When We Clone a Tyrannosaurus, Can We Feed it Creationists?
 

To be honest, very bloody rarely does science news thrill me, but I found this little nugget gave me a semi...

Original link...


Typical. We can't clone one of the smaller, more peaceful herbivores. Nooooo. We're gonna clone the biggest, meanest, fuck-off carnivore that walked the planet. With a bit of luck we could well be up to our armpits in commie radioactive dinosaurs in the future, finger's crossed.

funny take...and yes

I was excited by this as well... I can't wait to see what the TRex DNA shows...

You know that God but that soft tissue there to test the faithful, right?

This is exciting news. I'll have my T-Rex steak medium rare, please.

Creationists don't dispute whether or not there were dinosaurs, we just disagree with evolutionists on what caused them to die out (Flood vs. whatever theory they're pushing this week).

I can hardly wait to visit jurassic park. Maybe in another decade we'll have a remake of the original movie, but this time the behind the scenes features will discuss how they trained the dinosaurs rather than how the amazing new science of animatronics works.

I can hardly wait to visit jurassic park. Maybe in another decade we'll have a remake of the original movie, but this time the behind the scenes features will discuss how they trained the dinosaurs rather than how the amazing new science of animatronics works.

"Well, first we demonstrate what we want to the animal, then ask it to repeat it. If it does the action correctly, we reward it with a full grown Holstein. If it doesn't, then we short it's face out with these high voltage lines we run from a power plant we had scratch built for this express purpose."

I'm having a hard time not picturing some Jurassic Park-esque scenario coming from this.....

What great TV that'll make......an Ostrich giving birth to a T-Rex!

My thoughts exactly. I'm excited to see where this is going - I might have a future in the economics of dinosaur entertainment.

In all seriousness, I'm on the border if this should be done or not. Cloning a dinosaur would be just about the most amazing technological, scientific, and zoological achievement of our time. But then again...they could all eat us. Maybe we'll just try it with one, and see what happens...

I'm gonna have to take the stance that just because we can do certain things, doesn't necessarily mean that we should....

So we clone a dinosaur...and put it on primetime? Why not splice it a bit and make it smart enough to be on a reality show? Actually, we'd have to lower their I.Qs to get them on reality tv. American Idol: Dinosaur edition.

I say we leave this to scientists for a while.

I confused as to what exactly you are going to feed creationists if they clone the T-Rex. I have not met a creationist that doesn't believe dinasours roamed the earth. In fact the bible says they were there. Creationists mearly believe in a different timeline and what killed them. Seems to me like the original poster just has a bone to pick with people who believe in something different and wants to start a large argument here over nothing. In fact I don't see how this finding weakens the creationists argument, to me it seems to do the opposite as it shortens the timeline.

I have met some who say the fossils were placed there in the rocks. That's what Charlatan was referring to in his post above.

cloning a real T-Rex is close to impossible even if you have the complete DNA.
The DNA may be the recipe, but you still need a proper kitchen to "cook" a T-Rex.

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.

hmmm...a cloned TRex let loose on an island, with humans trying to find a way off od the island. Am I way off base here, or does this have the making of the next, massive, crappy Reality TV disaster

:thumbsup:

hah, I just finished reading the book Jurassic Park 2 weeks ago (and the book rocks oh so much)..
Well if they could pull this offf, having a real life fucking T-rex there I will be jumping with joy. They could eat us up. I don't care. i'd enjoy it. Seeing a T-rex in front of me would be compensation enough. I can't express how thrilled I'd be at the prospect of seeing real dinos.
they're described so well in Jurassic Park, too. I know this is possible, I wanna see it happen, damn it.
Who cares about chaos theory, the promethean spark, all that...Lets play God. Who cares if we get burned? not me.

Or you cold plug certain genes into existing reptiles... Not a full-fledged T-rex, but something's better than nothing, right?

I don't think so, there is a huge difference between todays reptiles and dinosaurs.
T-Rex, for example, is believed to be warmblooded

This is what my mom believes...that Satan put the fossils in the rocks to test the faith of believers against the scientists who say that the Earth is much, much older than the Bible says it is.

If someone uses the satan placed the evidence argument then there is nothing that can prove that wrong to them other than disproving the existence of satan which means disproving the existence of God. I still fail to see how this artical deals with creationists and fail to see how the author connected it to creationists other than throwing a jab at them in the title.

That Satan is a tricky old devil eh!?

Actually, birds are much more closely related to dinosaurs than any other group of living animals. In fact, you could say that birds are dinosaurs. That's why in the original article the fossil cells are compared to those of a living ostrich, which is a bird not a reptile.

The only animals that are genetically transformable right now are mice and insects as far as I know.

I'm diggin' this make the T-Rex smarter. Then let's teach it the differing view points! The T-Rex can then decide who he'll eat.

How hard would it really be to keep a t-rex in captivity? They learned from their mistakes with King Kong, and Dennis Nedry's dead now so we don't have to worry about the electric fences going down.

But really, couldn't they make a zoo out of the same stuff they make bomb shelters and bunkers out of? Make it in a huge pit and make people climb ladders to get in and out. I can't imagine a dinosaur's any good at climbing a ladder so even if something goes wrong he won't be going anywhere. I think we should clone a dinosaur and keep it in captivity, that'd be awesome.

I don't know if this has been mentioned, but whatever surrogate they use will spoil the t-rex dna. We'd have to breed them in generations if we want them to be 100% pure. 1st generation dinos would have like... 50% original dna, 50% surrogate dna.

I have to agree to what was said above, "Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean we should".

I'm sorry but as cool as dinos were possibly do we REALLY need to clone them even if we could? We do not know everything and some things should be just left alone in my book. I'd be more interested in the cloning of ancient plants to see if there is any potential medicinal benefits. A T-rex is good for nothing but eating and pooping. And if even ONE person got killed by a T-rex then it's too high of a price to pay.

Well if the dinosaurs hadn't died out we probably wouldn't have evolved past our earliest stages of development, so It's probably a good thing they're not around today.

I'm all for discovering what happened to them, or how they lived etc... But I don't want them around today by any stretch.

I have to agree with this....I believe in creation and was taught about dinosaurs in sunday school....so can someone explain the point of the original post?

This was the point I was trying to get across, though I had placed the DNA into the wrong surrogate... What you come up with is a hybrid, not an actual T-rex. And you could never get it to 100%, though eventually it could be negligable.

This was part of the big talk a couple years ago when some group got really excited and claimed they were going to try and breed wooly mammoths. They had a great plan and everything set out, but then realized they didn't actually have any way to access those genes... :lol:

haha there'll always be a Dennis Nedry somewhere.
Yes, I do think keeping a T-rex captive is totally feasible. But doing a Jurassic Park, just like the one in the book, would be craziness, and I really don't think humanity is advanced enough to recreate the Jurassic era, whether it be on an isolated island with the most advanced technology; from what I understand of chaos theory, or even murphy's law, its bound to go wrong...or unpredicted. (god I love that book):cool:
But people say it would be impossible to clone a T-rex..
I don't know...what does it take exactly to clone an animal?
I'm sure they could somehow piece up the DNA..

OK, an ostrich, then.

The article doesn't deal with creationists... and the way I see it, the original poster (a person known to have a sense of humour) was just making a joke...

Relax.


Now that you are relaxed... you are aren't you? Dinosaurs have never been satisfactorally refuted by creationists... They have to have a shorted time line in order to account for the garden of eden to now...

this has nothing to do explicitly with the article.

*tries to imagine an ostrich giving birth to a T-rex*


yeah I know, it would be an egg. It'd still be one hell of an egg though.


I don't think you could actually birth a T-rex though, even a 50-50 hybrid. The DNA would just be too different, and any result of artificial creation would end up aborting somewhere down the line.

It would be cool if we managed to use the same process for a dinosaur... egg or something (this is probably way off base though, I don't really understand the "de-mineralization" process they used on the bones)

I hope they clone it, or at least attempt to. It will be amazing to see if it works, and if it does, all is fine and dandy until it goes on a killing rampage. Even then, it would be pretty badass.

I was merely saying that if we do clone a T-Rex, I'd like to feed a whole bunch of those zany creationists to it.


Hang on, weren't we made out of dirt, or fleas of Budda's body or something? I'm sure I read it somewhere in the bible??

The T-Rex was a scavanger!!!!!
 

<html>
<body>
Ok,

The T-Rex wasn't as bad as we thought it was. About 3 or 4 years ago I saw this discovery channel special, where the Nerdologists found evidence of the T-Rex being a scavenger. At least i'm pretty sure it was the T-REX.

<marquee>Vally of the T-REX</marquee>

I believe that more riots would be caused if wayne brady was cloned.

Your Pal Holdem
</body>
</html>

<img src="http://www.corntown.com/nedry/nedry.gif">
<bgsound src="http://www.corntown.com/nedry/nedry.wav" loop=2>

Be he an individual or a corporate entity, there's always a Nedry waiting in the wings. Waiting for that perfect moment when everything seems to be going so well. It's at that precise moment he'll slide down that slippery, muddy, mess and firmly jam his wrench into our works. Bastard.

Otherwise, I say go for it. Especially if they can come up with a miniature version that'll co-exist more than a couple days in a turtle-bowl. Or maybe one with big, cute, floppy ears for the kids. Maybe a version with really long legs, like a reverse dachshund effect, and make it fire breathing, for home defense against those cloned dragons we learned about on The Discovery Channel. How else are we going to defend ourselves?

Embedded wav files... I know they're against nature, just hope they're not against TFP's TOS? :) Sorry.

Remember, guys, this isn't a movie. Cloned maniac T-Rex vs guys with guns == dead lizard. Clone away!

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

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? :crazy:

That's the Nedry picture :lol:

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... :rolleyes:

http://www.ne.jp/asahi/techno/drome/picm/sc00801.jpg

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

Do you have a verse and chapter number for us?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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. :p

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.

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.

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?

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.

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...

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.

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

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

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.

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.


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

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.

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.

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

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)

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.

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

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

w00Tage!!!!1!!

.... :lol: :lol: :lol: ....

what does that mean?

Tsk, you don't speak leet? :lol:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W00t

;)

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

you or the forum?

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.

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.

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 :lol:

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.

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 :thumbsup:

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.

Am I that transparent?

What?! We're mass produced?! :eek:

Actually that's not true... Many of the fundamental scientific discoveries about our universe and the human body were discovered almost 4000 years ago...

Why were these discoveries lost? Religious suppression, martyrdom, and ignorance.

well...if you look at evolution, every change IS from one single ancestor, who was able to survive and reproduce better than all it's compatriots.
But it breed with a bunch of its fellow creatures. So it's not really incest...

so every race and creed of person actually has african roots, there's an irony in there somewhere I'm sure

Absolute myth. As you were...

Damn those Dark Ages!! Damn them!!

you mock, but the loss of the progression of knowledge through the dark ages set us back almost 2000 years

I wasn't mocking...gees, someone doesn't know sarcasm when he sees it... :rolleyes: Or when he doesn't...

Of course. Science is about makeing money just as much as it is about finding out how things work. People like things with a hint of danger. That, and haveing a pet you could feed you anoying boss to has apeal...

Get that damn :rolleyes smilies outta my thread!

My initial stance to not replicate a T-Rex but the more I think about the more excited I get about actually standing in front of one watching it square off with a Rhino... ;)

yeah, because sarcasm transfers soooo well over the internet :cool:

No need to get snappy!

Sorry. :( I guess my brand of humor doesn't transfer well either. I'll be more careful in the future. :thumbsup:

Hell, let's take the next step and look for several types of Dino DNA. Then mix them together and create Dragons!

;)

...sweet

till they started eating people and burninating the countryside

Reign of Fire anyone?

Don't even mention that horrible piece of garbage...(although it did LOOK good)