It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Dinosaur Study Backs Controversial Find

page: 3
51
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by amazingbut mainly just using 2000 years ago as a reference point), those whom it was written for those 2000 years ago had no concept of science or any of the laws of science or physics and thus it was dumbed down for them and further more there is great debate as to how long those first days were.


Not that the Bible is right because I really doubt that, but that is not true at all. They not only had the basic concepts but they had concepts that would be considered too advanced or simply not understood for next 2000 years.

Do you really think that "dumb" people would have a better understandment of the constelations that most of us, or even the current science has?

Some from that time knew that the earth wasn't flat and that earth wasn't the center of the universe. Their calendars are far more precise than the one that we use now, and you call them dumb?

I would say they were just genius for coming up with all that without satellites, computers and the likes. In fact I would probably say that they were smarter than we are now, because at least they didn't assume far too many things without actually understanding them like we do nowadays.

We are so damn smart, science and physics aware that all we can do now is imagine, wonder and best guess how they've did the pyramids.

"Dumb" was the dark period where being dumb wasn't just a option, but a mandatory thing.

As for the dino it works as yet another proof that established concepts by science are not entirely true and not always applicable. And I really hope it rings a bell for scientists (and it's blind followers) to be a bit humbler and assume less when it comes to things that are not entirely understood. Which is just about 100% of the stuff being studied and theorized over nowadays.




posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 03:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ziggy1706
Now.. what bothers me the most about dinosaurs and evolution, is how creatures so huge and big..some biger than houses! over time shrank to the size a fist and smaller, grew feathers and flew,a nd becaome some of the msot beuiful of sepcies on earth.Thats what bothers me the most..casue ti dosnt click or make sense. flesh eating carnivores, wtih razor sharp machette teeth, predators, turned into little chirp chirps who eat only bread and insects...
Thats like one day, humans evolving into insects and praying mantisis!


You're not serious are you?


You are aware of the countless flesh eating birds in existence today? Falcons, Eagles, vultures and other forms of, hmm, what do they call them again - RAPTORS... Not to mention the water fowl who eat minnows, fish, etc... Many birds are carnivorous so your argument doesn't work...

[edit on 1-8-2009 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 03:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by mewize
The tissue is still testable because it is only a few thousand years old. The animal died in the flood of Noah and evolutionists are hopelessly searching for a way to work around creation-evidence just like they do every other time they misinterpret such obvious clues that explain our origins


Hmmm, well wasn't Noah instructed to take a pair of every kind of animal into the ark?

I guess they must have all died out before the flood, huh?

What is amazing is that scientists have the ability to study any tissue from it, whether it is thousands or millions of years old!



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 04:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by mewize

God did it just like He said He did in the Bible. When you come to grips with this fact, everything in the Universe begins to make sense is spite of ourselves...


Good lord.

Thats the funniest thing i have heard all year.




posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blanca Rose

Originally posted by mewize
The tissue is still testable because it is only a few thousand years old. The animal died in the flood of Noah and evolutionists are hopelessly searching for a way to work around creation-evidence just like they do every other time they misinterpret such obvious clues that explain our origins


Hmmm, well wasn't Noah instructed to take a pair of every kind of animal into the ark?

I guess they must have all died out before the flood, huh?

What is amazing is that scientists have the ability to study any tissue from it, whether it is thousands or millions of years old!


You realise dinosaurs died after the flood? the flood wasnt a tiny ammount of rain, the water came from the skys and broke out of the earth. It destroyed part of the earths atmosphere ( i think it was a hydrogen sheild ) and made the atmosphere thinner. The dinsouars died out because the atmosphere couldnt support the size of the dinosaurs, they basically would die from heart attacks because there would of been less oxygen for them.

Also if its 2 of every animal the lord said to bring..then alot would of died during the flood aswell.

And for the topic, i hope they can clone it from the dna somehow... it would be awesome to see if a t-rex looks like what we thought it did.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by Redfield]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by ziggy1706
 


Chirp chirp birdies? Even owls eat live mice. Hawks and so on catch and eat large animals. I remember seeing a video clip of a large hawk (iirc) attacking a goat on a cliff ledge, to knock it off and pick at the carcass. And I would hardly call a vulture a chirp chirp birdie..


(EDIT) Sorry it was an Eagle. Video of it at youtube -



The difference is, they did NOT turn into these birds. The birds are an evolutionary descendant. A smaller dinosaur, that developed the ability to fly had a much larger chance of continued life and survival than those big bulky ones that relied on food at their feet. When the earth was hit by the meteor and caused a global cooling, these large beasts would inevitably die out as their food sources also died out. Smaller animals means smaller appetite.

The smaller, more agile and active ones had much better chance at surviving and still finding nourishment.

And feathers are an evolutionary gift picked up by converting scales (or so I've read) into more usable features. Look at a birds leg, it is not feathered, but scaly.

We have mammals that can effectively 'fly' short distances because evolution has adapted the skin folds under their front and back legs to catch the air. It is not unthinkable that in order to survive, the agile and small dinosaurs, which already had many traits similar to modern birds, used more and more their ability to leap around and 'fly' and to eventually become what we have today.

One problem I have in evolution threads, is that people inevitably disregard it because they equate evolution with "Turning into" or "Evolving from" as with Humans Descended from Apes, yet why do we have apes. That claim is wrong. Evolution simply means that the plethora of species have a common ancestor, some will die out, others will continue. But not that one IS OR WAS the other.


[edit on 1/8/2009 by Ha`la`tha]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by skycopilot
reply to post by Scooby Doo
 


The reason this has been rejected by popular science is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for proteins to remain INTACT for MILLIONS of years. This is based on simple science - or the KNOWN decay rate of the peptide bonds.

There simply is no presevative that could do this - ask a mortician.

So the only other SCIENTIFIC answer is this scrap of tissue, while being authentically that of a T-Rex, is simply THOUSANDS, and not millions of years old.


I like to point to the mayans again, if all dino's died that many million years ago, there would be NO change at all for the maya people to know about it, and sidetracking that fact with smoking 'pot' or 'mass hallusinations' dont cut it...



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 08:30 AM
link   
The Paluxy River 'man' footprints are clearly dinosaur fooprints. Some of the prints even show a claw at the 'heel', plus the depth of the impressions(weight of the animal) and the stride length indicate that of a dino.

If humans and 'dragons' co-existed please explain why none of the paleolithic artists, who painted examples of all the large beasts they encountered on rock and cave walls, never bothered to depict anything even loosely resembling a dragon or dinosaur?




[edit on 1-8-2009 by seabhac-rua]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 08:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Udontknowme
Kinda supports the theory that dinosaurs are not as old as we think, and carbon dating is skewed from fires.

Tissue remaining? Wow.

Darwinism is going down. Bring in God.


There are a lot of God Creationism references in this thread all because of one little strand of peptides that should be millions of years old.

Maybe we are wrong about how long peptides can live

Maybe this is a fluke that the peptides lived, like that mars rock that we found in the arctic that had living microbes on it

Maybe some dino's managed to live through the apocalypse and were around untill the ice age, and these peptides are from not T-rex but a dino that T-rex evolved into.

Maybe we need to realize that the majority of what we have is theories that get proven and dis proven through the use if scientific method.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Sarkazmon
 



Go thump your bible in a religion forum.


You know, I have always loved science and have never been religious, but I'm getting a little tired of self proclaimed know it all like yourself. The guy wasn't being overtly religious anyway and there people who beleive dinosaurs lived more recently that aren't religious. So, can you get your point across without insulting those who do beleive in religion? Being a biochemist doesn't make you all knowing.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by skycopilot
reply to post by chiron613
 


Ever been to Paluxy,TX? There is a Dinosaur Valley State Park there, and in a creek or river bed are footprints - Very large dinosaur footprints in rock. And Oh, yeah, human footprints also. This is well known, and the info is in many books (but not in NGeo, the Smithsonian, and other sy-fy government shills of misinformation.)

In other words, human and "dragons" (which is what they were called before the mid-nineteenth century) co-existed. And it was thousands, not miilions of years ago.


Sorry Sky, the Paluxy Man Tracks are totally and completely debunked. And that is admitted leading Creationist scientists, not just mainstream scientists.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by skycopilot
reply to post by Scooby Doo
 


The reason this has been rejected by popular science is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for proteins to remain INTACT for MILLIONS of years. This is based on simple science - or the KNOWN decay rate of the peptide bonds.

There simply is no presevative that could do this - ask a mortician.

So the only other SCIENTIFIC answer is this scrap of tissue, while being authentically that of a T-Rex, is simply THOUSANDS, and not millions of years old.


If you believe that a T-Rex skeleton is only thousands of years old, then your scientific credibility has just gone down the toilet. The bones have already been dated to be over 65 million years old using radiometric dating. They are located in a layer of dirt that was laid down over 65 million years ago. I suspect you are one of those creationist morons trying to prove that Fred Flintstone was a real guy and that humans had pet dinosaurs.

Just because you type "SCIENTIFIC" in all capital letters, it doesn't mean that you haven't stated an absolutely ridiculous idea that no scientist has ever or will ever endorse.

Dinosaur fossils are dated using Uranium-235, which has a half life of over 700 million years. Radioisotope dating cannot be used directly on fossils since they don't contain the unstable radioactive isotopes used in the dating process. To determine a fossil's age, igneous layers (volcanic rock) beneath the fossil (predating the fossil) and above it (representing a time after the dinosaur's existence) are dated, resulting in a time-range for the dinosaur's life. Thus, dinosaurs are dated with respect to volcanic eruptions.




[edit on 1-8-2009 by andrewh7]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by reticledc
reply to post by skycopilot
 


Personally, I feel that the whole truth is not being told.
Much like the fallacy about the origin of human beings, I think that the rumors of the demise of the dinosaurs has been greatly exaggerated, or at leas misguided.
Reptilians anyone?



That was the plot of the Super Mario Brothers movie. That movie was terrible and made absolutely no sense, much like your comment.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by mewize
The tissue is still testable because it is only a few thousand years old. The animal died in the flood of Noah and evolutionists are hopelessly searching for a way to work around creation-evidence just like they do every other time they misinterpret such obvious clues that explain our origins

God did it just like He said He did in the Bible. When you come to grips with this fact, everything in the Universe begins to make sense is spite of ourselves...


Flintstones. Meet the Flintstones.
They're the modern stone age family.
From the town of Bedrock,
They're a page right out of history.

Let's ride with the family down the street.
Through the courtesy of Fred's two feet.

When you're with the Flintstones
you'll have a yabba dabba doo time.
A dabba doo time.
You'll have a gay old time.

Lay off the cartoons! You've lost your mind.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Udontknowme
Kinda supports the theory that dinosaurs are not as old as we think, and carbon dating is skewed from fires.

Tissue remaining? Wow.

Darwinism is going down. Bring in God.


We don't date dinosaur bones using Carbon. Its half life is less than 6,000 years. How can you make an argument involving the dating of dinosaur bones when you don't even know how the bones were dated? C-14 dating is useful for dating items up to about 50,000 - 60,000 years ago. Obviously, you heard "carbon dating" on TV once and thought you understood what it was.

Dinosaur fossils are dated using Uranium-235, which has a half life of over 700 million years. Radioisotope dating cannot be used directly on fossils since they don't contain the unstable radioactive isotopes used in the dating process. To determine a fossil's age, igneous layers (volcanic rock) beneath the fossil (predating the fossil) and above it (representing a time after the dinosaur's existence) are dated, resulting in a time-range for the dinosaur's life. Thus, dinosaurs are dated with respect to volcanic eruptions.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Nothing really to add to the debate of 'how old' are Dinosaurs, but one thing that I can not shake is the slim possibility to clone a Dino, even with having the right DNA samples. From what i understand, Dinosaurs were alive in a time when the oxygen content of the atmosphere was a lot higher. And it was required for there immense size. I am all but 100% sure that a Dino like the T-Rex, even if cloned perfectly, could not live in todays atmosphere.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
dp...

[edit on 1-8-2009 by HomeBrew]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:43 AM
link   
tp... :/

[edit on 1-8-2009 by HomeBrew]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


It doesn't matter that much since they are all subjected to inference and plain errors.

Dating stuff by their surroundings is a "best guess" at best.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by ziggy1706
As a kid i LOVED dinosaurs, growing up in the early 80's. When my mom took me to the store, ide always beg her to get e dino toys! Later i got into putting mdoels fo thm together.
Now, this news of protiens being preserved, does sound far fetched. BUt i wouldnt rule it out 100%. Why? Rememebr the bog man, that was found in europe, like 10 years ago? If orget how old he was, 800 years? maybe more. HE was preserved in swamp mud..with the rope that choked him to death, still around his neck! They never mentioned if his protens and DNA were preserved specifically, but still, nature can preserve in rare cases!
Look at our landfills. I remember hearing storys through the early 90s;, old landfills covered up back in the 40's, and so on, r dug up, and newspapers were still entirely readable. Appraently, decomposition DID NOT take place so efficiantly. Of course, thats newer age..dinsoaurs are still from hundreds of millions of years go. Carbon dating is not 100%, yes, i never understood nor belived in it. BUt, looknig at fossils at certain levels in the gorund, is as good as it gets.
I had a similar idea once years ago..could it be, when NOAHA's ark flaoed, that was god destroying the dinosaurs so humans could survive? Sounds crazy, but hey, technically it cannot be ruled out! Makes one wonder...imagine, if dinosaurs were around when humans were here. Humans breed almost like rabbotss, wouold would hve made us food essentialy, for them. Their was taht guy in 1980, who made tha humanoid lizard model of what humans could have lokoed like, theoretically, IF we had evolved along with the dinosaurs. KInda like 33 df alines similar to those lizard tings fomr land fo the lost.



Yeah, it "technically" can be ruled out. Using a observable constant decay ratio of a radioactive isotope, we age the soil above and below the fossil. You need to try educating yourself as opposed to simply making things up. Your level of intellectual sophistication is clearly indicated by the enormous number of spelling/grammar mistakes in your response. I personally don't have a problem with stupid people in general, only those who claim to possess knowledge or even a rudimentary understanding of basic scientific processes about which they know absolutely nothing. People from other countries will read the gibberish you've hastily spouted out above and think that all Americans are so willfully and blissfully ignorant. You give all of us a bad name.

It cost absolutely nothing for you to use the resources available through your local public library. You clearly have internet access as well. Why not actually spend a little time learning things from reputable scientific sources?


[edit on 1-8-2009 by andrewh7]



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join