Dinosaur Study Backs Controversial Find

reply to post by HomeBrew


If possible they probably wouldn't survive that much unless held in a controlled environment.

But I really think we shouldn't play with this kind of stuff, playing with the nature isn't too safe in my opinion.

Originally posted by thomas_
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.

The uranium-lead radiometric dating scheme has been refined to the point that the error margin in dates of rocks can be as low as less than two million years in two-and-a-half billion years.

Hanging on this uncertainty and then arguing that a thousand year old fossil could somehow be placed between two layers that are roughly 65 million years old is absurd.

reply to post by andrewh7


I, personally, am not saying you are right or you are wrong. It is possible that our dating methods work. But, then again, it is very possible (and i believe likely) that our dating methods are skewed by things such as fires, cosmic events, and just stupidity. On the side of stupidity a great example is how, in many instances, you find archaeology dating something based on geology only to turn around and find geology dating something based on archaeology. The circular logic, in my non-esteemed opinion, discredits much of the rest of the science.

reply to post by Sarkazmon


I see we have another obama minion!!
Maybe you need to read the Bible instead of thumping it.

Originally posted by chiron613
To say that there is no means by which the peptides could be preserved is to claim that all possibilities are known. This isn't the case. All we can say is that we don't know of amy means by which peptides could be preserved for such a length of time.

Now we have evidence that, in some cases, peptides can survive millions of years. Perhaps this evidence is contaminated or otherwise invalid. Perhaps T-Rex lived only thousands of years ago. However, the best hypothesis, the one that fits the facts, is that in some cases peptides can survive much longer than we thought.

It wouldn't be the first time we've guessed wrong about something in science.

There is no natural way peptides could last millions of years unless t Rex was found in a block of ice which i find unlikely.Here is the reason scientists rejected the data in the first place it means either we have to reevaluate when T Rex was alive or call this a mistake which is easier?

I'm beginning to believe the extinction of the dinosaurs was not a long ago as we thought.Every culture in the world mentions dragons Ive often wondered if these were not dinosaurs driven to extinction by man slaying dragons.

Cut the crap with the whole "Man and Dinosaurs lived at the same time". That is UTTER NONSENSE. We would have been wiped off the planet, no human could survive the onslaught of viscous reptiles like that. Plus, it's pretty much a FACT that there had to be more oxygen on the planet for these reptiles to grow to the amazing heights that we have discovered. That was millions, not thousands of years ago.

The only reason mammals were able to grow to the point we have today, was because the dinosaurs were virtually wiped out, for whatever reason. Human civilization could not have survived at the same time as dinosaurs. They were superior predators, and we were the prey. Plus, whatever killed them off surely would have done the same to humans.

Complete and utter nonsense, to me this is the stupidest theory or rationalization of them all.

reply to post by '___'eviant


If they go through the plan of bringing back extinct animals and dinosaurs via cloning.. i am SOOOOOO there!

reply to post by Blacknapkins


Yes i agree with you on that but i truly believe there were some survivors and eggs that survived and they staye din isolated places.. i believe there are a dozen or so in Scotland.. my dad and his brother saw something like a dinosaur in Loch Lomond in the 1970's..

they were swimming in the loch near the shoreline when they dived underwater they saw dozens of mutilated sheep on the bottom of the shallow bed as they looked around into the darkness of the Loch they saw an extremely large grey "wall" swim away with a huge tail which pushed my dad and his brother back onto the shore.

I also observed a large creature enter Loch Ness in 2005 through some cracks in the ravines

Originally posted by Blacknapkins
Cut the crap with the whole "Man and Dinosaurs lived at the same time". That is UTTER NONSENSE. We would have been wiped off the planet, no human could survive the onslaught of viscous reptiles like that. Plus, it's pretty much a FACT that there had to be more oxygen on the planet for these reptiles to grow to the amazing heights that we have discovered. That was millions, not thousands of years ago.

The only reason mammals were able to grow to the point we have today, was because the dinosaurs were virtually wiped out, for whatever reason. Human civilization could not have survived at the same time as dinosaurs. They were superior predators, and we were the prey. Plus, whatever killed them off surely would have done the same to humans.

Complete and utter nonsense, to me this is the stupidest theory or rationalization of them all.

Were discovering species thought to be extinct all the time The Coleacanth. This large prehistoric fish was thought to have gone extinct 80 million years ago until a live specimen was found in 1938.Theres giant squid just 20 years ago thought to be a story by seafarers until we proved they exist.Theres a large tiger in Borneo that no one knew existed. There was a prehistoric frill shark caught off the coast of japan.And then theres sightings in lake champaign of champ not to mention chessy and nessy.

There is reports in south amarica of dinosaurs still being spotted by remote tribes.In1990, samples of various dinosaur bones were submitted for Carbon-14 dating to the University of Arizona’s department of geosciences’ laboratory of isotope geochemistry. Bones from an Allosaurus and an Acrocanthosaurus were among those sent to the university’s testing facilities to undergo a “blind” dating procedure (which means that the technicians performing the tests did not know that the bones had come from dinosaurs). Not realizing that the samples were from dinosaurs prevented “evolutionary bias,” and helped ensure that the results were as accurate as possible (within the recognized assumptions and limits of the C-14 dating method). Amazingly, the oldest C-14 date assigned to those bones was a mere 16,120 years (and only 23,760 years for the Acrocanthosaurus fossils.

Now lets delve into history a little bit shall we Herodotus was a Greek historian from the fifth century B.C., who wrote:
There is a place in Arabia...to which I went, on hearing of some winged serpents; and when I arrived there, I saw bones and spines of serpents, in such quantities as it would be impossible to describe. The form of the serpent is like that of a water-snake; but he has wings without feathers, and as like as possible to the wings of a bat.Then of course we can look at chinese culture or even middle ages were there were reports of dragons but i think you get the idea.

Therefore to say some dinosaurs didn't survive in remote areas who knows.I know I'm willing to keep an open mind. s

reply to post by dragonridr
[more
funny enough, people have gone to China to see the "ole wise folks" to check their "dragon bones" being used for healing and other craft of lore.
It turns out that any dragon bone used was actually from different diosaurs easily cataloged.
The regions in which people live in, or have lived in hundreds of years ago spotting winged serpents and what not are most likely geological hotspots that turn the bones up more often than other areas. Easy to look at a set of bones and say it's a "winged serpent dragon thing"

b

The C-14 dating method only yields any real or reliable data on samples which are no older than around 50/70,000 years old. C-14 test have been tried on coal and the results have shown(inaccurately) that the coal was less than 50,000 yeras old, and as we all know, it takes coal a lot longer than that to form naturally. There's nothing amazing about the results you mention here.

Secondly, as i metioned in an earlier post, if there were dinosaurs co-existing with humans then why didn't the paleolithic artists, who left paintings of every large beast they encountered on cave and rock walls, ever bother to paint anything even remotely like a dinosaur? As we know there are ancient cave and rock paintings on every continent, accurately depicting many now extinct animals, but not one dino.

The various mythologies around the world concerning 'Dragons' has more to do with the role of serpentine archetypes in pre-Christian religions than actual fire breathing, flying dinosaurs.

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

reply to post by seabhac-rua


You apparently have never seen the various pre-columbian objects found in South America (various countries) that picture humans with dinosaurs. These are in museums (I believe Brazil has quite a few.)

reply to post by skycopilot


that link is no good .

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.

We have been finding older and older samples of protein fragments. Obviously we know with certainty, that dinosaurs lived 65 million years and earlier. That means these samples are much more durable then once thought.
NO, the sample is NOT thousands of years old. Any basic understanding of geology, science, paleontology, etc.. will tell you this. Please read up. Thanks.

Yes I have seen them, depictions of mythical monters: yes, depictions of dinosaurs: nope. You can speculate as to what these carvings are of all you like, one thing is for sure they are not of real animals.

reply to post by seabhac-rua


Just to sate my curiosity, would you mind sharing with me your secret that makes you so sure?

Secret? Carvings of fantastic creatures do not indicate the presence of dinosaurs period. The reason i mentioned the paleolithic art is that it can be divided into two readily distinguished types, one portrays the actual animals these people encountered the other portrays fantasy creatures: theriantropes, animal hybrids etc. The portrayal of these fantasy creatures obviously does not mean that they actually existed, a half man-half gazelle did not exist. On the other hand we have paintings of all the animals they did see, and as iv'e said, not one dinosaur. All cultures have their mythological scary monsters, this does not prove that man and dinosaur co-existed.

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

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

Originally posted by thomas_
reply to post by HomeBrew

 

If possible they probably wouldn't survive that much unless held in a controlled environment.

But I really think we shouldn't play with this kind of stuff, playing with the nature isn't too safe in my opinion.

While we should certainly be careful it is ridiculous to impose rules on ourselves that we should not mess with nature. We are part of nature. What we do is natural. We cannot by definition doing anything unnatural.

As for god. If god exists he made us the way we are and knew exactly what we would do so when religious types get all riled up it makes no since because everything is god's will right? Chew on that awhile.

Lets make some T-Rex steaks.

Originally posted by skycopilot
reply to post by seabhac-rua

 

You apparently have never seen the various pre-columbian objects found in South America (various countries) that picture humans with dinosaurs. These are in museums (I believe Brazil has quite a few.)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8488a198c83d.jpg[/atsimg]

If you are referring to the Ica stones (Peru)
errr.. No..another hoax
www.skepdic.com...

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by andrewh7

 

I, personally, am not saying you are right or you are wrong. It is possible that our dating methods work. But, then again, it is very possible (and i believe likely) that our dating methods are skewed by things such as fires, cosmic events, and just stupidity. On the side of stupidity a great example is how, in many instances, you find archaeology dating something based on geology only to turn around and find geology dating something based on archaeology. The circular logic, in my non-esteemed opinion, discredits much of the rest of the science.

That's a nice generic statement referencing nonexistent anecdotal evidence. Radiometric dating is fairly strait forward. These elements have a constant and continuous decay rate that we can observe. This decay took place long before humans were even around to look at it. Radiometric dating has nothing to do with geology or archeology. It is basic chemistry. It's a tool used by both fields and, if anything, bolsters their credibility. Circular logic is a fun word but you have no justification for using it here. Do you really think we could build nuclear weapons without a very sophisticated understanding of Uranium? Radiometric dating is simple in comparison. If you find it complex and confusing, it's most likely that you haven't taken the time to read about it or take a class covering it in college.

To many, cold hard proof about the age of the world and difficulty of grasping the concept of "billions of years" is difficult for many because our brains were never meant to live more than a few decades without the benefit of modern medicine. Religious people look at the world and feel overwhelmed by its complexities and its age. Religious texts give people easy answers and provide something that they believe science can't do on its own - provide meaning or purpose.

They're wrong. Being part of an evolutionary chain spanning billions of years is far more amazing than being winked into existence 6000k years ago. We record history, remember our family and distant ancestors out of curiosity and respect. I hold our much more distant ancestors in high regard as well. The apes people are so ashamed of lived in a world in which they were not at the top of the food chain. They lacked many of the defense mechanisms of their competition. They survived by using their brains to plan and experiment. They survived without guns or 911. They were truly on their own and we only exist because they fought to survive and protect their children in the same way we do ours today. Those apes might have been shorter, harrier, and dumber, but they were us. Many of them died, whether killed by each other, a predator, or simply cold weather, they deserve to be remembered and respected.

Religion, invented to satisfy our frustration over not understanding the world around us, led to our own history being forgotten or denied. We put on pants and type at computer screens, but we are still animals. Millions of years were spent developing our intelligence and culture. I would rather humanity use it to embrace rationality. Adopt and practice morality not out of a fear of hell or a God's wraith but because we decided right and wrong for ourselves.

Maybe one day.