Apparently, Young Earth is a thing...
Discussion
Thankyou4calling said:
chrispmartha said:
Interesting, how do you think they should be portrayed?
It all seems a bit Disneyfied.When I found out the skeleton at the Natural History Museum wasn’t a skeleton at all it didn’t help.
It just strikes me that if you leave a bone in a grave it’ll rot away pretty soon yet these “Dinosaur bones” have remained for millions of years.
I just think we are extrapolating things a bit too much.
Thankyou4calling said:
It just strikes me that if you leave a bone in a grave it’ll rot away pretty soon yet these “Dinosaur bones” have remained for millions of years.
I just think we are extrapolating things a bit too much.
Why is the bold bit in quotation marks?I just think we are extrapolating things a bit too much.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil
I'm mildly curious about what happens at the interface between the earth's crust and the mantle - does stuff from the lower bound of that interface melt into the mantle?
Could any number of things that were once on the surface have, over many millions of years, become buried far enough that they reach that boundary and then melt such that there is no easy to find trace of it to be found?
Could any number of things that were once on the surface have, over many millions of years, become buried far enough that they reach that boundary and then melt such that there is no easy to find trace of it to be found?
Halb said:
Two reasonsA lot of what are displayed as bones aren’t bones at all but man made to complete a skeleton
Secondly a lot are later discovered not to be bones from dinosaurs at all, they are much more recent.
Thankyou4calling said:
Halb said:
Two reasonsA lot of what are displayed as bones aren’t bones at all but man made to complete a skeleton
Secondly a lot are later discovered not to be bones from dinosaurs at all, they are much more recent.
Thankyou4calling said:
Halb said:
Two reasonsA lot of what are displayed as bones aren’t bones at all but man made to complete a skeleton
Secondly a lot are later discovered not to be bones from dinosaurs at all, they are much more recent.
However, there have been hundreds and hundreds of complete dinosaur skeletons found - as well as skeletons of lots of other types of animals. Not to mention fossils of animals that never had skeletons.
Not to mention fossils of non-animal life.
Picking out those cases where gaps are filled for presentation purposes but ignoring the cases where complete and whole fossils have been found smacks of rather selective thinking. It's almost as if a person WANTS to find made up evidence so they can support their fairly lazilly constructed views.
Thankyou4calling said:
Halb said:
Two reasonsA lot of what are displayed as bones aren’t bones at all but man made to complete a skeleton
Secondly a lot are later discovered not to be bones from dinosaurs at all, they are much more recent.
Stone is quite heavy... so not the easiest thing to display or mount (if you look at actual fossils they are mounted on bloody great steel beams).
The fossils are also fairly delicate (not sure what Dinosaur your refer to, but at a guess the Diplodocus? That animal would have lived in the mid-to late Jurassic period - aprox 150 million years ago. So the fossils are a bit fragile).
Also, using replicas means the originals are available for study.
As for your 'more recent' claim, care to provide some evidence? Given that Avian and Non-Avian Dinosaurs went extinct at the end of the Cretaceous period (approx 66 MYA), I'm sure the scientific community would be interested to hear from you?
Specifically Luis and Walter Alvarez who came up with the Meteorite extinction therory (iridium, baby).
JPJPJP said:
I'm mildly curious about what happens at the interface between the earth's crust and the mantle - does stuff from the lower bound of that interface melt into the mantle?
Could any number of things that were once on the surface have, over many millions of years, become buried far enough that they reach that boundary and then melt such that there is no easy to find trace of it to be found?
Kinda. The reason there are few truly ancient rocks on the surface of this plant is due in part to plate tectonics.Could any number of things that were once on the surface have, over many millions of years, become buried far enough that they reach that boundary and then melt such that there is no easy to find trace of it to be found?
https://www.livescience.com/37529-continental-drif...
Simply put...
Subduction Zone: think about the edge of a continental plate. These plates 'float' on a source on molten rock (the mantle). One edge is forced under the other (subducted) which then melts into the mantle.
If you look at a Geologically Inactive body (the Moon, possibly Mars) you'll find rocks 3 Billion years old or older. With the exception of certain places on Earth (Australia for one) you'll struggle to find rocks this old due the process of 're-cycling material'.
The opposite is true in other places: the mid-Atlantic ridge is creating new rocks on a constant basis. In fact, the Atlantic ocean gets wider by a few inches per year due to this process.
Look. I’m not a flat earther and I’ve no conspiracy theory.
I will say though a lot of what is stated as fact regarding dinosaurs and such is later to be shown not to be the case at all.
Of course there were animals that existed and are now extinct, fully accepted.
But in the way they are portrayed in films and even museums! I’m not having it.
I will say though a lot of what is stated as fact regarding dinosaurs and such is later to be shown not to be the case at all.
Of course there were animals that existed and are now extinct, fully accepted.
But in the way they are portrayed in films and even museums! I’m not having it.
Thankyou4calling said:
Look. I’m not a flat earther and I’ve no conspiracy theory.
I will say though a lot of what is stated as fact regarding dinosaurs and such is later to be shown not to be the case at all.
Of course there were animals that existed and are now extinct, fully accepted.
But in the way they are portrayed in films and even museums! I’m not having it.
You’re not having it? That means you think someone is lying to you.I will say though a lot of what is stated as fact regarding dinosaurs and such is later to be shown not to be the case at all.
Of course there were animals that existed and are now extinct, fully accepted.
But in the way they are portrayed in films and even museums! I’m not having it.
Now I’m sure there is artistic license in films, jurassic Park is not a documentary but you mention the ‘bones’ in the natural history museum not being real on the case of ‘Dippy’ this is undoubtedly true, but do you think the Diplodocus didn’t exist?
Thankyou4calling said:
Look. I’m not a flat earther and I’ve no conspiracy theory.
I will say though a lot of what is stated as fact regarding dinosaurs and such is later to be shown not to be the case at all.
Of course there were animals that existed and are now extinct, fully accepted.
But in the way they are portrayed in films and even museums! I’m not having it.
And you’re quite correct.I will say though a lot of what is stated as fact regarding dinosaurs and such is later to be shown not to be the case at all.
Of course there were animals that existed and are now extinct, fully accepted.
But in the way they are portrayed in films and even museums! I’m not having it.
Depending on your age, think about the Dinosaurs you were taught about in school. Slow, stupid, lethargic beasts who had to live in swamps to support their own weight.
This has now changed. Certain palaeontologists (Bob Bakker, Jack Horner) postulated in the late 1970’s/early 80’s that perhaps this was incorrect. Perhaps Dinos were endothermic (hot blooded - mammals) rather than cold blooded (exothermic – reptiles, snakes etc). This would make them fast moving, active, dynamic intelligent creatures.
Now look how they are portrayed. Consider the original King Kong film: the T-Rex was portrayed in an upright posture… the version shown in Jurassic Park was likely to be far more accurate (head level with body, tail as a counterbalance to the weight to its massive head and front end musculature).
The amphibian vision thing (keep still and he can’t see you) has been proven to be b
ks (work on brain casts, MRIs of the skull, studying the size and shape of the optic lobes within the brain etc).Therefore research and the scientific method has helped the process along… in time this may change. Just in the same way that your smart phone is ‘better’ than the Nokia brick you used to have.
Ironically, the original descriptions of Dinosaurs (Richard Owen – he coined the term Dinosaur ‘Terrible Lizard – in the mid-1850s) were fairly accurate. Then the Victorians got their hands on Darwin’s work and said “Ah ha! If they are extinct then they must have been stupid…” hence the descriptions you probably grew up with.
Thankyou4calling said:
Look. I’m not a flat earther and I’ve no conspiracy theory.
I will say though a lot of what is stated as fact regarding dinosaurs and such is later to be shown not to be the case at all.
Of course there were animals that existed and are now extinct, fully accepted.
But in the way they are portrayed in films and even museums! I’m not having it.
Certainly Hollywood plays fast and loose with dinosaur interpretation - often for dramatic and plot purposes. So, basing what you think our knowledge of ancient life was like around what you have seen in movies is a tad silly, to say the least. Museums and TV documentaries also have an "entertainment" element to them as well, although in most cases they will portray such animals using the best knowledge to date.I will say though a lot of what is stated as fact regarding dinosaurs and such is later to be shown not to be the case at all.
Of course there were animals that existed and are now extinct, fully accepted.
But in the way they are portrayed in films and even museums! I’m not having it.
HOWEVER, if you want to REALLY understand about extinct species, you will need to read the published scientific literature perhaps and maybe try and recognise which documentaries are more sobre in their depictions.
Thankyou4calling said:
I will say though a lot of what is stated as fact regarding dinosaurs and such is later to be shown not to be the case at all.
That's a byproduct of the scientific method. Starting off with an incomplete picture and then through trial and error building a more complete picture. Constantly testing observing and revising. Scientists like to prove each other wrong.As for how dinosaurs are portrayed in museums I think you have to treat those "facts" in the same way that scientific discoveries are treated in school textbooks. They relay the higher-level messages but may be a little vague on the detail. I'm sure there are plenty of museum displays that are woefully out of date. They aren't purposefully misleading but it's not always possible to update every display based on the latest scientific findings.
In popular media, all bets are off. After all in films, the protagonist can zoom in on a pixelated CCTV image and read the time on someone's watch using "computer enhancement"
We probably shouldn't be holding them to very high standards when it comes to paleontology.
Eric Mc said:
HOWEVER, if you want to REALLY understand about extinct species, you will need to read the published scientific literature perhaps and maybe try and recognise which documentaries are more sobre in their depictions.
Are you sure? Just listen or read a few scientific literatures from someone like James Tour and your view on many of those scientifics might be altered. I am not here to debate but have a look at his profile on wiki and a few of his papers.
Enjoy.
E34-3.2 said:
Are you sure? Just listen or read a few scientific literatures from someone like James Tour and your view on many of those scientifics might be altered.
I am not here to debate but have a look at his profile on wiki and a few of his papers.
Enjoy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Tour#A_Scientific_Dissent_From_DarwinismI am not here to debate but have a look at his profile on wiki and a few of his papers.
Enjoy.
Isn't this a wedge to get creationism into science?
Faust66 said:
And you’re quite correct.
Depending on your age, think about the Dinosaurs you were taught about in school. Slow, stupid, lethargic beasts who had to live in swamps to support their own weight.
This has now changed. Certain palaeontologists (Bob Bakker, Jack Horner) postulated in the late 1970’s/early 80’s that perhaps this was incorrect. Perhaps Dinos were endothermic (hot blooded - mammals) rather than cold blooded (exothermic – reptiles, snakes etc). This would make them fast moving, active, dynamic intelligent creatures.
Now look how they are portrayed. Consider the original King Kong film: the T-Rex was portrayed in an upright posture… the version shown in Jurassic Park was likely to be far more accurate (head level with body, tail as a counterbalance to the weight to its massive head and front end musculature).
The amphibian vision thing (keep still and he can’t see you) has been proven to be bks (work on brain casts, MRIs of the skull, studying the size and shape of the optic lobes within the brain etc).
Therefore research and the scientific method has helped the process along… in time this may change. Just in the same way that your smart phone is ‘better’ than the Nokia brick you used to have.
Ironically, the original descriptions of Dinosaurs (Richard Owen – he coined the term Dinosaur ‘Terrible Lizard – in the mid-1850s) were fairly accurate. Then the Victorians got their hands on Darwin’s work and said “Ah ha! If they are extinct then they must have been stupid…” hence the descriptions you probably grew up with.
Quite. Makes sense. I still have my dino books from when I was a kid; dinos were slow stupid and died out because they were stupid, slow, meat eaters did it etc. THe crazy fringe theory of comet death eventually took over. Always been into dinos so I like to read up on them from time to time, my love of film probably helped this.Depending on your age, think about the Dinosaurs you were taught about in school. Slow, stupid, lethargic beasts who had to live in swamps to support their own weight.
This has now changed. Certain palaeontologists (Bob Bakker, Jack Horner) postulated in the late 1970’s/early 80’s that perhaps this was incorrect. Perhaps Dinos were endothermic (hot blooded - mammals) rather than cold blooded (exothermic – reptiles, snakes etc). This would make them fast moving, active, dynamic intelligent creatures.
Now look how they are portrayed. Consider the original King Kong film: the T-Rex was portrayed in an upright posture… the version shown in Jurassic Park was likely to be far more accurate (head level with body, tail as a counterbalance to the weight to its massive head and front end musculature).
The amphibian vision thing (keep still and he can’t see you) has been proven to be b
ks (work on brain casts, MRIs of the skull, studying the size and shape of the optic lobes within the brain etc).Therefore research and the scientific method has helped the process along… in time this may change. Just in the same way that your smart phone is ‘better’ than the Nokia brick you used to have.
Ironically, the original descriptions of Dinosaurs (Richard Owen – he coined the term Dinosaur ‘Terrible Lizard – in the mid-1850s) were fairly accurate. Then the Victorians got their hands on Darwin’s work and said “Ah ha! If they are extinct then they must have been stupid…” hence the descriptions you probably grew up with.
When the time machine gets built, first trip will be to see how dinos really looked.
Faust66 said:
And you’re quite correct.
Depending on your age, think about the Dinosaurs you were taught about in school. Slow, stupid, lethargic beasts who had to live in swamps to support their own weight.
This has now changed. Certain palaeontologists (Bob Bakker, Jack Horner) postulated in the late 1970’s/early 80’s that perhaps this was incorrect. Perhaps Dinos were endothermic (hot blooded - mammals) rather than cold blooded (exothermic – reptiles, snakes etc). This would make them fast moving, active, dynamic intelligent creatures.
Now look how they are portrayed. Consider the original King Kong film: the T-Rex was portrayed in an upright posture… the version shown in Jurassic Park was likely to be far more accurate (head level with body, tail as a counterbalance to the weight to its massive head and front end musculature).
The amphibian vision thing (keep still and he can’t see you) has been proven to be bks (work on brain casts, MRIs of the skull, studying the size and shape of the optic lobes within the brain etc).
Therefore research and the scientific method has helped the process along… in time this may change. Just in the same way that your smart phone is ‘better’ than the Nokia brick you used to have.
Ironically, the original descriptions of Dinosaurs (Richard Owen – he coined the term Dinosaur ‘Terrible Lizard – in the mid-1850s) were fairly accurate. Then the Victorians got their hands on Darwin’s work and said “Ah ha! If they are extinct then they must have been stupid…” hence the descriptions you probably grew up with.
Whilst I completely agree, the bit in bold is one of the things used by "Young Earthers" to help justify their position. ie. science cannot make up its mind.Depending on your age, think about the Dinosaurs you were taught about in school. Slow, stupid, lethargic beasts who had to live in swamps to support their own weight.
This has now changed. Certain palaeontologists (Bob Bakker, Jack Horner) postulated in the late 1970’s/early 80’s that perhaps this was incorrect. Perhaps Dinos were endothermic (hot blooded - mammals) rather than cold blooded (exothermic – reptiles, snakes etc). This would make them fast moving, active, dynamic intelligent creatures.
Now look how they are portrayed. Consider the original King Kong film: the T-Rex was portrayed in an upright posture… the version shown in Jurassic Park was likely to be far more accurate (head level with body, tail as a counterbalance to the weight to its massive head and front end musculature).
The amphibian vision thing (keep still and he can’t see you) has been proven to be b
ks (work on brain casts, MRIs of the skull, studying the size and shape of the optic lobes within the brain etc).Therefore research and the scientific method has helped the process along… in time this may change. Just in the same way that your smart phone is ‘better’ than the Nokia brick you used to have.
Ironically, the original descriptions of Dinosaurs (Richard Owen – he coined the term Dinosaur ‘Terrible Lizard – in the mid-1850s) were fairly accurate. Then the Victorians got their hands on Darwin’s work and said “Ah ha! If they are extinct then they must have been stupid…” hence the descriptions you probably grew up with.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff