Squishing Dinosaurs into a Book
Viced Rhino | added 22 Sept. 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1VUF6riO1I
1:12 "no trace has been found of them later than 65 million years ago"
Passing off the question about Nessie, Mokele Mbembe, Thunderbird, and Jobar and whether the Serpopards on Narmer palette could be Behemoths just like Mokele, which I suppose goes more into your responses to Hovind, how exactly do YOU propose to consider these "last" dinos as 65 million years old?
Not Carbon dating, I hope?
If so, see here:
Creation vs. Evolution : Pat Robertson Called Dinos 65 Million Years Old Because of Carbon Dating?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/09/pat-robertson-called-dinos-65-million.html
2:17 Adam had no need to name all species in Linnean sense, it was sufficient he name kinds - these are seldom if ever species level, more often genus or higher levels in Linnean sense.
Some of our species developed within the kinds after Adam lived. Or even after the Deluge:
Creation vs. Evolution : Baraminological Note
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/04/baraminological-note.html
2:32 Kinds are not about cutting number of species in half.
Hedgehogs are one kind, some other animals could be same kind too:
"So, Erinaceinae would on my strictly amateur estimate be 1 to 3 couples of fairly small animals on the ark. Deinogalerix might be a relative of Hylomyinae which did not get on the Ark, because Noah wanted a smaller one (or got a smaller one from God).
"If someone were to consider each species separately as a candidate for the Ark, we would get 24 species, 24 couples, not counting the extinct Deinogalerix, which is also another species, clearly, which would bring us to 25 couples, one of which is rather large."
Quoting my own words from the link. 24 species in one to three kinds is cutting species number into 1/8 to 1/24.
3:00 Sth you have also not stated how many species which could be named simply, all of them together, bugs.
3:37 Not sure if who you are answering is speaking of billions of species.
If he is, I think he is wrong.
I also don't think dinos were wiped out by the Flood, though some which were are very well preserved under tons of mud from the Flood.
Why only 80 dinosaur kinds?
Because there are probably even less dinosaur kinds ever known.
C. 600 "different species" are estimated to - on your video - 80 kinds, on another site I saw 55.
So there were no other ones. In kinds. Some of them might have developed specific differences inside kind before, and if so only one of them survived. But two subspecies could have survived in a post-Flood hybrid population, if male and female came from diverse subspecies.
4:39 Triceratops and Sauropods are more reasonably homages to divine design than to evolutionary eliminations of bad design.
All of the video is not "the Bible is right", some of the video is on other topics (though obviously never in conflict with it), as here "argument from design".
5:14 Evolution may be ever so well documented in dog breeds, but you still don't have well documented evolutionary family trees between Ceratopsians and Sauropods.
5:17 Where we haven't found the exact transitions = is not well documented.
As to a supposedly far closer affair, the exact transitions to cats and dogs from supposedly common ancestor is also not found and therefore also not well documented.
5:55 While the supposed 170 million years between first and last dinos would somewhat "invalidate" (dubious usage) the part on "at the same time", this would also give lots of scope, even with fossilisation being a very rare event, for transitional ancestry to Ceratopsians to have been found in parts "earlier" than Cretaceous.
6:04 Aaaaaah ... nostalgia!
"How come we never found a single dinosaur from the Triassic period in the same layer as the Cretaceous?"
Oh, the good old days when I went over this ... yep, this link is nearly four years old:
Creation vs. Evolution : Three Meanings of Chronological Labels
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2013/12/three-meanings-of-chronological-labels.html
And some evolutionists have still not seen it.
The very minimal intro, if you want one before deciding to look at the link, Triassic and Cretaceous are geographic, not temporal, biotopes.
The answer to your question is another question: how come we never found a single dinosaur from the Triassic period in a lower layer straight under the layer where we found the Cretaceous, in the same spot?
Because, we haven't.
The place where a Triassic layer is seen as coming under a Cretaceous one, with or without an intervening Jurassic one, the place where you find a Triassic dinosaur, the place where you find a Cretaceous one, these are three different places.
6:10 But they are NOT separated by dinosaurs from the Jurassic period without exception.
Dig a very deep cellar anywhere in the world, you will NOT find any Cretaceous dinos at minus 5 floors, Jurassic at minus 10 floors and then Triassic at minus 15 floors.
Check with the deepest mine shafts, even to one kilometer down.
6:19 Cretaceous dinosaurs are supposed to include Ceratopsians.
What Jurassic and Triassic dinosaurs are they supposed to have evolved from?
None known whatsoever. Oh ... read up on Yinlong. Still, what Triassic dinosaur is Yinlong supposed to have evolved from?
7:32 Yes, the evidence of how far from each other and how far from us the Apatosaurus and the giant dragonfly are ... where is that evidence?
Not carbon dating, that is "too far", so, even if you had been right, it would not have been a result obtained by it.
Not geological column, I just answered that one.
Perhaps you prefer Potassium Argon? Ever heard of excess argon?
That is what evolutionists claimed as excuse in potassium argon dates contradicting the known date of eruption of Mount St Helen's.
Or Uranium Lead or Thorium Lead?
Yes, but you are presuming all lead of a certain isotope found beside Uranium is from Uranium, all of another isotope found beside Thorium is from Thorium.
Also, significant portions of the halflife of carbon 14 can be checked by historical artefacts or tombs. Half a halflife is 2865 years ago, back in Assyrian times. Quarter of a halflife we are speaking like times of Emperor Justinian.
Now, give a similarily reasonable assurance about halflives of Uranium to Lead or of Thorium to Lead ..
[Half a halflife implies you should find square root of 1/2, i e 70.7 %, quarter of a halflife means square root of that, 81.7 % if I recall correctly.]
8:32 You have just given one argument why fossils at least theoretically COULD all be from Flood of Noah.
A rapid and airtight burial is one prerequisite for fossil formation in the first place.
You have two options : either very many disasters over very long time - but many exceeding scales of catastrophes observed today - or one very huge disaster.
With or without some after effects, like later mud slides after Flood, before rocks solidified completely.
8:51 It may not need to be a global Flood, but where one herd of large Sauropods drowning and getting buried in mud is compared to Yaks drowning while crossing Brahmaputra (and not necessarily getting buried in mud either), you want to know how much bigger Sauropods are than Yaks ... well, I think that one is, if not necessarily from a global Flood, definitely from a much larger quantity of water than we have seen so far in undisputed history. Like last 3000 years.
Here is a video no longer available, just in case it goes online again:
THE TRUTH ABOUT DINOSAURS - NEW FINDINGS IN ARGENTINA REVEAL IT ALL (documentary/truth)
John Docs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41jTefmn8Vs
And here is a comment made under it while it was up:
19:23 "were probably crossing a swollen river, and got drowned trying to cross"
Explanation given here somehow recaptures moods from the Flood of Noah ...
What river EXCEPT THE FLOOD could have done it?
"Ríos más largos de Argentina (más de 200 km)" gives columns:
"Desembocadura - Provincia(s) que atraviesa - Otro(s) país(es)" (Chile, none other relevant for Patagonia)
Relevant provinces : Neuquén, Río Negro, Chubut, Santa Cruz, Tierra de Fuego
Río Colorado scores two of these plus a few other ones.
Río Deseado has one plus the delta land Ría Deseada - on 615 km it falls 215 meters.
Río Grande (río de Tierra del Fuego) not stated, Río Gallegos (río) falls 120 m in 300 km ....
Let us compare to 5,210 m fall in 2900 km - Brahmaputra.
Would even a swollen Brahmaputra have buried 35 m long adult behemoths who were anyway half water living, since water supported their body weight?
Apart of course from a Brahmaputra like river passing through what is today Patagonia would need very different shapes of the continents.
Of course, the fiction of "it all happened millions of years ago" would tend to give some supplementary plausibility to that part.
But a river greater than Brahmaputra drowning a herd looks suspiciously like the Flood or a current during the Flood might have been that "river".
AND here is where I put the link and the comment:
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Arguing Biblical Inerrancy FROM Evolutionist Material
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.fr/2015/01/on-arguing-biblical-inerrancy-from.html
9:04 It is very obvious that the Flooding of Houston could not have buried a herd of sauropods in mud.
I'm willing to use it as evidence of what the Flood is NOT.
9:29
Most bones chewed by scavengers in Hilda Alberta?
Hmmm ... sounds like more of a candidate for post-Flood mudslides, then.
I suppose a carbon date on them would be more recent than 30 000 BP (Armitage has done carbon dates which some of them could be Flood dates, according to my recalibration of carbon, but some would be from between Flood and Babel, like Upper Palaeolithic).
9:59 Late Cretaceous ... well, what if the biotope locally was a "Late" Cretaceous biotope?
You may not have found any source saying they all gathered there at the same time, but your reasoning from presence of "non-Late Cretaceous" leaves out that in a Flood event there could be some mixture of biotopes, and you are leaving out the obvious inference from the looks of the ravine.
980 feet of fossils all formed by long accumulation over 45 million years, but for some reason no clear presence of a prequel to this accumulation in Early Cretaceous or in Jurassic or in Triassic, and for some reasons no clear presence of a sequel over Palaeocene or Miocene ... but for starters "980 feet of fossils all formed by long accumulation" is not too believable in itself either.
Here is your link, btw:
guardian : Dinosaur bones find is world's biggest, says China 7,600 fossils about 100m years old discovered in Zhucheng
David Stanway in Beijing Tuesday 30 December 2008 16.32 GMT
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/dec/30/china-dinosaur-fossil-bones
10:55 Oh ... "who am I too"
And "how palaeontology works".
In other words, you submit to the official doctrine of the corps, even though you can't really explain why the dinos seem to have gathered in a way less explainable if protracted over such a long time.
11:09 You can't compare the whole of Morrisson Formation, an abstraction, to a bonebed, like Zhucheng.
Morrisson has 100's of Mass Bone beds.
If someone claims Morrisson spans millions of years, ok, I'll buy he is not using the Flood or post-Flood mudslides which are a more real explanation. But if someone claims any of these bonebeds is from millions of different years, I think he's got some explaining to do, even compared to normal evolutionary palaeontology.
11:23 Oh, above was from the video?
[The other one which this video I am commenting on is commentng on?]
The point was not "many found in death pose, therefore the Bible is right", but "many found in death pose, therefore they were rapidly buried while dying, which is consistent with the Biblical flood".
11:42 Once again, the Flood in Houston can't even fossilise a car, just make it water damaged, and it could much less fossilise a whole dino.
A self respecting adult sauropod would have considered Houston Flood as "oh, I get some wet feet, nice". And even a T Rex would probably not be more incommodated than saying "hmm ... water to the waist, I'll have to keep standing".
12:58 I am actually more than average into position of fossils in Creationist community.
CMI has so far not used my results because they would like "us" to know better where the fossils were placed, and they don't trust me, a Catholic and non-specialist, to find this from wikipedia.
I found but lost one reference on marine creatures from Palaeocene or Miocene above dinosaurs from Cretaceous (Ceratopsians, I think). There are two explanations.
1 Yours, which I put first par politesse, would be, dinos from Cretaceous were buried in a Flood when or before that part became a sea in which shrimps and prawns were buried by mud before it became land again.
2 Mine is, dino herd was buried in mud, during the Flood of Noah, over which mud the same Flood brought in streams of sea creatures, which were buried in later mud slides, and after the Flood, this again emerged as land.
Note, if someone among Creationists says sea creatures are regularly found with dinos, I'll take note of that, but I'd like a reference for it.
Will bring it up with Trey Smith.
13:14 "interesting enough to make headlines"
You don't know which interests own the mainstream media, right?
Soros is one of them, and he's behind next year's new Irish referendum which he hopes will bring abortion to Ireland.
Do you think HE would like such a thing to be known?
Or the four years since I started doing the research debunking geological column, as far as palaeontology is concerned, I have not been easily refuted and after that ignored, I have been NEITHER refuted NOR taken note of by the relevant specialists.
Here is a correspondence with Karoo:
Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : Contacting Karoo about superposition of layers and fossils
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.fr/2015/06/contacting-karoo-about-superposition-of.html
That was 2 years ago.
Here, if you read Spanish, is one with Yacoraite:
Correspondencia de Hans Georg Lundahl : Yacoraite
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.fr/2013/11/yacoraite.html
As you can see, it is actually one letter, from me, no answer from the Universidad Nacional de Salta.
13:20 "localised flooding makes ... more sense than global flooding"
It seems that video I linked to was owned by one who thought otherwise.
And Houston Flood could drown a Ceratopsian, perhaps, but not bury standing Ceratopsians in mud.
A flooding 500 yards deep would be more to the point, and if we get that kind of water, a global Flood is not excluded.
But most known local or regional Floods (except Black Sea Flood) are.
13:46 Identic to ostrich collagen?
OK, for one thing, this excludes the idea of collagen being a later contamination by bacteria.
For another, while a creationist can hardly agree with "birds evolved from dinosaurs", one cannot as easily exclude "some dinosaurs were large birds".
Btw, I suppose we can agree on this : Ceratopsians and Theropods could NOT cross breed to make first ancestors of birds.
However, Ceratopsians have the beak trait, some Theropods the feather trait. In other words, which of them do you consider ancestral to birds?
14:09 It seems you cannot imagine main stream media being dishonest, and for some reason you also cannot imagine the creationists looking at and dating unfossilised dino bone as being honest.
You can't complain about conspiracy theories from our side, when you are so rich in conspiracy theorising yourself.
14:27 Whether you think or not that carbon 14 is the wrong method for dating dinosaur bones, you will admit that the theory says after 65 million years there should be no carbon 14 left.
Look at the results I got for much lesser time periods at carbon date calculator, shown on this post:
Creation vs. Evolution : Pat Robertson Called Dinos 65 Million Years Old Because of Carbon Dating?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.fr/2017/09/pat-robertson-called-dinos-65-million.html
Since I could have photoshopped it, check yourself with ...
Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
[same site, both images]
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html
[new time sig.] You may notice that Journal of Palaeobiology is not available online. Is it?
If it is, why did you not check it online?
Oh wait ... you cite the quote "little permineralisation" as "not completely permineralised".
No, it means "mostly not permineralised".
And 16:14 permineralisation is what is most usually meant by fossilisation.
Little permineralised means that little of what was found was permineralised.
If little of the complete animal had been permineralised, and rest not preserved, one would of course not have spoken of "little permineralised" but of incomplete fossil. Because, as easily as the incomplete fossil could be due to little being permineralised and rest rotting away totally, just as easily, it could have all been permineralised first and then parts lost afterwards.
So "little permineralised" only makes sense if the rest is intact or nearly so.
No comments:
Post a Comment