Workers Uncovering Mummified Dinosaur

Photo caption typo: "The textured skin of a hadrosaur is visible as it emerges from it's sandstone tomb..."

Should "it's" really be "its"? Please notify your editors.

newsvine will not allow links but just search using the terms dakota, dinosaur and mummified and you'll find some more updated info.

65 million years old MY @!$%#ING ASS!

Welcome Reddit users! This story is now #1 on Reddit's hot list.

Pffft. Who says nothing good comes out of North Dakota? ;-)

Great Story !

Love that figure, too, 67 million years buried.

How did they figure that - did they find the dino's DayTimer planner beside him ?

The questionable assumptions of evolution are swallowed whole. I love how they tell you this figure. They checked the strata said fossil was buried in, and tell you what age they have assigned to it, the strata. Ok so Dakota was found in the 65 million - 70 million range strata.

But, inquiring minds might then ask:

How did you determine the strata age range ? (For best results: Put common sense & credibility on hold, here):

'We determined the strata range by the fossils found in it, nearby.'

Huh ? Now it's terribly impolitic at this point, but vitally important in the quest for something approximating objectivity, to ask: "Isn't that circular reasoning ?" - dating the strata by the fossil, then the fossil by the strata ?

Fast & furious is the reply - SHUT UP - Don't mention that - aren't the (buck naked) emperor's clothes nice - keep our funding going - don't question the orthodoxy of evolution - it's a settled point of fact.

So, then evolution is, in many quarters, presented as complete dogma, a veritable 'Bible' of materialist & naturalistic assumptions - complete with Commandments, doctrines & a priestly class of defenders.

It stands tall, as long as you check your questions at the door - yet for all of it's bluster, it's as full of unprovable assumptions as many of it's proponents wish you to think, say, Biblical Creationism is.

Both are faiths - both are fraught with assumptions - both look at the same evidence and come to vastly different conclusions.

It's the lies and hidden assumptions told in favor of evolution, and the fervor with witch these 'high priests of evolution try to force their assumptions under the surface, that demand our skepticism.

(this article didn't necessarily show that fervor - but it's there if you probe - the assumptions of evolution - is just a super assumed, yet unproven assumption, that masquerades as fact)

If that leads many to examine the case for Creationism & Intelligent Design, so be it.

It requires no more faith to believe 'In the beginning, God created the heavens & the earth...." Genesis, Chapter 1, than it does the assumptions of evolution.

www.ICR.org

@David:

I'm glad there are people like yourself and places like ICR that have to courage to follow what you believe to be true. It makes me stronger in my own beliefs to follow the tale of creationism and what its followers try desperately to prove wrong.

The one part of this equation that you're ignoring is the fundamental difference between faith and science. As a creationist, you have a book that tells you how it all happened and now you feel compelled to make the evidence fit (or dispel the evidence that appears to contradict). As scientists, we have thousands of books that "tell the truth" that we're always looking to support, improve, or prove false.

There are strict evolutionists out there, to be certain but I know from experience that a (good) scientist will re-think his assumptions when faced with evidence to the contrary while a creationist does not have that luxury/ability/desire.

That being said, I will definitely read some of the information posted on ICR, if only to be fully informed on the issue. No sarcasm, David, I appreciate having a wide variety of information with which to form my most important conclusions.

Good luck on here :)

radiocarbon dating is considered by its most enthusiastic supporters as accurate at a maximum of 35,000 years. Many in the scientific community feel it has limited accuracy up to 4,000 years and then only based on the calibration model it selects for the area in which the test subject is located. Fossilized remains are always extremely problematic for this method of fixing an approximate date.

Where is the oil?

Where is the oil?

Doesn't fossil fuel come from these critters?

I quite agree! This business about a fossil supposedly being 67 million years old is WAY too ridiculous to believe. That's why I cling to the belief that there is a magical creature who is MUCH more that 67 trillion billion gazillion years old, who can create beautiful universes full of smallpox viruses, polio viruses, devils, demons and cockroaches simply by uttering the phrase "Let there be light."

The article also asks us to swallow the ridiculous notion that scientists have developed reliable methods for determining the ages of geologic strata. Balderdash! Any rational individual will refuse to believe such utter nonsense and will, instead, choose to believe that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective (Last updated 2002)

Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today.

There are now well over forty different radiometric dating techniques, each based on a different radioactive isotope....A partial list of the parent and daughter isotopes and the decay half-lives is given in Table I. Notice the large range in the half-lives. [75,400 to 106 billion years - more than enough to date a 65 million year old rock stratum.]

Isotopes with long half-lives decay very slowly, and so are useful for dating correspondingly ancient events. Isotopes with shorter half-lives cannot date very ancient events because all of the atoms of the parent isotope would have already decayed away, like an hourglass left sitting with all the sand at the bottom. Isotopes with relatively short half-lives are useful for dating correspondingly shorter intervals, and can usually do so with greater accuracy, just as you would use a stopwatch rather than a grandfather clock to time a 100 meter dash. On the other hand, you would use a calendar, not a clock, to record time intervals of several weeks or more....

* There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores. * All of the different dating methods agree--they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some Christians make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude! * Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth. * Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined. * Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years. * The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.

And don't miss the web resources the author provides!

IMHO, the American Scientific Affiliation (http://www.asa3.org/) deserves way more press than it gets....

I just wanted to see if anyone had seen full pictures of this thing and I got a lesson in punctuation,Christian science,and dating fossils....WTF?

those videos are at: video google and on youtube you'll find them at thedailywtf.com

It's fantastic. Wow!

noah said "no mo dinoso" he lef dem monstaz float.

So, to you creationists out there, I have a question.

You so vehemently attack the estimated date of fossils, calling the methods of dating ridiculous fallacies. I'm curious how scientists searching for truth, even with our limited but ever-improving technology and constantly evolving theories, is any less believable than your imaginary friend in the sky saying "go go gadget dinosaur fossil!" and magically putting deliberately misleading evidence into the ground?

The problem with creationists, it seems, is that you are simple minded people who feel the earth is equally simple. This explains why you consult a book written, translated, edited and re-written by many, many HUMANS, that is riddled with contradictions and epically fantastic tales of people turning to pillars of salt and rising from the dead.

At least scientists are making an effort to figure out what ACTUALLY makes our universe tick. They're willing to accept that what they previously thought was inaccurate, because they were missing a few pieces of the puzzle. In the face of new evidence, they reformulate their theory to account for new evidene, rather than poopooing it because it doesn't fit their preconceived idea.

Nietzsche said "God is dead." While I agree with the sentiment, I think he got the semantics wrong. How can something which never existed die?

Religion, the root of all evil. It's a book and a tv program , well worth watching. it's a scientific look at the bible and the amazingly different way's people interpret it. It shows the bible for what it is , a 2000 yr old book written by people of the time period, who were not very smart or kind , forgiving or loving. God of the bible is a vengeful, jealous god, demanding child sacrifice.

What an amazing story and find, I can't believe that the initial comments were concerned punctuation and not the actuall story itself!