Fresh Dinosaur Bones Found

Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Aaron, Dec 3, 2013.

  1. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,655
    Likes Received:
    225
    The lady was highly skeptical. This guide, who moments before had been discussing animal ecology and evolution, found when confronted with news of the new discovery—that she simply could not believe it. She could not accept that fresh (not permineralized, meaning unfossilized) dinosaur bones had been found in Alaska. Such bones could never have lasted 70 million years, she said.

    Unlikely or not, it is a fact that such bones have been found. However, whether they could have lasted in that condition more than a few thousand years is a matter which demands attention.
    http://creation.com/fresh-dinosaur-bones-found
     
  2. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    This isn't about relatively new bones, but it is about a new method in evaluating and examining the old bones. Perhaps this is another example of how so many well intentioned YECers are blinded by their need to establish their view based on any whim of evidence without understanding what has actually taken place.

    The bones are still found to be 65 million years old. What is "fresh" about them is how the scientist has gone about working with them.

    What's ironic is that the paleontologist mentioned here is a Christian woman who takes issue with the YECist pirating of her research.
     
  3. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just because a bone is found to be 65 million years old does not make it any more true than Adam being found moments after his creation to be in his 30's.
     
    #3 webdog, Dec 3, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 3, 2013
  4. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    There is no palenotologist mentioned in this article. Dr. Helder is a creation scientist with bachelor's, master's and Ph.D in botany. She examined the research efforts of those who found the tree wood and the leaves in unpetrified form, exactly as the dinosaur bones were found unfossilized. Your statement claiming the bones were found to be 65 million years old is based in a claim repeated on "evolutionwiki.com" which also "disqualifies" any of the participating scientists who examined the bones and the flora as having the expertise required to do such research. The viewpoint is a lie.

    In addition to Dr. Helder's Ph.D. in botany, eminently qualifying her to review research done by other qualified botanists on the flora found, Dr. Kyle L. Davies, a vertebrate paleontologist with the University of Texas Balcones Research Center, published "Duck-bill Dinosaurs (Hadrosauridae, Ornithischia) from the North Slope of Alaska" in the Journal of Paleontology in January, 1987. The article begins on page 198 and runs to page 200. Davies makes no claim about age, and in fact states the unfossilized state is "remarkable" but makes it difficult to carbon-date the bones because the so-called "native carbon-14' would have been contaminated by air permeation through the alternate thawing and refreezing of the ice bed in which the bones were found.

    Your efforts to discredit what is still classified as a paleontological mystery is weak, PinJ. Not good.
     
    #4 thisnumbersdisconnected, Dec 3, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 3, 2013
  5. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
  6. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    I've always been one of the primary advocates for the age built in point around here. That said, I'm still not a YEC proponent. Their appropriation of this kind of research for their own ends is unsettling and dubious.
     
  7. webdog

    webdog
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2005
    Messages:
    24,691
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you adhere to age being built into creation, how does that square with OEC? I don't understand why God would make something appear to be 65 million years old when it is only 55 million years old :)
     
  8. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    I fully believe the earth and creation appear to be hundreds of millions of years old.
     
  9. thisnumbersdisconnected

    thisnumbersdisconnected
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2013
    Messages:
    8,448
    Likes Received:
    0
    Regardless, she wasn't the only one on the project, but she was the only one who assigned an age, which she apparently did arbitrarily, given isotropic dating failed to establish an age, as Davies pointed out.
     
  10. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,655
    Likes Received:
    225
    How were they "found to be" 65 million years old?
     
  11. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,655
    Likes Received:
    225
    See? Ask a specific question about generalities and Darwinists bail.
     

Share This Page

Loading...