Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,757 Year: 4,014/9,624 Month: 885/974 Week: 212/286 Day: 19/109 Hour: 2/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "We Dug Dinos" - Rebuttals/Confirmations?
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4626 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 1 of 2 (376790)
01-13-2007 7:37 PM


I ran into an article today called We Dug Dinos by Do-While Jones. Though the article is from 1999 I could not find any direct rebuttals to some of his claims.
First he claims that the area in northern Montana where the dig was based is in a coulee that "Evolutionary geologists would say it happened 15,000 to 70,000 years ago". Though he does not cite who made these claims, they do seem to be blatantly contradictory when other scientists are claiming the eggs at the site are 75 million years old. (1)
His second claim is that the fossils they dug up where not fossils at all. The bones, eggs, and seashells are not rock as most would expect. He states that Anne Wilkins, an "invertebrate paleontology expert" shrugged off these findings and that 75 million year old seashells (non fossilized) are quite common. (2)
My question regarding his first claim is how could it be that no other scientist realized this contradiction before he worked at the dig site and then published his article? Does anyone here perhaps have links to the proposed geologic age of these dig sites or any dating methods used for the bones?
My second question regards the so called fossils themselves. Have 75 million year old bones/seashells/eggs been found that are not in a fossilized state? I am not the best at searching the peer review database at the university so I was unable to find any articles that may show this to be true.
During my amature rockhounding trips I have found many seashells, one mammoth tooth, hundreds of pieces of petrified wood and what I think to be larvae; all of my finds are unquestionably stone/rock/nonbone. I am not an expert, but what I have read about fossils seems to be supported by my few finds.
Anyone care to enlighten me? The article is interesting in his claims, but I am highly skeptical for many reasons. I may have found reasons to doubt the credibilty of the article, but I cannot directly refute the two claims presented above.
ABE: Not much to discuss here. I dug around and found the information I was looking for. Do not promote
Edited by Vacate, : Changed title as I cant spell confirmations
Edited by Vacate, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminWounded, posted 01-17-2007 9:32 AM Vacate has not replied

AdminWounded
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 2 (377517)
01-17-2007 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Vacate
01-13-2007 7:37 PM


Do not promote
You're the boss, metaphorically speaking.
TTFN,
AW

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Vacate, posted 01-13-2007 7:37 PM Vacate has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024