Man and dinosaur coexisting

[ViaCrucis]

I thought I might add some more evidence to this thread, some documentaries I've seen.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Loudmouth]

Very good post! I winder if you have ever heard of the Institute For Creation Research? They have a magazine Acts & Facts. Have you ever heard of Dr. Morris? I have a strong interest in Creationism, not to show contempt for those who believe in Evolution, but to be willing to share information is they are willing to look for themselves. I won't debate, but will dialogue is it's peaceful and respectful.

Just as a added question have you read or heard about the Creation Museum in Kentucky?

He used known fakes (Ica Stones) to make his case. How is that a good post?

 

[bhsmte]

I thought I might add some more evidence to this thread, some documentaries I've seen.

-CryptoLutheran

Barney Rubble, what an actor!

 

[JacksBratt]

Many dinosaurs weren't that big, though. In fact, most dinosaurs weren't any bigger than an elephant. The largest animal that ever lived is the blue whale, and it has absolutely no problem breathing in the current atmosphere.

Smaller dinosaurs like the crocodile, tortoises, rhinoceros, komodo dragons, chameleons, all the whales and large fish, and other animals that are small enough to survive on the lower amount of O2 and lower barometric pressure?

 

[Loudmouth]

Smaller dinosaurs like the crocodile, tortoises, rhinoceros, komodo dragons, chameleons, all the whales and large fish, and other animals that are small enough to survive on the lower amount of O2 and lower barometric pressure?

Are you trying to say that those are all dinosaurs?

Also, the blue whale is perhaps the largest animal to ever live. It is larger than any fossil species ever found. How do you explain that?

Best way to tell the difference between a dino and a lizard is the angle at which the femur leaves the pelvis.

Lizards are on the left.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Smaller dinosaurs like the crocodile, tortoises, rhinoceros, komodo dragons, chameleons, all the whales and large fish, and other animals that are small enough to survive on the lower amount of O2 and lower barometric pressure?

All the animals you've mentioned are not dinosaurs.

 

[Isaiah55:6]

I've talked about this before but unfortunately can't find the thread. There is no indication that the radioactive decay rates have changed. If they had changed noticeably, there would be indications of that in nature. And, even if they drifted a little over a 14 billion year timescale, there is no way you can fudge the numbers enough to result in a 6000 year old Earth. The decay rates would have had to be many thousands of times faster and the heat alone would have melted the Earth.

This is still purely based on the assumption that the decay rate has always been the same. No one alive today knows what kind of environment existed in the distant past. Suppose you watch a man cutting down trees in the forest. You watch him for two hours and he cuts down one tree each hour. If you assume he has cut down trees at the same rate all day you would come to the conclusion he cuts down one tree an hour. But then you go and talk to him and he says " when my axe was sharp and my stomach full I was cutting down 8 trees an hour. Only in the last two hours have I slacked off". You can't just assume that what it is now is how it has always been.

You need to look up what an isochron diagram is. Every time a geologist dates a rock, he must ensure that is has not been contaminated or affected by outside forces. You need to explain why different parts of the sample can all lie along the same isochron when plotted.

How can they make sure they have never been contaminated? How do they know no water has soaked through the sample and carried away some of the lead? Or that uranium hadn't escaped through pores in the rock? If the rocks were billions of years old no one would have any clue what had happened over vast amounts of time.

This is false. The equation for an isochron is:

D = D0 + N(t) (eλt − 1)

Where D0 is the amount of original daughter element. The original amount of daughter element is worked into the equation and necessary.


You have been misinformed by some internet blog. It is unfortunate. But it is more unfortunate that you probably aren't actually looking for information no the subject, but rather only looking for more information to support your misinformed view of radiometric dating.

the lead in the rock could have been there the whole time. Who is to say that a rock didn't start out with let's say 23 grams of lead already in it?

You need to look up the word xenolith. Dating a xenolith will give a different age than the surrounding lava.

From the paper you cited:

"the xenoliths represent either (1) accidental materials broken from pre-existing rocks deep in the crust and transported to the surface of the earth by upwelling magma or (2) cognate inclusions crystallized at depth in the magma" -Funkhouser and Naughton (1968), pg 4601.

This is an interesting anomalous result. It was discovered to be an anomaly because it was different than the rest. It was debated briefly and explained. This happened in the 1960s. You're 50 years too late to the debate. Today, K-Ar dating is rarely used since Ar40/Ar39 is preferable.

there are other examples as well. A basalt rock was tested in Nigeria. Tested once with potassium-argon that came out to 95 million years and then another test with the uranium-helium method that came out to 750 million years.

Your intuition is correct. They are today known as birds.

in no way does the fossil record back this up. According to scripture God created flying animals and land animals separately in the creation week.

Stegosaurus was one of the first dinosaurs officially discovered by modern scientists in 1876.

Who knows what other dinosaur bones were discovered by ancients and left undocumented. It is not implausible that they discovered dinosaur bones with dermal spines long ago.

Yes my mistake. What I meant to suggest was that there are many ancient depictions of triceratops with dermal spines and the first triceratops with dermal spines was not discovered until the date I stated. (I know this doesn't address your comments point, I'm just correcting my mistake)

I don't find it plausible that all these cultures that share similar stories about dinosaurs and had no contact with each other came up with these depictions by finding fossils. Even with today's technology it's very difficult to put together a full specimen. 45% of dinosaur genera are represented by only one fossil specimen. 75% have 5 specimens or more and only 23% are based on complete skeletons.

 

[Loudmouth]

This is still purely based on the assumption that the decay rate has always been the same.

That assumption has been tested.

• The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable, at least within limits of accuracy. This is despite experiments that attempt to change decay rates (Emery 1972). Extreme pressure can cause electron-capture decay rates to increase slightly (less than 0.2 percent), but the change is small enough that it has no detectable effect on dates.
  
  
• Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes (Nomoto et al. 1997a, 1997b; Thielemann et al. 1998). These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away (Knödlseder 2000). Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is sixty million light-years away (Prantzos 1999), and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light-years away (Perlmutter et al. 1998).
  
  
• The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html

Also, we do know what the conditions need to be in order to increase the decay rate of these isotopes, and such conditions would kill all life on Earth. Since life survived on the Earth quite well, we know that these conditions did not occur.

No one alive today knows what kind of environment existed in the distant past. Suppose you watch a man cutting down trees in the forest. You watch him for two hours and he cuts down one tree each hour. If you assume he has cut down trees at the same rate all day you would come to the conclusion he cuts down one tree an hour. But then you go and talk to him and he says " when my axe was sharp and my stomach full I was cutting down 8 trees an hour. Only in the last two hours have I slacked off". You can't just assume that what it is now is how it has always been.

If the rate of cutting down a tree were constrained by the fundamental nuclear forces (strong and weak), then it may be a better analogy. As it is, there is no physical law that requires a specific rate of cutting down trees. There are physical laws that cause a constant rate of nuclear decay.

How can they make sure they have never been contaminated? How do they know no water has soaked through the sample and carried away some of the lead? Or that uranium hadn't escaped through pores in the rock? If the rocks were billions of years old no one would have any clue what had happened over vast amounts of time.

Zircons are impervious to water. You would need to change the basic laws of physics to such a degree in order for water to get into zircons as to cause life to be impossible.

the lead in the rock could have been there the whole time. Who is to say that a rock didn't start out with let's say 23 grams of lead already in it?

When zircons form, they exclude lead. This is observed in the lab. You would need to change the fundamental laws of chemistry and physics in order for zircons to include lead when forming.

there are other examples as well. A basalt rock was tested in Nigeria. Tested once with potassium-argon that came out to 95 million years and then another test with the uranium-helium method that came out to 750 million years.

Yes, we know how the creationists like to misrepresent data. Why don't you read the actual science and get back to us.

in no way does the fossil record back this up. According to scripture God created flying animals and land animals separately in the creation week.

How does the fossil record not back this up?

Yes my mistake. What I meant to suggest was that there are many ancient depictions of triceratops with dermal spines and the first triceratops with dermal spines was not discovered until the days I stated. (I know this doesn't address your comments point, I'm just correcting my mistake)

I don't find it plausible that all these cultures that share similar stories about dinosaurs and had no contact with each other came up with these depictions by finding fossils. Even with today's technology it's very difficult to put together a full specimen. 45% of dinosaur genera are represented by only one fossil specimen. 75% have 5 specimens or more and only 23% are based on complete skeletons.

The Ica stones are known fakes. I think that tells us all we need to know.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Don't be silly. It was mainly the result of an asteroid strike. And it occurred over a hundred million years after the breakup of Pangaea. You really need to check your facts first.

Have you ever heard of the Ghost Ranch in Arizona? There are museums in Utah where they found dinosaurs and there are places that they have in Wyoming where they find dinosaur bones. All from Pangaea. I can give you a silly photo if you think it is silly. Otherwise just run a google search on all the dinosaur museums in the Rocky mountain area of the country. These are the first dinosaurs to develop teeth where they began to devour one another. So for a creationism this is a very significant beginning of being carnivorous. If there were carnivores before this, they were different. They did not attack and devour each other to destroy themselves within their own species.

 

[Loudmouth]

Have you ever heard of the Ghost Ranch in Arizona? There are museums in Utah where they found dinosaurs and there are places that they have in Wyoming where they find dinosaur bones. All from Pangaea. I can give you a silly photo if you think it is silly. Otherwise just run a google search on all the dinosaur museums in the Rocky mountain area of the country. These are the first dinosaurs to develop teeth where they began to devour one another. So for a creationism this is a very significant beginning of being carnivorous. If there were carnivores before this, they were different. They did not attack and devour each other to destroy themselves within their own species.

"Dinosaur" is not the name of a species.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

This is still purely based on the assumption that the decay rate has always been the same. No one alive today knows what kind of environment existed in the distant past. Suppose you watch a man cutting down trees in the forest. You watch him for two hours and he cuts down one tree each hour. If you assume he has cut down trees at the same rate all day you would come to the conclusion he cuts down one tree an hour. But then you go and talk to him and he says " when my axe was sharp and my stomach full I was cutting down 8 trees an hour. Only in the last two hours have I slacked off". You can't just assume that what it is now is how it has always been.

To expand a bit on what Loudmouth said:

In your example, there would evidence that the rate had changed. If you collected samples of the trees that had been cut, you may be able to find measurable differences between the moisture or chemical composition of the trees which tells you how long ago the tree was cut down. If the guy told you he was cutting 8 trees an hour at one point, you could test it to see if he was telling the truth.

Rates can be tested and there would be evidence if they had changed. As Loudmouth noted, supernovas and the fundamental nuclear forces are some of the strongest pieces of evidence that the rates haven't changed much, if at all.

How can they make sure they have never been contaminated? How do they know no water has soaked through the sample and carried away some of the lead? Or that uranium hadn't escaped through pores in the rock? If the rocks were billions of years old no one would have any clue what had happened over vast amounts of time.

I think you don't have a good understanding of how minerals form. Uranium and lead do not exist as free atoms which can be "washed away" by fluids in the pore space. Often these atoms are tightly bound up in minerals which do not react with water.

the lead in the rock could have been there the whole time. Who is to say that a rock didn't start out with let's say 23 grams of lead already in it?

A given rock sample likely did start with some initial daughter isotope. That's one piece of information that the isochron graph can tell you. We measure the amount of the parent isotope today and the amount of daughter isotope today. Then, we plot the ratios on a graph known as an isochron graph. The y-intercept represents the initial amount of daughter isotope and the age can be calculated from the slope.

We know that some of the measured daughter isotope had to come from decay of the parent isotope because otherwise the isochron graph wouldn't lie on a straight line.

there are other examples as well. A basalt rock was tested in Nigeria. Tested once with potassium-argon that came out to 95 million years and then another test with the uranium-helium method that came out to 750 million years.

Like I said, there was a bit of a debate about the merits of K-Ar dating in the 1960s and 1970s. You're 50 years too late to the debate. It was found that the parent-daughter combination of K-Ar and assumptions related to K-Ar were not valid in specific circumstances (specifically basalts which cooled too quickly).

You think people haven't thought of this stuff already?

in no way does the fossil record back this up.

Explain please.

According to scripture God created flying animals and land animals separately in the creation week.

This was written prior to our scientific understanding of the fossil record, evolutionary theory, etc. They were wrong. It need not destroy your faith. But they were wrong in the literal sense.

I don't find it plausible that all these cultures that share similar stories about dinosaurs and had no contact with each other came up with these depictions by finding fossils.

Well you seem pretty convinced of it. So what?

Like I said, it does nothing to support the literalistic reading of the Genesis story. Evolution won't collapse in on itself if Neogene dinosaur bones are discovered. Its irrelevant. A cultural oddity that may or may not be fabricated, imagined or exaggerated. It would be super cool if it was true but I can't take this sparse sampling of a few stories and pictures as conclusive evidence no more than I can take the sparse sampling of stories about mermaids, or griffins as true.

 

[joshua 1 9]

"Dinosaur" is not the name of a species.

I have a LOT of books around here about the Ghost Ranch. Would you like to go into more details about it? Like I said this is a very significant beginning for creationists because of their carnivorous nature. Edwin H. Colbert is the man that wrote the book on this. The curator at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. Dr. Colbert's field studies in paleontology took him to all seven continents, but he preferred excavations in the southwestern United States. In 1947, while at Ghost Ranch in New Mexico, he unearthed more than a dozen complete skeletons of a primitive dinosaur, coelophysis. It was one of the largest concentrations of dinosaur deposits ever recorded. Edwin H. Colbert helped strengthen the theory of continental drift with his discovery of a dinosaur fossil in Antarctica.

The Coelophysis died in a flood, which has meaning for creationists, but would not be of any significance for evolutionists. Our theory is that Pangea was actually broken up by a flood. This is evidence for that. Gal 5:15 "But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another." This is the first example of God's creation consuming one another.

Coelophysis (/ˌsɛlɵˈfaɪsɨs/ or /ˌsiːlɵˈfaɪsɨs/;pron.:sel-oh-fy-sis or see-low-fy-sis) is an extinctgenus of coelophysidtheropoddinosaur that lived approximately 203 to 196 million years ago during the latter part of the TriassicPeriod in what is now the southwestern United States.[5] It was a small, slenderly-built, ground-dwelling, bipedalcarnivore, that could grow up to 3 m (9.8 ft) long. Coelophysis is one of the earliest known dinosaurgenera. Scattered material representing similar animals has been found worldwide in some Late Triassic and Early Jurassic formations. The type speciesC. bauri, originally given to the genus Coelurus by Edward Drinker Cope in 1887, was described by the latter in 1889. The names Longosaurus and Rioarribasaurus are synonymous with Coelophysis. Another dinosaur genus, Megapnosaurus, has also been considered to be a synonym. This primitive theropod is notable for being one of the most specimen-rich dinosaur genera. wiki

 

[Heissonear]

Usually when people debate against paleontology and evolution it by definition isn't very "in depth". In depth often requires far more education than is available to some people.



It could be because no human bones have ever been found anywhere near dinosaur fossils. Ever.

Furthermore dinosaur bones are often in beds that can be dated and no dinosaur bones have been found that are less than about 65 million years old (with the exception of birds which are likely the result of dinosaur evolution). Furthermore, no human bones have ever been found that are nearly 65 million years old.



It's always sad when one's opinion of the Bible doesn't match reality.



You COULD have possibly given some background or a link for each of the images. But I understand...facts are often unimportant in conversations like this.

See, this is why so many who seek to overturn science fail so badly...they don't even understand the basics of communicating their supposedly devastating evidence.




Well, remember...what am I saying? You don't "remember" things like this because you likely never took a paleontology class! But keep in mind that we don't assume the age based solely on how things are preserved. Indeed we who do science for a living ALWAYS CONTINUE LEARNING NEW THINGS! Unlike folks who want to assume Bible explains everything they need to learn and they need never learn anything new about the world, there IS ongoing investigation into the preservation of some "soft tissues" beyond a million years.

You might like to read this: http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html



Maybe instead of posting stuff like this on the internet you could follow the actual science in that spare time!

Slow down "listen to me I'm a geologist".

Paleontology has zero transition fossil sequences. Zero of "this life form tansitioned to that life form" fossil sequences. That is odd.

With a world full of sedimentary rock and over 600 million years of strata containing fossils, in 600 million years of "data" you have zero transition sequences to place in paleontology texts?

Very odd, yes too odd. Evolution is missing its primary evidence. How odd. Too odd!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Slow down "listen to me I'm a geologist".

Paleontology has zero transition fossil sequences. Zero of "this life form tansitioned to that life form" fossil sequences. That is odd.

With a world full of sedimentary rock and over 600 million years of strata containing fossils, in 600 million years of "data" you have zero transition sequences to place in paleontology texts?

Very odd, yes too odd. Evolution is missing its primary evidence. How odd. Too odd!

It's an old one but a goodie: every fossil is transitional.

 

[Heissonear]

To expand a bit on what Loudmouth said:

In your example, there would evidence that the rate had changed. If you collected samples of the trees that had been cut, you may be able to find measurable differences between the moisture or chemical composition of the trees which tells you how long ago the tree was cut down. If the guy told you he was cutting 8 trees an hour at one point, you could test it to see if he was telling the truth.

Rates can be tested and there would be evidence if they had changed. As Loudmouth noted, supernovas and the fundamental nuclear forces are some of the strongest pieces of evidence that the rates haven't changed much, if at all.



I think you don't have a good understanding of how minerals form. Uranium and lead do not exist as free atoms which can be "washed away" by fluids in the pore space. Often these atoms are tightly bound up in minerals which do not react with water.



A given rock sample likely did start with some initial daughter isotope. That's one piece of information that the isochron graph can tell you. We measure the amount of the parent isotope today and the amount of daughter isotope today. Then, we plot the ratios on a graph known as an isochron graph. The y-intercept represents the initial amount of daughter isotope and the age can be calculated from the slope.

We know that some of the measured daughter isotope had to come from decay of the parent isotope because otherwise the isochron graph wouldn't lie on a straight line.



Like I said, there was a bit of a debate about the merits of K-Ar dating in the 1960s and 1970s. You're 50 years too late to the debate. It was found that the parent-daughter combination of K-Ar and assumptions related to K-Ar were not valid in specific circumstances (specifically basalts which cooled too quickly).

You think people haven't thought of this stuff already?



Explain please.



This was written prior to our scientific understanding of the fossil record, evolutionary theory, etc. They were wrong. It need not destroy your faith. But they were wrong in the literal sense.



Well you seem pretty convinced of it. So what?

Like I said, it does nothing to support the literalistic reading of the Genesis story. Evolution won't collapse in on itself if Neogene dinosaur bones are discovered. Its irrelevant. A cultural oddity that may or may not be fabricated, imagined or exaggerated. It would be super cool if it was true but I can't take this sparse sampling of a few stories and pictures as conclusive evidence no more than I can take the sparse sampling of stories about mermaids, or griffins as true.

You have been educated already that Adam and particularly Eve were created with apparent age.

So did God create the Earth likewise.

If you could have approached Eve a day after she was created she would exhibit apparent age.

It is the same when you look at the Earth. It appears to have natural age.

 

[crjmurray]

Slow down "listen to me I'm a geologist".

Paleontology has zero transition fossil sequences. Zero of "this life form tansitioned to that life form" fossil sequences. That is odd.

With a world full of sedimentary rock and over 600 million years of strata containing fossils, in 600 million years of "data" you have zero transition sequences to place in paleontology texts?

Very odd, yes too odd. Evolution is missing its primary evidence. How odd. Too odd!

You could have just said "I don't know what transitional means".

 

[Heissonear]

It's an old one but a goodie: every fossil is transitional.

Along with your "cope out" mentality.

Have you taken paleontology?

It would be advantageous to place within the text fossil sequences of first-hand evidence showing Evolution in the rock record.

That is too odd, Sir. Millions of years of rock record and plenty of big thick paleontology texts missing first-hand fossil sequences of one creature transitioning into another creature, plain and obvious. Not even one.

Do you expect people to listen to arm-chair experts or the rock record?

 

[joshua 1 9]

It's an old one but a goodie: every fossil is transitional.

All or none, either all the fossils are transitional or none of them are. The only problem is there is no evidence that the fossils within a species are transitional. One example is horse evolution. As much as they try it is very difficult for them to put together a family tree for all the different horse skeletons they have.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Along with your "cope out" mentality.

Have you taken paleontology?

It would be advantageous to place within the text fossil sequences of first-hand evidence showing Evolution in the rock record.

That is too odd, Sir. Millions of years of rock record and plenty of big thick paleontology texts missing first-hand fossil sequences of one creature transitioning into another creature, plain and obvious. Not even one.

Do you expect people to listen to arm-chair experts or the rock record?

Do you even know what you are arguing against?
Have you taken paleontology? Or are you yourself just another arm-chair, internet expert on whatever topic you choose?

 

[Heissonear]

You could have just said "I don't know what transitional means".

Playing games with the fossil record? Yep. You are substituting meaning of words in place of hard cold facts, a fossil transition record. The later you lack and have gamed discussions to compensate for.

That an't going to make it.