Dino Discovery
#11
Another (this time recent) Dino Discovery... the site contains cool info and high-resolution pictures. http://www.nhm.uio.no/pliosaurus/english/index.html
 
[Image: Pliosaur_Bergens_Tidende2006_Sponga_250pix.jpg]
 
Quote:Palaeontologists from the University of Oslo, Natural History Museum, led by Dr. Jørn Hurum and Hans Arne Nakrem, have discovered a treasure-trove of dinosaur-era fossil marine reptiles from the arctic archipelago of Svalbard.  The 150 million year-old Jurassic fossils were discovered while conducting fieldwork in a remote locality on the island of Spitsbergen, at 78 degrees north latitude, approximately 1300 km (800 miles) from the North Pole. 
The Svalbard locality represents one of the most important new sites for marine reptiles to have been discovered in the last several decades.  In terms of number, a remarkable 28 new individuals were documented during the short two-week field period, nine of which are believed to be significant discoveries.  This tally, which includes 21 long-necked plesiosaurs, six ichthyosaurs and one short necked plesiosaur, ranks Svalbard as one of the most productive sites for marine reptiles in the world.  The fossilized remains are also very well preserved, and most of the skeletons are articulated, with the bones still lying in their original life position.
The most remarkable discovery made during the expedition was that of a gigantic pliosaur.  Based on the fossilized remains of its skull, limbs, and backbone found weathering out of a steep hillside, the skeleton promises to be one of the largest pliosaurs ever discovered.  Nicknamed “The Monster” by the museum field crew, this skeleton has dinner plate-sized neck vertebrae, and portions of the lower jaw containing teeth as big around as bananas.  Initial estimates place the skeleton’s overall length at 10 meters or more, including a skull length likely to exceed 2 meters.
Reply
#12
CampeadorShin Wrote:So... The T Rex might've been around AFTER the Flood.

That's deep, man.[Image: smokin.gif]
Reply
#13
If there were no carnivores until after the flood, where did all the rotting bodies go?
In the natural world, most carcasses are picked clean by animals in a matter of hours.  Otherwise, disease would spread really fast.
 
And were humans vegetarians before the flood?
 
I've never heard this theory before.  Was there a second creation or something?
Reply
#14
QuisUtDeus Wrote:If there were no carnivores until after the flood, where did all the rotting bodies go?
In the natural world, most carcasses are picked clean by animals in a matter of hours.  Otherwise, disease would spread really fast.
 
And were humans vegetarians before the flood?
 
I've never heard this theory before.  Was there a second creation or something?

Not only that...
 
I'll put a creationist hat for a few minutes.
 
God always create his creatures in accord to their function, and way of living.  This making nature sustain itself in a state of perpetual balance.
 
Why then create herbivore T-Rex with sharp teeth's and claws clearly fit for a predator?  And if those appendage appeared as a result of micro-evolution and adaptation after the fall or flood why aren't docile, herbivore, T-Rex ever found?
 
 
Reply
#15
I have no mind-blowing answers here.  Just read Genesis 1-9.  In the original creation (Gen 1-3) God says he has given Man all the trees of the garden for his food.  After the flood (Gen 9) God tells Noah that he may eat animals, but not in the pagan way of eating animals with their life-blood still in them.
 
Those are the first mentions of eating plants vs. eating food.  But that doesn't mean, I suppose, that the concession to Noah to eat meat was the first time that concession was made.
 
Also, keep in mind that these things were spoken to Man.  It doesn't mean that there weren't meat-eating beasts.
Reply
#16
lumengentleman Wrote:I have no mind-blowing answers here.

 
How disappointing, I was really counting on you to make this all good.  [Image: laff.gif]
 
Good reply though.
Reply
#17
Yeah, thanks, Lumen.  Good points.
Reply
#18
But I thought NOTHING from before the Flood was supposed to survive, unless it was on Noah's Ark?
Reply
#19
CampeadorShin Wrote:But I thought NOTHING from before the Flood was supposed to survive, unless it was on Noah's Ark?

Well, something had to otherwise the bird wouldn't have brought back a branch that let Noah know that the waters were receding.  That tree didn't come off the ark, so at least one tree had to survive.
 
Some things we can't take all too literally.  It could be that the world flooding meant the world where humans were living.  There could have been parts untouched like in the polar caps, etc.  Man probably hadn't spread to the four corners at that time.  No men survived, and possibly God had Noah bring the animals so that in the known-world things could be restarted.  If Noah had to rely on migration, humans probably would have died off.
 
I'm just stating a possibility.  I don't claim it's fact.
 
Reply
#20
Liz,
 
Do you have a link to the source of this article?
 
 
+
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)