dinos today?

[leviathan]

Hey, I'm new to the forum and wanna see where everyone stands on this issue. Do you believe that there are real dinosaurs today and why/why not?

[ripped_fx]

Sort of. Though, I believe most lake monster sightings can be attributed to the zeuglodon (a primitive whale) as opposed to a plesiosaur. But in the cases of Mokele-Mbembe and Kongamoto, I believe these may be an evolution of dinosauric species, not a suriving sauropod or pterosaur, whichever case you are looking at.

Edited December 9, 2004 by ripped_fx

[mr_halo]

i see no reason why there couldn't be some kind of dinosaur like creature that has yet to be discovered, i think it would have evolved to much to be considered a dinosaur now, i mean dinosaurs did die out 65 million years ago, so if a dino like creature had survived it would of had to adapt to varying conditions over the years...

[Shadowsleet]

Much as the current thread of thought seems to be, if a "dinosaur" were to be alive today, then it wouldn't be a carbon copy. It would have undergone vast changes over the course of 65 millions years, and likely would be recognisable as any species that we are familiar with from the mezezoic era.

[BurnSide]

Absurd. It is completely impossibe for a 'dinosaur' to still be living today. Even if a family somehow survied extinction after 65 million years it would have evolved to nothing even remotely resembing a dinosaur we're familiar with.

[ripped_fx]

I am pretty skeptical on the idea as a whole.

Edited December 9, 2004 by ripped_fx

[mr_halo]

i seriously can't see any large species of dinosaurs surviving to the present day...

maybe a few of the smallers species adapted and continue to live in the jungles of the world....

Edited December 9, 2004 by mr_halo

[BurnSide]

I have no doubt, Mr. Halo, that several species of dinosaur, mostly raptors, evolved into some of our modern day birds.

Infact i thought that was a widely accepted theory.

[mr_halo]

I have no doubt, Mr. Halo, that several species of dinosaur, mostly raptors, evolved into some of our modern day birds.

Infact i thought that was a widely accepted theory.

394891[/snapback]

yes i know the dino/bird theory....

but perhaps some other species of dinosaurs are still around today, true they may not resemble the dinosaurs we know, but in some form they are dinosaurs....

oh i don't know, just trying to support the idea of dinosaurs in jungles and stuff..

[cutycub]

Yeah! The lochness monster! It's a dino that never became extinct!

[BurnSide]

Crocodiles survived and they were around since the days of dinosaurs, partically unchanged.

In that sense, maybe it is possible. But certainly no lumbering T-Rexes of course.

[BeWell]

Cockroaches, they've been around for millions of years...

That's how I started a speech I had to give in college once. Although it was a quick research process I did I got the info from a popular science magazine. It said cockroaches have been here since dinosaurs, lived underground.

hmm, I might have said thousands of years, those college years are a little fuzzy.

Edited December 9, 2004 by BeWell

[mr_halo]

Crocodiles survived and they were around since the days of dinosaurs, partically unchanged.

In that sense, maybe it is possible. But certainly no lumbering T-Rexes of course.

394909[/snapback]

yes, true, but crocs had no need to change, they are adapted to everything, while in order for a dino to survive it would have to change drastically, for example change of food, change in climate, change of other animals and then eventually to survive attacks from men....

but i don't really know, i don't know much about this kind of thing...

[Sir_Oguh2]

i believe the mokele mbembes that live in africa exist and i think they are dinosaurs.

[VeinsAfire]

I believe many species survived their so called extinction. Take the Coelacanth for example, thought to be extinct for 70 million years until one was caught in 1938 still strongly resembling their appearance. This proving that these creatures suvived 70 million years and did not evolve beyond recognization.

Coelacanth

[Mad Manfred]

Anyone see "Baby"?

The only "dinosaur" that I see still living is aquatic ones (even though they are technically not dinosaurs).

Even then, as others have said, it would be very different to what you'd think.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

[leviathan]

Well, I must say that there are a few more believers in here than at cryptozoology.com. I have to say that I do believe some are around, probably dwarf, evolved versions of surviving lines. The fact that many rock & fossil dating methods have been proven to be inaccurate suggests that the earth may be much younger than most want to believe. So the liklihood of a surviving dino, I think is all the more possible.

[BurnSide]

Dinosaurs lived over 65 million years ago. Fact.

[koenig212003]

Well, I must say that there are a few more believers in here than at cryptozoology.com.  I have to say that I do believe some are around, probably dwarf, evolved versions of surviving lines.  The fact that many rock & fossil dating methods have been proven to be inaccurate suggests that the earth may be much younger than most want to believe.  So the liklihood of a surviving dino, I think is all the more possible.

395648[/snapback]

So since our dating methods are so inaccurate just how old do you think the earth is? And please show me how these methods have been shown to be inaccurate. You haven't been visiting those creationist websites have you?!

[Mad Manfred]

Well, I must say that there are a few more believers in here than at cryptozoology.com.  I have to say that I do believe some are around, probably dwarf, evolved versions of surviving lines.  The fact that many rock & fossil dating methods have been proven to be inaccurate suggests that the earth may be much younger than most want to believe.  So the liklihood of a surviving dino, I think is all the more possible.

395648[/snapback]

This theory is the one I am most fond of (though have trouble believing):

The Anatosaurus had unexplained glands in it's nostrils that scientists believed was similar to a beetle found in Indonesia.

This beetle "spat" acid through it's nostrils and they assume that this 33ft dinosaur did also as a defensive ability.

Now, tales of dragons are well known throughout history...WHAT IF there were decendants of these Anatosaurs that survived the extinction and where an endangered species in Europe? Humans would have mistook these gentle herbivores for beasts and attacked them. What then? The Anatosaur would have spat acid at them, setting the ground aflame.

And so the story of dragons began...humans began hunting them and eventually slaughtered them all.

Unlikely, though very interesting IMO.

[Anakar]

Manfred - that is an interesting theory altho i have heard simialr ideas about dragons being the last of the dinosaurs. But an even more interesting line of thought is this: If there had been no extinction of the dinosaurs - would they have evolved into the intelligent speices and developing civilizations as advanced as it is today (ormaybe even more advanced). I have read several articles in the last few months that postulates various out comes of these theories including the non-existance of mammuals (or they didn't evolve as they have today).

[leviathan]

Well, I must say that there are a few more believers in here than at cryptozoology.com.  I have to say that I do believe some are around, probably dwarf, evolved versions of surviving lines.  The fact that many rock & fossil dating methods have been proven to be inaccurate suggests that the earth may be much younger than most want to believe.  So the liklihood of a surviving dino, I think is all the more possible.

395648[/snapback]

So since our dating methods are so inaccurate just how old do you think the earth is? And please show me how these methods have been shown to be inaccurate. You haven't been visiting those creationist websites have you?!

395667[/snapback]

Many of the dating methods which claim to provide unarguable evidence for ancient fossils are deeply flawed or based on assumptions rather than facts. One example is the method of measuring the absorption of uranium (U) into fossil human teeth and bones. As archeologists Chen Tiemei and Yuan Sixun of Beijing University found out, the “main difficulty of fossil dating” with this method is that the process by which uranium is absorbed into teeth and bones “has not been fully understood.” They point out that many bones and teeth suffer from a continuous drain of uranium after fossilization takes place, “so the apparent ages might deviate from the true ages. It is very difficult prior to analysis to predict whether a bone or tooth sample is a closed system” (Tiemei & Sixun 1988: 60).

A. G. Latham of the University of Liverpool similarly comments: “[O]ften we do not know when, or for how long, the bone has absorbed U from its environment” (Latham 1997: 218). He goes on to note that the results of many studies show that the absorption of uranium is dependent upon many factors, including the type of sediment in which the fossil was found, the acidity of the soil, ground water history, “as well as on its [the fossil’s] own changing physical and chemical properties” (Latham 1997: 218).

Latham admits that the only way for this method to work “is to adopt simple assumptions” about uranium absorption. He also points out that age estimates are usually made by assuming that uranium absorption began immediately after burial, and that uranium continued to be absorbed at an unchanging rate from burial to present (Latham 1997: 218). The problem with this technique is self-evident: it is based on two unfounded assumptions that can never be proven.

Dating the famous Swanscombe skull has also produced difficulties. Found in England many years ago, this human skull has defied scientific dating techniques. Two scientists, J. C. Barton (Birkbeck College, London) and C. B. Stringer (Natural History Museum, London), measured three separate pieces of the skull using a low-background germanium spectrometer, which dates objects by comparing the ratio of two uranium isotopes found in them. These isotopes were supposed to have come from radioactive ground water that seeped into the skull fragments over time.

Barton and Stringer reported that the results of the three samples “were inconsistent, showing that their exposure to radioactive ground water must have been very different, although they were found close together” (Barton & Stringer 1997: 205). Other problems included uncertainty in the ratio of the two isotopes in the ground water and a lack of knowledge of when the bones actually began absorbing the isotopes. These two problems “prevented the deduction of any reliable dates for these specimens” (Barton & Stringer 1997: 205).

Sifting through the technical wording, it is clear that the scientific dating methods mentioned above are far from perfect, to the point where only assumptions and estimates can be reached, rather than hard facts.

References:

Barton, J. C., and C. B. Stringer. 1997. “An Attempt at Dating the Swanscombe Skull Bones Using Non-Destructive Gamma-Ray Counting.” Archaeometry 39, no. 1.

Latham, A. G. 1997. “Uranium-Series Dating of Bone by Gamma-Ray Spectrometry: Comment.” Archaeometry 39, no. 1.

Tiemei, C., and Y. Sixun. 1988. “Uranium-Series Dating of Bones and Teeth from Chinese Palaeolithic Sites.” Archaeometry 30, no. 1.

[leviathan]

Manfred - that is an interesting theory altho i have heard simialr ideas about dragons being the last of the dinosaurs.  But an even more interesting line of thought is this:  If there had been no extinction of the dinosaurs - would they have evolved into the intelligent speices and developing civilizations as advanced as it is today (ormaybe even more advanced).  I have read several articles in the last few months that postulates various out comes of these theories including the non-existance of mammuals (or they didn't evolve as they have today).

395718[/snapback]

How the carbon clock works

Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in ‘lead’ pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon.

Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.

Ordinary carbon (12C) is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.

We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C ratio. Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.

In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a ‘clock’ which starts ticking the moment something dies.

Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.

The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the ‘half-life.’ So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.

However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.2

Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.3 This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.

Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the ‘clock’ is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.

Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible.4

[leviathan]

Well, I must say that there are a few more believers in here than at cryptozoology.com.  I have to say that I do believe some are around, probably dwarf, evolved versions of surviving lines.  The fact that many rock & fossil dating methods have been proven to be inaccurate suggests that the earth may be much younger than most want to believe.  So the liklihood of a surviving dino, I think is all the more possible.

395648[/snapback]

So since our dating methods are so inaccurate just how old do you think the earth is? And please show me how these methods have been shown to be inaccurate. You haven't been visiting those creationist websites have you?!

395667[/snapback]

Other factors affecting carbon dating

The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun’s activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.

The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing,5 so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.

Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.

Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.

Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.6 Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant ‘dates’ for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.7

Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism, fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.

In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.

[leviathan]

Well, I must say that there are a few more believers in here than at cryptozoology.com.  I have to say that I do believe some are around, probably dwarf, evolved versions of surviving lines.  The fact that many rock & fossil dating methods have been proven to be inaccurate suggests that the earth may be much younger than most want to believe.  So the liklihood of a surviving dino, I think is all the more possible.

395648[/snapback]

So since our dating methods are so inaccurate just how old do you think the earth is? And please show me how these methods have been shown to be inaccurate. You haven't been visiting those creationist websites have you?!

395667[/snapback]

Other radiometric dating methods

There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks. These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. For example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. These techniques are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification.

The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:

The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).

Decay rates have always been constant.

Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added