Members Brother Parrish Posted November 14, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 14, 2007 But as to whether dinosaurs were around even after the Biblical flood' date=' I'm not sure many Creationists would say this find directly supports that assertion. These are still fossilized bones we're talking about....[/quote'] Actually, I need to clarify my position here. I think dinosaurs?or at least something of the same period?are most certainly still around after the Biblical flood... here's one in full color: It could also be argued?at least casually?that crocodiles, Komodo "Dragons," horseshoe crabs, and even cockroaches are living fossils?I guess to me, in a way, they are like "dinosaurs" that survived the flood. Take a look...http://www.living-fossils.com/3_1.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brother Parrish Posted November 14, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 14, 2007 Another look at a dinosaur that survived the flood? "Before 1912 the species was completely unknown and large lizards were thought to be extinct. Then, in that year, a party of pearl fishermen anchored at an almost entirely-unknown isle in a chain of islands called the Lesser Sundas. The fishermen brought back stories of an enormous, prehistoric creature living there. The island's name was Komodo. An expedition followed from the Buitenzorg Zoological Museum in Java. A report about the dragons was published, but received little attention in the years leading up to World War I. It wasn't until 1926 that an expedition from the American Museum of Natural History, under the leadership of W. Douglas Burden, traveled to this remote island to further investigate the dragons and, if possible, bring some back alive..." please note the mention of possible recent sightings of Megalania in this article:http://unmuseum.mus.pa.us/bigliz.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Alimantado Posted November 14, 2007 Members Share Posted November 14, 2007 Actually' date=' I need to clarify my position here. I think dinosaurs?or at least something of the same period?are most certainly still around after the Biblical flood... here's one in full color. [/quote'] Ok, but we were talking about a specific dinosaur fossil. You were saying the presence of bone fragments and organic molecules inside it suggested it could have come from after the flood. I was just pointing out that because this particular fossil was found buried in rock and mostly fossilised, most Creationists would say that the animal was a flood victim buried in flood deposits. Perhaps I'm wrong about that. Thanks for the article about unfossilised bone, I had no idea whole intact dinosaur bones had been found- I'll have to read up more on that. From your article there is an important point: "However, in a situation where the dinosaur bone has been prevented from being invaded by mineral-rich water, one would expect that over millions of years, even locked away from all bacterial agents, dinosaur bone would, in obeying the laws of thermodynamics, just disintegrate from the random motions of the molecules therein." It's this that I'm interested in because, if true, it would suggest that the bones are not millions of years old after all, contrary to what most old-earth models predict. So the question needs to be asked, how long does the process above take? How long would we expect bone fragments and organic molecules to hang around for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Alimantado Posted November 14, 2007 Members Share Posted November 14, 2007 Thanks for those examples Brother Parrish. I would think that both Creationists and evolutionists agree that, if there was a global flood several thousand years ago, lots of different animals survived it, otherwise there wouldn't be any about now! The reason naturalists say dinosaurs are extinct is because no-one's seen any recently. Now they could still be about somewhere, but technology is making the world shrink, and there are fewer previously unexplored islands to search. Whether they went extinct recently is hard to say, of course, especially if your article is true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Brother Parrish Posted November 14, 2007 Author Members Share Posted November 14, 2007 It's a good discussion. As I say, I am not dogmatic about any of this, if you're not careful you soon find yourself into the crytpozoology, paranormal sites and other questionable authorities...http://paranormal.about.com/library/wee ... 61702a.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members qwerty guy Posted November 14, 2007 Members Share Posted November 14, 2007 how long does the process above take? How long would we expect bone fragments and organic molecules to hang around for? This brings up one of the problems with fossils being millions of years old. That problem being the amount of intact fossils found around the world, in conjunction with the theory of plate tectonics and other geological earth movements. Lets just assume an animal dies, is rapidly buried, and it's entire bone structure is mineralized. How long would one assume that it could stay in the ground as is, without earthquakes, frost heave, erosion, etc. causing at least minor displacement? We'll even assume that the dead animal was quickly covered by 20 feet of dense earth which also mineralized, thus you have a fossil encased in a 20' stone tomb. It would seem, that this may be a great way to keep everything staying put, but earthquakes break stones, and normal rain and wind erode even the hardest stones. 1000 years? No problem. 10,000 years? I'd assume you'd have noticeable erosion. 65,000,000 years? idk with all the earth changes, glaciers, wind, rain, quakes, it becomes difficult to put any money down on a full intact placed properly bone structure. Maybe in one or two places in the world you might figure it could go that long if conditions where ultra lucky, but when you look at the fossils being found everywhere in the world, at all depths, in all types of conditions, you start to wonder if earth quakes are a new thing, or maybe the fossils are not that old. I'll update this message, I put a sticky on my computer for when I have time, but I'll look into the rate of weathering done to normal stones, and from that we can get a feel about how deep a fossil would need to be under stone to last 65,000,000 years. That of course, assumes that much of the earth never sees earth quakes. I'll also try and start a thread on just the topic of mineralization, because there are many fun stories of strange fossils, mistaken fossils, items found in stone, and of course I have the instructions on how you can make your own fossil at home. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.