Interesting find that further shows the relation between dinosaurs and birds

[Greg Jennings]

Not just wrong but ignorant.*
Ex.
Greg: "Because you're lying for God, I guess?"
So, it was truth?

Greg:"It doesn't say the boldnened words." But the article did say what I had said?

Greg: "Quit making things up.
So, it was actually you who made things up?

Greg: ". I strongly encourage anyone to read it so they can see 6days' truth-twisting in action" However you had not read the article yourself!

Greg: "Did you make something else up now?" Nope

Greg: "And if you were halfway educated
Ad hominem defintion "An attack upon an opponent in order to discredit their arguement or opinion. Ad hominems are used by immature and/or unintelligent people because they are unable to counter their opponent using logic and intelligence." (Urban dictionary)
Actually it is quite consistent with the flood model. You continue arguing against things you don't understand.
Attacking the source is bordering on ad hominem.
What boot? You asked for info on a hat and a bag of flour being fossilized.
Yes... it was you who seemed to doubt that fossilization can happen rapidly.
You can go see them for yourself...Blue Spring Heritage Center
1537 Co Rd 210, Eureka Springs, AR 72632
bluespringheritage@gmail.com

They did.....
The article says "Thus, some set of unique conditions existed in
coastal Peru to permit such unusual preservation"
Ha... Yes, there was some unique condition that rapidly buried whales protecting the bodies from oxidation and scavengers. The whales were not fossilized at the bottom of and ocean as you suggest but instead the secular opinion was that sediments were deposited above storm wave base.
From a guy who has been consistently wrong on everything about fossils, you aren't really in a position to start suggesting others review things.
BTW... The article*suggests that normal conditions would take thousands of years...yet some unique condition buried these whales and other animals in just weeks. The Bible provides the unique situation that would have rapidly buried and preserved billions of dead things everywhere on earth.

Again, I apologize for accusing you of inserting outside info. I was wrong. But you ARE still twisting the truth. Substantially. Let's examine how:

What did the authors of the study attribute the whales' burials to?
More rapid accumulation of phytoplankton than seen in the oceans today

What did they say caused the conditions?
A different ocean environment and chemistry, as evidenced by more intact diatom tests found near the whale remains than seen in today's oceans

Is there any mention of a flood, particularly a global one?
There is talk of storms, but not specifically flooding. Certainly no mention of any event on the global scale

Do the authors say "rapid burial"?
Yes, and they explain that they mean that diatom skeletons gathered around them slowly for weeks to months. By doing this, they absolutely rule out a flood as the cause of burial

Is this evidence for a global flood?
Seeing as the authors don't think so, I don't either.


You have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to understand science. You lecturing me an ability to interpret anything involving geology is, to myself, quite amusing.

Your sources are always very unreliable. The fact that you don't understand WHY credible sources are important underscores your lack of knowledge of science as a whole. The only thing you've demonstrated an ability to do here is repeat statements that are ridiculous and untrue.

Luckily for everyone, real science doesn't concern itself with the inane ramblings of conspiracy theorists. Young Earth creationism was once completely accepted by the scientific community. Then, after centuries of careful gathering of data and observation, everyone realized that the Bible got a lot about Earth's history wrong. And that's why it has been rejected as a hypothesis.

 

[6days]

What did the authors of the study attribute the whales' burials to?
More rapid accumulation of phytoplankton than seen in the oceans today

Yes... rapid burial. They say it could have been weeks. The normal time for that time of sediment would be thousands of years.*

What did they say caused the conditions?
A different ocean environment and chemistry, as evidenced by more intact diatom tests found near the whale remains than seen in today's oceans

Yes... they say unique*
conditions.*

Is there any mention of a flood, particularly a global one?
There is talk of storms, but not specifically flooding. Certainly no mention of any event on the global scale

Of course there is no mention of a global flood...its a secular journal.**

*
Do the authors say "rapid burial"?
Yes, and they explain that they mean that diatom skeletons gathered around them slowly for weeks to months.

Now you are being a snake oil salesman. The word "slowly" is your attempt to sell your beliefs and a rejection of *what the authors say. Perhaps you are still trying to convince yourself that whales get fossilized at the bottom of the ocean.*

By doing this, they absolutely rule out a*flood as the cause of burial

And, what I said is the evidence is consistent with the global flood model. I previously suggested you need to understand what you are arguing both for and against.

You have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to understand science.

I'm glad you are interested in science Greg.

Your sources are always very unreliable.

The majority of of my 'sources' are secular sites such the one about the whales. You are on shaky ground criticizing a source rather than attempting to refute the argument.*

Luckily for everyone, real science doesn't concern itself with the inane ramblings of conspiracy theorists.

Of course. Richard Dawkins "inane ramblings come to mind, but that is likely not what you are thinking of.

Young Earth creationism was once completely accepted by the scientific community.

About 55 years ago there was only a couple scientists brave enough to buck the prevailing paradigm of evolutionism. Today, there are likely tens of thousands of scientists who claim evidence supports Biblical creation. (South Korea, Russia, Australia etc).
However...the number of scientists that support an idea is not always an indication of its truthfulness. The consensus has often been wrong. However, it is exciting that there is a growing body of Bible believing scientists. Its an exciting time as science helps unviel the truth of scripture and the majesty of the Creator.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Yes... rapid burial. They say it could have been weeks. The normal time for that time of sediment would be thousands of years.*
Yes... they say unique*
conditions.*
Of course there is no mention of a global flood...its a secular journal.**
Now you are being a snake oil salesman. The word "slowly" is your attempt to sell your beliefs and a rejection of *what the authors say. Perhaps you are still trying to convince yourself that whales get fossilized at the bottom of the ocean.*
And, what I said is the evidence is consistent with the global flood model. I previously suggested you need to understand what you are arguing both for and against.

I'm glad you are interested in science Greg.
The majority of of my 'sources' are secular sites such the one about the whales. You are on shaky ground criticizing a source rather than attempting to refute the argument.*

Of course. Richard Dawkins "inane ramblings come to mind, but that is likely not what you are thinking of.
About 55 years ago there was only a couple scientists brave enough to buck the prevailing paradigm of evolutionism. Today, there are likely tens of thousands of scientists who claim evidence supports Biblical creation. (South Korea, Russia, Australia etc).
However...the number of scientists that support an idea is not always an indication of its truthfulness. The consensus has often been wrong. However, it is exciting that there is a growing body of Bible believing scientists. Its an exciting time as science helps unviel the truth of scripture and the majesty of the Creator.

A) Slowly buried from weeks to months, as I stated verbatim above, is 100% what happened according to the study. I'm sorry that doesn't jive with your flood

B) The fact that you are still arguing that whales (among hundreds of types of creatures) ARE NOT commonly buried in benthic regions further shows your lack of knowledge on the subject

C) You once cited this article when saying "a pod of whales was buried rapidly. Only a flood could provide these unique conditions." The authors of the study directly contradict your claims. ALL of them.

D) I don't care about Dawkins, and neither does any geologist. He's a biologist turned celebrity, and knows little of the geologic evidence refuting an old Earth. He's a biology guy

E) Once again, all of science used to accept your 6000 year old Earth, THEN after careful observation and gathering of data over decades to centuries, they realized that a 6000 year old Earth was impossible. You keep denying this, but it's damn well documented


I'm sorry, but there is simply no twisting this study to favor your bogus global flood. It couldn't be done by a knowledgable creationist, and it certainly hasn't been done by you

 

[6days]

A) Slowly buried from weeks to months, as I stated verbatim above, is 100% what happened according to the study.

Yes... you slyly stated "slowly".
The article states rapidly.

*I'm sorry that doesn't jive with your flood*

Hmmm..... Greg...Greg...Greg. You really should read a little bit so you have a basic understanding of things you argue for...and against. The whales rapidly buried and fossilized is totally consistent with the flood model. {Clue... in the flood model, how many years did effects from the flood last? (tsunamis, uplift, volcanic activity etc}

B) The fact that you are still arguing that whales (among hundreds of types of creatures) ARE NOT commonly buried in benthic regions further shows your lack of knowledge on the subject*

Greg...Greg...Greg.. Yes, you are really bright. However your comments about fossils have shown quite a bit of ignorance on this topic. Whales do not commonly get fossilized, and certainly not at the bottom *of the ocean as you previously believed. The article, should you care to read it explains what normally happens to a whale carcass.*

C) You once cited this article when saying "a pod of whales was buried rapidly. Only a flood could provide these unique conditions." The authors of the study directly contradict your claims. ALL of them.*

Hmmmmm... me thinks you are now inventing things. I did say "Fossilization normally requires RAPID burial in sediment, protecting the organism from scavengers and oxidation"
And I said "The best evidence is the inerrant truth of scripture... and it (Noah's flood) is the best fit for the physical evidence, of drowned, fossilized dinosaurs. Dinosaurs worldwide according to the secular article appear to have drowned and then rapidly buried in sediment."
I also quote an article saying "The remains of an organism that survive natural biological and physical processes must then become quickly buried by sediments. The probability for an organism to become fossilized increases if it already lives in the sediment , and those on the sea floor are more readily fossilized than those floating or swimming above it. * Catastrophic burial with a rapid influx of sedimentis necessary to preserve delicate complete animals such as crinoids or starfish. "
http://www.fossilmuseum.net/fossilre...silization.htm

D) I don't care about Dawkins, and neither does any geologist.

*
Well you are not a geologist.*
Dawkins was mentioned as an example of of someone whose "inane ramblings" (your words) is not real science.*

E) Once again, all of science used to accept your 6000 year old Earth, THEN after careful observation and gathering of data over decades to centuries, they realized that a 6000 year old Earth was impossible. You keep denying this, but it's damn well documented*

You are not any better with history than you are with geology. Scientists have never universally believed in a young earth. Even Peter in the Bible argues against those who believed in an old earth. *(Epicureans)

There was a time from about 1880 to 1960 though when most Christian scientists had compromised on Genesis. Since 1960, the number of Biblical creationists has grown from two to many thousands. They say that after careful observation and gathering of data over decades to centuries, the evidence best fits a supernatural creation and a global flood. *It is an exciting time to be a Christian discovering the sophisticated complexity in the cell..... discovering the number of stars, with each being unique....and even discoveries of fossil graveyards such as the whales in Peru, and dinosaurs in the Gobi.*

 

[Stripe]

What did the authors of the study ... say?

This is a common Darwinist tactic.

First they demand a Darwinist source to back up an idea, then they demand that the Darwinist source be regarded as utterly true because it was used to support an idea.

This is not how a rational discussion works. Listen to the idea you are presented with and consider the evidence. Stop playing "he said, they said."

 

[6days]

Interesting find that further shows the relation between dinosaurs and birds
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2...ds-mud-dragon/

Wooooo.... PRETTY, PRETTY, PRETTY!! I had not clicked on the link of this pretty dinosaur previously. It's impressive.... but National Geographic is once again promoting a chinese fossil hoax. This fossil had no feathers. The researchers BELIEVE it had feathers based on their belief system.*

Also interesting *is how this fossil is totally consistent with the flood model, and the worldwide pattern of orgsnisms being rapidly buried and preserved in sediment. I had not read this article, but I mentioned previously how dino fossils around the world, are found in the 'drowning pose'...as this fossil is also.*
“It looked like it got trapped in mud, and that’s how it died…. The neck is arched, the head is raised up, like it’s sticking its head above something, and both of the arms are outstretched and to the sides of the body, and so it’s like it’s trying to free itself”.*
https://www.theguardian.com/science...saur-discovered-in-china-tongtianlong-limosus
"In addition to the unusual posture, the skeleton was pristine, with no signs of damage from scavengers or flowing currents. It must have been buried quickly, he noted, in rock that hardened from ancient muck”.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...year-old-chinese-mud-dragon-dinosaur-use-tnt/

 

[Greg Jennings]

This is a common Darwinist tactic.

First they demand a Darwinist source to back up an idea, then they demand that the Darwinist source be regarded as utterly true because it was used to support an idea.

This is not how a rational discussion works. Listen to the idea you are presented with and consider the evidence. Stop playing "he said, they said."

Seeing as I, the dreaded Darwinist, provided the source, I can't see how your statement applies in the slightest

Try to keep up :up:

 

[Greg Jennings]

Wooooo.... PRETTY, PRETTY, PRETTY!! I had not clicked on the link of this pretty dinosaur previously. It's impressive.... but National Geographic is once again promoting a chinese fossil hoax. This fossil had no feathers. The researchers BELIEVE it had feathers based on their belief system.*

Also interesting *is how this fossil is totally consistent with the flood model, and the worldwide pattern of orgsnisms being rapidly buried and preserved in sediment. I had not read this article, but I mentioned previously how dino fossils around the world, are found in the 'drowning pose'...as this fossil is also.*
“It looked like it got trapped in mud, and that’s how it died…. The neck is arched, the head is raised up, like it’s sticking its head above something, and both of the arms are outstretched and to the sides of the body, and so it’s like it’s trying to free itself”.*
https://www.theguardian.com/science...saur-discovered-in-china-tongtianlong-limosus
"In addition to the unusual posture, the skeleton was pristine, with no signs of damage from scavengers or flowing currents. It must have been buried quickly, he noted, in rock that hardened from ancient muck”.https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...year-old-chinese-mud-dragon-dinosaur-use-tnt/

Well you managed to screw up the link with the photo of the skeleton. I'll post it again here, some quick scrolling down is needed to see the correct photo, and not the artist rendition: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...torosaurs-extinction-fossil-birds-mud-dragon/

The bones that make its "arms" are fairly obviously wings, as most people can tell by the lack of normal arm anatomy

Leave it to a creationist to deny a simple, provable fact

 

[6days]

Well you managed to screw up the link with the photo of the skeleton.

No..... National Geographic screwed up by putting lipstick on a pig....I mean feathers on a fossil to promote their belief that dino's evolved into birds. Dr Brusatte claims this fossil is 72 million years old... yet birds with perfect feathers existed 70 million years earlier than this according to evolutionists. Why would they misrepresent their findings?

Its interesting though that this fossil fits the world wide pattern of dinosaur fossils with their head thrown up, as if gasping for air as it was trapped and buried in sediment.

 

[Greg Jennings]

No..... National Geographic screwed up by putting lipstick on a pig....I mean feathers on a fossil to promote their belief that dino's evolved into birds.

Are you denying that the skeleton, showing wing bones, is shown in the natgeo link?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...d-dragon-fossil/02-mud-dragon.adapt.768.1.jpg

Dr Brusatte claims this fossil is 72 million years old...yet birds with perfect feathers existed 70 million years earlier than this according to evolutionists. Why would they misrepresent their findings?

I'm pretty sure you got your timeline of when birds are thought to have evolved wrong, but I'm not positive on that. I believe they were Cretaceous though, and that would make them somewhere around 60-100 my.

Regardless, I can't say I see any problem here. Are you saying that because birds existed, winged dinosaurs could not have existed at the same time? Why?

Its interesting though that this fossil fits the world wide pattern of dinosaur fossils with their head thrown up, as if gasping for air as it was trapped and buried in sediment.

Not so shockingly, most dinosaurs are preserved in floods. This is well understood by scientists, and your repeated insisting that it isn't is silly. Meanwhile.....still no evidence ever found for a worldwide flood

 

[Stripe]

Seeing as I, the dreaded Darwinist, provided the source, I can't see how your statement applies in the slightest Try to keep up :up:

I'm afraid your anecdote doesn't do anything to refute the truth about Darwinist tactics.

They are utterly committed to irrational nonsense because they refuse to accept simple truths.

 

[Jonahdog]

Seeing as I, the dreaded Darwinist, provided the source, I can't see how your statement applies in the slightest

Try to keep up :up:

Is a "dreaded Darwinist" somehow related to "The Dread Pirate Roberts'?

 

[Jonahdog]

I'm afraid your anecdote doesn't do anything to refute the truth about Darwinist tactics.

They are utterly committed to irrational nonsense because they refuse to accept simple truths.

Once again Stripey breaks the irony meter on my laptop. I suspect that this time I will just not bother to replace it.

 

[Stripe]

Once again Stripey breaks the irony meter on my laptop. I suspect that this time I will just not bother to replace it.

Sorry. Only one side is constantly reaching for obvious logical fallacies. And that would be the evolutionists.

They seem to think that because they do not like opposing ideas, they must be wrong. That's great, but if you're going to engage in discussion over ideas, you have to bring more to the table than nonsense.

Case in point: This post presents evidence, to which the response has been nothing but gobbledygook.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Sorry. Only one side is constantly reaching for obvious logical fallacies. And that would be the evolutionists.

They seem to think that because they do not like opposing ideas, they must be wrong. That's great, but if you're going to engage in discussion over ideas, you have to bring more to the table than nonsense.

Case in point: This post presents evidence, to which the response has been nothing but gobbledygook.

In that post you ignored many questions posed to you by the user that you quoted. I guess that's just you running for the hills again :chuckle:

Anyway, how can you prove that these animals died in a worldwide flood? We've never seen anything close to approaching that scale, so why would this not just be a simple flash flood? Or maybe, if you're lucky, it would be a huge regional flood or a tsunami, but nothing ever found is "worldwide" in terms of flooding.


Tell me, why have no humans and dinosaurs ever been found in the same rock strata? (If you're going to mention those painfully obvious hoax tracks from Glen Rose, don't)

 

[6days]

Are you denying that the skeleton, showing wing bones, is shown in the natgeo link?

They may be wing bones Greg.... I wouldn't know. The article says the fossil is birdlike. Feathers though is a misrepresentation based on the belief dinosaurs evolved into birds. Bats are birdlike and don't have feathers. Penguins seem less birdlike in some ways yet they are birds that do have 'feathers'.*


As someone once said "Everybody knows fossils are fickle; bones will sing any song you want to hear."*

I'm pretty sure you got your timeline of when birds are thought to have evolved wrong, but I'm not positive on that.

According to Wiki, archaeopteryx lived 150 million years ago, and had "advanced" feathers.*

Regardless, I can't say I see any problem here. Are you saying that because birds existed, winged dinosaurs could not have existed at the same time?

Birds and dinosaurs did exist together. *There is no evidence of evolution of feathers. *It seems the evidence is drawings in National Geographic.*

Not so shockingly, most dinosaurs are preserved in floods.

Really? The thing is there are dozens of floods every year and we don't see a pattern of fossils starting to form after these floods. We certainly don't see large creatures like elephants and whales being fossilized by a flood. Jellyfish are not fossilized in normal floods. What is required is large amounts of sediment and water. The global flood model of world wide volcanic activity...fountains of the deep opening... provides the means of rapid burial in sediment...preservation...fossilization. The birdlike creature trapped in sediment is one more piece of evidence supporting the global flood. *

 

[Stripe]

In that post you ignored many questions posed to you by the user that you quoted.

Nope.

He posed a single question: Where is the evidence?

I answered in great detail.

The response from the Darwinists was to run for the hills and then lie about the nature of my involvement.

Seriously, the record is right there. Why would you make this absurd claim?

I guess that's just you running for the hills again

How can you prove that these animals died in a worldwide flood?

Evidence. We consider evidence. That's how science works. Evolutionists want nothing to do with it so they'll say anything to avoid it.

We've never seen anything close to approaching that scale.

Therefore, something. :idunno:

Why would this not just be a simple flash flood?

Flash floods erode. They never result in rocks being formed.

Or maybe, if you're lucky, it would be a huge regional flood or a tsunami, but nothing ever found is "worldwide" in terms of flooding.

Tsunami also erode only. No rock-making involved.

Tell me, why have no humans and dinosaurs ever been found in the same rock strata?

They have. There's a great example at Glen Rose. :thumb:

 

[Jose Fly]

It's always fascinating to see someone apply the anti-scientific framework: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record".

They may be wing bones Greg.... I wouldn't know. The article says the fossil is birdlike. Feathers though is a misrepresentation based on the belief dinosaurs evolved into birds.

And why is it a misrepresentation? Because dino-bird evolution "contradicts the scriptural record", which means it is invalid "by definition"! See how easy that is?

And intellectually dishonest?

*There is no evidence of evolution of feathers. *It seems the evidence is drawings in National Geographic.*

And here we see 6days' view of science and the scientists who conduct it. He truly believes there is zero evidence...none, nada, zip...for the evolution of feathers and that scientists apparently just sit around making up stories and nothing else. No data, no analyses....just make up stories even though there's a complete absence of evidence.

So the question becomes, is 6days really that delusional, or is he just that dishonest? Your pick.

 

[6days]

And why is it a misrepresentation?(To draw this fossil with pretty feathers)

Why was Haeckels drawings fraudulent?

Because dino-bird evolution "contradicts the scriptural record", which means it is invalid "by definition"!

Thats a strawman... another one.

There is no reason from scripture that a dino could not have feathers. But there was no evidence this particular fossil had feathers. It may or may not have been a bird. The reason from the evolutionist side to draw feathers where none exist is to proselytize... as in the title of this thread.*

 

[Jose Fly]

Why was Haeckels drawings fraudulent?

Completely unrelated and a rather stupid attempt to evade on your part.

Thats a strawman... another one.

Apparently that's just something you say out of pure reflex. Here is exactly what you said...

"Feathers though is a misrepresentation based on the belief dinosaurs evolved into birds"

...just as I depicted.

there was no evidence this particular fossil had feathers. It may or may not have been a bird.

Yes there is. You're just too lazy and/or dishonest to look.

The reason from the evolutionist side to draw feathers where none exist is to proselytize... as in the title of this thread.*

Another manifestation of your ridiculous understanding of science. You really do think scientists just sit around making up stories even though there's no evidence for them, all in an effort to proselytize.

How delusional.