The rest of the evidence does not support a global flood, but you are already aware of that. Your particular brand of fearful theology will not allow rational investigation on the issue.
Interesting find that further shows the relation between dinosaurs and birds
- Thread starter Greg Jennings
- Start date
The rest of the evidence does not support a global flood, but you are already aware of that. Your particular brand of fearful theology will not allow rational investigation on the issue.
6days
New member
Stuu admitted "It could well be evidence of a flood". We have similar evidence globally.....That is one of the evidences. It would seem that your fearful theology prevents you from accepting logical conclusions that threaten your 'faith'.
Nope. Stories aren't evidence. When are you lot going to learn?
6days
New member
That is your 'religion'. Evidence shows the dinosaurs are buried in water borne sediment.
Research indicates the dinosaurs drowned...It must have been quite the flood.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21207-watery-secret-of-the-dinosaur-death-pose.html
"Recreating the spectacular pose many dinosaurs adopted in death might involve following the simplest of instructions: just add water.
When palaeontologists are lucky enough to find a complete dinosaur skeleton – whether it be a tiny Sinosauropteryx or an enormous Apatosaurus – there's a good chance it will be found with its head thrown backwards and its tail arched upwards – technically known as the opisthotonic death pose. No one is entirely sure why this posture is so common....
....Although the roads to the opisthotonic death pose are many, immersion in water is the simplest explanation."
It was you who claimed there was 'other evidence'. Where was it?
I think 'us lot' are the ones who have actually done the learning. Many areas of science have evidence-based theories about what has happened in the past few thousands of years. But ice-core samples and bristlecone pine dendrochronology are the only two pieces needed from that the vast array of evidence to completely disprove a global flood within the past 5000 years.
You could claim that the evidence is an illusion and we are all living in a Judeo-christian fantasy matrix scenario.
I don't mind at all if you want to push that particular nuclear button. It is your only credible option.
Stuart
I'm happy to believe that dinosaurs died in floods. Where is your evidence that any dinosaur ever died in a global flood?
Stuart
You mean: What is it? Surely.
Where it is should be obvious.
Typically, the Darwinists eschew evidence in favor of narrative, but let's see what we can glean from the link:
| Artist's rendition of the last-ditch struggle of the feathered dinosaur, Tongtianlong limosus, as it was mired in mud. Chinese construction workers excavating bedrock. “You can actually see near the fossil where some of the dynamite was placed, and that dynamite did destroy part of the back end of the animal,” says Brusatte. “But without the dynamite, it never would have been exposed." |
This is about all there is about the rock it was found in, which should be the most important aspect to study when trying to assess how a fossil formed. Ideally, we would like to know what kind of rock it was, the nature of its bedding, grading and extent, the fossil's orientation within the rock and lots of other details.
From what we are given, it is clear that the entire area was flooded and then the water was removed soon afterward. Also, there had to be vast amounts of silica or carbonate in the water to enable the sediment to lithify.
Furthermore, we'd like to know the extent of permineralization of the bone. The presence of organics could help show that this happened within the past few thousand years. There's an easy prediction: The fossil will have organic material from the dino that could be carbon dated giving an age far too young for the Darwinist model.
The evidence is right there, but the evolutionists refuse to even consider the possibility of it existing.
| Its final moments before death, mired in mud with its limbs and head outstretched, struggling to escape. |
This seems unlikely. Creatures don't die struggling to escape. They die after they give up struggling.
What we need to know is the 3D description of the fossil as it was oriented in the rock. Was it flattened at all? Was it between layers or was it within a layer? Whatever the case, we know that something far removed from any process we see today was responsible for trapping it like it was.
| Its skeleton is one of the best examples of a dinosaur that was flourishing during those [times. Several species have been discovered in the last few decades in North America and Asia, ranging in size from four feet to over 22 feet long. |
And so it is reasonable to assume the process that buried the animals in China was also at play in the US. Good evidence for a global catastrophe involving a lot of sediment-rich water.
You have a story. We're interested in evidence.
Oh, you want to talk about trees and ice now?
Your stories are not evidence. When are you going to learn?
Evidence, remember?
We know you will run for the hills when confronted with it.
Last edited:
Lon
Well-known member
There you go. Glad you said it. It was what I was thinking.
Let me know how that photo of George Washington comes out? Be a bit brighter (please).
glassjester
Well-known member
Isn't that just because animals that die in water are the most prone to fossilization?
Most remains are never fossilized.
SO you are going to show me where the evidence is in the text. Great.
Er, could be dated? Where is the discussion of carbon dating in the text?
I'd say the process of fossilisation is very similar, in principle at least, wherever it happens. Where is your evidence that both fossilisation events happened at the same time?
I'm glad you're interested in evidence. Why the sudden change of heart?
Well, since you failed to produce any evidence when you promised there was evidence in the text (did you mean that when you mentioned the other evidence?) I thought I would mention some of the evidence that proves there was no recent global flood.
Stuart
6days
New member
No. Animals that die in water are scavenged by predators. Even the bones are consumed by bacteria. Fossilization normally requires rapid burial in sediment deep enough to protect it from scavengers and oxidation.
Here is all of the text from the three links in Post #1:
| By Mark Strauss PUBLISHED November 10, 2016 Chinese construction workers excavating bedrock recently made an explosive discovery when they inadvertently unearthed an unusual new species of feathered dinosaur. The animal lived about 66 to 72 million years ago, right before a giant impact wiped out large dinosaurs in a catastrophic mass extinction. (Find out what happened on the day the dinosaurs died.) Scientists named the new species Tongtianlong limosus, or “muddy dragon on the road to heaven”—a prosaic way to describe its final moments before death, mired in mud with its limbs and head outstretched, struggling to escape. “This new dinosaur is one of the most beautiful, but saddest, fossils I’ve ever seen,” Steve Brusatte, of the University of Edinburgh’s School of Geosciences, says in a press statement. “But we’re lucky that the mud dragon got stuck in the muck, because its skeleton is one of the best examples of a dinosaur that was flourishing during those final few million years before the asteroid came down and changed the world in an instant.” Dinosaurs of a Feather Tongtianlong belongs to a family of feathered dinosaurs called oviraptorosaurs, which had short, toothless heads and sharp beaks. Several species have been discovered in the last few decades in North America and Asia, ranging in size from four feet to over 22 feet long. The mud dragon, the sixth species to be found in the Ganzhou area of southern China, was about the size of a large sheep or small donkey, the researchers announced this week in Scientific Reports. In addition to size, one of the key distinguishing features among oviraptorosaurs is their crests, which were ornamental features used to attract mates and intimidate rivals. “They are similar to horns in some mammals today,” Brusatte tells National Geographic. “Often, different mammals have different types of horns, and that helps define the different species. Same with oviraptorosaurs. Tongtianlong had a domelike crest—a fairly simple, convex, helmet type of crest.” The existence of so many oviraptorosaurs species crowded together in one region of China has given scientists new insights into the twilight era of the dinosaurs. “They were diversifying during those few million years before the asteroid hit,” says Brusatte. “They are a sign that dinosaurs were still doing well at this time, still making new species, still dominating ecosystems.” (Also see “What Killed the Dinosaurs? Science Has Had Some Wild Ideas.”) Southern China back then was a “very dynamic and active environment,” he adds, describing it as a dense jungle forest with lots of rivers and lakes. In addition to the oviraptorosaurs, tyrannosaur species like Qianzhousaurus, big plant-eating sauropods, and duck-billed hadrosaurs roamed the region. Scientists suspect that the emergence of multiple oviraptorosaurs species in the same region was a case of evolutionary radiation. That’s when organisms rapidly diversify from their ancestral species, developing traits that allow them to adapt and thrive in multiple environmental niches. The fossilized skeleton of the mud dragon was unearthed by Chinese construction workers clearing bedrock with dynamite. For instance, oviraptorosaurs are theropod dinosaurs that evolved from meat-eaters similar to Tyrannosaurus rex and the velociraptor. But the winged creatures lost their teeth, replacing them with beaks, which changed the types of foods they were able to pursue. “In birds today, we know that beaks can be used in many different ways to eat many different types of food,” says Brusatte. “So oviraptorosaurs probably were omnivorous, with different species targeting different types of food.” Some had a thick, horny bill paired with powerful jaw muscles, which meant they probably cracked open and ate clams. Others appeared to be herbivores. The mud dragon’s upper jaw is highly convex at the front of its snout, which implies a specialized diet. But Brusatte says that researchers are still unsure about what kind of food it ate with its uniquely shaped beak. The scientists are largely thankful that they even have a specimen to observe, given the circumstances of its discovery. “You can actually see near the fossil where some of the dynamite was placed, and that dynamite did destroy part of the back end of the animal,” says Brusatte. “But without the dynamite, it never would have been exposed. It's a stark example of the fine line between finding a whole new species of dinosaur and never knowing that this species existed.” |
| By Melissa Hogenboom 13 May 2015 Sixty-five million years ago, an asteroid is believed to have crashed into Earth. The impact wiped out huge numbers of species, including almost all of the dinosaurs. One group of dinosaurs managed to survive the disaster. Today, we know them as birds. The idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs has been around since the 19th century, when scientists discovered the fossil of an early bird called Archaeopteryx. It had wings and feathers, but it also looked a lot like a dinosaur. More recent fossils look similar. But these early birds didn't look the same as modern ones. In particular, they didn't have beaks: they had snouts, like those of their dinosaur ancestors. To understand how one changed into another, a team has been tampering with the molecular processes that make up a beak in chickens. By doing so, they have managed to create a chicken embryo with a dinosaur-like snout and palate, similar to that of small feathered dinosaurs like Velociraptor. The results are published in the journal Evolution. The team's aim was to understand how the bird beak evolved, because the beak is such a vital part of bird anatomy. It has been crucial for their success. The 10,000 or more bird species occupy a wide range of habitats, and many have specialised beaks to help them survive. But they did not set out to create a "dino-chicken", say lead authors Bhart-Anjan Bhullar of Yale University in New Haven and Arkhat Abzhanov of Harvard University in Cambridge, US. "Whenever you examine an important evolutionary transformation, you want to learn the underlying mechanism," says Bhullar. The beak is also the part of the avian skeleton that has "diversified most extensively and most radically", says Bhullar. Despite this diversity – ranging from flamingos to pelicans - very little work has been done to figure out "what the heck a beak actually is", he adds. "I wanted to know what the beak was skeletally, functionally and when this major transformation occurred from a normal vertebrate snout to the very unique structures used in birds." To begin to understand this, the team trawled though changes in the ways genes are expressed in the embryos of chickens and several other animals. They looked at the embryos of mice, emus, alligators, lizards and turtles, representing many of the major animal groups. They found that birds have a unique cluster of genes related to facial development, which the non-beaked creatures lacked. When they silenced these genes, the beak structure reverted back to its ancestral state. So too did the palatal bone in the roof of the mouth. To make this genetic tweak, Bhullar and his colleagues isolated the proteins that would have gone on to develop beaks. Then they suppressed them using tiny beads coated with an inhibiting substance. When their skeletons started to develop inside the eggs, these animals had short, rounded bones instead of elongated, fused beaks that bird skeletons have. "By affecting this early protein you are actually altering gene expression," added Bhullar. The work highlights that beaks develop very differently from snouts, using a different set of genes, says Michael Benton of Bristol University in the UK. "That's what proves the beak is a real adaptation or 'thing', not just a slightly different nose shape." The shift from snouts to beaks happened well into the evolution of birds, 40-50 million years after Archaeopteryx, says Benton. For now Bhullar has no plans, or ethical approval, to hatch the snouted chickens. But he believes they would have been able to survive "just fine". "These weren't drastic modifications," says Bhullar. "They are far less weird than many breeds of chicken developed by chicken hobbyists and breeders." "The rest of the animal looked OK, but one needs to think about this carefully from an ethical point of view." |
| Abstract The avian beak is a key evolutionary innovation whose flexibility has permitted birds to diversify into a range of disparate ecological niches. We approached the problem of the mechanism behind this innovation using an approach bridging paleontology, comparative anatomy, and experimental developmental biology. First, we used fossil and extant data to show the beak is distinctive in consisting of fused premaxillae that are geometrically distinct from those of ancestral archosaurs. To elucidate underlying developmental mechanisms, we examined candidate gene expression domains in the embryonic face: the earlier frontonasal ectodermal zone (FEZ) and the later midfacial WNT-responsive region, in birds and several reptiles. This permitted the identification of an autapomorphic median gene expression region in Aves. To test the mechanism, we used inhibitors of both pathways to replicate in chicken the ancestral amniote expression. Altering the FEZ altered later WNT responsiveness to the ancestral pattern. Skeletal phenotypes from both types of experiments had premaxillae that clustered geometrically with ancestral fossil forms instead of beaked birds. The palatal region was also altered to a more ancestral phenotype. This is consistent with the fossil record and with the tight functional association of avian premaxillae and palate in forming a kinetic beak. |
I will read anything worth reading. So show me where in this text to which you referred there is "... an interesting find that further shows how life was wiped out by a global flood." as you claimed in Post #18.
Stuart
Greg Jennings
New member
That's just wrong. That's so so wrong. Animals that die on the floor of a body of water have an incredibly high chance of fossilization compared to a creature dying elsewhere.
I doubt you have a clue what radiolarians and forams are, but their fossilized tests are all the proof I need of what I just said
6days
New member
You don't know what you are talking about Greg. Even in the deepest part of the ocean where there is no oxidation, there are still scavengers. The people who perished with the Titanic are not fossilized at the bottom of the ocean. Even creatures with hard exoskeleton like lobsters are not fossilized. (And.... you may not know this but T-rex did not have a chitinous skin and bones.)
glassjester
Well-known member
Right, and doesn't that happen almost exclusively in water?