For years, the mammals living in the era of dinosaurs have been thought of as tiny shrewlike creatures scurrying through the underbrush. Now the discovery of a furry aquatic creature with seallike teeth and a flat tail like a beaver has demolished that image.

Some 164 million years ago, the newly discovered mammal was swimming in lakes in what is now northern China, eating fish and living with dinosaurs.

“Its lifestyle was probably very similar to the modern-day platypus,” Zhe-Xi Luo, curator of vertebrate paleontology at Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, said in a statement. “It probably lived along river or lake banks. It doggy-paddled around, ate aquatic animals and insects, and burrowed tunnels for its nest.”

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060223/060223_jurassicbeaver_vmed_10a.widec.jpg

Luo was part of a team led by Qiang Ji of the Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences in Beijing that discovered the remains in the Inner Mongolia region of China. They report their findings in Friday’s issue of the journal Science.

Thomas Martin of the Research Institute Senckenberg in Frankfurt, Germany, said the discovery pushes back the mammal conquest of the waters by more than 100 million years.

“This exciting fossil is a further jigsaw puzzle piece in a series of recent discoveries,” commented Martin, who was not part of Luo’s team.

Built to swim the sea
Matthew Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History, called the find “a big deal.”

An important factor is how specialized the creature was, said Carrano, who was not part of the research group.

“It gives a hint that early mammals were not just these shadowy creatures at the time of dinosaurs” but were having their own evolution. There have been hints of such animals in the past, but nothing equal to the remains found by Luo and colleagues, he said.

It’s the first evidence that some ancient mammals were semi-aquatic, indicating a greater diversification than previously thought, according to the researchers.

Modern semi-aquatic mammals such as beavers and otters and aquatic mammals like whales did not appear until between 55 million years ago and 25 million years ago, according to the researchers.

Not related to modern beavers
The animal is not related to modern beavers or otters but has features similar to them. Thus the researchers named it Castorocauda lutrasimilis. Castoro from the Latin for beaver, cauda for tail, lutra for river otter and similis meaning similar.

The animal had fur, a broad scaly tail with vertebrae similar to those in a beaver or otter, swimmer’s limbs and seallike teeth for eating fish, they said.

The researchers found imprints of the fur, both guard hairs and short, dense under-fur that would have kept water from the skin. Scales were also apparent on the tail as well as a suggestion of soft tissues. There was also the skeleton including teeth.

Weighing in at between 1.1 and 1.7 pounds (500 to 750 grams), about the size of a small female platypus, Castorocauda is also the largest known Jurassic early mammal.

The research was funded by the U.S. National Science Foundation, National Natural Science Foundation of China, Ministry of Science and Technology of China, Chinese Ministry of Land Resources, National Geographic Society and Carnegie Museum.

Got wood?

http://www.t-nation.com/forum_images/764623.1127500971169.Shaved_beaver.jpg

was it a monotreme?

and these dates/time frames are based on exactly.......................*nothing*........not a damn thing

except several different dating protocols that you have yet to convincingly refute.

i don't usually get involved in these 'discussions,' but the article never mentions what they used to date the beaver. (gawd that sounds funny)

since its so old, presumably they took radiometric samples from the sedimentary layer surrounding the fossil.

what exactly is your argument against that? i don't know if you check your sources, but that link you posted cited a *christian* theological page that discusses radiometric dating, and why christiains SHOULD acknowledge that the earth is indeed much older then we would otherwise infer from the bible.

here's the cited web page from the article you posted.
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

and here's a quote.

19. Only atheists and liberals are involved in radiometric dating.

The fact is that there are a number of Bible-believing Christians who are involved in radiometric dating, and who can see its validity firsthand. A great number of other Christians are firmly convinced that radiometric dating shows evidence that God created the Earth billions, not thousands, of years ago.

why is it that human remains that were buried in dirt for 5000~ years didn't fossilize where much LARGER dino remains fossilized (due to the millions of years it takes to go through the fossilization process)?

Another example is petrified wood.

takes alot longer than the age of the earth (according) to the bible to have minerals displace the organic substance in the wood.

those arguments were already refuted in the first link... but i'll run through 'em anyway. and i don't believe saying the earth is bazillions of years old contradicts anything in God's word.

1. Conventional radioisotope dating methods are inconsistent and therefore not reliable. In dating the same rock layer, radioisotope dating showed four different ages.

when you are operating on a scale of millions of years, even a 1% margin of error can lead to varying huge gaps of time. when it's the difference between 100 million years vs. 101 million years, you can come out and say, "different dating techniques have led to incongruent results with a difference on a scale of millions of years!" but when you get four results that are 101, 102 100.5 and 100 million years old, you can see how such a statement is extremely misleading. the fact that they didn't even bother to mention what 'ages' they had found implies that they are concealing that fact.

indeed, the BIGGEST strength of radiometric dating is that it gives very consistent relative results, even when different radiometric methods are used.

20. Different dating techniques usually give conflicting results.

This is not true at all. The fact that dating techniques most often agree with each other is why scientists tend to trust them in the first place. Nearly every college and university library in the country has periodicals such as Science, Nature, and specific geology journals that give the results of dating studies. The public is usually welcome to (and should!) browse in these libraries. So the results are not hidden; people can go look at the results for themselves. Over a thousand research papers are published a year on radiometric dating, essentially all in agreement. Besides the scientific periodicals that carry up-to-date research reports, specific suggestions are given below for further reading, both for textbooks, non-classroom books, and web resources.

2. Substantial amounts of helium found in crystals within granite. If the earth evolved over billions of years, all the helium should have already escaped.

15. Low abundances of helium in zircon grains show that these minerals are much younger than radiometric dating suggests.

Zircon grains are important for uranium-thorium-lead dating because they contain abundant uranium and thorium parent isotopes. Helium is also produced from the decay of uranium and thorium. However, as a gas of very small atomic size, helium tends to escape rather easily. Researchers have studied the rates of diffusion of helium from zircons, with the prediction from one study by a young-Earth creationist suggesting that it should be quantitatively retained despite its atomic size. The assumptions of the temperature conditions of the rock over time are most likely unrealistic in this case.

16. The fact that radiogenic helium and argon are still degassing from the Earth's interior prove that the Earth must be young.

The radioactive parent isotopes, uranium and potassium, have very long half-lives, as shown in Table 1. These parents still exist in abundance in the Earth's interior, and are still producing helium and argon. There is also a time lag between the production of the daughter products and their degassing. If the Earth were geologically very young, very little helium and argon would have been produced. One can compare the amount of argon in the atmosphere to what would be expected from decay of potassium over 4.6 billion years, and in fact it is consistent.


3. Radiohalos in rocks caused by the decay of uranium and polonium, which strongly suggests a rapid decay rate, not gradual decay over billions of years.

13. "Radiation halos" in rocks prove that the Earth was young.

This refers to tiny halos of crystal damage surrounding spots where radioactive elements are concentrated in certain rocks. Halos thought to be from polonium, a short-lived element produced from the decay of uranium, have been found in some rocks. A plausible explanation for a halo from such a short-lived element is that these were not produced by an initial concentration of the radioactive element. Rather, as water seeped through cracks in the minerals, a chemical change caused newly-formed polonium to drop out of solution at a certain place and almost immediately decay there. A halo would build up over a long period of time even though the center of the halo never contained more than a few atoms of polonium at one time. "Hydrothermal" effects can act in ways that at first seem strange, such as the well-known fact that gold--a chemically un-reactive metal with very low solubilities--is concentrated along quartz veins by the action of water over long periods of time. Other researchers have found halos produced by an indirect radioactive decay effect called hole diffusion, which is an electrical effect in a crystal. These results suggest that the halos in question are not from short-lived isotopes after all.

4. Diamonds thought to be millions/billions of years old by evolutionists contain significant levels of carbon-14. Since carbon-14 decays quickly, none should have been found in the diamonds if the evolutionary age is correct.

well this one is so general it's hard to say anything about it. what diamonds? who said it was millions or billions of years old? how did they determine it was that old? it doesn't say it was radiometrically dated. for all we know someone could've plucked it out of tiffany's, and declared it was billions of years old. maybe it's just a really young diamond? the fact that they say 'millions/billions' of years old, instead of giving specific dates and facts, is also extremely suspect, in my opinion.

and btw, i think the whole young earth / old earth argument is completely moot.

grab a super high powered telescope and measure redshift in distant galaxies. that should be enough to tell you that the universe has been around for a long ass time. if you're not willing to accept that, then you must accept that:

#1 god created the universe before he created the earth, which is not in the bible. uh oh.

#2 god created the universe in an instant present condition when he created the earth, in such a way to make it look like it had already been around for a long time.

if you take this argument, you could just say god created the earth with dinosaur bones already in the ground.

i'm pretty sure the christian god would totally be capable of doing that.

alain,

the simple passage time really has nothing to do with it...it's all about the right chemical environment

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/wood.asp



the conclusion in that article is hella misleading. assuming everything it says in the first 3/4 of the article is true -

just because petrified wood *can* be made instantaneously doesn't mean all petrified wood *was* made instantaneously.

that's like saying you can go to trenton in 5 minutes by car, so it always takes you 5 minutes to get to trenton. well no, it certainly won't take 5 minutes if you walk.

POLEMICS

These arguments, both sides, are about as valid as the Horkheimer and Adorno Critical Theory agrument that Jazz perpetuates a slave mentality in listeners.

btw, your links prove nothing, it's an endless do-loop of combat link posting and I'm tired of it...you either believe what God says in his Word, or you don't..."millions of years" is complete nonsense, and it will be proven to be nonsense

it doesn't need to be proven as nonsense or truth because it's completely irrelevant to faith.

god demands submission and faith and repentence... salvation doesn't depend on whether or not you accept the world is exactly a certain number of years old.

if i were to take everything at face value, i'd be perfectly comfortable with both views.

you could easily say that scientists have dated the earth to be millions of years old, because god created it in such a way that it seemed like natural processes had already been running for bajillions of years.

http://paleo.cc/kpaleo/fossdate.htm

radiometric methods are very seldom used to date fossils, and they are useless even if they were

AIG will have C-14 dating results of "fresh" (non mineralized) dinosaur bones within a year....we're gonna blow the lid off this long standing fallacy

Interesting - when anyone else uses C-14 dating, you call it inaccurate. When AIG uses it, it's suddenly gospel.

nothing is impossible for God...God could have created in six seconds....the 7 day week was designed to set the pattern for human life on this earth, it was not designed to give God "time"...foolish

let me clarify

god could have *created* an =old universe and old earth= in 7 days as stated in the bible. it would not contradict anything, because if you were to radioisotope date rocks on the 7th day of creation, you would find their age to be millions of years old, even when all of existence has only lasted for 7 days.

as you said yourself:

"nothing is impossible for God"

So if things can be created fully mature, that would imply the Earth may appear to be millions of years old. Yet anyone who says the evidence demnstrates the Earth is millions of years old, you say is wrong.

I went to catholic shools my entire life, never once was creationism mentioned in science class, besides the monkey trials

catholics believe in all kinds of false doctrines...


please explain

found this to be interesting

http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/genesis.asp

where in the bible does it say that one form of religion should be followed rather then another. It is all based on interpretations. Bashing other religions does not make you a very good christian.

Looks like you got all your info from here

http://christianity.about.com/od/denominations/a/catholicdenom_2.htm

how much time do you have?

praying to mary and veneration fo the disciples (idolatry)

They are not prayed to as God is

justification by WORKS (false doctrine)
What do you mean?

the entire concept of the papacy, a supposed legacy of Peter (false doctrine)

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

the concept of hierarchy in the church, with other than Christ as the Head and Ruler (false doctrine)

There is no herarchy...I don't understand where you are getting this. If you believe that the pope, cardinals, bishiops etc.. are at a higher level then anyone else you do not understand the religion very well

forced celibacy of priests (false doctrine)

many of the early popes were married, priests can be married just not at the time they are ordained or there after. That is why there are decons

eucharist, a belief that the bread literally becomes the body of Christ! (false doctrine)

refer to the last supper

the concept of purgatory, that there is some type of "holding tank" so you can get you sins "worked out" after you die (false doctrine)

The concept of an after-death purification from sin and the consequences of sin is also stated in the New Testament in passages such as 1 Corinthians 3:11–15 and Matthew 5:25–26, 12:31–32.



selling of "indulgences"....

????

The sale of indulgences was common practice by the Catholic church, introduced around 1340 by then-Pope Clement VI, in the Unigenitus decree that people could buy remission from sin and a guaranteed place in Heaven

(pardon me while I quote like Shorty for a moment)

Upon the altar of the Cross Christ shed of His blood not merely a drop, though this would have sufficed, by reason of the union with the Word, to redeem the whole human race, but a copious torrent ... thereby laying up an infinite treasure for mankind. This treasure He neither wrapped up in a napkin nor hid in a field, but entrusted to Blessed Peter, the key-bearer, and his successors, that they might, for just and reasonable causes, distribute it to the faithful in full or in partial remission of the temporal punishment due to sin

People like Martin Luthor complained and painted it as a way for the Church to further enrich itself, but what Mark isn't telling you is that in practice the sale of indulgences referred to alms; by giving sums of money to charities, one 'bought' piety. Where the hoodwink comes in is the fact that most charities were fronts by the Church, and you paid a set price to receive a piece of paper that declared your sins forgiven.

The Catholic Encyclopedia admits that under Leo, "Jubilees and indulgences were degraded almost entirely into financial transactions...."

I see

n your worthless opinion; however, clearly, you have no idea what the Bible says, because you only butcher it, as shown by the long winded stuff above

my opinion is my opinion whether you deem it as worthless or not. I follow my religion and you do the same with yours. Many times your long winded arguements are close minded, and unable to accept the beliefs of others whether they coincide with yours or not.




sadly, my job 99% of the time on this forum, and others like it, is more along the lines of "correct" and "rebuke", because there is such gross error running rampant

being on this forum is not your 'job' Just out of curiousity what do you do for a living, I am sure it has been brought up before, no siginifigance I am just curious

which is complete heresy

well duh - Martin Luthor beat you to that point by a couple of centuries ;)

and your point is?

Peter was a very significant apostle, one of Christ's "inner circle" of 3 men, but there is no connection whatsoever between Peter and the gross error of the papacy, introduced some 300 years later

read and be educated http://www.gdcoc.org/religiousgroups/peter_as_pope.htm

"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19].

the Roman system is not holy, and it's not at the forefront of anything....except perhaps the gates of Hell

window dressing

window dressing??

I am going to lunch for now....

night shift?

what do you do? security? haha

Night shift yes...security no, and why would that be funny?!?

support tech/systems admin

A thread about a chinese beaver has really .............. blossomed.

AIG will have C-14 dating results of "fresh" (non mineralized) dinosaur bones within a year

Yeah, because we know that answersingenesis is the world leader in scientific research and is not the least bit skewed... :rolleyes:

....we're gonna blow the lid off this long standing fallacy

"We"? So now you're working hand in hand with AIG? Even more reason to not listen to a word they say.

how much time do you have?

praying to mary and veneration fo the disciples (idolatry)
justification by WORKS (false doctrine)
the entire concept of the papacy, a supposed legacy of Peter (false doctrine)
the mass (false doctrine)
the concept of hierarchy in the church, with other than Christ as the Head and Ruler (false doctrine)
forced celibacy of priests (false doctrine)
eucharist, a belief that the bread literally becomes the body of Christ! (false doctrine)
the concept of purgatory, that there is some type of "holding tank" so you can get you sins "worked out" after you die (false doctrine)
selling of "indulgences"....

on and on and on it goes....all that stuff is in the Magisterium, but not in the Bible, and it has shipwrecked countless souls

satan ain't dumb....satan figured out not long after Christ that he is far more successful when he JOINS the church, and spreads his lies, then when he openly resists it...if anything, the true church only gets stronger under persecution, some of which came from the catholic church itself during the dark ages

http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/pre-reformation.html

Yet everything you believe/worship is based on the foundations of the Catholic church... Hmm.

but it is possible....and it lines up with what you would expect during a global water catastrophe

the same people say the grand canyon *must* have required vast epochs of time

they are wrong

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=research&action=index&page=researchp_sa_r04&mode=print

Can you ever use a non-religious site to back up your claims?

Mark,

In ur teachings and intepretations of the bible u talk (alot of shit) about other "false" religons, churches, christian sects, etc. with a common theme that Satan cast his shadow over them, making them effectively a church of Satan.

Any reason, besides ur divine knowledge that ur in the right and others are in the wrong, on what u are reading didn't fall victim to Satan's teachings?

U sure are filled with anger and hate, both are qualities that Lucifer possess.

True Christian, and qualities of good people are:

easy going
happy go-lucky
loving
caring
kind
forgiving
positive

Non of which I have seen evident in u.

I think someone needs to place their hand on ur forehead and shout the words, "COME OUT!!"

The 40 year old virgin strikes again!

........I can also rightly claim, based on your countless thousands of posts here, that you are a pervert with a serious porn addiction....see how easy it is to make accusations? is that true in your life? only you, and God, know that

yea, ur right, well sorta, hence why I can assume that ur the same off and online........

When I'm cumming, I tell GOD and my SO.

Should I be doing some Lucifer chant instead?

just turned 39....definitely not a virgin

but this is a pretty sick world where the measure of your value is based on how many sex partners you've had...sex is essentially worshipped in our society, which is an indicator of how depraved it is

then again, I would expect nothing less from a drunken 25 year old punk, still mentally residing in high school

that's right, I don't have patience with idiots....I'm guilty

Good to know that u have tested ur equipment and cleared ur ducts.

do it often and safely so that u won't develop prostate cancer, which they found has a link to viruses and might be classified as a STD.

We know that cervical Cancer is caused by the same virus that causes veneral warts.

more like 350000000000 years

just turned 39....definitely not a virgin

but this is a pretty sick world where the measure of your value is based on how many sex partners you've had...sex is essentially worshipped in our society, which is an indicator of how depraved it is



Not as sick as branding people as saved or condemned.

come on Mark, everyone knows that u have been acting like GOD with ur condemmation.

remember, "thou shalt not lie"

And ur breaking one of the 10 condemment :)

God does that, not me

Well fuck that cocksucker too.

just turned 39....definitely not a virgin




However the bible teaches us that

(Exo 22:16-17) "If a man seduces a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her, he must pay the bride-price, and she shall be his wife. {17} If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins.

(Lev 21:10-15) "'The high priest, the one among his brothers who has had the anointing oil poured on his head and who has been ordained to wear the priestly garments, must not let his hair become unkempt or tear his clothes. {11} He must not enter a place where there is a dead body. He must not make himself unclean, even for his father or mother, {12} nor leave the sanctuary of his God or desecrate it, because he has been dedicated by the anointing oil of his God. Hence the Celibacy of priests I am the LORD. {13} "'The woman he marries must be a virgin. {14} He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people, {15} so he will not defile his offspring among his people. I am the LORD, who makes him holy.'"

Wow, that is all I can say

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/negative12345/eyeouch.gif

I really wish this thread talked more about chinese Beavers!!

http://www.beaversww.org/bev6.gif

http://www.nature.ca/NOTEBOOKS/images/beaver.gif

http://www.museumoftheamericanwest.org/explore/exhibits/encounters/furtrade/3_fur/content/image/3-4-0.jpg


NWS

http://www.mrchewsasianbeaver.com/tour2/?wm_login=26314&cf=y

jesus christ your sig is SICK meddle! omg! is that shit real? real live person with working eye? omg i threw up my pepsi vanilla!

the fact that the Bible and it's teachings are so relentlessly attacked, perverted, and copied, is all the more proof of satan's activity throughout history

meanwhile, God's Word marches on, 3500 years and counting

And the Quran is relentlessly attacked, perverted, and copied as well... So, again, how do you know that you're right?

who is trying to pervert and twist what the Quran says?

Elijah Muhammad, Reverend Farakkan, several Iranian mullahs, etc. etc. etc.

yzf-r1,

there are plenty of folks that adulterate and butcher the Quran's "interpretations".

Point being is that Christian and other "word of GOD" are NOT immune.

Of course, u'll try to rebuttal that what u read is the true word and once again.......... look bad.

can I get an amen???



No.

We will all be in heaven sooner or later

Nope. Catholic doctrine includes purgatory and hell.

"purgatory" is the big sell (and lie) of catholicismso we agree it's part of Catholic doctrine. The rest of your post is just taking up space.

The rest of your post is just taking up space.

haha

hey yzf do you ever get tired of typing?

hey yzf do you ever get tired of typing?
god gives him the strength.

god gives him the strength.

"Lead us not into typos,
But deliver us from run-on sentences."

:teeth: Funny stuff

U keep saying that GOD preserves his word.

How?

got proof other than ur faith that what ur reading is the "real" version?

So why weren't the Ten Commandments similarly preserved?