|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2005 : 05:23:36
|
Our friends at Answers in Genesis have checked in with an article on the mammalian fossil containing evidence that the animal preyed upon small dinosaurs. quote: Dino dinner hard to swallow? A preliminary analysis by Ryan McClay, AiG–USA
January 21, 2005
A recent fossil discovery in China has evolutionists scratching their heads over a mammal's last meal.
The fossilized remains of a small dinosaur (psittacosaur) have been found in the belly of a dog-like mammal named Repenomamus robustus. Researchers have also found a second fossil that they have named Repenomamus giganticus. This second fossil has been described as “breathtaking” and “about the size of a modern dog.”1 This is a real surprise for evolutionists because evolutionary assumptions say that mammals living during the so-called “age of the dinosaurs” couldn't possibly have been that big; rather, they had to be small to better avoid the huge reptiles. It has some evolutionary scientists quite concerned, for it challenges what they have believed for years.
While the discovery is a particular shock (from an evolutionary standpoint) because one part of the evolution model may need to be drastically changed, it isn't shocking for creationists. Creationists believe that man, mammals and dinosaurs originally lived at the same time.
I must ask; how, exactly, is this fossil(s) a 'shock' to anyone but a biased writer with no clue? Rather than being shocked and appalled, researchers are delighted that another, tiny piece of the puzzle has been found.
Yet again, AiG confirms my faith in religious myopia. The Creationist talent for creating codswallop never ceases to amaze me.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2005 : 05:50:06 [Permalink]
|
Who ever claimed that there where no mammals feeding on dinosaurs?
Who ever claimed that mammals "couldn't possibly have been that big"?
How does this find "drastically change" a part of the evolutionary models.
Why does it say about creationist views when they constantly have to resort to lies?
All members (eutherian mammals) of my family feed on dinosaurs, but only one of us (the smallest one) catch them by him self. |
Edited by - Starman on 01/24/2005 05:51:45 |
|
|
furshur
SFN Regular
USA
1536 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2005 : 06:48:29 [Permalink]
|
Starman try puting a bell on him.
The find of a dog sized mammal is indeed surprising, but only because a mammal of this size has not been found before. This is some very interesting sruff. I will continue to follow these discoveries with interest.
The fundies just don't seem to understand that new discoveries in science are welcomed. There is no taboos or areas where discoveries are unwelcomed. Truth is truth.
|
If I knew then what I know now then I would know more now than I know. |
Edited by - furshur on 01/24/2005 06:49:21 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 01/24/2005 : 07:40:07 [Permalink]
|
It's nothing out of the ordinary, really. Creationists have been fabricating bullshit apologetics since before Darwin. All they have is speculation and ancedote, and those failing, misrepresentations and outright lies for evidence. For example, there's this neat, little screed along those very lines: quote: Odd Things in Wrong Places.
As man digs and scrapes and drills into the mysterious earth, many surprising finds are made. It follows that mining and farming have been fruitful sources of curious finds in the past. We can feel strong regrets that as both occupations have become more and more mechanized, fewer and fewer finds of value for scientific study will occur. The following interesting items make two important points. If conventional dating is followed, ancient man seems to be far more ancient than he should be. In fact, he must have been thriving before he is supposed to have evolved. Second, ancient man was a very sophisticated person. There is no indication that his brain gradually evolved. Both of these conclusions, obviously, are completely opposite to evolutionary theory.
One of the most prodigious lava flow in the history of the world occurred in the Pacific Northwest. The lava spread over an estimated 200,000 square miles in depths up to 5,000 feet. In 1972, a competent geologist stated that the eruptions took place a mere fifteen million years ago. Much of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and portions of neighboring states, was covered. The immense age of the deposit can easily be imagined by the fact that the Snake River has cut canyons through the deposit to depths of up to 3000 feet.
And a bit farther down the page: quote: A strange account comes from the little village of Plateau City, Colorado, a short distance east of Grand Junction. A resident was digging a cellar in 1936. At a depth of ten feet he found paved tile laid in some kind of mortar, different from any other construction in the valley. While the tiles are dated anywhere from 20,000 to 80,000 years old, they lie in a Miocene formation, which could make it up to 25,000,000 years old by conventional dating (Edward, 1962, p.100-101).
In 1871 near Chillicothe, Illinois, well drillers brought up a bronze coin from a depth of 114 feet. This remarkable discovery was described in the Proceedings of the American Philosophic Society . This is additional evidence that man had been present there. Rapid change of the terrain is also indicated (Edwards, 1962, p.101).
Heizer notes a number of impossibilities according to commonly accepted geological dating: a hyena tooth sawed by a flint before it became fossilized, cutting operations on the fossilized bone of an extinct rhinoceros and on other animals at a site near Paris, and evidence of the use of a sharp tool on the horn of fossilized rhino remains in Ireland. Under the surface of the North Sea the trunk of an oak was removed from a long submerged forest. The trunk showed the marks of a hatchet on it. (Heizer, 1962, p.107-114).
So nothing of what they come up with should be a suprise beyond astonishment at such imaginative statments. Creationists, as the name implies, are highly creative along certain, narrow lines.
And we should remind ourselves that a doctorate does not a scientist make. Scientists are known by their works, as are we all.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2005 : 22:10:36 [Permalink]
|
quote: Originally posted by furshur
The fundies just don't seem to understand that new discoveries in science are welcomed. There is no taboos or areas where discoveries are unwelcomed. Truth is truth.
As I read recently, for fundies, the "truth" is revealed and immutable. They cannot comprehend that scientific theories can change over time. To them, things which change cannot be true.
But, since in the popular mind, "science" is often synonymous with "big list of boring facts" (as opposed to the method and meaning of science), the fundies often mistakenly confuse a scientific theory for a "truth," when in reality a scientific theory is simply an estimation of "truth." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail) Evidently, I rock! Why not question something for a change? Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|