Science Daily: Dinosaurs Survived Mass Extinction by 700,000 Years, Fossil Find Suggests.
ScienceDaily (Jan. 28, 2011) — University of Alberta researchers determined that a fossilized dinosaur bone found in New Mexico confounds the long established paradigm that the age of dinosaurs ended between 65.5 and 66 million years ago.
The U of A team, led by Larry Heaman from the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, determined the femur bone of a hadrosaur as being only 64.8 million years old. That means this particular plant eater was alive about 700,000 years after the mass extinction event many paleontologists believe wiped all non-avian dinosaurs off the face of earth, forever.
Heaman and colleagues used a new direct-dating method called U-Pb (uranium-lead) dating. A laser beam unseats minute particles of the fossil, which then undergo isotopic analysis. This new technique not only allows the age of fossil bone to be determined but potentially can distinguish the type of food a dinosaur eats. Living bone contains very low levels of uranium but during fossilization (typically less than 1000 years after death) bone is enriched in elements like uranium. The uranium atoms in bone decay spontaneously to lead over time and once fossilization is complete the uranium-lead clock starts ticking. The isotopic composition of lead determined in the hadrosaur's femur bone is therefore a measure of its absolute age.
All of them?
ReplyDeleteAt least the one specimen.
ReplyDeleteLots of dinosaurs survived. They call them birds.
ReplyDeleteYes. Every indoctrinated Darwinist knows that when they see a hummingbird what they are really looking at is a terrible lizard...LOL.
ReplyDeleteOils,
ReplyDeleteWhen you can provide a testable, observable alternative to the theory of evolution, I'll be right here to wonder at it with you.
But you can't. All you can do is LOL without providing alternatives.
Jeffery,
ReplyDeleteYou don't believe in possible alternatives to evolution because it's a religion for you. Why else do evolutionists have to legislate against creationism in order to censor reality?
Evolution fails to meet the requirements for the scientific method.
Evolution is non-observable and non-repeatable, so it cannot be put to the scientific method.
Theodosius Dobzhansky: ‘‘These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible... the applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter.’’
Henry M. Morris: ‘‘Science requires experiments that can be replicated. Evolution cannot be replicated, so it is not science’’
The theory of evolution does not even qualify as science.
Science is defined as: ‘‘The systematic study of the nature and behaviour of the material and physical universe, based on observation, experiment, and measurement, and the formulation of laws to describe these facts in general terms’’
Or more simply: ''Knowledge attained through study or practice’’
Evolution however is not observable and cannot be experimented or replicated.
Theodosius Dobzhansky: ‘‘These evolutionary happenings are unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible... the applicability of the experimental method to the study of such unique historical processes is severely restricted before all else by the time intervals involved, which far exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter.’’
Dr. Colin Patterson: [describing evolution] ‘‘…unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England…unique events are, by definition, not a part of science, for they are unrepeatable and not subject to test’’
Paul Ehrlich: ‘‘No one can think of ways in which to test it.’’
Henry M. Morris: ‘‘Evolution has not been and cannot be, proved. We cannot even see evolution…much less test it experimentally.''
And yet, in all that Quote-mined Fury you bring forth, you didn't posit a single alternative. I asked for one, you did not, can not, provide one.
ReplyDeleteBTW, you owe Greenyhead a citation... unless you are Greenyhead... or both of you are quote-mining the same person.
ReplyDeleteLaughable
http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/53172-20-reasons-evolution-is-not-science/
Discussion of Hydrocarbons, Geology, and The Origins of Life
ReplyDeleteYour drivel over on Christian Forums generated a few more quotes on FSTDT.com.
ReplyDeleteFSTDT looks like a piece of crap website...
ReplyDeleteHistory is not an exact science either, there are many gaps in the history record as well...
ReplyDeleteQF-
ReplyDeleteMy apologies. I should have directed that to Oils. To my knowledge, you've never generated anything FSTDT has found to be stupid or inane. Oils does it everywhere he goes.
That's his style.
ReplyDeleteJeffery,
ReplyDeleteMy alternative is the illegal one -- namely Intelligent Design theory of Anaxagoras, Plato, and Aristotle.
Intelligent Design as filtered by Oils. Bad Science mixed with Bad Theology.
ReplyDeleteCare to explain how the gods (Planets) designed all the life on Earth?
The planets didn't design all life on Earth according to Anaxagoras, Plato, and Aristotle.
ReplyDeleteAccording to them, all life on Earth was designed by Mind, the Prime Mover, or the First Cause (aka The Intelligent Designer).
"All things were mixed up together, then Mind came and arranged them all in distinct order." -- Anaxagoras, philosopher, 5th century B.C.
"Then I heard someone who had a book of Anaxagoras, as he said, out of which he read that mind was the disposer and cause of all, and I was quite delighted at the notion of this, which appeared admirable, and I said to myself; If mind is the disposer, mind will dispose all for the best, and put each particular in the best place ...." -- Plato, philosopher, Phaedo, 360 B.C.
"... Anaxagoras, who says that all things were together and at rest for an infinite period of time, and that then Mind introduced motion and separated them...." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book VIII, 350 B.C.
"There are some too who ascribe this heavenly sphere and all the worlds to spontaneity. They say that the vortex arose spontaneously, i.e. the motion that separated and arranged in its present order all that exists. This statement might well cause surprise. For they are asserting that chance is not responsible for the existence or generation of animals and plants, nature or mind or something of the kind being the cause of them (for it is not any chance thing that comes from a given seed but an olive from one kind and a man from another); and yet at the same time they assert that the heavenly sphere and the divinest of visible things arose spontaneously, having no such cause as is assigned to animals and plants. Yet if this is so, it is a fact which deserves to be dwelt upon, and something might well have been said about it. For besides the other absurdities of the statement, it is the more absurd that people should make it when they see nothing coming to be spontaneously in the heavens ...." -- Aristotle, Physics, Book II, 350 B.C.
"... nor again could it be right to entrust so great a matter [nature] to spontaneity and chance. When one man said, then, that reason was present -- as in animals, so throughout nature -- as the cause of order and of all arrangement, he seemed like a sober man in contrast with the random talk of his predecessors. We know that Anaxagoras certainly adopted these views, but Hermotimus of Clazomenae is credited with expressing them earlier." -- Aristotle, Metaphysics, Book I, 350 B.C.
So, God did it. That's the least scientific answer in all of human knowledge.
ReplyDeleteNo amount of quoting long-dead thinkers, who lacked access to genetics, knowledge of inheritance (colored rods do not influence goat genomics), or the mechanics of descent could have had the first clue.
You have presented your alternative, it lacks scientific rigor, evidence, mechanistic explaination and predictive power. Now then, if you like, you can try to present new evidence that provides one or more of the above and you might have something.
I await your answer.
Jeffery,
ReplyDeleteSince it makes you feel better -- just substitute the atheist deity Gravity where you see God. Instead of God did it -- Gravity did it.
Since it makes you feel better -- just substitute the atheist deity Gravity where you see God. Instead of God did it -- Gravity did it.
ReplyDeleteAtheists (for the ignorant in the audience) worship nothing. Least of all the physical forces of the universe.
But its nice to see you taking the subject seriously.