When you think that this goes ALL the way back to the early days of Creation ... almost 6000 YEARS AGO (!!) it is truly amazing!!!!

all the way? , well lets say 1% for rounding , 67,000,000 years out of 15 billion.

amazing preservation none the less, just as amazing is that they found out the dinasaur was called Dakota not Gronk.

Kate; Very Cool. Laughter is the best medicine. Thanks Merle Underwood.

cal, sorry to challenge you BUT the vast majority of readers here are well aware of the fact that the Holy Bible teaches us that Creation of the Universe happened about 6000 years ago! The Bible cannot POSSIBLY be wrong! No Way it can be wrong! Readers here KNOW, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the BIBLE is COMPLETELY WITHOUT ANY ERROR OR OMMISSION!!!

didnt know that you could speak for the vast majority of readers here. but go ahead.

the MSM says it speaks for the vast majority as well, hence this blog.

leftdog,

I think Joe Tory is the only one left that still believes in bible-style creationism...all the other theocon rightoids have got past that one with pseudo biblical metaphor massaging.

There's a problem, leftdog, with your commitment to leftism.

You see, leftism rejects science; it rejects reason; it rejects data-based conclusions. Leftismm operates within ungrounded opinions.
Oh, and leftists have lots and lots of these ungrounded opinions.

Opinions about climate change, which they attribute to the sins of mankind.
Opinions about Islamic fascism, which they attribute to the USA and in particular, to George Bush.
Opinions about solving socioeconomic problems, which they attribute to capitalism.
On and on and on. Opinions Without Facts. Without evidence. Without logical connections. Opinions, opinions, opinions.

Leftists are eager and willing to opine about everything. After all, when you don't need to substantiate your opinions, heck -...

So, your conclusion that "the vast majority of readers here" is, in the usual leftist mode, unsupported by factual evidence. It's just your leftist opinion.

Opinions, opinions, opinions. That's the Leftist Way.

Unless I've read things wrong I believe Liberal Ron and Leftdog are sniffing each others butt to determine Alpha Leftie.

leftdog, this Catholic with a degree in Geology thinks you should shove it, save that your head is already in the way.

Comments by known socialist imbeciles aside, this is soooo cool.

A couple years ago somebody found soft tissue inside a tyrannosaurus bone, but this goes 'way beyond it. Skin patterns, ligaments, the lot.

Sweet!

If some of the genetic DNA code of Tutankhamen Rex is intact --- could be interesting !!

Wonder how much of Dino's code is similiar to ours ??

After all, I was just talking to a genetic pharmaceutical reasearcher --- the genes of mice (used in the reasearch for cancer, ect medicine) are 100% identical to humans. The DNA code, of course, is much different. That is what causes the House Mouse to have a tail and we not.

Primates not only have identical genes to ours, the DNA code is also VERY similiar.

We, yes we, have genes for a tail --- but they are not turned on.

What if it was possible, someday, to turn on the tail switch ? Would the hyppies be interested ?

Leftdog read a Jack Chick comic once, and he's considered himself an expert on "Xtians" ever since. Such are the qualifications for knowledge and expertise among his peers. People have been made religion columnists at the Globe & Mail for less...

Dakota?

Should have named him Mohammed.

Did it have a preserved copy of the NY times clasped in its paw?

Cool. Love this stuff.

leftdog...I am trying to see things from your point of view,but I just cannot shove my head that far up my A##

"Opinions, opinions, opinions. That's the Leftist Way."

Liberalism mean never having to say 'here are the facts'

What is even more amazing is that they also this dinosaur's found perfectly preserved Liberal Party of Canada membership card, and his Toronto Star press credentials.

This is archeology and as a science it will point to the fact that the earth is not billions of years old.(This fossil could not have been around for millions of years, let alone billions.) I know leftdog was being his facetious self, but there are many of us commenters on this blog that believe science proves the Creation and disproves the theory of evolution.
And there are some commenters here that still believe the theory of evolution.Mutual respect is the norm until a lefty makes derogatory remarks because with lefties you have to think like them...that is the parameter of their 'tolerance'.

Okay, am I missing something.....like the Rex. Other than the scale-imprinted sand, I must be missing an imagination.

Tres, tres cool. As the excavation leader said this "exceeds the jackpot". And to think a student archeologist found this on his family's back lot.

But, of course, that is just my humble "opinion".

Heh.

I just knew I would not be able to venture into this thread without encountering some pinhead partisan airheads using it to take cheap potshots at each other.

I find it comforting that scientists in the field of paleontology don't seem to be particularly agendized and tend to welcome finds that shake up previous held notions.
I hope this helps futher mankind's quest to discover the truth of our very existence here.

Ahhh bluetech ... I knew that I could rely on someone from the 'Right' to come along and set the rest of these 'unbelievers' straight! Too bad the Chrisitan Right doesn't kick a bit more 'evolutionary Right' butts!

Thank God that Stockwell Day agrees with my first post above!!!

Joanne: Click on Kate's pic. See story. In second paragraph see link to pictures of dino mummy.

Actually, Ted and bluetech, it's not archaeology, but paleontology. The former is the study of the ancient works of man; the latter is the study of ancient life.

Gordinkneehill: You are obviously correct. My d'oh.

Read the article Joanne, "...mummified..." :)

I don't get what this is all about? I have a ruler just like the one in the picture but I didn't think they existed 6000 years ago. And another reader says 15 billion -- I'm not that stupid !!

As for the age of the earth, the Ferrar Fenton's Version of the Bible, was translated into English directly from the original Hebrew, Chaldee, and Greek languages, and this version of the Bible states the creation of the heaven and the earth to be in 'periods.' Atheists usually like to use the age of the earth as some sort of proof that the Bible is false, but in reality, neither atheists or Christians can state with any certainty the exact age of the heaven and earth. I would like to point out that non-believers cannot even come to a consensus on the age of the earth.

In the Bible II Peter 3:8 "...that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." In this chapter God is wanting us to take heed to his words and to remember that he keeps his promises, and that II Peter 3:9 "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."

Here "each day for a year" -

" After the number of the days in which ye searched the land, even forty days, each day for a year, shall ye bear your iniquities, even forty years..." Numbers 14:34

We do not know for certainty the age of the heaven and earth in human terms of time, but knowing God is infinite, a 'day' or 'period' in human terms is of no consequence to the belief that the heaven and earth was created in six defined lengths of time and that God rested on the seventh.

Hey know-it-all leftdog, please quote the bible passage that states the earth is only 6000 years old.....

My stupid......lucky dino made it all the way down to North Dakota; otherwise, it would be a fossil fueling my vehicle.....

The find is fascinating. The accompanying article also illustrates the character of good science. I found particularly interesting the remarks of the movement modeller, Hutchinson. Despite the fact that his models model simple mechanics and can be tested against living creatures, he's extremely cautious about extrapolating the models' analytical ability to an untested and, ultimately untestable, entity i.e. a fossilized hadrosaur. He's very open about the range of error -- 50% and very skeptical of second order analyses based on these models i.e. the prey/predator relationship between the hadrosaur and T-Rex. Contrast this serious science with the ludicrously certain, fatuous predictions offered by climate modellers about the earth a hundred years into the future. Real science versus fools' bombast.

Atheists usually like to use the age of the earth as some sort of proof that the Bible is false

... or at least some sort of proof that a literal reading of the Bible stating that the earth being created in on 144 hour period, 6000-10,000 years ago is false.

Erratum: "mummified" hadrosaur.

(Some of the comments on this thread are so tired.)

Cool story. But surely the story's references to preserved skin are incorrect. After all this time it would be a fossil of once preserved skin.

"readers here are well aware of the fact that the Holy Bible teaches us that Creation of the Universe happened about 6000 years ago!"
Posted by: leftdog

It does no such thing, as only someone who has never read it would know. There is a difference between the text of the Bible and how it has been interpreted over the years.

What it does say is that the universe had a beginning, and we are the products of design, not blind, uncaring chance. Oh yes, and also that we are loved. But, of course, to the atheist love doesn't really exist; it's just chemical drips in the brain caused by a cruel quirk of mindless evolution, no more or less meaningful or valid than the urge to kill someone.

The even bigger story, of course, is the fact they discovered what killed hadrosaur Dakota ...... George Bush.

universe about 15 billion years.
first generation stars 12 billion years
type IIsupernova that caused earth 5 to 7 billion,
first life archean around a billion.
dinosaurs 250million
mammals 100million
primates 1 million
humans 100000
agriculture 10000
democracy 2000
canada 100
SHPM 2 years. so its has taken us billions of years to reach this great aocomplishment.

And you wonder why Lord Bishop Wilberforce had thought that Mr Huxley was uppity.

(Written tongue-in-cheek.)

very true chip, the actual story in national geographics says the whole thing is mineralized with minimal chance of DNA or flesh recovery.

This is blasphemy. Any good Christian knows that dinasours were put here to test our faith. A true believer accepts Jesus in the face of this highly improbable crap. Massive lizards roaming the earth...come on, what are these "scientists" going to say next?

Posted by: BCer at December 3, 2007 3:53 PM

"The even bigger story, of course, is the fact they discovered what killed hadrosaur Dakota ...... George Bush."

Sorry, BCer, but you just can not blame everything on George Bush. The results of an autopsy on this reptilian subject produced bird shot consistent with the type used by Dick Cheney when hunting. Also, I'll bet you did not notice the skin impressions look a lot like the alligator brief case carried by Karl Rove.

There may be some kind of conspiracy afoot here, but I'm pretty sure that Dan Rather can prove that George Bush was in the Texas AGN when that hadrosaur expired.

Heh. Leftoids making fun? Aren't these the fools that believe in Utopia? Multiculturalism? Kyoto? Karl Marx? Jack Layton? Gore? And, and, and Dion?

Not an original thought in their collective heads either. Not even when it comes to insults...

"Rightoid," sez Liberal Ron. Where do you think the empty cranium support system came up with that?

Posted by: cal2 at December 3, 2007 3:56 PM

"first life archean around a billion."

Actually, cal2, much older than that; and Canada has some of the oldest.

(http://geol.queensu.ca/museum/exhibits/archean/archean.html)

The early Earth was quite different from today with constant bombardment by meteorites, intense volcanism, and a poisonous atmosphere. However, fossils known as stromatolites in rocks 3 to 3.5 billion years old show geologists that life evolved very early in the Earth's history. During the time known as the Archean (~4 billion to 2.5 billion years ago) stromatolite fossils are very rare. Canada has three of the world's known examples at Red Lake, Ontario, Steep Rock Lake, Ontario, and near Yellowknife, Northwest Territories.

Stromatolites are layered mounds, columns, and sheets found in the rock. They were originally formed by the growth of layer upon layer of cyanobacteria, a single-celled photosynthesizing microbe growing on a sea floor. Cyanobacteria are prokaryotic cells (the simplest form of modern carbon-based life) which lack a DNA-packaging nucleus. This simple organism would be the only life on Earth for the next 2 billion years.

Richard Ball: "There is a difference between the text of the Bible and how it has been interpreted over the years."

See, Mr Ball, here's what I don't get. On the one hand, people say that the literal text of the Bible and its interpretations over the years are two different things, and that the latter is what represents the modern Christian faith. On the other hand, the literal text of the Koran is taken to be what the modern Islamic faith is all about, even though the vast majority of Muslims interpret it in far more moderate terms. So what gives?

looks like a tire track to me

"This is blasphemy.... A true believer accepts Jesus in the face of this highly improbable crap. Posted by: dave

A true believer accepts Jesus because of the convicting power of his words, including what he says about himself and the condition of the human heart, and because of their conviction that he rose from the dead -- as was attested by his disciples who backed up this assertion with their lives. Jesus testified that he would send his holy Spirit to believers. It is the testimony of present-day believers that He has done exactly that.

So a believer's faith is not based on blind trust. It is reasonable, informed, and authenticated.

The Jesus you seem determined to mock God has raised up and made both Saviour and Lord.

actually, Yoop, we have absolutely 0 data on what the earth was actually like 3.5 billion years ago. It's all theory and speculation, based on geologists interpretations and best guesses derived from the scant evidence still in existence. Also, we don't know that life evolved very early in Earth's history, or was introduced to Earth from external sources (meteorite, aliens, God, etc).

you got me yoop, the strat section on the wall only went to the precambrian, I was too lazy to look up the parts of the precambrian so used the billion years cutoff. the archean is an older era of the precambrian.

my interest stops at the granite wash. lower devonian.

anyway, I cant think of anyone that takes 4004 BC oct 23 at 9 oclock in the morning as literal. seems to me that was calculated sometime in the 1700s.

Evolution is a fact proven by the geological, paleontological, and modern biological study. It is not a theory. The theory which bluetech speaks is Darwin's theory of evolution. His theory of natural selection was used to describe the paleontological and geologic finds.

Get your definitions right.

gee leftdog's remarks could expose christians to ridicule a human rights tribunal should shut him down. Say 5 years in the slammer? Oh wait targeting Christians is ok, this is Canada hate crimes are non possible if attacking Christians.

Just don't say Muslims are setting paris alight.

PS I resemble this thread, I even used the same pic, LOL,
;)

I don't know about anyone else but according to the Christian understanding of God that I have God is ETERNAL. That means without beginning or end. That being the case Eternal God can create and destroy His creation as often as He wants. If He wanted to spend 300 million years playing with dinosaurs then that is His perogative. Likewise Infinite God can create an infinite number of planets that support physical life if He so chooses. We as finite creations of Him can only speculate as to the wonders He hath wrought and rejoice in the sure knowledge that in His Infinite Mercy granted us existence.

"Hey know-it-all leftdog, please quote the bible passage that states the earth is only 6000 years old....."

While not a quote from the bible, Bishop Ussher gave it a get-go:

"Ussher deduced that the first day of Creation began at nightfall preceding Sunday October 23, 4004 BC in the proleptic Julian calendar, near the autumnal equinox."

"The chronologies of Ussher and other biblical scholars corresponded so closely because they used much the same methodology to calculate key events recorded in the Bible."

"Using these methods, Ussher was able to establish an unadjusted Creation date of about 4000 BC. He moved it back to 4004 BC to take account of an error perpetrated by Dionysius Exiguus, the founder of the Anno Domini numbering system. Josephus indicated that the death of Herod the Great occurred in 4 BC, therefore Jesus could not have been born after that date. Jesus was born some time between 37 BC (when Herod came to power) and 4 BC. In the event, Ussher calculated that Christ's birth year must have been 4 BC."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ussher_chronology

This is an interesting find. I'd like to see a theory on how the skin, tendons, etc. came to be mineralized in any amount of time (6K, 13K, or 67M years). You would think the bateria within the beastie would have taken care of most of the soft tissue even if the thing was buried at the moment of death. Most, if not all, of the cases of natural mummification take place in very dry climates - not what is typically presented as the environment of hadrosaurs.

And the article title is a bit misleading, since what they found is not really a mummy, but a fossil.

On a side note there is an interesting article in Smithsonian on dinosaurs that lived in polar regions. (http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/11155946.html) It does make you wonder what so many people are upset about global warming. ;-)

Have people ever noticed that the world used to be deemed millions of years old, and now that our national debts are coming in at the billions and even trillions, the world's age seems to have accelerated exponentially to billions and trillions of years old. God help us when we are zillions in debt - Oil of Olay just won't be able to keep up.

Posted by: pete at December 3, 2007 4:57 PM

"actually, Yoop, we have absolutely 0 data on what the earth was actually like 3.5 billion years ago. It's all theory and speculation, based on geologists interpretations and best guesses derived from the scant evidence still in existence."

BS, Pete. You have no idea what you are talking about.

From mineralogical data, fluid inclusion analysis, radioactive decay data, age dating,field relationships, etc. my guess is that I know more accurately what the earth WAS like 3.5 billion years ago than the AGW proponents know about WHAT the earth is going to be like 10 years from now. With better error bars, also.

The rocks can tell their story to you; you just have to know how to listen.

DrD at December 3, 2007 3:29 PM
Good post, a most incisive observation.
This is private sector science vs. climate change government science (sic), I'd say.
I'm in the investment biz; learned long ago -- and painfully -- to be extremely wary of models which really only predict past events with 100% accuracy.

anyone know what the Koran says about this?

I have one but only read from the back of the book as they are the shortest. I think I got through about three or four. didnt exactly make me want to bang my head on the floor.

Jewish theologians believe creation was at 3760 B.C. But of course, it's anti-semitic to ridicule Judaism.

There is ample evidence to say that all dating is screwed. Robert Schoch, a noted geologist, has proven that the Sphinx, because of errosion due to rainfall, was built between 15,000 to 7,000 BC. Which aligns with what many astronomers have postulated. This is blasphemy amongst the Egyptology religious nuts (they refer to anybody that doesn't agree with their soft science as Pyramidiots. Sound familiar?).

The ruins at Tiahunaco have been dated to approximately 15,000 BC, using the latest techniques. And early historical accounts contained in the Vedas are being proven true by discoveries off the subcontinental coast. Also at Harappa, etc.

Many dates, despite using the latest dating techniques, have been thrown out and the researchers discredited and ruined, because they don't fit the scholarly mafia's time frame. Afterall, it's been agreed that man was a troglodyte up until about 3,000 BC, or so. And mostly a savage until the enlightenment.

Even the OT argues for an earlier date. Cain, son of Adam, was banished to a land called Nod. Obviously populated, because a mark was placed on his head so nobody would kill him. As well (Gen. 6:4) states, "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown." Because of the Cain story, this likely relates to a race, coexisting, yet coming along prior to Adam.

BTW, evolution is still a theory. It is not a fact. If it was, there would be no argument. Just like there's no argument about gravity, or the roundness of the earth.

I find two things fascinating: the actual find and the leftoids trying to troll this into a Christianity issue.

cal2,

Go to prophetofdoom.net. Start with 'Islams dark past' (complete with scholars footnotes). I found it surprising and hilarious.

Here's a couple of verses anyhow:

(Hadith) Bukhari:V4B55N546 "Allah's Apostle said, ‘Gabriel has just now told me of the answer. If a man has sexual intercourse with his wife and gets discharge first, the child will resemble him, and if the woman gets discharge first, the child will resemble her.'"

Qur'an 15:26 "Allah created Adam from sticky clay, meaning viscous and sweet smelling slime, being stinking. It became stinking slime after having been compact soil."

Qur'an 80:17 "Be cursed man! He has self-destructed. From what stuff did He create him? From nutfa (male and female semen drops) He created him and set him in due proportion."

Qur'an 18:83 "They ask you about Dhu'l-Qarnain [Alexander the Great]. Say, ‘I will cite something of his story. We gave him authority in the land and means of accomplishing his goals. So he followed a path until he reached the setting place of the sun. He saw that it set in black, muddy, hot water. Near it he found people."

The idea that they believe this stuff is infallable. Was written before everything directly by omnipotent, all knowing Allah's hand (which, BTW, doesn't mean God in Arabic. Ilah means God) is preposterous.

I don't know if the Quran says anything about dinosaurs, etc. But the Quran/Hadith does claim that Adam was 90 feet tall.

I seem to vaguely recall something about the Folsom Indians (famous for the Folsom spear point, unique in flint knapping technology) being impossible because their villages dated earlier than advent of humans on this continent.

Dating is an inexact science. However if its old enough that the dinosaur has turned to stone, that's pretty frickin' old.

"As philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn pointed out,5 what generally happens when a discovery contradicts a paradigm is that the paradigm is not discarded but modified, usually by making secondary assumptions, to accommodate the new evidence.

That’s just what appears to have happened in this case. When Schweitzer first found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. Rex specimen, she said, ‘It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone’. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: ‘The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’6 Notice that her first reaction was to question the evidence, not the paradigm. That is in a way quite understandable and human, and is how science works in reality (though when creationists do that, it’s caricatured as non-scientific).

So will this new evidence cause anyone to stand up and say there’s something funny about the emperor’s clothes? Not likely. Instead, it will almost certainly become an ‘accepted’ phenomenon that even ‘stretchy’ soft tissues must be somehow capable of surviving for millions of years. (Because, after all, we ‘know’ that this specimen is ‘70 million years old’.) See how it works?"

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042/

Let's get back on topic, eh? What I want to know is who the hell had dirt bikes back then and why were they riding them on dead dinosaurs!?

...slow day at SDA eh Kate?

I asked God about the dinosaurs and the 10,000 year thing.

He told me not to worry about it.

So I don't.

;-)

Romans 1:22

Irwin, what are you talking about. There is no arguement among Real Scientists.

Also, what is gravity? Have you ever seen a gravity particle. Has anybody.

You may think the earth is round but most scientist believe that the Longtitudinal great circle is shorter than the equitatorial circumferance.

And finally, please explain how influenza virus mutates and changes. (Hint: NS)

Thanks DaninVan.

I looked at the picture and had a good chuckle.

That's amazing, yoop, I didn't realize the science had advanced so much since I studied geology. Back then, the oldest rocks found dated 3.8 to 4 billion years old, plus or minus 2%. 2% of 4 billion being 80 million, so a spread of 160 million years. And from that they can determine the condition of the entire earth?

If you're truly interested in an answer from someone who's not an evolutionist, Go Canucks, then go here:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1146/

"An apparently major effect is probably caused by only a horizontal or even a negative change in informational content, and therefore does not relate to the sort of evolution postulated generally. It certainly does not involve any increase in functional complexity."

So to answer the question . . . while viruses may change considerably, and while the AIDS [or influenza] virus may have changed its infectivity, it is certainly not the type of change, in quality or direction, which would or could cause that virus to become a totally new, more complex type of living organism. In that sense, AIDS [or influenza] has not evolved."

There's lots more articles on viruses and their "downward mutations" involving loss of information, not evolution, here:

http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/creationontheweb?q=influenza&hl=en&lr=

You did ask . . .

This is so cool. I've spent plenty on all things dinosaur with the grandsons.

One of the coolest people in this field is Jack Horner, my kind of maverick, he flunked out of college seven times, but, has a chair at the University of Montana:

He also spent two years in the U.S. Marine Corps, serving during the Vietnam War in the Special Forces. Although never completing a formal degree, he did complete a formidable senior thesis on the fauna of the Bear Gulch Limestone in Montana, which is one of the most famous Mississippian lagerstätten (or exceptionally preserved fossil site) in the world. The University of Montana awarded him an Honorary Doctorate of Science in 1986. In 1986, he was also awarded the prestigious MacArthur Fellowship.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Horner_(paleontologist)

DrD nails it as always....Contrast this serious science with the ludicrously certain, fatuous predictions offered by climate modellers about the earth a hundred years into the future. Real science versus fools' bombast. Amen.

penny, would you ever encourage your grandsons to drop out of college?

folsom people, yes there were people here before the indians, they were the Clovis people, likely from Spain. but the " first nations" dont like to talk about them because they would be second nations. most of the oldest finds in north america are caucasian.

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/news199.htm

so the average width of a prehistoric dirtbike tire is 7cm. (8:)}

Posted by: pete at December 3, 2007 9:11 PM

"That's amazing, yoop, I didn't realize the science had advanced so much since I studied geology. Back then, the oldest rocks found dated 3.8 to 4 billion years old, plus or minus 2%. 2% of 4 billion being 80 million, so a spread of 160 million years. And from that they can determine the condition of the entire earth?"

I think the constraints are a little tighter than that now, but for discussion sake let's give you the + or - 2%.

The intrusions I am working on now are constrained by the oldest date, being the country rocks, and by the youngest date being the cross-cutting dikes, and the last Archean-aged orogeny in the area. So they are in the neighborhood of 2.2 bya. Given your + or - 80 million years, that makes my stated age in the 94 percentile of accuracy.

Can the climate forecasters or the AGW proponents, or even the short term weather forecasters, work in the 94% accuracy range?

The age of the rocks that the subject fossil were found in are, in all probability, known within a more accurate range, since there is little likelyhood of any metamorphic reset in the age dating.

As too your last sentence, I think you may be confused in two things. One, just how much Archean rock is actually exposed on the earth's surface, and how much can be determined from the Proterozoic sediments as to what the protoliths were that contributed from the Archean.

Most geologists and paleontologists appear to understand a lot more about the past climate cycles than the present day climatologists do that claim a settled science status for AGW.

Jack-Doreen-Young Conservative-Mellancamp-Einstein-etc...

Readers here will find it easier to reply to your comments if you choose a single nick and persona.

Thank you.

Whoops... my bad. According to Pete I'm operating in the 96% accuracy range (not 94%)!

"There is no arguement among Real Scientists."

There is, however, agreement amongst grade 7 English teachers.

"Also, what is gravity? Have you ever seen a gravity particle. Has anybody."

Gravity is an observation. Scientifically (if not unanimously) agreed upon. Although, how it works is still a theory. For that matter, has anybody been able to figure out what the Singularity is made of? Or, if there's a Singularity? Or, or an event horizon?

"You may think the earth is round but most scientist believe that the Longtitudinal great circle is shorter than the equitatorial circumferance."

'Hamlet's Mill.' Ever read it?

"And finally, please explain how influenza virus mutates and changes."

I never said that matter can't mutate. If that's what you mean by evolution, why not be clear?

Ever heard of Zapf's language law? More importantly, how it applies to so-called 'junk' DNA?

AGW = Retail Science.

Irwin daisy....gravity is nothing more than the metaphysical manisfestation of the theory that the earth sucks. And it definitely ain't round!!

I recall asking my father years ago about the age of dinosaurs and I can agree with the findings of more muscle mass and speed, not to mention the ability to cuff their young in the side of the head. ;-)

Headline news tomorrow: "Small Dead Animals Bloggers Solve World's Problems; Punctuate With Inane Banter and Mild Retardation"

Seriously, the amount of bullsh*t that goes on around here could fertilize Alberta. I especially love the "the world was created in six equal time spans", and "this find disproves evolution". Also, why ANYONE still thinks that ID is defensible (Ball, I'm looking at you) after Ken Miller and the Dover crowd tore it a new one, is beyond me entirely. Check out Miller on YouTube, then get back to us.

Man, I needed that laugh.

Next hed: "SDA Bloggers Do It Again: Paradigm Shift on Climate Change Achieved By Copying and Pasting"

penny, would you ever encourage your grandsons to drop out of college?

Never. Ever. But, I admire the University of Montana in giving Jack Horner his due. I admire Horner for his tenacity. Higher Education in its most noble and best use is when it acts in that manner.

My younger daughter had a friend, a nice kid, no money, bright, divorced parents, a struggling mom, that failed to finish high school that wanted to be a doctor who with pure moxie took his case to her small private college in New Mexico after UNM told him to take a hike. They gave him a chance and he is now finishing his residency in cardiology.

I hope the door never shuts on second chances for kids like that.

I have posted this in other discussions of evolution/ creation, and I will repeat it here. It is the Jewish year 5768 - year 0 being the creation of Adam, not the beginning of the universe (big bang)

from: www.yashanet.com/library/missing_link.htm
(read the whole thing if you want, this is just an excerpt)

According to Jewish tradition there are "two beginnings". In the book of Genesis there is the beginning of the universe, which is contained in the six "days" of creation, and the creation of Adam, which begins with the formation of the soul of the first man.

In the Jewish Midrash, an expansion of the Talmud that clarifies historical and moral teachings, the Sages teach that the creation of the soul of Adam, and the six days of Genesis are separate events (Schroeder).

Still, how do six days of creation equal fifteen billion years? According to the calculations of the 13th century Kabbalist, Rabbi Isaac of Acco, the universe is precisely 15,340,500,000 years old.

The calculation proceeds as follows:

According to the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 97a, " R. Kattina said: Six thousand years shall the world exist, and one [thousand, the seventh], it shall be desolate…". Ancient and medieval Kabbalists such as Nehunya ben HaKanah, in Sefer HaTemunah (written about 100 AD) and Rabbi Isaac of Acco understood these seven thousand years a running parallel to the Jewish Sabbatical cycle. In this cycle the fields are planted and harvested for six years and left unplanted in the seventh year.2

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, who apart from being a rabbi, also held a master’s degree in physics, cites the calculations of Rabbi Isaac of Acco in his commentaries on the book Sefer Yehzirah: The Book of Creation. This book has an oral tradition going back to Abraham, but was first committed to writing about 1500 years ago. In his commentary on this book Rabbi Kaplan writes:

"According to the master Kabbalist, Rabbi Isaac of Acco, when counting the years of these cycles, one must not use an ordinary physical year, but rather, a divine year. The Midrash says that each divine day is a thousand years, basing this on the verse, "A thousand years in Your sight are but as yesterday" (Psalm 90:4). Since each year contains 364 ¼ days, a divine year would be 365,250 years long.

According to this, each cycle of seven thousand divine years would consist of 2,556,750,000 earthly years. This figure of two-and-a-half billion years is very close to the scientific estimate as to the length of time that life has existed on earth.

If we assume that the seventh cycle began with the Biblical account of creation, then this would have occurred when the universe was 15,340,500,000 years old. This is very close to the scientific estimate that the expansion of the universe began some fifteen billion years ago" (Kaplan 186).

Wow, Pinch Sulzburger's looking remarkably well-preserved.

If the world started with Adam, why aren't there more Jews and less Chinese.

Also, I personally prefer to use advanced retardation when puctuating and less inanity.

That's great yoop. Now take those very rare 4 billion year old rocks, + or - a couple hundred million years, and tell me:
1) what was the composition of the atmosphere? how thick was it? Did it have layers similar to todays?
2) how much more volcanic activity was there then compared to today? 5x more, 10x more, 11x more?
3) How common were meteorite strikes?

(sorry if this is off topic)

Go Canucks,
if you are really wondering about this, it is actually one of the many biblical prophecies that has occured (Jews will be small in number)

Deuteronomy 4:27 And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number

also, if you were wondering, Jewish tradition does not consider Adam as a Jew (the first Jew would be Abraham).

The Midrash also brings down the tradition of 942 generations that precede Adam.

A hadrosaur named Dakota?

Cool.  When are they gonna look for its sister -- "Hannah Montana"?

;-)

A rational explanation. Thanks ex-liberal.

Posted by: anon at December 3, 2007 10:52 PM

anon - ridicule all you want; I wasn't trying to disprove evolution - evolution has to exist first in order to be disproved. I was talking about the age of the earth. I really wonder if anyone here knows how 'whoever' 'scientifically' determines the earth is billions or so years old. I mean really, what do they base this on.

How many times does someone have to repeat something for it to become fact? Now that's the real question.

Joanne,your question is rather an easy one.

If the person is predisposed to believe the'something'and it fits into their agenda,they only need hear it ONE TIME.

If,on the other hand,it flies in the face of their current beliefs or agenda,you can repeat 'something'a million times,no matter how true,and it will NOT BE BELIEVED.

At least that is what I have learned from visiting political blogs.
Hope that helps.

Oh my deity,I've walked into the Twilight Zone.

Actually, Go Canucks, you're in the Matrix. You just haven't taken the red pill when it's offered you.

The Bible in fact says nothing at all about the age of the earth. It says that Adam and Eve came out of Eden, which was in Mesopotamia, and began farming and having children. And it then gives genealogies back to Adam for several figures, some of whom can be fixed in history. Do the reckoning, and you'll conclude that Adam and Eve began having kids about six or seven thousand years ago. Which indeed was around the time that agriculture began in Mesopotamia.

How long had the world been around before that? The Bible does not tell you. It collects several stories about the ancient past. And it follows a Mesopotamian literary convention, according to which one indicates that one is about to talk about the past by saying "In the beginning", and referring to the first day of creation. Of course you can read these statements as meaning that the events then described actually took place on the very first day of creation, but if you do, you're reading it wrong.

And out of interest, you can believe anything at all about the age of the earth and still be a Christian. The age of the earth is not relevant to Christian belief. If you are a fundamentalist Christian, your obligation is not to believe the literal truth of every word of the Bible. Rather, you must believe every word of the Bible as it was intended to be understood. The book of Genesis is an express exception to that rule. A fundamentalist is allowed to believe in a young earth, because the King James version suggests that sense so strongly even though it is not the sense intended. But he's under no obligation to believe it.

Otherwise, belief in the literal truth of the Bible is only appropriate where the Bible is clearly meant literally, and not otherwise. To believe in the literal truth of the entire Bible is heresy, and it precludes you from being a fundamentalist.

Orlin at December 3, 2007 3:06 PM

Related, funny:

http://www.snopes.com/humor/letters/smithsonian.asp

Kate wrote: Readers here will find it easier to reply to your comments if you choose a single nick and persona.

Is the implication here that some people don't know what an IP address is (and that Kate can't check for sock puppets)? Tee-hee!

Kate wrote: Readers here will find it easier to reply to your comments if you choose a single nick and persona.

Is the implication here that some people don't know what an IP address is (and that Kate can check for sock puppets)? Tee-hee!

Sorry for four posts in a row, I tried to correct "can't" for "can" but didn't click the oops button fast enough.

Duh.

And still the liberals will insist hat we birds came from dinsoaurs and call us glorified reptiles WHAT A LOAD OF BIRD POO IM GETTING TIRED OF THIS EVOLUTION POPPYCOCK AND IM GOING TO GET VIOLENT WITH THEM IM GOING TO PICK THIER EYES OUT SQUAWK SQUAWK