New Dinosaur Species Found in India

AP ^ | August 13, 2003 | RAMOLA TALWAR BADAM

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for the further clarification of your views! I look forward to your comments on the other thread as well.

[Junior]

Define "living." No, I'm not trying to be a smart-ass. The definition of "living" can get awfully fuzzy, as many non-living things exhibit traits of the living -- they consume, grow and reproduce, for example.

[DittoJed2]

I'm really thinking personal verses impersonal. Genes contain personal information, and theorhetically, sometime a scientist could use genetics to create some sort of life. They use genetics in cloning, for example. But, they still have to have the basic data already present. Minerals, on the other hand are non-living. You aren't going to have scientists taking non-living minerals, mixing them all up in a test tube and popping out a baby or something. Even though they exist within species, and are indeed necessary for the survival of species, you have to basically have something that has the information already inherent within it to make it personal to make a person (or animal, etc.,). That's what I was hitting at.

[DittoJed2]

A lot of creationists can't get their work published. Some of them, no doubt, aren't the best scientists in the world. But some of them are very good scientists and still have to go to a different forum to be heard.

[Junior]

There is evidence that dinosaurs are recent (which is what started this post-war), including non-fossilized bones, bones with possible blood cells still in them, and archaeological records which indicate that humans lived with them.

Links, please. This is one of your more "interesting" assertions; I want to see this evidence. BTW, if you are planning to use the Paluxey River tracks as evidence, be forewarned that nearly all other creationists have abandoned them as untenable. Specifically, I want the information dealing with unfossilized dinosaur bones.

[DittoJed2]

I wasn't planning on using Paluxy and am aware that they are highly doubtful.

[js1138]

99.9999% of all science is data gathering, not speculating about big problems. If creation scientists or IDers want respect, all they have to do is real science. It takes years, even decades, to accumulate evidence to justify a paradigm change.

[Junior]

IIRC, that was an extremely well-done hoax.

[Right Wing Professor]

There are directions on a bottle of Advil?

Oh dear. Next you'll be telling us you've been taking it orally.

[Junior]

...luminiferous aether...

Philistine! "Luminiferous æther."

[bondserv]

There are directions on a bottle of Advil?

HeHe...

[DittoJed2]

Here is a link interviewing the sculptor that found the bones. It has a lot of other stuff in the interview that isn't relevant. Just the first few paragraphs describe the find.

Another article on T. Rex blood cells found which also mentions unfossilized bonehttp://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4232cen_s1997.asp Also, an evolutionist's rebuttal with AIGs rebuttal to the evolutionist regarding the T Rex bloodcell find http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0325RBCs.asp

[DittoJed2]

There are three links in my reply to this post. Don't know what I did in formatting, but there are three articles.

[jennyp]

That would take many examples of 2000 year old dinosaur bones (not fossils)
An earlier poster said that dinosaur fossils aren't really necessary to evolutionary theory. There is evidence that dinosaurs are recent (which is what started this post-war), including non-fossilized bones, bones with possible blood cells still in them, and archaeological records which indicate that humans lived with them.

Yes, I don't think that 2,000 year old dinosaur bones would kill the theory. They'd be extremely surprising in their own right - and would be the find of the century - but they wouldn't do anything to the theory.

What would harm the theory of evolution would be finding 2 billion year old dinosaur bones, or 20 million year old Homo sapiens bones. It's when you find something that's much older than the theory says it must have split off from its "parent" species that threatens to upset the applecart.

[bondserv]

If Adam inserted identical retroviruses in his own genome and into the genomes of the higher primates, he is indeed a fiend, and I'm ashamed to have him as an ancestor.

Adam gets bad press even from those who question his existence.

If apes came from a different planet I would agree with you. We would have to come up with some hysterical idea of back and forth meteors between our planet and theirs to match up viruses.

Oh yeah, we had "The Planet of the Apes" and a more scientific oriented fiction "The NASA Mars Meteor".

[Aric2000]

Mark 10
6 But from the beginning of the creation, 'God made them male and female.

Sounds pretty general to me.

Mark 13
19 For in those days shall be affliction such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created until this time, neither shall be.

Again, sounds pretty general

John 17
24 "Father, I will that they also, whom Thou hast given Me, be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which Thou hast given Me; for Thou loved Me before the foundation of the world.


Again, sounds pretty general

Romans 1
25 They changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Again, generalizations

Romans 8

Sorry, not gonna post that whole thing. It's real pretty, but says NOTHING about the literal interpretation of genesis.

Luke 3
38 who was the son of Enos, who was the son of Seth, who was the son of Adam, who was the son of God.


That's a bit better, but the geneaology in the bible is confusing and screwed up at best. I can come up with ALL kinds of interesting geneology. And I thought that Jesus was the son of god? Not at all convincing, considering the historical accuracy of Luke.

Romans 5
12 Therefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, so death passed onto all men, for all have sinned.

Again pretty general, but at the same time that is the moral of Genesis, the basic sinfulness of man. That is what the story tries to explain.

Romans 5
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the similitude of Adam's transgression, he being the figure of Him that was to come.

That is better as well, but at the same time can be looked at in allegory.

Ephesians 3
9 and to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ,


OK, god made heaven and the earth, I won't argue with you about that. Again, not anything about taking genesis literally.

Colossians 1
16 For by Him were all things created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones or dominions or principalities or powers: all things were created by Him and for Him.

Again, NOTHING about taking genesis literally.

1 Corinthians 15
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive;


Allegory? says nothing about Genesis being taken literally.

1 Timothy 2
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14 And Adam was not deceived; but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression.


Yes, indeed, this one, the blame women for the original sin, yes, I have seen this one. This could be stretched I suppose to taking Genesis literally, but again, it can be taken allegorically as well.

Jude 1
14 And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, "Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand of His saints


Yes, again, another geneaological reference to Adam. Very good, but still not enough. Because I have heard from a number of scholars that the references to geneaology are normally to make a point at how important the person is, and the geneaology is impossible to track, and when you take them all together, the geneaology is a total disaster, so most geneaological references can be written off as additions by the author to make the person spoken about seem more important then they actually were, or to give the speaker more credibility.

I am a skeptic at heart, and I have an open mind to such things, but none of the stuff that you have given me there, proves that Jesus indeed took genesis as anything but allegorically and as a moral myth, just as most did and do.

His disciples may have, I will not argue that, but they were also not as well educated as Jesus was himself. The man was well educated in all sorts of religious doctrine, and there are MANY different relgious styles within his teachings. If you study religious history and beliefs, they would POP right out at you.

[Junior]

Thank you. Unfortunately, none of your sources appears to be corroborated via peer review, and one of them is anecdotal at that. I vaguely remember the hoopla surrounding the idea of unfossilized material deep within the T-Rex bone; I also remember when it was announced the material was most likely external contamination as it more readily resembled fungus rather than vertebrate remains.

[Aric2000]

OK, outta here for a while, gotta go grocery shopping for the camping trip, get my new fishing license, and pick up a few new flies.

Fly rods are all squared away, float is set, waders are set, now get me the new license and I will be one happy camper, LOL.

[DittoJed2]

Most likely and Was are two different things. At least I provided some writings by the scientists who observed these things (and no, the country music singer was not a scientist but the geologist he was with was)and other information from scientists interpreting the data. Of course, it is possible that dinosaurs of some types still live, pterodactyls, plesiosaurs, etc., There is eye-witness testimony to this, archaeological evidence, and some literary evidence that backs up the contention that they lived more recently than 65 million years ago. But, as JennyP said, a living dinosaur would not upset the evolutionist's faith that the dating of fossils is incorrect. Rather, it would just be that a species has survived millions of years. This makes presenting any evidence impossible, because evolutionists readily dismiss evidence from creationists as flawed. Creationists don't dismiss all of science, just evolutionary models. Yet, creation scientists are treated as non-professionals even though some, such as Dr. David Menton, are highly honored by their secular institutions.

[bondserv]

What a confusing state your friends interpretations have left you in.

Stop believing their SUPERIOR understanding, and study the information for yourself. The Dark Ages were the result of having other's interpret scripture for people.

"Let me tell you what it says, and what it means."

2 Tim 2:15
15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.
17 And their word will eat as doth a canker:

We are to personally study the message from God to Man.