Dinosaur Study Backs Controversial Find

Let me add some more fuel to the fire:

Currently, science knows of only one type of place in the universe that can impart an ocean of water to the surface of a solid body planet.

That would be inside the plasma coma of a brown dwarf star.

Inside such a coma, water would rain down from the heavens 24 hours a day and there would be a constant 24 hours of red diffuse sunlight over the entire planet. - perfect conditions for algae growth.

Brown dwarf stars are speculated to be among the most numerous stars in the known universe. (A brown dwarf star is nothing more than a gas giant planet that is outside the influence of a "Sun's" electrical field. - This is proven true by the fact that brown dwarfs are far too cool to support nuclear fusion.)

I also might add that all ancient fish fossils are not found on the ocean floors, they are found in the middle of the continents. This makes sense if at one time the earth was smaller and covered in water. There would have been no dry land when life began to evolve.

Dry land and continents did not appear until well after the birth of the planet. The Earth has expanded in size and the continents have risen above the ocean surface. The oceans have filled the expanded zones between the continents.




[edit on 2-8-2009 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually I've not seen nor heard of any evidence suggesting astrology meets any scientific criteria that would put it in the same category as I've stated. In short, astrology has not been shown valid.

Not to science, because science will not consider what it cannot objectively quantify. Take, for example, PSI. Most scientists cannot objectively quantify it, so it is ignored (despite thousands of testimonials).

That's my whole point. If astrology were real, it could be measured in some way as it's affects would be observable.

The worst part of the whole thing is that these events are completely ignored by science, thus leaving its followers to ridicule.

Science doesn't ignore these things because they want to. Science dismisses based on lack of observable evidence. That's the difference between science and faith.

Science cannot be compared to religion as they are polar opposites.
Science is the belief in something only based on factual evidence to support it's existence.
Religion is based on faith which is, belief in something without the need, want, desire, etc.. for evidence to support it's existence.

Science does require factual evidence. However, it ignores factual evidence.

Actually it doesn't. Sometimes individual scientists do but not science as a whole.

Not at all.

We will agree to disagree, then.

Yes.





[edit on 2-8-2009 by jfj123]

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

Rocky planets like Earth are thought to form when dust motes around a nascent star gather to form rocks. Rocks collide, and some stick and grow.

"The dust bunnies under your bed grow in a similar way," said Scott Kenyon, a planet-formation theorist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "And after a million years, a dust bunny can get pretty big."

The process is not always smooth. Our Moon is thought to have formed when a Mars-sized object hit Earth shortly after our planet gathered itself together. For a few hundred million years thereafter, impacts of huge asteroids rocked all the worlds of the inner solar system. Craters on the Moon serve as a record of that chaotic time.

www.space.com...

How did the terrestrial planets form?

After the heavier elements and minerals condensed into solid bits of rock, they all orbited the Sun at about the same speed. As you can imagine, collisions of objects moving at the same speed are less destructive than those of objects moving at different speeds. Thus, when rocks orbiting the Sun move close to one another, they stick together more often than they destroy each other. These pieces gradually grow larger in a process called accretion. Once they are large enough, gravity forces them into spherical shapes.

lasp.colorado.edu...

I could post hundreds of these if you like

Those are old and done after the discovery that dust can not accumulate into planets.

Those theories have been falsified.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

You always spout this nonsense.
It's apparent that you've been brainwashed by some electric universe cult. This is the same mentality as the creationists who claim that dinosaurs were on noah's imaginary ark.

Good luck with your delusions.

This is exactly what i am talking about. The people who follow/believe/support science will, when faced with anything that contradicts their beliefs, resort to formal and informal fallacies.

Your multiple uses of ad hominem above only hurts your arguement. If your position is so strong, one would think you could defend it without resorting to such fallacious retorts.

I could defend it all day with factual information but this person in particular will refuse to believe the massive amounts of facts over his belief system.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

You always spout this nonsense.
It's apparent that you've been brainwashed by some electric universe cult. This is the same mentality as the creationists who claim that dinosaurs were on noah's imaginary ark.

Good luck with your delusions.

This is exactly what i am talking about. The people who follow/believe/support science will, when faced with anything that contradicts their beliefs, resort to formal and informal fallacies.

Your multiple uses of ad hominem above only hurts your arguement. If your position is so strong, one would think you could defend it without resorting to such fallacious retorts.

I could defend it all day with factual information but this person in particular will refuse to believe the massive amounts of facts over his belief system.

Your facts aren't facts, they are hypothetical theories.

There is a big difference.


[edit on 2-8-2009 by mnemeth1]

Some more fuel to the fire.

If you look into giraffes, you'll find they are some very special creatures.

They have a built in "g-suit" that preasurizes their legs to keep their blood from pooling there.

This natural "g-suit" is required because without it, the giraffe would pass out any time it lifted its head above its waist.

Gravity would pull all its blood into its legs and its heart would not be strong enough to pump it into its brain all the way up its neck.

The amount of force required to pump that blood up the giraffes neck can be calculated.

It turns out that the giraffe is at the maximum limit of height a land mammal can achieve. Beyond its current height, either the heart would have to be so large it wouldn't fit or its blood vessels would burst from over-pressure.

A creature taller than the giraffe would not be able to survive in our current gravity field.



[edit on 2-8-2009 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by ChemBreather
reply to post by andrewh7

 

Here is some Info on that dating method, warning, contains info you dodnt want the people to know !!

Source here
Picture a swimmer competing in a 1,500 metre race and an observer with an accurate wristwatch. We note that at the instant the swimmer touches the end of the pool our wristwatch reads 7:41 and 53 seconds. How long has the competitor taken to swim the race?

When I have asked an audience this question they have looked at me incredulously and said, “Starting time?” They realize that you cannot know how long the swimmer took unless you knew the time on the wristwatch when the race started. Keep that in mind when you think about working out the age of something. Without knowing the starting time it is impossible to establish the time for the race. Note: Impossible.

Actually, knowing the starting time is still not enough. During the race you have to watch the swimmer and count how many laps he has swum so you know that he has done 1,500 metres. And you have to check to make sure he touches the end for each lap. Without these observations you cannot be sure that the time is valid. That is why you need three timekeepers to independently record the times during the race to meet the standard needed to enter the record books.

Would it make any difference if the watch we were using was more accurate? Absolutely not! You could talk about the tiny quartz crystal and the piezoelectric effect used to provide a stable time base for the electronic movement. You could describe the atomic workings of the quartz oscillator and how it resonates at a specific and highly stable frequency, and how this is used to accurately pace a timekeeping mechanism.

The fact is that you can only establish the time for the race if it was timed by two or more reliable eyewitnesses who observed the start, the progress and the finish of the race.

This illustrates the problem with the radioactive dating of geological events. Those who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time impressing you with the technical details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they don’t discuss the basic flaw in the method: you cannot determine the age of a rock using radioactive dating because no-one was present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and no-one monitored the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.

The educational page hosted by the US Geological Society provides one recent example of the way radioactive dating is explained to the public. They focus on the technicalities of radioactive decay, etc. but don’t even mention the fact that we can’t measure the concentrations of isotopes in the past.

Just to quote from the thread !!!

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

If you are really interested in science, you probably ought to stay off the creationist sites. They just can't quite get it right.

pubs.usgs.gov...
the grownup version as opposed the school version linked to

Why Tas Walker's stopwatch analogy is wrong:

chem.tufts.edu...

The half-life of a radioactive nuclide is defined as the time it takes half of a sample of the element to decay. A mathematical formula can be used to calculate the half-life from the number of breakdowns per second in a sample of the nuclide. Some nuclides have very long half-lives, measured in billions or even trillions of years. Others have extremely short half-lives, measured in tenths or hundredths of a second. The decay rate and therefore the half-life are fixed characteristics of a nuclide. They don’t change at all. That’s the first axiom of radiometric dating techniques: the half-life of a given nuclide is a constant. (Note that this doesn’t mean the half-life of an element is a constant. Different nuclides of the same element can have substantially different half-lives.)

The half-life is a purely statistical measurement. It doesn’t depend on the age of individual atoms. A sample of U238 ten thousand years old will have precisely the same half-life as one ten billion years old. So, if we know how much of the nuclide was originally present, and how much there is now, we can easily calculate how long it would take for the missing amount to decay, and therefore how long it’s been since that particular sample was formed. That’s the essence of radiometric dating: measure the amount that’s present, calculate how much is missing, and figure out how long it would take for that quantity of the nuclide to break down. Because it’s a statistical measurement, there’s always a margin of error in the age figure, but if the procedure is done properly, the margin is very small.

As to the writer of the article, Tas Walker...seems he’s not exactly outstanding in the scientific community
www.noanswersingenesis.org.au...

The almost awe inspiring ability of Tas Walker to ignore the obvious is certainly the key to his usefulness to Answers in Genesis and creationism in general. The foundation of Walker's misunderstanding is his dogmatic conviction that the Genesis narrative is literally true, and perfect (see note). Thus, any physical evidence which violates his conception is to be ignored, or distorted (as in variable radioactive decay rates, etc.). Several good examples of Walker's tenuous grasp on reality are on display in the correspondence between several geologists and himself in the pages of The Australian Geologist (TAG) a few years ago and reproduced on Walker's personal web page.................read the link...........This pitiful exposition of geological ignorance by Walker is like a train wreck, we want to look away, but a morbid fascination keeps drawing our attention, always to the discovery of new error. It seems that a shining light of the creationist movement is a very dim bulb. Or, perhaps I am too kind, for after all, if Walker is not judged incompetent then we must conclude that he is dishonest. I personally would rather be stupid than crooked.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
Here is the problem with me finding stuff on Stucky the dog: the people who "own" it are VERY aggressive in protecting their copyright. Over the last 5-6 years every image source that i know of has been pulled down after legal action.

There are still references online, but they are more and more scant. Might it be mistaken or a hoax? I am unsure. Here is a reference to it from 2002:

www.fark.com...

Here is the main page of "Southern Forest World", the attraction that displays Stucky:

www.okefenokeeswamp.com...

Thanks for the links, but with no pictures, it's really hard to tell what's going on with ole Stucky. I gather he was found in a tree in Georgia? Is he supposed to be mummified, petrified, fossilized, air dried, what? What's the mystery of Stucky?

Originally posted by mnemeth1
I see your ad hom attacks and raise you a study showing winged dinosaurs could not fly:

precedings.nature.com...

Gravity was far less in the past than it is now.

Did you notice your link says the following:

However, predicting an absolute value of this upper limit has been difficult because wing morphology and flight styles vary among species.

So the PRELIMINARY RESEARCH even doesn't call the case air tight.

Also, I'll raise your preliminary findings and gravity bunk with the following. An extension of your link by the way

"One possibility is that Sato's findings don't really apply to pterosaurs or even to all birds," suggested Davin Unwin, a paleobiologist at the University of Leicester in the U.K.

For example, Argentavis, a giant bird thought to have existed six million years ago, had a wingspan of 20 feet (6 meters) and seems to have been able to fly, Unwin said.

What's more, Unwin said, giant pterosaur fossils all seem to have extraordinarily thin bone walls, which could mean the animals were lighter than their size would suggest.

Makoto Manabe, a senior scientist at the National Museum of Nature and Science in Tokyo, also thinks it's possible that pterosaurs were simply lighter than we currently think.

Also,

According to study leader Sato, it's possible heavy pterosaurs overcame their difficulties during takeoff by launching themselves from high places such as trees or cliffs.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

So what this research is actually saying is that he doesn't believe that Pterosaurs couldn't flap wings only for stationary lift off.

The way a bird lifts off—using two legs—doesn't make sense for pterosaurs, which would have had to heave their 500 pounds (227 kilograms) airborne using only their hind legs, the study says.

Instead, the "remarkably strong" animals apparently made a leaping launch in less than a second from flat ground, with no aid from wind or ledges.

"Most people are familiar with images of pterosaurs as very skinny, almost emaciated-looking things—basically a hang glider with teeth," study author Michael B. Habib, of Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, told National Geographic News. "They're actually built a lot more like Arnold Schwarzenegger than Urkel."

Habib compared bone strength in 20 species of modern birds and 3 species of pterosaurs to develop the new model, announced yesterday by the journal Zitteliana.

news.nationalgeographic.com...

Hopefully this clears up your misunderstanding




[edit on 2-8-2009 by jfj123]

reply to post by jfj123


I would say pterosaurs were indeed lighter than we think they were - because gravity was less.

This is the only plausible conclusion.

He puts on a good show, but he knows there's no way around the facts. The facts are that those dinos could not have flown unless they were faaaar lighter than we think they were.

There is only one plausible explanation left to us.

Couple that with the giraffe findings and I think the case for a lighter gravity field is more compelling than standing theories.

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by jfj123

 

I would say pterosaurs were indeed lighter than we think they were - because gravity was less.

This is the only plausible conclusion.

What REAL scientific evidence is there that suggests earths gravity was less at one point in it's history?

He puts on a good show, but he knows there's no way around the facts. The facts are that those dinos could not have flown unless they were faaaar lighter than we think they were.

Not according to YOUR link.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by jfj123

 

I would say pterosaurs were indeed lighter than we think they were - because gravity was less.

This is the only plausible conclusion.

What REAL scientific evidence is there that suggests earths gravity was less at one point in it's history?

He puts on a good show, but he knows there's no way around the facts. The facts are that those dinos could not have flown unless they were faaaar lighter than we think they were.

Not according to YOUR link.

I just gave you two huge findings.

1. petrosaurs could not have flown unless they were faaaaar lighter than current theory suggests.

2. giraffes are at the maximum possible height for a land animal due to gravity's effect on blood. The long neck dinosaurs would never have been able to lift their heads above their waists.

3. ancient fish fossils are found on land in the middle of the continents, not on the ocean floors. In fact no ancient fossils come from the ocean floors.


David Esker has done a large amount of research on the topic of dinosaurs being too big for the gravity field we live in.

www.dinosaurtheory.com...



[edit on 2-8-2009 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

I just gave you two huge findings.

1. petrosaurs could not have flown unless they were faaaaar lighter than current theory suggests.

You didn't even read your own link let alone my posts which shows that you're wrong !

2. giraffes are at the maximum possible height for a land animal due to gravity's effect on blood. The long neck dinosaurs would never have been able to lift their heads above their waists.

So if giraffes got 1 inch taller, they'd die out?
Also, a long neck dinosaur could simply NOT lift it's head up high but instead keep it in a neutral position solving your problem. I don't personally subscribe to this but this is an easy solution to your problem which doesn't involve a drop in gravity.

3. ancient fish fossils are found on land in the middle of the continents, not on the ocean floors. In fact no ancient fossils come from the ocean floors.

Land masses move.....ocean bottoms have become mountain tops. This is some very basic geology.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by mnemeth1

I just gave you two huge findings.

1. petrosaurs could not have flown unless they were faaaaar lighter than current theory suggests.

You didn't even read your own link let alone my posts which shows that you're wrong !

2. giraffes are at the maximum possible height for a land animal due to gravity's effect on blood. The long neck dinosaurs would never have been able to lift their heads above their waists.

So if giraffes got 1 inch taller, they'd die out?
Also, a long neck dinosaur could simply NOT lift it's head up high but instead keep it in a neutral position solving your problem. I don't personally subscribe to this but this is an easy solution to your problem which doesn't involve a drop in gravity.

3. ancient fish fossils are found on land in the middle of the continents, not on the ocean floors. In fact no ancient fossils come from the ocean floors.

Land masses move.....ocean bottoms have become mountain tops. This is some very basic geology.

So, if you believe in evolution, explain why dinosaurs would have evolved in such a way as to:

require them to jump off a cliff to get airborne.

have massively long necks that serve no purpose what-so-ever since they can't lift their heads above their waists.

such dinosaurs would not have evolved. to think as much is to reject evolution. I personally think evolution is real.

reply to post by Sarkazmon


I hunt fossils for a living.....and I can tell you from my experience from what I have seen in the field that the like most things of importance that we have been lied too. The dinosaurs are only thousands of years old....died in the flood....and I don't use this info for gain on Christian views or beliefs.
And as a fossil collector , I am known as one of the best.... not bragging, just been told that by the people in that industry.

Originally posted by Grayelf2009
reply to post by Sarkazmon

 

I hunt fossils for a living.....and I can tell you from my experience from what I have seen in the field that the like most things of importance that we have been lied too. The dinosaurs are only thousands of years old....died in the flood....and I don't use this info for gain on Christian views or beliefs.
And as a fossil collector , I am known as one of the best.... not bragging, just been told that by the people in that industry.

Sir, I believe you are close.

Dino's are thousands of years old, but they didn't die in a flood. At least not the kind of biblical flood we ascribe to such a catastrophe. The flood waters that were imparted to the planet came when Earth was tossed out of its orbit around Saturn. Just as the moon imparts tides to earth, such a tossing would have thrown water across the dry continents. There also would have been violent electrical exchanges and perhaps even nova event leading to the instant death of such creatures.

The ice age where glaciers covered the earth was a function of Earth's transition out of Saturn's orbit into the Sun's. With no near by heat source, the Earth froze over.

The exact details of how this transition occurred are still too obscure to be detailed, but there is no other plausible explanation that fits all the observed facts. At least not to my satisfaction.

Carbon 14 dates are wrong because they depend on the assumption of a stable sun and a stable orbit around that sun. Since I doubt this is the case, we can toss carbon dating out the window.






[edit on 2-8-2009 by mnemeth1]

Originally posted by mnemeth1

So, if you believe in evolution, explain why dinosaurs would have evolved in such a way as to:

require them to jump off a cliff to get airborne.

Again you didn't read my post.
I posted an alternative theory to this BUT
Here you go

have massively long necks that serve no purpose what-so-ever since they can't lift their heads above their waists.

This way they could remain stationary and still graze over a large area.

such dinosaurs would not have evolved.

Prove it !

to think as much is to reject evolution. I personally think evolution is real.

I'm surprised you believe anything is real based on your responses.

[edit on 2-8-2009 by jfj123]

[edit on 2-8-2009 by jfj123]

Originally posted by Grayelf2009
reply to post by Sarkazmon

 

I hunt fossils for a living.....and I can tell you from my experience from what I have seen in the field that the like most things of importance that we have been lied too. The dinosaurs are only thousands of years old....died in the flood....and I don't use this info for gain on Christian views or beliefs.
And as a fossil collector , I am known as one of the best.... not bragging, just been told that by the people in that industry.

Anyone who actually believes this crap can't have much experience or education in the field of Paleontology.
There is no evidence to suggest a world wide flood let alone dinosaurs that are only a few thousand years old.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Grayelf2009
reply to post by Sarkazmon

 

I hunt fossils for a living.....and I can tell you from my experience from what I have seen in the field that the like most things of importance that we have been lied too. The dinosaurs are only thousands of years old....died in the flood....and I don't use this info for gain on Christian views or beliefs.
And as a fossil collector , I am known as one of the best.... not bragging, just been told that by the people in that industry.

Anyone who actually believes this crap can't have much experience or education in the field of Paleontology.
There is no evidence to suggest a world wide flood let alone dinosaurs that are only a few thousand years old.

yeah, actually there is a lot of evidence, you just haven't read it yet apparently.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by mnemeth1

So, if you believe in evolution, explain why dinosaurs would have evolved in such a way as to:

require them to jump off a cliff to get airborne.

Again you didn't read my post.
I posted an alternative theory to this BUT
Here you go

have massively long necks that serve no purpose what-so-ever since they can't lift their heads above their waists.

This way they could remain stationary and still graze over a large area.

such dinosaurs would not have evolved.

Prove it !

to think as much is to reject evolution. I personally think evolution is real.

I'm surprised you believe anything is real based on your responses.

Your video isn't working.

But to put it in perspective, I think your theories make a lot less sense than my theories.

What makes sense is a lower gravity field.

What does not make sense is dinosaurs evolving into massive beasts with huge necks they couldn't lift above their waists.

Giraffes don't have long necks for field grazing, they have long necks to reach the bottom branches of the trees they eat from, which themselves evolved to keep the grass eaters from eating them.



[edit on 2-8-2009 by mnemeth1]