Replies

They have absolutely no method whatsoever for determining the age of that fossil. At the very least, they should admit that.

And then they would have to answer something about the next question, and the next, and the next... Realistically, at some point, they would end up either floundering outside of their scientific depth (some would say that's already happened) or they would actually begin to understand what science is.

Meanwhile, they conntinue to act as if their entire world would crumble if they let the slightest crack show in their facade. And they've probably seen what happens to other people who try to be honest about it: they are made to look like ignorant, superstitious fools, or they are honest and end up excommunicated by the likes of Pope goreMMM The Intolerant and his flock.

You guys are idiots! Apparently the fact that all of your scientific information comes from "Jurassic Park" doesn't stop you from forming an opinion on any of it!

a)For the millionth time, no, it's not tissue on this dinosaur anymore-- it's fossilized, which is scientific for ROCK. You can't get DNA from it-- the tissue has been mineralized, which means that the once-dinoflesh atoms in Leonardo have been replaced one by one with those of the surrounding minerals, and the organics like carbon have been leached away long ago. DNA HAS been extracted in the tiniest of segments from trapped mosquitos, but the result is the equivalent of finding three words from the Bible and expecting to be able to reproduce the whole book. This is a different case-- the mosquito is not mineralized (i.e. NOT A ROCK) it's encased in amber. Cloning by this method is IMPOSSIBLE.

b) You CAN determine the age of that fossil!!!!! First of all, you can determine the sediments that its in-- above are layers of material that may contain mudcracks, little rain-craters, or even fossil sea creatures, and you can be sure that for that stuff to be on top, the stuff you are looking at must have come first (i.e. OLDER). SECONDLY, if there are any volcanic sediments there, you can determine the time they cooled by the decay stage of radioactive elements within the rock. If the volcanics are above this deposit you can BET the deposit is older than the date determined of the volcanics. This is a method that has been backed up with tree-ring dates, which even people like YOU don't argue with, as accurate, and you can BET this is the basis of the age given in the article.

c) Why is everything always some big conspiracy by the evil and malicious THEY? Most every scientist you will run across, be it a paleonologist, a chemist, a physicist, an astronomer... etc. believes in a god, and has some form of religion. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. Indeed they exist in different realms entirely, unless you take a written work that has been translated and re-translated since the beginnings of written civilization under countless political leanings, has many conflicting versions, and has been proven wrong many times (remember the whole thing about the sun being commanded to stand still? the sun doesn't move-- the earth does, but this book doesn't say so. Anyone here want to argue that the sun orbits the earth?) as literal FACT. Why does the fact that most people believe in a higher power but arrive at their own conclusions about the world based on evidence that is IN this world threaten you so?

I guess I should just be glad you guys even BELIEVE in dinosaurs, despite the fact that we find them all the time.