Hmm... 140 million years ago, huh?

[zynner]

How do Christian Scientists explain this one?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200510...inosaurs<br />

Real science just keeps marching on to shed light, while religion stays stagnant in the dark.

~ zynner

[Starboy]

Well if you are a creationist you would have to think that this creature was on the ark but somehow escaped notice by Noah at least enough to comment on such an odd creature. Perhaps it marched to the ark two by two as an egg. (Pictures many eggs with two feet projecting from them marching two by two in formation. Perhaps a drill egg counting cadence.)

Starboy

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: zynner How do Christian Scientists explain this one? http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/200510...inosaurs<br /> Real science just keeps marching on to shed light, while religion stays stagnant in the dark. ~ zynner

I'm not quite sure exactly the point you are trying to make....

If you are saying that the fact that the fossil was dated at 140 million years old violates the YEC time frame, then I say two things: not all creationists believe the Earth so young, and secondly, what method of dating was used? Was it dated by reference fossils? If so, that requires presupposing that the layers ARE that old.
Or are you saying this is a proof of the evolution between species? This is no proof that dinosaurs turned into birds: merely that this specific creature existed at one point in time (of course faked fossils have come from china before...). The same thing was trumpeted with the discovery of Archeopteryx. It in no way proves anything. You make it sound as if Creationists argue such animals never existed! When one looks at artists conceptions of these animals it looks pretty convincing, but keep in mind all we have are fossilized remains, which are much more sketchy. Links from that article described how many dinosaurs first devoloped feathers as a source of warmth... but weren't dinosaurs reptiles? Aren't reptiles cold-blooded by definition? Hence feathers would not have helped as much as it would have a warm-blooded animal.
I just don't see much explaining that needs done.

[Sonart]

Quote by: LetThereBe Or are you saying this is a proof of the evolution between species?

Alas, the site never loaded for me, and it looked so interesting... but the proof of evolution between species is already so vast that it hardly needs mentioning. And I have sufficient faith that peer reviewed scientists have the whole dating thing down by now.'

.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Sonart Alas, the site never loaded for me, and it looked so interesting... but the proof of evolution between species is already so vast that it hardly needs mentioning. And I have sufficient faith that peer reviewed scientists have the whole dating thing down by now.' .

You are correct, the evolution between species is already quite vast. In fact, it has been proven empirically. I should have instead said something more like "evolution between phyla or classes"

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: LetThereBe weren't dinosaurs reptiles? Aren't reptiles cold-blooded by definition?

I believe that the speculation is now that certain types of dinosaurs were thermoregulators...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoregulation

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: PatrickHenry I believe that the speculation is now that certain types of dinosaurs were thermoregulators... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoregulation

Very interesting, I had never heard that. Does that mean my definition of reptiles is out of date?

[Jack]

Very interesting, I had never heard that. Does that mean my definition of reptiles is out of date?

Not completely. I believe that many of them are still believed to have been reptilian. But evidence is growing that others were warm-blooded and had live young.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Isherwood Not completely. I believe that many of them are still believed to have been reptilian. But evidence is growing that others were warm-blooded and had live young.

Live young? Dang, I'm way behind in this stuff.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: LetThereBe Live young? Dang, I'm way behind in this stuff.

Many snakes are viviparous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viviparous

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: PatrickHenry Many snakes are viviparous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viviparous

I think it just goes to show our current classification system needs tweaked a little bit. I know there are some sharks that give live birth too, and then of course we have mammals like the echinda and platypus that lay eggs.

[Chris]

Quote by: LetThereBe I'm not quite sure exactly the point you are trying to make.... If you are saying that the fact that the fossil was dated at 140 million years old violates the YEC time frame, then I say two things: not all creationists believe the Earth so young, and secondly, what method of dating was used? Was it dated by reference fossils? If so, that requires presupposing that the layers ARE that old. Or are you saying this is a proof of the evolution between species? This is no proof that dinosaurs turned into birds: merely that this specific creature existed at one point in time (of course faked fossils have come from china before...). The same thing was trumpeted with the discovery of Archeopteryx. It in no way proves anything. You make it sound as if Creationists argue such animals never existed! When one looks at artists conceptions of these animals it looks pretty convincing, but keep in mind all we have are fossilized remains, which are much more sketchy. Links from that article described how many dinosaurs first devoloped feathers as a source of warmth... but weren't dinosaurs reptiles? Aren't reptiles cold-blooded by definition? Hence feathers would not have helped as much as it would have a warm-blooded animal. I just don't see much explaining that needs done.

LTB, do you think the Dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid or were they killed off by god for being sinful? Or do you believe that they co-existed with humans? There is a layer of Iridium in the ground all around the world to mark about 65 Million years ago. Iridium is mostly found in space. Iridium is very rare here on earth.

[Sonart]

Quote by: LetThereBe Very interesting, I had never heard that. Does that mean my definition of reptiles is out of date?

No, your definition of dinosaurs. The idea of warm-blooded dinosaurs is not all that new. I'd post a link, but I think you'd have more fun if you simply googled "dinosaurs" "warm-blooded" and take your pick.

Being warm blooded - at least some of them - means they were not reptiles... at least not really. However...

--"Old System of Classification (Linnaean): Reptilia includes all land-dwelling vertebrates which lay eggs with shells except for birds (Aves) and mammals (Mammalia).

New System (cladistic/phylogenetic): Reptilia includes the most recent common ancestor of turtles, crocodiles, snakes, lizards, and tuataras, plus all of that ancestor's descendants. Dinosauria is a subset of this (and Aves a subset of Dinosauria -- hence Aves is part of Reptilia, too).

I think Bakker's Linnaean classification might be the only one that excluded Dinosauria from Reptilia."--

Bakker, of course, refers to famed and ground breaking paleontologist, Robert T. Bakker, who was among the first to suggest dinosaurs were warm blooded, the first to suggest they had feathers - later proven - and the first to make the connection to birds.

So the answer seems to be that Dinosaurs may have started as reptiles but evolved into sort of proto-birds that were neither reptile, nor bird.

A modern day dinosaur?.....



.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: |Chris| LTB, do you think the Dinosaurs were killed by an asteroid or were they killed off by god for being sinful? Or do you believe that they co-existed with humans? There is a layer of Iridium in the ground all around the world to mark about 65 Million years ago. Iridium is mostly found in space. Iridium is very rare here on earth.

It seemed to me most people today don't even think that all dinosaurs were wiped out... at least not the small therapods. Those are the ones that supposedly evolved into birds.

And while I can't definitely say what I believe, I do know what YEC's beleive, and they believe man and dinosaur coexisted for a short period.

[tinybear]

Man and dinosaurs still coexist. Just look at the crocodiles and the Komodo dragons.

[sergeant]

First time here....much respect goes out to those who can debate without hostility and with honesty! I think I might stay! Although I don't have much to add at this point! Not knowlegable on this subject but I was brought up as a Christian! However, if I remember correctly I have a family member who doesn’t believe in the existence of dinosaurs. Yet, he is very intelligent and has a doctorate degree. I haven’t spoken to him in years. So, I don’t know if his views have changed!!!!

[tinybear]

How does he explain those fossils?

[Sonart]

Quote by: sergeant Yet, he is very intelligent and has a doctorate degree. I haven’t spoken to him in years. So, I don’t know if his views have changed!!!!

Welcome aboard, sergeant. Always nice to... errrrrr... see a new face? :eek:

Quote by: tinybear How does he explain those fossils?

How indeed. There's another new poster, gallo, who made a delightful point. IF the Bible is literally true, then doesn't that mean that God planted fossil evidence that the earth and life on it is far older than the Bible, and therefore he, God, says it is. Doesn't that mean, therefore, that God is lying to us about the earth, and then punishing us for believing the false evidence he's lying to us with?

.

[sergeant]

Quote by: tinybear How does he explain those fossils?

I don’t know, that is a good question! However, I was very young (10 maybe and I’m 31 now) when I heard him arguing with my father ( my father is a Christian) that dinosaurs never existed. So, I know that all Christians don’t share my cousin’s views.

[LetThereBe]

Quote by: Sonart Welcome aboard, sergeant. Always nice to... errrrrr... see a new face? :eek: How indeed. There's another new poster, gallo, who made a delightful point. IF the Bible is literally true, then doesn't that mean that God planted fossil evidence that the earth and life on it is far older than the Bible, and therefore he, God, says it is. Doesn't that mean, therefore, that God is lying to us about the earth, and then punishing us for believing the false evidence he's lying to us with? .

Heh, like I said, I know the YEC argument quite well. No one I have ever heard claimed they did not exist. Rather, the question generally lies with the age of the fossils. Most fossils are dated by which geologic layer they are found in... and often geologic layers are dated by reference fossils. Hence you assume the age of other fossils to determine their age.