Dinosaur questions

[Eila]

My son is very much into dinosaurs and as he asks questions I find myself wanting to learn more about the issue.

My origins perspective is that I lean towards the gap theory with a literal 7 day creation week. I do believe that science will always back up the Bible and I do see evidence in the Bible of an older earth. However, I don't know what that older earth consisted of.

Now I heard recently that dinosaur bones are aged based on the rocks they are found in. Is it possible that the dinosaurs were created 6000 or so years ago, yet were found in rocks that were millions of years old?

How are the fossils actually dated? Can anyone point me to a site that is not too technical and not too biased?

I've heard some convincing ideas from some young earth creationists regarding dinosaurs existing with humans. The most convincing thing to me is the book of Job. It appears from the description there that it is describing a dinosaur. Any input?

I was going to teach my son a variety of perspectives, but at his age I think it is confusing him.

Thanks!

 

[Mallon]

My son is very much into dinosaurs and as he asks questions I find myself wanting to learn more about the issue.

ME TOO!!!

Now I heard recently that dinosaur bones are aged based on the rocks they are found in. Is it possible that the dinosaurs were created 6000 or so years ago, yet were found in rocks that were millions of years old?

Well, you would have to ask how dinosaur bones were incorporated into the already-solid rock. There's no known mechanism that I'm aware of. Any metamorphic process that might trap dinosaur bones in pre-made rock would destroy the bones themselves.

How are the fossils actually dated? Can anyone point me to a site that is not too technical and not too biased?

Dinosaur bones are typically dated based on the isochron dating of surrounding volcanic deposits (like bentonite ash beds). So if you find a bone that is sandwiched between deposits that are 60 million and 61 million years old, you can surmise that the the bone must be 60.5 +/- 0.5 million years old.
Generalized radiometric dating is explained here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating

I've heard some convincing ideas from some young earth creationists regarding dinosaurs existing with humans.

Most creationist sites deny the validity of the finds you are citing. See:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996

The most convincing thing to me is the book of Job. It appears from the description there that it is describing a dinosaur. Any input?

Yeah. Speaking as a dinosaur palaeontologist myself, I can pretty confidently tell you that the creatures described in Job (Leviathan/Behemoth) are NOT dinosaurs.

 

[laptoppop]

Dinosaur bones are typically dated based on the isochron dating of surrounding volcanic deposits (like bentonite ash beds). So if you find a bone that is sandwiched between deposits that are 60 million and 61 million years old, you can surmise that the the bone must be 60.5 +/- 0.5 million years old.

Would you say it is incorrect to say that most fossils are dated according to the strata they are found in, and that the strata is primarily determined by index fossils?

 

[ExpatChristian]

Eila

The most important thing is not to teach your child that the world is 6000 years old unless it is part of a bedtime story where fantacy is of course ok. But to seriously teach your child that the world is 6000 years old is really just intellectually disadvantaging your child and not really fair. It is the same as teaching your child that the world is flat. You wouldn't do that would you?

 

[Eila]

Well, you would have to ask how dinosaur bones were incorporated into the already-solid rock. There's no known mechanism that I'm aware of. Any metamorphic process that might trap dinosaur bones in pre-made rock would destroy the bones themselves.

Okay, that makes sense. So if the rocks are x years old then the bones would be the same age?

Dinosaur bones are typically dated based on the isochron dating of surrounding volcanic deposits (like bentonite ash beds). So if you find a bone that is sandwiched between deposits that are 60 million and 61 million years old, you can surmise that the the bone must be 60.5 +/- 0.5 million years old.
Generalized radiometric dating is explained here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating


Most creationist sites deny the validity of the finds you are citing. See:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996

Thanks for the links, I'll check them out.

Yeah. Speaking as a dinosaur palaeontologist myself, I can pretty confidently tell you that the creatures described in Job (Leviathan/Behemoth) are NOT dinosaurs.

Can you explain? I've heard that many think that the behemoth is an elephant or hippo, but the tail like a cedar thing doesn't fit.

 

[Mallon]

Would you say it is incorrect to say that most fossils are dated according to the strata they are found in, and that the strata is primarily determined by index fossils?

I would say that is incorrect, yes. Here's why:
The age of rocks are often estimated (hypothesized, even) based on the presence of particular index fossils, but this approach is never taken as the last word. Radiometric dating is the last word in terms of dating igneous rocks. What index fossils do is provide a test for the correlation of the fossil record... something I've heard you rail against previously. And as it turns out, index fossils are usually excellent predictors of age. The presence of particular species of foraminiferan, for example, can allow us to pin down a date +/- a few thousand years.

 

[Mallon]

Okay, that makes sense. So if the rocks are x years old then the bones would be the same age?

They would have to be. The bones could only become entombed in the rock as the sediments were being deposited.

Can you explain? I've heard that many think that the behemoth is an elephant or hippo, but the tail like a cedar thing doesn't fit.

Ah, but Job doesn't say the tail is like a cedar. It says the tail moveth like a cedar. It's the movement of the tail that is being compared to a cedar, not the tail itself. So how does a cedar move? Well, it sways in the breeze, for one.
Also, contrary to Job, sauropod ("long-necked") dinosaurs were not capable of eating grass, they did not breathe fire, they did not have navels (only mammals have those), and they could not have hidden within the reeds of a river. I share the same feeling with most other biblical scholars that the beasts described in Job are simply mythologized hippos and crocs... two animals that no doubt would have been familiar (and terrifying) to inhabitants near the Nile.

 

[laptoppop]

I would say that is incorrect, yes. Here's why:
The age of rocks are often estimated (hypothesized, even) based on the presence of particular index fossils, but this approach is never taken as the last word. Radiometric dating is the last word in terms of dating igneous rocks. What index fossils do is provide a test for the correlation of the fossil record... something I've heard you rail against previously. And as it turns out, index fossils are usually excellent predictors of age. The presence of particular species of foraminiferan, for example, can allow us to pin down a date +/- a few thousand years.

Yes, but your post (to my eyes) seemed to imply that radiometric dating was always used. Isn't it true that it actually is pretty darn expensive, and that it is rarely used?

 

[KerrMetric]

Isn't it true that it actually is pretty darn expensive, and that it is rarely used?

No.

Try again.


Let me take a wild ass guess here. You've never personally performed a radiometric dating have you?

 

[Dannager]

Can you explain? I've heard that many think that the behemoth is an elephant or hippo, but the tail like a cedar thing doesn't fit.

I've also been informed that the translation of "tail" in this passage actually refers to a phallus (and the "stones" mentioned later on are associated with that). A little disturbing, granted, but it starts making a lot of sense once that piece of the puzzle falls into place.

 

[Gottservant]

I believe Abraham received by faith his account of Creation. That means it took God 6000 years to create everything and that He took 1000 years rest after He finished. It is not hard to believe when you consider that a day is as a thousand years to the Lord (2 Peter 3:8), that the Lord is going to make a short work of the earth (Romans 9:28) and that the life of man is as a vapor (James 4:14).

If you did not tell your son that God had created everything in six "days" of a thousand years, what fear of God would he have? That is what is at stake.

 

[Mallon]

Yes, but your post (to my eyes) seemed to imply that radiometric dating was always used. Isn't it true that it actually is pretty darn expensive, and that it is rarely used?

It's certainly not as expensive as it used to be. These methodologies get less expensive with time as new technologies are developed. So no, it isn't rarely used. Every formation I've worked has been dated at several locations, usually using K-Ar dating.

 

[Assyrian]

My son is very much into dinosaurs and as he asks questions I find myself wanting to learn more about the issue.

Bet your son will be impressed his mom has been chatting online with a real live palaeontologist.

 

[Mallon]

Bet your son will be impressed his mom has been chatting online with a real live palaeontologist.

Heh. Just don't explain that a palaeontologist is "you know, like Ross, from Friends!"
I get that a lot.

 

[Assyrian]

Sam Neill Surely?

 

[Eila]

I believe Abraham received by faith his account of Creation. That means it took God 6000 years to create everything and that He took 1000 years rest after He finished. It is not hard to believe when you consider that a day is as a thousand years to the Lord (2 Peter 3:8), that the Lord is going to make a short work of the earth (Romans 9:28) and that the life of man is as a vapor (James 4:14).

If you did not tell your son that God had created everything in six "days" of a thousand years, what fear of God would he have? That is what is at stake.

Well, I wouldn't teach him that because I don't believe that. I believe a day is a day and that is what I have taught him.

 

[Eila]

Bet your son will be impressed his mom has been chatting online with a real live palaeontologist.

He'd like that. He prays every night that he will grow up big and strong so he can go and dig for dinosaur bones.

 

[Eila]

Heh. Just don't explain that a palaeontologist is "you know, like Ross, from Friends!"
I get that a lot.

Well, he wouldn't know who Ross was.

I do have another question for you. I've heard reports of dragons possibly being real creatures and some think they were living dinosaurs. Is there any evidence of dragon bones and were they found in old rocks or newer rocks?

Thanks!

 

[Mallon]

I do have another question for you. I've heard reports of dragons possibly being real creatures and some think they were living dinosaurs. Is there any evidence of dragon bones and were they found in old rocks or newer rocks?

There's no evidence at all that the flying, fire-breathing dragons as we know them were real creatures. You'll hear a handful of people argue that the widespread nature of dragon tales is testimony to their existence, but you had might as well argue the same for fairies, unicorns, or mermaids. It's silly.
As it turns out, many tales of dragons and other mythical creatures are likely inspired by the ancient discoveries of dinosaur bones. It is thought that the griffin myths of central Asia were inspired by the findings of Protoceratops bones, for example. And see another thread of mine that I just started in this forum that describes the Chinese supposition that the dinosaur bones they use for medicine were actually dragon bones. I highly recommend books by Adrienne Mayor if you're interested in the subject.

 

[Dannager]

Well, I wouldn't teach him that because I don't believe that. I believe a day is a day and that is what I have taught him.

Even if it wasn't intended for you to take it that way?