Klumsy Administrator Posts: 1061 From: Port Angeles, WA, USA Registered: 10-25-2001 |
a new fossil found in China , challenges typical evolutionary models and supports more of a creation sort of worldview (though of course all the scientists will try to twist their evolution models and theories to fit it in as usual) http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/01/12/belly.of.the.best.ap/index.html ------------------ |
|
d000hg Member Posts: 144 From: Durham, UK Registered: 07-27-2004 |
Firstly that only implies that the type of mammals around then were a little different. It has no huge ramifications for evolutionary strengths/weaknesses that I see immediately. <amused sarcasm>Secondly, you creatonists don't believe in fossils anyway do you? They can be 'formed in a few weeks' and the 'dating methods are unreliable'. So the fossil could be just 100 years old!</> |
|
Skynes Member Posts: 202 From: Belfast, N Ireland Registered: 01-18-2004 |
Of course we believe in the existence of fossils, hard not to when they're right in front of you. What we disagree with are the theories that try to explain those fossils. --- The Yixian rock formation in which their bones were encased was a combination of river sediments and volcanic ash called tuff. The formation also includes the fossils of insects, frogs and other creatures, suggesting a mass die-off. Sounds like a result of the flood to me... --- That's just pushing it... They say a paragraph above they buried in river sediment and ash. River sediments don't happen in explosions, they DO happen in floods. |
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
This find destroys long-held assumptions based upon preconceived evolutionary models; that's all. The models will of course be revised. More links: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4165973.stm Nature magazine also has several articles on the subject. |
CobraA1 Member Posts: 926 From: MN Registered: 02-19-2001 |
Which brings us to one of the problems I have with molecules-to-man evolution: Many people who support it claim it can be disproven. In reality, however, they just revise their models - they don't question them. A dissproof is really next to impossible, as the theory can accomodate pretty much everything. ------------------ Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here |
|
CheeseStorm Member Posts: 521 From: Registered: 11-28-2004 |
"though of course all the scientists will try to twist their evolution models and theories to fit it in as usual" Why would anyone need to do that? This mammal even had some reptilian features... evolution hint-hint (just my opinion). Now if you guys found a prehistoric ape with a dinosaur in its tummy, that'd be cool. It's all very mysterious how no advanced mammals are showing up from dinosaur times, eh? Almost as if they weren't there at all... |
|
CobraA1 Member Posts: 926 From: MN Registered: 02-19-2001 |
quote: That's assuming that the fossils are laid down according to time periods. ------------------ Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here |
Max Member Posts: 523 From: IA Registered: 09-19-2004 |
ya know, you have to remember the 6 days of creation. It doesn't have to be 6 24 hour periods. We invented time. God's days could have been thousands of years, who knows? Therefore, anything could have been possible. I don't really see what all the fuss is about though, so there was a larger mammal, woohoo. I think people tend to get all worked up over nothing. ------------------ |
|
CobraA1 Member Posts: 926 From: MN Registered: 02-19-2001 |
We invented time? How? I wasn't aware we had such supernatural abilities! We didn't invent time, we merely defined it. We're getting down to nitpicking on the definition of the word "day" here. In absense of proof that the author intended a different meaning, I prefer to use the common meaning of the word. Unless, of course, you have proof that the author intended to use the word differently. ------------------ Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here [This message has been edited by CobraA1 (edited January 14, 2005).] |
|
d000hg Member Posts: 144 From: Durham, UK Registered: 07-27-2004 |
quote:Well as a scientist - when your model is found not to fit the facts it has to be revised or retired. Whether or not the model as a whole is valid, this new finding is of the scale that would normally lead to a revision of the model, not its abandonment. Just because you don't agree with evolution you can't just jump on it when a trivial problem is found - it makes your arguments seem more reasoned to only challenge the major disparities that you see... |
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
I've found that the major issues, such as the origin of life, are easier as the minor are often speculative "just-so stories" designed to fill in the large gaps due to there being very little hard data to tie it all together. Find more evidence and the target just moves (a new story is devised). Not to mention it helps to narrow the subject down. Otherwise it's possible for the discussion to become lost in tangents not entirely necessary to the main argument. In this thread alone, which isn't very long yet, the discussion has jumped from dinosaurs to fossils in general to the old earth debate to scientific practices in general! [This message has been edited by Gump (edited January 14, 2005).] |
goop2 Member Posts: 1059 From: Registered: 06-30-2004 |
I dont understand how people who arent scientists can know more than the ones digging up the bones. They study these things so much and it slips right past them that dinos were only about as big as a horse! That "HUGE" T-Rex I could beat up with a club  ------------------ I dont like siggys. They are to hard to think up :( |
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
Uh... some dinosaurs were only as big as a chicken. |
|
CheeseStorm Member Posts: 521 From: Registered: 11-28-2004 |
The Sarcasm Detector can be yours for two easy payments of only $19.99! |
|
Max Member Posts: 523 From: IA Registered: 09-19-2004 |
Go mammals ------------------ |
|
goop2 Member Posts: 1059 From: Registered: 06-30-2004 |
Well I meant the "huge" ones. Whenever you see a lizzard your looking at a dinosaur. ------------------ I dont like siggys. They are to hard to think up :( |
|
GUMP Member Posts: 1335 From: Melbourne, FL USA Registered: 11-09-2002 |
See, Cheese... I knew he was being serious. Anyways, while the lizard is definitely reptilian I doubt anyone would classify them as being "dinosaurs". |
|
Klumsy Administrator Posts: 1061 From: Port Angeles, WA, USA Registered: 10-25-2001 |
quote: a lizard is not a dinosaur other than one of our 'lizards' here in New Zealand , called a TUATARA which is pretty much the only land dino still around in the modern world. ------------------ |
|
goop2 Member Posts: 1059 From: Registered: 06-30-2004 |
A lizzard isnt a dino but a dino is a lizzard... huh... ------------------ I dont like siggys. They are to hard to think up :( |
CPUFreak91 Member Posts: 2337 From: Registered: 02-01-2005 |
And some of the evolutionist thing about dating fossils has been proven to be innacurate. Carbon 14 for instance. If you got sea water in the fossil it could make the fossil (under C14)to look as much as 300-3000 years older that it really is. BTW: In a way you could say they are dinosaurs becuase lizzards were around in creation too, but not really, Dinosaurs refer to the ones mainly killed in the flood and later that are extinct. |
|
d000hg Member Posts: 144 From: Durham, UK Registered: 07-27-2004 |
quote:Well firstly in fossils supposedly millions of years old, 3000 is insignificant. Secondly, C14 can't be useful beyond a few 10s of thousands of years right? The halflife of C14 is short (I can't remember exacty though). What isotopes do they use in fossil dataing? |