Dinosaur Shocker (YEC say dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years)

Smithsonian Magazine ^ | May 1, 2006 | Helen Fields

[Elsie]

 

Oh boy!!  MORE heads!

 

---

Mammal-Like Reptiles

As previously stated, a succession of transitional fossils exists that link reptiles (Class Reptilia) and mammals (Class Mammalia). These particular reptiles are classifie as Subclass Synapsida. Presently, this is the best example of th e transformation of one major higher taxon into another. The morphologic changes that took place are well documented by fossils, beginning with animals essentially 100% reptilian and resulting in animals essentially 100% mammalian. Therefore, I have chosen this as the example to summarize in more detail (Table 1, Fig. 1).  

Comparisons     M. Eyes =           ?           Nose =           ?        Teeth incisors = ?       K. Eyes =           ?           Nose =           pointy    Teeth incisors = smaller fangs        J. Eyes =           Medium    Nose =           stubby        Teeth incisors = BIGGER fangs        I. Eyes =           Medium    Nose =           more pointy    Teeth incisors = big fangs       H. Eyes =           Bigger    Nose =           more blunt    Teeth incisors = Even more          G. Eyes =           real SMALL    Nose =           Real pointy    Teeth incisors = More           F. Eyes =           Smaller    Nose =           Blunt    Teeth incisors = Thin, less         E. Eyes =           HUGE!    Nose =           pointy, again    Teeth incisors = Smaller         D. Eyes =           Smaller    Nose =           Holes bigger    Teeth incisors = Bigger         C. Eyes =           Huge, again!    Nose =           broader    Teeth incisors = very small         B. Eyes =           less huge    Nose =           narrower    Teeth incisors = ??         A. Eyes =           big    Nose =           rounded    Teeth incisors = small

Skulls and jaws of synapsid reptiles and mammals; left column side view of skull; center column top view of skull; right column side view of lower jaw. Hylonomus modified from Carroll (1964, Figs. 2,6; 1968, Figs. 10-2, 10-5; note that Hylonomus is a protorothyrod, not a synapsid). Archaeothyris modified from Reisz (1972, Fig. 2). Haptodus modified from Currie (1977, Figs, 1a, 1b; 1979, Figs. 5a, 5b). Sphenacodo n modified from Romer & Price (1940, Fig. 4f), Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 16);note: Dimetrodon substituted for top view; modified from Romer & Price, 1940, pl. 10. Biarmosuchus modified from Ivakhnenko et al. (1997, pl. 65, Figs. 1a, 1B, 2); Alin & Hopson (1992; Fig. 28.4c); Sigogneau & Tchudinov (1972, Figs. 1, 15). Eoarctops modified from Broom (1932, Fig. 35a); Boonstra (1969, Fig. 18). Pristerognathus modified from Broom (1932, Figs 17a, b,c); Boonstra (1963, Fig. 5d). Procynosuchus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4e); Hopson (1987, Fig. 5c); Brink (1963, Fig. 10a); Kemp (1979, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 14). Thrinaxodon modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4f);Parrington (1946, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 13). Probainognathus modified from Allin & Hopson (1992, Fig. 28.4g); Romer (1970, Fig. 1); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 12). Morga nucodon modified from Kermack, Mussett, & Rigney (1981, Figs. 95, 99a; 1973, Fig. 7a); Allin (1975, p. 3, Fig. 11). Asioryctes modified from Carroll (1988, Fig. 20-3b). Abbreviations: ag = angular; ar = articular; cp = coronoid process; d = dentary; f = lateral temporal fenestra; j = jugal; mm = attachment site for mammalian jaw muscles; o = eye socket; po = post orbital; q = quadrate; rl = reflected lamina; sq = squamosal; ty = tympanic. .

 

 

 

---

---

 

Are you convinced yet?

 

Oscillating eye sizes,

head shapes that shift back and forth,

teeth that are large, then small, then large again.

 

Yeah; I believe this stuff!

---

---

(The chart is from The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation" by Clifford A. Cuffey. It is on part 5 of a multipart article. The beginning of the article is here.  )

There are some Evo's who think... "It effectively demolishes the entire creationist argument. Excellent reading!"

After seeing these pix; do you?

[Liberal Classic]

Some yakuza from the National Adademy will be around my house tonight to see about my membership fee. If I don't pay up, they'll have the first digit of my pinky.

[Elsie]

Yes.

Ok; thanks for the 'data'.

[Virginia-American]

[God and genocide]

Joshua

[Elsie]

The God I believe in would never commit genocide.

Can you describe this god for me?

[Right Wing Professor]

You can't calculate how much 87Sr was present at the beginning without first *assuming* that it is relatively proportional w/ 84Sr, 86Sr & 88Sr. Because of this assumption, you are *assuming* the amount of 87Sr that was present when the isochron was formed. Maybe that doesn't qualify as an assumption in your mind, but it does in mine.

No. You know that it does not exceed 7%, because that's the current abundance, and it's increasing with time. We understand isotope fractionation processes pretty well, and we know they're very weak for a divalent ion like Sr²⁺. We also can extrapolate back the abundance of ⁸⁷Sr to the time the rock was formed, based on the known concentration of ⁸⁷Rb in the lithosphere. There will be some error associated with that, but not much, becuase the abundance of ⁸⁷Sr is quite low in the first place, and it is formed very slowly. So you certainly know it's in a very narrow range somewhat below 7% of all strontium. So if you know the abundance of the other isotopes, you can calculate the initial abundance of ⁸⁷Sr at any time in the earth's history, probably to better than 1% accuracy.

And yes, they did find excess helium. You do the same thing when you assume how much helium should be present. Why criticize your opponent for the same thing that you do?

No, they did not. They found less helium than must have been produced by radioactive decay. We know how much helium was produced, because we know the amount of uranium that decayed to lead.

See Setterfield. Setterfield is a fruit-loop whose ideas have ben rejected by the scientific community and even by the more respectable YECcers.

When 3 of 8 isochron samples by Dalrymple return dates of 34 billion years, there are no good 'independent' reasons for discarding these anomalies.

Let's look at what he actually said, shall we? The final example listed in Table 2 is a supposed 34 billion-year Rb-Sr isochron age on diabase of the Pahrump Group from Panamint Valley, California, and is referenced to a book by Faure and Powell (50). Again, Woodmorappe (134) badly misrepresents the facts. The “isochron” that Woodmorappe (134) refers to is shown in Figure 6 as it appears in Faure and Powell (50). The data do not fall on any straight line and do not, therefore, form an isochron. The original data are from a report by Wasserburg and others (130), who plotted the data as shown but did not draw a 34-billion-year isochron on the diagram. The “isochrons” lines were drawn by Faure and Powell (50) as “reference isochrons” solely for the purpose of showing the magnitude of the scatter in the data.

As discussed above, one feature of the Rb-Sr isochron diagram is that, to a great extent, it is self-diagnostic. The scatter of the data in Figure 6 shows clearly that the sample has been an open system to 87Sr (and perhaps to other isotopes as well) and that no meaningful Rb-Sr age can be calculated from these data. This conclusion was clearly stated by both Wasserburg and others (130) and by Faure and Powell (50). The interpretation that the data represent a 34 billion-year isochron is solely Woodmorappe’s (134) and is patently wrong.

The only difference is that science hasn't figured out all of the problems w/ isochron dating yet. But they are starting to come out and that's not good for you.

The two references you've given citing 'problems' are 17 and 22 years old. Hardly 'starting to come out'!

[Liberal Classic]

That's what I get for trying to talk to you. A slap in the face.

[Elsie]

Two words: Flood. Joshua.

(Psst... He hasn't yet defined his god.)

[webstersII]

"I mostly engage in it so that like-minded people can benefit from my sources and experience to strengthen their witness. "

I've definitely been enjoying the discussion on this thread, especially the parts about dating. Thanks for your input.

It's amazing to me how science has gotten so corrupted these days to the point that supposition equates to reproducible data. Your comment "Experimental facts' are *only* valid for the time period covered by the experiments" seems absolutely obvious but is quite an affront to many scientists with their wild extrapolations. And the more you point this out, the more irate they become in their insistence that they only deal with the facts.

[GourmetDan]

Sheesh, 'natural selection'.

Now there's a tautology for you. What is the most fit? Why that which has survived. In this environment, that one survives, in that environment that one does. Fitness has no real meaning and is cherry-picked as necessary to support whatever point is being proposed.

Whole papers have been written trying to convince the faithful that natural selection isn't a tautology, but in the end it's still "the survival of the survivors".

If you want to believe 'simple concepts' with 'tough' details, be my guest. But you are operating on more faith more than any creationist.

Typically, those who believe the 'scientists' have fallen into the trap that our observable reality can *only* be explained by methodological naturalism (science).

Now that is just fine for exercises like building a national power grid or harnessing the power of the atom, but it fails miserably at explaining unobserved history because it is limited to a single viewpoint, that of methodological naturalism.

Just for fun, let's assume that you are, in fact, observing a supernatural creation. Now, limit your acceptable explanations of this supernatural creation to methodological naturalism (science) and guess how likely are you to arrive at the correct theory? That's right, it's impossible.

The reason it is impossible is because you limited your potential explanations to purely natural models 'a priori'. That is exactly what science does. It is true *by definition*, not as a proof.

Once the scientists get you to accept that initial assumption that only 'scientific' (methodologically natural) explanations are acceptable, you are deceived. It matters not what crazy theories they promote, they are the only game in town as defined by their own rules.

Convenient, eh?

The only key is not to accept the initial assumption. Then you can begin to recognize all of the pure assumptions that underlie these 'theories' and expose them for what they are. Imaginitive wishful thinking.

[js1138]

I was agreeing with him.

[Elsie]

A slap in the face.

One man's slap is another man's poke in the ribs.

Sorry you took it so hard, it wasn't intended THAT abusive.

Got any data yet?

[2nsdammit]

Two MORE words: Folk. Tales.

[Elsie]

I was agreeing with him.

Funny way to do it.

[Mamzelle]

Ya'll must have that on your desktop, ready to handy-spam.

[js1138]

I don't think Joshua is a folk tale. I just think he was a liar.

[2nsdammit]

Oops, I was wrong. You're a proselytizing troll.

[Mamzelle]

The point is to post the same thing as often as possible. That's how they "score"--like notches on a belt.

[Liberal Classic]

The chart is from The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation" by Clifford A. Cuffey. It is on part 5 of a multipart article. The beginning of the article is here.

In the interest of full-disclosure, the source of the chart in Elsie's post is the New Orleans Geological Society. They published two articles written by Clifford Cuffey, and copies of these articles are hosted with permission on the website of the Gulf Coast Section of the Society of Economic Paleontologists and Mineralogists. They're a small professional organization under the The Society for Sedimentary Geology.

Here is their introduction to the article:

The American educational system has been under attack for some time as doing a poor job of educating students; many of the criticisms are very justified. However, parts of the cure are worse than disease. One of the cures that religous Christian fundamentalists propose is the teaching of creationism as a viable alternative to evolution. Creationists generally state that they do not deny the tenets of science, just that evolution did not occur. Unfortunately, this comment is generally not true: if you are a true Creationist, you also deny some fundamental principles of physics. Once this is accepted, science becomes witchcraft.

Many creationists wrap themselves in the robe of rightousness claiming their belief in the name of God. Several years ago, the Pope declared that the Catholic Church accepts the fact that religion must agree with science. I can not think of any single fact which shows more clearly that one has nothing to do with the other.

Evolution is Not Anti-Religous. The hostility of creationists toward the sciences that deal with human and cosmic origins stems from fundamentalist conviction that evolution threatens religion. This is not true.

The sciences concerned with the past can discover much of what happened long agol how, where, and when events occurred. But they can not discover the purpose or destiny of human existence. Such ideas lie within the mind of each individual and are the domain of religion, mortality, and philosophy. Science can not, and does not, pretend that it will ever be able to answer all the questions of life.

The great philosopheers and scientists who illuminated the 17th and 18th centuries- so called Age of Reason- taught that science was a way of learning about God by studying His creation, and this view is still held by many religous Americans today. To attack science in the name of religious orthodoxy is detrimental to both science and religion.

Because of the seriousness of the situation, the New Orleans Geological Society has published two articles on the subject written by Clifford Cuffey. We salute their foresight and courage. We are pleased to reproduce the articles here with their permission.

[GourmetDan]

No, you don't. You *assume* that it is equally distributed and you *assume* that it is increasing at the same rate. More assumptions than you can shake a stick at.

And yes, the 34 billion year examples do not 'form an isochron' because they are thrown out. The reason that they are thrown out is because they do not form an isochron (a linear distribution).

Circular reasoning and truth by definition.