Jump to content


Photo

Rat-squirrel Back After 11-million-year Absence


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
5 replies to this topic

#1 Christopher_John

Christopher_John

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Interests:Messianic Prophecy.<br /><br /> I work very odd hours, I will eventually get back into the discussion with you, just be patient I'm not avoiding any topic.
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Montreal, Canada

Posted 13 March 2006 - 12:56 AM

WASHINGTON (AP) -- It has the face of a rat and the tail of a skinny squirrel -- and scientists say this creature discovered living in central Laos is pretty special: It's a species believed to have been extinct for 11 million years.


Check it out here

It turns out the little guy isn't new after all, but a rare kind of survivor: a member of a group until now known only from fossils.


Interesting little find they have here, my only question is why doesn't the discovery have them questioning the dating of the fossil layer to which this species was originally expected to be living in?

If a species is found only in the fossil record, then a living species miraculously appears, does that mean it lived for millions of years undetected? or were they just wrong about strata dating?

The problem with the science of evolution is, there's no accountability. When errors are made, the theories continue to grow and grow and grow, Pinnochio would feel right at home in our modern world and I bet he would become an evolutionary scientist.

To reappear after 11 million years is more exciting than if the rodent really had been a new species, said George Schaller, a naturalist with the Wildlife Conservation Society, which unveiled the creature's existence last year. Indeed, such reappearances are so rare that paleontologists dub them "the Lazarus effect." 


Instead of admitting that the dating of the sedimentary layer that contains the fossil is incorrect, they go on to fatten up the idea of the "Lazarus Effect"

hey! what a surprise! they encase their error in yet another "Theory" and call it the Lazarous Effect.

In case their are some who don't read their Bible Lazarous was a man whom was raised from the dead by one of the miracles performed by Jesus Christ. So basically what this article is saying, is that animal evolution has a finite amount of animal species on our planet and when they go extinct they are capable of replicating themselves through evolution somewhere along the line after millions of years of extinction...resurrecting their own species, Lazarous was resurrected by Christ, so the Lazerous Effect means that their is some form of belief in the evolutionary scientific community that extinct species are capable of resurrecting themselves...given enough time of course.

They said it not me...

To reappear after 11 million years...


paleontologists dub them "the Lazarus effect." 


Lazarous Effect: To be raised from the dead, non-existent for a period of time and resurrected.

Resurrected: (Mirriam Webster) transitive verb: to raise from the dead : restore to life

I'm constantly amazed that they can never look at the strata dating to be in error, this proves that the key-stone of evolution theory rests solely on the Geologic Column and is to be considered a taboo or untouchable area to which no evolutionary scientist is willing to challenge, lest he/she be discredited and or ex-communicated by their own scientific community.

The finding of any living species which originally was found only in the fossil record, imminently renders the dating of that strata layer incorrect, but as usual, all are too terrified to lose their jobs by rising to the challenge.

Argue it any way you like, the result and conclusion of yet another "living fossil", is irrefutable evidence that the dating of fossils via strata layers in no way represents the time line which the evolutionary community believes it to be.

Creation 1 - Evolution 0

Peace

CJ

#2 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 13 March 2006 - 01:48 PM

It turns out the little guy isn't new after all, but a rare kind of survivor: a member of a group until now known only from fossils.


There is still some disagreement on this, the original find was thought to be a new (undiscovered) species, but subsequent analyses found many similarities with a species only known from fossils.


Interesting little find they have here, my only question is why doesn't the discovery have them questioning the dating of the fossil layer to which this species was originally expected to be living in?


Why should it? I would bet the original find is well documented re dating, location etc you don’t wast your time reinventing the wheel, there would have to be a compelling reason to suspect the original investigation was flawed, yes?

If a species is found only in the fossil record, then a living species miraculously appears, does that mean it lived for millions of years undetected? or were they just wrong about strata dating?

It means it lived for millions of years undetected (by science).

The problem with the science of evolution is, there's no accountability. When errors are made, the theories continue to grow and grow and grow, Pinnochio would feel right at home in our modern world and I bet he would become an evolutionary scientist.

What error?, how can ‘not be being detected’ be an error? This point makes no logical sence.


Instead of admitting that the dating of the sedimentary layer that contains the fossil is incorrect, they go on to fatten up the idea of the "Lazarus Effect"


What evidence is there to make such a claim that the dating is in error?

hey! what a surprise! they encase their error in yet another "Theory" and call it the Lazarous Effect.

In case their are some who don't read their Bible Lazarous was a man whom was raised from the dead by one of the miracles performed by Jesus Christ. So basically what this article is saying, is that animal evolution has a finite amount of animal species on our planet and when they go extinct they are capable of replicating themselves through evolution somewhere along the line after millions of years of extinction...resurrecting their own species, Lazarous was resurrected by Christ, so the Lazerous Effect means that their is some form of belief in the evolutionary scientific community that extinct species are capable of resurrecting themselves...given enough time of course.

They said it not me...
To reappear after 11 million years...
paleontologists dub them "the Lazarus effect." 
Lazarous Effect: To be raised from the dead, non-existent for a period of time and resurrected.

Resurrected: (Mirriam Webster) transitive verb: to raise from the dead : restore to life


IMO a poor choice of phraseology. Being undiscovered does not equate to being raised from the dead. None of this changes the facts however.


I'm constantly amazed that they can never look at the strata dating to be in error, this proves that the key-stone of evolution theory rests solely on the Geologic Column and is to be considered a taboo or untouchable area to which no evolutionary scientist is willing to challenge, lest he/she be discredited and or ex-communicated by their own scientific community.


Actually it proves the confidence in which dating methods are held, to change peoples minds you will need to have some evidence that shows current thinking is in error


The finding of any living species which originally was found only in the fossil record, imminently renders the dating of that strata layer incorrect, but as usual, all are too terrified to lose their jobs by rising to the challenge. Argue it any way you like, the result and conclusion of yet another "living fossil", is irrefutable evidence that the dating of fossils via strata layers in no way represents the time line which the evolutionary community believes it to be.

Creation 1 - Evolution 0


No it would not, the time scale nor the interpretation of the strata has anything to do with it,

e.g. supposing that the Biblical interpretation is correct - would you (should you) be surprised if a colony of Kangaroos was discovered in some remote part of the middle east, even thought they should have long gone from that area after exiting the Arc?
4,000, or 4,000,000 years make no difference to the scenario. Undiscovered is just that, undiscovered, it does not put into doubt dating methods.

#3 willis

willis

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 134 posts
  • Age: 22
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • CA

Posted 15 March 2006 - 12:03 AM

This is an interesting scenario because it is based completely on interpretation.

What evidence is there to make such a claim that the dating is in error?


I think chance demonstrates my point, there is nothing about this find that directly contradicts uniformitarian geology, and there is probably nothing wrong with the methodology of the dating. However, it makes much more sense that this is not some ancient species and those layers of strata were layed down quickly. Analogy: Say a rock nails you in the back of the head. You turn around, your head stinging with pain, and you see me. I say "I didn't throw it. There was a sudden shift in the earth's gravitational pull and the rock levitated into your head." Nothing about the rock hitting you in your dome contradicts that explanation, but the more logical one is I threw it because I was being rude.

#4 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 17 March 2006 - 01:36 AM

Check it out here
Interesting little find they have here, my only question is why doesn't the discovery have them questioning the dating of the fossil layer to which this species was originally expected to be living in?

If a species is found only in the fossil record, then a living species miraculously appears, does that mean it lived for millions of years undetected? or were they just wrong about strata dating?

The problem with the science of evolution is, there's no accountability.  When errors are made, the theories continue to grow and grow and grow, Pinnochio would feel right at home in our modern world and I bet he would become an evolutionary scientist.
Instead of admitting that the dating of the sedimentary layer that contains the fossil is incorrect, they go on to fatten up the idea of the "Lazarus Effect"

hey! what a surprise! they encase their error in yet another "Theory" and call it the  Lazarous Effect.

In case their are some who don't read their Bible Lazarous was a man whom was raised from the dead by one of the miracles performed by Jesus Christ.  So basically what this article is saying, is that animal evolution has a finite amount of animal species on our planet and when they go extinct they are capable of replicating themselves through evolution somewhere along the line after millions of years of extinction...resurrecting their own species, Lazarous was resurrected by Christ,  so the Lazerous Effect means that their is some form of belief in the evolutionary scientific community that extinct species are capable of resurrecting themselves...given enough time of course.

They said it not me...
Lazarous Effect: To be raised from the dead, non-existent for a period of time and resurrected.

Resurrected: (Mirriam Webster) transitive verb: to raise from the dead : restore to life

I'm constantly amazed that they can never look at the strata dating to be in error, this proves that the key-stone of evolution theory rests solely on the Geologic Column and is to be considered a taboo or untouchable area to which no evolutionary scientist is willing to challenge, lest he/she be discredited and or ex-communicated by their own scientific community.

The finding of any living species which originally was found only in the fossil record, imminently renders the dating of that strata layer incorrect, but as usual, all are too terrified to lose their jobs by rising to the challenge.

Argue it any way you like, the result and conclusion of yet another "living fossil",  is irrefutable evidence that the dating of fossils via strata layers in no way represents the time line which the evolutionary community believes it to be.

Creation 1 - Evolution 0 

Peace

CJ

View Post




LOL, I bet the evolutionists just love this kick in their vain imaginative butts.lol

Attached Files

  • Attached File  tn.jpg   2.01KB   4 downloads


#5 Christopher_John

Christopher_John

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • Interests:Messianic Prophecy.<br /><br /> I work very odd hours, I will eventually get back into the discussion with you, just be patient I'm not avoiding any topic.
  • Age: 41
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Montreal, Canada

Posted 19 March 2006 - 01:47 AM

There is still some disagreement on this, the original find was thought to be a new (undiscovered) species, but subsequent analyses found many similarities with a species only known from fossils.
Why should it? I would bet the original find is well documented re dating, location etc you don’t wast your time reinventing the wheel, there would have to be a compelling reason to suspect the original investigation was flawed, yes?

It means it lived for millions of years undetected (by science).

What error?, how can ‘not be being detected’ be an error?  This point makes no logical sence.
What evidence is there to make such a claim that the dating is in error?
IMO a poor choice of phraseology.  Being undiscovered does not equate to being raised from the dead.  None of this changes the facts however.
Actually it proves the confidence in which dating methods are held, to change peoples minds you will need to have some evidence that shows current thinking is in error
No it would not, the time scale nor the interpretation of the strata has anything to do with it,

e.g. supposing that the Biblical interpretation is correct - would you (should you) be surprised if a colony of Kangaroos was discovered in some remote part of the middle east, even thought they should have long gone from that area after exiting the Arc? 
4,000, or 4,000,000 years make no difference to the scenario. Undiscovered is just that, undiscovered, it does not put into doubt dating methods.

View Post


Well of course it does, in most cases fossils can be referred to as "index" fossils, regardless of which fossil geoligists use to determine strata age and vice versa, any fossil found in the strata to still be in existence today, renders all other fossils incapable of being index fossils of that period of strata, so how is it not to be found to be in error?...certainly it is in error, how can it not be?

Might I include you did say "IMO" your opinion isn't fact but yet the fact is, a living "fossil" has been found rendering the strata dating and or index fossil of the preiod to which the living fossil came from to be grosly in error.

Peace
CJ

#6 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 19 March 2006 - 01:58 PM

chance> 4,000, or 4,000,000 years make no difference to the scenario. Undiscovered is just that, undiscovered, it does not put into doubt dating methods.

Well of course it does, in most cases fossils can be referred to as "index" fossils,


No they cant, and especially if the quantity of those fossils is only a few, how could you possibly claim a T-rex fossil to be an index fossil if you had only found one skeleton? You couldn’t. What you need is a well documented abundant fossil (Marine crustaceans usually fill this bill). Besides Index fossils give relative age, (A is older than B, which is older then C etc) radiometric dating methods are used to determine actual age. Relative dating via index fossils was used before Darwin.
If the case was that a second fossils was found and determined to be older than the first discovery, it makes no difference to the age of the strata it was found in, what does happen is the period of time that the subject animal was thought to have lived in is revised. In principle this could invalidate the use of an index fossil if it were previously used to determine relative age.

Fossils do not give you age they give you sequence, this sequence can be extrapolated as an age.

Noe of this however has any relevance to the discovery of a “lost” species tile the ‘Laotian rock rat’



regardless of which fossil geoligists use to determine strata age and vice versa, any fossil found in the strata to still be in existence today, renders all other fossils incapable of being index fossils of that period of strata, so how is it not to be found to be in error?...certainly it is in error, how can it not be?


How can this be so? Why would it not be more logical to just strike the index fossil of the lists of representative fossils for that period. Remember index fossils can only give sequence.


Might I include you did say "IMO" your opinion isn't fact but yet the fact is, a living "fossil" has been found rendering the strata dating and or index fossil of the preiod to which the living fossil came from to be grosly in error.


To make this claim you would have to show evidence that the ‘Laotian rock rat’ has been used as an index fossil in the determination of strata age (relative age). And in the extremely unlikely event that it was, then all that would happen is that the ‘Laotian rock rat’ would no longer be though of as a reliable indication of strata age (relative age).

Additional - Index fossils are more applicable to field work, e.g. a palaeontologist would pick up a rock, see a Trilobite and know he was digging in Palaeozoic strata.

See http://www.enchanted...exFossils.shtml

Index fossils are commonly found, widely distributed fossils that are limited in time span. They help in dating other fossils found in the same sedimentary layer. For example, if you find a fossil from an unknown era near a fossil from a known time, you can assume that the two species were from about the same time.


Or

http://www.ucmp.berk...rec/BarBar.html

If certain fossils are typically found only in a particular rock unit and are found in many places worldwide, they may be useful as index or guide fossils in determining the age of undated strata. By using this information from rock formations in various parts of the world and correlating the studies, scientists have been able to establish the geologic time scale. This relative time scale divides the vast amount of earth history into various sections based on geological events (sea encroachments, mountain-building, and depositional events), and notable biological events (appearance, relative abundance, or extinction of certain life forms).






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users