Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Duvenoy · 05-21-2002, 08:33 AM

The bones would almost certainly be scattered. The fossil, IF it exists, would have been formed, at least initally, in a calm enviornment. I think that the alledged flood was anything but that.

I say, 'IF' because I read on this same site of a couple of guys who went to Alaska and found an un-fossilized jaw of an miasaure (sp?). It was a pretty good yarn. Lots of excitment. I've gone back looking for it since and it seems to have been taken down, possibly due to ridicule from even other creationists.

Now, the question is: Will the fossil (assuming!) be examined by secular scientists?

d

nogods4me · 05-21-2002, 09:13 AM

darn, I would have bet good money that fundies wouldn't even have been able to find Denver in Colorado.

Jimmy Higgins · 05-21-2002, 09:14 AM

I love details.

1) No picture of skeleton! (this probably means nothing was ever found)

2) "The DeRosas, who have a contract on the fossil rights to the property and own the right to the material they excavate, had been working the site well in advance of the arrival of the home-school expedition. Their preliminary work over a period of months led them to believe that they had an allosaurus, but it was not until the home-schoolers arrived and performed the heavy lifting of moving a lot of dirt that evidence was found to validate their suspicions."
(Now I'm not an archeologist, but how can you suspect that their is a fossil in the ground? Isn't that something you need to dig up? Furthermore, they never really explain why they suspected anything.)

3) "It is not yet known when the skull will be available for viewing." (I bet this 'discovery' finds its way to the Wyatt Museum vault until mankind is ready for it.)

And isn't this the same paper that said Elvis died of diabetes back in the early 90's, but in the mid 90's printed a story of Elvis being alive?

Quetzal · 05-21-2002, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nogods4me:
darn, I would have bet good money that fundies wouldn't even have been able to find Denver in Colorado.

Weeell, if they flew into Denver International Airport, I wouldn't be surprised either if they couldn't find Denver. I'm not sure it's even in the same state...

DrLao · 05-21-2002, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fastfalcon:
That would be the result of the flood.

I have no idea what this means. What is the result of the flood?

Flynn McKerrow · 05-21-2002, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by nogods4me:
darn, I would have bet good money that fundies wouldn't even have been able to find Denver in Colorado.

Trust me...there are plenty that have found it and call it home.

nogods4me · 05-21-2002, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Flynn McKerrow:
Trust me...there are plenty that have found it and call it home.

You have my deepest sympathy. I suppose it is possible, even a broken clock is right twice a day. (unless it's digital)

Dr.GH · 05-21-2002, 11:23 AM

Animals that die in floods are deposited differently than skeletalized material (bone and remant soft tissue)that is RE-deposited by floods. The general topic is called taphonomy. One of the first text books was written in 1927. It was reprinted in 1989:

Johanns Weigelt
1989 edition "Recent Vertebrate Carcasses and their Paleobiological Implications" Judith
Schaefer, translator. University of Chicago Press

The problem for creationists is that they never can demonstrate how their fossils are deposited, or dated. This is because they need to lie a great deal of the time. Some of my taphonomic work is :
<a href="http://medstat.med.utah.edu/kw/osteo/index2.html" target="_blank">here</a>

outtawork · 05-21-2002, 01:46 PM

There is a picture of the skull <a href="http://www.visionforum.com/aboutvf/welcome/newsletter/0205/" target="_blank">here</a> if you want to see it. It's hard to make out.. looks like a big rock.

Outtawork

[ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: outtawork ]

RufusAtticus · 05-23-2002, 03:29 PM

Here's another example of why creationist and fossils do not mix.

<a href="http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/1995Nov/0257.html" target="_blank">Bring me my TNT.</a>

~~RvFvS~~

05-21-2002, 01:46 PM	#19
outtawork Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: San Diego, Ca Posts: 97	There is a picture of the skull <a href="http://www.visionforum.com/aboutvf/welcome/newsletter/0205/" target="_blank">here</a> if you want to see it. It's hard to make out.. looks like a big rock. Outtawork [ May 21, 2002: Message edited by: outtawork ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-21-2002, 08:33 AM	#11
Duvenoy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Just another hick from the sticks. Posts: 1,108	The bones would almost certainly be scattered. The fossil, IF it exists, would have been formed, at least initally, in a calm enviornment. I think that the alledged flood was anything but that. I say, 'IF' because I read on this same site of a couple of guys who went to Alaska and found an un-fossilized jaw of an miasaure (sp?). It was a pretty good yarn. Lots of excitment. I've gone back looking for it since and it seems to have been taken down, possibly due to ridicule from even other creationists. Now, the question is: Will the fossil (assuming!) be examined by secular scientists? d

05-21-2002, 09:13 AM	#12
nogods4me Contributor Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 17,432	darn, I would have bet good money that fundies wouldn't even have been able to find Denver in Colorado.

05-21-2002, 09:14 AM	#13
Jimmy Higgins Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Proud Citizen of Freedonia Posts: 42,473	I love details. 1) No picture of skeleton! (this probably means nothing was ever found) 2) "The DeRosas, who have a contract on the fossil rights to the property and own the right to the material they excavate, had been working the site well in advance of the arrival of the home-school expedition. Their preliminary work over a period of months led them to believe that they had an allosaurus, but it was not until the home-schoolers arrived and performed the heavy lifting of moving a lot of dirt that evidence was found to validate their suspicions." (Now I'm not an archeologist, but how can you suspect that their is a fossil in the ground? Isn't that something you need to dig up? Furthermore, they never really explain why they suspected anything.) 3) "It is not yet known when the skull will be available for viewing." (I bet this 'discovery' finds its way to the Wyatt Museum vault until mankind is ready for it.) And isn't this the same paper that said Elvis died of diabetes back in the early 90's, but in the mid 90's printed a story of Elvis being alive?

05-21-2002, 11:23 AM	#18
Dr.GH Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Dana Point, Ca, USA Posts: 2,115	Animals that die in floods are deposited differently than skeletalized material (bone and remant soft tissue)that is RE-deposited by floods. The general topic is called taphonomy. One of the first text books was written in 1927. It was reprinted in 1989: Johanns Weigelt 1989 edition "Recent Vertebrate Carcasses and their Paleobiological Implications" Judith Schaefer, translator. University of Chicago Press The problem for creationists is that they never can demonstrate how their fossils are deposited, or dated. This is because they need to lie a great deal of the time. Some of my taphonomic work is : <a href="http://medstat.med.utah.edu/kw/osteo/index2.html" target="_blank">here</a>

05-23-2002, 03:29 PM	#20
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	Here's another example of why creationist and fossils do not mix. <a href="http://www.cmnh.org/fun/dinosaur-archive/1995Nov/0257.html" target="_blank">Bring me my TNT.</a> ~~RvFvS~~

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.