Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Dinosaurs C14 Dated to 22,000 Years

UndeniableReality
Posts: 1,897
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2015 10:00:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/11/2015 7:15:51 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://newgeology.us...

Why would you do C14 dating on the fossils of an animal that old unless you didn't understand C14 dating or your intention was to deceive? C14 dating is only accurate to about 50,000-70,000 years, so you'll come back with an answer <70,000 years, or an answer with so much noise that you could get almost any number. Derp.
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 7:34:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/11/2015 7:15:51 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://newgeology.us...

So dinosaurs existed alongside man? That presents several problems that need explaining:

Why are dinosaur fossils fully mineralised?

Why are dinosaur fossils only found in rock from the Jurassic, Triassic period?

Why have no dinosaur bodies been found completely preserved in ice or peat bogs?

Why are no dinosaur remains found alongside human remains?

Why are no dinosaur bones found that have been converted into tools by primitive man?

Why did dinosaurs only live in the last ice age?

Why are dinosaur fossils that are found in the antarctic, adapted for tropical life if they were there during the ice age?

Why did a carbon dating agency carbon date the rock they were sent and not notice it was not organic matter?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 1:11:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/11/2015 7:15:51 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://newgeology.us...

http://newgeology.us...

Never heard of this scientific publication before.

And of course, any scientific publication with a mention of God, is always 100% trustworthy and never wrong.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 1:15:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 7:34:21 AM, chui wrote:
At 3/11/2015 7:15:51 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://newgeology.us...

So dinosaurs existed alongside man? That presents several problems that need explaining:

Why are dinosaur fossils fully mineralised?

Many are not. A T. rex bone with blood in it made headlines in 2006.

Why are dinosaur fossils only found in rock from the Jurassic, Triassic period?

They are not. Hadrosaurs have been found with humans in the Ashley Beds.

Why have no dinosaur bodies been found completely preserved in ice or peat bogs?

Why have no Passenger Pigeons been found in ice or peat bogs?

Why are no dinosaur remains found alongside human remains?

They were, in the Ashley Beds.

Why are no dinosaur bones found that have been converted into tools by primitive man?

I doubt anyone's on the look out for dino-bone tools.

Why did dinosaurs only live in the last ice age?

Why would you believe this, is a better question.

Why are dinosaur fossils that are found in the antarctic, adapted for tropical life if they were there during the ice age?

The landmass may not have been in the antarctic when the dinosaurs were alive.

Why did a carbon dating agency carbon date the rock they were sent and not notice it was not organic matter?

It was not rock, it was organic, dinosaurian bone and muscle.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
chui
Posts: 507
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 4:29:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 1:15:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/12/2015 7:34:21 AM, chui wrote:
At 3/11/2015 7:15:51 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://newgeology.us...

So dinosaurs existed alongside man? That presents several problems that need explaining:

Why are dinosaur fossils fully mineralised?

Many are not. A T. rex bone with blood in it made headlines in 2006.
You are referring to the remains analysed by Mary Schweitzer. It was permineralised like all dinosaur bones but had microscopic traces of soft tissue including red blood cells.

Why are dinosaur fossils only found in rock from the Jurassic, Triassic period?

They are not. Hadrosaurs have been found with humans in the Ashley Beds.
Never heard of this place nor has any of the search engines I tried.

Why have no dinosaur bodies been found completely preserved in ice or peat bogs?

Why have no Passenger Pigeons been found in ice or peat bogs?
Any animal and plant remains are found in bogs. If dinosaurs were on the planet only 20,000 years ago there should be complete bodies preserved in ice or bogs. Mammoths have been found in tarpits why not dinosaurs?

Why are no dinosaur remains found alongside human remains?

They were, in the Ashley Beds.
Fictional reference.

Why are no dinosaur bones found that have been converted into tools by primitive man?

I doubt anyone's on the look out for dino-bone tools.
I wonder why.

Why did dinosaurs only live in the last ice age?

Why would you believe this, is a better question.
You posted the evidence that dinosaurs only lived 30000 years ago, now explain why. How were they created and what killed them off so quick.

Why are dinosaur fossils that are found in the antarctic, adapted for tropical life if they were there during the ice age?

The landmass may not have been in the antarctic when the dinosaurs were alive.
Continents do not move in 30000 years.

Why did a carbon dating agency carbon date the rock they were sent and not notice it was not organic matter?

It was not rock, it was organic, dinosaurian bone and muscle.
Dinosaur bones are all permineralised. Mary Schweitzer's discovery is amazing but we are talking about tiny amounts of soft tissues traces. A trace means something that can be identified as once being soft tissue but is changed. The traces are microscopic as in can only be seen after 1000x magnification. She gets the soft tissue traces out of the fossils by dissolving the rock away with acid treatments. There is nothing that could be sent for carbon dating. Fossils are dug out of rock and are pretty much made of rock. Mary Schweitzer has not as far as I am aware claimed to have found in tact muscle tissue but she has found red blood cell remains with broken down haemoglobin and tiny blood vessels..
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 8:35:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 4:29:32 PM, chui wrote:
At 3/12/2015 1:15:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/12/2015 7:34:21 AM, chui wrote:
At 3/11/2015 7:15:51 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://newgeology.us...

So dinosaurs existed alongside man? That presents several problems that need explaining:

Why are dinosaur fossils fully mineralised?

Many are not. A T. rex bone with blood in it made headlines in 2006.
You are referring to the remains analysed by Mary Schweitzer. It was permineralised like all dinosaur bones but had microscopic traces of soft tissue including red blood cells.

Gross understatement. It had liquid blood within capillaries.

This hadrosaur has almost its entire skin intact: http://history.nd.gov...

Why are dinosaur fossils only found in rock from the Jurassic, Triassic period?

They are not. Hadrosaurs have been found with humans in the Ashley Beds.
Never heard of this place nor has any of the search engines I tried.

Skip to page 97, where human remains are described as mixed together with "extinct gigantic lizards." Further research will quickly confirm that this author was unambiguously referring to Hadrosaurs.

https://books.google.com...

Page 139 of this book describes Hadrosaur teeth found with Pleistocene fossils.


Why have no dinosaur bodies been found completely preserved in ice or peat bogs?

Why have no Passenger Pigeons been found in ice or peat bogs?
Any animal and plant remains are found in bogs. If dinosaurs were on the planet only 20,000 years ago there should be complete bodies preserved in ice or bogs. Mammoths have been found in tarpits why not dinosaurs?

Why not passenger pigeons?

Why are no dinosaur remains found alongside human remains?

They were, in the Ashley Beds.
Fictional reference.

No. See above.

Why are no dinosaur bones found that have been converted into tools by primitive man?

I doubt anyone's on the look out for dino-bone tools.
I wonder why.

Because they assume there's no point.

Why did dinosaurs only live in the last ice age?

Why would you believe this, is a better question.
You posted the evidence that dinosaurs only lived 30000 years ago, now explain why. How were they created and what killed them off so quick.

After you explain why the gravitational constant is 6.673"10^W22;11. Else, gravity does not exist and you haven't met your burden of proof...

Why are dinosaur fossils that are found in the antarctic, adapted for tropical life if they were there during the ice age?

The landmass may not have been in the antarctic when the dinosaurs were alive.
Continents do not move in 30000 years.

Then you've got a problem, because you've got dinosaurs living at the South Pole: http://www.gambassa.com...

Why did a carbon dating agency carbon date the rock they were sent and not notice it was not organic matter?

It was not rock, it was organic, dinosaurian bone and muscle.
Dinosaur bones are all permineralised.

Large parts of some of them aren't. I repeat, dinosaur blood in liquid form with red blood cells that have nuclei have been found, as well as dinosaur DNA, muscle, skin, etc.

Mary Schweitzer's discovery is amazing but we are talking about tiny amounts of soft tissues traces. A trace means something that can be identified as once being soft tissue but is changed.

The fact is collagen, not "changed collagen", was found. Also, segments of dino DNA, not "Changed DNA segments" were also found. Not sure why you're stuck on this point. There should not be any tissue left after 65 million years, much less liquid blood.

The traces are microscopic as in can only be seen after 1000x magnification.

No they are not. I can see my own red blood cells with my naked eye if I hold it up to the light on a glass slide. Where are you getting this misinformation from? Who said they could only be seen at 1000x magnification?

She gets the soft tissue traces out of the fossils by dissolving the rock away with acid treatments. There is nothing that could be sent for carbon dating.

Yes there is. Are you making stuff up? A mososaur was carbon dated to 24,600 years or so by a secular journal because it had plenty of soft tissue. They blamed the date on contamination because they couldn't accept the results: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Fossils are dug out of rock and are pretty much made of rock. Mary Schweitzer has not as far as I am aware claimed to have found in tact muscle tissue but she has found red blood cell remains with broken down haemoglobin and tiny blood vessels..

Mary is in a state of denial. She admits the stuff looks like liquid blood within capillaries with red blood cells with nuclei but refuses to admit that it is what it is. If she saw a quacking duck walking like a duck, she'd deny it was a duck.

And muscle tissue from plenty of dinosaurs has been found, so it doesn't matter whether Mary did or not.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2015 8:36:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
When I said page 196 or whatever I forgot to post the book name. It's "Dinosaurs of the East Coast" 1996.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 1:03:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 8:35:19 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/12/2015 4:29:32 PM, chui wrote:
At 3/12/2015 1:15:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/12/2015 7:34:21 AM, chui wrote:
At 3/11/2015 7:15:51 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://newgeology.us...

So dinosaurs existed alongside man? That presents several problems that need explaining:

Why are dinosaur fossils fully mineralised?

Many are not. A T. rex bone with blood in it made headlines in 2006.
You are referring to the remains analysed by Mary Schweitzer. It was permineralised like all dinosaur bones but had microscopic traces of soft tissue including red blood cells.

Gross understatement. It had liquid blood within capillaries.

Can i ask where this is from? I couldnt find a reference. The closest i found was how they soaked it in liquid.

This hadrosaur has almost its entire skin intact: http://history.nd.gov...

Why are dinosaur fossils only found in rock from the Jurassic, Triassic period?

They are not. Hadrosaurs have been found with humans in the Ashley Beds.
Never heard of this place nor has any of the search engines I tried.

Skip to page 97, where human remains are described as mixed together with "extinct gigantic lizards." Further research will quickly confirm that this author was unambiguously referring to Hadrosaurs.

https://books.google.com...

Page 139 of this book describes Hadrosaur teeth found with Pleistocene fossils.

Why are you using a book from the church of the latter day saints, from 1894, as your source? Thats not really credible or valid, anymore than bringing Chariot of the Gods as a source for proof of how Aliens used the pyramids to land on planet earth.


Why have no dinosaur bodies been found completely preserved in ice or peat bogs?

Why have no Passenger Pigeons been found in ice or peat bogs?
Any animal and plant remains are found in bogs. If dinosaurs were on the planet only 20,000 years ago there should be complete bodies preserved in ice or bogs. Mammoths have been found in tarpits why not dinosaurs?

Why not passenger pigeons?

I think its unfair to single out passenger pidgeons, when chui is asking for an example of dinosaurs, which cover an entire range of species.


Why are no dinosaur remains found alongside human remains?

They were, in the Ashley Beds.
Fictional reference.

No. See above.

Why are no dinosaur bones found that have been converted into tools by primitive man?

I doubt anyone's on the look out for dino-bone tools.
I wonder why.

Because they assume there's no point.

Id say youre right, because it doesnt exist in the first place.

Why did dinosaurs only live in the last ice age?

Why would you believe this, is a better question.
You posted the evidence that dinosaurs only lived 30000 years ago, now explain why. How were they created and what killed them off so quick.

After you explain why the gravitational constant is 6.673"10^W22;11. Else, gravity does not exist and you haven't met your burden of proof...

Why are dinosaur fossils that are found in the antarctic, adapted for tropical life if they were there during the ice age?

The landmass may not have been in the antarctic when the dinosaurs were alive.
Continents do not move in 30000 years.

Then you've got a problem, because you've got dinosaurs living at the South Pole: http://www.gambassa.com...

I dont get it. Dinosaurs existed from around 200 to around 70 million years ago. Thats from the triassic to cretacious period, and according to that link, the south pole was connected to many different continets during that period.


Why did a carbon dating agency carbon date the rock they were sent and not notice it was not organic matter?

It was not rock, it was organic, dinosaurian bone and muscle.
Dinosaur bones are all permineralised.

Large parts of some of them aren't. I repeat, dinosaur blood in liquid form with red blood cells that have nuclei have been found, as well as dinosaur DNA, muscle, skin, etc.

Mary Schweitzer's discovery is amazing but we are talking about tiny amounts of soft tissues traces. A trace means something that can be identified as once being soft tissue but is changed.

The fact is collagen, not "changed collagen", was found. Also, segments of dino DNA, not "Changed DNA segments" were also found. Not sure why you're stuck on this point. There should not be any tissue left after 65 million years, much less liquid blood.

The traces are microscopic as in can only be seen after 1000x magnification.

No they are not. I can see my own red blood cells with my naked eye if I hold it up to the light on a glass slide. Where are you getting this misinformation from? Who said they could only be seen at 1000x magnification?

A red blood cell is 6-8 nanometers in diameter. I doubt you can see it in a glass slide. If you have enough, then yes, you can see a group of them, much like how i can see a human being with the naked eye, while being unable to see a single skin cell with the naked eye.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu...

Here, this is a good tool for you to learn what you can and cannot see with the naked eye.

She gets the soft tissue traces out of the fossils by dissolving the rock away with acid treatments. There is nothing that could be sent for carbon dating.

Yes there is. Are you making stuff up? A mososaur was carbon dated to 24,600 years or so by a secular journal because it had plenty of soft tissue. They blamed the date on contamination because they couldn't accept the results: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The article you posted has nothing to do with a mososaur.

Also, radiocarbon dating has nothing to do with soft tissue. as you use bone to date, not the soft tissue.

Fossils are dug out of rock and are pretty much made of rock. Mary Schweitzer has not as far as I am aware claimed to have found in tact muscle tissue but she has found red blood cell remains with broken down haemoglobin and tiny blood vessels..

Mary is in a state of denial. She admits the stuff looks like liquid blood within capillaries with red blood cells with nuclei but refuses to admit that it is what it is. If she saw a quacking duck walking like a duck, she'd deny it was a duck.

And muscle tissue from plenty of dinosaurs has been found, so it doesn't matter whether Mary did or not.

Muscle tissue? Source?
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 1:11:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/12/2015 8:36:07 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
When I said page 196 or whatever I forgot to post the book name. It's "Dinosaurs of the East Coast" 1996.

Can I ask what you mean by "Further research"? What further research have you done? Can you outline this for us?
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 3:57:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 1:03:30 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/12/2015 8:35:19 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/12/2015 4:29:32 PM, chui wrote:
At 3/12/2015 1:15:54 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/12/2015 7:34:21 AM, chui wrote:
At 3/11/2015 7:15:51 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
http://newgeology.us...

So dinosaurs existed alongside man? That presents several problems that need explaining:

Why are dinosaur fossils fully mineralised?

Many are not. A T. rex bone with blood in it made headlines in 2006.
You are referring to the remains analysed by Mary Schweitzer. It was permineralised like all dinosaur bones but had microscopic traces of soft tissue including red blood cells.

Gross understatement. It had liquid blood within capillaries.

Can i ask where this is from? I couldnt find a reference. The closest i found was how they soaked it in liquid.

You're right, I misread the reports about soaking it in liquid.

This hadrosaur has almost its entire skin intact: http://history.nd.gov...

Why are dinosaur fossils only found in rock from the Jurassic, Triassic period?

They are not. Hadrosaurs have been found with humans in the Ashley Beds.
Never heard of this place nor has any of the search engines I tried.

Skip to page 97, where human remains are described as mixed together with "extinct gigantic lizards." Further research will quickly confirm that this author was unambiguously referring to Hadrosaurs.

https://books.google.com...

Page 139 of this book describes Hadrosaur teeth found with Pleistocene fossils.

Why are you using a book from the church of the latter day saints, from 1894, as your source? Thats not really credible or valid, anymore than bringing Chariot of the Gods as a source for proof of how Aliens used the pyramids to land on planet earth.

Page 66 of this book, then: https://play.google.com...


Why have no dinosaur bodies been found completely preserved in ice or peat bogs?

Why have no Passenger Pigeons been found in ice or peat bogs?
Any animal and plant remains are found in bogs. If dinosaurs were on the planet only 20,000 years ago there should be complete bodies preserved in ice or bogs. Mammoths have been found in tarpits why not dinosaurs?

Why not passenger pigeons?

I think its unfair to single out passenger pidgeons, when chui is asking for an example of dinosaurs, which cover an entire range of species.

Okay Platypus. Why no platypus in bogs? There's several species, both living and extinct.


Why are no dinosaur remains found alongside human remains?

They were, in the Ashley Beds.
Fictional reference.

No. See above.

Why are no dinosaur bones found that have been converted into tools by primitive man?

I doubt anyone's on the look out for dino-bone tools.
I wonder why.

Because they assume there's no point.

Id say youre right, because it doesnt exist in the first place.

Why did dinosaurs only live in the last ice age?

Why would you believe this, is a better question.
You posted the evidence that dinosaurs only lived 30000 years ago, now explain why. How were they created and what killed them off so quick.

After you explain why the gravitational constant is 6.673"10^W22;11. Else, gravity does not exist and you haven't met your burden of proof...

Why are dinosaur fossils that are found in the antarctic, adapted for tropical life if they were there during the ice age?

The landmass may not have been in the antarctic when the dinosaurs were alive.
Continents do not move in 30000 years.

Then you've got a problem, because you've got dinosaurs living at the South Pole: http://www.gambassa.com...

I dont get it. Dinosaurs existed from around 200 to around 70 million years ago. Thats from the triassic to cretacious period, and according to that link, the south pole was connected to many different continets during that period.

How far you think a dinosaur can travel in 0 degree weather?


Why did a carbon dating agency carbon date the rock they were sent and not notice it was not organic matter?

It was not rock, it was organic, dinosaurian bone and muscle.
Dinosaur bones are all permineralised.

Large parts of some of them aren't. I repeat, dinosaur blood in liquid form with red blood cells that have nuclei have been found, as well as dinosaur DNA, muscle, skin, etc.

Mary Schweitzer's discovery is amazing but we are talking about tiny amounts of soft tissues traces. A trace means something that can be identified as once being soft tissue but is changed.

The fact is collagen, not "changed collagen", was found. Also, segments of dino DNA, not "Changed DNA segments" were also found. Not sure why you're stuck on this point. There should not be any tissue left after 65 million years, much less liquid blood.

The traces are microscopic as in can only be seen after 1000x magnification.

No they are not. I can see my own red blood cells with my naked eye if I hold it up to the light on a glass slide. Where are you getting this misinformation from? Who said they could only be seen at 1000x magnification?

A red blood cell is 6-8 nanometers in diameter. I doubt you can see it in a glass slide. If you have enough, then yes, you can see a group of them, much like how i can see a human being with the naked eye, while being unable to see a single skin cell with the naked eye.

I have my microscope here in front of me but I don't feel like cutting myself at the moment so I'll let this point slide.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu...

Here, this is a good tool for you to learn what you can and cannot see with the naked eye.

She gets the soft tissue traces out of the fossils by dissolving the rock away with acid treatments. There is nothing that could be sent for carbon dating.

Yes there is. Are you making stuff up? A mososaur was carbon dated to 24,600 years or so by a secular journal because it had plenty of soft tissue. They blamed the date on contamination because they couldn't accept the results: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

The article you posted has nothing to do with a mososaur.

I mispelled. It's "mosasaur." Ctrl+F again.

Also, radiocarbon dating has nothing to do with soft tissue. as you use bone to date, not the soft tissue.

Fossils are dug out of rock and are pretty much made of rock. Mary Schweitzer has not as far as I am aware claimed to have found in tact muscle tissue but she has found red blood cell remains with broken down haemoglobin and tiny blood vessels..

Mary is in a state of denial. She admits the stuff looks like liquid blood within capillaries with red blood cells with nuclei but refuses to admit that it is what it is. If she saw a quacking duck walking like a duck, she'd deny it was a duck.

And muscle tissue from plenty of dinosaurs has been found, so it doesn't matter whether Mary did or not.

Muscle tissue? Source?

Collagen is muscle.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 3:58:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 1:11:00 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/12/2015 8:36:07 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
When I said page 196 or whatever I forgot to post the book name. It's "Dinosaurs of the East Coast" 1996.

Can I ask what you mean by "Further research"? What further research have you done? Can you outline this for us?

Prof. Holmes wrote a book where calls Hadrosaurs "extinct lizards". So when he talks about extinct gigantic lizards he's talking about hadrosaurs. It's the only dinosaur he ever talks about.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 4:19:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 3:57:04 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Page 66 of this book, then: https://play.google.com...

Lippincott's Monthly Magazine is a literary magazine, not a scientific journal or even something coming remotely close to it.

I think its unfair to single out passenger pidgeons, when chui is asking for an example of dinosaurs, which cover an entire range of species.

Okay Platypus. Why no platypus in bogs? There's several species, both living and extinct.

A platypus is still a species. I still dont think you understand just how broad and how many species fall under the purview of "Dinosaur".

I dont get it. Dinosaurs existed from around 200 to around 70 million years ago. Thats from the triassic to cretacious period, and according to that link, the south pole was connected to many different continets during that period.

How far you think a dinosaur can travel in 0 degree weather?

Antarctica used to have a tropical climate up until 30-40 million years ago.

A red blood cell is 6-8 nanometers in diameter. I doubt you can see it in a glass slide. If you have enough, then yes, you can see a group of them, much like how i can see a human being with the naked eye, while being unable to see a single skin cell with the naked eye.

I have my microscope here in front of me but I don't feel like cutting myself at the moment so I'll let this point slide.

Again, go to the website.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu...

Its a very good tool to show how small a blood cell is. No need to cut your finger and look at the blood on a slide with your naked eye, not that you could.

The article you posted has nothing to do with a mososaur.

I mispelled. It's "mosasaur." Ctrl+F again.

Okay. So, whats the objection here. We carbon date the bone, not the tissue.

Muscle tissue? Source?
Collagen is muscle.

Collagen is a protein. It can be found in muscles, as well as bones. This is why there are different types of collagen. For example, its also found in hair. Just because its collagen, doesnt mean its muscle.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2015 4:19:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/13/2015 3:58:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 3/13/2015 1:11:00 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 3/12/2015 8:36:07 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
When I said page 196 or whatever I forgot to post the book name. It's "Dinosaurs of the East Coast" 1996.

Can I ask what you mean by "Further research"? What further research have you done? Can you outline this for us?

Prof. Holmes wrote a book where calls Hadrosaurs "extinct lizards". So when he talks about extinct gigantic lizards he's talking about hadrosaurs. It's the only dinosaur he ever talks about.

You are aware that there are many lizard species that went extinct, right.