67-Million-Year-Old Dinosaur Unearthed in North Dakota

By Nicholos Gene Poma B.S., published Dec 03, 2007
Published Content: 283  Total Views: 94,351  Favorited By: 44 CPs
Embed:  
Rating: 4.0 of 5
Reuters News service is reporting that a prehistoric dinosaur has been unearthed in North Dakota. The dinosaur is known as a Hadrosaur, is fossilized, and has remained intact. It is reported that this particular dinosaur lived on the earth 67 million years ago. This of course, begs the question, are we supposed to believe that soft tissue can be preserved for as long as sixty seven million years?

The find is even more extraordinary in that the flesh of the dinosaur turned to stone and scientist have the ability to see the texture of its skin as well as the muscular structure of the beast. Now, science tells us that we must believe that the earth has gone through several changes throughout its existence. The earth has gone through ice ages and through times of global warming and all of this has taken place since the time of the dinosaurs. Nevertheless, the tissue of this creature can survive millions of years through all of these changes.

However, this is not the first dinosaur that scientist have fond with tissue that has been preserved. Scientists found the remains of a Tyrannosaurus Rex and had to break its leg in order to airlift it by chopper. However, when they broke the leg they found soft tissue inside as well as complete blood vessels and the contents were still soft and retained their elasticity.

We find in many civilizations that the mention of huge beasts is prevalent, although, they were known as something else, dragons, Behemoth, sea serpents, and Leviathan. We have many stories in ancient history which we now claim to be nothing more than fairy tales, but what if they were not fairy tales at all, but instead factual accounts of the beast that we now call dinosaurs. We like to label things as fanciful stories if we have not witnessed them in our lifetime and this is exactly what happened with these creatures.

67-Million-Year-Old Dinosaur Unearthed in North Dakota

A Hadrosaur.

Credit: Heinrich Harder

Copyright: N/A (Public Domain)

Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 15 of 27
Next >>
 
terrible article containing many mis-truths and showing a lack of understanding between what is mummification and what is fossilisation... science expects you to believe nothing, all science is, is an interpretation of facts. prove things to yourself, dont expect others to prove it to you

Posted on 03/18/2008 at 2:03:50 PM

 
especially with the hundreds of natural methods of preserving it.

Posted on 12/12/2007 at 11:12:58 AM

 
Several of your readers have made great comments, including tasloi and Brian Rigby. Many ancient cultures' stories of dragons and giant lizards could've easily been from discovering their own fossils. There's no reason to assume that we're the only ones who've found fossils, nor that our ancestors were any less creative than we are in speculating on what kind of creatures they were. The bit of Job you mentioned could just as well be true and accurate (that it was God who created those "beasts") without assuming they lived alongside mankind. As for fossilization, it's definitely a different process than simply freezing. While DNA can still be roughly found in a fossil, it's not the same thing as an intact cell or anything like that. As for frozen human embryos not being "feasible" after 10 years, that's not the same thing as there being nothing left, they just won't become humans. Organic material does remain for an extraordinarily long period of time, especially with the hundreds o

Posted on 12/12/2007 at 11:12:48 AM

 
the woolly mammoth gradually died out after the last major iceage and were hunted by eary man, at least do some independent research not just paraphrase religious propaganda

Posted on 12/09/2007 at 8:12:19 PM

 
Religious debates, idiosyncratic diatribes and personal beliefs notwithstanding, this explains what happened to my old Uncle Henry! Now, I can begin the mourning process. (Poor Aunt Gwen - imagine what life must have been like with him!) David

Posted on 12/08/2007 at 8:12:00 AM

 
Nick, in a debate facts are presented. If you'd like to consider our facts "Kool-Aid" next to your facts then I think you need to be aware that your debate is just a polemical exercise. To suggest that the traditional perspective is a result of lack of research and a "pompous attitude" discounts any knowledge that doesn't agree with yours as "not researched." I hope you see how absurd that logic is. But when you mock others for presenting their own version of the facts, you suggest you're not really interested in a debate. I won't bother checking the comment stream again.

Posted on 12/08/2007 at 7:12:00 AM

 
I think this was an intersint read. Reading the comments was even more intersting. Between the two, readers can form opinions and look into it themselves. I believe that the author was simply presenting another "what if" theory. It's up to people to decide if they want to take it as truth or not and how much research they want to put into it. Truth or not, it made my brain tick.

Posted on 12/08/2007 at 12:12:00 AM

 
Sorry the end of the last comment should of finished: celluar level thought of that I'd laugh. I believe in a Creator or Source behind it all but not the way the Bible describes the Creator to be.

Posted on 12/07/2007 at 10:12:00 PM

 
I am open minded. I was only speaking theoretically. I said I don't believe dinosaurs and man coexisted simultaneously. I never said I know they didn't. I was just proposing that early civilizations may have found skeletons and fossils of dinosaurs. Either way that doesn't prove that the earth is only 2,000 years old. I'm not sure if that was your aim or not. I just wanted to say that if that was your aim there are also many flaws in evolution. For example if we evolved from amoebas (or some other single-celled organisms) then show me skeletal remains that show that the brain, heart, lungs, kidneys and so on developed one at a time. That's what they would have to do under evolutionary theory, right? No such skeletons exist. That means they must have all developed simultaneously. There's only one way that's possible - a creator behind it all. Also why would all animals use the basic same designs: ears, eyes, legs, arms, heart, lungs, etc? If someone were to tell me something at a

Posted on 12/07/2007 at 10:12:00 PM

 
Suppose, however, that dragons (as you said were also described in the bible) became known of because man excavated the earth to build cities, towns and other dwellings. Billy goat skulls, for example, may have been mans early creation of the myth of devils (demons). I think man has been finding the remains of dinosaurs for mankind's entire existence. That may simply be how the "stories" in biblic and other historical texts were created. I have no reason whatsoever to doubt carbon dating. In my honest opinion man has made stories out of the findings of remains of things either skeletal or fossilized, however I don't believe man and dinosaur existed together in any era of time.

Posted on 12/07/2007 at 9:12:00 PM

 
you know it is actually interesting to see all the atheist that love to ridicule the Christians when they report fact as they see it. Only time will prove the real truth and enough said with that. If you want logic then just look at the logic you just spoke. Think about that one,my friend. enough said

Posted on 12/07/2007 at 8:12:00 PM

 
Just ignoring the absolute lack of anything resembling logic or reason this whole article has, I will only address two points. Nick posits that perhaps dinosaurs went extinct during the time of man, or were hunted to extinction..all of them? Not one survived? Even with a concerted effort and a policy of elimanation, the buffalo survived. I know, it seems petty to pick only one mistake out of a bushel of them. But a person has to start somewhere. In closing, this is the kind of thinking that will make America a third rate country if allowed to flourish.

Posted on 12/07/2007 at 7:12:00 PM

 
Good Op/Ed and it's not in the science category so I think it's well done and interesting.

Posted on 12/07/2007 at 5:12:00 PM

 
Think bug stuck in amber rather than ice man exposed to elements and you get a clearer (and more accurate) picture. The reuters article actually doesn't say that the skin is preserved, but that the skin was fossilized. That means the skin itself was turned to stone (wood does this, too, and it also decomposes after a certain amount of time, but if petrified, remains around for a long time). The issue of muscle/tissue preservation then is within that fossil, which prevented the decomposition. This makes the dating conundrum a bit irrelevant, whichever date you wish to accept. Amber, "memories" of monsters are fascinating, but probably can be accounted for through people finding dinosaur bones and making an urban legend about the find.

Posted on 12/07/2007 at 5:12:00 PM

 
Actually, there's absolutely nothing interesting about this whatsoever. Please readers, take a peek at his ludicrous sources before running off and telling your children that dinosaurs walked the earth a few thousand years ago with men. In fact, I highly doubt the author of this tripe even consulted the Reuters source. And then we wonder why the U.S. is falling behind in education, particularly in science. This belongs in the fantasy section, AC, not on the Front Page.

Posted on 12/07/2007 at 4:12:00 PM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 15 of 27
Next >>
Most Commented On