Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Dinosaurs, early relatives coexisted
sfgate.com ^ | Friday, July 20, 2007 | David Perlman, Chronicle Science Editor

Posted on 07/20/2007 12:30:45 PM PDT by my_pointy_head_is_sharp

UC Berkeley scientists, digging deep into a remote New Mexico hillside, have discovered a trove of fossil bones that they say is evidence that dinosaurs and their early relatives lived side by side for tens of millions of years before the relatives slowly died off and left the dinosaurs to dominate the ancient world.

Until now many scientists had thought that dinosaur "precursors" -- perhaps their ancestors -- disappeared suddenly long before the dinosaurs themselves rose to prominence, but the bones dug up by Berkeley paleontologists show evidence of a different story.

The discovery of a wide variety of creatures all mingled together in layer upon layer of rocks dating from Earth's late Triassic period between 235 million and 200 million years ago, they say, shows that the strange relatives of the dinosaurs remained on the scene while the dinosaurs evolved into truly dominant creatures during the Jurassic period, between 120 million and 200 million years ago.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: crevo; evolution
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 321-324 next last
To: GunRunner
If you have some scientific proof for the existence of God, I do wish you would share it.

How about the process of observation? Everyday you wake up and observe a creation. The mere fact that a creation is observable dictates that it must have a creator.

You were just being silly....weren't you?

121 posted on 07/20/2007 3:39:50 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

2525?


122 posted on 07/20/2007 3:41:48 PM PDT by null and void (We are a Nation of Laws... IGNORED Laws...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

You are assuming that what is isn’t simply what is. Calling it “creation” compels you to think of it as having been created.


123 posted on 07/20/2007 3:43:44 PM PDT by null and void (We are a Nation of Laws... IGNORED Laws...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: null and void

If man is still alive.


124 posted on 07/20/2007 3:44:04 PM PDT by Tribune7 (Live Earth: Pretend to Care)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike

Very good point. I take it a step furthur, not everything God left us to learn of his works was written in a book.

If he wanted it so easy he would never have given us such minds as these.


125 posted on 07/20/2007 3:44:16 PM PDT by ejonesie22 (Hillary has already beat Rudy, She is the better cross-dresser.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: wally_bert

LOL!


126 posted on 07/20/2007 3:48:10 PM PDT by Calpernia (Breederville.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: dmz
"Science" news doesn't test my faith- if it is really "science".
Science after all, is only an attempt to understand how God created everything.

It ceases to be science however, when it becomes a pathetic attempt to discredit the work of the origional author.

The concept of evolutionary theory (which is theory, not science) could possibly be used explain ONE mystery in which the odds of the impossible happening accidentally despite science dictating that the odds of that happening evenONCE is uncalculable, but the theory falls flat when it's used to claim that it happened not only once despite impossible odds, but millions of times over.

That should tell any sane person that the theory is flawed. In fact, in the real world of serious science, with the discovery of just how complicated and ordered the nature of life is, is what is causing many real scientists to turn away from these evolutionary theories, and state that these complex libraries of life found even in the simplest of cells, can only be by design, not accident.

If you believe this story of human and "dinosaurs" co-existing, You have to then ask yourself why these "dinosaurs" didn't go and die in the dinosaur death pits which all the rest of the trillions of dinosaurs that had to have roamed this earth were programed to do, since that is the only explanation that can account for all the oil fields we are tapping into for "fossil fuel".

Of course, it seems only western Europe and Americans still believe the 200 year old -with absolutely no proof at all- fossil fuel from rotting dinosaurs theory, despite the fact that oil contains no biological components at all except what is present as a contaminant. Real scientists have moved beyond that old theory, and have discovered that oil is produced much deeper in the earth than previously thought, from a non-organic process that is happening continously in the areas where the right conditions and material exist. In fact this knowledge has been used to discover new reserves of oil in places never though possible to be a location where oil might be found. But you can continue believing that oil is made from dinosaurs and tiny little sea creatures if you like. But you will never be able to explain how these components got to such depths, unless you accept catastrophic events, which then starts to unravel all the other evolotionary theories.

127 posted on 07/20/2007 3:54:23 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: null and void
You are assuming that what is isn’t simply what is. Calling it “creation” compels you to think of it as having been created.

I see.....well, what do you call it then?

128 posted on 07/20/2007 3:55:39 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: balch3
I bet they’ve already found human bones and dinosaur bones together, but covered it up.

Yeah, damn scientists sacrificing fame and fortune for the sake of the cover-up. I hate when that happens.

129 posted on 07/20/2007 3:55:57 PM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
How about the process of observation? Everyday you wake up and observe a creation.

What creation is that? If you're referring to the sun coming up, that is because our Earth revolves along its axis every 24 hours, and when our side of the planet revolves toward the sun, it appears to rise in the sky.

The physics of our solar system are explained by verifiable scientific proof, not a mythic God who rides the sun across the sky. Most of us have an understanding of the universe that has evolved since the Bronze Age.

130 posted on 07/20/2007 4:00:22 PM PDT by GunRunner (Come on Fred, how long are you going to wait?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King

“Another bogus story designed to test our faith. The earth is only 9,000 years old.”

Please stop joking about things like that, you make Christians sound stupid.


131 posted on 07/20/2007 4:00:48 PM PDT by Grunthor (Wouldn’t it be music to our ears to hear the Iranian mullahs shouting “Incoming!”?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Resolute Conservative
As far as carbon dating or other methods that utilize half-life of isotopes since the method was discovered relatively recent can anyone say without a doubt that carbons half-life is X millions of years and the decay rate does not accelerate, nobody has lived long enough to test that theory.

You should study radiometric dating so you know what you are talking about.

The half life of carbon 14 is not millions of years; it is 5,730 ± 40 years. Carbon 14 dating is not used to determine the age of the earth, nor anything past about 50,000 years ago.

I find it amusing that many people are certain that carbon 14 dating, and other forms of radiometric dating, are absolutely wrong without knowing anything about the techniques or the science upon which they are based.

132 posted on 07/20/2007 4:01:02 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner
"Images from the Hubble don't suffer from any atmospheric interference."
133 posted on 07/20/2007 4:06:21 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner

“What about light from stars that are tens of thousands of light years away. If the universe is only 6000 years old, how did that light get here?”

Lies. Lies made up by evil demon filled atheists.

(sane Christian sarcasm)


134 posted on 07/20/2007 4:09:58 PM PDT by Grunthor (Wouldn’t it be music to our ears to hear the Iranian mullahs shouting “Incoming!”?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

The universe. That probably isn’t any more accurate either, in that it implies that it is all one (uni) thing.

Sometimes I’ll refer to all of creation ;^) as a polyverse or multiverse to include other universes that aren’t part of the one (?) we see.


135 posted on 07/20/2007 4:12:40 PM PDT by null and void (We are a Nation of Laws... IGNORED Laws...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: ejonesie22

I am in agreement 1000% with you.


136 posted on 07/20/2007 4:13:33 PM PDT by Grunthor (Wouldn’t it be music to our ears to hear the Iranian mullahs shouting “Incoming!”?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner
"The best explanation I've heard from creationists is that when God created the universe he intentionally aged it to make it look older than it is."

You'll provide us with a link to who said that of course... Na I didn't think so.

But maybe you'll explain why the moon only has deep craters on it facing earth that could only have been created by objects originating from earth. Of course there are other interesting moon facts that make evolutionists stutter and stammer in search of some real science to explain these things, wheras science can easily explain them from a creationist point of view.

137 posted on 07/20/2007 4:16:37 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: GunRunner; Ping-Pong; null and void
What creation is that?

Actually, I wasn't referring to the Sun coming up....but that would be part of it. I was speaking of the universe and every observable thing in it.....a creation.

By the the way.....I am not of the belief it is only 6000 years old. I believe perhaps.... it is billions of years old....but, it is still a creation.

138 posted on 07/20/2007 4:20:03 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: DallasMike
"Amen to that. ALL of the evidence points to the universe being around 15 billion years old."

So you'll be posting what that evidence is, right?
I didn't think so, because there is no actual evidence, only theories, and calculus aimed at arriving at a pre-determined conclusion.

139 posted on 07/20/2007 4:20:37 PM PDT by Nathan Zachary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

And thinking of it as a creation, forces one to assume there is a Creator.


140 posted on 07/20/2007 4:22:25 PM PDT by null and void (We are a Nation of Laws... IGNORED Laws...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 321-324 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson