PDA

View Full Version : Gang of Juvenile Dinosaurs Discovered



Dolphan7
04-08-2009, 04:11 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090324/sc_livescience/gangofjuveniledinosaursdiscovered;_ylt=AuvA0l9H2UxZ5wBaWXaGZ2t7hMgF


Three juvenile Triceratops, a species thought to be solitary, died together in a flood and now have been found in a 66 million-year-old bone bed in Montana, lending more evidence to the idea that teen dinosaurs were gregarious gangsters.

It looks like at least three juveniles died there at same time as a result of flooding, common in this location laced at the time with flood plains and river channels.

We don't know why they were grouped together or how much time they spent together," said Joshua Mathews of the Burpee Museum of Natural History and Northern Illinois University, who led the project. "Herding together could have been for protection, and our guess is that this wasn't something they did full-time."

Died together in a flood. Interesting.

tylerdolphin
04-08-2009, 05:31 PM
Because floods other than the supposed Great Flood never happen. Why is this in the religion forum when it has zero to do with religion?

Tetragrammaton
04-08-2009, 06:07 PM
Because floods other than the supposed Great Flood never happen. Why is this in the religion forum when it has zero to do with religion?

Exactly. Never mind the fact that the flood is followed up with "66 million year-old".

Dolphan7
04-08-2009, 07:19 PM
Because floods other than the supposed Great Flood never happen. Why is this in the religion forum when it has zero to do with religion?It doesn't indicate what the flood was whether it was global or local, but it is interesting that they mention death by flood, which does fit the creationist model. That is why it is in the religion forum. And there are lots of secular science research that says the exact same thing, death by flood, rapid burial in sediment with no air, which is the best way to create and preserve fossils.

Dolphan7
04-08-2009, 07:24 PM
Exactly. Never mind the fact that the flood is followed up with "66 million year-old".Yes that is what it says.



Monkeys grow out of dried coconut husks in stormy weather in Jamaica.

See - I just said that. Does that make it true?

There is no way to date the earth. No way. No matter what you are told, no matter how many times someone says it, it isn't possible. It is all just a guess.

This debate won't go away. So let's shelve the age of the earth for a while and focus on what we can see.

Like I have said before - take away the debate on the age of the earth and the creationist model fits almost perfectly with what we see all over the world.

tylerdolphin
04-08-2009, 07:54 PM
It doesn't indicate what the flood was whether it was global or local, but it is interesting that they mention death by flood, which does fit the creationist model. That is why it is in the religion forum. And there are lots of secular science research that says the exact same thing, death by flood, rapid burial in sediment with no air, which is the best way to create and preserve fossils.
One would expect to find human remains (or any "recent" animal for that matter) in the same layer with the dinosaurs if this is the case. That would end evolution, invalidate everything we know about the Earth and prove Genesis to be literal. I'm not holding my breath.

Tetragrammaton
04-08-2009, 07:58 PM
Yes that is what it says.


Monkeys grow out of dried coconut husks in stormy weather in Jamaica.

See - I just said that. Does that make it true?

Did you read what you just wrote? You are going to sit here and use selective parts of an article and call the rest false?

I could just as easily say that the discovery wasn't true. But I don't have religion to back me up.

Dolphan7
04-08-2009, 08:27 PM
Did you read what you just wrote? You are going to sit here and use selective parts of an article and call the rest false?

I could just as easily say that the discovery wasn't true. But I don't have religion to back me up.Get off the age thing for a moment. Just look at what we find in the fossil record and tell me if it makes sense that a flood would create such that we find in the fossil record. Secular science agrees with that scenario, they just won't agree that it was global.

Dolphan7
04-08-2009, 09:40 PM
One would expect to find human remains (or any "recent" animal for that matter) in the same layer with the dinosaurs if this is the case. That would end evolution, invalidate everything we know about the Earth and prove Genesis to be literal. I'm not holding my breath.That is a great question. Creationists ask that same question. Here is what we come up with.

This is what we would expect from a global flood:

We believe that the fossils were created during the global flood of Noah. This would determine the order of burial as a result of that flood, and that would be what we see in the fossil record. So based on that..

Most fossils are invertebrate sea creatures, and plant material in the form of coal and oil. Vertebrate fossils are relatively rare, and human fossils are extremely rare. Estimating 10 million people at the time of the flood, and if they were buried evenly througout the world, that would be 1 human fossil in every 70 cubic kilometers of rock. We could dig and dig and never find a human theoretically speaking from the flood layer.

A global flood beginning with the breakup of the fountains of the deep would tend to bury bottom dwelling sea creatures first, and as the waters rose up, the immobile land animals would be buried last. In addition water bearing plants would tend to be buried before swamp land plants and they would be buried before upland plants. Now animals with mobility like mammals and birds would tend to seek higher ground and would thus be buried later. People would cling to rafts and logs and such and succumb last. They would bloat and float and be scavenged by fish, even the bones being in water would keep them relatively soft for consumption. Since the smart and intelligent animals and humans would survive the longest, they would be vulnerable to erosion and the aftermath of the flood, thus destroyed instead of preserved.

We also have to consider that the earth is now 72% ocean. There could be lots more fossils buried deep under the ocean floors, and we haven't really had a chance to see what is under all that ice in Antarctica.

We don't know all the details of the flood because were weren't there. But we do see in the fossil record what we would expect to see as a result of a global flood, for the most part.

Now I must add that just because we haven't found dino's and humans buried together, that does not mean they didn't live together. Many cultures in the world refer to dinosaur like creatures and speak of a global flood in their folklore. It is too consistent to be random and coincidental.

Here is a link to give you a biblical perspective on your question. And the part about the dating dino bones at the U of A caught my interest. Check it out.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/modules.php?name=Read&cat=1&itemid=15

tylerdolphin
04-08-2009, 11:20 PM
Not just a human. Any animal that is believed to have evolved after dinosaurs went extict would be suffice.

Dolphan7
04-09-2009, 02:31 PM
Not just a human. Any animal that is believed to have evolved after dinosaurs went extict would be suffice.
http://www.ncsu.edu/news/press_releases/05_01/015.htm

http://www.livescience.com/animals/belly_beast_050112.html

Would mammals work?