Jump to content


Photo

T-rex Dna Find


  • Please log in to reply
122 replies to this topic

#61 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 April 2005 - 09:01 PM

I'm begining to wonder if this will become one of those peltdown ideas. Because only one thing can be right, and in order for science to move foward, they will have to choose. And what's left will either divide science, or make it look like another peltdown hoax. Either way, something has to give. For I don't think they will be able to explain away the evidence, and I don't see all of it coexisting either.

#62 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 April 2005 - 04:46 AM

One has to wonder how much of this type of information is buried by evolutionary bias.

Some of these supposedly 165 million year old ammonites are previously unrecorded species, says Dr Hollingworth, and the real surprise is that ‘many still had shimmering mother-of-pearl shells’.1 According to Dr Hollingworth these ‘pristine fossils’ are ’the best preserved he has seen … . You just stand there [beside the mud springs] and up pops an ammonite. What makes the fossils so special is that they retain their original shells of aragonite [a mineral form of calcium carbonate] … The outsides also retain their iridescence …’6 And what is equally amazing is that, in the words of Dr Hollingworth, ‘There are the shells of bivalves which still have their original organic ligaments and yet they are millions of years old’!1

Perhaps what is more amazing is the evolutionary, millions–of–years mindset that blinds hard–nosed, rational scientists from seeing what should otherwise be obvious—such pristine ammonite fossils still with shimmering mother–of–pearl iridescence on their shells, and bivalves still with their original organic ligaments, can’t possibly be 165 million years old. Upon burial, organic materials are relentlessly attacked by bacteria, and even in seemingly sterile environments will automatically, of themselves, decompose to simpler substances in a very short time.7,8 Without the millions–of–years bias, these fossils would readily be recognized as victims of a comparatively recent event, for example, the global devastation of Noah’s Flood only about 4,500 years ago.


http://www.answersin...i2/surprise.asp

Terry

#63 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 April 2005 - 08:27 AM

Someone will probably lose it, and it will go down as the evidence that never was.

#64 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 03 April 2005 - 01:38 PM

Actually, as an evolutionist I've stated for a while now that man an dinosaurs more than likely lived together. 

View Post


This would requires some sort of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle(sp) “Lost World” scenario.

#65 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 03 April 2005 - 01:50 PM

I'm begining to wonder if this will become one of those peltdown ideas. Because only one thing can be right, and in order for science to move foward, they will have to choose. And what's left will either divide science, or make it look like another peltdown hoax. Either way, something has to give. For I don't think they will be able to explain away the evidence, and I don't see all of it coexisting either.

View Post


The Piltdown Man hoax only show to remind us that science works, even a good fraud will not go undetected forever. It took 40 years to uncover the fraud in the case of Piltdown man, less than a few months in the case of a recent Chinese Bird/Dinosaur. One would hope that modern discoveries are scrutineered with more rigor than discoveries from the early 1900’s.

#66 The Debatinator

The Debatinator

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 198 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Chicago, Illinois

Posted 03 April 2005 - 04:44 PM

Actually, as an evolutionist I've stated for a while now that man an dinosaurs more than likely lived together.  Though some see this as an issue that falsifies evolution, the natural perspective of things tells science that man and dinosaurs living or not living together does not falsify the fact that all plants and animals are related to each other.

This may, if it stands, disprove some of the geologic ideas that have existed about man and dinosaurs, but plants and animals are still related to each other.  This hasn't affected evolution at all.

tk

View Post



I fail to see the link.

#67 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 April 2005 - 08:12 PM

The Piltdown Man hoax only show to remind us that science works, even a good fraud will not go undetected forever.  It took 40 years to uncover the fraud in the case of Piltdown man, less than a few months in the case of a recent Chinese Bird/Dinosaur.  One would hope that modern discoveries are scrutineered with more rigor than discoveries from the early 1900’s.

View Post



The bird thing was only figured out because someone called and told them. Sounds very scientific to me :D . What would have happened if no one called? Would it take another 40 years? Or maybe never if they could get away with it.

This is also a very good demonstration on how science is more than willing to pay gobs of money, 80,000 dollars, for anything that will prove their theories. It also shows how gulible some can be. And creationist are called stupid LOL. I don't remember any creationist being taken for 80,000 dollars for creation evidence.

But, how much is spent on bringing down Noah's Ark? Oops, it still up there? Wonder why? Could it be there is no money for anything that supports God (because they're afraid they might find Him)? Only money to help disprove God (because they really don't want to know).

#68 geni

geni

    Newcomer

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 5 posts
  • Age: 20
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • uk

Posted 04 April 2005 - 03:06 AM

The bird thing was only figured out because someone called and told them. Sounds very scientific to me :D . What would have happened if no one called? Would it take another 40 years? Or maybe never if they could get away with it.

This is also a very good demonstration on how science is more than willing to pay gobs of money, 80,000 dollars, for anything that will prove their theories. It also shows how gulible some can be. And creationist are called stupid LOL. I don't remember any creationist being taken for 80,000 dollars for creation evidence.


Well this one wants to part with 10,000

http://biblelandstud...=showpage&pid=1

But, how much is spent on bringing down Noah's Ark? Oops, it still up there? Wonder why? Could it be there is no money for anything that supports God (because they're afraid they might find Him)? Only money to help disprove God (because they really don't want to know).

View Post


There have been loads of attempts to find the Ark. So far they have found zilch.

#69 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 04 April 2005 - 02:02 PM

The bird thing was only figured out because someone called and told them. Sounds very scientific to me :D . What would have happened if no one called? Would it take another 40 years? Or maybe never if they could get away with it.

View Post


Archaeoraptor was assembled by a Chinese fossil hunter, the pieces were assembled to make the fossil more marketable to collectors. This worker may or may not have known that the tail came from a separate fossil. This practice has become more widespread and is not unique to China.

Palaeontologists have a love hate relationship with amateur fossil hunters, on the plus side there are more people digging and finding fossils, on the negative some are less scrupulous and are in it for the money.

Quote from talkorigins

Archaeoraptor was published in the popular press, not in peer-reviewed journals. The main author of the article about it was National Geographic's art editor, not a scientist. Nature and Science both rejected papers describing it, citing suspicions that it was doctored and illegally smuggled (Dalton 2000; Simons 2000). Normal scientific procedures worked to uphold high standards.

.

While scientist intercepted the fraud/mistake, it pays to be sceptical when sourcing fossils from non professional sources, I think no Palaeontologist would like to be associated with a ‘Piltdown Man 2’.

This is also a very good demonstration on how science is more than willing to pay gobs of money, 80,000 dollars, for anything that will prove their theories. It also shows how gulible some can be. And creationist are called stupid LOL. I don't remember any creationist being taken for 80,000 dollars for creation evidence.

View Post


Had the fossil been genuine it may have well been worth $80,000. Fossils like archaeopteryx are very prised for they show features of avian and reptile, I believe I read somewhere that archaeopteryx is beyond any price!
I don’t think gullibility has been shown in this case, a good dose of initial excitement perhaps.


But, how much is spent on bringing down Noah's Ark? Oops, it still up there? Wonder why? Could it be there is no money for anything that supports God (because they're afraid they might find Him)? Only money to help disprove God (because they really don't want to know).

View Post


Isn’t there a chap by the name of Wyatt(sp) claiming such?

While I’m not familiar with current religious scams, one only has to go back a few centuries to find a large trade in ‘holy relics’.

I don’t think any human endeavour is free from scam artists, being vigilant for these things is our only defence.

#70 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 04 April 2005 - 02:24 PM

The bird thing was only figured out because someone called and told them. Sounds very scientific to me :D . What would have happened if no one called? Would it take another 40 years? Or maybe never if they could get away with it.


It was suspected to be a hoax from the beginning because it did not fit into the predicted clades. Funny how the theory of evolution is able to pick out hoaxes.

This is also a very good demonstration on how science is more than willing to pay gobs of money, 80,000 dollars, for anything that will prove their theories. It also shows how gulible some can be. And creationist are called stupid LOL. I don't remember any creationist being taken for 80,000 dollars for creation evidence.


Shows you how much that creationist evidence is worth, doesn't it?

But, how much is spent on bringing down Noah's Ark? Oops, it still up there? Wonder why? Could it be there is no money for anything that supports God (because they're afraid they might find Him)? Only money to help disprove God (because they really don't want to know).

View Post


All you need is Oral Roberts stuck in his Ivory Tower. Should be good for another 6 million.

#71 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 April 2005 - 04:14 AM

Well I guess hoax evolution evidence is worth more because actually proving it was never the goal. Just theorizing it. Truth is usually much harder to find.

#72 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 07 April 2005 - 09:51 AM

IMO, the T-rex find is just another example of how evolution is not falsifiable. Back on the now defunct OCW board, I started a thread asking if finding a modern dinosaur would falsify evolution for anyone. Most of them said no. They said evolution allows for animals to survive in “niches”, so some could still be alive today and it wouldn’t surprise them. A handful of evolutionists (2 or 3, I recall), said it would be a satisfactory test for them and it would cause them to question evolution. I remember one of them was a guy that went by ‘Skepticboy’. I told him then I was skeptical it would be enough to convince him (because as many who know me know that I think worlview, not evidence, is what drives one to believe in evolution, but that’s another thread :rolleyes: ), so if he’s around and reads this it would be interesting to hear from him. Does he believe these cells can somehow be preserved for millions of years, despite absolutely no evidence to support this (in fact evidence is powerful against it being preserved[1])?

Even the author of the T-rex paper indicated 8 years ago that she as well as others in her group shared great skepticism on their first T-rex blood cell find. Remember what she said? –

‘It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?”’’ [2]

Now they are acting like it is no big deal and instead just assume it must be able to survive that long since “evolution is true after all”.

I also found this at AiG.

http://www.answersin...02/0325rbcs.asp

Notice how the evolutionist questions the original find. Now that it’s concrete, I wonder if this guy will now question the theory, or will he admit the theory is not falsifiable, or the most likely, explain it away?

Bottom line is that the theory of evolution is propped of to explain every possible problem sent its way. A theory set up to explain everything has always been recognized to be a classic sign of a bad theory. The theory is not falsifiable (or is already falsified), and should be relegated back to its proper status as a low-grade hypothesis.

Fred

--

[1] - Willerslev E, Hansen AJ, Rønn R, Brand TB, Barnes I, Wiuf C, Gilichinsky D, Mitchell D, and Cooper A. Long-term persistence of bacterial DNA. Current Biology 14:R9-R10 (2003)
[]2] - Morell, V., Dino DNA: The hunt and the hype, Science 261(5118):160–162, 9 July 1993.

#73 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 07 April 2005 - 12:17 PM

IMO, the T-rex find is just another example of how evolution is not falsifiable. Back on the now defunct OCW board, I started a thread asking if finding a modern dinosaur would falsify evolution for anyone. Most of them said no.


And it wouldn't falsify evolution. The fact of the matter is that we do not find dinosaur fossils in sediment younger than 65 million years, excluding birds of course. Through study of the natural world, no one has discovered a living dinosaur. We already know that the fossil record is incomplete, so it is possible that a few species of dinosaurs survived until the very recent past, but we have yet to find evidence of this.

It is a bit like the coelacanth. This group of fish completely disappeard from the fossil record millions of years ago. It wasn't until the last century that we found a living member of the coelacanth family, a species that habituates deep water environments. The species of coelacanth that are living today are found nowhere in the fossil record and differ from the fossil species of coelacanth. It is just more evidence that the fossil record is incomplete, which makes the creationist complaint of few transtionals a bit hollow.

What would falsify evolution is finding dinosaur fossils in pre-cambrian strata. More importantly, if you think that living dinosaurs falsify evolution could you spell out exactly why this is? Evolution does not require that the dinosaurs be extinct, it is simply a conclusion drawn from the fossil record.

Even the author of the T-rex paper indicated 8 years ago that she as well as others in her group shared great skepticism on their first T-rex blood cell find. Remember what she said? –

‘It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: “The bones, after all, are 65 million years old.  How could blood cells survive that long?”’’ [2]


And what did they find? Highly racemized amino acids, consistent with a very ancient sample. They found no hemoblogin, only heme, the iron center of hemoglobin, which could have easily been preserved by binding to the mineral matrix of the bone. This is all consistent with an ancient sample, and may be completely consistent with what they find in this latest find discussed in the OP.

Now they are acting like it is no big deal and instead just assume it must be able to survive that long since “evolution is true after all”.


No, you are assuming that tissue and cell morphology can not survive these long time periods, and do so without any evidence. The age of the fossil has been independently measured through radioisotopes and their daughter products. Can you give me any reason why tissue fossilization is a better measure of age?

#74 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 07 April 2005 - 01:52 PM

From the AiG link posted by Fred Williams

In a recent exchange with an AiG supporter, an evolutionist attacked the credibility of our article Sensational dinosaur blood report, first published in Creation magazine in 1997


I found the AiG responses in the article to the explanations provided mainly run along this type of response

AiG replies:

“When you read this, remember that to these people, the truth is that the millions of years are fact. Therefore—and this is not said in any disparaging way—they must have some sort of explanation <snip>.

“Note how an assumption to prop up a belief has suddenly become fact”


I find this to be rather too dismissive of the explanation provided, in addition the author has inferred just as strongly as the evolutionist that an old a Earth is out of the question. Of course an explanation is to be put forward! The only options are to state “currently unknown”, or current hypothesis or theory.

Also the article is very quick to latch on to what some scientist said, like this...

Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted, ‘You’ve got red blood cells. You’ve got red blood cells!’

...as if it were etched in stone, then attack those statements. Scientist can change there minds, and quit possibly not state something verbally as well as one should.

After reading the acritical I am left with the impression of a cherry picking exercise.

#75 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 April 2005 - 04:12 PM

The age of the fossil has been independently measured through radioisotopes and their daughter products.


Any data for that?

Terry

#76 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 07 April 2005 - 04:48 PM

It is a bit like the coelacanth.

View Post


Yes, the coelacanth was yet another fine example of how evolution is propped up as non-falsifiable. Not only was finding this living and now defunct index fossil a complete surprise to evolutionists, it also dispatched claims that it was a transitional “walking fish” with legs. Since we could actually examine one, it turns out it the thing was just an ordinary ole fish! All this is well documented in the evolutionist Denton’s book “Evolution, a Theory in Crisis”.

it is possible that a few species of dinosaurs survived until the very recent past, but we have yet to find evidence of this.


You can deny it all you want, but the recent T-rex tissue find is powerful evidence for a dino within the recent past.

No, you are assuming that tissue and cell morphology can not survive these long time periods, and do so without any evidence.


Yes, and I also assume a rock will fall to the ground if I let go of it. :rolleyes: And I did provide evidence, you must not have read the citation I provided, plus the 8-year old comments by Schweitzer & Horner before such conclusive evidence was found! You on the other hand are assuming the tissue can survive that long, and did NOT provide any evidence for this assumption.

What would falsify evolution is finding dinosaur fossils in pre-cambrian strata.


Like I said, evolution is set up to not be falsifiable (or is already falsified). Dino fossils are extremely rare (any vertebrate fossil for that matter), you actually get some good bucks if you find one! The odds of finding a Dino buried with marine life is astronomically low and why evos like to cite it as a “test”. It’s a toothless test.

Fred

#77 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New Jersey

Posted 07 April 2005 - 06:58 PM

Yes, the coelacanth was yet another fine example of how evolution is propped up as non-falsifiable. Not only was finding this living and now defunct index fossil a complete surprise to evolutionists, it also dispatched claims that it was a transitional “walking fish” with legs. Since we could actually examine one, it turns out it the thing was just an ordinary ole fish! All this is well documented in the evolutionist Denton’s book “Evolution, a Theory in Crisis”.


Please explain exactly how the finding of the coelocanth undermines evolutionary theory, since evolutionary theory deals with the "origin of species", not their demise.

You can deny it all you want, but the recent T-rex tissue find is powerful evidence for a dino within the recent past.


How long can organic materials last? We know that mummies last at least 4,000-5,000 years, based only on historical dating. (That alone seems to be pushing the YEC idea).

For older examples, we ultimately have to rely on the many radiometric dating methods, along with other non-radiometric dating methods (such as astronomical cycles that leave their mark in sedimentary sequences, and dendochronology).

The only way to demonstrate that organic materials can survive millions of years is to find them, and determine their age (either directly, or indirectly) through one of these dating methods.

If you do not accept the accuracy of the various radiometric and non-radiometric dating methods, despite the overwhelming evidence, then nothing will convince you that organic materials can last that long.

WRT to this particular fossil, it was found in the Hell Creek Formation:

http://www.scn.org/~...t_boundary.html

Near the top of the HCF, there is the famous iridium layer that marks the Cretaceous/Tertiary (K/T) boundary. The iridium layer is found all over the world at the K/T boundary, and is the result of a large asteroid or comet impact (that may have caused the mass extinctions at the end of the Cretaceous). The iridium layer is a global time marker.

Everywhere it is found, the iridium layer corresponds to the K/T boundary, as determined through absolute dating methods, and relative dating methods (like index fossils).

Despite the fact that there are many thousands of feet of sediment above the K/T boundary in some places, dinos (and many other fossils) are never found above it. And (most) modern animals are never found below it.

The K/T is probably the most studied geologic contact in the world. It has been dated innummerable times, in inummerable different ways, and always yields the same date- 65 million years or so.

The age of the K/T boundary is as well documented as anything in science.

If you wish to dispute the age of the organic materials found in this fossil, you must demonstrate that the age of the K/T boundary is wrong. You must demonstrate that the radiometric and non-radiometric dating methods used to date this layer do not work.

If you are unable to do that, then you must accept that these organic materials have indeed lasted 65 million years.

Like I said, evolution is set up to not be falsifiable (or is already falsified).


Which is it? It can be one or the other, but not both.

Dino fossils are extremely rare (any vertebrate fossil for that matter), you actually get some good bucks if you find one! The odds of finding a Dino buried with marine life is astronomically low and why evos like to cite it as a “test”. It’s a toothless test.


It doesn't have to be a dino fossil- a whale, dolphin, seal, walruss, sea otter, turtle, pleisiosaur, sea snake, manatee, crocodile, ammonite, nautilus, cuttlefish, penguin, shark and innumerable other marine creatures would do it too.

#78 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 07 April 2005 - 07:14 PM

Yes, the coelacanth was yet another fine example of how evolution is propped up as non-falsifiable. Not only was finding this living and now defunct index fossil a complete surprise to evolutionists

View Post


Fred Williams I addressed this point in a previous debate with Lionheart209 From an AiG link

The fossil record
Becoming more random all the time
by John Woodmorappe

Summary
The reality of the geologic column is predicated on the belief that fossils have restricted ranges in rock strata. In actuality, as more and more fossils are found, the ranges of fossils keep increasing. I provide a few recent examples of this, and then show that stratigraphic-range extension is not the exception but the rule. The constant extension of ranges simultaneously reduces the credibility of the geologic column and organic evolution, and makes it easier for the Genesis Flood to explain an increasingly-random fossil record.


This (stratigraphic-range extension ) has never been an acknowledged problem for evolutionary theory, should any life form (e.g. coelacanth) survive while the majority of it’s kin perish, this will result in little or no evidence in the fossil record. Stories like Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s “Lost World” play upon this idea.

What you may have lost however is an ‘index fossil’ (Note index fossils are not used exclusively to date strata). If the surviving life form is isolated like in “Lost World” there would be argument to reclaim the index fossil again.

Needless to say evolutions, is falsifiable with a Dinosaur in the Devonian (or equivolent) recent life form found in a more ancient strata.

#79 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 08 April 2005 - 03:26 PM

Yes, the coelacanth was yet another fine example of how evolution is propped up as non-falsifiable.


I ask again, where does evolution require that either the coelacanth or dinosaurs be extinct? What evolution does require is that dinosaurs come after the first tetrapods and the first coelacanths after the first vertebrates (urochordates) in the fossil record. Evolution makes no predictions on which species went extinct in which era. Evolution does predict that life FIRST APPEARS at different times, such as advanced tetrapods after the Devonian.

Not only was finding this living and now defunct index fossil a complete surprise to evolutionists, it also dispatched claims that it was a transitional “walking fish” with legs. Since we could actually examine one, it turns out it the thing was just an ordinary ole fish! All this is well documented in the evolutionist Denton’s book “Evolution, a Theory in Crisis”.


Perhaps this is a good intro for a separate thread? I often find that creationists as yourself are confused as to what evolution says, as is showing in this discussion about ceolacanths.

You can deny it all you want, but the recent T-rex tissue find is powerful evidence for a dino within the recent past.


Why? All they have found is pliable material that resembles soft tissue. They have yet to determine the actual make up of the material. All they have found is cellular morphology, not cells.

And I did provide evidence, you must not have read the citation I provided, plus the 8-year old comments by Schweitzer & Horner before such conclusive evidence was found!


Could you please be more specific. If it is an 8 year old statement then it can't pertain to the find under discussion in this thread. Again, what evidence do you have that makes preservation of this kind impossible?

You on the other hand are assuming the tissue can survive that long, and did NOT provide any evidence for this assumption.


The age of the fossil was independently measured at 70 million years old. That is my evidence. Now, please tell me how you dated the fossil.

Like I said, evolution is set up to not be falsifiable (or is already falsified). Dino fossils are extremely rare (any vertebrate fossil for that matter), you actually get some good bucks if you find one! The odds of finding a Dino buried with marine life is astronomically low and why evos like to cite it as a “test”. It’s a toothless test.

Fred

View Post


I am not asking for a dino fossil in marine sediments. I am asking for a dino fossil from terrestrial sediments from the pre-cambrian. If you found a dino fossil in pre-cambrian terrestrial sediments then this would go a long way towards falsifying evolution.

Secondly, we do find aquatic reptiles in the fossil record. Why don't we find them in the pre-cambrian marine sediments? Or whales for that matter?

Thirdly, you claim that evolution is unfalsifiable when I give you the very means to falsify it. This is not debating in good faith.

Hey, how about finding a living species of mammal in Jurrasic sediments. Why can't we find any? Again, this would falsify evolution but you refuse to fess up to it. Evolution is falsifiable, it just hasn't been yet.

#80 Geezer

Geezer

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 72 posts
  • Age: 49
  • Judaism Orthodox
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • 3rd Rock from the Sun

Posted 09 April 2005 - 07:58 AM

I am not asking for a dino fossil in marine sediments. I am asking for a dino fossil from terrestrial sediments from the pre-cambrian. If you found a dino fossil in pre-cambrian terrestrial sediments then this would go a long way towards falsifying evolution.

Secondly, we do find aquatic reptiles in the fossil record. Why don't we find them in the pre-cambrian marine sediments? Or whales for that matter?

Thirdly, you claim that evolution is unfalsifiable when I give you the very means to falsify it. This is not debating in good faith.


How would this falsify evolution in any way? It may falsify yours and others ideas about evolution. Finding the things you speak of would simply change the way we view the evidence.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users