years ago.
The 65 million year old "total extinction" event killing the dinosaurs is the only scientific dogma I question...
They go too far one way, and the religious fundamentalists and their dogma go too far the other way. Neither is right.
My view on this?...
I think the evidence points to dinosaurs existing for hundreds of millions of years right up to the great flood.
The nuclear event recorded in the Hindu Vedas 5000 years ago tilted the entire planet on it's axis away from the sun and caused the flood.
What few began to breed from the pairs brought over on the ark found a vastly different world that was colder, lacked vegetation and oxygen levels. They didn't last long from there.
-Scientific dogma won't allow this to surface because it would validate the biblical account of a worldwide flood.
-Religious dogma won't allow this because it validates the scientific discovery of the worlds age and millions of years of evolution.
If this supposed flood was before the first man, Adam, how could the Greeks have known about it?
I said Adam wasn't the first man, that was the whole point of the post.
I said the serpent was a man, and was here before Adam.
Adam was created to be an advanced human. Not just a man, a son of God.
There were two different species or races of "man".
-One race of men came about through a process similar to evolution. These later became host bodies for the spirits of the "fallen ones".
-The other race of man was created to be a manifestation of God in human flesh. This was not just another evolutionary "next" step.
This was a created being to exist as a dwelling place or tabernacle for God's spirit.
The battles that were in heaven then came down to the earth.
Where did you get this idea from? Wasn't the serpent a talking snake?
No, the serpent in the garden was not a snake. Nowhere in the bible does it say that.
The man that seduced Eve in the garden may have literally been turned into another form after the damage was done and he fathered Cain.
But the curse put on the serpent by God;..."On your belly you shall go"...also serves as a symbolic spiritual reference to the entire race of Cain's descendants being turned over to a reprobate mind and becoming hosts for the same group of "fallen ones" as was the original serpent his father. Look up other biblical references to the word "belly" and you'll find more of the same thing revealing the concept.
Certain men "whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly" and so forth....
God also speaking to the spirit that was in the man, as the part of the curse "dust you shall eat all the days of your life" is referring to these spirits being cast to the earth by this same act and being subjected to become human in the descendants of Cain. Man is from the dust and returns to it.
The prophet John called the multitudes a "generation of vipers".
Jesus said the same calling the religious leaders "of their father the devil".
It's all through the scriptures if you look for it.
The "sons of god" in Gen. 6 are commonly assumed and taught by religious scholars to be the fallen heavenly angels.
They were not.The opposite is true.
While these sons of god could be considered "angels" in the earthly sense because they were ones whom the Spirit of God came to, they were born human through the linage of Adam and Eve.
Also in one sense they "fell" from their original position of remaining separate from unbelief when they took the daughters of Cain for wives...but that is different than the heavenly angels that "fell" by following Lucifer and were cast to the earth as spirits to possess the serpent's linage through Cain.
I know this sounds confusing and is similar in ways but there is difference.
That is probably why scholars like Josephus and the books of Enoch and Adam taught it the wrong way.
-Seth's linage (Adam's son) were the sons of god who received the mind of Christ, and were prophets like Enoch all the way down to Noah.
-Cain's linage (The serpent's son) were the sons of men who received reprobate minds, and became "hosts" for the spirits of fallen angels.
The two races mixed with the sons of God taking the daughters of men for wives in Gen. 6 right before the flood.
That's one reason why God destroyed the world.
Evil spirits getting a hold of human hosts with god-like abilities....would not be a good thing.
Sounds like something out of a Stargate SG1 episode doesn't it?
Many legends and myths of different cultures reference this.
-Sumerian Gilgamesh was 2/3 god and 1/3 man.
-Greek Hercules was also 2/3 god and 1/3 man.
-The Titans and Olympians...and you thought perhaps these myths were just made up, the product of an overactive imagination?
The stories may have been dramatized, but they like most legends were based upon some real event.
They say the truth is even stranger yet than fiction.
Most people have no idea.
The bible doesn't mention genes.
Yes it does. It uses terms like children, offspring, sons...
Sons of God are children of God.
Jesus was the only begotten of the Father and the beginning of the "creation of God" the firstborn of many brethren.
Ophiolite..... said:
Get real. That is not mentioning genes. If your can warp logic and semantics that far I wouldn't wish to leave my wallet open around you.
Romans 8:19 (King James Version)
"For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God".
The Holy Ghost "overshadowed" Mary and she became pregnant.
If He didn't create the genes in the womb of Mary for the body of Jesus, what would you call it then? Chromosomes?
It was created genetic material no matter what you choose to call it.
All humanity is now a mixture of these two original parent races.
This was intentionally created by the careful mixing of the two races to get a desired hybrid, allowing them to survive and destroying the rest in the flood.
The battle rages yet within each of us. Jesus said; "the kingdom of heaven is in you".
To recap...I do not totally reject the concept of evolution.
Man as he exists today is the product of a carefully controlled mixture of creation and a process of evolution.
We are a little of both.
I have explained this the best I can.
This is the real story of the creation of man.
It is still a work in progress.