[_ Old Earth _] Dinosaur Mummy Another Flood Artifact?

[John]

Dinosaur Mummy Another Flood Artifact?
Creation Science Evangelism, December 07, 2007

http://www.drdino.com/readNews.php?id=41

^ watch video.

As a young boy, Tyler Lyson grew up with a playground that scientists could only dream of � his backyard contained a treasure of dinosaur bones. And in 1999 at the age of just seventeen, he stumbled upon an extremely rare find while out searching for bones on his family�s North Dakota farm. What he accidentally discovered is a piece of history, a mummified dinosaur, which he fittingly named Dakota.

Lyson actually unearthed a hadrosaur - and one of only six mummified dinosaurs ever found. But the finding is even more remarkable because it is the remains of an entire dinosaur � skin and bones, petrified into stone. Evolutionary philosophy dates Dakota to nearly sixty-seven million years.

But are sixty-seven million years really necessary? Paleontologists studying Dakota say this rare preservation of skin and mummification means that the creature had to be buried very rapidly, in flash flood conditions, to petrify in this way. The common-sense, biblical worldview would agree. Not millions of years, though; but yet another result of the Flood in the days of Noah just 4,400 years ago.

 

[Barbarian]

So your argument is that flash floods don't occur? Think.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Nice try barbarian. This article, whether it is pushing evolution or not, also gives room for the Biblical account of a world wide flood. This flood, would have certainly been enough to mummify a dinosaur in light of this evidence.

 

[Barbarian]

Nice try barbarian.

That one was pretty easy, um. The complete lack of corresponding evidence in the same strata destroys the notion that this flash flood was part of a world-wide flood.

This article, whether it is pushing evolution or not, also gives room for the Biblical account of a world wide flood.

There is no Biblical account of a world-wide flood. It depends on a mistranslation of the word "eretz", which means "land." It is most commonly used in the Bible for the land of Israel, although it can mean "hereabouts", "the region", or "all the land we know about."

This flood, would have certainly been enough to mummify a dinosaur in light of this evidence.

As would a local flash flood. You're hearing hoofbeats and assuming a unicorn.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/bible-sc ... orton.html

This is a nicely cited and well written paper encompassing every aspect of Noah's flood, from translation of "eretz", to problems with the global flood.

 

[Blazin Bones]

Corresponding evidence may be found at some point. However, the evidence can also be explained as the dakotas are at a different elevation as say missouri. Layers would form differently depending on the region.

The Argument over a word is a topic for Bible study or apologetics and I will leave it at that.

As for the flood analogy, A localized flood does not have the same effect as a Global flood. The Global flood provides for the sustained water levels to cause mumification much better than a local flood up in the Dakota's. The Dakotas do not have any major rivers and only North Dakota has a substancial lake. A global flood is more likely to cause such an event.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Corresponding evidence may be found at some point. However, the evidence can also be explained as the dakotas are at a different elevation as say missouri. Layers would form differently depending on the region.

The Argument over a word is a topic for Bible study or apologetics and I will leave it at that.

As for the flood analogy, A localized flood does not have the same effect as a Global flood. The Global flood provides for the sustained water levels to cause mumification much better than a local flood up in the Dakota's. The Dakotas do not have any major rivers and only North Dakota has a substancial lake. A global flood is more likely to cause such an event.

Am I wrong in recalling that the area is pretty much believed to have been at sea level during that time due to drift?

 

[John]

Corresponding evidence may be found at some point. However, the evidence can also be explained as the dakotas are at a different elevation as say missouri. Layers would form differently depending on the region.

The Argument over a word is a topic for Bible study or apologetics and I will leave it at that.

As for the flood analogy, A localized flood does not have the same effect as a Global flood. The Global flood provides for the sustained water levels to cause mumification much better than a local flood up in the Dakota's. The Dakotas do not have any major rivers and only North Dakota has a substancial lake. A global flood is more likely to cause such an event.

Am I wrong in recalling that the area is pretty much believed to have been at sea level during that time due to drift?

Slow drift or race?

Sea level or not, most animals vacate the area when a food or tsunami happens but the great flood of Noah covered the entire planet so there was nowhere to run.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Corresponding evidence may be found at some point. However, the evidence can also be explained as the dakotas are at a different elevation as say missouri. Layers would form differently depending on the region.

The Argument over a word is a topic for Bible study or apologetics and I will leave it at that.

As for the flood analogy, A localized flood does not have the same effect as a Global flood. The Global flood provides for the sustained water levels to cause mumification much better than a local flood up in the Dakota's. The Dakotas do not have any major rivers and only North Dakota has a substancial lake. A global flood is more likely to cause such an event.

Am I wrong in recalling that the area is pretty much believed to have been at sea level during that time due to drift?

Slow drift or race?

Sea level or not, most animals vacate the area when a food or tsunami happens but the great flood of Noah covered the entire planet so there was nowhere to run.

So no animals or people died in the flood of Katrina?

The drift is slow and well documented.

 

[John]

So no animals or people died in the flood of Katrina?

The drift is slow and well documented.

How many large animals were buried in sediment from Katrina?

If Dr. Walt Browns theory be true then yes the drift would be slow now.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

So no animals or people died in the flood of Katrina?

The drift is slow and well documented.

How many large animals were buried in sediment from Katrina?

If Dr. Walt Browns theory be true then yes the drift would be slow now.

So which is it?

1. No animals get caught in flash floods.
2. Sediment will not ever cover an animal in a flash flood.

Is Walt Browns an MD.? Curious he uses the Dr. title if not.

Do you have any links to his theory being published in a peer reviewed journal or just http://www.answersingensis.com, http://www.drdino.com, and obscure books.

 

[John]

1. No animals get caught in flash floods.

It can happen and does.

2. Sediment will not ever cover an animal in a flash flood.

It would have to be one heck of a flash flood to bury a dino. (also see my other thread, whare many, many animals got caught up in a flood)

Is Walt Browns an MD.? Curious he uses the Dr. title if not.

"Walter T. Brown is an American engineer and young earth creationist (YEC), who is the director of his own ministry called the Center for Scientific Creation. Brown has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He also served in the US military, from which he retired in 1980."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brown_(creationist)

Do you have any links to his theory being published in a peer reviewed journal or just http://www.answersingensis.com, http://www.drdino.com, and obscure books.

Follow along in the other thread about peer reviews for the answers as to why YEC's can't be peer reviewed.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

1. No animals get caught in flash floods.

It can happen and does.
[quote:fdbcb]
2. Sediment will not ever cover an animal in a flash flood.

It would have to be one heck of a flash flood to bury a dino. (also see my other thread, whare many, many animals got caught up in a flood)

Is Walt Browns an MD.? Curious he uses the Dr. title if not.

"Walter T. Brown is an American engineer and young earth creationist (YEC), who is the director of his own ministry called the Center for Scientific Creation. Brown has a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He also served in the US military, from which he retired in 1980."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Brown_(creationist)

Do you have any links to his theory being published in a peer reviewed journal or just http://www.answersingensis.com, http://www.drdino.com, and obscure books.

Follow along in the other thread about peer reviews for the answers as to why YEC's can't be peer reviewed.[/quote:fdbcb]

I was bored so I looked it up.

He is a mechanical engineer. What in the world is he doing creating theories dealing with this?

The rebuttals (from geophysists, a little more authoritative on the subject) to his junk science is easy to find. A few flaws:

1. The world would have had to ben perfectly spherical. Any moutains would have cracked the surface and releasing the hihgly pressurized water.

2. The water would have been under so much intense pressure (thereby being super heated), it would have turned the ark into a dutch oven upon release.

3. The water would have been under so much pressure that upon release, it would have shot completely out of the earth and be on its way out of the solar system. Not raining back down.

4. The super drift would have been on an epic nascar level since by the time Noah landed, it would had to have stopped (otherwise serious eath quakes).

Didn't have time to cite these but if you want me to, I can later tonite.

If someone is talking about geophysics and they are a mechanical engineer, alarm bells should go off to give it serious scrutiny. Wouldn't you give a biologist's paper on child psychology a bit more scrutiny as well?

 

[VaultZero4Me]

It would have to be one heck of a flash flood to bury a dino. (also see my other thread, whare many, many animals got caught up in a flood)

leave your water hose on for a while in your back yard. It will create pools of water at certain places. Easy to see how large animals get caught in flash floods.

Now, given a global flood, wouldn't you expect finds such as these to be the norm rather than unique? It seems that a global flood would mimic this condition all over the world and this would be a typical find rather than rare. Again I could be wrong.

Explain why if dinos and humans lived together, we have yet to find their fossils mixed. Obviously they would have avoided the dinos, but the flood would have mixed all the bodies together as the water rushed everywhere, and buried them at the same level of sediment. Why are they in different levels?

 

[John]

I was bored so I looked it up.

He is a mechanical engineer. What in the world is he doing creating theories dealing with this?

Anybody can think.

The rebuttals (from geophysists, a little more authoritative on the subject) to his junk science is easy to find. A few flaws:

Lets examine them.

1. The world would have had to ben perfectly spherical. Any moutains would have cracked the surface and releasing the hihgly pressurized water.

Wrong, Walt clearly states that there was places ware the crust went all the way through subterranean chambers like pillars. So that would 100% debunk this rebuttal.

2. The water would have been under so much intense pressure (thereby being super heated), it would have turned the ark into a dutch oven upon release.

Dutch oven, lol
Who knows exactly how far down it was, but in any case it certainly had pressure, then again so do oil wells, upwards of 20,000 PSI. And even if it was super heated the steam would dissipate rather quickly then fall down as precipitation, does 40 days and 40 nights sound familiar?.

3. The water would have been under so much pressure that upon release, it would have shot completely out of the earth and be on its way out of the solar system. Not raining back down.

Again, no one knows just how far down the water was. It could have been only 1 mile down with the supportive pillars and such it would not matter.

4. The super drift would have been on an epic nascar level since by the time Noah landed, it would had to have stopped (otherwise serious eath quakes).

Indeed, super earth quakes. So what, Noah would have been shaken up a bit

Didn't have time to cite these but if you want me to, I can later tonite.

Meh, does not bother me any.

If someone is talking about geophysics and they are a mechanical engineer, alarm bells should go off to give it serious scrutiny. Wouldn't you give a biologist's paper on child psychology a bit more scrutiny as well?

So its not in his proper field, but the evidence is so vast anyone regardless of what field you study can see.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Wrong, Walt clearly states that there was places ware the crust went all the way through subterranean chambers like pillars. So that would 100% debunk this rebuttal.

Yeah, but unless you dont have enough water to flood (pillars take up space) or the pillars only were there to keep the crust from spinning around. Kept a connection with core.

Look up the math, algebra shows that if someone rolled out of bed wrong it would crack the whole core, much less any mountains bending the crust like a ball bearing on an extended sheet.

Anybody can think

Certainly anyone can think, but unless you get training in a field you are prone to errors. Thus scientist typically stick with their proper field. His work was full of errors.

Dutch oven, lol
Who knows exactly how far down it was, but in any case it certainly had pressure, then again so do oil wells, upwards of 20,000 PSI. And even if it was super heated the steam would dissipate rather quickly then fall down as precipitation, does 40 days and 40 nights sound familiar?.

Remember, there has to be enough water to cover the mountains. Thats a lot of water. Yes, it will turn to steam once it has be removed from the pressure. The steam would end up serving Poached Noah a la King.

Again, no one knows just how far down the water was. It could have been only 1 mile down with the supportive pillars and such it would not matter.

It does matter. Its all junk science. Have you ever really looked it up any where besides Browns work? Spend some time on it.

Its as ridiculous as Hovind's Comet.

So its not in his proper field, but the evidence is so vast anyone regardless of what field you study can see.

Yes, from what I have seen it was ridiculed for its sheer incredulity by geophysicists. He should stick to his appropriate field.

 

[John]

Yeah, but unless you dont have enough water to flood (pillars take up space) or the pillars only were there to keep the crust from spinning around. Kept a connection with core.

But how much space we shall never know.

Look up the math, algebra shows that if someone rolled out of bed wrong it would crack the whole core, much less any mountains bending the crust like a ball bearing on an extended sheet.

I've seen it.

Obviously the mountains were smaller, look at Everest, its covered with fossil bearing sedimentary rock at its peak. Obviously at one time Everest was covered with water.

Certainly anyone can think, but unless you get training in a field you are prone to errors. Thus scientist typically stick with their proper field. His work was full of errors.

Everyone is prone to errors, especially when their work is based on assumptions.

Remember, there has to be enough water to cover the mountains. Thats a lot of water. Yes, it will turn to steam once it has be removed from the pressure. The steam would end up serving Poached Noah a la King.

How long do you think that steam will remain super hot? The steam will rise then hit the cold atmosphere then come down as rain, it will not turn the earth into a giant pressure cooker. Unless you think gravity will contain the steam?

It does matter. Its all junk science. Have you ever really looked it up any where besides Browns work? Spend some time on it.

Its as ridiculous as Hovind's Comet.

What do you mean? Pangaea theory?

Hovinds comet could have happened but its really hard to tell. Its just another theory, some theories carry more evidential weight.

Yes, from what I have seen it was ridiculed for its sheer incredulity by geophysicists. He should stick to his appropriate field.

I still fail to see why it could not have happened. remember we are talking about a world that God created He knew the Earths story, he could have easily twisted the knobs at the time of creation and set it up right in anticipation for the flood and after he did that he let the earth take its natural course. Now of course this comes down to faith in Gods word, but isn't that what this whole thing is about? lol

 

[VaultZero4Me]

But how much space we shall never know.

Very good estimations can be made.

Obviously the mountains were smaller, look at Everest, its covered with fossil bearing sedimentary rock at its peak. Obviously at one time Everest was covered with water.

Mountains aren’t static. They get pushed upwards from geological disturbances. Aquatic fossils on a mountain does not mean global flood. Period.

The mountains would have cracked the crust. So there must have been no mountains or mole hills.

Hovind's comet could have happened but its really hard to tell. Its just another theory, some theories carry more evidential weight.

not one shred of evidence for it, and theoretically silly. I do not fill like getting into the comet.

Ill stop here because we’ve been back and forth. And its getting long winded again.

Here is some of the source material from a Christian site.

http://www.answersincreation.org/walter ... theory.htm

I still fail to see why it could not have happened. remember we are talking about a world that God created He knew the Earths story, he could have easily twisted the knobs at the time of creation and set it up right in anticipation for the flood and after he did that he let the earth take its natural course. Now of course this comes down to faith in Gods word, but isn't that what this whole thing is about? lol

That is a position I can understand. If someone says that it happened this way because it is a miracle, I can honestly respect that, because they are going by faith. I just get baffled and ruffled when so called scientist, such as Hovind, mislead people with bad science. Especially since everytime I try to look into one of these theories harder on the websites I am lead to a cart to buy the book (which I have a few times and was disapointed). Feels fishy to me.

In fact, people like Behe who should be posting in peer reviewed journals, but instead print $19.99 books, have been caught secretly leaking some of the content of the book in order to see some of the responses on the blogs. He will then rebut the responses within the book and publish it, to make it look pre-emptive.

You print books once you have solid science from withstanding peer scrutiny. That’s just something YEC and ID scientist are not doing. That’s why they produce junk science.

Faith is ok.

Junk science (and by junk science i mean not following scientific procedures) is bad, especially when they are profiting off of it.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Here is the section regarding the enormous amount of energy released once that water surfaces (from answersincreation.com)

3. Everybody will cook.

Suppose you placed the water under 10 km of crust, the pressure of the water would be 10 x 105 * 980 * 2.65 = 2.58 x 109 dynes= 2562 atmospheres of pressure.

The temperature gradient is 1 deg C for every 30 m so there is a 166 deg. C increase in temperature as we go deeper. 330 + 30 deg C (the surface temperature) =360 deg. C. (see below for justification of the temperature. For a layer of cave water 2 km thick all around the earth would contain 1 x 1024 cubic centimeters of water. At 360 deg C, the high temperature water would contain 3.3 x 1026 calories. (1 calorie per degree rise (330 degree rise)). The minute the pressure is released the water will turn to steam and you will cook the earth. Dividing the calories by the surface area of the earth shows that heat /cm2 = 3.3 x 1026 Calories/5.09 x 1018 square centimeters = 6.4 x 107 Cal/cm2.

This energy represents 1 year's worth of sunshine on a square centimeter at the equator. (The sun gives each square centimeter 2 calories per square centimeter per second) I don't think Noah could survive this. This enough energy to raise water to 64 million degrees C (assuming a specific heat of 1 cal/degree. Even if you use the 121 deg C value that Brown wants to use, this represents over 4 month's of solar radiation per square centimeter. No one could survive this event. It is a poor mechanism for a flood.

http://www.answersincreation.org/walter ... theory.htm

 

[John]

Mountains aren’t static. They get pushed upwards from geological disturbances. Aquatic fossils on a mountain does not mean global flood. Period.

My point exactly, Everest was lower when the flood happened and got pushed up.

.
not one shred of evidence for it, and theoretically silly. I do not fill like getting into the comet.

Your choice.

Ill stop here because we’ve been back and forth. And its getting long winded again.

Indeed.

That is a position I can understand. If someone says that it happened this way because it is a miracle, I can honestly respect that, because they are going by faith. I just get baffled and ruffled when so called scientist, such as Hovind, mislead people with bad science. Especially since everytime I try to look into one of these theories harder on the websites I am lead to a cart to buy the book (which I have a few times and was disapointed). Feels fishy to me.

Creationists have to live too. :wink:

And its not all like that, Hovinds stuff is free, Malones stuff is free.

In fact, people like Behe who should be posting in peer reviewed journals, but instead print $19.99 books, have been caught secretly leaking some of the content of the book in order to see some of the responses on the blogs. He will then rebut the responses within the book and publish it, to make it look pre-emptive.

You print books once you have solid science from withstanding peer scrutiny. That’s just something YEC and ID scientist are not doing. That’s why they produce junk science.

Again dig into the peer review thread, you'll see why no creationist can be peer reviewed.

Faith is ok.

Good we share some common ground.

Junk science (and by junk science i mean not following scientific procedures) is bad, especially when they are profiting off of it.

[/quote]

And again in circles we go. your problem lies in the "scientific procedures" A.K.A known as pre set walls built with gun posts so to shoot creationists that try to provide evidence that's shunned and discredited by evolutionists. IMO.