Strange Science: Dinosaurs and Dragons

[Barry]

I thought I put this up here for in-fo
for someone to use. You people can use this in-fo
anyway you wish.

Here's the link to the site. Strange Science: Dinosaurs and Dragons

Enjoy!

cya, ;D

[utoraptor3000]

thanks for the information. it is pretty strange

[RedFeather]

I've read dinosaur books that say that people found fossils in places like China back in the day, before anyone was aware of dinosaurs, and that they were commonly thought to be dragon bones. So, it doesn't surprise me. I've come across it often, so I thought it was common knowledge. Maybe not. It is rather interesting, though. :-)

[Buttercup]

This doesn't surprise me in the least. Back in jr. high. I ddi a social studies fair project on unicorns. I learned just how many different animals had been spotted around the world with deformities or under weird circumstances to lend "proof" to the unicorn myths.

So now to learn just how many extinct animals can be blamed for dragons, nope, not one bit surprised....the world is fu;ll of overzealous scientists, water deprived people who see mirages, etc.. It has always been this way and i beleive that the world will continue to be this way.

[samdman]

Hmmm . . .

"Despised in the West and revered in the East, dragons have a long history in human mythology. "Dragon" bones appeared throughout the world. We now know that those bones really belonged to animals long extinct. "

Um, this might sound like a silly question but HOW do we know they're "long extinct"?!! Those pics and the fact they have a long history in human mythology up until about 150 years ago kinda tells me they're not THAT long extinct really!!

Perhaps these dragons/dinosaurs have been around a lot more recently than we've been told . . . perhaps there are even still some around today . . .

As a side note, the geologic column is a load of rubbish so the age of dinosaurs is determined only by whatever "they" say it is - check out this link for the surprising truth . . .

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3954156199145885147&q=lies+in+the+textbooks

[Katrina Rix]

Erm... Speaking as a geologist, the geological column is pretty bloody solid, kiddo. His arguements about the Grand Canyon are shakey, to say the least. If you want to argue geology with me, give it your best shot.

[samdman]

I'd love for you to help me out - I'm not a scientist in any way at all but I know what science is MEANT to be - theories based on factual evidence.

If you could briefly explain 2 me how the ages of each layer in the geologic column are worked out that'd be great, also how ages of fossils are worked out, and finally how you explain the petrified trees through several layers at once, I'd really appreciate it!!

[Azonthus]

Nice link, Dwaggie=) I've actually done speeches on how dinosaurs inspired the legends of Dragons and other mythological creatures. In fact, I did a whole paper on how dinosaurs have affected cultures throughout history! It was for a high school paper and I wanted to do the project on something I enjoyed as opposed to something boring like why the drinking age should be lowered or why school should start later. I'll have to look it up, but there is one awesome book on how mythological creatures such as the griffen, dragon, Native American Thunderbird and Greek creatures were actually dinosaurs or other fossils. The name of the book escapes me right now, and it's going to drive me nuts until I figure it out! I guess I'll have to make a library trip later and check out the book again, or I could just go through my references on my paper... We'll see tomorrow;)

[Barry]

I'm glad you liked it. ;D

[Katrina Rix]

Okay, here goes - ages are correlated through deposits that can be dated, usually igneous in origin. There's several methods, and before the age can become official, more than one method must be used, and more than one scientist must reach the same conclusion. Deposition can continue around petrified trees. Also, the rate of deposition can be told from the type sedimentary rock, so some are buried in quick deposits. The degree of sorting and grain character are the best clues to discovering how quickly a deposit formed. Ages of fossils can be worked out using the dateable rock around it. Paleomagnetic is one good dating method, although drilling the cores is a pain. For one thing, the bloody drill is heavy and needs to be kept wet. But it's worth it - if you did it right, you get a spot on date spit back at you. Of course, there's also the tried and true method of radioactive dating. It's best to date all isotopes available, and they'll give you a date with about a million year margin of error, which sounds like a lot, but is pretty piddling compared to Deep Time. As always, have it verified independtly by someone who has no idea what your results were.

Hey! One of my books on pterosaurs had some cool stuff on prehistoric critters and fossils as dragon bones. There's a interesting book on ceratopsians that relates griffins to the protoceratops bones of the Flaming Cliffs. *sigh* I'd be so happy if we had a nonavian dinosaur hanging about. While I'm at it, I'd also like a trilobite. OO! And one of the giant sea scorpions! ... What? Pterygotus is cute.

[samdman]

Mmmm, yeah trilobites are nice aren't they?! Index fossil for 600 million years ago or something?!! Have a look at this site:

www.unsolved-mysteries.net/rundgang2eng/chapter11.htm

I think the second picture is the interesting one, let me know what you make of it . . .

[samdman]

Different pictures but of the same kinda thing and a lot better quality, much clearer, sorry bout double posting!!

paleo.cc/paluxy/meister.htm

[Katrina Rix]

Yeehaw! I love this kind of thing! Thankees, samdman! (Can I call you Sam, or am I being rude?)

Okay, let's go. I really wish the site gave some more information for the context of the stuff. Reading the blurbs, for a lot of them, I can't tell if I'm looking at intrusive material. The cup, for instance, is a classic intrusive, but that's because I know a little more about the actual site where it was found.

Hammer - Limestone forms pretty quickly - remember, it's disolved in water and then percipitates out. It's a chemical sedimentary, as opposed to the more usual type. Think like travertine formations at Yellowstone. In fact, the hammer, if from the 1800s, has had more then enough time. Add that to the fact that it looks exactly like the standard type of hammer, and this just adds to an unfortunate misunderstanding of geology on the part of whoever put the site together. Uch. Too easy. I demand more difficulty!

The fossils - those bones aren't even from mammals! One of them's a concretion! Ow! OW! OW! Ow... This is an unfortunate lack of knowledge of bones (fossils are my specialty) on the part of whoever put this together. Seriously, this is just bad paleontology. And geology, because concretions are not organic in origin. Once again, challenge me! ... Please?

The human bones, take two- look at the texture of the bone, specifically the small holes. Humans don't have that kind of bone texture. Whales do. Coincedentally, Ecuador is famous for fossil whales.

About the footprint - ...Did you read the associated article with your second link? It explains the origin of the print.

On a brief tangent - Stepping on a trilobite? That'd hurt, especially if it was one of the spiky ones from Morocco. Especially considering that that species is a deep water trilobite. I think the article blows the arguement up well enough so that I don't need to say anything.

All in all, nice try, but no cigar.

So, how about the methods of rock dating? Any comments from you on geology - in case you couldn't tell, I'm enjoying our little debate. Thank you!