What of the dinosaurs?

[Word_Swordsman]

http://wokinfo.com/products_tools/specialized/ information on Webofscience.com got left out of that last post. I use that for wetlands management discussions online elsewhere, so can't wander very far into nonbiological topics without paying for more. You might be interested in it since some of you evolutionists you seem to like talking science.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Your speaking religiously .. I'm speaking of worldly .. Not lol

Those with the gold, make the rules. | The Golden Rule

Which I guess is why we need the Democrats in the U.S., to keep those who have the gold make the rules...lol

Actually it's unto, not on to.

Political correctness......lol sorry....

 

[JackH]

I suggest you read up on the past 30 years of progress extracting DNA from dinosaur bones.

Here is where I read up on the subject:

Stones and Bones: The Institute for Creation Research and their dupes, v.1.0.

Again, you fail.

 

[Cycel]

You are missing some important information. First, DNA has never been found in dinosaur remains, but they are looking for it. Horner explained that their hopes are not high.

Notice I put the "can" in quotes. I suggest you read up on the past 30 years of progress extracting DNA from dinosaur bones. If you have access to a typical university science department or government subscription you can find hundreds of actual science articles on the subject. I think this one is free.

I don’t have such access, but if you do then give me some pertinent quotes. Not sure why you linked me to this article. It undermines your point but makes mine.

“However, due to the enormous power of PCR to amplify even a few copies of DNA sequences, modern DNA contamination has become a crucial problem. For this reason, many of the most extravagant reports on ancient DNA, including claims of DNA sequences surviving for millions of years in plants [6-8] and dinosaur bones [9], have been disputed and actually disregarded.”

This was the only reference to dinosaur DNA I could locate in the research paper you linked me with.

Look, Horner's team has actively been searching for dinosaur DNA. They have not found any. ColinCat pointed out that the one early such claim he knew of had been discounted by paleontologists (it was probably the one mentioned in the paper you linked above). It was the result of cross contamination. No evidence has ever been found for your claim, though it is frequently asserted to be true in creationist circles. Fact: if there was any truth in this claim the information would be widely available.

"First, DNA has never been found in dinosaur remains," . DNA is in fact being extracted, has been for decades, but much of the early work has been ignored/dismissed for various reasons. But the research persists because there is DNA and it can be extracted by improved methods today, but the main problem is rarity of enough sample to carry out worthwhile research, such as from one molecule.

From one molecule???

Ancient DNA is being extracted, yes, but the oldest confirmed to date has been from an extinct species of equine that was some 700,000 years old. My understanding is that the remains had been frozen since death, hence the superb level of preservation. Dinosaurs existed long before the ice age so no hope there.

Dinosaurs and humans did not co-exist. If they did we would have ample DNA to prove it. There is none, despite Creationist claims to the contrary.

 

[ColinCat]

History is more like his story... Ever heard of the golden rule ? He who holds the gold makes the rules. Think about that.

What is it with people around here not answering simple questions.

One More time...

Where is it recorded that someone found fossils and attributed them to Dragons.

 

[Cycel]

What is it with people around here not answering simple questions.

One More time...

I too have noticed that some straight forward questions you've asked have not been answered, though other non-relevant statements were offered. I think the best course for such people is to simply own up that their first statement was not sound and offer a retraction.

 

[ColinCat]

It's a name... For a big lizard, What do you think people called Dino's before the 1800s?

plus I thought according to Genesis 2:20 that all animals and beasts were given names. Why didn't he name the dinosaurs?

 

[ColinCat]

I too have noticed that some straight forward questions you've asked have not been answered, though other non-relevant statements were offered. I think the best course for such people is to simply own up that their first statement was not sound and offer a retraction.

Of course. And I'm not asking random questions either. They are questions to people based on their very own statements.

 

[Cycel]

One More time...

Where is it recorded that someone found fossils and attributed them to Dragons.

I think I've read that in antiquity large fossil bones were sometimes viewed as the remains of dragons. Seutonius, I think, wrote that in the time of Augustus some large fossil remains were put on display in Capreae and identified as the remains of monsters. "... he (Augustus) had collected the huge skeletons of extinct sea and land monsters popularly known as 'Giants' Bones', and the weapons of ancient heroes" (The Twelve Caesars, Suetonius). Pliny too speaks of monster bones put on display by a wealthy Roman senator and Herodotus speaks of seeing the bones of griffins. Later Christian writers might have identified these as dragon remains.

 

[Cycel]

Of course. And I'm not asking random questions either. They are questions to people based on their very own statements.

Retractions usually are not forthcoming from evangelicals, I think because that would usually mean they were wrong in some way about their conception of God.

 

[kennethcadwell]

The Chinese for many years documented large dinosaur bone fossils as being that of dragon bones. It wasn't until recent times that they started classifying them as dinosaur bones.

 

[ColinCat]

The Chinese for many years documented large dinosaur bone fossils as being that of dragon bones. It wasn't until recent times that they started classifying them as dinosaur bones.

Thanks Kenneth. A straightforward answer. I wasn't challenging the statement, just requesting information.

 

[ColinCat]

I will still hold fast on the whole "dinosaurs didn't have a name" nonsense argument when God himself was supposed to have named everything In genesis 2:20. Why weren't dinosaurs given a name?

 

[Cycel]

The Chinese for many years documented large dinosaur bone fossils as being that of dragon bones. It wasn't until recent times that they started classifying them as dinosaur bones.

This is good. It looks as though we have established that large fossil remains were often misunderstood in the past.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Thanks Kenneth. A straightforward answer. I wasn't challenging the statement, just requesting information.

I will still hold fast on the whole "dinosaurs didn't have a name" nonsense argument when God himself was supposed to have named everything In genesis 2:20. Why weren't dinosaurs given a name?

Dinosaurs would have been named to, but the thing is that we can know by history and looking at Genesis that the names of all the animals that existed was a very vague list. We know for instance from fossils that cockroaches have been around just as long as the dinosaurs, but does the bible every actually mention them? Or does it just talk in the general term like the creeping things of that kind. He mainly talks about kinds, not actual names.

 

[ColinCat]

Dinosaurs would have been named to, but the thing is that we can know by history and looking at Genesis that the names of all the animals that existed was a very vague list. We know for instance from fossils that cockroaches have been around just as long as the dinosaurs, but does the bible every actually mention them? Or does it just talk in the general term like the creeping things of that kind. He mainly talks about kinds, not actual names.

Even though they were the largest and most dominant beasts on the planet? They aren't given so much as a passing reference. A donkey gets more coverage.

 

[kennethcadwell]

Even though they were the largest and most dominant beasts on the planet? They aren't given so much as a passing reference. A donkey gets more coverage.

That is because the donkey was used as a symbol of peace, humbleness, and servitude.
There are many of animals that existed back then that you don't see the names mentioned in the bible. Like I said the bible in Genesis was vague about the names given, and Adam when charged to name them there was no following list of what each was called. All we can go by is the kinds that were formed,

Genesis 1:25
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.


The beast kind could consist of the dinosaurs to the lions, bears, wolves and so on. Cattle kind of course would be cows, ox, sheep, goats, and so on. Then the creepeth kind would be insects, snakes, spiders, and so on....

Then in the book of Job it mentions the behemoth, and calls it the first of God's creations.
Then you have the Leviathan that is also listed, which in the description of it says smoke comes from its nostrils and fire shoots from its mouth. This does not sound like a crocodile, they give it the same characteristics as dragons that we know from fables or myths.

 

[ColinCat]

No it doesn't sound like a crocodile and it certainly doesn't sound like a dinosaur either.

Although it does sound exactly like a mythical creature.

Now why would a book that is the truth of creation as someone pointed out.. Give descriptions of the existence of mythical creatures?

 

[Brainfreeze]

I will still hold fast on the whole "dinosaurs didn't have a name" nonsense argument when God himself was supposed to have named everything In genesis 2:20. Why weren't dinosaurs given a name?

Behemoth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

or beast... That's what was given, why do you have such trouble with that, this stuff has been stated already.

 

[Brainfreeze]

No it doesn't sound like a crocodile and it certainly doesn't sound like a dinosaur either.

Although it does sound exactly like a mythical creature.

Now why would a book that is the truth of creation as someone pointed out.. Give descriptions of the existence of mythical creatures?

You and whoever else are calling it " mythical ". Bible doesn't say that... Bible holds no lies.