Dinosaurs?

[Word of Peace]

Yes, but chemicals and flame are two different things. There is not a single example of a living species capable of producing fire, AFAIK.

It could well have been chemicals and not fire. But do remember that the fact that scientists do not yet know of an animal capable of producing fire does not mean it doesn't exist - they have been wrong many times about things like this. It does mean, however, that we should not claim that there is absolute proof that some dinosaurs could breathe fire.

 

[adam149]

Now, why would God say replenish the Earth? Because the Earth had once been populated before.

The answer to this reasonable question is that the hebrew word is male, which is used 247 times in scripture, only seven of which were ever translated as replenish. The three accepted words for it to be translated as are "fill, full, and fulfil."

Its meaning is fairly straight forward also.

"1)to fill, be full
1a)(Qal)
1a1) to be full
2) to be done a first time"

There is a totally different word in hebrew that means "to fill again," and it is shana. Shana would have been the word to use if the author of the hebrew had meant that.

What happened was that the KJV was written in 1611, back when the english word "replenish" meant "to fill." But later on, the word changed meanings, and came to mean "to refill."

And jdunlap:

Now, many have said that stories of dragons were made up after ancient people found dinosaur skeletons. This doesn't sound too plausible to me, for at least 4 reasons. First, bones that were found were not studied scientifically in those days - they simply assumed that the bones came from some kind of animal that was familiar to them. Second, in addition to the often exaggerated legends, there were indirect references to the dinosaurs, written in the same matter-of-fact way that one would use when talking about an ordinary, well-known animal. Third, many ancient dinosaur depictions were more accurate than even depictions done in the mid 1800's, when these fossils were first studied scientifically. Fourth, many of the dragon legends agree remarkably well, considering their geographical isolation - for example, pterodactyls have been described in similar ways in the South Pacific, North America, the Middle East, and Europe.

Amen. Well done, four very good points.

That reminded me of something my mythology prof said in class a few semesters ago (ties in with the ancient civilizations stuff, not the dino stuff).

He said that he could never believe that part in the Bible when God makes the sun stand still for three days from a physics point of view...until he came across a pacific islander myth about it being twilight for three days, and yet another, this time Japanese (I think, I'll have to ask him again), about it being night for three days. This was an utter shock to him, because it meant that it wasn't just the story being spread around the globe (diffusion), because it would have been daylight in all the myths instead of the appropriate position (day, dusk/dawn, and night)for their different locations. I thought that was awesome.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Now, many have said that stories of dragons were made up after ancient people found dinosaur skeletons. This doesn't sound too plausible to me, for at least 4 reasons. First, bones that were found were not studied scientifically in those days - they simply assumed that the bones came from some kind of animal that was familiar to them.

Whether or not skeletons were studied scientifically is a moot point. It's pretty obvious to the see the difference between a skull of a T-Rex and skulls of other animals living at the time, for example.

Second, in addition to the often exaggerated legends, there were indirect references to the dinosaurs, written in the same matter-of-fact way that one would use when talking about an ordinary, well-known animal. Third, many ancient dinosaur depictions were more accurate than even depictions done in the mid 1800's, when these fossils were first studied scientifically. Fourth, many of the dragon legends agree remarkably well, considering their geographical isolation - for example, pterodactyls have been described in similar ways in the South Pacific, North America, the Middle East, and Europe.

Do you have any support for your last three points? Some examples would be nice.

Anyway, myth and legend is all well and good, but the empirical evidence for the existance of dinosaurs during human times is severely lacking. Some physical evidence (say, the actual body or skeleton or recent fossil of a dinosaur) would be nice.

 

[Arikay]

anyone notice how there are many claims being made by some of the posters, yet we have yet to see any evidence to back up the claims?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

anyone notice how there are many claims being made by some of the posters, yet we have yet to see any evidence to back up the claims?

I find it both funny and sad at the same time...

Sad that once I was spouting the same gibberish, not knowing how silly I was making Christianity sound...

And funny that I could use the same arguments that these people are using to get me to believe in dragons to support the Greek pantheon of gods and why we should worship them...

 

[michabo]

anyone notice how there are many claims being made by some of the posters, yet we have yet to see any evidence to back up the claims?

Give them time. I'm sure they're sitting in front of the computer scratching their heads. "I'm sure I saw a behemoth on a webcam somewhere. Didn't Dr. Hovind say they were in a zoo in Brazil somewhere? But where is it!? **** google, I'm sure it's run by a bunch of atheists - that's why none of my searches come up with any good links."

I have faith that any moment now, they'll post a response overthrowing a century of geological and biological research. Something genuine, not just a bunch of links to Answers in Genesis.

Soon, soon...

 

[Word of Peace]

In 1990, some unfossilized Tyrannosaurus Rex bones were unearthed in northern Montana (exact location is not disclosed for fear of its destruction by over-enthusiastic amateurs). These T-Rex bones were "capped" - meaning that the ends of the bones fossilized, which trapped moisture in the inside and slowed the fossilization of the middle - therefore, most of the bone remained unfossilized. In some of the bones, hemoglobin residue from red blood cells was found.

Mary Schweitzer, one of the main scientists involved in the study, wrote in Earth:

"The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center. Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, "You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells!" [M. Schweitzer and T, Staedtler, 'The Real Jurassic Park', Earth, June 1997 pg 55-57]

Mary Schweitzer took this information to the famous panteologist Jack Horner, who suggested that she try prove that they weren't compounds from red blood cells, but so far, she says she hasn't been able to - in fact, all the tests done confirm that they are indeed what they appear to be.

Various tests have been performed that prove that these compounds are indeed structures from hemoglobin, including magnetic and laser wavelength testing. The scientists tested the hemoglobin residue for authenticity by injecting it into rats. The rats manufactured antibodies to it, just as expected. (See the full study paper for details).

Full paper on MSU study
Abstract:
Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex. These include signatures from nuclear magnetic resonance and electron spin resonance that indicate the presence of a paramagnetic compound consistent with heme. In addition, UV/visible spectroscopy and high performance liquid chromatography data are consistent with the Soret absorbance characteristic of this molecule. Resonance Raman profiles are also consistent with a modified heme structure. Finally, when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues.
Report from a fossil enthusiast concerning a scientist-guided dinosaur excavation expedition in the same location. Unfossilized seashells, and dino eggs are found in abundance in this fairly soft sediment that is supposed to be rock dating to 75 million years ago.

-----------

Frozen, unfossilized dinosaur bones in Alaska is not an entirely new discovery. The first such discovery was made in 1961, when a petroleum geologist found a large bone bed in northwestern alaska. Seeing that the bones were unfosilized, he assumed that they must belong to a more "recent" type of animal such as bison. 20 years later, scientists discovered that this deposit contained numerous unfossilized bones of a number of different types of dinosaurs. Since then, a number of scientists have made expeditions to uncover more of these unfossilized bones, including William A Clemens and others from UC Berkley and the University of Alaska. [Geological Society of America abstract programs Vol.17, p.548, 1985 and Kyle L. Davies, 'Duck-bill Dinosaurs (Hadrosauridae, Ornithischia) from the North Slope of Alaska', Journal of Paleontology, Vol.61 No.1, pp.198-200]

One of the more publicized expeditions was made by creationist Buddy Davis (hmm... the fact that he's a creationist automatically discredits him, right? ). He returned with fresh dinosaur bones, which are now being evaluated by scientists. There's a book on this, which I don't currently have but plan to order: The Great Alaskan Dinosaur Adventure

-----------

The largest dinosaur skeleton discovered - a Seismosaurus in New Mexico - is partially unfossilized. [Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Dec 1991, pg 417-433]

-----------

These discoveries pose a couple of problems to evolutionists. First, it is close to impossible for even a few dinosaur bones to remain un-fossilized for 65 million years or more. It is virtually impossible for heme and other hemoglobin structures to remain for 65 million years - scientists say these structures should have decayed long ago. Furthermore, for the dinosaur bones in Alaska to have remained unfossilized due to being frozen (as they have) is unlikely according to evolutionary theory, because the ice age should have started long after the dinosaurs had died out.

 

[Word of Peace]

I have faith that any moment now, they'll post a response overthrowing a century of geological and biological research. Something genuine, not just a bunch of links to Answers in Genesis.

Soon, soon...

Your wait is over.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

On the subject of dino-blood, I highlighted a couple points in the abstact:

Abstract:
Six independent lines of evidence point to the existence of heme-containing compounds and/or hemoglobin breakdown products in extracts of trabecular tissues of the large theropod dinosaur Tyrannosaurus rex. These include signatures from nuclear magnetic resonance and electron spin resonance that indicate the presence of a paramagnetic compound consistent with heme. In addition, UV/visible spectroscopy and high performance liquid chromatography data are consistent with the Soret absorbance characteristic of this molecule. Resonance Raman profiles are also consistent with a modified heme structure. Finally, when dinosaurian tissues were extracted for protein fragments and were used to immunize rats, the resulting antisera reacted positively with purified avian and mammalian hemoglobins. The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues.

They did not find red blood cells in the T-Rex fossils. They found byproducts of hemoglobins. There is a vast difference which unforunately has been glossed over tremendously by creationists.

Dr. Gary Hurd over at II just wrote an article on this issue, which will probably end up on T.O. in the near future. You can read it here: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73214

 

[Word of Peace]

They did not find red blood cells in the T-Rex fossils. They found byproducts of hemoglobins. There is a vast difference which unforunately has been glossed over tremendously by creationists.

Note that that is what I said. Either way, it goes against the information we have about hemoglobin and its aging.

 

[Arikay]

Someone said New evidence. This is not new.


Montana bones:
The hemoglobin was Degraded and the bones were fossilized, just not altered by the fossilization.

Can you explain to me, how the finding of a living dinosaur would hurt the theory of evolution? As I dont see it.

[snip]

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Note that that is what I said. Either way, it goes against the information we have about hemoglobin and its aging.

The "You’ve got red blood cells!" quote is a bit disingenuous, though. It implies that the finding is something that it is not.

 

[Word of Peace]

Someone said New evidence. This is not new.

It's new to this forum, right?

The hemoglobin was Degraded

True, but the fact that it was present at all indicates that it could not be 75,000 years old.

and the bones were fossilized, just not altered by the fossilization.

Parts of the Montana bones were fossilized, but large sections were not.

Can you explain to me, how the finding of a living dinosaur would hurt the theory of evolution? As I dont see it.

It would at least change it drastically, by rendering many parts of the evolutionary history invalid.

These discoveries would make the "rock" where these bones were found (in New Mexico and Montana) have to be dated much differently, which would, in turn, affect the other fossils found in the layers.

 

[Word of Peace]

The "You’ve got red blood cells!" quote is a bit disingenuous, though. It implies that the finding is something that it is not.

They thought that they had red blood cells originally, but it turned out that it was simply structures from them. Note that that quote came from the scientists themselves. Note also that they are evolutionists, and the experiment was verified by a world-renowned dinosaur pantaeologist.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

It would at least change it drastically, by rendering many parts of the evolutionary history invalid.

These discoveries would make the "rock" where these bones were found (in New Mexico and Montana) have to be dated much differently, which would, in turn, affect the other fossils found in the layers.

Actually, a dinosaur species surviving to modern times would not nearly upset current evolutionary thinking so much as finding a modern species in stratigraphy before its supposed ancestors.

For example, here's a link to the species discovered in the Hell Creek formation (where the T-Rex skeleton that was analysed for hemoglobin byproducts was found): http://www.scn.org/~bh162/hellcreek2.html I don't have time to go through it right now (bed calls), but are there any cases of any modern fauna being found in that formation?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

They thought that they had red blood cells originally, but it turned out that it was simply structures from them. Note that that quote came from the scientists themselves. Note also that they are evolutionists, and the experiment was verified by a world-renowned dinosaur pantaeologist.

Yes, but quoting it in light of their findings is still disingenuous. After all, to the layman which do you think they are going to understand? "You've got red blood cells!" or "hemoglobin breakdown products"?

 

[Arikay]

"It's new to this forum, right? "

actually it isn't, ive heared the blood cell argument here before.

"True, but the fact that it was present at all indicates that it could not be 75,000 years old."

"Independent results from the spectroscopic, analytical, and immunochemical techniques used in this study support the existence of heme and hemoglobin breakdown products in extractions of trabecular tissues of the MOR 555*specimen of T.*rex. Significant levels of D-enantiomers of individual amino acids (39) suggest that the source proteins are ancient."
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/12/6291​

So, how does the existance of hemoglobin breakdown products limit its age? They appear to not think that it limits the age any.


"Parts of the Montana bones were fossilized, but large sections were not."

No, large sections "revealed little or no evidence of internal permineralization or replacement." which is different than unfossilized.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/12/6291

[snip]

 

[Word of Peace]

Yes, but quoting it in light of their findings is still disingenuous. After all, to the layman which do you think they are going to understand? "You've got red blood cells!" or "hemoglobin breakdown products"?

I think that that is how that myth came about. That is what those scientists said, and she was recounting it, but if I were her, I would have carefully noted in a footnote that it turned out not to be actual blood cells, but hemoglobin breakdown products.

 

[Word of Peace]

"Independent results from the spectroscopic, analytical, and immunochemical techniques used in this study support the existence of heme and hemoglobin breakdown products in extractions of trabecular tissues of the MOR 555*specimen of T.*rex. Significant levels of D-enantiomers of individual amino acids (39) suggest that the source proteins are ancient."
...
So, how does the existance of hemoglobin breakdown products limit its age? They appear to not think that it limits the age any.

The decay rate of heme, even if it were to be extrordinarily long, would definitely not be 65 million years old.

Besides the heme, there were also amino acids and DNA found. The decay rates of DNA show that it should not last more than 10,000 years, and yet it is mostly intact. Amino acids also are fairly volatile and have a fairly fast decay rate. Osteocalcin was also found, and it is much more volatile than heme. Also, the mere fact that they are unfossilized means that they can't be very old. Finally, there is evidence that antibodies in the rats reacted specifically to hemoglobin, not just heme.

No, large sections "revealed little or no evidence of internal permineralization or replacement." which is different than unfossilized.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/12/6291

There are 5 main types of true fossilization:

• Permineralization fossils are when minerals seep in and displace the original material. Only a small portion of these bones are permineralized.
• Trace/impression fossils are when an imprint turns to stone.
• Casts and molds are caused when sedimentation leaks into the impression left by a decayed object.
• Carbonization fossils are a black film formed when the volatile organic compounds disperse from a decomposing organism, leaving a thin residue of carbon.
• Recrystallization fossils are formed when unstable minerals return to their original state. This is mostly limited to mineral-based shells.

These bones do not fit these types of fossilization. What type of fossilization preserves the original material? None that I know of. The very definition of fossilization indicates that the original matter was displaced.

 

[Arikay]

What is the decay rate of heme?
Can you show me where they found DNA and Amino acids?

The decay rate of heme, even if it were to be extrordinarily long, would definitely not be 65 million years old.

Besides the heme, there were also amino acids and DNA found. The decay rates of DNA show that it should not last more than 10,000 years, and yet it is mostly intact. Amino acids also are fairly volatile and have a fairly fast decay rate. Osteocalcin was also found, and it is much more volatile than heme. Also, the mere fact that they are unfossilized means that they can't be very old. Finally, there is evidence that antibodies in the rats reacted specifically to hemoglobin, not just heme.



There are 5 main types of true fossilization:

• Permineralization fossils are when minerals seep in and displace the original material. Only a small portion of these bones are permineralized.
• Trace/impression fossils are when an imprint turns to stone.
• Casts and molds are caused when sedimentation leaks into the impression left by a decayed object.
• Carbonization fossils are a black film formed when the volatile organic compounds disperse from a decomposing organism, leaving a thin residue of carbon.
• Recrystallization fossils are formed when unstable minerals return to their original state. This is mostly limited to mineral-based shells.

These bones do not fit these types of fossilization. What type of fossilization preserves the original material? None that I know of. The very definition of fossilization indicates that the original matter was displaced.