Scientist fired from university after discovering dinosaur bones believed to be only 4,000 Years Old

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: AlphaHawk
One problem with that, the bones would've needed to be buried where there is running water for them to become fossils, historically people used all of a creature that they killed and ate.

having to be near running water for diagenetic process to occur is untrue. In fact, running water would more easily disperse remains and contribute to more rapid decay making diagenetic permineralization much less likely. The reason we have more marine based fossils is that when an organism that spends its life in water expires, its remains will sink to the bottom where colder temperature and a more anaerobic environment drastically slow down the decomposition process.

There are five general types of fossilization:
• carbonized soft tissue
• diagenetically mineralized three-dimensional tissue
• tissue outlines
• carbonized refractory tissue
• originally mineralized tissue, i.e., shell and bone.


The only "requirements" for fossilization to occur is expiration and decomposition

So, it would be rare for butchered fossils to be found of any creature, not just dinosaurs and it's relatively rare for fossils to be created anyways.

This too is rather inaccurate. We have plenty of fossils that show signs of butchering including the cannibalized remains of H. Neanderthal. Even going back 100 MYA vor more, there are plenty of fossilized dinosaur remains with signs of being eaten with large serrated teeth as well as remains of prey with T-Rex teeth still embedded in the bones of its herbivorous snack.
www.theguardian.com...

news.nationalgeographic.com...

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
None of that has anything at all to do with how they date the Earth. It's mostly done through geneologies taken from the Bible.

Maybe I am missing something, what exactly does that word have to do with the topic? Also you did not specify the exact word and verse in Genesis. Can you please do so.

yes. that is true but they mistakenly think that adam was created when the earth was made. that is not so. the earth was billions of years old when adam was made and adam wasn't even the first man. by my faith and by theirs the bible is divinely inspired and inerrant when translated properly.

when you believe the bible is inerrant and you see something in it that on the face of it is a blatant contradiction to either itself or properly understood science then you have figure either the Bible or science is being misunderstood.

In addition the confusion about when the earth was created there is a confusion about when Mankind was created. genesis says two thing if you take the english translation as correct. it says adam was created on the sixth day and it says in the next chapter he was created after the sabbath or the eighth day. so Adam was born on two separate mutually exclusive days. In english you now have a very big problem because if you have any capacity to think about it at all and aren't trancing when the preacher hollers it at you; you know something is wrong there. of course most people don't even notice that there is an issue.

anyway if you go back into the original language you will see that the Adm in the sixth day has an impersonal meaning meaning the word adam there means mankind. and the eighth day creation of man has a personal article; meaning it is talking about a man named adam. Adam there means the man with a specific set of traits different from the preceding men created on the sixth day. Adam also means ruddy complected; to blush visibly; to bring blood to the face. Mind you; God called the sixth day created man not only good but very good so there is no room for prejudice here. So if you think about it when cain fled and married he married a sixth day woman. The land of Nod (there were actually many lands of Nod) was built by 6th day men.

and note the word day is not a day and it is not necessarily 1000 years. the word has many meaning; including aeons, epochs, ages.

originally posted by: DuckforcoveR
a reply to: helius

Dark ages indeed. Political agenda indeed. We live in a country where a group of people who truly believe things that others see as nonsense get to write their nonsense in public school text books...

Which group of people are you talking about here?
The "scientists" who have a political, financial agenda or the "creationists" who have a political and financial agenda?
Dogma is Dogma no matter who is spewing it.

One thing that always grinds my gears is how both sides of the debate sneer and look down their noses at the other. The childish names and insults to the intelligence fly both ways along with the blind faith in their cannon.

Personally I think they are both wrong. I do not buy the science that states flatly as if it is beyond doubt that the age of the Universe not just the Earth is "about" X! BS you have no way to prove one way or the other that to be the case. Nor can you say with exact definitive certainty that the Earth is X years old or that fossils are X years old. When you really look at the evidence you will see that these things are all based on assumptions. Those assumptions begin well up the chain and in some cases across different professional fields. If those assumptions are incorrect then entire structures will fall. Fossils are dated by relying heavily on stratification tables and ranges. Well if those tables are incorrect then the fossil dates are incorrect and so forth.

I am of the opinion that we are not as smart as we think we are regarding the age of antiquity, human ancestry and the overlapping of geological ages.
Regarding the age of the universe….we don’t even have a proper frame of reference to measure it. We are looking at it through a window pane. A glass called the Heilopause, The limit of the Solar bubble. That alters everything we see. Imagine being a fish in a fish tank that you cant ever swim out of. You would be certain that water was everywhere since all of your local measurements indicated the presence of water.
Face it folks we are limited in what we can know at this time.

Creationism debunked again

AAC

I think the 2nd post shows that the headline is false - so doesn't this belong in Hoax?

a reply to: Deaf Alien


So light is just like me! I am older now, and much slower......Makes perfect sense to me. Tired light!

actually i think we now have DNA technology that can handle reassembling badly degraded and fragmented DNA if there is a large enough sample. so if under certain circumstances tissue is preserved that is a pretty good thing. particularly since useful DNA is conserved in speciation. theoretically you can see what 90+ percent of the genome is supposed to look like in related animals. and since the same disjunctions do not occur on different pieces of DNA you could interpolate the rest.

towards the end of the genome project a technique called the shotgun technique came on line that worked on fragments of the DNA. that was over a decade ago. the State of the art has advanced even above that achievement.
Should be able to sequence any dino DNA we find. or moa DNA or whatever.

once we have that we should be able to work on reconstructing a complete dino genome, plant that into a surrogate clonal cell and either find a living surrogate or create an artificial gestation environment. Goat embryos have been gestated in a fancy fish tank. it's not much of a stretch beyond that to think we can artificially gestate other creatures.

a reply to: Dragoon01

You have some points, but unless you are going to say that carbon dating and other forms of dating are bunk, then you have to accept a certain amount of accuracy regarding the aging of strata. It isn't as you say. Strata can have carbon in it which can be dated, there are also other methods for dating, it's not shoot from the hip take a wild assed guess as you imply. There is sound scientific basis for the dating of strata. Strata is dated based on the specific location. In other words, the exposed layer in one area is not necessarily a match for another area. You cannot date strata in California, for instance, the same way you date strata in Montana. There are different geologic processes in play, presently and in the past at the edge of a tectonic plate as compared to the craton.

How the universe is dated, not being an astrophysicist, is beyond my ken so I will not speak of it. With regards to dating strata I can provide a good bit of information on how it is done, if you are interested.

It is all really a matter of believing what you see ... or seeing what you believe.

That ellipsis separates reason from madness ...

(or perhaps science from religion, if I must be nice.)

Clicked on the thread thinking. Oh this could be interesting. Then read the thread. And its just a dishonest scientist trying to make the science fit his preconceived beliefs. The life of an ATS member is always full of peril and misclicks. Oh well on to the next interesting thread.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

"and note the word day is not a day and it is not necessarily 1000 years. the word has many meaning; including aeons, epochs, ages. "

So, a day means say whatever it takes to wriggle out of uncomfortable facts? Got it. No but hang on. You are right. A day can be 24hrs, or it could be 8.64e+13 nanoseconds!

originally posted by: bbracken677
a reply to: Dragoon01

You have some points, but unless you are going to say that carbon dating and other forms of dating are bunk, then you have to accept a certain amount of accuracy regarding the aging of strata. It isn't as you say. Strata can have carbon in it which can be dated, there are also other methods for dating, it's not shoot from the hip take a wild assed guess as you imply. There is sound scientific basis for the dating of strata. Strata is dated based on the specific location. In other words, the exposed layer in one area is not necessarily a match for another area. You cannot date strata in California, for instance, the same way you date strata in Montana. There are different geologic processes in play, presently and in the past at the edge of a tectonic plate as compared to the craton.

How the universe is dated, not being an astrophysicist, is beyond my ken so I will not speak of it. With regards to dating strata I can provide a good bit of information on how it is done, if you are interested.

dating of the universe is done by multiple tracks but the primary ones are the rate of expansion and the speed of light. if you reverse the expansion you can calculate how long the universe would take to shrink back into a singularity. likewise by looking at the most distant things we can see and gauging the distance to standard candles along the way you can determine how long it takes for the light from those first stellar objects to reach us. also additional tracks involve the cosmic background radiation and the degree of curvature of space time. when you have a theory like the big bang and your measurements and observations match it for the parts you can test and what you can test increases over time with the state of the art and the new data continues to match the formerly untested parts of the theory you can be pretty confident the rest of the so far unobserved portions will match that theory too.

TL;DR: in other words the big bang fits all the way to the first few minutes of creation and it is likely the theory is accurate for that remaining unobserved time.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Unfortunately this doesn't appear to be genetic material. There might be some misconception on what they are referring to as "soft tissue" in this case, as it does not appear to be animal tissue at all, but carbonaceous material retaining the imprint of cell structures. This part of the fossil was not replaced completely by minerals as typically found.

BiffT offered a good explanation in his post from page one

The good scientist in question is basing his age estimate on this fossil in the mistaken belief carbonaceous material could not possibly last millions of years, but that also has been proven false by other such finds.

originally posted by: jamdan
a reply to: stormbringer1701

"and note the word day is not a day and it is not necessarily 1000 years. the word has many meaning; including aeons, epochs, ages. "

So, a day means say whatever it takes to wriggle out of uncomfortable facts? Got it. No but hang on. You are right. A day can be 24hrs, or it could be 8.64e+13 nanoseconds!

cute. No; its a fact of the language it was written in. The word in hebrew has multiple meanings. people fluent in hebrew ancient dialects are not confused in the same way japanese are not confused when thier name is composed of the kanji for Phosphorus. a Japanese reader will not think you are referring to a chemical when you mean the name of a young fictional girl named Rin Kagamine. a Japanese will not miss the meaning of articles and particles attached to a word either like hebrew example: Eth ha adam as opposed to eth adam.

The Word of God was not authored in English but in Hebrew, Chaldee, Aramaic and Greek. Sometimes it is impossible to transliterate with 100 percent conservation of the meaning; even between living contemporary languages let alone ancient ones to modern ones. Many Hebrew words have a list of meanings a quarter of a page long. context and articles and stress marks are necessary to determine which meaning was implied. The KJV editors did the best they could but they were imperfect in their understanding of Hebrew; etc. The Original editions of the KJV included a prefatory letter To the King (and the reader) that explains where they had difficult choices and their reasons for making the choices they did when there was a questionable call on their part.

a reply to: AnAbsoluteCreation

Here's what I don't get. When I look at a star that's seven
light years away. I'm only seeing the light it gave off seven
years ago. Doesn't this mean that we see very little of the
universe in real time?

originally posted by: Blackmarketeer
a reply to: stormbringer1701

Unfortunately this doesn't appear to be genetic material. There might be some misconception on what they are referring to as "soft tissue" in this case, as it does not appear to be animal tissue at all, but carbonaceous material retaining the imprint of cell structures. This part of the fossil was not replaced completely by minerals as typically found.

BiffT offered a good explanation in his post from page one

The good scientist in question is basing his age estimate on this fossil in the mistaken belief carbonaceous material could not possibly last millions of years, but that also has been proven false by other such finds.

well if we ever do in some special environment like oxygen-less, proper Ph silt at the bottom of a cave somewhere we could do something with it if we ever did find DNA. alternatively you could regress a successor species. you can force chicken embryos to develop teeth for example. try that with an emu or ostrich. Genes are conserved so you would need to make very few changes to a suitable host in order to recreate a true dino. Speaking of ratites; Moa feathers have been found with DNA at the nib. we could do a moa and inject it into a prepared emu or ostrich egg.

originally posted by: AlphaHawk
a reply to: rickymouse


And as for dragon/dinosaur meat...where are the fossils showing butchering marks on them?

ground up for medicine?

they used everything but the roar.

originally posted by: AnAbsoluteCreation
I asked a creationist if he believed that scientists know the speed of light. He said sure. I said how can we see light from 200 million years ago if we've only been here 6,000?

He didn't have a rebuttal.

AAC.

easy, the earth was created 6000ya, not the universe. right?

i am not a young earther.

originally posted by: R_Clark

www.christianpost.com...

Thanks for posting christianpost as the first source. Once I saw that, lost interests right away. Spared me of a unnecessary waist of time.

originally posted by: jamdan
a reply to: stormbringer1701

"and note the word day is not a day and it is not necessarily 1000 years. the word has many meaning; including aeons, epochs, ages. "

So, a day means say whatever it takes to wriggle out of uncomfortable facts? Got it. No but hang on. You are right. A day can be 24hrs, or it could be 8.64e+13 nanoseconds!

so you are a bible literalist?

evolution fanbois say, that if you throw enough time at something, you get what you want.