FREE TAPATALK APP

Cainkane1 · 20th February 2008, 05:34 AM

Creationists say that the discovery of dinosaur bones in Alaska that are not obviously fossilized are proof that humans and dinosaurs lived at the sane time. Organs and other tissue from these creatures have apparently been discovered.

What are the scientists saying about this? I see very little rebuttle on the net.

Cuddles · 20th February 2008, 05:45 AM

Do you have a link to where anyone is saying this?

H'ethetheth · 20th February 2008, 05:54 AM

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

Creationists say that the discovery of dinosaur bones in Alaska that are not obviously fossilized are proof that humans and dinosaurs lived at the sane time. Organs and other tissue from these creatures have apparently been discovered.

What are the scientists saying about this? I see very little rebuttle on the net.

I haven't looked into it, but I imagine I'll find they're fossilized organs and other tissues.

Edit: Okay, I should really learn to read. Sorry about that. Looking into it...

Cainkane1 · 20th February 2008, 06:00 AM

Originally Posted by Cuddles

Do you have a link to where anyone is saying this?

http://www.ggoutdoors.org/product_de...5ff26582104053

For the record I'm a evolutionist and an old earth advocate. I'm a lifelong atheist. I just want to know if the scientific community has addressed this nonsense.

H3LL · 20th February 2008, 06:14 AM

Quick search and it would seem:

More lies!...Oh! What a surprise!

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Unfo...dinosaur_bones

This I found the most revealing:

Quote:

The claims of these creationists is further suspect because, in their book, which was published in 1998, they claimed that the "unfossilized" dinosaur bones would undergo extensive tests to validate their "unfossilizedness." As to date, 2007, no results have yet to be published.

The comments could be wrong and Wiki may not be the most reliable source, but as with every single claim made by creationists, evidence is VERY thin on the ground and they are not unknown to lie a bit.

If I were in their shoes, and the claims had any basis in reality, I would be on prime TV ASAP, with some famous paleontologists, handing them some bones for testing. It is a massive story that would go global overnight.

Anyway, why shouldn't we believe the paleontologistic expertise of a sculptor (how suspicious can you get), a maths teacher, a shop owner, a dentist and someone with an MS from ICR.

At least they wouldn't confuse drift-wood with fossils...No!...Wait....!!!

.

Cuddles · 20th February 2008, 06:16 AM

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Unfo...dinosaur_bones

I suspect that the main reason the scientific community hasn't addressed this is because even most creationists don't seem to take it seriously. A few unqualified people who can't tell the difference between a bone and a piece of wood claim to have found unfossilised dinosaur bones but fail to do anything about it for over 10 years. Creationists aren't generally stupid, they want things that sound good to the layperson, not obvious crap like this.

As for the organs and tissue, that doesn't seem to be a claim made here. I suspect you have the bone nonsense mixed up with the real discovery of fossilised soft tissue. It's very rare, but certainly real and is extremely interesting since previously all study of dinosaur tissue was based on assumptions and extrapolations from modern animals.

It's also worth noting that it is quite common for people to mix up dinosaurs with other prehistoric things like mammoths. It is entirely possible to find remains from the last ice age that are entirely unfossilised. Unfortunately, DNA tends to degrade even when frozen, so attempts to clone a mammoth have, so far, been unsucessful, but there is nothing strange about finding bones or soft tissue that is tens of thousands of years old, but not tens of millions. The Evowiki link mentions that it is quite possible the creationists here have mixed up ice age remains with dinosaur remains.

Edit: Note to self - must type faster.

shadron · 20th February 2008, 06:17 AM

Ummmmm.... Just imagine:

Quote:

Five Souls, huddle against the aching cold of Alaska's wilderness. On a hunt for the truth amid the shrieks of wild animals, the clouds overhead race swiftly. Locked in a remote, frozen wasteland where man has rarely been, lie the remains of creatures so mysterious, science can scarcely believe the truth. A team of scientists and researchers endured incredible hardships to reach a site many would rather avoid the Alaskan wilderness and in the process, uncovered unfossilized dinosaur bones! The implications are enormous, for how can dinosaurs be 65 million years old if their bones are still unfossilized? Join the team and thrill at the photographs and stories of danger, as The Great Alaskan Dinosaur Adventure drops a bombshell on the scientific community!

Apparently the "team of scientists and researchers" has decoded that the best way to publicized such enormously implicated finds are to publish a short book through a Christian publisher.

I actually found it on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Great-Alaskan-.../dp/0890512329). The reviews are really something, go read them and see the wonder. Why, they even mention "a dinosaur bone" in there with the hazards of trekking in Alaska in July and the prayers.

"Dang, Jim, put that old thing down - it smells like it died last week." (My Parody, obviously.)

H'ethetheth · 20th February 2008, 06:18 AM

Here's a snippet of rebuttal. Also here, and here. The summary is here:.

Edit:

Note to self: Must type even faster.

Goshawk · 20th February 2008, 07:12 AM

Wait, you gotta put it like this...

Quote:

Five Souls, huddle against the aching cold of Alaska's wilderness. On a hunt for the truth amid the shrieks of wild animals, the clouds overhead race swiftly by. Locked in a remote, frozen wasteland where man has rarely been, lie the remains of creatures so mysterious, science can scarcely believe the truth...

It's the voiceover for a movie trailer, guys.

I think I saw it, actually. Jennifer Beals? One of the Baldwins?

H3LL · 20th February 2008, 07:17 AM

Originally Posted by Goshawk

Wait, you gotta put it like this...

Purple prose at its best.

.

Goshawk · 20th February 2008, 07:26 AM

Solely on the basis of this wonderful sentence from the blurb--"On a hunt for the truth amid the shrieks of wild animals, the clouds overhead race swiftly by", which has clouds on a hunt for the truth--I have ordered a (used) copy online. Sounds like an excellent Boys Own Paper winter evening's read.

Also I'm deeply curious to find out what kind of "incredible hardships" they endured to reach the "Alaskan wilderness". I'm guessing it's going to be more along the lines of, "We had to hike in!" and "We ran out of toilet paper!" rather than, "We lost fingers and toes to frostbite, and were attacked by grizzly bears and wolves, and ran out of food and had to eat our boots." Jack London's To Build A Fire--now that's hardship.

flume · 20th February 2008, 07:30 AM

I thought it would be this one:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...8discovery.asp
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/sc...gewanted=print

But they already know that fossilization can happen in a few short years; here's proof:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-fos...trifaction.htm

bluecollarscientist · 20th February 2008, 08:30 AM

I live in Alaska, and I've met many of the people, and most of the PIs, who have dug dinosaurs out of the ground over the last ten years here. Most if not all of the dinosaur digs are on the north slope (there are some Mesozoic marine fossil sites elsewhere in the state, but I don't know of dinosaur sites except on the slope), and most of those are on the Colville River. I've been on that river, a few miles from the site, but I've not been on the site itself.

Several thoughts:

Originally Posted by Goshawk

Also I'm deeply curious to find out what kind of "incredible hardships" they endured to reach the "Alaskan wilderness".

What the real paleontologists say is that the real hardship is funding! They use small planes and helicopters to get to this site, and it's very expensive.

The kind of hardships you'd face: It's going to be very windy - usually upwards of 25mph, and pretty continuous. It's going to be cold by most peoples' standards, staying in the 30's F in June. Its wet. You aren't going to have toilets, not even porta-johns. You aren't going to have hospitals you can get to within 12 hours. Bears are genuinely interested in eating people in this area, and they don't warn you they are coming by shrieking. Wolves are generally harmless. When the wind does let up, there are nineteen billion mosquitos per cubic foot of air in the mid summer.

It really is a pretty unpleasant environment by most peoples' standards, and it is an objectively more dangerous environment than most dig sites.

The Colville site is mostly known for hadrosaurs. My understanding is that some of the discoveries there have significantly aided understanding of the fossilization process, but my memory is a bit hazy on that. There have been a few spectacularly preserved finds, mostly partials, but I've never heard anyone with credibility refer to unfossilized bones coming out of these beds.

There's a timeline for the Colville digs on the web (do a search - forum won't let me post links), which peters out in 2002 for some reason. More recent information can be found at the "Colville Virtual Base Camp" (again - can't link) website, where they have podcasts and everything. As you can see, the research these days is ecosystem oriented, and they are working hard on outreach and education. Perhaps that's response enough to the unfossilized dinosaur claims.

Wowbagger · 20th February 2008, 08:38 AM

What do they mean by "not fossilized"? Did they find dinosaurs that are still alive?

fishbob · 20th February 2008, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

What do they mean by "not fossilized"? Did they find dinosaurs that are still alive?

I read about these guys a couple of years ago. I recall that they made a float trip down the Colville River.

What they meant by "not fossilized" is "stuff we made up".

fuelair · 20th February 2008, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by Cainkane1

http://www.ggoutdoors.org/product_de...5ff26582104053

For the record I'm a evolutionist and an old earth advocate. I'm a lifelong atheist. I just want to know if the scientific community has addressed this nonsense.

As soon as I spotted and checked that site, I smelled fecal matter. I went through two pages of Dogpile searches on the topic and used up a case of TP on my computer monitor. I will see going through if anyone else has had better luck, But what I have seen is more feces than a cattleyard. A really big one. Next to the world's largest hog farm, down the street from a chicken ranch and just up the road from an unsanitary land fill. I mean a load of fecal matter here folks!!!

Dr Adequate · 20th February 2008, 11:34 AM

I think what they mean by "unfossilised" is that they're not mineralized.

Some fossils are indeed preserved without mineralization. (To a paleontologist, a fossil is just something you dig up, taking it to mean "mineralized fossil" is a common error.)

To this the creationists add the proposition, which they made up, that a bone can't survive millions of years without mineralization.

Yes it can. There are two conditions necessary for this: (a) that conditions are wrong for mineralization (b) that conditions are also wrong for decay. Under these circumstances, what you get is a non-mineralized bone which has not decayed.

Cuddles · 21st February 2008, 04:58 AM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

I think what they mean by "unfossilised" is that they're not mineralized.

Some fossils are indeed preserved without mineralization. (To a paleontologist, a fossil is just something you dig up, taking it to mean "mineralized fossil" is a common error.)

To this the creationists add the proposition, which they made up, that a bone can't survive millions of years without mineralization.

Yes it can. There are two conditions necessary for this: (a) that conditions are wrong for mineralization (b) that conditions are also wrong for decay. Under these circumstances, what you get is a non-mineralized bone which has not decayed.

It's theoretically possible, but has it ever actually been observed? I'm by no means an expert, but I've never heard of non-mineralised dinosaur bones.

Loss Leader · 21st February 2008, 05:02 AM

I, for one, believe the claim that unfossilized bones and organs were discovered.

I believe any claim that makes Jurassic Park more likely.

Let's close some velociraptors already!

Deetee · 21st February 2008, 05:11 AM

Real tough.......

Quote:

"This adventure is so tough you can taste it, as every meal, every drink of water was filled with mosquitoes"

MG1962 · 21st February 2008, 05:24 AM

Originally Posted by Dr Adequate

I think what they mean by "unfossilised" is that they're not mineralized.

Some fossils are indeed preserved without mineralization. (To a paleontologist, a fossil is just something you dig up, taking it to mean "mineralized fossil" is a common error.)

To this the creationists add the proposition, which they made up, that a bone can't survive millions of years without mineralization.

Yes it can. There are two conditions necessary for this: (a) that conditions are wrong for mineralization (b) that conditions are also wrong for decay. Under these circumstances, what you get is a non-mineralized bone which has not decayed.

Has there been examples however that date back as far as the Cretaceous period. I am guessing statisically it could happen, but have their been any legitimate recorded finidngs?

bluecollarscientist · 21st February 2008, 10:48 AM

The people claiming unmineralized dinosaur bones point to (when they point to anything at all) this paper:

G. Muyzer, P. Sandberg, M.H.J. Knapen, C. Vermeer, M. Collins, and P. Westbroek, "Preservation of the Bone Protein Osteocalcin in Dinosaurs," Geology 1992, vol. 20, pp. 871-874.

Talk.origins does the takedown, showing that these bones were definitely mineralized.

So what is osteocalcin exactly? Is it "mineralized" to begin with, as I would expect of something that has a bunch of calcium in it? (My live-in biologist/medicine consultant is currently at work.)

20th February 2008, 05:34 AM	#1
Cainkane1 Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 7,237	Unfossilised dinosaur bones. Proof that the Creationists are right. Creationists say that the discovery of dinosaur bones in Alaska that are not obviously fossilized are proof that humans and dinosaurs lived at the sane time. Organs and other tissue from these creatures have apparently been discovered. What are the scientists saying about this? I see very little rebuttle on the net.
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

20th February 2008, 05:45 AM	#2
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,672	Do you have a link to where anyone is saying this?
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

20th February 2008, 05:54 AM	#3
H'ethetheth fishy rocket scientist Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: among the machines Posts: 2,342	Originally Posted by Cainkane1 Creationists say that the discovery of dinosaur bones in Alaska that are not obviously fossilized are proof that humans and dinosaurs lived at the sane time. Organs and other tissue from these creatures have apparently been discovered. What are the scientists saying about this? I see very little rebuttle on the net. I haven't looked into it, but I imagine I'll find they're fossilized organs and other tissues. Edit: Okay, I should really learn to read. Sorry about that. Looking into it...
	Last edited by H'ethetheth; 20th February 2008 at 05:55 AM.

20th February 2008, 06:00 AM	#4
Cainkane1 Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: The great American southeast Posts: 7,237	Originally Posted by Cuddles Do you have a link to where anyone is saying this? http://www.ggoutdoors.org/product_de...5ff26582104053 For the record I'm a evolutionist and an old earth advocate. I'm a lifelong atheist. I just want to know if the scientific community has addressed this nonsense.
	__________________ If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.

20th February 2008, 06:14 AM	#5
H3LL Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: (ləʊˈkeɪʃən) - n. 1. a site or position; situation. Posts: 4,976	Quick search and it would seem: More lies!...Oh! What a surprise! http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Unfo...dinosaur_bones This I found the most revealing: Quote: The claims of these creationists is further suspect because, in their book, which was published in 1998, they claimed that the "unfossilized" dinosaur bones would undergo extensive tests to validate their "unfossilizedness." As to date, 2007, no results have yet to be published. The comments could be wrong and Wiki may not be the most reliable source, but as with every single claim made by creationists, evidence is VERY thin on the ground and they are not unknown to lie a bit. If I were in their shoes, and the claims had any basis in reality, I would be on prime TV ASAP, with some famous paleontologists, handing them some bones for testing. It is a massive story that would go global overnight. Anyway, why shouldn't we believe the paleontologistic expertise of a sculptor (how suspicious can you get), a maths teacher, a shop owner, a dentist and someone with an MS from ICR. At least they wouldn't confuse drift-wood with fossils...No!...Wait....!!! .
	__________________ "I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it". - PTerry Top 10 Reasons Why I Procrastinate: 1. Last edited by H3LL; 20th February 2008 at 06:30 AM.

20th February 2008, 06:16 AM	#6
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,672	http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Unfo...dinosaur_bones I suspect that the main reason the scientific community hasn't addressed this is because even most creationists don't seem to take it seriously. A few unqualified people who can't tell the difference between a bone and a piece of wood claim to have found unfossilised dinosaur bones but fail to do anything about it for over 10 years. Creationists aren't generally stupid, they want things that sound good to the layperson, not obvious crap like this. As for the organs and tissue, that doesn't seem to be a claim made here. I suspect you have the bone nonsense mixed up with the real discovery of fossilised soft tissue. It's very rare, but certainly real and is extremely interesting since previously all study of dinosaur tissue was based on assumptions and extrapolations from modern animals. It's also worth noting that it is quite common for people to mix up dinosaurs with other prehistoric things like mammoths. It is entirely possible to find remains from the last ice age that are entirely unfossilised. Unfortunately, DNA tends to degrade even when frozen, so attempts to clone a mammoth have, so far, been unsucessful, but there is nothing strange about finding bones or soft tissue that is tens of thousands of years old, but not tens of millions. The Evowiki link mentions that it is quite possible the creationists here have mixed up ice age remains with dinosaur remains. Edit: Note to self - must type faster.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot. Last edited by Cuddles; 20th February 2008 at 06:16 AM.

20th February 2008, 06:17 AM	#7
shadron Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,719	Ummmmm.... Just imagine: Quote: Five Souls, huddle against the aching cold of Alaska's wilderness. On a hunt for the truth amid the shrieks of wild animals, the clouds overhead race swiftly. Locked in a remote, frozen wasteland where man has rarely been, lie the remains of creatures so mysterious, science can scarcely believe the truth. A team of scientists and researchers endured incredible hardships to reach a site many would rather avoid the Alaskan wilderness and in the process, uncovered unfossilized dinosaur bones! The implications are enormous, for how can dinosaurs be 65 million years old if their bones are still unfossilized? Join the team and thrill at the photographs and stories of danger, as The Great Alaskan Dinosaur Adventure drops a bombshell on the scientific community! Apparently the "team of scientists and researchers" has decoded that the best way to publicized such enormously implicated finds are to publish a short book through a Christian publisher. I actually found it on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Great-Alaskan-.../dp/0890512329). The reviews are really something, go read them and see the wonder. Why, they even mention "a dinosaur bone" in there with the hazards of trekking in Alaska in July and the prayers. "Dang, Jim, put that old thing down - it smells like it died last week." (My Parody, obviously.)
	Last edited by shadron; 20th February 2008 at 06:17 AM.

20th February 2008, 06:18 AM	#8
H'ethetheth fishy rocket scientist Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: among the machines Posts: 2,342	Here's a snippet of rebuttal. Also here, and here. The summary is here:. Edit: Note to self: Must type even faster.
	Last edited by H'ethetheth; 20th February 2008 at 06:19 AM.

20th February 2008, 07:12 AM	#9
Goshawk Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA Posts: 1,453	Wait, you gotta put it like this... Quote: Five Souls, huddle against the aching cold of Alaska's wilderness. On a hunt for the truth amid the shrieks of wild animals, the clouds overhead race swiftly by. Locked in a remote, frozen wasteland where man has rarely been, lie the remains of creatures so mysterious, science can scarcely believe the truth... It's the voiceover for a movie trailer, guys. I think I saw it, actually. Jennifer Beals? One of the Baldwins?

20th February 2008, 07:17 AM	#10
H3LL Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: (ləʊˈkeɪʃən) - n. 1. a site or position; situation. Posts: 4,976	Originally Posted by Goshawk Wait, you gotta put it like this... Purple prose at its best. .
	__________________ "I'll be more enthusiastic about encouraging thinking outside the box when there's evidence of any thinking going on inside it". - PTerry Top 10 Reasons Why I Procrastinate: 1.

20th February 2008, 07:26 AM	#11
Goshawk Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Decatur, Illinois, USA Posts: 1,453	Solely on the basis of this wonderful sentence from the blurb--"On a hunt for the truth amid the shrieks of wild animals, the clouds overhead race swiftly by", which has clouds on a hunt for the truth--I have ordered a (used) copy online. Sounds like an excellent Boys Own Paper winter evening's read. Also I'm deeply curious to find out what kind of "incredible hardships" they endured to reach the "Alaskan wilderness". I'm guessing it's going to be more along the lines of, "We had to hike in!" and "We ran out of toilet paper!" rather than, "We lost fingers and toes to frostbite, and were attacked by grizzly bears and wolves, and ran out of food and had to eat our boots." Jack London's To Build A Fire--now that's hardship.

20th February 2008, 07:30 AM	#12
flume Muse Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 733	I thought it would be this one: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...8discovery.asp http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/sc...gewanted=print But they already know that fossilization can happen in a few short years; here's proof: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/rapid-fos...trifaction.htm
flume Muse Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 733

20th February 2008, 08:30 AM	#13
bluecollarscientist New Blood Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 19	I live in Alaska, and I've met many of the people, and most of the PIs, who have dug dinosaurs out of the ground over the last ten years here. Most if not all of the dinosaur digs are on the north slope (there are some Mesozoic marine fossil sites elsewhere in the state, but I don't know of dinosaur sites except on the slope), and most of those are on the Colville River. I've been on that river, a few miles from the site, but I've not been on the site itself. Several thoughts: Originally Posted by Goshawk Also I'm deeply curious to find out what kind of "incredible hardships" they endured to reach the "Alaskan wilderness". What the real paleontologists say is that the real hardship is funding! They use small planes and helicopters to get to this site, and it's very expensive. The kind of hardships you'd face: It's going to be very windy - usually upwards of 25mph, and pretty continuous. It's going to be cold by most peoples' standards, staying in the 30's F in June. Its wet. You aren't going to have toilets, not even porta-johns. You aren't going to have hospitals you can get to within 12 hours. Bears are genuinely interested in eating people in this area, and they don't warn you they are coming by shrieking. Wolves are generally harmless. When the wind does let up, there are nineteen billion mosquitos per cubic foot of air in the mid summer. It really is a pretty unpleasant environment by most peoples' standards, and it is an objectively more dangerous environment than most dig sites. The Colville site is mostly known for hadrosaurs. My understanding is that some of the discoveries there have significantly aided understanding of the fossilization process, but my memory is a bit hazy on that. There have been a few spectacularly preserved finds, mostly partials, but I've never heard anyone with credibility refer to unfossilized bones coming out of these beds. There's a timeline for the Colville digs on the web (do a search - forum won't let me post links), which peters out in 2002 for some reason. More recent information can be found at the "Colville Virtual Base Camp" (again - can't link) website, where they have podcasts and everything. As you can see, the research these days is ecosystem oriented, and they are working hard on outreach and education. Perhaps that's response enough to the unfossilized dinosaur claims.

20th February 2008, 08:38 AM	#14
Wowbagger The Infinitely Prolonged Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Westchester County, NY (when not in space) Posts: 13,672	What do they mean by "not fossilized"? Did they find dinosaurs that are still alive?
	__________________ WARNING: Phrases in this post may sound meaner than they were intended to be. SkeptiCamp NYC: http://www.skepticampnyc.org/ An open conference on science and skepticism, where *you* could be a presenter! By the way, my first name is NOT Bowerick!!!!

20th February 2008, 08:45 AM	#15
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 5,670	Originally Posted by Wowbagger What do they mean by "not fossilized"? Did they find dinosaurs that are still alive? I read about these guys a couple of years ago. I recall that they made a float trip down the Colville River. What they meant by "not fossilized" is "stuff we made up".
	__________________ When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder "Stupidity - a callow indifference to facts or data" - Stuart Firestein -neuroscientist. I hate bigots.

20th February 2008, 08:58 AM	#16
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,307	Originally Posted by Cainkane1 http://www.ggoutdoors.org/product_de...5ff26582104053 For the record I'm a evolutionist and an old earth advocate. I'm a lifelong atheist. I just want to know if the scientific community has addressed this nonsense. As soon as I spotted and checked that site, I smelled fecal matter. I went through two pages of Dogpile searches on the topic and used up a case of TP on my computer monitor. I will see going through if anyone else has had better luck, But what I have seen is more feces than a cattleyard. A really big one. Next to the world's largest hog farm, down the street from a chicken ranch and just up the road from an unsanitary land fill. I mean a load of fecal matter here folks!!!
fuelair Cythraul Enfys Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 29,307	Last edited by fuelair; 20th February 2008 at 09:00 AM. Reason: +e-u, etc.

20th February 2008, 11:34 AM	#17
Dr Adequate Banned Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Waiting Long Enough By The River Posts: 17,897	I think what they mean by "unfossilised" is that they're not mineralized. Some fossils are indeed preserved without mineralization. (To a paleontologist, a fossil is just something you dig up, taking it to mean "mineralized fossil" is a common error.) To this the creationists add the proposition, which they made up, that a bone can't survive millions of years without mineralization. Yes it can. There are two conditions necessary for this: (a) that conditions are wrong for mineralization (b) that conditions are also wrong for decay. Under these circumstances, what you get is a non-mineralized bone which has not decayed.

21st February 2008, 04:58 AM	#18
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,672	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate I think what they mean by "unfossilised" is that they're not mineralized. Some fossils are indeed preserved without mineralization. (To a paleontologist, a fossil is just something you dig up, taking it to mean "mineralized fossil" is a common error.) To this the creationists add the proposition, which they made up, that a bone can't survive millions of years without mineralization. Yes it can. There are two conditions necessary for this: (a) that conditions are wrong for mineralization (b) that conditions are also wrong for decay. Under these circumstances, what you get is a non-mineralized bone which has not decayed. It's theoretically possible, but has it ever actually been observed? I'm by no means an expert, but I've never heard of non-mineralised dinosaur bones.
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

21st February 2008, 05:02 AM	#19
Loss Leader Opinionated Jerk Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: New York Posts: 11,890	I, for one, believe the claim that unfossilized bones and organs were discovered. I believe any claim that makes Jurassic Park more likely. Let's close some velociraptors already!
	__________________ Follow me on Twitter! @LossLeader This force is receiving all the right to vote through the use of magic. - Miernik Wieslaw <NEW> VOTE FOR ME JUST BECAUSE <NEW>

21st February 2008, 05:11 AM	#20
Deetee Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,790	Real tough....... Quote: "This adventure is so tough you can taste it, as every meal, every drink of water was filled with mosquitoes"
Deetee Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,790	__________________ "Reci bobu bob a popu pop." - Tanja "Everything is physics. This does not mean that physics is everything." - Cuddles "The entire practice of homeopathy can be substituted with the advice to "take two aspirins and call me in the morning." - Linda "Homeopathy: I never knew there was so little in it." - BSM Last edited by Deetee; 21st February 2008 at 05:12 AM.

21st February 2008, 05:24 AM	#21
MG1962 Guest Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kansas (Australia) Posts: 14,750	Originally Posted by Dr Adequate I think what they mean by "unfossilised" is that they're not mineralized. Some fossils are indeed preserved without mineralization. (To a paleontologist, a fossil is just something you dig up, taking it to mean "mineralized fossil" is a common error.) To this the creationists add the proposition, which they made up, that a bone can't survive millions of years without mineralization. Yes it can. There are two conditions necessary for this: (a) that conditions are wrong for mineralization (b) that conditions are also wrong for decay. Under these circumstances, what you get is a non-mineralized bone which has not decayed. Has there been examples however that date back as far as the Cretaceous period. I am guessing statisically it could happen, but have their been any legitimate recorded finidngs?

21st February 2008, 10:48 AM	#22
bluecollarscientist New Blood Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Anchorage, Alaska Posts: 19	The people claiming unmineralized dinosaur bones point to (when they point to anything at all) this paper: G. Muyzer, P. Sandberg, M.H.J. Knapen, C. Vermeer, M. Collins, and P. Westbroek, "Preservation of the Bone Protein Osteocalcin in Dinosaurs," Geology 1992, vol. 20, pp. 871-874. Talk.origins does the takedown, showing that these bones were definitely mineralized. So what is osteocalcin exactly? Is it "mineralized" to begin with, as I would expect of something that has a bunch of calcium in it? (My live-in biologist/medicine consultant is currently at work.)