60 Million Year Old Mummy?

Ya 66 million hadrosaur...

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/06/30/dinosaur-skin.html

Well found

OP had me worried there for a second.

Me too. Even finding intact flesh after 40,000 years is pretty amazing.

What's a CRB? Hey I remember seeing these in Jurassic Park...Finding DNA from a dinosaur is not likely, a complete strand of DNA I believe would be impossible...Organic material degrades over time, unless perhaps you have it stored at or near absolute zero...

I think in terms of probabilities. With thousands of dinosaurs per year dying over hundreds of millions of years, there's a finite probability that a few will die in circumstances that will preserve them extremely well. Statistical 'outliers'.

I assume by CRB you meant a Cosmic Ray Burst; one that would somehow partially sterilize the Earth?

I've always wondered how footprints in mud survive to be fossilised...why is the infill material different? Why did they dry and hardened so quickly?

As to mummification, it thought that the Egyptians first got the idea from finding bodies of people who had died in the desert (and not been eaten) and then refined the process. So perhaps that's how the dinosaurs were mummified - fell under a sand dune...

"What would be the effect of a prehistoric CRB sterilizing the entire planet, thereby creating a germ free environment to enable this type of preservation?"

Well Gamma Ray Bursts typically only last for seconds...and then you have bacteria that could be shielded by any number of ways...Certainly the effects to the ozone layer would be serious, perhaps even devastating...a mass extinction could happen, but the bacteria would be the last survivors, they are the hardiest life form...

CRB,GRB, AHHAG! These acronyms will cease ASAP!!Furthermore, flogging will continue till morale improves!

On a more serious note, a GRB could wreak havoc on all surface dwelling organisms, including bacteria, giving a sterile surface temporarily, perhaps long enough for the animals to be covered by sterile deposits.It is true that subterranean bacteria could recolonize the surface, but this would take a while.

The GRB would also sterilize the internal organs of animals, resulting in a near perfect environment for preservation.Can they tell if the remains have been exposed to gamma rays or not? (I haven't read anything about this test, or how it could be accomplished.)

Even barring a GRB, the resulting global firestorm from the Chichulub asteroid could have the same effect on surface bacteria.Perhaps the dino had a very effective anti bacterial blood system, like the horse shoe crab (green blood). Their blood immediately forms a gelatinous shell around any foreign body, and they are frequently "bled" to get their blood for medical use, one of which is to test vaccines for bacterial contaminants.Any bacteria are immediately encased and fall to the bottom or the test tube.

Any other ideas on how this preservation occurred?

I often refer to bacteria as the agents of death. without them dead things could not be broken down into compost soils. I had been studying the effect of bacteria on the human body which is host to on the average 200 types of bacteria most of them bacilli. If you could remove the bacteria then the body would live longer with less need for food and water intake. The problem is it is impossible to set up an environment to which to create an experiment to observe.

Something very interesting about bacteria is, if the earth was 100 million years old there would be so much bacteria that man could not exist. for example if we consider the rate of bacterial environmental adaptation that has been observed over the last 40 years and use that as a model and multiply that by 10 million. Well the bacterial levels would actually be incalculable today.

Funny I thought the Earth is much older than that!

According to current best estimates, the Earth WAS 100 million years old about 4.4 billion years ago. Apparently bacteria did not develop until the earth was roughly a billion years old.

So what are you trying to say?

Yes and here we are..................bacteria.

In a REALLY dry environment (as witnessed by yours truly in the Chilean Atacama Desert), there are few, if any mechanisms of decay. Under such conditions, an animal that wanders too far from the few sources of surface water dies and dehydrates into a mummy with no additional procedures required. I saw several examples of this. It is not at all difficult to imagine a scenario where such a mummy gets buried by one or a series of dust/sand storms. Continued deposition could easily leave the mummy preserved for centuries or millennia...

BTW (By The Way): I thought CRB meant Cathode Ray Beam. PLEASE define acronyms!

Any acronym followed by the definition would be pointless, would it not, as it would eliminate the usefulness of the acronym.

Not true. The use of acronyms is fine, as long as nearly all those who would normally read the article can be expected to know which meaning the acronym has in that context.

Here on CR4, where the readers are from all over the world, with extremely diverse backgrounds and many native languages, it is more important than in most other situations to define the acronyms used.

I maintain that, in any article posted here, each acronym should be defined the first time it is used in that article/forum. Once defined, there should be no problem with repeated use of that acronym in that article/forum/etc.

Absolutely.

If I typed CRT, to what would people think I was referring?

I doubt if anyone has isolated DNA from ancient remains of mummified dinosaurs. The major agents of decomposition are bacteria and oxygen. If someone claimed they have found such DNA it is likely in error. The British Natural Museum had studied the possibility of finding DNA in amber preserved insects from resin deposits dated many millions of years. Amber was the vehicle Michael Crichton used to make us believe such possibility could exist. Crichton recognized the problem but took science fiction liberties to write a book. Amber would shield the DNA from oxygen and bacteria. The British researchers could not isolate any DNA strands. However, that did not mean that the insects trapped in the amber were not preserved morphologically. They were preserved morphologically...just not with viable DNA.

Could the same possibility of mummified dinosaur morphology exist. It would have to be in a location such as a brine dome where bacteria would be minimal and be oxygen free. DNA recovery from such mummified remains would not be possible as there would be other anaerobic agents to degrade the organic strands. Ask yourself if DNA can be isolated from oil deposits and realize the problem. It is interesting to have the morphology of soft tissue and reveal feathers. That is a big discovery by itself. The reality of Jurassic Park will remain a Hollywood fantasy.

A comic burst of radiation would not penetrate to very deep depths to destroy most of the bacteria found in subterranean formations. The shielding of this zone from Cosmic rays as pointed out is almost foolproof. Is there some possibility of a neutrino burst of such a magnitude to disrupt deep microbes?

I'm not sure about that.

What if there were dinosaur remains in, or under the Antarctic ice?

About 100 million years ago much of the Antarctic was located at about 70 degrees south Latitude and thus some fossilization would be expected to be found in the Antarctica. About 65 million years ago the plates of continents looked something like this rendition. Any large dinosaur would leave the colder areas and move towards the north via S. America or Australian links. So the dinosaurs would have migrated away from the Antarctic before they were trapped and they may never have existed in the cold areas anyway. The fossils would be of smaller less mobile creatures.

It does raise interesting questions of whether or not cold ice bound soft tissue could be preserved for millions of years. If we leave the creationist theories alone, the to time period for survival of DNA is just plain too long. Even in the deep underlying structures of the Antarctic can viable bacteria be isolated. Why? Because the geological formations are not subjected to the same temperature found in the ice structures. There is actually an increase in temperature with depth of geological formation and thus a greater possibility for Archaebacteria to exist. These same bacteria would cause the decomposition of organic matter under the ice. That said there was a recent discovery of a complete human traveler found in the glaciers of the Alps and I believe with DNA. This traveler was in the order of 2000 years old and not millions of years. Woolly mammoths have been found in Siberia preserved in the frozen tundra. It apparently had viable DNA strands but may also be in the several thousands of years old not millions. Dwarf mammoths from Siberia are now thought to have existed as recent as 3000 years ago. I am not sure what temperatures are required for preserving DNA for long long periods. Likely something in the range of liquid nitrogen ... 70 degrees K. I am not familiar enough with cryogenics but is this not the stuff they use to preserve humans for future recovery? The temperature of the ice is considerably warmer and may even melt with pressure. Within the ice viable bacteria survive called psychrophiles and it would seem bacteria will grow in numbers proportional to the amount of food (organic carbon) found. If an animal is trapped for long periods of time in ice, then eventually these bacteria would achieve what the same bacteria would achieve if the animal died without the ice. I would not be looking for dinosaur remains in the Antarctic unless you have lots of gambling money.

I myself lost considerable* faith in C-dating methodology when I read of a skull that was submitted for same.

The dating that was given was some 'astronomical' age (truly I don't recall whether it was stated to be 40,000 years old or 4 million years)... yet, the skull belonged to a farm animal that had been killed by the donor's grandfather, a mere 70 or so years prior.

------------ considerable*, meaning, I do believe that there is "something" to it ... insofar as the dating of "certain" objects goes.

I believe it is a 50/50-50/50 "hit-and-miss" methodology.

i.e., sometimes (50%) they will report something as "A" (very old), and sometimes (50%) as "B" (fairly new). And, whether they report an object as "A" or "B", 50% of the time they are correct, and 50% of the time they are wrong.

It is ... in many person's minds ... an inexact science.

I'm getting a bit confused here.

Kram linked to a page containing a link to Scientific American

Solar Eagle linked to a Discovery page

Both seem to be the same story.

Both speak of 'mineralized' flesh.

So where is the DNA and 'time line' debate coming from?

In the Scientific American link I was attempting to flesh out, (pun intended), what the OP was talking about.

The woolly mammoth DNA concept came from here. And I hope they are able to pull it off. That would be cool.

Thanks Yusef1 for a very good reply to BxxxSxxx

Are you sure it what is bs? Look at this WIKI article about Radiocarbon dating. It talks about the need for calibration, which can only be done to 50,000 years in the extreme. Take a look at the examples such as the human footprints and the variation in the measurements.

Perhaps it would be better to look at the methods of dating using radiometric technology. Carbon dating is but one method but there are other isotopes of other elements also used in aging old rocks and fossils. Choosing the appropriate daughter isotope is important in dating old rocks and fossils.

If someone is making claims based on carbon dating it is misleading to say the least. I stand with Yusef1 and his defense of the scientific method. The evidence for the aging of rocks is overwhelming and I do include fossils. I respect a persons believe in faith but I would also apply the corollary and not apply scientific method to prove a position of faith. Accepting such believe is faith and faith is not well grounded in science. The argument is somewhat old and I am not likely the best person to present the scientific case. However, I cannot ignore the evidence and find the presentation of dinosaur and human footprints misleading.

Maybe the woman's feet were normal and her husband had a nasty birth defect.

_{Sorry. I'll stop.}

Or she might have contracted petrosomatoglyph?

I had to look that one up. Certainly something that should be considered.

Didn't want to make it too easy. Diligent folk have mentioned it still exists in this day and age.

Me too, Immagine what they are going to think in 100 thousand years when they uncover the sidewalk in front of Manns chineese theater in Hollywood.

Imagine what they will say in 100000 years if an alien species discovers a mall parking lot? Lots of creatures with wheels,a small primitive silicon brain that controls the propulsion mechanism,a large cavernous stomach to store food,metallic and hydrocarbon derivative skin, eyes that require a primitive form of energy to operate, and a heart(engine)the provided power for propulsion.The similarities between different models is astounding, with many variations of the same scheme.They must have evolved from a common ancestor.

Then they encounter a semi tractor trailer, with a huge stomach, and this must have required many of the smaller ones to satisfy it's daily needs.Still there are similarities between the largest and smallest.A common thread.

After many expeditions to the planet Earth, they find the magic that links them all together.

They have termed it DET ROIT.The common birth place of all the models found in the parking lot. The theory is that they were originally created in DET ROIT, and migrated to other places on the planet, such as JA PAN,KO REA, IN DIA.

The common factor here being a common ancestor, and a very intelligent designer.

I like your hi tech thinking.

See my post # 31, and perhaps you will understand my position on faith in the scientific method.

My post had nothing to do with faith. The Human footprints in my link were not with dinosaurs. Apparently you didn't read my link or any of the examples. I also agree with Usef on most of his post including this (from his post):

Anyway, carbon fourteen is not used for anything older than 40 thousand years. Odd results are the result of contamination of the sample, or some other variable we have not thought of.

My point was that it is not an exact science. For a person like me, who measures with errors in ppm or sub-ppm, an error greater than 50% is inexact. Perhaps if they measured with all methods in your link they could get a better answer by doing an average or excluding the outliers.

Sorry StandardsGuy, I misinterpreted your reference to footprints and thought we were back to the prior human/dinosaur references (Wilma, Fred, and Dino school). I agree there are some problems using carbon dating as noted but usually the error is not so great as not to be usable. The dating of fossils with radiometric methods makes it very difficult to accept the idea of dinosaurs walking with humans. I still respect others wish to believe it is possible.

I have spent most of my life working in the geochemistry/microbiology field and do understand parameters and errors of testing. Although I have seen 50% errors in testing, they were blatant and rejected. If enough checks and balances are applied, most errors are reduced to some form of acceptability. The results were never perfect; though, resolved enough to be usable. Thanks, I should know from your prior entries that you would provide quality information.

"The dating of fossils with radiometric methods makes it very difficult to accept the idea of dinosaurs walking with humans. I still respect others wish to believe it is possible."

The "wish to believe" isn't the issue. There is fossilized evidence in a variety of geographical locations that show that dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time. You can't have fossilized footprints at the exact place from 2 different time periods millions of years apart unless they in fact existed at the same time. Those are facts, not conjecture or "wish". A wish is a daydream with little chance of coming to fruition. You may "wish" for the Santa Clown to come down your chimney in 5 weeks but that isn't happening. You may "wish" to win the lottery but there is an extremely high probability that isn't happening either.

You are correct to question the validity of the Carbon 14 way of measuring age. Rocks were tested after Mt. St. Helens erupted using the Carbon method and it said these samples were thousands of years old when in fact they had only formed in a very short period of time.

Don't have time to find any other more reliable sites but this story of humans and dinosaurs strolling through the garden of Eden died many years ago.

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/7501919888/m/91619066101

If the story of humans and dinosaurs died many years ago, where did all these fossilized pieces of history come from? They weren't manufactured to prove some point. They prove a point because they exist.

I know, I know, you don't want to be confused me with the facts.

Actually they WERE manufactured to prove some point.

"I know, I know, you don't want to be confused me with the facts."

So, let me get this straight. Someone has a dastardly plan to mislead people for some motive by manufacturing fossilized footprints, skeletons, etc. in stone all over the world. And this has been done in such a highly skilled way in which it would past all kinds of technological scrutiny, CT, X-Ray, etc. Yeah right!

Exactly, except for the part about passing scrutiny.

Please send me the link to a peer reviewed article that supports your claim.

If the motive for this dastardly plan is unclear that is just sad.

I don't care who wins this argument, but need to point out that you can't get an article peer reviewed if it opposes the current thinking. It seems that scientists are as biased as everybody else. Take the Physics Forums for instance. It's against their rules to discuss any theory that is not 'main stream science' (opposes current thinking). That really turns my stomach.

There is fossilized evidence in a variety of geographical locations that show that dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time.

There is evidence that dinosaurs and humans did not exist simultaneously.

Evidence can be malleable, and convenient until the light of review hits it.

I posted the above statement just to try to illuminate the issue of scientific theory as it relates to opinion or belief. Yours is a theory unsupported by facts, and in fact there is a considerable volume of research that contradicts your theory. This belief of yours may be correct. I just you could be a little more persuasive than to state that it is true because you believe it. I have done cursory research, on both sides of the debate, and have not a single doubt that dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million years ago, and the first proto human existed about 1.6 million years ago. What gives?

I don't know enough about it to argue one way or the other. I'm just throwing this out, because if you scroll down to the links, it's pretty interesting reading.

http://www.greatdreams.com/dinosaur-man.htm

My thought about something doesn't make it true. I am not the basis of Truth. It is just the opposite. I believe it because it is true.

"Yours is a theory unsupported by facts, and in fact there is a considerable volume of research that contradicts your theory."

The facts do support my theory of the history of man. The facts of history, archaeology, geology, astrology, physics, etc. all point to a Designer. All of life is too intricate and well-balanced to come to any other conclusion. I realize that those who don't want to accept the truth about a Designer will interpret those facts differently and therefore will come to a different conclusion, i.e. evolution, theistic evolution.

" I have done cursory research, on both sides of the debate, and have not a single doubt that dinosaurs became extinct about 65 million years ago, and the first proto human existed about 1.6 million years ago. What gives?"

There wasn't a prototype of human. There isn't any evidence to support that. What you see around you is what existed in history. Other than small changes within the species because of diet, environment, etc.

There are people who come down on either side of this debate who are much smarter than you or I (no slam intended on your intellect) and the debate will continue for years to come. At some point in time we both find out for sure and some will be very astounded .

Trouble is....I COULD debate those, which "might" be an attack on your faith. I won't do that. But I need to know, if that statement ("all of life is too intricate and well-balanced to come to any other conclusion") was faith based...I shall simply respect your constitutional right to be faithful, and shake your hand and we will agree to disagree. I would never try to shake somebody's faith.

The scientific method demands that all scientists question and bring up evidence to attack any position anybody takes. From an outside viewpoint, it looks like they are debating or arguing...the reality is that no theory or concept is ever "carved in stone". There is a theory for instance that the earth moves around the sun. Its only a theory, which in fact is contradicted by a major theistic volume which shall remain un named here because this is not a theistic forum.

(I am sure I do not need to caution anybody on these fora not to confuse the word "thory" with the word "hypothesis". This so often happens when fossils are brought up over a friendly beer in the tavern, or forum. Theories are pretty much proven, though details may still be debatable.)

You tell me...is there "anything" which I or anybody else could say which would shake this faith? Any evidence which you would accept. (Just stick with me for a moment here.) If you, in your heart of hearts feel that my presentation of any evidence to the contrary of your belief system will cause you great distress, then perhaps you should withdraw from this discussion. This is a mostly scientific forum, not a faith based forum and I would hate to cause you distress. Rember, scientists will do this all the time, and not feel attacked.

The question at the very beginning of this thread by hitechrednek was "would this discovery of mummified dinosaur remains be evidence of a shorter time frame than is generally credited by evolutionists", and you and he KNOWS the answer generally accepted by scientists will directly attack some people's faith based concepts. He seems to like to throw the cat in amongst the pigeons, and the moderators have decided to see where it will go.

So, if you agree that it would NOT be an attack on your faith, I would be delighted stay on topic, and with links to those very same people you yourself pointed to are much smarter than us, to point to a considerable body of evidence to support the long, multi million year time lines involved in evolution using fossils, Carbon and Argon dating, stratigraphy, and also demonstrate that the concepts of "theistic evolution" and "intelligent design" are quite recent "junk science" designed entirely by theists to get their world view into the schools by the back door, to get around that constitutional separation of church and state.

Beware though....many avenues we would go down if we did this would be shut down by the moderators pretty darned quickly!

(and I realize that the moderators are now just about to knock this post off the forum because I mention faith...I hope they don't because I am only trying to show the pitfalls in the road ahead if we continue on this topic)

It was not my intent to see fur fly among forum members.I guess I supposed that they were open minded and would look at both sides in an unbiased way.It seems both sides have an axe to grind to support their view.I support neither side, I simply wanted more information on the subject.To find the truth, you must sometimes commit heresy, whether against the church, society, or the scientific community.I simply seek the truth, without reservation or deference to either.I am not a theist, an agnostic, an atheist, a scientist, or any other "ist", except for possibly a "truthist".

Forgive me if this has caused a surge of adrenaline in some members.My apologies for not foreseeing where this would lead.

I'm with you HiTek. I have no bias one way or the other. It's just really interesting. Some links to support anything that's being said are always helpful. Otherwise it's just an argument.

That's the nice thing about not knowing much...................I can enter any conversation with an open mind.

A hearty GA from me on this. Yusef1 presents a well documented well balanced piece of work here. I wish I had the time to go into this much detail and find all the links to support a position. Alas work beckons, keep up the great work Yusef1 and thanks.

evolution...pretty much accepted by most of the major religions as an "okay compromise".

This was a surprise to me. I have never met any people in that group AFAIK. The link only talks about a few of the thousands of religions, so I must take issue to the word "most" in your sentence. No doubt this is changing as time goes on.

But there is this little problem of "peer review". Its hard to grind a big axe when your compadres think you are looney toons and proceed to tear YOU down instead!

That is exactly what is likely to happen.

A goodly proportion of my fellow Anglicans think this way. I came to this conclusion myself aged about 12, before it was popular.

I sum it up as Darwin explains "how", religion explains "why". That's the compromise in a nutshell and how both can be "right". I've since heard sermons on the theme.

As to "most" religions"...I'm not in a position to comment!

I appreciate your desire not to attack me as an individual, and no, I am not offended by "arguements" that present another view. This discussion doesn't cause me distress or any level of consternation, I enjoy hearing/reading various viewpoints even ones that sometimes have questionable merit. When we are faced with opposing ideas it should cause us to also ask those same tough questions of our particular viewpoint.

[that statement ("all of life is too intricate and well-balanced to come to any other conclusion")] This statement isn't necessarily faith-based but it only makes sense to many people that you don't get order and intricacy out of chaos, discord and randomness. It's like having a steel and aluminum business on one corner of a street and one day there is a "Big Bang" and everything is blown to smithereens. Several million years later someone is walking down the street and finds a perfectly formed body of a 747 airplane sitting there, all without a "Designer". How believable would that be? That is a parallel illustration with many people's view of mankinds origins and history.

hitechrednek said in the OP, "would this discovery of mummified dinosaur remains be evidence of a shorter time frame than is generally credited by evolutionists"

That is a question that should certainly raise some questions about what is concluded as fact by evolutionists and how those conclusions are arrived at and also in support of a "young earth". "I would be delighted stay on topic, and with links to those very same people you yourself pointed to are much smarter than us, to point to a considerable body of evidence to support ...." If you're going to go to the people who are smarter than you and me, just make sure you are honest and also look at the evidence presented by people on the other side of the scientific aisle from you. There are many other areas of science, philosophy, theology, etc. where people who are honestly seeking proper conclusions have difficulty in being definitive with their statements. The thing to remember is that we aren't the final authority on what is true. We just have opinions based upon how we interpret the data, which is based upon our ideological viewpoint/worldview.

Wth all this talk about Carbon Dating.........I am begining to think that we are trying to put E-harmony or Match.com out of business.

Ba Dum Dump tisshhhhhh

The phase "I read of" or "I heard of" when used in conjunction with something that is scientific is a powerful red flag that indicates "BxxxSxxx".

While such phrases may indeed be indicative of BS, it doesn't necessarily mean the what is contained within the phrase is wrong or even unsupported. Or that the individual using the phrase is wrong.

There are a number peer reviewed scientific papers I've read on a number of topics of which I do not have total recall. I may recall reading about something the researchers were able to prove, however, that does not mean I even recall the name of the paper or who wrote it.

I think most of us in this forum are aware of Newton's laws. How many can correctly (off the top of their heads) name in what work did Newton present those laws?

And how many can articulate the laws of thermodynamics and who originated them?

It doesn't make them BS in casual conversation or even slightly detailed discussion of a topic. In a truly scientific debate, yes it makes a difference. This forum is somewhat in between (IMHO). I think if someone is trying to support an idea, they should offer some credible source(s). And if someone uses the "I heard of a..." phrase, we can take it as what it is (unsupported), but we don't have to call it BS unless that individual is insisting it's true without bothering or being able to dig up the source.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe dinosaurs were gone long before 60,000,000 years ago. More likely to be some extinct mammalian creature.

"It casts doubt on current theories of fossil formation and possibly even carbon dating methods, IMHO."

This is one of those things where some common sense should come into play and look at the facts without trying to force the facts into a box of preconceived ideas in order to prove or support some "theory".

The best, most plausible explanation is that dinosaurs lived, existed and mostly died in a much shorter time span than is currently accepted by many people. There is a place, I think in Colorado, where there are fossilized tracks of a dinosaur and man's footprints side by side giving evidence that they coexisted.

You're correct about not being clear on the detail of the location. My fault. The location is at the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas.

" However, the most controversial footprints are those discovered in the Paluxy River, Glen Rose TX, USA. They are mainly controversial because they are found with dinosaur footprints which of course upsets everything man thought he know about origins, namely the hypothesis that we humans have arrived here on earth through a process of evolution from a bacterium to fish to amphibians to apes after which we split off from the apes to become human. All this happening perhaps over billions of years. The timeline for the apes to man, with hands for feet, was supposedly seven million years before the present (BP) with dinosaurs having become extinct about 65 million years earlier. See the problem? Dinosaurs with humans can not be true says main stream scientists who were taught evolution theory from childhood."

"Several fossilized "human" tracks have been reported through the years. To the left is the "feminine print in dinosaur track" that was found in the Paluxy River area of Glen Rose, Texas. To the right is the Delk Print, which shows a human footprint intruded by a tridactyl dinosaur print (click for higher resolution). Along with the footprints of the Taylor Trail and the Burdick track, these "man-tracks alongside dinosaur-tracks" have been the source of considerable controversy. But it is instructive to consider that the Paluxy human footprints are much clearer than Mary Leakey's famous Laoetoli Track in Tanzania, which is universally accepted as hominid. Not far away in the state of Texas, a mysterious set of cog wheel imprint runs alongside a dinosaur track in an area called "Dinosaur Flats." Regarding the supposed human and dinosaur footprints together in the limestone beds of the Paluxy River, normally thought to be 120 million years old, evolutionists Milne and Schafersman admit, "Such an occurrence, if verified, would seriously disrupt conventional interpretations of biological and geological history and would support the doctrines of creationism and catastrophism." Milne, and Schafersman, 1983, "Dinosaur Tracks, Erosion Marks and Midnight Chisel Work (But No Human Footprints) in the Cretaceous Limestone of the Paluxy River Bed, Texas," Journal of Geological Education, Vol. 31, pp. 111-123.)"

There are also other areas of observation because of excavation and erosion (floods, etc.) that have revealed other fossils indicating the co-existence of man and dinosaurs; British Columbia, Tennessee, Kentucky, etc.

The answer is simple for someone with an open mind. The fossils can not be as old as some would lead us to believe. Try less than 10,000 years.

Did anyone here bother to read the story? They did not find intact skin, and they didn't find DNA. They even conclude at the end of the story that "Finding intact DNA is so unlikely that we are not focusing on that as a concept."

"Ambiguity Police" here ~ in post 19 , not "Replying-To" any particular post ... to which story are you referring , with:

"Did anyone here bother to read the story?"

I have read numerous, and one says: "Researchers from Japan's Kinki University have found a way to isolate DNA from the frozen mammoth's tissue. Now they plan to insert that DNA into the egg cells of a normal, modern African elephant..."

Yeah sure, let me know when you see one of these walkin around..

They have found only bits of DNA from this 10k old beast...They are trying to splice it together with DNA from a modern day elephant...What they are attempting is to build is a frankenstein monster, which has about the same chance of working... We all know how that turned out! As an example human genome has about 3.17 billion base pairs, and if completely unwound would have a length of about 6 feet (2 meters)...

That's not what they say, but they could be lying.

From the link in #18.

After a 600-day gestation period, the elephant would give birth to a baby mammoth. That baby would be a clone of that frozen mammoth found in the Siberian tundra and believed to have died more than 10,000 years ago. The baby would not have any genetic relation to the surrogate mother that actually gives birth to it.

Just misleading...from the Wiki..

"the mammoth's genes differ at only some 400,000 sites from the genome of the African elephant and it would be possible (though not with presently available technology) to modify an elephant cell at these sites to make it resemble one bearing a mammoth's genome, and implant it into a surrogate elephant mother.^[25]

In January 2011, it was reported^[26] by Yomiuri Shimbun that a team of scientists headed by Akira Iritani of Kyoto University had built upon research by Dr. Wakayama mentioned above, saying they will extract DNA from a mammoth carcass that had been preserved in a Russian laboratory and insert it into the egg cells of an African elephant in hopes of producing a mammoth embryo. The researchers said they hoped to produce a baby mammoth within six years.^[27]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammoth

To which story are you referring?There are many stories of similar content ranging from China to Wyoming and other places.The one I was referring to is here:

http://news.discovery.com/videos/dinos-dinosaur-mummy-has-skin-guts.html

There is always much contention on anything that disturbs the current theories.

I am always open to new information, especially if it proves me wrong, for then I am no longer working with invalid data.

Please provide a link to your referenced article.

Thanks

Speaking of links - you 'activating' yours would be nice.

Here's how

C/p your link as usual.

http://news.discovery.com/videos/dinos-dinosaur-mummy-has-skin-guts.html

it [or another word you would like to act as a link)

Now click on this button in the editor bar

and this opens;

It pre-fills-in when it recognizes a link - just click 'submit'

If you have highlighted some other word, paste your link in the URL box and click 'submit'

The selected word, or words, or link, in your post will now be a color and underlined.

If not, then you have done it wrong. Your link will work in 'preview'. It is a good idea to test that it goes where it should.

The article said it was mineralized organic matter. So is petrified wood. In this case, the cells were replaced by minerals just like in the case of petrified wood. The article clearly says this. Where do you get cosmic rays and questionable, possibly short dating from? And one could imagine that some original carbon might still be trapped in there with the calcium cabonate. I dunno. I am not a geologist. I am fairly certain that mineral migration and replacement of this kind takes more than a couple of afternoons though, but it would have to pretty well started before the flesh liquified. twenty four to forty eight hours will petrify organic matter. Once it has petrified, it can last for millions of years.

I think the word "mummified" is a misnomer here, and possibly a tag line by a newspaper man looking for a story. Anyway, I have a piece of petrified wood here in my collection in which you can clearly see the growth rings and some original insect damage. The idea of a petrified dinosaur that is detailed enough to be able to make out blood vessels is more than a little exciting! And this agate like material in my sample is really tough, and I would not be too surprised to see carbon bits sealed away inside there someplace....I used to see plant imprints on the coal when I visited Joggins Nova Scotia. And I am sure I have seen samples of petrified wood that was part coal.

Very exciting find in its own right. Thanks for digging it up for me. I don't know of any petrified animals. The bones are usually petrified (in that they are no longer "bone" but rather agate created by the process of petrification) and of course the Burgess Shale deposit is VERY fascinating....even the soft bits were well preserved, but again, as fossils, not as petrification. Very cool indeed!

(And no, rapid petrification does not "support" any nutty biblical theory about the earth being a few thousand years old! The process may be fast (two days) or slow (a few years) or longer (a few decades or even a century or so) but once it is fossilized, the relic will hang about pretty much unchanged for um...pretty much ever. Fence posts become fossilized in Australia which still have holes for the barbed wire in them. And I think I remember seeing (somewhere) a fossilized cowboy boot with a fossilized cowboy foot in it that was dug out of the tailings of an old silver mine. Or somethin' like that. Not sure of the details, but it sounds possible. Don't prove nuthin though! Of course, why would anyone assume the process stops? I imagine once the artifact has petrified, it still has minerals migrating in and out of it as time goes by. Staining crystals red with iron, or blue with cobalt. That might take a bit longer....grin!)

Wow. A fossilized dino! Cool!

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/fossilizeddna.html

Opinions vary, but all have the same intrinsic value.

Wow! Who knew! What a wonderful world we live in to make such remarkable discoveries. It is very important to follow the evidence rather than to draw the conclusion first, and seek evidence to support it. I fear there were overtones of the latter...but that does not weaken the wonder of it all.

I never learned anything from someone that always agreed with me.Argument is the gold pan of facts, and as the arguments swirl about, the valid points tend to sift out from the lighter fluff of opinion, which are carried away and discarded, but agitation is required to facilitate the separation.

Warning- This does contain religious/biblical content. However, I think it is pertinent to the current discussion, and may, shed some light. It's not intended to be pro or anti religion. It's interesting.

http://www.realtruth.org/articles/090203-006-science.html

Just how does this shed any "light" on anything?

It is one person's opinion of one book that was written by many different people many many years ago. The parts of which were chosen and assembled by other people at different times who had very specific goals in mind when they decided on which parts to include. The various parts were all translated (several times) by different people so that now this "book" exists in several different versions.

The author is very good at quoteing the various chapters and verses so as to appear very scholarly but early on states "From these two passages we can see that Scripture, which is inspired by God". Could we have some footnotes, sources or backup for this statement please?

After stating that his source is the "word of God" he then goes on later to point out errors in his own source. "It was incorrectly translated "was" in Genesis 1:2. A more proper rendering is "became" or "came to be." With all of this information a more accurate translation of the beginning of this verse could be: "And the earth became desolate, a worthless thing and an undistinguishable ruin…"".

You can't write a "proof" based on a book when there is no evidence that your original source of information is anything other than a work by someone who agress with you in the first place.

I hope this essay is not meant to answer our request for some peer reviewed work. If however this piece is intended to show how the young earthers arrived at their unsuportable conclusions, or how they have been misled and hoodwinked into believing something for which there is no evidence, then it has achieved your objective.

No, but it does point out that the Bible itself seems to conflict with the young earth argument. As does the bottom section that talks about the distance of stars from us not jiving with a 6000 year old universe.

I suppose I'm treading into dangerous waters here, but it's possible that the 6000 year reference is in regard to modern humans.

I guess what I'm saying is that both evolutionists and creationists, seem to be so rigid in their thinking, and contempt for each other, that there isn't any wiggle room on either side for other possibilities. Proven science, is proven science though.

Fact of the matter, is, that none of us knows exactly how or when we got here.

I agree with the allegorical aspect and social guidance value. The latter is, though perhaps via a rocky road, a major reason Mankind flourished.

I find it odd that 'believers' on either 'side' - be that 'science', or 'faith' - can be so 'right'.

Anyone who has a truly scientific view, automatically realises that nothing is fully 'right', as nothing can be fully known.

Like; how many Earth years in a God day?

I find it odd that 'believers' on either 'side' - be that 'science', or 'faith' - can be so 'right'.

Agreed. I get through life on a mixture of theories and hypotheses, based on both what I've been taught and what I've experienced. I use them until they don't work, then I update them with the new knowledge/experience. Doesn't matter if it's a physical process or my faith.

I quite happily hold these hypotheses (if that's not too strong a descprition) as simultaneously possible (note: no probablity value assigned) and kinda consistent with [what I know of] most major theistic religions:

Hypothesis 1

Gods are the remnants of a previous high-tech terrestrial civilization that for reasons unknown, but maybe ecological and certainly including inter-nicene wars, became extinct and left no relics that we have yet discovered/recognised. In the dying days of their civilization, they used their biological knowledge to create animals, including humans, that could survive in the new ecology. The new humans weren't taught all their knowledge, but did revere them. Some humans stole/gained access to some of the knoweldge and tried to explain it to others...<segue into archeological history here>

Hyposthesis 2

We're part of a terraforming exercise by an extra-terrestrial high-tech race, who have never made it back to use the planet.

Hypothesis 3

There really is some being that created the universe

Hypothesis 4

There's only the Earth and what's on it and our so-called "god shaped hole" is just a quirk of our biology, heightened by consumption of certain alkaloids, to externalise our conscience.

.

No-one can actually disprove any of the above. I can't prove any of them. They make me smile and are useful for taunting hobbit-like creatures and amusing those who think.

Perhaps we should also discuss the difference between "faith" and "religion"?

Now that is just exactly what I am talking about. Twisting words like "truth" and "science" all out of recognition. The touch stone of reality that those authors use is not based on anything even remotely resembling truth or science, yet they throw those words around as if they know what they meant! A fine example kramarat of the triumph of non-scientific thought over clear thinking, of the total perversion of the scientific method. Thank you for finding that for us. So yes, it WAS bang on topic!

Although it DOES make a case for theistic evolution. As does this famous Harris cartoon.

I'm gonna go back to just reading the thread now.

I am withdrawing from this discussion because I find myself becoming too emotionally involved. You guys play nice now. I will happily respond to any private emails if anybody wishes to receive the brunt of my "Satanic Word Play".

Hope to see you all on a less controversial thread.

Sorry to see so many good minds bowing out of this thread. Maybe we can move it in a bit of a different direction and question another bit of dogma.

Why is it so many good fourms forbid the discussion of religion (or politics)? I see discussions here questioning many other beliefs and delving into areas where we know so little that all the current opinions and theories have little or no experimental exidence to back them up (yet). What is it about religion that makes it so "special". Are we also not to discuss whether or not the easter bunny or santa claus exist for fear of offending all the believers even if they are all under the age of consent? As far as I know nobody has died yet fighting over those topics but a belief that has caused more bloodshed on this planet than almost any othersingle reason is off limits?

As Stevie Wonder once said, when you believe in superstition, you suffer. As thinking men and women are we not concerned about this, and should we not be working towards a more logical and better informed world? The old adage that "everyone is entitled to their opinion" is just not true. We do not allow people to go unchallenged when they spout drivel about perpetual motion machines or magnets. Nor do we allow bigotry or prejudice to go unchallenged. It is time religious beliefs are taken off their "sacred" pedistal and held up to the same light of reasonable thought as everything else. These beliefs deserve no special treatment just because they are 2000 years old.

Now I have to go dig out my christmas stocking......Santa's coming soon you know.

"2000 years old" - most unscientific of you.

"In the context of organized religion, especially monotheism, claims of an "oldest religion" may also be attached to a positive dating claim of a founding figure rather than a notion of absolute "primality". Thus, Vyasa, the "splitter of the Vedas" is dated to the remote Dvapara Yuga in the Pauranic Hinduism. Rishabha is dated to similarly remote dates in Jainism. Zoroaster is dated as early as "6,000 years before Plato" in some classical sources, or Abraham is dated to ca. 1800 BC in Jewish tradition following Maimonides"

full link