PDA

View Full Version : China's Gobi desert source of rare dinosaur find



Dolphan7
04-08-2009, 04:23 PM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090316/ap_on_re_as/as_china_fossil_forensics;_ylt=Aq9sbVTzEV56_zWhv3iNgcN7hMgF


BEIJING Left on their own by adults, the young dinosaurs sank into the mud beside a lake and died 90 million years ago in what would become the Gobi Desert.

The position of the dinosaur bones suggests they were looking for water on the edge of a lake, got stuck and died as the mud engulfed them, Sereno said in a telephone interview. Their hip bones were found at odd angles, indicating scavengers tugged at their carcasses. Crablike organisms were also found surrounding the skeletons, a clue that tells scientists they were covered in water shortly after death, which helped preserve them.

Xu Xing, a professor at the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology in Beijing, called the findings "an important discovery" that could only have happened under a unique set of circumstances.
"Without the correct environmental conditions, these fossils would not have been found in nearly pristine condition uncrushed or worn down," said Xu, who was not involved with the project.
Fossils are created by a unique set of circumstances:

1. Quick death.
2. Rapid burial.
3. Preserved in mud or sediment.
4. Sealed without air.

The only known explanation for this type of process is water, and lot's of it, in a very short period of time.

tylerdolphin
04-08-2009, 05:44 PM
Yes, the only way a fossil could have possibly been formed is a global flood. Every single fossil we see is from the same time period. Makes sense.

This has NOTHING to do with religion. It should be in the science forum. I have no idea what this is showing as far as religion goes.

Dolphan7
04-08-2009, 07:34 PM
Yes, the only way a fossil could have possibly been formed is a global flood. Every single fossil we see is from the same time period. Makes sense.

This has NOTHING to do with religion. It should be in the science forum. I have no idea what this is showing as far as religion goes.Define time period. We do see that most are from the same time period, ....remember the cambrian explosion - all the sudden there is this massive appearance of most life forms in this particular layer, fossilized by what appears to be water from a flood, all over the world. Hmmmm? Makes one think doesn't it?

And then there is the ever changing view that there were no fish in the silurian, until they discovered on last month. Oops! Back that date up again.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7237/full/458413a.html#a1

I can move these to the science forum if you think it would be better there.

I post them here to show secular research that does support the creationist model of a global flood.

tylerdolphin
04-08-2009, 07:52 PM
Define time period. We do see that most are from the same time period, ....remember the cambrian explosion - all the sudden there is this massive appearance of most life forms in this particular layer, fossilized by what appears to be water from a flood, all over the world. Hmmmm? Makes one think doesn't it?

And then there is the ever changing view that there were no fish in the silurian, until they discovered on last month. Oops! Back that date up again.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v458/n7237/full/458413a.html#a1

I can move these to the science forum if you think it would be better there.

I post them here to show secular research that does support the creationist model of a global flood.
And there you have the beauty of science as opposed to blind faith.

And by the way, you can say that the geologic evidence show a flood from now until you die, that does not make it so. You will be hard pressed to find a geologist who agrees with you on a global flood. And its their, you know, JOB to study and observe stuff like that.

Dolphan7
04-08-2009, 08:23 PM
And there you have the beauty of science as opposed to blind faith.

And by the way, you can say that the geologic evidence show a flood from now until you die, that does not make it so. You will be hard pressed to find a geologist who agrees with you on a global flood. And its their, you know, JOB to study and observe stuff like that.Blind faith? Dude, there is no evidence for evolution anywhere in any way shape or form, yet you blindly support that! I think that is too ironic!

However when we look in the geologic record, we see evidence of a global flood, burying plants and animals in rapid fashion, in sediment with water in order to preserve them, in a relatively close layer of the column, which is what we would expect to find as a result of a global flood. The sudden appearance of life in the Cambrian layer is what we would expect from a global flood that killed off every living thing on the planet save one family.

There are many Geologists that would agree with me. What you are saying is that there are no uniformitarian believers that would agree with me, and you would be correct. Because science in this field is based not on data, because the data is all the same for everyone, but on pre-supposition.

Such is the case. It isn't a matter of evidence, but bias. People don't want to believe in a global flood, or God, because if God does exist, then they have a problem. They have to do something about that. They are now accountable for their actions. That is the problem right there.

I could parade every piece of evidence of the creationist model, and you would google and find counter arguments to help you feel better about your belief system that you have been taught.

But that's ok. I'll keep posting, and you keep denying.

At the very least admit the plausibility. If you can get that far, then there is hope.

Even I can admit the plausibility of evolution on a smaller scale. And - I can live with an old earth age. It really doesn't do anything to my model.

So why don't you give a little so we can have some fun.:up:

tylerdolphin
04-08-2009, 08:40 PM
Blind faith? Dude, there is no evidence for evolution anywhere in any way shape or form, yet you blindly support that! I think that is too ironic!

However when we look in the geologic record, we see evidence of a global flood, burying plants and animals in rapid fashion, in sediment with water in order to preserve them, in a relatively close layer of the column, which is what we would expect to find as a result of a global flood. The sudden appearance of life in the Cambrian layer is what we would expect from a global flood that killed off every living thing on the planet save one family.

There are many Geologists that would agree with me. What you are saying is that there are no uniformitarian believers that would agree with me, and you would be correct. Because science in this field is based not on data, because the data is all the same for everyone, but on pre-supposition.

Such is the case. It isn't a matter of evidence, but bias. People don't want to believe in a global flood, or God, because if God does exist, then they have a problem. They have to do something about that. They are now accountable for their actions. That is the problem right there.

I could parade every piece of evidence of the creationist model, and you would google and find counter arguments to help you feel better about your belief system that you have been taught.

But that's ok. I'll keep posting, and you keep denying.

At the very least admit the plausibility. If you can get that far, then there is hope.

Even I can admit the plausibility of evolution on a smaller scale. And - I can live with an old earth age. It really doesn't do anything to my model.

So why don't you give a little so we can have some fun.:up:
No offense dude, but that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. No evidence for evolution? Its a scientific theory, which means it has a crap load of solid evidence that cannot be contradicted.

And if you can believe in micro evolution, why not macro evolution? If the sole reason is the whole "no new information" thing that you keep trumpeting, I look forward to the discovery of how this occurs. Im sure you'll just find a new thing to nitpick then.

Dolphan7
04-08-2009, 10:12 PM
No offense dude, but that is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read. No evidence for evolution? Its a scientific theory, which means it has a crap load of solid evidence that cannot be contradicted.

And if you can believe in micro evolution, why not macro evolution? If the sole reason is the whole "no new information" thing that you keep trumpeting, I look forward to the discovery of how this occurs. Im sure you'll just find a new thing to nitpick then.You just contradicted yourself. :lol:


it has a crap load of solid evidence that cannot be contradicted.

I look forward to the discovery of how this occurs

tylerdolphin
04-08-2009, 11:15 PM
You just contradicted yourself. :lol:


it has a crap load of solid evidence that cannot be contradicted.

I look forward to the discovery of how this occurs
No I didn't. I don't have all the answers, but I do know there is a vast amount of evidence that cant be disproven, hence it is a scientific theory. Just because a few things are beyond my personal (or an experts') knowledge does not invalidate it.

Dolphan7
04-09-2009, 01:46 PM
No I didn't. I don't have all the answers, but I do know there is a vast amount of evidence that cant be disproven, hence it is a scientific theory. Just because a few things are beyond my personal (or an experts') knowledge does not invalidate it.I'm just giving you are hard time.:lol:

I don't disagree that there is a vast amount of evidence in support of evolution of life on this planet, only that it is evidence of micro-evolution, which isn't in debate. Micro-evolution, or adaptation within species or kinds is a biblical model concept and must happen in order to have the abundant and various life forms we see today. It is a result of all life being created with the potential for the various kinds of life we see. Created. Nothing is being created today that wasn't already created then. Nothing. That would be Marco-evolution.

But there is no evidence of macro-evolution anywhere. What they are telling you, and us, when they publish all this research, is it is macro-evolution at work, but in reality when you look at the details, it is actually micro-evolution.

Still need to demonstrate new DNA or genetic material being "created", not moved, re-arranged, mutated, lost, missed, etc....