Dinosaurs

[The Barbarian]

Interestingly, Nick's link, although it doesn't support the idea of tissue surviving (individual cells might have), it does add another bit of evidence showing that birds evolved from dinosaurs:

Ours, OB 7.3 was selected for only one epitope out of thousands, and that epitope is, so far as it has been tested by the primary researchers, only reactive to osteoctyes from birds. It has been tested against bird osteoblasts, cells on the same lineage as osteocytes, and does not react, and it does not react with osteocytes from non avian taxa tested. So it is the selective specificity of the antibody for bird osteocytes that is important. We are not saying birds and dinos are the only ones that have the protein, but because the sequence is inherited, it has different ‘shapes’ in each group and the ‘shape’ this antibody binds seems to be unique to bird osteocytes in living taxa.”
http://www.nature.com/news/molecula...ontroversial-claim-for-dinosaur-cells-1.11637

This brings up the remote hope that fragments of dinosaur DNA might have somehow survived. If that turns out to be true, I predict another devastating blow to creationism, with the DNA confirming the findings from dinosaur proteins.

Survival of organic material, and perhaps even cells, seems to be increasingly a nightmare for creationists.

 

[Alate_One]

You are like a child that sees what they want to see in a picture. The rest of us adults that prefer reality look at the tail and know it isn't a rhino. But that's because YEC's like us are just more honest than you.

I think you just pegged the irony meter.
Take a look at the image in context.

Spoiler

Note the carvings above and below the one in question have stylized leaves behind the creature. What makes more sense, that the image is a stegosaurus (which it doesn't really look like anyway) or the "plates" are just stylized leaves. Also note the creature at the bottom which looks quite fanciful.

Here's an Article on the subject

 

[Kdall]

This brings up the remote hope that fragments of dinosaur DNA might have somehow survived. If that turns out to be true, I predict another devastating blow to creationism, with the DNA confirming the findings from dinosaur proteins.

That's the first step to Jurassic Park. Even creationists would enjoy that, right?

 

[Stripe]

And that nasty little thorn in your side of radiometric dating. You gonna go through that again?

Rock layers are almost never dated by radiometric methods.

 

[Alate_One]

Rock layers are almost never dated by radiometric methods.

Really? Is that why there are so many articles on radiometric dating of rocks?

Is this a lie then?

 

[Kdall]

Rock layers are almost never dated by radiometric methods.

lol

 

[Stripe]

Really? Is that why there are so many articles on radiometric dating of rocks?

:yawn:

Feel free to respond to what I said instead of what you wish I'd said. :up:

Is this a lie then?

It's a representation of a worldview that does not fit with reality.

 

[Alate_One]

It's a representation of a worldview that does not fit with reality.

Rock layers are a worldview? :chuckle:

Do you deny that igneous and metamorphic layers of rock can be subjected to radiometric dating (and are)?

 

[Stripe]

Rock layers are a worldview? Do you deny that igneous and metamorphic layers of rock can be subjected to radiometric dating (and are)?

Try to respond to what I say, not what you wish I would say. :up:

 

[Alate_One]

Try to respond to what I say, not what you wish I would say. :up:

Maybe you could try to, for once, actually have a discussion? Maybe you just don't know what one is. Part of it normally involves explaining yourself. :chuckle:

But while we're at it . . . why can we get high enough quality DNA from Mammoths and many ancient human skeletons, but not from dinosaur bones?

If they all died in the same event they should be the same, right?

 

[Jose Fly]

Maybe you could try to, for once, actually have a discussion?

Huh....it's almost like there's a pattern. :think:

 

[User Name]

Man did not call them dinosaurs, the heathen did. Man called them dragons.

What type of creature is a heathen?

 

[Stripe]

Maybe you could try to, for once, actually have a discussion? Maybe you just don't know what one is. Part of it normally involves explaining yourself.

What's to explain? I said rock strata are almost never dated radiometrically; they are dated by fossil content and the rules of superposition.

Telling me that there are lots of articles on radiometric dating is utterly unresponsive.

But while we're at it . . . why can we get high enough quality DNA from Mammoths and many ancient human skeletons, but not from dinosaur bones?

Because the former are typically found in limestone or permafrost, while the latter are generally permineralized.

If they all died in the same event they should be the same, right?

Remember what I said about you bringing a simplistic, unthinking attitude toward flood mechanics? You need to expand the breadth of your thinking when considering a position that is not your own. Otherwise, you can stick with your blinkered evolutionism.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Try to respond to what I say, not what you wish I would say. :up:

What Stripe actually said:

Rock layers are almost never dated by radiometric methods.

Note the use of the word "almost." This is used by Stripe to justify ignoring any and all comments regarding radiometric dating of rock layers. "Almost never dated" is not the same as "Never dated" so Stripe wins a point for semantics but loses a point for intellectual integrity.

 

[Stripe]

What Stripe actually said:

Note the use of the word "almost." This is used by Stripe to justify ignoring any and all comments regarding radiometric dating of rock layers. "Almost never dated" is not the same as "Never dated" so Stripe wins a point for semantics but loses a point for intellectual integrity.

Stay out of this, troll. :troll: They both read and comprehended what I said. The problem is the Darwinists' rabid zero-concession policy.

 

[6days]

The fossil record shows no mammals larger than a weasel in the same geological strata as dinosaurs

Then...

We have fossils of dinosaur remains inside the stomachs of some of these tiny mammals.

So animals the size of weasels had itsy bitsy dinosaurs in their tummies?

I think you should take your own advice..."Your lack of knowledge on dinosaurs is somewhat more disturbing... If you do not know what you are talking about, it would suit you not to act like you do."*

BTW... there are no 30 pound weasels.*

 

[CabinetMaker]

Stay out of this, troll. :troll: They both read and comprehended what I said. The problem is the Darwinists' rabid zero-concession policy.

You made a claim. They challenged your claim and you refuse to respond to those challenges. In this case, it is your rabid zero-concession policy that is on display.

 

[Jose Fly]

I don't understand the point about mammals and dinosaurs co-existing. Mammals and reptiles diverged millions of years before the dinosaurs went extinct, so finding mammal and dinosaur fossils in the same strata is expected.

 

[King cobra]

What's to explain? I said rock strata are almost never dated radiometrically; they are dated by fossil content and the rules of superposition.

I once visited a major "natural history" museum with a group of students. We came upon a lab setting behind a glass partition designed to allow the public to observe technicians working on various fossils and such. One technician was carefully picking away at a grayish looking clump.
One student asked aloud, "What is that?"
The technician, being able to hear through the glass answered, "It's a 70 million year-old dinosaur egg."
"How do you know it's 70 million years old?"
"Because it was found in a 70 million year-old layer of earth."
"How do you know that layer of earth is 70 million years old?"
"Because we found this 70 million year-old dinosaur egg in it."

Sad but true story!

 

[TracerBullet]

What's to explain? I said rock strata are almost never dated radiometrically; they are dated by fossil content and the rules of superposition.

a completely unsupported claim

Telling me that there are lots of articles on radiometric dating is utterly unresponsive.

no it's responsive - you just didn't like the fact that it highlighted the fact that your original claim is unsupported.

Because the former are typically found in limestone or permafrost, while the latter are generally permineralized.

I thought they all died in the flood

Remember what I said about you bringing a simplistic, unthinking attitude toward flood mechanics? You need to expand the breadth of your thinking when considering a position that is not your own. Otherwise, you can stick with your blinkered evolutionism.

Unthinking is a feature of creationism