Environment

Fossils of Ancient Croc With Long Legs and Appetite for Dinosaurs Discovered

Fossils of Ancient Croc Found in BrazilA municipal worker in a small Brazilian town has unearthed croc bones 70-million-years-old.  The crocodilian fossil with big teeth, long legs and fingers, and a doglike skull is now shedding light on the anatomy of a strange group of predators. Live Science’s Charles Q. Choi describes the beast:

“This croc almost certainly did not lurk like a log in a river like its modern relatives. ‘The rocks from the outcrop where we found the fossils, as well as those from other related areas, suggest a hot and considerably dry environment for the region dating back 70 million years,’ researcher Felipe Montefeltro, a paleontologist at the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil, told LiveScience.

Instead, the ecology of the predators was probably similar to that of wild dogs living today, researchers said. Given the number and size of their teeth, the crocs probably fed on animals of about the same 15- to 20-foot (4.5 to 6 meter) size, including dinosaurs and fellow crocs from the region, the researchers say. Rather than clambering over the ground like the crocs we see today, P. sera would have galloped on long limbs.

Fossils of Ancient Croc Found in Brazil

Similar to other crocodilians of its era, this croc had plated armor, roughened bone surfaces and massive attachments for jaw-closing muscles. Still, the baurusuchid lineage of crocodilians this new fossil belongs to is known for many unique anatomical features, such as unusually large canine teeth, forward-facing nostrils and tall, thin skulls.”

The species is to be named Pissarrachampsa sera. McGill University Paleontologists believe that while the body might seem more dinosaur in shape than today’s crocodile, the fossil head carries the definitive characteristics of crocodiles from that era, including a well-developed secondary palate, socketed teeth, and  advanced cranial air spaces. I wonder if he is a relative of this guy?

Comments (127)

1 2
  • bets
    Posted on July 25, 2011 at 7:54am

    Ok so how do you know what the rest of the body looked like if you only have the skull? I understand that based on the distance between the eyes of todays crocs that hunters can tell you thier approximate size and what they may weigh. But how do you know what the legs are going to look like with just the skull? Couple years ago there was an area discovered very remote where scientists found animals they thought to be extinct. No human contact ever so the animals in this area had no fear of humans. As far as i know the location is still protected. They also found NEW kinds of animals.

    Report Post »  
    • I Love Howie Carr
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 8:33am

      Who knows, they’re always changing their theories, first dinosaurs were cold blooded, now they’re not, first they had scaley skin, now they had feathers, these “experts” don’t know anything. More like fiction writers.

      Report Post »  
    • NotFooled
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 10:02am

      @Bets, I was thinking the same thing. lol

      Report Post » NotFooled  
    • ezravan
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 10:44am

      I didn’t read that they found “only the scull”. Where did you find that?

      Report Post » ezravan  
    • Consentiondum
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 11:55am

      They know the legs were longer than modern crocodiles because the anatomy of the skull is consistent with other ancient crocs in the Baurusuchia group. These crocs had longer legs. It also makes intuitive and logical sense (although in biology sometimes intuitive and logical sense are dead wrong) that this croc’s legs would be longer than its modern cousins: Note the forward facing nostrils and eye sockets that are further down than modern crocodiles’. This croc wasn’t stalking prey in the water. it was on land. It more than likely had legs appropriate for a terrestrial hunter rather than an amphibious one. If this croc is consistent with other baurusuchias found,then it sure did have longer legs.

      Report Post »  
    • beckisnuts
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 1:23pm

      Why so many stories about obscure events on the Blaze, yet nothing on the Warren Jeffs (Leader of the ultra-delusional FLDS church) trial? Obviously, Glenn and his staff are not interested in presenting all the news, only the stories that further his purposes. The Blaze = Pravda.

      Report Post »  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 3:30pm

      I could agree with you more Carr,
      Palentologist are fine a skull and amass all this information about the creature exsistences from thin air. I just read that the reason the dinosuars were wiped out is they were all Republicans. And their Republican policies destroyed eons onf creatures….LOL

      Report Post »  
    • Cesium
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 4:48pm

      and yet this still wouldn’t satisfy creationists “lack of intermediate” species…until we find another, Don’t look at it! No evidence here! just dismiss it!! nothing to see here!!
      http://scottklarr.com/media/atheism/creationistPosterMed.png

      Report Post »  
    • The_Eye
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 7:00pm

      @Bets: re-read the article. They found legs, body etc.

      Beyond that you can draw a great deal of conclusions from a small amount of fossil evidence. Muscles always leave marks on bones and can go a long way towards determining the mass of a creature and the musculature of the neck, legs etc. It obviously isn’t a perfect method but it proves true more often than not.

      Report Post »  
    • Rice Water
      Posted on July 26, 2011 at 1:53am

      You can actually learn quite a bit from how the skull structure is composed– basically, the body needs to be set up a certain way in order to carry the brain housing. We can make an educated guess as to what an animal with such a skull would physiologically need to look like from fossils.

      If Intelligent Designers have better ideas, I would be interested to read them…

      Report Post » Rice Water  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on July 26, 2011 at 9:40am

      Rice you can very little from a 70,000,000 year old skull. For all we know this particular creature could have been born with a genetic abnormality that caused it’s head to grow much larger than is body.

      Report Post »  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on July 26, 2011 at 9:45am

      Maybe it was a snake like creature maybe it had only one leg and hopped around. Maybe it had multiple heads and one arm growing out of the center of it;s chest…..It’s a fu**ing skull of a creature one has ever seen….Give me a break Palentologist is nothing more than fantasy masked as science….The D and D crowd creating imganary creatures from a toe bone….LOL

      Report Post »  
    • Rice Water
      Posted on July 26, 2011 at 10:10am

      That’s certainly a possibility, Smith. However, a genetic abnormality causing such a severe condition as a grossly oversized head would probably cause the poor creature to die/be killed within days of birth.

      Report Post » Rice Water  
    • smithclar3nc3
      Posted on July 27, 2011 at 10:30am

      Rice
      Maybe the abnormalities cause it to be bigger stronger and faster like two dwarfs have a regular size child. Point is this isn‘t science it’s far reaching speculation at one end and total fantasy at the other.
      But certainly isn’t science just because some scientist says it is they should keep to oppinions and specualtions out of science. It is already been proving to be used as a tool political tool as opposed to a search for truth in other areas. I can remember when I respected the community all it did for humanity and now you have to look at everything with skeptism as whole areas of science group together to push political agenda on unproven and flat-out false data.
      l give Man Made Global warming to true to life death of science as a search for fact and the birth of the global political science department.

      Report Post »  
  • anthrax13
    Posted on July 25, 2011 at 6:34am

    Dinosaurs will win!

    Report Post » anthrax13  
  • Nucular Bush
    Posted on July 25, 2011 at 5:34am

    Long legs and devoured old crusty reptiles… sounds like they exhumed Anna Nichole Smith!

    Report Post » Nucular Bush  
  • Athenswren
    Posted on July 25, 2011 at 4:19am

    The only transitional fossils known to science are found in the pencil sketches of atheists. Stephen Jay Gould, in his distress over the absence of transitional fossils, developed the theory of Punctuated Equilibrium which holds that brand new species are born to existing species. Of course, what in the world would the new species mate with? Now a new theory has come along called symbiogenesis which also acknowledges transitional fossils do not exist and that natural selection cannot account for macroevolution. Check out the article at http://discovermagazine.com/2011/apr/16-interview-lynn-margulis-not-controversial-right

    Report Post » Athenswren  
  • JimmyT
    Posted on July 25, 2011 at 1:03am

    If what you have pictured is the “complete” fossil they’ve found, only an idiot would believe their made up story about size and ability. It’s all conjecture based on theories pulled straight out of their anal regions. The most complete human remains they have ever found is only 20% complete and yet we continue to hear about their “ theory” of evolution. No direct connection has ever been found between man and ape, yet, we’re supposed to believe we evolved from apes. But, got to keep that funding coming cause we’re right on the verge of proving our theories. It’s all best guess, you know, like the weatherman.

    Report Post »  
    • ArgumentumAdAbsurdum
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 1:37am

      Try re-reading the article first. I know pictures are pretty and distracting but you should still attempt to comprehend the content of the actual words so that you don’t make ill informed comments.

      Report Post » ArgumentumAdAbsurdum  
    • jb.kibs
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 1:42am

      i agree… i‘m sick of these idots guessing and speaking as if it’s Gods word.

      Report Post »  
  • Captain Crunch
    Posted on July 25, 2011 at 12:07am

    Can we get one of these to come up out of the Potomac and eat Obama?
    Just wondering.

    Report Post »  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 1:08am

      Looks like the lizard from the 2nd Godzilla movie if the jaw was bigger and more square. As for eating BHO… any creature would get sick and throw-up. That‘s what’s wrong with this World. We need a Godzilla that can handle that task and Soros too.

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • Oil_Robb
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 9:22am

      Eat Obama?….nah they have strong stomaches, they can digest septic tanks but they are not strong enough for that demon

      Report Post »  
  • true2myword
    Posted on July 24, 2011 at 11:24pm

    @ The-Monk you are the one “dumbing down” the readers on this site. Carbon dating does not date any material past 30,000-60,000 years. It has a half life of 5730ish years. If you want to date something in the order of millions of years you would use another dating method like rubidium-strontium or U238. If you insist you have seen accurate carbon dating giving older ages than that, you are full of you know what.

    Report Post » true2myword  
    • DarkMatter
      Posted on July 24, 2011 at 11:48pm

      Speaking of carbon dating, did you know that C14 has been found in a number of diamonds supposedly over a billion years old, and yet a piece of radiocarbon the size of the earth would be undetectable within one million years? One diamond (also supposedly over a billion years old) was carbon dated and gave a date of 56,000 years [which is still an incorrect date - see one of my earlier posts on this article] and the lab that tested it reported that there was over 10 times the detection limit of radiocarbon.

      ( Baumgardner, J., 14C evidence for a recent global flood and a young earth; in Vardiman, L., Snelling, A. and Chaffin, E., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol. II, ch. 8, Institute for Creation Research, California, USA, 2005.)

      Report Post » DarkMatter  
    • conservative_teacher
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 12:37am

      Darkmatter…you ignorant, bible-thumping, dark age relic! Believe what you want–believe in a 6000 year old universe if you must, but don’t presume to hijack real science with your fairytale religious nonsense.

      Report Post » conservative_teacher  
    • DarkMatter
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 12:46am

      Thankyou for your completely unscientific comment. I will be sure to put it under advisement next time I look at the evidence. Oh and thankyou for completely disregarding the evidence that I presented.

      Report Post » DarkMatter  
    • ArgumentumAdAbsurdum
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 1:34am

      @darkmatter
      You haven’t presented evidence. All you’ve given is “data” (quotes are intentional) that you’ve taken from a discredited group of biased scientists, a group mind you that does not consist of a single expert in geochronology

      Report Post » ArgumentumAdAbsurdum  
    • DarkMatter
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 4:10am

      Firstly, I noticed how you used the term “discredited group of biased scientists” and I‘d like to thank you for at least recognizing them to be ’scientists’ (quotes intentional) as most anti-creationists that I’ve talked to (mostly via internet forums) won’t even admit that. Secondly, by whom have creation scientists been discredited? If it is by ‘mainstream scientists’ (i.e. secular scientists who disagree with creationism) then it is irrelevent as neither party is neutral. This leads me to my third point: calling creation scientists ‘biased’ is slightly ironic as evolution scientists are just as ‘biased’. Believing that ‘I don’t believe in God’ (even if one calls it a ‘non-belief’ [which it isn't]) is not a neutral position. In a war of worldviews, there is no unbiased position.

      Report Post » DarkMatter  
    • DarkMatter
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 4:16am

      I forgot to add that saying there are no creationist geochronologists is again an irrelevant point because creationists believe that radiometric dating is flawed anyway. It would be the same as you arguing ‘there are no creationists who have degrees in evolutionary biology, therefore there aren‘t reputable’ or me arguing that ‘there are no evolutionists who have theological degrees, therefore they aren‘t reputable’.

      There are, however, creation believing geologists, who can be found in this list of scientists alive today who believe in creation: http://creation.com/scientists-alive-today-who-accept-the-biblical-account-of-creation .

      Report Post » DarkMatter  
    • Consentiondum
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 12:23pm

      @DARKMATTER

      Carbon dating was never much an interest of mine, but I’ll give it a shot:

      Well, Diamonds were never alive. Carbon 14 dating works for previously living things because they metabolize the newer carbon 14 created in the atmosphere through respiration (if you’re a plant) or eating (if your an animal).

      Most carbon 14 is produced in the atmosphere, but not all of it. Thanks to the magical powers of wikipedia I have learned that no diamond is perfect and the most common impurity for a diamond to have is nitrogen content. Carbon 14 is produced with nitrogen if the conditions are right, making it possible for newer carbon 14 to crop up in much older diamonds.

      Try searching “carbon 14 anomaly” for some main-stream science explanations. You seem like a reasonably intelligent person, you’d be doing yourself an injustice not to use your GOD-given gift of critical thinking and reasoning. Be secure in the knowledge that GOD still exists even when you accept that the world is over 4 billion years old!

      Report Post »  
    • carnifex
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 12:31pm

      @DARKMATTER
      Might as well argue with a brick wall my friend. I’ve had these debates with the “conventional” guys before, and any data that doesn’t comport to their world view is either being misrepresented, or made up by “whacko’s”. Heck, I’ve even tried explaining that this weeks conventional thought was last weeks crazy theory. They are simply parrots whose song only repeats what it hears most often. They can never start a new song themselves and are doomed to be parrots forever.

      Report Post » carnifex  
    • DarkMatter
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 12:52pm

      @CONSENTIONDUM
      I’m going to have to appeal to authority here as the response to the ‘diamond impurity’ problem has a rather technical answer; however, I can still say that in short, it is a negligible issue as the impurity would only account for one ten-thousandth of the measured amount. Here is the link that will explain in greater detail my explanation (you’ll have to scroll down to ‘Objections (technical) and answers’ no. 3 ) http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend

      Now, thank you for saying that I have a God-give gift and for letting me know that you believe in God. I something for you to think about, however, and that is, if you believe in evolution (along with the long ages) then there was no original sin (because death was a result of sin according to the Bible) and so Jesus never had to rescue us from anything and so He died a pointless death.
      Oh and if you don’t believe in Adam and Eve at all, then you’re calling a lot of the people in the Bible liars, e.g. Paul says that “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned—“ (Romans 5:12)

      Report Post » DarkMatter  
    • DarkMatter
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 12:53pm

      @CARNIFEX
      I understand what you’re saying and yeah, a lot of the time there isn’t a point in debating because people’s worldviews can be so ingrained in them that nothing except a road-to-Damascus experience will change it. And lately I haven’t even been bothering to enter into these debates, but I just thought (obviously incorre

      Report Post » DarkMatter  
    • DarkMatter
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 12:58pm

      (Dang it I’m getting tired) >> noticing I’m making a lot of spelling mistakes
      *@CARNIFEX
      I understand what you’re saying and yeah, a lot of the time there isn’t any point in debating because people’s worldviews can be so ingrained in them that nothing except a road-to-Damascus experience will change it. And lately I haven’t even been bothering to enter into these debates, but I just thought (obviously incorrectly) that as Glen Beck doesn’t seem to believe in evolution then more people on The Blaze wouldn’t either.

      Report Post » DarkMatter  
    • Consentiondum
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 1:42pm

      @DARKMATTER

      This website offers some explanation. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/carbon-kb.htm although you have intrigued me to do some even further research on carbon 14 in diamonds.

      As far as the Bible is concerned, it has played a part in shaping my beliefs. There are things in the Biblical account of creation I hold to be true. One is that GOD is ultimately responsible for existence, that the souls of humans are made in the likeness of GOD and that we are called to be proper stewards of that creation–among others. I know it may seem like I am picking and choosing, but I have come to the conclusion that the genesis account of creation is a story of fiction weaved around the more important truths of humanities place in relation to GOD and the cosmos.

      Report Post »  
    • They SMEAR what they FEAR
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 2:07pm

      @DARKMATTER
      Well said, well defended, I appreciate your position. Thanks!

      @ CONSERVATIVE_TEACHER
      You come across like a hater. This is exactly what “gnashing your teeth” means.

      Report Post » They SMEAR what they FEAR  
    • Cesium
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 2:14pm

      @Darkmatter Carbon-14 errors in diamonds have been debunked.. sorry creationist,, keep digging into your bottomless pit… read up on cosmic radiation and C-14 in diamonds before you speak on subjects of physics

      Report Post »  
  • llotus
    Posted on July 24, 2011 at 11:22pm

    Crockodilian…I think I like that word. Rolls right of the tongue. I made a promise to myself long ago to never go where crocks and grizzlys live. I have kept that promise. Lotus.

    Report Post »  
  • SAYNOTOSOCIALISM
    Posted on July 24, 2011 at 11:15pm

    More evidence that evolution does exist….if “GOD” truly created the earth, would he not create it in the most primitive form and let it evolve from there? Kinda like a kid that sets up an ant farm….

    Report Post » SAYNOTOSOCIALISM  
    • 2012 Change
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 12:05am

      If? God created the earth! Don’t drink the bathwater. Do you really believe this happened by some freak big bang? Think for yourself

      Report Post »  
    • RationalMan
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 12:40am

      if “GOD” truly created the earth, would he not create it in the most primitive form and let it evolve from there?

      *** Are you using “Creationist Museum” as a reference? LOL

      Report Post »  
    • woodyl1011fl
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 9:33am

      God’s initial creation was “very good” perfect in every way because that is His character. God is not primitive and changes within living things are not evolution in the macro sense you imply. Your thinking is evolutionary naturalism, redefining who God is according to our own concepts and God is not like us we are fallen rebellious creatures. We live in sin cursed decaying world already judged once with a worldwide cataclysmic flood. God has revealed to us our origin, the reason for the mess we are in, because we did it, are still doing it, just as our father Adam did, and what our destiny is with Him or without Him; the choice is ours.

      Report Post »  
    • beckisnuts
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 12:39pm

      woodyl1011′s gullibility apparently knows no bounds. Someone told him that nonsensical story and he blindly believed it. Fascinating.

      Report Post »  
    • Eblaze44
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 4:10pm

      NO, I think that IF God created the earth – it would have cell phones and IPads ready to go. Evolution or Creationism are neither provable – until after you are dead – and then ain’t nobody come back yet and told us the TRUE answer. The best part of course – outside of raising peoples blood pressure – it doesn‘t make an iota of difference in anyone’s daily life – except for those making money off of their suppositions.

      Report Post » Eblaze44  
  • LibertarianForLife
    Posted on July 24, 2011 at 10:53pm

    Surprised to not see many young earth creationist idiots posting. As for the old earth creationists, you kids are just as bad. Grow up, dump your imaginary friend, and enjoy life.

    Report Post »  
    • ghayes649
      Posted on July 24, 2011 at 11:36pm

      I know your going to blast me but I’ll say it anyways… I’ll be praying for you, because it’s not to late for you… Well if your still alive that is… God bless…

      Report Post »  
    • RationalMan
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 12:36am

      Surprised to not see many young earth creationist idiots posting.

      ***LOL that’s because, they wised up and how phony these creationist things are!

      Report Post »  
    • jb.kibs
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 1:56am

      evolution and God can exist together… and in fact do… God is what started life.
      evolution and adaptation are a part of nature. so… how did nature get started?
      let me ask you a serious question. Where did the first seed come from? where did the first aomeba come from?; from which we all evolved…

      Report Post »  
    • RationalMan
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 2:23am

      Evolution is based on “FACTS”.. Artificial God is not base on facts!

      So who do you think science will select? Not “Artificial God” that’s for sure!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      Enjoy your pseudo-rational thinking, creationist!!!!!!!!!!!!

      So this means Evolution and Artificial God do not go together!!

      Report Post »  
    • RationalMan
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 2:38am

      JB said…….
      Where did the first seed come from?

      Well, if you’re talking about you, it’s from your parents. Through the process of “Fecundation”!
      However, I’m interested to know too, but, the last human skull has far as, I know of, was a million years old.

      P.S. JB, what did GOD tell you?????

      Report Post »  
    • beckisnuts
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 12:41pm

      So if God created everything, which religion did he create first and why?

      Report Post »  
    • jb.kibs
      Posted on July 26, 2011 at 12:38am

      who’s going to answer where the first seed came from?

      evolution is genetic mutation that succeeds. that has nothing to do with how life started. it only has to do with how life continues.

      Report Post »  
  • NuffSaid
    Posted on July 24, 2011 at 10:52pm

    Heck with yorkies, I want one of these!

    Report Post »  
  • WhiteFang
    Posted on July 24, 2011 at 10:45pm

    Do they only have the skull or is the leg bones present? How about the spine, tail, etc?
    Without those pieces of evidence this picture is only speculation.
    How do they know what it looked like and its hunting habits?
    They don’t know do they! It is an interesting skull but it looks like a type of crocodile to me.

    Report Post » WhiteFang  
    • Dale
      Posted on July 24, 2011 at 11:06pm

      Fang;

      You can’t tell from the skull that it had LONG legs? What kind of paleontologist or you. You know Darwin determined that humans came from slime.

      Report Post » Dale  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on July 24, 2011 at 11:11pm

      @WhiteFang
      You are right. But remember; these places are full of Leftist, Socialist college professor types and they don’t need much evidence to believe their theories or ideas. Just like the WH and BHO.

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • the hawk
      Posted on July 24, 2011 at 11:13pm

      iT’S NICE When someone can see the wood despite the trees!
      these scientist should be cartoonest and Scifi, writers
      there MISSING link in the fossel chain is GOD ! ! !

      Report Post »  
    • RationalMan
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 12:48am

      Dale said………….
      You know Darwin determined that humans came from slime

      *** Darwin said that? Prove it, the man of “Truth”!!!

      Report Post »  
    • ArgumentumAdAbsurdum
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 12:57am

      Come on! I know reading comprehension isn’t the strongest amongst Blaze commenters but its right there in the second sentence of the article. Plus the word “fossils” should be a dead give away that there are more than one fossil.

      Report Post » ArgumentumAdAbsurdum  
  • DarkMatter
    Posted on July 24, 2011 at 10:45pm

    “A municipal worker in a small Brazilian town has unearthed croc bones 70-million-years-old.”
    70 million years old? Does anyone else realise just how fallible and unreliable radiometric dating methods are? (http://creation.com/the-way-it-really-is-little-known-facts-about-radiometric-dating , http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers )
    Oh and don‘t forget how they’ve found blood cells, blood vessels and bone tissue within T-Rex bones ‘dated’ as being 68 million years old when DNA has an upper limit of surviving 125,000 years at 0 degrees Celsius.( http://creation.com/real-jurassic-park , http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n1/not-dry-bones )

    Report Post » DarkMatter  
  • 82dAirborne
    Posted on July 24, 2011 at 10:39pm

    Kind of cute don’t ya think? God created the world in six “days.” Who are we to say how long one of His days are compared to our modern day 24 hours?

    Report Post » 82dAirborne  
    • DarkMatter
      Posted on July 24, 2011 at 10:53pm

      “but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the LORD your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male servant, or your female servant, or your livestock, or the sojourner who is within your gates. For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.” (Exodus 20:10-11 English Standard Version (ESV))
      This is God speaking to Moses. So if “God’s days” are longer than 24 hours, does that mean that people need to work for 6-long-ages and then rest on the 7th long age?

      Report Post » DarkMatter  
    • DarkMatter
      Posted on July 24, 2011 at 10:56pm

      ( I forgot to mention that by ‘people’ I meant the Israelites. )

      Report Post » DarkMatter  
    • 82dAirborne
      Posted on July 24, 2011 at 11:25pm

      I don’t know. I did not mean to insult anyone.

      Report Post » 82dAirborne  
    • DarkMatter
      Posted on July 24, 2011 at 11:30pm

      I’m not insulted, I was just showing how even God believes that he created the earth and the universe in 6 days.

      Report Post » DarkMatter  
    • 82dAirborne
      Posted on July 24, 2011 at 11:39pm

      Ooops….hit the button too soon.

      I just think that science & religion are not mutually exclusive unconditionally. No I don’t believe that you or I came from dinosaurs or monkeys for that matter. I honestly don’t know. I believe in God but I do not pretend to know the mind or all of the ways of God.

      I think that the bones & fossils are real. I don’t see how they can be dismissed out of hand. That said: What those bones/fossils mean or what place in time they come from is open to interpretation. Any scientist worth his/her salt speaks of theories, facts are much more rare.

      Report Post » 82dAirborne  
    • DarkMatter
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 12:07am

      Well, I believe that science lines up perfectly with the Bible wherever you look. I don’t claim to know everything about God either, as if I did, well that would probably make me God himself, however, I do claim to know what the Bible tells us about God.

      In regards to fossils, yeah they’re real, however did you know that there are only a handful of disputed transitional fossils when there should be hundreds of thousands of easily-identifiable transitional fossils, of things like land walking dinosaurs having their scales change to feathers and then them becomming birds. Also, all the major groups (phyla) of life that we know of today appear in the Cambrian rock-system with no ‘evolutionary ancestors’, which in other words means that there is no clear pattern of most biologically complicated to least biologically complicated organisms the further down you dig.

      Oh and there are also fossils of animals giving birth and animals eating each other, which is further evidence that the majority of fossils came about from a catastrophic event, e.g. Noah’s flood.

      And it is true that all evidence needs to be intrepreted, but in all reality, only one interpretation can be correct.

      The other thing is that Biblically speaking, if evolution is true (which I realise you say you don’t believe so) then Christianity can’t be.

      (Sorry for such a long post :P )

      Report Post » DarkMatter  
    • RationalMan
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 1:18am

      82dAirborne
      Posted on July 24, 2011 at 10:39pm
      Kind of cute don’t ya think? God created the world in six “days.” Who are we to say how long one of His days are compared to our modern day 24 hours?

      *** You’re right 82dAirborne, if I may add, six days are natural days! 7th day (Sunday) is really an “Artificial day”. A day for all worshipers! So Sunday isn’t a natural day at all…24 hrs are natural hours in a day.

      Report Post »  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 9:44am

      Darkmatter, your posts confuse me. You claim that science and creationism line up perfectly, and quote and cite liberally from an avowed young earth group (CSR; your quotes on C14 dating are directly from DeYoung, right?). I’m confused on how you reconcile the two: CSR does NOT believe in a world more than 6000 years old. The Cambrian period didn’t exist in their minds; radioactive decay exists but only shows that God created the elements already in a decayed state. There was a great flood ~4500 years ago, followed by an ice age and glacial erosion.

      These aren’t my words, but those of DeYoung himself when I attended a CSR meeting a couple of months ago. During the meeting they discussed, among other things, how to create front groups that seem legitimate in order to access labs with proper credentials to back up their theories. The book you’re likely referring to (Thousands Not Billions) gets all of its data from two other CSR publications, neither of which is reviewed outside the group.

      I don’t mean to throw cold water on your thoughts, but the groups you’re quoting do not believe what you do. They are not peer-reviewed, their references are other works they’ve published, and they most definitely have an agenda. I’d recommend looking a bit deeper before you refer to them as clear sources.

      Report Post »  
    • DarkMatter
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 10:32am

      Firstly, I have to say that in turn, your post has confused me as I have never heard of CSR before (I take it you don’t mean Cosmological Special Relativity.
      And I AM a young earth creationist. By the way some other creationist groups to check out are ‘Creation Ministries International’ and ‘Answers in Genesis’.

      Report Post » DarkMatter  
    • Locked
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 11:45am

      Sorry, meant CRS, Creationist Research Society. I guess my point remains then – if there was no such thing as a Cambrian Period, why would you use that as evidence? If science tells us relative ages of fossils and the such, how can it be completely compatible with young earth creationism? If you are not referring to “Thousands from Billions,” (the most famous work from the CRS and Dr. DeYoung) in your other posts that have to do with C14 dating, then which work were you referring to?

      Report Post »  
    • DarkMatter
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 12:27pm

      That makes more sense now, thanks for the clarification.
      I wasn’t actually using the ‘Cambrian Period’ as such to support creationism, for my point was that the majority of fossils that we have found all appear roughly within the same level of strata in the earth, which is in conflict with evolution. Also, all fossils found at this ‘level’ are all of fully formed organisms and included are all of the major groups (phyla) of life, which again is in conflict with evolution.
      By ‘science’ I take it you mean radiometric dating, which has been shown to be flawed and unreliable and in regards to carbon dating itself, the fact that the C14 isotope has been found within diamonds, which evolutionists claim were formed 1-3 billion years ago, shows that these diamonds can be no older than 1 million years old (as a piece of C14 the size of the earth would decay to an untraceable amount within 1 million years) and therefore evolutionists are incorrect and it is evidence of a young earth.
      I do believe that the book you have mentioned was to what I was referencing.
      Here’s a question for you: how much evidence do you require to believe that the earth is no older than 6,000 years old?
      (Btw I know that this may seem like elephant hurling, but here are 101 evidences for a young earth: http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth )
      Another question I find that atheists (if you are in fact an atheist) cannot answer is where did the original matter/energy come from that supposedly

      Report Post » DarkMatter  
    • DarkMatter
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 12:28pm

      - created the universe?
      (Oh and God doesn’t need a creator as he is by definition, ‘the uncreated creator’.)

      Report Post » DarkMatter  
  • Donttredonme
    Posted on July 24, 2011 at 10:39pm

    good job science

    Report Post » Donttredonme  
  • South Philly Boy
    Posted on July 24, 2011 at 10:37pm

    You’ll never know what you can find in the dirt

    Report Post » South Philly Boy  
  • busterpuddles
    Posted on July 24, 2011 at 10:36pm

    That’s right! Cool enough to make a movie.

    Report Post » busterpuddles  
  • drattastic
    Posted on July 24, 2011 at 10:33pm

    Cool. There is so much science thinks they have settled ,then booyah they don’t know crap. Surprise surprise .Hum what else does science think they have settled ? I know it’s political ,What is it ? Uh is it world ending over population ,no that’s been debunked.World ending Deforestation ,nope still breathing. Depletion of the ozone layer ,nope I don’t burst into flame when I venture outside. Global cooling or the coming ice age ,no wait that was in the 70s and we still have summer . I know I know Global warming ,Al Gore said we would be underwater by the turn of the century ,no wait that can’t be right . Now I remember it’s climate change ! If it‘s Hot we’re gonna die ! If it‘s Cold we’re gonna die! If we have hurricanes we’re gonna die! If it’s tornadoes ,we’re all gonna die ! Earthquakes ,Volcanoes you guessed it ,We DIE.If it snows ,rains ,floods ,droughts or is cloudy WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE !!! Didn’t you hear ,the debate is over we’re going to friggen DIE . Unless you give total control of your life to the government and the UN ,we know how competent they are ,no corruption there ,Don’t you feel better now ? SLEEP SLEEP SLeep Sleep sleep.

    Report Post » drattastic  
    • tigerex78
      Posted on July 24, 2011 at 10:47pm

      Actually, science never claims to have settled anything. Scientists have a large degree of confidence in certain things but never is anything settled in science. There is always a possibility of overturning current knowledge and understanding. What is upsetting is when politicians get a hold of science and twist it into something it is not. This influences people’s opinions before they truly understand what science really is.

      Report Post »  
    • 1bambam
      Posted on July 24, 2011 at 11:11pm

      very true tigerex78,,,,,you know what ****** me off the most is when something is found not to be the case …..but scientist will discard those findings and lead the evidence in a direction that would still qualify them for government funding and or grants then take all the bogus findings and they now made up and present it as fact ..many cases this is true just to stay on the gravy train where as if they had presented their original finding that disproved their case no more government assistance and or grants would come their way and guess who would be out of a job…yes indeed those scientist…..one example comes to mind as I write this……….

      Report Post » 1bambam  
    • drattastic
      Posted on July 24, 2011 at 11:24pm

      @ TIGER
      What you say should be true but unfortunately it is not true now and lets face it ,science has been manipulated by politics since both have existed. Science is politics and politics is science.

      Report Post » drattastic  
    • capecodwoody
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 8:55am

      In my scientific degree having opinion, WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!

      Report Post »  
  • NOBALONEY
    Posted on July 24, 2011 at 10:24pm

    A Pissar!

    Report Post » NOBALONEY  
    • ReddenBlack
      Posted on July 24, 2011 at 10:37pm

      This didn’t happen. Cause it doesn’t say it happened in the bible. If it‘s not in the bible it doesn’t count.

      Oh wait, I don’t believe in God.

      I understand now

      Report Post » ReddenBlack  
    • 2012 Change
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 12:08am

      I’m praying for you and hope you see you error before meeting your maker. It is appointed a time for each of us to die and face judgement. Turn to God before it is too late.

      Report Post »  
  • chips1
    Posted on July 24, 2011 at 10:20pm

    Might be related to the Dork Fish. Loved them corn dogs.

    Report Post »  
  • Sicboy
    Posted on July 24, 2011 at 10:19pm

    AND??? Another human interest story? 6 days or 6,000 years, so what, get over it. Next story.

    Report Post » Sicboy  
  • TRONINTHEMORNING
    Posted on July 24, 2011 at 10:17pm

    I love how we “know” how old these frozen-in-rock creatures are. We do not, really. No one does. Science is not yet able to certify actual age of things as we are conditioned to believe.

    Cool monster, though!

    Report Post »  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on July 24, 2011 at 10:31pm

      Nice to see that youngsters are posting on The Blaze. When I talk with young people about Dinosaurs and old stuff I always get the same reply….. “Then why aren’t there any photos of them?”
      You young people just don’t understand that there was actually a time when there was no electricity on the entire planet except for lightning and such. I spoke with a 23 year old last week about a black and white movie he saw and he asked why they changed it to B&W. When I told him that that‘s all we back in the 1950’s he wondered how we matched our clothes when we got dressed in the morning? I’m telling you, the dumbing down of America is real.

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • ReddenBlack
      Posted on July 24, 2011 at 10:39pm

      @the monk

      yeah, right, the 23 year old was dumb in that conversation, not the person who believed what he said.

      pay attention idiot.

      Report Post » ReddenBlack  
    • tigerex78
      Posted on July 24, 2011 at 10:43pm

      The exact dates of sedimentary rocks are not known. However, they can be dated relative to the rocks above and below them. There are many rocks whose age scientists do know. It is unfortunate that when stories like these are reported usually the reporter and those reading the story do not have a good grasp of how the ages of the rocks are determined.

      Report Post »  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on July 24, 2011 at 10:59pm

      @REDDENBLACK
      I have seen carbon dating done on many things. It‘s faily accurate most of the time and when it’s not it’s not off by 65M years. Dinosaurs did exist. We are still discovering new species. The fossils are very, very old and the actual age is not as important as the fact that they are VERY old.
      As for the 23 year old… I met him at a computer shop. He was complaining to the computer tech that a movie his watched on his laptop was not in color. The movie was “The Razors Edge.” The young computer tech didn’t have a clue either and suggested a format and reinstall of the OS. I told both of them to watch the movie “Plainsville” and would understand. Like I said, the dumbing down of America IS real! And I do pay attention REDDENBLACK.

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • ReddenBlack
      Posted on July 24, 2011 at 11:26pm

      @the monk

      You don’t pay attention THAT well, because the movie you are talking about is “Pleasantville” not “Plainsville”

      Also, I think it’s great you recomended that movie, considering it’s all about how the “perfect American Dream family” of the 1950 is a load of crap.

      That movie is about how much better things like sex, art, emotion and fun make life. As opposed to just going to church and being “polite.”

      Report Post » ReddenBlack  
    • ArgumentumAdAbsurdum
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 1:17am

      @the monk
      Are you sure the kid wasnt talking about the 1984 Bill Murray “Razor’s Edge”? That was in color and therefore it would have been a problem if it was b&W on whatever he was watching it on. It seems more likely to me that a 23 year old would be watching the 27 year old version rather than the 65 year old one.

      Report Post » ArgumentumAdAbsurdum  
    • The-Monk
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 1:19am

      @REDDENBLACK
      Your right, I typed in the wrong name of the movie but I did get it right at the computer shop. And, you are also right about the theme of the movie. I just wanted to see if this young lad would actually believe that sex and love and art and such could turn the B&W world to color when experienced. Just like in the movie. Sorry if I did not make that clear enough for you… No hard feelings or thoughts.

      Report Post » The-Monk  
    • Nobamazone
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 6:34am

      @ the monk
      next time they ask why there are no pictures of them you can tell them there ARE… check out the petroglyph in Utah. If dinos became extinct millions of years ago and never existed with men, as evolutionists claim, then how did those men know what a dino would look like and WHY would they draw one? Since those of us over the age of 23 know that they did not have any books about dinos and Jurassic Park had not yet come to the big screen the most obvious answer must be that those who drew the pics must have actually seen a dinosaur.

      Report Post » Nobamazone  
  • 1bambam
    Posted on July 24, 2011 at 10:17pm

    Get back to me when they find the missing link ..then I’ll be impressed..

    Report Post » 1bambam  
    • Consentiondum
      Posted on July 25, 2011 at 5:47pm

      You should have been impressed already! There are dozens of transitional fossils (missing links as they are called by some) from early primates to humans.

      Report Post »  
  • Fina Biscotti
    Posted on July 24, 2011 at 10:15pm

    “Rather than clambering over the ground like the crocs we see today, P. sera would have galloped on long limbs.”

    ********
    Crocodiles are slightly different from alligators – but I could not help to imagine galloping alligators in the swamps of Louisiana.

    Report Post »  
  • jedi.kep
    Posted on July 24, 2011 at 10:15pm

    Jurassic park 4!

    Report Post » jedi.kep  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love