Living with Dinosaurs?

[Welcomefamily]

Modern Day Dinosaurs. Stories of Dragons are abound in every culture across the world and as yet their has been no evidence ever found that a dragon ever existed. How ever historical records across the middle ages record numerous sightings.
In Canterbury Cathedral Library it records a fight betweeen two giant reptiles near Little Conrad which was witness by many people. A similar report from 1405 describes a dragon that attached a flock of sheep and killed one of the shepherds. The report says the creature had a vast body with a crested head, saw like teeth and a long tail, standing five feet high and 20 feet in lenght, it goes on to describe what could be a Dilophosaurus.
I am going to post some of the many hundreds of examples I have got, please feel free to comment.

[Welcomefamily]

In North Australia there are drawings of a number of plesiosaur-like sea monsters made by Aborigines, which would again suggest a modern event, what about Loch Ness?

In Lake Tele region of the Congo there have been many sightings of a large animal described as a Dragon in the last few years. 80% of this area is still unexplored, a team currently out their have found foot prints that are 90cm in diameter and spaced at 2.5m intervals. Such a print belongs to no reconized spicies. The pygmies call it Mokele-Mbembe which means one who stops the flow of water. Scientist speculate that this could be a sauropod dinosaur thought to be extinct 65 million years ago. Similar sighting are recorded in the Congo, Cameroon and Gabon. ( Laurie Brown).
In 1961, dinosaur bones were found in Alaska that had not been fossilised, they were originally dismissed as Bison Bones, In 1981 they were identified as belonging to a duck billed dinosaur. Laser mass spectrometry analysis has dated these bones as thousands rather than millions of years old.

[Welcomefamily]

The Paluxy River Bed.
Carl Baugh has excavated the area of the Paluxy River Bed near Glen Rose, Texas, from 1982 to 1990. He found strange, “human” like prints about ten feet above the average level of previous footprint layers. On average the prints he found were a half mile from the other prints and eight feet above the water level of the river. They found the dinosaur and human footprints in and beneath a layer of limestone so that they had not been exposed to the atmosphere since they were deposited.
At a second location on the riverbed, Locus B, Dr. Baugh discovered the footprint of a typical Tyrannosaurus Rex, five tracks in all. Then, only 7 and ½ inches from T-Rex he found what he says was a perfectly formed humanoid footprint! He claims that even the toe prints could be counted and the heel print was clearly defined. The footprints were at the same level and moving in the same direction.
In addition, Dr. Baugh found an impression such as a tail drag of a dinosaur, a probable saber-toothed tiger’s footprint, and a series of 16-inch human footprints which continued for twelve successive right-left steps. All in all, quite a haul!

At Locus A on the Paluxy River, they found a remarkable combination of dinosaur and “human” footprints at the same level along with an impression possibly left by a human right hand. The impression of the thumb and all four fingers could be traced. Geo-Physicist John De Vilbis, Ph.D., examined the evidence and declared, “The handprint, found alongside some human footprints, is conclusive evidence that the footprints are indeed human” (ibid., p.37).

[Welcomefamily]

Some dispute the evidence found at Paluxy River Bed in Glen Rose, Texas. However, Dr. Hilton Hinderliter of Penn State University wrote concerning his examination of the Glen River excavation, “Even though certain individuals did carve out tracks to sell, it is absurd to claim that all human tracks found in the Paluxy River were carved. That would be like saying that because the Piltdown Jaw was a forgery, all other fossil jaws ever found were also deliberate fakes. Indeed, if the tracks at the Baugh site were carved, then it must have been dinosaurs that carved them (!!) for they are covered by an undisturbed layer of limestone over a foot thick on the upper surface of which are also clear dinosaur tracks.”

Hinderliter examined the tracks carefully himself and concluded:

“Well, I did get to see them for myself; not only tracks which had been found
months before but also new ones which were found while I was there.
Better yet were the ones which I found personally. I have come to the conclusion that they are genuine; that they really were made by people who lived at the same time as the dinosaurs. My reasons are as follows:

“First, it is widely accepted that the Paluxy River exhibits many dinosaur prints (a nearby area was made a state park for that very reason). So there seems to be no contention over the dinosaur prints; the dispute is over the human tracks. The size of the latter (being 16 inches long with an average stride of 45 inches) has been ridiculed by opponents as though a man 8 ½ feet tall could never have existed. However, I am one who knows that fossil finds have shown that larger animals of many types have lived in the past, considerably larger than their modern descendants. Also, the skeleton of a woman seven feet tall was found in a cave less than twenty miles from the footprint location. So I see no reason why dimensions of the tracks should rule out thepossibility of their being made by human beings” (Dinosaur, p.44).

[Rheghead]

In 1981 they were identified as belonging to a duck billed dinosaur. Laser mass spectrometry analysis has dated these bones as thousands rather than millions of years old.

I am curious about that. Fragments of dinosaur DNA have been extracted(is that the word?) on rare occasions but the bones were only found very recently, this suggests that they had ideal specimens already to study?:confused

[Welcomefamily]

I am curious about that. Fragments of dinosaur DNA have been extracted(is that the word?) on rare occasions but the bones were only found very recently, this suggests that they had ideal specimens already to study?:confused

The bones aren't that recent, there have been many hundreds of finds since then, however the bones are fairly unique in the fact that the fresh is not fossilized. (More info tonight on)
However I think one of the best examples of dinosaurs is on Bishops Bell tomb at Carlisle Cathedral (1496) just do a search but if you consider it is general believed that the first dinosaur bones were found around 1700, then I wish some one would tell me how the brass engraved pictures on these tombs got here which clearly show three types of dinosaur. This tomb can be viewed with permission from the dean.
Does make you ask, were Dragons Dinosaurs? if you think for a moment every country has folk tales of warriors fighting dinosaurs, I am not on my computer now but I have a list of over 60 countries. Back in the 10th to 14 centuary. It took longer for the bible to spread with many accounts of people forwarding the word yet Dragon tales are found every where.

I am going to do a thread on Radio dating errors next.

[Margaret M.]

This was in the news this morning.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (Oct. 15) - The skeleton of what is believed to be a new dinosaur species - a 105-foot plant-eater that is among the largest dinosaurs ever found - has been uncovered in Argentina, scientists said Monday.

Scientists from Argentina and Brazil said the Patagonian dinosaur appears to represent a previously unknown species of Titanosaur because of the unique structure of its neck. They named it Futalognkosaurus dukei after the Mapuche Indian words for "giant" and "chief," and for Duke Energy Argentina, which helped fund the skeleton's excavation.


Scientists announced on Monday the discovery of a dinosaur, which may be a new species, called Futalognkosaurus dukei in the Patagonia region of Argentina. Here, a sketch shows the animal, left.
"This is one of the biggest in the world and one of the most complete of these giants that exist," said Jorge Calvo, director of paleontology center of National University of Comahue, Argentina, lead author of a study on the dinosaur published in the peer-reviewed Annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences.

Scientists said the giant herbivore walked the Earth some 88 million years ago, during the late Cretaceous period.

Since the first bones were found on the banks of Lake Barreales in the Argentine province of Neuquen in 2000, paleontologists have dug up the dinosaur's neck, back region, hips and the first vertebra of its tail.

"I'm pretty certain it's a new species," agreed Peter Mackovicky, associate curator for dinosaurs at Chicago's Field Museum, who was not involved with the discovery. "I've seen some of the remains of Futalognkosaurus and it is truly gigantic."

Calvo said the neck alone must have been 56 feet long, and by studying the vertebrae, they figured the tail probably measured 49 feet. The dinosaur reached over 43 feet tall, and the excavated spinal column alone weighed about 9 tons when excavated.

Patagonia also was home to the other two largest dinosaur skeletons found to date - Argentinosaurus, at around 115 feet long, and Puertasaurus reuili, 115 feet to 131 feet long.

Comparison between the three herbivores, however, is difficult because scientists have only found few vertebrae of Puertasaurus and while the skeleton of Futalognkosaurus (FOO-ta-long-koh-SOHR-us) is fairly complete, scientists have not uncovered any bones from its limbs.

Scientists in Utah this month announced the discovery of Gryposaurus monumentensis, a huge new species that was called the "Arnold Schwarzenegger of duckbilled dinosaurs" by one paleontologist.

North America's dinosaurs don't even compare, Mackovicky added in a phone interview. "Dinosaurs do get big here, but nothing near the proportions we see in South America."

The site where Futalognkosaurus was found has been a bonanza for paleontologists, yielding more than 1,000 specimens, including 240 fossil plants, 300 teeth and the remains of several other dinosaurs.

"As far as I know, there is no other place in the world where there is such a large and diverse quantity of fossils in such small area. That is truly unique," said Alexander Kellner, a researcher with the Brazilian National Museum and co-author of the dinosaur's scientific description.

[Welcomefamily]

My problem with it is how did they tell the age, their is no longer any method of radio dating that appears to be accurate. C14 is one method but bones tested against C14 tend to be under 10,000 years old. I assume the method they have used is Potassium 40 (K40) decays to argon 40, which is an inert gas, and to calcium.
For potassium 40, the half-life is about 1.3 billion years. In general, in one half-life, half of the parent will have decayed. In two half-lives, half of the remainder will decay, meaning 3/4 in all will have decayed. In general, in n half-lives, only 1/(2^n) of the original parent material will be left.
In order to use these methods, we have to start out with a system in which no daughter element is present, or else know how much daughter element was present initially so that it can be subtracted out.
We also need to know that no parent or daughter has entered or left the system in the meantime. Radiometric dating is commonly used on igneous rocks (lava), and on some sedimentary minerals. But fossils can generally not be dated directly. When lava is hot, argon escapes, so it is generally assumed that no argon is present when lava cools. Thus we can date lava by K-Ar dating to determine its age. As for the other methods, some minerals when they form exclude daughter products. Zircons exclude lead, for example, so U-Pb dating can be applied to zircon to determine the time since lava cooled. Micas exclude strontium, so Rb-Sr dating can be used on micas to determine the length of time since the mica formed. "This is possible in potassium-argon (K-Ar) dating, for example, because most minerals do not take argon into their structures initially. In rubidium-strontium dating, micas exclude strontium when they form, but accept much rubidium. In uranium-lead (U-Pb) dating of zircon, the zircon is found to exclude initial lead almost completely." However there are a number of major problems with these methods of dating, most of the findings are recent work within the last 5 years, at the same time lets not forget that Dr Libby won the Nobby prize for his C14 dating which dates all Dinosaurs as under 10,000 years.

[Welcomefamily]

So if we take a lava flow and date several minerals for which one knows the daughter element is excluded, we should always get the exact same date, and it should agree with the accepted age of the geological period. Is this true? I doubt it very much. If the radiometric dating problem has been solved in this manner, then why do we need isochrons, which are claimed to be more accurate?

The same question could be asked in general of minerals that are thought to yield good dates. Mica is thought to exclude Sr, so it should yield good Rb-Sr dates. But are dates from mica always accepted, and do they always agree with the age of their geologic period? I suspect not. Indeed, there are a number of conditions on the reliability of radiometric dating. For example, for K-Ar dating, we have the following requirements:
For this system to work as a clock, the following 4 criteria must be fulfilled:

1. The decay constant and the abundance of K40 must be known accurately.
2. There must have been no incorporation of Ar40 into the mineral at the time of crystallization or a leak of Ar40 from the mineral following crystallization.
3. The system must have remained closed for both K40 and Ar40 since the time of crystallization. 4. The relationship between the data obtained and a specific event must be known.

[George Brims]

What is the point of this thread? Do you have an insatiable scientific curiosity, an urge to share something interesting you have found, or a religious or philosophical agenda?

P.S. to avoid the problems with K-Ar dating, Ar-Ar dating is used.

[Rheghead]

1. The decay constant and the abundance of K40 must be known accurately.
2. There must have been no incorporation of Ar40 into the mineral at the time of crystallization or a leak of Ar40 from the mineral following crystallization.
3. The system must have remained closed for both K40 and Ar40 since the time of crystallization. 4. The relationship between the data obtained and a specific event must be known.

Regarding 1. I would say that the decay constant of K40 is known accurately enough for the purpose of radio-dating. I can't see any reason for additional precision to the current published data since the age of the dinosaurs is still fairly recent in terms of the K40 half life. As for abundance, are you referring to the isotopic abundance or the abundance of a particular gamma ray per disintegration of K40? Each has different limits of error.

Regarding 2. It speaks for itself really, though I would imagine that Ar40 would be trapped into the interstatial positions within the crystallography, free flowing Ar would indeed be rare I'd thought and would be squeezed out to the crystal boundary.

Regarding 3, Ok for solid samples I would have thought.

Regarding 4, this is the real sticking point. Leakey and Johanson relied upon volcanic ash which was deposited in conjunction with their fieldwork. The samples were in the form of a fine powder and they corrected with a Ar40/36 surface adsorption correction factor. As with any technique like this, sampling, recording, sample preparation can be the source of more error than the 'counting'.

[Welcomefamily]

No I like Mathematics, Chemistry, and Biochemistry and the concept of a young earth in scientific terms having worked outwards from amino acids in order to work inwards again. (thus knowing where you have been and where you are going). Thus the response to a thread can provide clarity in the case of a literature review or a concept.

How accurate is Ar 40 to Ar (n)? in terms of a percentage? are you using age spectrum evaluation or isochron? how positive can you be that the breakdown is consistant across the five half lives? that there are no factors that influence the rate of breakdown such as another chemical?

Y=C1*X + C2*Z

[Welcomefamily]

Thanks for that, better just let you know I am reviewing someone elses work here with his permission except the dinosaurs which is mostly mine but I do have a good understanding of the concepts of radio dating


Regarding 1. I would say that the decay constant of K40 is known accurately enough for the purpose of radio-dating. I can't see any reason for additional precision to the current published data since the age of the dinosaurs is still fairly recent in terms of the K40 half life. As for abundance, are you referring to the isotopic abundance or the abundance of a particular gamma ray per disintegration of K40? Each has different limits of error.

Regarding 2. It speaks for itself really, though I would imagine that Ar40 would be trapped into the interstatial positions within the crystallography, free flowing Ar would indeed be rare I'd thought and would be squeezed out to the crystal boundary.

Regarding 3, Ok for solid samples I would have thought.

Regarding 4, this is the real sticking point. Leakey and Johanson relied upon volcanic ash which was deposited in conjunction with their fieldwork. The samples were in the form of a fine powder and they corrected with a Ar40/36 surface adsorption correction factor. As with any technique like this, sampling, recording, sample preparation can be the source of more error than the 'counting'.

[Welcomefamily]

I will get back to you tomorrow on your last post as I have a number of issues my self with it.

[Welcomefamily]

[quote=Rheghead;284343]Regarding 1. I would say that the decay constant of K40 is known accurately enough for the purpose of radio-dating.
Using David Plaisted ref
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Why%20K-Ar%20dating%20is%20inaccurate he would point out that the figures are so small that it can be greatly influenced,
however I must agree that the use of K to Ar has little relevance to Dinosaurs but it does to my concept of a young earth.

However my problems with Radio dating are as follows, its assumes the change from its parent to daughter and then further change with a consistant reduction in strenght. So if I have 100 after 1.3 million years I have 50 and then after another 1.3 million years I have 25 and then a further 1.3 millions years it would be 12.5. (So it has taken me 3.9 million years to reduce to 25%)

You say the decay rate is known accurately enough so I would take it that this decay constant which has a half life of 1.3 million years, which when converted by 365.25 comes out at 474,825,000 days.
Now in biology I would normally use may be a reduction rate to 25% which would be two half lives or 949,650,000 days. Now knowing that some one has monitored this decay rate over a period of time helps, as the decay rate constant can be expressed as a percentage against the total period monitored.
So 1% of that figure would be 9,496,500 or 26, 017 years, from Lumen Wing assumptions for the age of man kind at 6000 yrs we know that a 1% monitoring period would be incorrect, like wise an 0.1% (2601 years) and an 0.01 (260 yrs). What about 0.001% (26 yrs)

Hopefully you see my problem as your data just purely on the fact that monitoring has been fairly short 100 years in the scale of things. We all ready have lots of indication where the radio dating methods fail very badly.

When you look at readings taken from Mount St Helens, huge errors are indicated, Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand has errupted several times since 1830, when rocks from several observed and recorded lava flows were sent for analysis using Potassium-Argon method the results showed these rocks dating from 0.27 million to 3.5million years old, this would assume some form of chemical change has taken place. Even Carbon 14 showed figure of 20,000. Now looking at the errors in the above example, compare them with David Plaisted work on the amounts in rock and its very easy to have problems..

I cant remember which earth scientist once said that there is a tendency in to sweep any thing that does not fit current theory under the table.

[Rheghead]

Regarding 1. I would say that the decay constant of K40 is known accurately enough for the purpose of radio-dating.
Using David Plaisted ref
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Why%20K-Ar%20dating%20is%20inaccurate he would point out that the figures are so small that it can be greatly influenced,
however I must agree that the use of K to Ar has little relevance to Dinosaurs but it does to my concept of a young earth.

However my problems with Radio dating are as follows, its assumes the change from its parent to daughter and then further change with a consistant reduction in strenght. So if I have 100 after 1.3 million years I have 50 and then after another 1.3 million years I have 25 and then a further 1.3 millions years it would be 12.5. (So it has taken me 3.9 million years to reduce to 25%)

You say the decay rate is known accurately enough so I would take it that this decay constant which has a half life of 1.3 million years, which when converted by 365.25 comes out at 474,825,000 days.
Now in biology I would normally use may be a reduction rate to 25% which would be two half lives or 949,650,000 days. Now knowing that some one has monitored this decay rate over a period of time helps, as the decay rate constant can be expressed as a percentage against the total period monitored.
So 1% of that figure would be 9,496,500 or 26, 017 years, from Lumen Wing assumptions for the age of man kind at 6000 yrs we know that a 1% monitoring period would be incorrect, like wise an 0.1% (2601 years) and an 0.01 (260 yrs). What about 0.001% (26 yrs)

Hopefully you see my problem as your data just purely on the fact that monitoring has been fairly short 100 years in the scale of things. We all ready have lots of indication where the radio dating methods fail very badly.

When you look at readings taken from Mount St Helens, huge errors are indicated, Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand has errupted several times since 1830, when rocks from several observed and recorded lava flows were sent for analysis using Potassium-Argon method the results showed these rocks dating from 0.27 million to 3.5million years old, this would assume some form of chemical change has taken place. Even Carbon 14 showed figure of 20,000. Now looking at the errors in the above example, compare them with David Plaisted work on the amounts in rock and its very easy to have problems..

I cant remember which earth scientist once said that there is a tendency in to sweep any thing that does not fit current theory under the table.

Hold your horses, K40 has a half life of 1.3 Billion years, 3 orders of magnitude greater than what you think, this will greatly affect your idea, you may want to rethink it over. This correction should be a 'Eureka moment' for you, I suspect it won't though...

Oh and by the way, your signature. Your attempt to attribute the theory that ontogeny recapitulates phyllogeny to the work of Darwin is just plain wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recapitulation_theory

[Welcomefamily]

It makes it worse, how can some thing be consider scientifically correct based upon such a small sample, even the smallest of errors could produce a huge effect. I enclose another ref from his more up dated web site
http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating2.html

Perhaps when the first humans were brought to this planet by our 8 foot high alien masters as part of a breeding programme whose project was to see what would happening after 400 generation at which time they would return.
The fact that we are still here must prove this to be correct.

Haeckel was a doctor and was so taken by Darwin that he quit his medical practice to study natural history at the University of Jena. In 1862 Haeckel became the professor of anatomy at Jena.
Although he was a supporter of evolution he did not agree that natural selection was the primary driving force behind it. Haeckel leaned more towards Lamarckian views but he was an avid promoter in Germany of most of Darwin's evolution ideas and is considered one of Darwins students, I believe he earnt the nick name Darwins apostle of deceit, and the ideas of the embryo evolutionary stages are certainly found in the works of Darwin.
His student was Eugene Dubois who found the so called Wadjak Man on his mission to find the missing link, much of his work was proclaimed fake which greatly jeopardised his career. Just another of the many fakes found during this period.

However moving back to K to Ar, do you have any actual evidence for its effectiveness.

[Rheghead]

I believe he earnt the nick name Darwins apostle of deceit.

I don't believe that this is the case, at least it doesn't seem to be contemporary insult/reference, the first reference to this insult seems to be in a work by Russell Grigg.

K-Ar dating is an established method of dating, it is has its drawbacks but the principle is basically sound provided the sample preparation is done correctly. It basically provides a method to debunk a 'young Earth' theory.

[Cedric Farthsbottom III]

I believe in Dragons.Why? Because I was a member of a role playin members society in Society.Nessie is a beast because I want it to be a beast.I have never still to meet somebody who says Nessie disnae exist.Cos yer all the same as me.Ye hivnae seen it for yersel.Until then Dragons/Nessie wil exist I won't deny it till I se it ma sel.

[the charlatans]

I believe in Nessy. Every time i drive that horrible excuse for a road they call the A82 i have a wee looky, camera phone at the ready.Come to me little Nessy and make me rich rich rich.or should that be a geek geek geek?

[oldmarine]

No I like Mathematics, Chemistry, and Biochemistry and the concept of a young earth in scientific terms having worked outwards from amino acids in order to work inwards again. (thus knowing where you have been and where you are going). Thus the response to a thread can provide clarity in the case of a literature review or a concept.

How accurate is Ar 40 to Ar (n)? in terms of a percentage? are you using age spectrum evaluation or isochron? how positive can you be that the breakdown is consistant across the five half lives? that there are no factors that influence the rate of breakdown such as another chemical?

Y=C1*X + C2*Z

This sounds like a discussion of "young earth" versus "old earth." I am in the process of reading a book "IN SEARCH OF THE GENESIS WORLD" by Erich A. Von Fange. It discusses the concept of a "young earth" as opposed to an "old earth." It covers some of the points discussed in this thread. It also covers the arguements presented by those agreeing with Darwin's theory on evolution (old earth) and those who disagree with Darwin who support the new earth theory as described in the Holy Bible. Very interesting reading covering both sides of the arguement. I am a graduate engineer who majored in science and find the discussions very interesting to follow.

[Welcomefamily]

No my views are some what different, I do believe in a much younger earth than most people and I also think that Dinosaur are a much more recent occurance. I cant say that I believe in the concept of creation in scientific terms.
However if you bring these concepts up, you get labelled a creationist, one of the problems when looking at the concept of Radio dating, most of the works against it has been done by Creationsts.
Yet when you look at the opposing works you start to see very large gaps in them. I grew up through a schooling system that meant that I did not question works like Darwin, Evolution, or Radio Dating, I cant recall even giving it a thought until about four years ago and that was due to Biochemistry.

There are many aspects of these theories that do have evidence that should not be labelled as Religion, and even after four years studing this area, I can see how so many of our top scientist are moving over to be Creationist.

The Geno project is possible the greatest piece of science done on our earth by many hundreds of scientists across many hundreds of Universities. Even the basic of DNA is amazing. A computer used two numbers 0,1 in each byte of code. DNA uses four, A,T,C,G, this is perhaps a simple example of the complexity of DNA.
From a Mathematical view point it is impossible for Evolution to have taken place, when this sinks in you then start looking in more depth at a theory you have believed in all your life (Darwin) and very quickly you start to see more and more holes in it.
Many of these holes were known about and just sweep under the table by the scientific convention of those times, but you start to question what other scientific bull have I been fed.

[Welcomefamily]

[quote=Rheghead;284571]I don't believe that this is the case, at least it doesn't seem to be contemporary insult/reference, the first reference to this insult seems to be in a work by Russell Grigg.

I have two references to it, one in a book by Laurie Brown, Evolution Fact or Fairy Tale, now looking at his bibliography there is no mention of R Grigg. The other one was a book by Ken Ham 1998. The Lie: Evolution, I would need to find it to check its Bibliography. However I have re placed it as I dont want to cause any concern over it.

[Welcomefamily]

[quote=Margaret M.;284040]This was in the news this morning.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil (Oct. 15) - The skeleton of what is believed to be a new dinosaur species - a 105-foot plant-eater that is among the largest dinosaurs ever found - has been uncovered in Argentina, scientists said Monday.

Scientists from Argentina and Brazil said the Patagonian dinosaur appears to represent a previously unknown species of Titanosaur because of the unique structure of its neck. They named it Futalognkosaurus dukei after the Mapuche Indian words for "giant" and "chief," and for Duke Energy Argentina, which helped fund the skeleton's excavation.

Thanks for this Margaret, I find it odd that some many sites have very intent collections of Dinosaurs all in one area, I can think of many sites what have yielded similair finds on a smaller scale. Makes you wonder if they had grave yards, or perhaps where theyherded there?

[Rheghead]

From a Mathematical view point it is impossible for Evolution to have taken place, when this sinks in you then start looking in more depth at a theory you have believed in all your life (Darwin) and very quickly you start to see more and more holes in it.
Many of these holes were known about and just sweep under the table by the scientific convention of those times, but you start to question what other scientific bull sh-t have I been fed.

You seem to have a very odd view of science. All scientists should regard holes in current knowledge as an area for further research rather than as a reason to go back into believing religious mumbo jumbo. They shouldn't have an agenda with an interpretation of their research(like with young earth boffins), ie fit it into a Theory (Evolution or Creation) they should treat it dispassionately. So far all research seems to fit into a natural selective process and it all points unambiguously to an old earth model.

[Welcomefamily]

So far all research seems to fit into a natural selective process and it all points unambiguously to an old earth model.[/quote]

I am afraid I would have to totally disagree, and would suggest that none of the more modern research (2003-07) from the Geno project would agree with you.

As for your statement go back into believing religious mumbo jumbo. I would have to not comment on it as many of them have their own reasons for that, I would never consider some one elses belief mumbo jumbo, even your view on carbon dating.
However the purpose of the thread is for discussion, however, how wide must the holes become before you stop.
As for an agenda, I am quite open with it, I would like to see the agruement put into a format that does not promote religion, lets be clear about one thing, when you talk about half lives of 1.3 billion years predicted by someone who has monitored it a for a maximum of 100 years, I am not going to jump up and down saying its conclusive proof. Do you really call it sciences, its educated guess work. Show me proof that the breakdown rate dose not change after 250 years?

[Rheghead]

I am afraid I would have to totally disagree, and would suggest that none of the more modern research (2003-07) from the Geno project would agree with you.

What's the Geno project?


As for your statement go back into believing religious mumbo jumbo. I would have to not comment on it as many of them have their own reasons for that, I would never consider some one elses belief mumbo jumbo, even your view on carbon dating.

Firstly, you came on the org with the psuedo impression that you knew about science, you have failed to convince me that that is so. Carbon dating is a recognised, verifiable and established method of dating rocks and minerals. Since you are of the believer of a young earth 'theory' (i was being polite to your ideology there) and one which is pushed by Bible-pushing half-wits from the Mid-West and that radiometric dating has debunked it emphatically, then I reserve my right to describe it as mumbo jumbo.


However the purpose of the thread is for discussion, however, how wide must the holes become before you stop.

Which holes? You haven't mentioned any, yet I have corrected you on countless occasions yet you still cling to a debunked ideology, now that is being closed minded, no?


Show me proof that the breakdown rate dose not change after 250 years?

That's not proper scientific thinking. Show me proof that it does first. (And please, don't just copy and paste a url address(I really can't be bothered to read through all that kind of drivel again) just quote the juicy bits.

Anyway, how old do you think the Earth really is? :) BTW I do find the subject of recent living dinosaurs interesting, and it is conceivable that they did live further on than the Cretaceous period but not much further....

I believe Dr Neville Jones is our local expert on the 'young earth' theory.

[Camel Spider]

Dragons are real, I have personally seen one on more than one occasion. It had a kind of scaly skin and stood about five and a half feet when standing erect. The breath was enough to make your eyes water and the rows of yellowed mishapen teeth were truly repulsive. The scariest thing though were the penetrating eyes which followed you everywhere .. if you moved or reacted in a way it didnt like a sharp hideous cry would be made which would chill you to the core.

Lucky for me though once I got divorced I didnt have to see my Mother-in-Law anymore.

I'll get my coat .. ;)

[crayola]

From a Mathematical view point it is impossible for Evolution to have taken place, Good God, has the CaithnessSuperhero School of elementary probability theory produced its first graduate? I wonder whether the chief superhero has done his homework yet.

I don't mind reading Young Earth propaganda if it's good, but this is mostly very poor and unoriginal qualitative argument. For the unitiated this is how cranks, charlatans and pseudoscientists work. They say they're determined to find the truth using rigorous investigation to reveal gaping holes in accepted and well established orthodoxies that are being hidden by the establishment to protect their vested interests and their dogma, but there's rarely any quantitative element to their analysis and never any hard predictions that can be tested. They're all much of a muchness and the patterns tend to be similar irrespective of whether they be creationists, economists, psychics, nationalists, socialists, clairvoyants, conspiracy theorists, anthropogenic climate change deniers or footie pundits with hindsight.

Have I left out anyone? Where's that ducking stool? ;)

[JAWS]

I thought everybody knew that the Earth was created on Sunday 23 Oct 4004 BCE at 9am.

[Welcomefamily]

[quote=Rheghead;285019) Firstly to respond I made a mistake, I have no problems with Carbon Dating I believe it works very well, even using spectrometer analysis or cyclotrons and tandum accelerators, it is slightly problematic because of the low concentration of carbon-14 and the existence of nitrogen-14 and CH2 which generally the tandem accelerator has been effective in removing the nitrogen-14 and CH2, and can be followed by a conventional mass spectrometer to separate the C-12 and C-13. A sensitivity of 10-15 in the 14C/12C ratio has been achieved. These techniques can be applied with a sample as small as a milligram.
This would give a dating capacity of 100,000 years so here I would position myself in no mans land. However I do believe the earth is older than that.

However back to basics, I am taking it for granted that you are familair with cell mutation rates? so let find an acceptable rate for human cells.
Fluctuation analysis of cells containing the target DNA yielded mutation rates of <3.1 x 10-8 to 44.8 x 10-8 mutations/cell/generation. This is the figure quoted in 1998 from http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/58/17/3946

[Welcomefamily]

For the last

155 colonies, the value of i was 6.38

X


l0 to minus 8, and the value of Ywas 0, assuming no mitochondrial

death and a PCR detection efficiency p of 73%.
For the first


65 colonies, assuming no mitochondrial

death and a PCR detection efficiency of 73%, we obtained
MLEs i = 5.98 x l0 to minus 8 and Y = 13.0%.
Estimates


of the mutation rate are similar, whether


This is the findings of http://www-hto.usc.edu/people/stavare/STpapers-pdf/SNTetal96.pdf (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www-hto.usc.edu/people/stavare/STpapers-pdf/SNTetal96.pdf)


So this gives us a figure of just under One in Ten Million? You have two separate figures now, agreed?

[fred]

This is the findings of http://www-hto.usc.edu/people/stavare/STpapers-pdf/SNTetal96.pdf (http://forum.caithness.org/go.php?url=http://www-hto.usc.edu/people/stavare/STpapers-pdf/SNTetal96.pdf)


So this gives us a figure of just under One in Ten Million? You have two separate figures now, agreed?

[/LEFT]

Just a few posts back weren't you trying to cast doubt on the reliability of scientific evidence by saying "Show me proof that the breakdown rate dose not change after 250 years?" to try and show that the consensus of scientific opinion could be wrong?

Yet here you are citing one piece of scientific evidence as proof your theories are right.

I think there are few, if any, here who actually understand the complexities of the human genome or carbon dating methods so what message are you trying to get across? Do we trust the scientists? Do we not trust the scientists? Or do we just trust the scientists that support your theory?

[Rheghead]

Welcomefamily, please clean up your post, you have quotation marks in a muddle, font marks are skew whiff and you have not put in the correct units. Apart from that, I don't think that DNA mutations can be a reliable method of dating the Earth, especially on humans. And I admit to not being a geneticist, but I do know that you are not using the most direct method here for proving/disproving a young earth theory, there are any number of environmental factors that can alter mutation rates.

What is CH2? I know what I think it means.

And anyway, what is wrong with K-Ar radiometric dating ??

[Welcomefamily]

Just a few posts back weren't you trying to cast doubt on the reliability of scientific evidence by saying "Show me proof that the breakdown rate dose not change after 250 years?" to try and show that the consensus of scientific opinion could be wrong?

Yet here you are citing one piece of scientific evidence as proof your theories are right.

I think there are few, if any, here who actually understand the complexities of the human genome or carbon dating methods so what message are you trying to get across? Do we trust the scientists? Do we not trust the scientists? Or do we just trust the scientists that support your theory?

Sorry Fred, Rheghead quoted earlier in the thread that it all fits into a natural selective process, by this he means that cells mutate to the benefit of the creature which in this case is man.
My two figures are for what is called mutation rates, in the past we have generally considered the mutation rates to be much lower than this, how ever these figures appear to be fairly consistant except in the case of illness such as aids or cancer when these rate can increase.

During the early 2000s it became possible to trace back a DNA strand to work out fairly exactly how old man kind is, prior to this radio metric dating which gave figures from 200,000 to 300,000 years. The figures they came up with were between 50,000 and 80,000, however a number of recent studies have yet again reduce these figures as other forms of measuring the genetic information.
Based upon the above Radio Dating is out by around up to 600 %

My next point I will make in the next thread.

[Welcomefamily]

In order for every think on our plant to be formed from the one single cell, it would have taken billions of cell mutations for that cell to go up through the evolutionary ladder from amoebas to fish, from fish to amphibians, from amphibians to reptiles, from reptiles to birds and then to mammels and to men.
When we thought mutations were occuring every thousand or so divisions then it would be possible in 4 billion years, how ever, even in rapid cell division illness, it cant be done. A estimate time scale has been worked out at 1 to the power of 57,800, this means 10 x 10 x 10 57,800 times.

In mathematics 10 to the power of 50 is consider is considered impossible.

The above shows how evolution is not possible. This is a fairly common view.

How would you explain a 600% posssible error factor in the human skulls?
CH2 is a Hydro Carbon which causes problems when counting atoms of different masses using a mass spec.

Perhaps it time to move back to Dinosaurs.

[Rheghead]

During the early 2000s it became possible to trace back a DNA strand to work out fairly exactly how old man kind is, prior to this radio metric dating which gave figures from 200,000 to 300,000 years. The figures they came up with were between 50,000 and 80,000, however a number of recent studies have yet again reduce these figures as other forms of measuring the genetic information.
Based upon the above Radio Dating is out by around up to 600 %

My next point I will make in the next thread.

Err, this makes no sense at all. The dates calculated via radiometric dating will be for the fossils that are being analysed. You can't compare those dates to those that are derived from a mitochondrial mutation calculation. You need to know that those fossils and what you call to be Adam and Eve are at the same evolutionary stage to make any sense of a comparison between the two dating techniques.

And anyways, the classification of species is purely arbitrary. A species doesn't really exist in real terms. When did modern humans evolve? Well the question makes no sense really. It makes as much sense as 'When did the missing link evolve?' And was the 'missing link' human?

Welcomefamily, if you stopped thinking in Creationist terms then you will understand.

I do so wish you are correct about the 'Young Earth' an'all because then we can take the literal meaning of the Bible seriously, we gain a God and it will give my life such meaning and then after I die I can then sit on the lap of the ultimate Space Daddy for all Eternity with my family close to me.

[scotsboy]

Would be good if we could find the remains of Noah, then we could carbon date his bones to see how close to 950 years he actually lived.

[Welcomefamily]

Err, this makes no sense at all. The dates calculated via radiometric dating will be for the fossils that are being analysed. You can't compare those dates to those that are derived from a mitochondrial mutation calculation. You need to know that those fossils and what you call to be Adam and Eve are at the same evolutionary stage to make any sense of a comparison between the two dating techniques.

And anyways, the classification of species is purely arbitrary. A species doesn't really exist in real terms. When did modern humans evolve? Well the question makes no sense really. It makes as much sense as 'When did the missing link evolve?' And was the 'missing link' human?

Welcomefamily, if you stopped thinking in Creationist terms then you will understand.

I do so wish you are correct about the 'Young Earth' an'all because then we can take the literal meaning of the Bible seriously, we gain a God and it will give my life such meaning and then after I die I can then sit on the lap of the ultimate Space Daddy for all Eternity with my family close to me.

Sorry about not getting back to you sooner, wifie working so I had to feed the dinosaurs, yes was the missing link human? one day we might know.
I think some one said recently that knowledge is growing at a rate of 15% a years, so we might not have to wait much longer.. Perhaps we should have a meaning of life thread? :lol: we have moved away from Dinosaurs and if nothing else have shown just how science is a combination of inter locked concepts, how genetics can influence geology. O one last one, do you believe in Nessie???

[Welcomefamily]

Would be good if we could find the remains of Noah, then we could carbon date his bones to see how close to 950 years he actually lived.


Yes any information that help us come to an answer is bound to be good.

[Errogie]

Nessie Fans, I'm terribly sorry but there just isn't enough grub in the loch (plant or fish) to sustain even a small plesiosaur or similar critters. But if you believe devoutly in the ghost of Nessie she will appear to those of you who have been touched by the writing and records of those who have witnessed and possesed the faith to believe in her inspirational past life on earth and in Loch Ness.