Would sharks and T Rex buried together lean toward the flood?

[Twilight Hue]

I would not say that it was a "couple". For example one of the first laws of geology was written by a Christian, who was also a creationist. The law of superposition:

The oldest stuff is on the bottom

Nicolas Steno was the first to realize what seems obvious today. That the lower level sedimentary rocks had to be older than those on top. He never got to the point where he doubted the Flood, but he laid some very important groundwork for it:

Nicolas Steno - Wikipedia

That kind of explains the Christian origin. It was the almost mid 1600's. I suppose not being a Christian in that era would be rather difficult.

 

[sooda]

To address the bullet points.....

The tooth isn't based on looks, it's based on DNA.
That's how they knew.


From the article itself regarding it's adaptability...

"....serves as another example of the diversification of this shark group not only in oceans worldwide, but also in the freshwater systems in the terrestrial environments near the end of the so-called ‘Age of Reptiles.’”


Stop listening to religion.

Study science.

There was a HUGE inland sea .. all that remains is the Mississippi River Basin.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Lol. I'm far from religious but blame my disagreements on that if it makes you feel better.

That old tooth had DNA in it? Amazing.

Stop taking some articles as fact when some of them aren't, they are assumption.

In denial , huh?

 

[sooda]

You forgot to point a single instance of non-avian dino's being preserved with modern mammals, like the post you are responding to is asking.

 

[Twilight Hue]

@We Never Know . I wonder if this is assumption.....


The abstract from Cambridge. ....

New sharks and other chondrichthyans from the latest Maastrichtian (Late Cretaceous) of North America

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cool story.
-how did they test the pinhead size parts of teeth to show they were from a shark? Oh it just looked similar.
-sharks live in salt water, how did they live in the fresh water stream/river? Oh I see. They stretched it that back then they could live in either.
-how did... Yeah I could throw a million questions into those assumptions.

While it's interesting, it's all assumptions. It wouldn't pass 13.

Not just looked similar. They were the same. Sharks have very distinctive teeth. Species can be identified for them and this one species was named for the shape of its teeth.

Not assumptions, deductions based upon evidence. Worse yet if you claim "assumptions" that is a positive claim on your part. If someone demanded you would need to prove that they made assumptions.q

 

[We Never Know]

Not just looked similar. They were the same. Sharks have very distinctive teeth. Species can be identified for them and this one species was named for the shape of its teeth.

Not assumptions, deductions based upon evidence. Worse yet if you claim "assumptions" that is a positive claim on your part. If someone demanded you would need to prove that they made assumptions.q

Nope. I'm claiming its false, that is a negative. Those claiming its true are making the positive claim. Thanks though for your interests.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. I'm claiming its false, that is a negative. Those claiming its true are making the positive claim. Thanks though for your interests.

You went past that. You claimed it was "assumptions" . That is an attack on the scientists involved. You could have said that you did not believe, and then people could have explained how and why teeth are used to identify many vertebrates, instead you accused the scientists of doing something not allowed in the sciences.

 

[We Never Know]

You went past that. You claimed it was "assumptions" . That is an attack on the scientists involved. You could have said that you did not believe, and then people could have explained how and why teeth are used to identify many vertebrates, instead you accused the scientists of doing something not allowed in the sciences.

Assumption=not fact. A negative. But DNA from a fossilized tooth buried with a T-rex, that's amazing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Assumption=not fact. A negative. But DNA from a fossilized tooth buried with a T-rex, that's amazing.

Not in the sciences.

Try again.

Edit: And you seem to have misunderstood the claim that involved DNA.

 

[We Never Know]

Not in the sciences.

Try again.

Edit: And you seem to have misunderstood the claim that involved DNA.

I took it right from this post

To address the bullet points.....

The tooth isn't based on looks, it's based on DNA.
That's how they knew.


From the article itself regarding it's adaptability...

"....serves as another example of the diversification of this shark group not only in oceans worldwide, but also in the freshwater systems in the terrestrial environments near the end of the so-called ‘Age of Reptiles.’”


Stop listening to religion.

Study science.

Again thanks for your interest.

 

[We Never Know]

Not in the sciences.

Try again.

Edit: And you seem to have misunderstood the claim that involved DNA.

Assumption=not fact. A negative. But DNA from a fossilized tooth buried with a T-rex, that's amazing.

Does assumption equal fact in science? Please be clear by what you mean by 'not in the sciences".

 

[Subduction Zone]

I took it right from this post



Again thanks for your interest.

Yeah, he might have screwed up there, I will grant you that. Just as you screwed up when you used the term "assumptions" . Assumptions of that sort are not allowed in the sciences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Does assumption equal fact in science? Please be clear by what you mean by 'not in the sciences".

Please do not ask false misleading questions.

 

[exchemist]

To address the bullet points.....

The tooth isn't based on looks, it's based on DNA.
That's how they knew.


From the article itself regarding it's adaptability...

"....serves as another example of the diversification of this shark group not only in oceans worldwide, but also in the freshwater systems in the terrestrial environments near the end of the so-called ‘Age of Reptiles.’”


Stop listening to religion.

Study science.

Where do you get this from about DNA in a shark's tooth from the Cretaceous. It sounds wrong. DNA almost never survives long-term fossilisation - and there isn't any DNA in tooth enamel anyway. I would expect it is assigned to a shark because indeed it looks like a shark's tooth.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Please! You can’t legislate attitudes! There are so many selfish & racist people! It doesn’t have to be state-sponsored to flourish.

Dude, please.
The US just had a black president.
Just a few decades ago, a black person couldn't even sit where she wanted on the freaking bus....

Over 970,000,000 suffer w/ some form of mental illness.

Where did you get that number from?

In any case, even glossing over the number seemingly pulled out of thin air, the fact that you're calling it "mental illness" is already evidence of ethical progress compared to, again, just decades ago.

What is today called "mental illness", a medical condition, used to be called "crazy" or "posessed by demons". And instead of actually get help and treatment, they got exorcisms (oftenly with fatal result) or became social outcasts.

And on an observable basis, go live in Syria, Burundi, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Iraq, Honduras, Papua New Guinea, El Salvatore, Mozambique, Sudan, Chad, Niger, Somalia, Madagascar, Comoros, the Congo, Yemen, etc., etc., etc...

Which are all nations with low education, high religiosity and very little to no secular democratic progress or individual freedoms or respect for secular human rights.



Go figure.

According to Google,
Worldwide, 1 in 9 people are starving.

Used to be more as well.

Currently there are over 40 active conflicts on Earth, affecting millions.

Most of which involve nations with high to very high religiosity, or at least some state ideology dogma put in place. State religion, if you wish.

The truth of Jeremiah 10:23 is becoming more and more evident.

Every single one of your examples actually demonstrate the exact opposite of what you are trying to claim.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just who exactly are those couple of Christians?

William Whiston comes to mind

History of geology - Wikipedia

Quote from the article:

It was not until the 17th century that geology made great strides in its development. At this time, geology became its own entity in the world of natural science. It was discovered by the Christian world that different translations of the Bible contained different versions of the biblical text. The one entity that remained consistent through all of the interpretations was that the Deluge had formed the world's geology and geography.[5][failed verification] To prove the Bible's authenticity, individuals felt the need to demonstrate with scientific evidence that the Great Flood had in fact occurred. With this enhanced desire for data came an increase in observations of the Earth's composition, which in turn led to the discovery of fossils

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That kind of explains the Christian origin. It was the almost mid 1600's. I suppose not being a Christian in that era would be rather difficult.

The larger point I was making was exactly what I said: modern geology as a field got kickstarted by christians that explicitly set out researching the earth with the purpose to prove scientifically that the great flood happened.

It is that exercise that sparked interest in geological formations and composition which lead to modern geology as a field.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Point?

 

[exchemist]

The larger point I was making was exactly what I said: modern geology as a field got kickstarted by christians that explicitly set out researching the earth with the purpose to prove scientifically that the great flood happened.

It is that exercise that sparked interest in geological formations and composition which lead to modern geology as a field.

Indeed. And in fact in the c.18th and 19th it became widely recognised in the main churches that the age of the Earth was much greater than Bishop Ussher's chronology and that the biblical flood was, as the first chapters of Genesis were already recognised to be, an allegorical myth rather than a historical event.

It is only with the recrudescence of primitive, uneducated, literalist sects like the Seventh Day Adventists in the c.20th that any of this has become again a point of contention. We seem to be living through the Age of Emancipation of the Ignorant, largely thanks to the internet.