Proof that dinosaurs lived alongside modern mammals

[way 2 go]

Dinosaur Soft Tissue is Original Biological Material

link

- the research on Egyptian mummies that established 10,000 years as an upper limit for how long original biological molecules could survive. Interestingly, the renowned evolutionist PZ Myers ridiculed our Real Science Radio program by repeating what had been a widely-discredited secular hope that the "soft-tissue" dinosaur finds were "biofilm" contamination from bacteria. But as 60 Minutes shows and Bob Enyart sums it up, "This is dinosaur."

* Dinosaur-strata tissue from "70-million year old" Mosasaur: As below, and in this peer-reviewed report by researchers including from Lund University in Sweden and Southern Methodist University in Dallas, scientists confirm another biological tissue discovery using sophisticated techniques to rule out modern contamination, bio-film, etc., concluding that original biological collagen exists in a small bone from an extinct marine reptile called a mosasaur. Yet according to a report in Science Magazine as it relates to the discoveries of dinosaur tissue, scientists calculate the maximum survival time of collagen not in millions but in thousands of years.

* More Soft Dinosaur Tissue, Now from an "80 Million" Year Old Hadrosaur: Consistent with the expectations of biblical creationists, according to Nat'l Geographic, there's yet another discovery of soft tissue in a dinosaur, this time, a hadrosaur, with soft blood vessels, connective tissue, and blood cell protein amino acid chains partially sequenced at Harvard University. This allegedly 80-million year-old non-fossilized duck-billed dinosaur tissue was discovered by a team led by researchers at North Carolina State University. Harvard, et al., wanted to get some soft dinosaur tissue so they put together a team and just went out and found some. Consider all the potential soft tissue, and perhaps even DNA, lost to humanity because of secular universities ignoring previous claims by young-earth creationists due to the false evolutionary timescale which so biased paleontologists that they would never even look for non-decomposed original biological tissue inside of dinosaur bones.

 

[Stuu]

Dinosaur Soft Tissue is Original Biological Material

link

- the research on Egyptian mummies that established 10,000 years as an upper limit for how long original biological molecules could survive.

So here are creationists, usually the ones complaining bitterly about uniformitarian principles, now applying a uniformitarian principle to one piece of research. Brilliant hypocrisy.

There seems to be little scientific consensus on the possibilities of soft tissues staying intact for tens of millions of years, and that's because it takes some time for evidence to overturn current theory. The field of dinosaur soft tissue remains is less than 20 years old. Real scientists (not the Real Science show, which isn't real science) are careful because they have a kind of social contract with the public to produce the highest quality of information, unlike creationists who spread whatever lame conspiracies they like and feel no conscience about it at all. But the real scientists could be wrong about their earlier assumptions about soft tissue remains. It's looking more and more like they are.

So, what do you need for soft tissues to be preserved from tens of millions of years ago? Generally, the tissue needs to have been continuously protected from extremes of temperature, oxygen, bacteria, and water with silica dissolved in it. Is that possible inside a fossilised bone? Who is to say that is impossible?

But as 60 Minutes shows and Bob Enyart sums it up, "This is dinosaur."

Hilarious. Bob Enyart declares scientific truths.

Stuart

 

[Jonahdog]

But as 60 Minutes shows and Bob Enyart sums it up,

Yes let's base our understanding of science on a TV news show and a right wing evangelical pastor. Well, perhaps now that we have a "reality TV" star as our Commander-in-Chief that makes sense.

But, naaah. I would rather trust scientists who spend time and effort studying the issues.

 

[way 2 go]

So here are creationists, usually the ones complaining bitterly about uniformitarian principles, now applying a uniformitarian principle to one piece of research. Brilliant hypocrisy.

your the one complaining about the 10,000 year limit

There seems to be little scientific consensus on the possibilities of soft tissues staying intact for tens of millions of years, and that's because it takes some time for evidence to overturn current theory.

no , it is because soft tissue can't last millions and millions of years

The field of dinosaur soft tissue remains is less than 20 years old. Real scientists (not the Real Science show, which isn't real science) are careful because they have a kind of social contract with the public to produce the highest quality of information, unlike creationists who spread whatever lame conspiracies they like and feel no conscience about it at all. But the real scientists could be wrong about their earlier assumptions about soft tissue remains. It's looking more and more like they are.

looks like young earth creationist are right dinosaurs are not millions and millions of years old.

So, what do you need for soft tissues to be preserved from tens of millions of years ago?

snake oil ?

Generally, the tissue needs to have been continuously protected from extremes of temperature, oxygen, bacteria, and water with silica dissolved in it. Is that possible inside a fossilised bone? Who is to say that is impossible?

science says no

Hilarious. Bob Enyart declares scientific truths.

Stuart

* Now Biological Material from a "150-Million" Year Old Archaeopteryx: One would think that these "dinosaur-era" finds would be trumpeted as the scientific discovery of our age. But as late as 2012, so many evolutionists whom we talk to at RSR:
1) have never even heard of these developments [Aug. 2013: this is starting to change]
2) initially deny them (soft-tissue deniers)
3) assume that it must be creationists who claim to have found them, and
4) repeat, as PZ Myers did when criticizing Real Science Radio, the repeatedly debunked claims that these are not dinosaur tissue but bacterial biofilm contamination.

 

[way 2 go]

Yes let's base our understanding of science on a TV news show and a right wing evangelical pastor. Well, perhaps now that we have a "reality TV" star as our Commander-in-Chief that makes sense.

But, naaah. I would rather trust scientists who spend time and effort studying the issues.

ad hominem

 

[Stuu]

your the one complaining about the 10,000 year limit

It's a fantasy invented by creationists.

no , it is because soft tissue can't last millions and millions of years

Why not?

looks like young earth creationist are right dinosaurs are not millions and millions of years old.

Not sure you could know what things look like if you close your eyes that tightly.

science says no

In science, those who claim something is impossible are often interrupted by others announcing that it has been done. But anyway, you are a creationist, so what would you know about science?

* Now Biological Material from a "150-Million" Year Old Archaeopteryx: One would think that these "dinosaur-era" finds would be trumpeted as the scientific discovery of our age. But as late as 2012, so many evolutionists whom we talk to at RSR:
1) have never even heard of these developments [Aug. 2013: this is starting to change]
2) initially deny them (soft-tissue deniers)
3) assume that it must be creationists who claim to have found them, and
4) repeat, as PZ Myers did when criticizing Real Science Radio, the repeatedly debunked claims that these are not dinosaur tissue but bacterial biofilm contamination.

Do you have an opinion of your own, or evidence to support your own view? Do you deal in evidence, or is it all he-said-she-said like the above nonsense which is the usual creationist claptrap?

In science there are people who are 'authorities', but no one person's word is to be taken as authority: unambiguous evidence is the authority, especially in such a young area of science. So, don't give me names and labels, give me peer-reviewed science.

Stuart

 

[Stripe]

ad hominem

Darwinists have little else.

 

[Stuu]

Darwinists have little else.

Hey Stripe, why don't you tell us some stuff about Darwinists.

Stuart

 

[Jonahdog]

ad hominem

No, I was suggesting you could find better sources for your scientific information than 60 Minutes or Pastor Bob. Unless of course you are the type of person who takes their car to a dentist for a tune-up and visit your local mechanic when you have a tooth ache.

 

[6days]

No, I was suggesting you could find better sources for your scientific information than 60 Minutes or Pastor Bob. Unless of course you are the type of person who takes their car to a dentist for a tune-up and visit your local mechanic when you have a tooth ache.

Or...ask an evolutionist about history?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Or...ask an evolutionist about history?

Hey I've got a question.

Since you think that God made all animals vegetarian in the beginning, does that mean that sharks once had teeth that aren't sharp?


Ditto for lions, tigers, dinosaurs, lizards, snakes,.....................

 

[6days]

Since you think that God made all animals vegetarian in the beginning, does that mean that sharks once had teeth that aren't sharp?
Ditto for lions, tigers, dinosaurs, lizards, snakes,.....................

We know from Scripture that humans and animals were vegetarian in the beginning. It is funny how evolutionists believe a 'frog' can turn into a handsome prince, yet they don't think a lizard can adapt to a different diet.

 

[Greg Jennings]

It is funny how evolutionists believe a 'frog' can turn into a handsome prince, yet they don't think a lizard can adapt to a different diet.

That's cute. Bet it kills among those of you who have never opened a science book :chuckle:

We know from Scripture that humans and animals were vegetarian in the beginning.

You ignored my question


Did sharks and other predators once eat plants with their sharp teeth? Or did they have other teeth in the beginning?

 

[6days]

That's cute.

Thanks.

You ignored my question.

Actually, you ignored the answer.

I will rephrase it. God doesn't tell us what kind of teeth carnivores had, but He does tell us that all nepesh life were vegetarians in the beginning.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Thanks. Actually, you ignored the answer.

I will rephrase it. God doesn't tell us what kind of teeth carnivores had, but He does tell us that all nepesh life were vegetarians in the beginning.

But God makes creatures perfect, right? He wouldn't give sharp teeth to an animal unless there was s reason, and he wouldn't give vegetarian teeth unless there was a reason. And in a deathless world, self-defense isn't necessary. These teeth are for eating.

I guess what I'm asking is: where are all these vegetarian predators (no fossil record)and how did they function?

Also, what verse tells us that all animals were created vegetarian?

 

[6days]

But God makes creatures perfect, right?

Very good... Yes, of course.

He wouldn't give sharp teeth to an animal unless there was s reason,and he wouldn't give vegetarian teeth unless there was a reason. And in a deathless world, self-defense isn't necessary. These teeth are for eating.

We agree!

I guess what I'm asking is: where are all these vegetarian predators (no fossil record)and how did they function?

What is a vegetarian predator?

Also, what verse tells us that all animals were created vegetarian?

Why do you ask? You don't believe the Bible so does it matter? In any case...
Genesis 1:30 "And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food."

Much later.. the world had been corrupted, and God gave new directions...
Genesis 9:3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything

 

[Greg Jennings]

Very good... Yes, of course.
We agree!
What is a vegetarian predator?

Why do you ask? You don't believe the Bible so does it matter? In any case...
Genesis 1:30 "And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food."

Much later.. the world had been corrupted, and God gave new directions...
Genesis 9:3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything

Please don't be coy. I think you well know what I mean by vegetarian predator: an animal with carnivorous dentition today that either A) had plant-eating teeth in the beginning or B) was poorly designed by God to eat food.
And since God creates perfectly, you will agree that sharks and other modern carnivores would've had teeth designed for eating plants in the beginning, yes?



On your verse: it says God gave plants for all the animals to eat. It doesn't say that all animals ate plants.
It's like this: every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square

And to go macro here: all animals do kind of survive on vegetation. Prey animals transfer their energy intake from plant consumption to the predator that consumes them.

In both a literal and an allegorical sense, that verse certainly can be interpreted far differently than you have chosen to interpret it. Are there perhaps other verses that can support your ideology in a clear fashion?

 

[6days]

Would you believe me if I told you I spent years 12-17 looking for any way that Genesis could be historically accurate?

If that is true, then why do you not seem to know the creation account?

Specifically Noah's Ark. I wanted so badly to believe it was petrified up on top of Mt Ararat.

So You wanted to believe something the Bible, logic and science don't support.

Science: Why did you think a wooden ship on a muddy mountain would become petrified?

Logic: Could a large wooden ship on a mountain get hit by lightning and burn? Could humans have used it for firewood? Could there have been mudslides or avalanches that destroyed or buried it? Could it have ended up in a mountain stream, and eroded by insects and oxidation?

BIBLE: The Bible doesn't tell us the ark was on My. Ararat It says the mountains of Ararat. (Plural). This may... possibly be even a different mountain range. (Mt. Ararat It seems is a volcanic, post flood mountain)

But after exhausting options, I realized that there is no ark, and as I studied the Earth's geology it became obvious that 10,000 years is laughably young for the Earth's true age

"In those days before the flood, the people were enjoying banquets and parties and weddings right up to the time Noah entered his boat. People didn't realize what was going to happen until the flood came and swept them all away. That is the way it will be when the Son of Man comes." Matt. 24:38,39

 

[Greg Jennings]

Did you forget about this? You claimed you'd be honest and answer my question if I did the same for you, which I did. It's time to put up

Very good... Yes, of course.
We agree!
What is a vegetarian predator?

Why do you ask? You don't believe the Bible so does it matter? In any case...
Genesis 1:30 "And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food."

Much later.. the world had been corrupted, and God gave new directions...
Genesis 9:3 Everything that lives and moves about will be food for you. Just as I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything

Please don't be coy. I think you well know what I mean by vegetarian predator: an animal with carnivorous dentition today that either A) had plant-eating teeth in the beginning or B) was poorly designed by God to eat food.
And since God creates perfectly, you will agree that sharks and other modern carnivores would've had teeth designed for eating plants in the beginning, yes?



On your verse: it says God gave plants for all the animals to eat. It doesn't say that all animals ate plants.
It's like this: every square is a rectangle, but not every rectangle is a square

And to go macro here: all animals do kind of survive on vegetation. Prey animals transfer their energy intake from plant consumption to the predator that consumes them.

In both a literal and an allegorical sense, that verse certainly can be interpreted far differently than you have chosen to interpret it. Are there perhaps other verses that can support your ideology in a clear fashion?

 

[Greg Jennings]

If that is true, then why do you not seem to know the creation account?

So You wanted to believe something the Bible, logic and science don't support.

Science: Why did you think a wooden ship on a muddy mountain would become petrified?

Logic: Could a large wooden ship on a mountain get hit by lightning and burn? Could humans have used it for firewood? Could there have been mudslides or avalanches that destroyed or buried it? Could it have ended up in a mountain stream, and eroded by insects and oxidation?

BIBLE: The Bible doesn't tell us the ark was on My. Ararat It says the mountains of Ararat. (Plural). This may... possibly be even a different mountain range. (Mt. Ararat It seems is a volcanic, post flood mountain)

"In those days before the flood, the people were enjoying banquets and parties and weddings right up to the time Noah entered his boat. People didn't realize what was going to happen until the flood came and swept them all away. That is the way it will be when the Son of Man comes." Matt. 24:38,39

What about the fact that a ship that big was impossible to build at the time with their tech? See any ship building reference. Such as Stuu's wiki link. Where did Noah get his iron? And how did he extract it from ore? You simply cannot build anything that big without a strong metal. The structure would not hold.

THAT is what sold me on the ark's non-existence. THEN they found an Iraqi tablet from about 4000-5000 years ago telling the same story, with a guy named Noah even, except it's the real version. It tells of Noah using a big round river craft (consistent with the archaeological finds of people of the time and area) to put his family and animals on to save them while the countryside around was destroyed by a flood. There aren't any holes in that account. It's completely reasonable. And OLDER than the Bible

The Biblical authors simply exaggerated a bit TO MAKE A POINT: that God will not destroy the creation that he loves, AND to demonstrate his power. The parabolic story demonstrates that God is both almighty and ultimately merciful