When We Clone a Tyrannosaurus, Can We Feed it Creationists? - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Meridae'n · 04-04-2005, 04:25 AM

Didn't the Jews kill them?

And why does my thread tell me I didn't use the magic word when I open it? What have you wacky children of Christ done to my thread?

Rlyss · 04-04-2005, 05:25 AM

That's the Nedry picture

Meri's creationist comment was just a joke at those creationists (apparently not all of them) who believe that dinosaurs didn't exist and that fossils are placed there to test our faith. He's saying that if we were able to clone a dinosaur it would be evidence/proof that the fossils are real imprints of actual creatures, not just etchings in rocks from God or Satan. Obviously the option of being fed to the dinosaurs doesn't apply to creationists who believe they really did exist. I'm surprised that such a light-hearted little jab caused so much fuss.

Charlatan · 04-04-2005, 05:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rlyss

That's the Nedry picture

Meri's creationist comment was just a joke at those creationists (apparently not all of them) who believe that dinosaurs didn't exist and that fossils are placed there to test our faith. He's saying that if we were able to clone a dinosaur it would be evidence/proof that the fossils are real imprints of actual creatures, not just etchings in rocks from God or Satan. Obviously the option of being fed to the dinosaurs doesn't apply to creationists who believe they really did exist. I'm surprised that such a light-hearted little jab caused so much fuss.

You'd think he posted this in POLITICS or something...

flamingdog · 04-04-2005, 06:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

Yep, you need a functioning nucleus, not just DNA, to clone a whole organism. Ain't gonna happen anytime soon.

However, cloning a single gene is another story. If DNA can be extracted from T-Rex, then some of its genes might be cloned and inserted into a mouse, or a tomato plant.

Then we might have a very scary, ferocious tomato.

Rekna · 04-04-2005, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lin

Hi Im not too familiar with the bible but I wasnt aware it made reference to dinasaurs ...could you elaberate for me?

The bible talks about large creaters that roamed the eart prior to the flood. I will try and find the verses for you, my church had a message on it just a few weeks ago unfortuantly i was out of town.

Here is what I have found doing a quick google search

[QUOTE]
The first animals specifically mentioned as the product of this act of creation were the “great whales,” or “great sea-monsters” as most translations render the Hebrew word tannin. It is significant, however, that this same word is most frequently translated “dragon.” Evidently the term includes all large sea-creatures, even the monsters of the past that are now extinct. The frequent references to dragons in the Bible, as well as in the early records and traditions of most of the nations of antiquity, certainly cannot be shrugged off as mere fairy tales. Most probably they represent memories of dinosaurs handed down by tribal ancestors who encountered them before they became extinct.
[\QUOTE]

The words large creatures and dragons are mentioned a lot in the bible. Actually here you go I found an mp3 version of the message dealing with this exactly. I haven't listened to it yet but I definatly will when I get a chance.

http://www.experiencetherock.com/mp3.../dinosaurs.mp3

Cowman · 04-04-2005, 12:10 PM

Do you have a verse and chapter number for us?

Rekna · 04-04-2005, 12:53 PM

Job Chapter 40:
[QUOTE]
5 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.
[\QUOTE]
Job Chapter 41
[QUOTE]
1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?

2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?

3 Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?

4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?

5 Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?

6 Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?

7 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?

8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.

9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?

10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?

11 Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.

12 I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.

13 Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?

14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.

15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.

16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.

17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.

18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.

19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

22 In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.

23 The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.

24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.

25 When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.

26 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.

27 He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.

28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.

29 Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.

30 Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.

31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.

32 He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.

33 Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.

34 He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.
[\QUOTE]

Isiah 27:1
[QUOTE]
In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that [is] in the sea.
[\QUOTE]
Psalm 104
[QUOTE]
25
Look at the sea, great and wide! It teems with countless beings, living things both large and small.
26
5 Here ships ply their course; here Leviathan, your creature, plays
[\QUOTE]

I bet there are probably a lot more refrences then this. This is what google came up with. Listen to that mp3, i will do that later myself.

lindseylatch · 04-04-2005, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Most probably they represent memories of dinosaurs handed down by tribal ancestors who encountered them before they became extinct.

Er...Humans weren't around when dinosaurs were. So perhaps this isn't the best quote to use.

Maybe wooly mammoths and saber-toothed tigers (according to Ice Age, which is totally a reliable source), but i don't think humans ever hunted t-rex...

And the article didn't say anything about DNA, merely that cells were recovered. The DNA can errode even when the cell itself does. So

Rekna · 04-04-2005, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lindseylatch

Er...Humans weren't around when dinosaurs were. So perhaps this isn't the best quote to use.

Maybe wooly mammoths and saber-toothed tigers (according to Ice Age, which is totally a reliable source), but i don't think humans ever hunted t-rex...

And the article didn't say anything about DNA, merely that cells were recovered. The DNA can errode even when the cell itself does. So

Ohh I didn't realize we have documented proof that humans wern't around..... I didn't realize that they explained the human tracks found right next to dinasour tracks. Scientists don't believe they were but they have not proved it in the least.

raveneye · 04-04-2005, 02:14 PM

Rekna, no paleontologist believes that those footprints are human. And many creationists acknowledge that they are clearly not human.

Why do you believe that they are human footprints? Did you see them, or did another creationist tell you they were human?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html

Quote:

Claim CC101:
Human and dinosaur footprints have been found together in the Glen Rose formation at Paluxy River, Texas.
Source:
Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, p. 122.
Response:

1. The footprints reputed to be of human origin are not. For example:
* Some of the footprints are dinosaur footprints. Processes such as erosion, infilling, and mud collapse obscure the dinosaurian features of some footprints, making them look like giant human footprints, but careful cleaning reveals the three-toed tracks of dinosaurs (Hastings 1987; Kuban 1989).
* Some of the reputed prints are erosional features or other irregularities. They show no clear human features without selective highlighting.
* Some of the prints show evidence of deliberate alteration (Godfrey 1985).

2. The Paluxy tracks are illustrative of creationists' wishful thinking and of their unwillingness to face evidence. Although some creationists have repudiated the Paluxy claim, many others still cling to it (Schadewald 1986).

Links:
Kuban, Glen J. 1996. The Texas dinosaur/"man track" controversy. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

Matson, Dave E. 1994. How good are those young-earth arguments? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovi...od-gc.html#G4d
References:

1. Godfrey, L. R., 1985. Foot notes of an anatomist. Creation/Evolution 5(1): 16-36.
2. Hastings, Ronnie J., 1987. New observations on Paluxy Tracks confirm their dinosaurian origin. Journal of Geological Education 35(1): 4-15.
3. Kuban, Glen, 1989. Color distinctions and other curious features of dinosaur tracks near Glen Rose, Texas. In: Gillette and Lockley, 1989 (see below), pp. 427-440. http://paleo.cc/paluxy/color.htm
4. Schadewald, Robert J. 1986. Scientific creationism and error. Creation/Evolution 6(1): 1-9, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html

Further Reading:
Cole, John R. and Laurie R. Godfrey (eds.). 1985. The Paluxy River footprint mystery -- solved. Creation/Evolution 5(1). (special issue devoted to the topic) http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._4_23_2003.asp

Gillette, David D. and Martin G. Lockley (eds.). 1989. Dinosaur Tracks and Traces, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. (technical)

Hastings, Ronnie J. 1986. Tracking those incredible creationists -- the trail continues. Creation/Evolution 6(1): 20-28. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._4_23_2003.asp

Hastings, Ronnie J. 1988. Rise and fall of the Paluxy mantracks. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith 40(3): 144-155.

Kuban, Glen J. 1986. A summary of the Taylor site evidence. Creation/Evolution 6(1): 11-19. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._4_23_2003.asp

Schadewald, Robert. 1986. Scientific creationism and error. Creation/Evolution 6(1): 2-10. http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art..._4_23_2003.asp

Rekna · 04-04-2005, 02:22 PM

It is pointless to even argue this because I have a completly different belief and timeline then you do. My point early on was that the bible mentions dinasours in it which it does when it talks about the behemoth and leviathan. The truth is that for us to argue something that happend a long time ago, long before written record is impossible. A good scientist does not see that a spot on a wall is red and declare that the whole wall is red. When in fact that is exactly what most scientists are doing. So unless you have a time machine and go back to the age of the dinasours and scour the whole earth to verify there were no humans you have proved nothing.

raveneye · 04-04-2005, 02:28 PM

Quote:

It is pointless to even argue this because I have a completly different belief and timeline then you do. My point early on was that the bible mentions dinasours in it which it does when it talks about the behemoth and leviathan. The truth is that for us to argue something that happend a long time ago, long before written record is impossible. A good scientist does not see that a spot on a wall is red and declare that the whole wall is red. When in fact that is exactly what most scientists are doing. So unless you have a time machine and go back to the age of the dinasours and scour the whole earth to verify there were no humans you have proved nothing.

It looks like you and I have different standards of "proof". To you, "proof" is established by reference to biblical scripture, which you interpret however you please.

That's a very nice demonstration of the difference between science and religion.

lindseylatch · 04-04-2005, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Ohh I didn't realize we have documented proof that humans wern't around..... I didn't realize that they explained the human tracks found right next to dinasour tracks. Scientists don't believe they were but they have not proved it in the least.

Uh, there are human tracks found next to dino tracks? Can you show me some evidence?

here's a nifty timeline of human/apes(from here):
Australopithecus ramidus - 5 to 4 million years BCE
Australopithecus afarensis - 4 to 2.7 million years BCE
Australopithecus africanus - 3.0 to 2.0 million years BCE
Australopithecus robustus - 2.2 to 1.0 million years BCE
Homo habilis - 2.2 to 1.6 million years BCE
Homo erectus - 2 to 0.4 million years BCE
Homo sapiens - 400,000 to 200,000 years BCE
Homo sapiens neandertalensis - 200,000 to 30,000 years BCE
Homo sapiens sapiens - 130,000 years BCE to present

human ancestores are the Homos except the neandertalensis), and sapiens sapiens are us, as you can see.

This is a paleontological timeline (from here):

Origin of Universe 10-15 Billion Years Ago (Estimates based on current Hubble Telescope data.)

Precambrian 4,560,000,000

Paleozoic 570,000,000

Mesozoic 248,200,000

Cenozoic 65,000,000

This timeline states that dinos were only in the Mesozioc period. Now, if that period ended when the cenozoic started, 65 million years ago, and human realtives have only been here a couple millions years, how could they have cohabitated?

And, even if there were "human" foot print next to dinosaur footprints, that could be explained by errosion. The impression was buried, and then uncovered, a human walked by it, and it was re-covered.

So, although it can never be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (and few things in science can be without a nifty timemachine), I think there's more evidence (and general acceptance in the scientific community) that humans came well after the dinosaurs.

lindseylatch · 04-04-2005, 02:32 PM

behemoth and leviathans could refer to something completely different...
Like, wooly mammoths and large sharks/whales...
And, damnit, I hate when I write out a big long post and someone's already said the same thing.

Coppertop · 04-04-2005, 02:34 PM

So you want science to prove the nonexistence of something?

Putting the bible aside for a second, had humans and the thunder lizard coexisted there would have been a shite-load more documentation of it. They'd be kind of hard not to notice, yeah?

And anyone who takes the bible as infallibly correct needs to explain how it was that god spoke to Moses in Elizabethan English.

I myself worked with a born again woman who one-upped the "god put dinosaur bones here to test the faithful" bit. She stated that the earth is flat, and that there are no other planets but earth, they are merely stars and the other planets notion was a deceit of... yep, you guessed it, satan. There really is no point in discussing such things with her ilk.

Ok, carry on the dino discussion.

Rekna · 04-04-2005, 02:41 PM

I didn't realize mammoths had tails as big as trees. I didn't realize whales had scales and breathed smoke and fire.

Anyway i'm done with this thread because it is going to go no where fast. You guys put your faith in a different religion than I do, you put yours in science as if it is all fact. Where scientists know better than to say things are facts they say things are THEORYS. You know sometimes theorys are wrong (ohh gosh who would have thought, not you I guess).

To me in the end it comes down to what I have seen with my own eyes, I have seen God throughout my life, I have seen his work, I have read his word. I have never found anything to prove it wrong, I have never had to revise my theories, the bible tells us what we need to know not everything there is to know.

Some of you should look up what happend at mount saint hellons, see what happend there with the land. If a scientist were to go there today he would say that it was all done over millions of years. When in reality we have many layers (30+ feet) of setiment formed in a day. But it occured over millions of years right? Here is something interesting for you guys layers will not form unless they occur rapidly because of soil dwelling creatures that mix the layers together.

snowy · 04-04-2005, 02:49 PM

I must say I have a hard time taking someone's point seriously when they can't even be bothered to spellcheck or double-check their grammar.

That said, do we take the Bible literally or figuratively? Leviathans and behemoths can be 1) considered creatures of myth, 2) symbolic, or 3) literal creatures. Which is it? Thomas Aquinas argued that we should liken the leviathan to a whale and a behemoth to an elephant. Other theologians have argued that Job was invoking mythological imagery his audience would understand and that the reference to those creatures is largely figurative.

Furthermore, creation theory and evolution are not mutually exclusive things. There are lots of Christians who subscribe to the theory of intelligent design--God had a hand in evolution. As the scientific evidence clearly supports evolution, that is the theory that best melds belief in science and God, at least in my case.

Personally, if you tried to convince me that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time...I'd give you a really odd look and ask if you had in fact taken any classes regarding the development of human existence. While creationists might say that the scientific community is not looking at the issue objectively, I would argue that in fact it's quite the opposite. I might also point out that Darwin himself was a very strong Christian and knew his theory of evolution would cause great religious strife. In fact, throughout history great scientists have been vexed by the discovery of things in our world that went against existing doctrine and dogma and also against their own personal faith.

If Christianity is a journey--which I fully believe it is--we are meant to ask questions along the way of ourselves and our creator. Which is the fuller faith to possess: blind faith or intelligent faith?

Rekna · 04-04-2005, 02:56 PM

I don't know why, don't you look and see what happend in the bible when Adam and Eve wanted more knowledge and didn't accept what God told them.

And thanks for the grammer insults! Gotta love when people resort to that. So you are better at grammer and spelling than me, big deal i bet there are many things I am far more educated than you in.

lindseylatch · 04-04-2005, 02:57 PM

dinosaurs didn't breath smoke and fire either...
And a scientist would be able to tell the layers that were formed at one time vs. the layers formed over millions of years. It's called carbon-dating. It's pretty accurate, so I've heard.
And, it's great that you've seen God himself with your own eyes. I've never met anyone who had actually seen the Almighty Himself. I know people who explain things in their life as His work, but they've never actually seen Him, or Him hand, doing things...

Coppertop · 04-04-2005, 03:28 PM

onesnowyowl hardly insulted you. She merely stated that your lack of proper spelling and grammar does not help your argument in her eyes.

And I agree with her.

raveneye · 04-04-2005, 03:48 PM

Quote:

I didn't realize whales had scales and breathed smoke and fire.

Do you believe that dinosaurs breathed smoke and fire because it says so in the bible?

Quote:

You guys put your faith in a different religion than I do, you put yours in science as if it is all fact.

Yes, scientists trust their five senses and their intellect. They don't believe something simply because their minister or the bible tells them so.

Quote:

Where scientists know better than to say things are facts they say things are THEORYS. You know sometimes theorys are wrong (ohh gosh who would have thought, not you I guess).

Evolution is just as much a fact as DNA is a fact, just as much a fact as development of a human from a sperm and egg is a fact. Both microevolution and macroevolution have been directly observed in action.

Quote:

If a scientist were to go there today he would say that it was all done over millions of years. When in reality we have many layers (30+ feet) of setiment formed in a day.

Why do you believe this? If you had studied geology you would know that this is not true. There were geologists in Darwin's time who could tell the difference between instantaneous volcanic deposits and sedimentary deposits.

Quote:

Here is something interesting for you guys layers will not form unless they occur rapidly because of soil dwelling creatures that mix the layers together.

?? Where did you get this, from the bible? Are you now quoting science as the truth, after disparaging scientists?

04-04-2005, 04:33 PM

I don't see why a person can't accept scientific ideas and have faith in Gods word too.

If there's a God then surely he gave us free will so we could question things and not just accept what anyone tells us , be it scientists or the bible itself. If we didnt have enquiring minds then we'd still be living in caves.

If you have faith in God then you should have faith in what He tells you and what he may decide NOT to tell you. Maybe dinosaurs were part of his getting the earth ready for humans , maybe for whatever reason he didnt mention dinosaurs in the bible on purpose .Maybe we need to learn things for ourselves.

Does it matter that they weren't known about or talked about in the bible? Does that prove that God doesnt exist? No..all it proves is that they weren't mentioned in the bible thats all.

I don't think belief in scientific ideas and faith in God are mutually exclusive.

Zeraph · 04-04-2005, 11:30 PM

People people, we are not in the movies. Even if they somehow got out of controll, we still have tanks, jets, missles, etc. Even if dino parks become common I bet more people will die in car crashes than T-Rex incidents.

Anyways, that would be so fucking cool if we cloned one.

EDIT: Ah it seems I am too late for an interesting discussion, looks like the bible flame wars have already begun.

Pacifier · 04-05-2005, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I didn't realize mammoths had tails as big as trees. I didn't realize whales had scales and breathed smoke and fire.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Job Chapter 40:
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

Well I didn't realize dinosaurs had navels...

hulk · 04-05-2005, 01:49 AM

I like to point out that Australian Aboriginal beliefs predate the bible by up to either 45,000 or 495,000 years, and they make no mention of dinosaurs. Though, they did say we were all once animals.

Looks like evolution predates creationism, hm?

(And yes, I do realise that Aborigines also believe the world was created by more animals. I'm just taking the piss out of creationists)

d*d · 04-05-2005, 02:47 AM

can't the shorter timeline argument be refuted by the incredibly reliable carbon dating of rocks and fossils?
I'm not sure what we would achieve by recreating extinct animals, the earth has changed a lot since the cretaceous period it would be a completely different habitat - I don't think it's right to mess around with the eco-system.

Pacifier · 04-05-2005, 03:10 AM

carbon dating is not used for fossiles, it is used for dating younger items (not older than 30 000 years AFAIK)

Some of the oldest rocks on earth are found in Western Greenland. Because of their great age, they have been especially well studied. The table below gives the ages, in billions of years, from twelve different studies using five different techniques on one particular rock formation in Western Greenland, the Amitsoq gneisses.

Technique Age Range (billion years)
uranium-lead 3.60±0.05
lead-lead 3.56±0.10
lead-lead 3.74±0.12
lead-lead 3.62±0.13
rubidium-strontium 3.64±0.06
rubidium-strontium 3.62±0.14
rubidium-strontium 3.67±0.09
rubidium-strontium 3.66±0.10
rubidium-strontium 3.61±0.22
rubidium-strontium 3.56±0.14
lutetium-hafnium 3.55±0.22
samarium-neodymium 3.56±0.20

(from: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective)
more at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

Meridae'n · 04-05-2005, 03:44 AM

I +hinK D1No54uRS 4r3 k3Wl!!!!!!!11!!1!!!

w00Tage!!!!1!!

paddyjoe · 04-05-2005, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meridae'n

I +hinK D1No54uRS 4r3 k3Wl!!!!!!!11!!1!!!

w00Tage!!!!1!!

....

d*d · 04-05-2005, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meridae'n

I +hinK D1No54uRS 4r3 k3Wl!!!!!!!11!!1!!!

w00Tage!!!!1!!

what does that mean?

Pacifier · 04-05-2005, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d*d

what does that mean?

Tsk, you don't speak leet?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W00t

d*d · 04-05-2005, 04:34 AM

ahh.... thankyou pacifier, can you tell this is my first forum? bit pointless and geeky though

paddyjoe · 04-05-2005, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d*d

ahh.... bit pointless and geeky though

you or the forum?

Ace_O_Spades · 04-05-2005, 05:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pacifier

carbon dating is not used for fossiles, it is used for dating younger items (not older than 30 000 years AFAIK)

Some of the oldest rocks on earth are found in Western Greenland. Because of their great age, they have been especially well studied. The table below gives the ages, in billions of years, from twelve different studies using five different techniques on one particular rock formation in Western Greenland, the Amitsoq gneisses.

Technique Age Range (billion years)
uranium-lead 3.60±0.05
lead-lead 3.56±0.10
lead-lead 3.74±0.12
lead-lead 3.62±0.13
rubidium-strontium 3.64±0.06
rubidium-strontium 3.62±0.14
rubidium-strontium 3.67±0.09
rubidium-strontium 3.66±0.10
rubidium-strontium 3.61±0.22
rubidium-strontium 3.56±0.14
lutetium-hafnium 3.55±0.22
samarium-neodymium 3.56±0.20

(from: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective)
more at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

THANK YOU!! I always get upset when people use the blanket statement of radio carbon dating for all rock and fossil dating... There are so many other methods!

While they are not perfect, as they offer ranges of error in the millions of years, they are still reliable if taken on average. They are also remarkably good at proving the Earth is much older than most eastern scripture...

Although some central and south american tribes were close to the actual numbers... more on a guess though I'm sure, they didn't have any of the dating methods we have today.

biznatch · 04-05-2005, 07:38 AM

Raken, you're trusting a book that was written a little less than two thousand years ago.
I think we all know that humans have cars, planes, particle accelerators, and lots of little tech stuff we didn't have when christianity was emerging. People didn't know about paleontology back then, or chemistry, or physics... Its a normal process that as humanity evolves, so does their sources of credible beliefs. While the bible remains a source of faith, one can understand that humans use something more...recent to satisfy their quest for knowledge. We don't disrespect the Bible. its just that nowadays its less credible than it was 2000-odd years ago.

Anyway, back on topic: can anyone with good genetics knowledge tell me what it would take to clone a T-Rex?
If I get flithy rich one day, I'll be the John Hammond behing the project. And if I need to hire a computer guy, I'll make sure he's not a fat, chocolate bar eating, soda drinking guy. Because that would make me wayyyy too suspicious.

Stompy · 04-05-2005, 07:46 AM

Feed away!

I would love to visit a Jurassic Park type of place. That would be brilliant. Hooray for cloning.

Creationism? Hah. We would be retarded right now if that was true... what, the whole human race spawned from Adam & Eve? That means some heavy incest was had!

Highly unbelievable in today's world, but believe what ya wanna believe I guess

raveneye · 04-05-2005, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Anyway, back on topic: can anyone with good genetics knowledge tell me what it would take to clone a T-Rex?

You'd have to find a functional T-Rex somatic cell, extract a functional nucleus. Then you have to find a functional egg cell from some related species. Remove its nucleus, and replace it with the somatic T-Rex nucleus. Then "activate" the egg cell. Cross your fingers and hope that it starts dividing and develops into an embryo etc.

I think it would be easier to dress up an ostrich. Probably would fool a lot of people too.

04-05-2005, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stompy

Feed away!

I would love to visit a Jurassic Park type of place. That would be brilliant. Hooray for cloning.

Creationism? Hah. We would be retarded right now if that was true... what, the whole human race spawned from Adam & Eve? That means some heavy incest was had!

Highly unbelievable in today's world, but believe what ya wanna believe I guess

Well am not right in thinking that we can all be traced back to one female ancestor in Africa?

so maybe we ARE all retarded afterall !!That would explain so much

Meridae'n · 04-05-2005, 12:28 PM

Well, I don't believe in creationism, but I do know that more people were supposed to have came off the assembly line after Adam and Eve... so that incest angle doesn't really work.

Meridae'n · 04-05-2005, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d*d

can you tell this is my first forum? bit pointless and geeky though

Am I that transparent?

04-04-2005, 04:25 AM	#41 (permalink)
Meridae'n Loose Cunt Location: North Bondi RSL	Didn't the Jews kill them? And why does my thread tell me I didn't use the magic word when I open it? What have you wacky children of Christ done to my thread? __________________ What's easier to believe: that a guy was born without sex in the manner of several Greek demigods and grew up to be able to transmute liquids and alter his body density yet couldn't escape government execution, or that three freemasons in a vehicle made with aluminum foil in an era before digital technology escaped our atmosphere, landing on the moon, broadcasted from there, and then flew back without burning up?

04-04-2005, 12:10 PM	#46 (permalink)
Cowman Psycho	Do you have a verse and chapter number for us? __________________ You don't like my point of view..but im insane

04-04-2005, 12:53 PM	#47 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Job Chapter 40: [QUOTE] 5 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. 19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. 20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. 21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. 22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. 23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. 24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares. [\QUOTE] Job Chapter 41 [QUOTE] 1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down? 2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn? 3 Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee? 4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever? 5 Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens? 6 Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants? 7 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears? 8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more. 9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him? 10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me? 11 Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine. 12 I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion. 13 Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle? 14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about. 15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. 16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. 17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered. 18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. 19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. 20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. 21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. 22 In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him. 23 The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved. 24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone. 25 When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves. 26 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon. 27 He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood. 28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble. 29 Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear. 30 Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire. 31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment. 32 He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary. 33 Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear. 34 He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride. [\QUOTE] Isiah 27:1 [QUOTE] In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent; and he shall slay the dragon that [is] in the sea. [\QUOTE] Psalm 104 [QUOTE] 25 Look at the sea, great and wide! It teems with countless beings, living things both large and small. 26 5 Here ships ply their course; here Leviathan, your creature, plays [\QUOTE] I bet there are probably a lot more refrences then this. This is what google came up with. Listen to that mp3, i will do that later myself. Last edited by Rekna; 04-04-2005 at 12:56 PM..

04-04-2005, 02:32 PM	#54 (permalink)
lindseylatch Addict Location: Seattle, WA	behemoth and leviathans could refer to something completely different... Like, wooly mammoths and large sharks/whales... And, damnit, I hate when I write out a big long post and someone's already said the same thing. __________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." -Voltaire

04-04-2005, 02:49 PM	#57 (permalink)
snowy Kick Ass Kunoichi Location: Oregon	I must say I have a hard time taking someone's point seriously when they can't even be bothered to spellcheck or double-check their grammar. That said, do we take the Bible literally or figuratively? Leviathans and behemoths can be 1) considered creatures of myth, 2) symbolic, or 3) literal creatures. Which is it? Thomas Aquinas argued that we should liken the leviathan to a whale and a behemoth to an elephant. Other theologians have argued that Job was invoking mythological imagery his audience would understand and that the reference to those creatures is largely figurative. Furthermore, creation theory and evolution are not mutually exclusive things. There are lots of Christians who subscribe to the theory of intelligent design--God had a hand in evolution. As the scientific evidence clearly supports evolution, that is the theory that best melds belief in science and God, at least in my case. Personally, if you tried to convince me that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time...I'd give you a really odd look and ask if you had in fact taken any classes regarding the development of human existence. While creationists might say that the scientific community is not looking at the issue objectively, I would argue that in fact it's quite the opposite. I might also point out that Darwin himself was a very strong Christian and knew his theory of evolution would cause great religious strife. In fact, throughout history great scientists have been vexed by the discovery of things in our world that went against existing doctrine and dogma and also against their own personal faith. If Christianity is a journey--which I fully believe it is--we are meant to ask questions along the way of ourselves and our creator. Which is the fuller faith to possess: blind faith or intelligent faith? __________________ If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

04-04-2005, 05:25 AM	#42 (permalink)
Rlyss The Pusher Location: Edinburgh	That's the Nedry picture Meri's creationist comment was just a joke at those creationists (apparently not all of them) who believe that dinosaurs didn't exist and that fossils are placed there to test our faith. He's saying that if we were able to clone a dinosaur it would be evidence/proof that the fossils are real imprints of actual creatures, not just etchings in rocks from God or Satan. Obviously the option of being fed to the dinosaurs doesn't apply to creationists who believe they really did exist. I'm surprised that such a light-hearted little jab caused so much fuss.

04-04-2005, 02:22 PM	#51 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	It is pointless to even argue this because I have a completly different belief and timeline then you do. My point early on was that the bible mentions dinasours in it which it does when it talks about the behemoth and leviathan. The truth is that for us to argue something that happend a long time ago, long before written record is impossible. A good scientist does not see that a spot on a wall is red and declare that the whole wall is red. When in fact that is exactly what most scientists are doing. So unless you have a time machine and go back to the age of the dinasours and scour the whole earth to verify there were no humans you have proved nothing.

04-04-2005, 02:34 PM	#55 (permalink)
Coppertop Getting Medieval on your ass Location: 13th century Europe	So you want science to prove the nonexistence of something? Putting the bible aside for a second, had humans and the thunder lizard coexisted there would have been a shite-load more documentation of it. They'd be kind of hard not to notice, yeah? And anyone who takes the bible as infallibly correct needs to explain how it was that god spoke to Moses in Elizabethan English. I myself worked with a born again woman who one-upped the "god put dinosaur bones here to test the faithful" bit. She stated that the earth is flat, and that there are no other planets but earth, they are merely stars and the other planets notion was a deceit of... yep, you guessed it, satan. There really is no point in discussing such things with her ilk. Ok, carry on the dino discussion.

04-04-2005, 02:41 PM	#56 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I didn't realize mammoths had tails as big as trees. I didn't realize whales had scales and breathed smoke and fire. Anyway i'm done with this thread because it is going to go no where fast. You guys put your faith in a different religion than I do, you put yours in science as if it is all fact. Where scientists know better than to say things are facts they say things are THEORYS. You know sometimes theorys are wrong (ohh gosh who would have thought, not you I guess). To me in the end it comes down to what I have seen with my own eyes, I have seen God throughout my life, I have seen his work, I have read his word. I have never found anything to prove it wrong, I have never had to revise my theories, the bible tells us what we need to know not everything there is to know. Some of you should look up what happend at mount saint hellons, see what happend there with the land. If a scientist were to go there today he would say that it was all done over millions of years. When in reality we have many layers (30+ feet) of setiment formed in a day. But it occured over millions of years right? Here is something interesting for you guys layers will not form unless they occur rapidly because of soil dwelling creatures that mix the layers together.

04-04-2005, 02:56 PM	#58 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I don't know why, don't you look and see what happend in the bible when Adam and Eve wanted more knowledge and didn't accept what God told them. And thanks for the grammer insults! Gotta love when people resort to that. So you are better at grammer and spelling than me, big deal i bet there are many things I am far more educated than you in.

04-04-2005, 02:57 PM	#59 (permalink)
lindseylatch Addict Location: Seattle, WA	dinosaurs didn't breath smoke and fire either... And a scientist would be able to tell the layers that were formed at one time vs. the layers formed over millions of years. It's called carbon-dating. It's pretty accurate, so I've heard. And, it's great that you've seen God himself with your own eyes. I've never met anyone who had actually seen the Almighty Himself. I know people who explain things in their life as His work, but they've never actually seen Him, or Him hand, doing things... __________________ "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities" "If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." -Voltaire

04-04-2005, 03:28 PM	#60 (permalink)
Coppertop Getting Medieval on your ass Location: 13th century Europe	onesnowyowl hardly insulted you. She merely stated that your lack of proper spelling and grammar does not help your argument in her eyes. And I agree with her.

04-04-2005, 04:33 PM	#62 (permalink)
Lin Guest	I don't see why a person can't accept scientific ideas and have faith in Gods word too. If there's a God then surely he gave us free will so we could question things and not just accept what anyone tells us , be it scientists or the bible itself. If we didnt have enquiring minds then we'd still be living in caves. If you have faith in God then you should have faith in what He tells you and what he may decide NOT to tell you. Maybe dinosaurs were part of his getting the earth ready for humans , maybe for whatever reason he didnt mention dinosaurs in the bible on purpose .Maybe we need to learn things for ourselves. Does it matter that they weren't known about or talked about in the bible? Does that prove that God doesnt exist? No..all it proves is that they weren't mentioned in the bible thats all. I don't think belief in scientific ideas and faith in God are mutually exclusive.

04-04-2005, 11:30 PM	#63 (permalink)
Zeraph Banned Location: The Cosmos	People people, we are not in the movies. Even if they somehow got out of controll, we still have tanks, jets, missles, etc. Even if dino parks become common I bet more people will die in car crashes than T-Rex incidents. Anyways, that would be so fucking cool if we cloned one. EDIT: Ah it seems I am too late for an interesting discussion, looks like the bible flame wars have already begun.

04-05-2005, 01:49 AM	#65 (permalink)
hulk C'mon, just blow it. Location: Perth, Australia	I like to point out that Australian Aboriginal beliefs predate the bible by up to either 45,000 or 495,000 years, and they make no mention of dinosaurs. Though, they did say we were all once animals. Looks like evolution predates creationism, hm? (And yes, I do realise that Aborigines also believe the world was created by more animals. I'm just taking the piss out of creationists) __________________ "'There's a tendency among the press to attribute the creation of a game to a single person,' says Warren Spector, creator of Thief and Deus Ex." -- From an IGN game review.

04-05-2005, 02:47 AM	#66 (permalink)
d*d Addict	can't the shorter timeline argument be refuted by the incredibly reliable carbon dating of rocks and fossils? I'm not sure what we would achieve by recreating extinct animals, the earth has changed a lot since the cretaceous period it would be a completely different habitat - I don't think it's right to mess around with the eco-system.

04-05-2005, 03:10 AM	#67 (permalink)
Pacifier undead Location: Duisburg, Germany	carbon dating is not used for fossiles, it is used for dating younger items (not older than 30 000 years AFAIK) Some of the oldest rocks on earth are found in Western Greenland. Because of their great age, they have been especially well studied. The table below gives the ages, in billions of years, from twelve different studies using five different techniques on one particular rock formation in Western Greenland, the Amitsoq gneisses. Technique Age Range (billion years) uranium-lead 3.60±0.05 lead-lead 3.56±0.10 lead-lead 3.74±0.12 lead-lead 3.62±0.13 rubidium-strontium 3.64±0.06 rubidium-strontium 3.62±0.14 rubidium-strontium 3.67±0.09 rubidium-strontium 3.66±0.10 rubidium-strontium 3.61±0.22 rubidium-strontium 3.56±0.14 lutetium-hafnium 3.55±0.22 samarium-neodymium 3.56±0.20 (from: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html Radiometric Dating - A Christian Perspective) more at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html __________________ "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death — Albert Einstein Last edited by Pacifier; 04-05-2005 at 03:12 AM..

04-05-2005, 03:44 AM	#68 (permalink)
Meridae'n Loose Cunt Location: North Bondi RSL	I +hinK D1No54uRS 4r3 k3Wl!!!!!!!11!!1!!! w00Tage!!!!1!! __________________ What's easier to believe: that a guy was born without sex in the manner of several Greek demigods and grew up to be able to transmute liquids and alter his body density yet couldn't escape government execution, or that three freemasons in a vehicle made with aluminum foil in an era before digital technology escaped our atmosphere, landing on the moon, broadcasted from there, and then flew back without burning up?

04-05-2005, 04:34 AM	#72 (permalink)
d*d Addict	ahh.... thankyou pacifier, can you tell this is my first forum? bit pointless and geeky though

04-05-2005, 07:38 AM	#75 (permalink)
biznatch Junkie Location: France	Raken, you're trusting a book that was written a little less than two thousand years ago. I think we all know that humans have cars, planes, particle accelerators, and lots of little tech stuff we didn't have when christianity was emerging. People didn't know about paleontology back then, or chemistry, or physics... Its a normal process that as humanity evolves, so does their sources of credible beliefs. While the bible remains a source of faith, one can understand that humans use something more...recent to satisfy their quest for knowledge. We don't disrespect the Bible. its just that nowadays its less credible than it was 2000-odd years ago. Anyway, back on topic: can anyone with good genetics knowledge tell me what it would take to clone a T-Rex? If I get flithy rich one day, I'll be the John Hammond behing the project. And if I need to hire a computer guy, I'll make sure he's not a fat, chocolate bar eating, soda drinking guy. Because that would make me wayyyy too suspicious. __________________ Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread

04-05-2005, 07:46 AM	#76 (permalink)
Stompy Banned from being Banned Location: Donkey	Feed away! I would love to visit a Jurassic Park type of place. That would be brilliant. Hooray for cloning. Creationism? Hah. We would be retarded right now if that was true... what, the whole human race spawned from Adam & Eve? That means some heavy incest was had! Highly unbelievable in today's world, but believe what ya wanna believe I guess __________________ I love lamp.

04-05-2005, 12:28 PM	#79 (permalink)
Meridae'n Loose Cunt Location: North Bondi RSL	Well, I don't believe in creationism, but I do know that more people were supposed to have came off the assembly line after Adam and Eve... so that incest angle doesn't really work. __________________ What's easier to believe: that a guy was born without sex in the manner of several Greek demigods and grew up to be able to transmute liquids and alter his body density yet couldn't escape government execution, or that three freemasons in a vehicle made with aluminum foil in an era before digital technology escaped our atmosphere, landing on the moon, broadcasted from there, and then flew back without burning up?