Posted on 07/16/2011 4:39:22 PM PDT by nickcarraway
A fossil discovered in Montana has given new momentum to the hypothesis that dinosaurs were thriving right up until a devastating meteor hit Earth 65 million years ago, causing their extinction.
Scientists from Yale University have found what is believed to be the youngest dinosaur fossil ever found, thought to be from just before the mass extinction took place.
The discovery, described in a study published in the online edition of the journal Biology Letters, contradicts the theory that the dinosaurs slowly went extinct before the cosmic impact.
The fossil -- a 45-centimetre horn believed to be from a triceratops -- was found in Montana's Hell Creek formation. It was located just below the K-T boundary, the band of the Earth's crust that represents the time period in which the meteor struck.
One of the main problems with the meteor theory has been the lack of any non-avian dinosaur fossils buried within 10 feet of the boundary -- known as the 'three metre gap.'
The absence of fossils, some paleontologists say, indicates dinosaurs were already extinct when the cosmic impact occurred.
Yale paleontologist Tyler Lyson, lead author of the study, says the new discovery proves otherwise.
"To all of our surprise the boundary was no more than 13 centimetres above this horn, and the significance is this indicates that at least some dinosaurs were doing quite well in this locale at the time of the meteor impact," he told CTV.ca.
There is evidence that avian dinosaurs thrived up to and into the K-T boundary. In fact, they are believed to have survived the meteor and evolved into modern-day birds.
(Excerpt) Read more at ottawa.ctv.ca ...
I see, to you the Earth is a “Watermelon” and like a watermelon it grows when in sunlight!
So you accept that life adapts to the environment - nice that you accept evolution.
Do you think humans lived in the time of low gravity dinosaurs? Was it a ‘Yabba Dabba Do’ time?
I see, to you the Earth is a “Watermelon” and like a watermelon it grows when in sunlight!
So you accept that life adapts to the environment - nice that you accept evolution.
Do you think humans lived in the time of low gravity dinosaurs? Was it a ‘Yabba Dabba Do’ time?
It indicates the possibility that there were LIVE creatures around for them to model, but it is in no way proof.
There are ancient drawings with accurate drawings of spaceships and airplanes. Did they have real ones around to model, 1000's of years ago, or 10's of thousands of years ago?
You stated that the reason we have been able to accurately 'depict' many of the long dead dinosaurs is that we dug up their bones, and pieced together the picture. Once again, I ask, where are the dragon bones that we dug up? You claim a similarity between 'dragons' and some ancient dinosaurs. I have never seen any that match the standard depiction of a dragon. Do you have a picture?
The closest I can come is a Sea Horse.
Back to the original point, I am not saying that there were NOT some surviving stegosaurus around 1000 years ago. Anything is possible. I am saying that a carving on a 1000 year old building doesn't prove it.
Now.... if you could find the fossilized remains of a stegosaurus buried in a layer of ground determined to be 1000 years old, then I could agree.
They used to claim that space was a perfect vacuum, and completely empty.
It is not.
The ozone layer is a 'protective' layer. It doesn't necessarily 'hold' the atmosphere 'in', but it protects it and us from the Sun's more dangerous rays.
Without it, what would happen?
Here is a simple question posed by another poster. Can you answer it?
asked my grandkids why you always have to dig down to find ancient stuff...no answer....therefore I am right, the earth is fatter than it use to be.. Someone please find me wrong..:O)
71 posted on Friday, July 22, 2011 1:44:34 AM by goat granny
You said it yourself. Most of our 'depictions' of 'dinosaurs' are based on a small amount of fossils, and yet we believe we have a clear 'image' of what they looked like. Scientists claim to provide a complete 'depiction' even after finding ONE BONE.
What makes you think the depiction the builders of Angkor Watt or that we have are actually correct? Have you seen a real Stegosaurus?
First, my speculation that the Earth is growing outward does not include it getting hollow. I have explained that in another post.
Now... are you saying that Jupiter, Saturn, have less gravity because they are larger?
I know mass and distance from the center of mass is the determining factor, not just 'size', and in my statements of the Earth growing, my assumption is that it is growing in size and mass. So would you still claim that gravity would be weaker?
Odd how you insist that STEGOSAURUS still lived around 1000 years ago, and other 'dinosaurs' like the coelacanth are still alive, but now insist that some form of Pterodactyl could not have survived.
Isn't that a bit CONTRADICTORY?????
HOW is the Earth growing in size and mass? You keep changing your story. What is the mechanism?
You do know that a watermelon in sunlight doesn’t actually CREATE mass don’t you?
I think it increasingly likely that you don’t.
You seem to think sunlight on the Earth makes the Earth increase in mass.
That is really really funny.
ROFL!!!
It does, or it no longer exists.
- nice that you accept evolution.
Evolution is your word, not mine. My understanding of 'evolution' is likely very different from the one you have.
I already explained the reasons how.
You keep changing your story.
Not a bit. You and others have taken what I said wrong, including the idea that the Earth is hollow. I don't believe it is, and the magma coming to the surface does not deplete what is at the core of the Earth. It is not hollow, as far as I know. So... how is it that it is NOT HOLLOW?
What is the mechanism?
The Earth is growing. Where did the Sun come from? Where did the planets come from? Did they all spring to life, the exact same size they are now?
You do know that a watermelon in sunlight doesn’t actually CREATE mass don’t you?
It takes in moisture, which comprises much of it's mass. The rest in made up of nutrients from the soil, and a conversion of the SUN'S RAYS into mass via a process called photosynthesis.
Put a plant in total darkness and tell me how much it 'grows'.
I didn't say it was the only thing that caused Earth to grow. I mentioned the accumulation of water (ice) and minerals (everything from minute particles up to larger meteorites).
Let me ask you this (which I have already done once, I believe).
If the dinos are buried under tons of rock and dirt, where did the tons of rock and dirt come from ?
Photosynthesis doesn't create mass - it captures ENERGY from the Sun.
A watermelon in sunlight doesn't CREATE mass - it incorporates non-watermelon molecules, breaks them apart, and makes them into watermelon specific molecules through the energy it captures from the Sun.
Wow. Try to at least understand the basics of the reality you live in before you reject it for outlandish fantasy.
True, it converts energy to mass. You can't create 'mass' from 'nothing'.
- it incorporates non-watermelon molecules, breaks them apart, and makes them into watermelon specific molecules through the energy it captures from the Sun.
Which is the process of photosynthesis where it stores the ENERGY from the SUN as mass, which is then turned from mass back into energy, for instance, when we eat it.
Or is this not true?
Try to at least understand the basics of the reality you live in before you reject it for outlandish fantasy.
This whole conversation has been about exploring the concepts and basics of reality. Whether you realize it or not, the BASICS of reality have been CHANGING since man was able to write it down and communicate it to others, which is a very long time.
Heck, at one time, the Milky Way was the entire extent of the UNIVERSE. Was this not, at one time, accepted as truth?
Mars did, then didn't , now once again, does have water.
Pluto was, now it is not, a planet. (on the cosmic scale, the Earth doesn't even qualify, size wise, to be a planet).
When trains first came along, people were convinced that riding on one would rupture their eardrums, because of the 'speed' of the air rushing past.
How many things that you KNOW today, will turn out to be completely wrong many years from now?
Photosynthesis doesn't covert the sun's energy back into mass. It just doesn't. It captures the energy via converting low energy molecules into high energy molecules.
Your ignorance is astounding.
I never said it didn't.
Photosynthesis doesn't covert the sun's energy back into mass. It just doesn't.
That is such an elegant proof.
It captures the energy via converting low energy molecules into high energy molecules.
And what happens to those 'molecules' when converted from low energy to high energy?
Oh, I agree. However, one of those laws concerns that principle that energy can be converted to matter, and matter to energy. Or is that not true?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.