What is Digg?51 Comments
- Haecceity, on 10/09/2008, -1/+28When a scientist says something like "The tracks continue further into the rock ... My hope is that the dinosaur who made it is at the end of the tracks," you have to wonder how grounded in reality he is. It's as likely as following a set of footprints on a beach, expecting to find a corpse at the end.
- whoreable, on 10/10/2008, -4/+21They need to call in an expert.... like Sarah Palin.
- yetAnotherCroc, on 10/10/2008, -1/+12Nah, she is only good for things she can see from her window. Really old stuff is McCains area.
- brstilson, on 10/10/2008, -2/+12A world without argument would be a frightening one indeed.
- wendelgee2, on 10/10/2008, -1/+8You mean older than 6000 years??? Whoa!
- Sokkratez, on 10/10/2008, -2/+9I read this post as a joke. No?
- cheekybastard, on 10/10/2008, -0/+5The Flintstones was actually a reality based TV show filmed 6000 years ago.
- Rapax, on 10/10/2008, -0/+5Simple enough: You can only make footprints as long as the material is soft, like sand or mud. Sediments are only like that right after being laid down. So you find the age of the rock stratum you're looking at and you have the age of the footprints.
Now, as to how the age of the rocks is determined, there are several ways, such as isotope geochronology or luminescence dating. - mikbunn, on 10/09/2008, -1/+5He's livin' in the past, man.
- NJank, on 10/10/2008, -0/+4buried. we all know Abraham came from Ur in Chaldea to Haran and thence to Canaan. And we all know he rode a late model Triceratops.
- ModestMoby, on 10/10/2008, -3/+7Oldest dinosaur is the one Jesus rode. Don't you guys know ANYTHING!?
- SpinningHead, on 10/10/2008, -0/+4I think his thinking has more to do with the idea that whatever event caused the footprints to be preserved may have also killed the dinosaur...like finding human footprints at Herculaneum.
- PennFarmer, on 10/10/2008, -0/+3You are correct Sokkratez. If you read Mikbunn's other posts you will find that he is an evolutionist through and through.
- kingmanic, on 10/10/2008, -0/+3This is an argument for adults, you can take your really thick coloring book and go play with your other creationists friends.
- threepm, on 10/10/2008, -0/+2Sarah Palin says Dinosaurs aren't real. So... digg down? Not sure which way I'm supposed to digg cause a future president would not digg this up. Help me obi one.
- JuanBSU, on 10/10/2008, -1/+3Didn't they have the McCain family next door to them?
- bitweever, on 10/10/2008, -0/+2Brontosaurus?!? This article lost some credibility there.
Evidentally, everything this article's author knows about dino's came from The Flintstones. - Superdude22, on 10/10/2008, -0/+2At least the argument doesn't propose all the world's animals are descended from two of each kind that ended up on Noah's Wild Animal Love Cruse.
- inactive, on 10/10/2008, -0/+2Wow. I honestly didn't think I was going to need one. For the record that WAS sarcastic.
Lesson learned. - skidzilla, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1Yeah, and those Tricer's got really crappy gas mileage too... :P
- bperin, on 10/10/2008, -1/+2The Palin report concluded the Jews buried dinosaur bones in the 1930's gosh darnet
- cheekybastard, on 10/10/2008, -1/+2@ Goochman - do your homework. Here's something for the grade you fell asleep in.
http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/msese/earthsysflr/ ... - ultraseamus, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1http://media.monstersandcritics.com/articles/11619 ...
- inactive, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1cool thing about living in religious reality dysfunction land is that if you deny one thing thats right in front of your face (fossils) its easy to deny something like carbon dating or geology.
- ajkrik, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1Pointing out the flaws in an "evolutionist" paradigm does not prove the other paradigm. You believe . . . either in a creator, or a set of instructions on seeing things called logic and science. Either way, both could be wrong or right.
- inactive, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1Hey if there's a one in a million chance that there's the oldest fossilized dinosaur at the end of found tracks, you have to take the chance.
- NJank, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1yeah, once they find the dino-saddle buried a few feet off to the side this will all be settled.
- waffleninja, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1Wait till the creationists get ahold of this story. I can see the headlines now: "Scientists begin to learn that dinosaur fossils are relatively young."
- lornefs, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1You forgot the sarcasm tag.
- RobotKeaton, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1Tyrannosaurus Reich?
- tortov, on 10/10/2008, -0/+1This is pretty interesting, but it's important to keep this debate in proper perspective. Everyone agrees the tracks were made by some sort of archosaur. I'm sure if a lay person saw this critter walking down the street they'd think it was a dinosaur.
- NJank, on 10/10/2008, -1/+1c'mon guys, that was at least a little funny.
- beamster, on 10/10/2008, -1/+1sorta good
- ThatsNotPoetry, on 10/10/2008, -1/+1I read "debate" and "oldest dinosaur" and thought it was another McCain/Obama post. ZING!
- orangekiosk, on 10/10/2008, -0/+0lol before i read the article, all i saw was the headline and an image popped into my head of 2 paleontologists screaming to each, "my dinosaur is older. no, mine is older. shut up. you shut up. no, you shut up"
- wtrwlkr, on 10/10/2008, -0/+0So have creationists organised a bury brigade?
- ajkrik, on 10/10/2008, -2/+1I disagree. It would be blissful.
- Goochman, on 10/10/2008, -2/+0Understand that - but for a layer of rock that was exposed (say through an earthquake or something) and some creature walks in the sediment mud distorting their prints a bit - how is the age correctly determined? Say this happend 10,000 years ago but the sediment exposed was formed/hardened 1,000,000 ago.
BTW - Im a fan of this stuff, but it seems every 10 years we find we were way off on alot of stuff (can you say running T-Rex?) - 5xSTUN, on 10/10/2008, -4/+2And Jesus has returned... as a SHARK!
- Goochman, on 10/10/2008, -5/+3I hvae always wondered how they can tell that footprints are 100,000 or even 1,000,000 years old.
Why do I have visions of someone being uncovered with some wooden plaster feet walking through the desert making 'dinsoaur' track similar to the 'Big Foot' ones othes have hoxed about.
Cant wait for the frozen Barney costume hoax coming soon to a city in the South near you. - inactive, on 10/10/2008, -7/+2What about the bible?
- nyos, on 10/10/2008, -13/+8When did McCain go to Germany?
- PGPirate, on 10/10/2008, -11/+6The worlds oldest man killed it, or says Palin
- warriormonk, on 10/10/2008, -6/+0This is a classic example of evidence contradicting Darwinist dogma. Creationists have no problem with this find since in that model all creatures coexisted together, as this evidence seems to suggest. It's also why the evolutionists are in a tizzy. In their view, this can't be right since according to paleontologist Hartmut Haubold, "Dinosaurs didn't come into existence until a good 15 million years later than Diedrich claims". Really? Were you there Herr Haubold? So, rather than consider that the evolutionary time lines, and Darwinist theory itself, may be wrong (GASP!), they stick to the script and attack the guy who found the specimen.
Oh, and regarding the dating of rocks, radiometric dating is FAR from perfect, and is itself based on several assumptions. You can date the same rock strata, and even the same rock, using the same test and come up with widely divergent results. Ditto for multiple test methods. Here's the dirty little secret: What evolutionists do is perform tests using many different methods (potassium-argon, uranium-lead, rubidium-strontium, et.al.), look at the results, and then pick the one that most closely lines up with the presupposed age of the specimen.
Let's take an example: Fossil remains of a T-rex are found. According to evolutionists, this creature lived 65 - 70 million years ago, but that is based ENTIRELY on a theoretical model this is itself based ENTIRELY on presuppositions regarding the unobserved past. Next, the rocks surrounding the fossil are dated using a variety of methods, and the test yielding the result that most closely matches the *supposed* age is chosen as the "proof", thereby supporting the original presupposition. This way the public is brainwashed into believing that dating rocks is an exact science and that Darwinism is fact. See how that works? They make up a story and then game the system so that it appears to be fact. Gotta love that kind of creativity. And this my friends is how the whole Darwinist house of cards is kept from falling! - inactive, on 10/10/2008, -14/+7Well it's not older than 6,000 years, that's for sure.
- wtrwlkr, on 10/10/2008, -13/+5Scientists finally found the dinosaur Jeesus rode on while preaching to the heathen infidels in ancient Germany before he was slain by the Romans for being the Son of God! See, when you look closely enough, science ALWAYS agrees with the Holy Word!!! Now, if only these scientists can turn their hearts to the Lawd and forget this 243 million years business...
Praise Jebus!! - vilago, on 10/10/2008, -9/+1your gay
- anaskalladi, on 10/10/2008, -10/+0good
-
Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 