close
    Nonfosilized dinosaur found? How can this be? Evolution claims it should be 70 Million years old.

    This is a short read check it out, just more proof evolution isn't what it's cracked up to be.


    I have put up several different threads on the same subject, opposing views to the theory of evolution.


    http://www.creationresearch.org/


    Seriously, evolution just doesn't add up.


    I just want people to understand that there are other scientific views outside of evolution, so many people think that evolution is fact, when it truly isn't. There are many different views to consider on any one subject, before coming to a conclusion.

    0  Views: 1184 Answers: 15 Posted: 7 years ago
    Grit Savage

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/fossils_ruins/paleontology/


    Try reading some proper news on paleontology! the creationist website is good for a laugh but you shouldn't take it seriously! :-)

    leeroy

    Maybe evolution can explain how mermaids and unicorns evolved to us as well?

    leeroy

    lol, maybe papa?

    papa peg

    Did the carbon dating machine come with the dinosaur.

    15 Answers

    Evolution--"The Human Brain has not evolved much in the past Million years" -Desmond Morris (famed Anthropologist/Zoologist, who studies man as the animal.

    Leeroy sweetie you are going to have to quit reading the crap stuff okay bud.
    leeroy

    I really like to read the different type things about UFO's and Bigfoot, just helps keep me open minded.LOL
    Darci13

    Openminded or headed for the looney bin minded LOL

    deleting comments you don't agree with leeroy?? that's just not cricket!


    as i said before, this is a proper peer reviewed page/site on paleontology, unlike the rather laughable creationist website. enjoy your read :-)


    http://www.sciencedaily.com/news/fossils_ruins/paleontology/

    leeroy

    Sorry, was an accident, my laptops mouse is going loco on me, I have to take it into the shop. It clicks when I don't click and so on... Wasn't personal. Just gremlins.

    leeroy

    Yes, I check out the website, has good deal of info., thanks.

    is there no link?

    leeroy

    oh thanks, give me a minute. O.k got it up top...

    There are many short comings in the evolution theory, the millions and millions of years I think is pretty far off from the truth. If you like the questions and answers please leave a comment, even if you dislike it. Thanks a lot.

    Men and Dinosaurs Coexisted


    Dinosaurs are often portrayed as having lived in a time before man. However, the available evidence shows that man and dinosaur coexisted.


    Legends of dragons are found among most people groups. For example, there are the stories of Bel and the dragon, the Kulta of Australian aborigines, St. George and the dragon, and of course many Chinese legends. Often, the anatomical descriptions given are consistent, even though they come from separate continents and various times. These depictions match what we know from the fossil evidence of certain dinosaurs. Thus, dinosaurs are known directly from their fossils, and indirectly from cave drawings, tapestries, textiles, figurines, carvings, bas reliefs, and many oral and written eyewitness accounts, most of which are quite old.


    The Bible states that “every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind” was created by God on Day Six of the creation week (Genesis 1:25)—including dinosaurs. On this same day, the first man and woman were also created (Genesis 1:26-27). Over 1,600 years later, Genesis 8:15 records that a pair of each land-dwelling animal “wherein is the breath of life”—again including dinosaurs—were taken aboard an ark that would have held over 101,000 square feet of floor space. This ensured that a remnant would be preserved through the worldwide watery destruction that fossilized many pre-Flood dinosaurs.


    The book of Job refers to a creature called behemoth. With a massive size and a tail like a cedar tree, its description matches that of a sauropod dinosaur. God calls it to Job’s attention with the words, “Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee” (Job 40:15). Thus, this statement affirms that both behemoth and man were made on the same day. Ezekiel, James, and Paul refer to the book of Job, authenticating its reliably historical testimony.


    The fact that dinosaur femur soft tissues have been described as “still squishy” and contain recognizable blood cells also confirms the recency of dinosaur fossil deposition. Science continues to demonstrate that dinosaurs did not predate humans, and that dinosaur kinds did not go extinct (if they all have) until after the Flood, which occurred only thousands of years ago.

    Utah Dinosaur Petroglyph Disputed
    by Brian Thomas, M.S. * http://www.icr.org/


    Underneath a spectacular rock formation in Natural Bridges National Monument in Utah is a rock carving that resembles a sauropod dinosaur. The petroglyph has been presented as evidence supporting the biblical creation model prediction that man and dinosaurs lived together. In a new report, researchers claim to "discredit" this interesting artifact. How successful was their effort?


    Sauropods, such as Diplodocus, were dinosaurs that walked on four feet. According to the evolution-assigned ages of the rock layers in which their fossils are found, sauropods died out 65 million years ago.1 Thus, there should be no evidence of any kind that humans, who supposedly arrived on earth about two million years ago, interacted with long-dead dinosaurs.2


    Evolutionary biologist Phil Senter was initially impressed with what he saw in Utah. He told Discovery News, "We got there and I couldn't believe it. It looked just like a sauropod."3 However, he co-authored a paper in the online journal Paleontologica Electronica that asserts the sauropod-like image is not what it appears to be. Instead, Senter and western glyph expert Sally Cole wrote that it is "a composite of two separate petroglyphs" and that its apparent "legs" were created by a mud or mineral stain.4 They claimed that this artifact is now officially discredited, which of course would be good news for evolution's "dinosaur age" and bad news for the creation model of earth history. Fortunately, since the "methods" used in this study involved mostly just looking at the artifact, virtually anyone can cross-check these authors' observations.


    Also fortunately, Institute for Creation Research IT Manager Daryl Robbins documented this petroglyph during a mission trip to an area Navajo reservation in the summer of 2010. Do his photographs accompanying this article support the new claim that what looks like a sauropod is actually a combination of a snake and a stain?


    To make this and similar rock-carved images, ancient natives used an object to chip away original rock material in a process called "pecking," which leaves behind tiny divots. Senter and Cole stated, "The 'legs' are not part of the image and are not pecked or otherwise human-made but are stains of mud or some light-colored mineral on the irregular surface."4 As their sketch below shows, they maintain that what looks like a dinosaur is really a snake glyph with a stain below it.


    However, peck marks extend down into the presumed body of this petroglyph, even extending down into the area where front legs should be. Their sketch shows a snake or tube, but where in the actual glyph is the line for the snake's belly, where the pecking should stop and the stains start? For that matter, perhaps the artist was depicting the creature in its natural watery habitat, which would obscure the legs. If so, then this would lend even more credibility to the sauropod interpretation of the glyph.


    The body and some leg-area pecking divots were obvious to Robbins, who after reading Senter and Cole's report said, "From my picture [below], it is clear that the whole dinosaur shape is chipped into the rock surface, not just a mud stain. It's pretty sad when a lowly IT guy does better science investigation than scientists."


    There is a difference between being debunked and just being declared debunked. Perhaps this petroglyph has not really been discredited as a dinosaur after all.


    To be fair, this particular dinosaurian representation is not the highest quality of its kind. ICR Senior Science Lecturer Frank Sherwin visited this petroglyph a number of years ago. He commented that although it looked interesting to him, he did not consider it to be as compelling as other historical evidence—such as dinosaur original soft tissues,5 written or sculpted eyewitness accounts of dragon encounters from all over the world,6 or certain Bible passages like Job 40—that have convinced him that dinosaurs and man were contemporaneous. The case for creation does not hinge on this one Utah artifact.


    Those who claim to have "debunked" evidence of man and dinosaur coexistence have an admitted staunch evolutionary bias. Senter and Cole put it this way:


        The findings of mainstream geology have firmly established that non-avian dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago when the Mesozoic Era gave way to the Cenozoic Era, and that Homo sapiens appeared less than one million years ago.4

    But this statement is inaccurate. Mainstream geologists did not "find" evidence in favor of this view but have merely accommodated evidence into the pre-existing evolutionary scheme. For example, the very technique used to "determine" the age of a particular dinosaur fossil is circular. They first see whether it is a dinosaur fossil. If so, then the fossil is assigned an age of no younger than "65 million years" because that number marks the end of the "age of dinosaurs" in textbook diagrams. But this is a bad, self-serving technique.


    Historian Adrienne Mayor investigated Native American legends and artifacts depicting dinosaur-like creatures and stated the real reason evolutionists believe these evidences cannot possibly be interpreted in the most straightforward way. She stated, "No human beings ever saw a living dinosaur, unless they could magically travel back in time more than 65 million years."7 Thus, the religiously held doctrine of millions of years, not the evidence itself, forces these evolutionists to try to "debunk" what would otherwise be a plain testimony: that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.


    References



    1. This assertion should carry little meaning, since the repeated discovery of living fossils?creatures like the coelacanth fish and the Wollemi pine tree that were supposedly extinct for millions of years and yet have been found alive?shows that creatures are not always bound to their evolutionary age assignments. See Evidence for Creation: Living Fossils Display No Signs of Evolution's Long Ages. Posted on www.icr.org.

    2. Although this is twice as old as the age cited in the Paleontologica Electronica paper below, it nonetheless reflects mainstream evolutionary dogma.

    3. Niller, E. 'Proof of Creation' Dino Drawing Just a Mud Stain. Discovery News. Posted on news.discovery.com March 25, 2011, accessed March 25, 2011.

    4. Senter, P. and S. J. Cole. 2011. "Dinosaur" petroglyphs at Kachina Bridge site, Natural Bridges National Monument, southeastern Utah: not dinosaurs after all. Paleontologica Electronica. 14 (1): 2A.

    5. See Evidence for Creation: Fresh Tissues Show That Fossils Are Recent. Posted on www.icr.org.

    6. Morris, J. 2008. The Dinosaur Next Door. Acts & Facts. 37 (6): 13.

    7. Mayor, A. 2005. Fossil Legends of the First Americans. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 337.


    Cole sketch credit: Copyright © 2011 Palaeontological Association. Adapted for use in accordance with federal copyright (fair use doctrine) law. Usage by ICR does not imply endorsement of copyright holders.



    • Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.


    Article posted on April 7, 2011.

    Chinese Dinosaurs Were Fossilized by Flood
    by Brian Thomas, M.S. * http://www.icr.org/article/6052/


    Teeth and fossil bone fragments from a meat-eating T. rex-like dinosaur were discovered in a Chinese dinosaur bone bed. The remains indicate that the creature measured over 30 feet from nose to tail.1 How did such a large creature come to be fossilized alongside so many other dinosaurs?


    Researchers estimated the dinosaur weighed six tons. Dr. David Hone, now at University College Dublin, studied the fossil remains and was the lead author of the resulting paper published in the journal Cretaceous Research.2 He told The Telegraph, "It's another big T-rex and these things don't turn up every day. It's one of the biggest predators of all time."3


    How did this enormous creature—dubbed Zhuchengtyrannus magnus in honor of the city in which it was found—wind up in the Shandong quarry, "one of the largest concentrations of dinosaur bones in the world"?3 In trying to reconstruct the circumstances of this giant creature's death and preservation as a fossil, it stands to reason that if it had died of natural causes in any normal setting, other animals would have quickly scavenged its body. Any leftover tissue would have rotted quickly, just as occurs today. Therefore, whatever happened to it and the hordes of other dinosaurs found jumbled within the same rock formation must have happened quickly?faster than carcasses can rot or be scavenged.


    The Telegraph reported, "Research suggests the area contains so many dinosaur fossils because it was a large flood plain where many dinosaur bodies were washed together during floods and fossilised."3 In other words, this creature was catastrophically overtaken by water. But how strong would this flood event have to be? Strong enough to at least be able to sweep away a six-ton animal and then completely bury it with the masses of other dinosaurs whose fossils are within the same area.


    This dinosaur bone bed in China appears to be an instance of what Henry Morris termed a "fossil graveyard." He wrote in 1974, "Similar dinosaur graveyards are found on every continent, all over the world. Again the uniformitarian is challenged to point to any such phenomena occurring anywhere in the world today."4


    Uniformitarian thinking insists that present slow processes explain all past phenomena. However, since present slow processes do not transport giant creatures in this manner or preserve them as fossils, then certainly catastrophic processes—not gradual ones—are the best explanation for the origin of many earth features. And the Bible records a flood that had enough power to do the kind of work required to totally overpower even the largest land creatures and bury them in fossil graveyards.


    References



    1. Zhuchengtyrannus magnus. Palaeocritti?a guide to prehistoric animals. Posted on palaeocrittic.com, accessed April 5, 2011.

    2. Hone, D. W. E. et al. A new tyrannosaurine theropod, Zhuchengtyrannus magnus is named based on a maxilla and dentary. Cretaceous Research. Published online before print March 30, 2011.

    3. T-Rex's cousin found in China. The Telegraph. Posted on telegraph.co.uk April 1, 2011, accessed April 4, 2011.


    4. Morris, H. 1974. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 99.




    5. Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.



    There's several other origin of life theories, but the Millions of years is just overdoing it a bit. "Life came from clay," is another scientific theory and Biblical theory. There are many, even one where life came from below the Ice and so on an so forth. I don't have time to list all of them, but it may make for an interesting new thread?

    Perhaps life did not begin on Earth at all, but was brought here from elsewhere in space, a notion known as panspermia. For instance, rocks regularly get blasted off Mars by cosmic impacts, and a number of Martian meteorites have been found on Earth that some researchers have controversially suggested brought microbes over here, potentially making us all Martians originally. Other scientists have even suggested that life might have hitchhiked on comets from other star systems. However, even if this concept were true, the question of how life began on Earth would then only change to how life began elsewhere in space.

    Nowadays DNA needs proteins in order to form, and proteins require DNA to form, so how could these have formed without each other? The answer may be RNA, which can store information like DNA, serve as an enzyme like proteins, and help create both DNA and proteins. Later DNA and proteins succeeded this "RNA world," because they are more efficient. RNA still exists and performs several functions in organisms, including acting as an on-off switch for some genes. The question still remains how RNA got here in the first place. And while some scientists think the molecule could have spontaneously arisen on Earth, others say that was very unlikely to have happened.


    Other nucleic acids other than RNA have been suggested as well, such as the more esoteric PNA or TNA.

    Here's an interesting article:


    The poisonous chemical formaldehyde may have helped create the organic compounds present in the universe that gave rise to life, new research suggests.


    Formaldehyde, which is composed of carbon, hydrogen and oxygen, is a common molecule found throughout the solar system. It's also famous on Earth for its use in embalming and preserving biological specimens.


    Organic molecules, which contain carbon, are found in solid form in both comets and asteroids. Scientists have long wondered how these materials, which are the building blocks for all life on Earth, were created. Now researchers say they were likely made from formaldehyde in the primitive solar system. [7 Theories on the Origin of Life]


    "We may owe our existence on this planet to interstellar formaldehyde," said researcher George Cody of the Geophysical Laboratory at the Carnegie Institution for Science in Washington, D.C., in a statement. "And what's ironic about it is that formaldehyde is poisonous to life on Earth."


    Cody and his collaborators, Conel Alexander and Larry Nittler of Carnegie's Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, studied carbon-containing meteorites called carbonaceous chondrites for clues about where their organic compounds originated.


    To test the idea that formaldehyde played a role, the scientists came up with a chemical reaction process that could create these compounds using formaldehyde as an initial ingredient. They then let that reaction run in the lab, and analyzed the results.


    The lab-created organic compounds bore striking similarities to those found in the carbonaceous chondrite meteorites, as well as to the organics in other primitive solar system material, such as samples collected from the comet 81P/Wild 2 from NASA's Stardust mission, as well as in interplanetary dust particles that likely originated from comets and asteroids.


    Since this chemical reaction could have occurred naturally, based on what scientists know of the early solar system, it seems like a good bet that it produced many of the initial organic compounds in our nearby cosmos, the researchers said.


    "Establishing the likely origin of the principal source of organic carbon in primitive solar system bodies is extremely satisfying," Cody said.


    The research is reported online April 4 in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    Let me go out on a limb here, could it be possible that evolution is way, way, off base? Is it so widely accepted because it's taught in school as scientific fact or almost fact?


    Why do they only teach one theory or origin in school? Could it be possible that Creationism is right? If so doesn't that mean there really is a God?


    This is just one example, I hope people will do more research on their own. The truth is out there somewhere.


    Personally, I don't believe in evolution, never have. Although I do believe in adaptation. Anyhow I hope you check out other viewpoint besides the one you place your faith or belief in, I have looked into evolution my entire life.


    Every time I watch Animal Planet, Discovery Channel, or Nat. GEO, I have to listen to what evolution says, you never see any other points of view, why is that? Don't say because it's the accepted theory, because it is not a realistic explanation. It is only popular, could it be someone doesn't want you to have all the facts, or to see the other side of the story???

    New CRS Research Initiative


    The Society is launching a new research initiative to study soft tissue found in dinosaur and other fossils claimed to be millions of years old. In 2005, work was published claiming to have evidence that non-fossilized tissue was found on the fossilized remains of a Tyrannosaurus rex dinosaur. This work was publicized in many major newspapers and magazines. Since 2005, additional studies have documented even more soft tissue in so-called ancient fossils, including the detection of intact protein. Evolutionists have offered a variety of responses ranging from challenging the validity of the studies to casual dismissal of its importance.


    However, creationists have challenged that such findings contradict evolutionist claims that these dinosaur fossils are some 70 million years old. In fact, even prior to the 2005 study, CRS board member Mark Armitage had already provided microscopic evidence for non-fossilized tissue in dinosaur fossils (CRSQ, 2001. Vol. 38, p. 61). His work predated that of well equipped and funded ‘secular’ laboratories. While his results were ignored by evolutionists, it demonstrates the quality of investigation that creationists have and will continue to achieve.


    With the electron microscope facility currently located at the Society’s Van Andel Creation Research Center (Chino Valley, AZ), Mr. Armitage and other CRS scientists are poised to initiate a study involving detailed investigation of a variety of dinosaur and other ‘ancient’ fossils. This will provide more analysis of the type and extent of non-fossilized tissue in these fossils, and give creationists a means of refuting some of the evolutionists’ conclusions of the non-fossilized tissue.

    leeroy

    Yeah, Like Jessie say's the military only gets involved when there's a military application.

    leeroy

    Yes, I agree that it is taught in schools and believed to be fact by many, especially among college professors. My point is there are many different theories, evolution doesn't have a monopoly in creation theory. There are several budding creation theories that many scientists believe, will soon eclipse traditional evolution.

    papa peg

    Hey that video about H.A.A.R.P.A little scary

    According to my university science professors, evolution itself is a fact. The "theory of evolution" is one actually one of many ideas about how evolution actually works. Each theory contests certain parts of the overall idea of the law of evolution. For example, one theory states evolution moves by jumps and spurts with long periods of sameness. Another claims evolution is a long drawn out process. Still a third claims it is a combination of the two ideas. And yet other ideas state evolution varies depending on the creature and plant changing. Still others disagree with all the others. In short, there are a series of evolutionary ideas that often conflict with one another, while it is a fact that things evolved and most continue to evolve to this day. As far as the dinosaur is concerned, there have been plenty of creatures found with intact soft tissues, most found in very cold climates. For example, one man was found in the mountains in France that was several thousand years old. He was found with his tools and arrows and discovered to have been murdered. There is a really cool documentary on the Ice man on line. When I lived above the arctic circle, we found several tusks and fur left over from wooly mammoths in just the three years I was there. In another case, scientist dug up some Eskimos to find out if the influenza virus from 2000 was the same one that killed thousands back in 1908. The reasons they chose the Eskimos was because they were not embalmed. But even so, their bodies were nearly perfectly preserved and still had body fluids (the arctic tundra is like an icebox). But I'm just a historian who's specialty is the history of science and technology, so I'm not an expert on evolution, but I have looked into some of the aspects. But I'm betting if you checked out issues of either Scientific America or the Journal Science, or Paleontology Magazine, you'd probably find a more definitive answer.

    leeroy

    <a href="/users/1831/grit-savage/">@grit</a>, there's only one creationist view here, the others are secular.



    Top contributors in Uncategorized category

     
    ROMOS
    Answers: 18381 / Questions: 154
    Karma: 1096K
     
    Colleen
    Answers: 47519 / Questions: 115
    Karma: 953K
     
    country bumpkin
    Answers: 11050 / Questions: 159
    Karma: 807K
     
    jhharlan
    Answers: 9944 / Questions: 1118
    Karma: 740K
    > Top contributors chart

    Unanswered Questions

    442109
    questions
    710886
    answers
    518648
    users