Dinosaurs and the fossil record

Scientific challenges to the beliefs promoted by the Brahma Kumaris so called "World Spiritual University"
  • Message
  • Author
User avatar



  • Posts: 10488
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Fossil fish fills evolutionary gap

Post20 Oct 2006

surya2037 wrote:The four-legged land animals as Baba already mentioned

Hmmn ... nice fossil but not really what I was thinking about. We were talking about "Four-legged large animals", i.e. how did Tyrannosaurus Rex that lived about 65 million years ago (which is really 2 arms and 2 legs and a tail) become a kangaroo ( 2 arms and 2 legs and a tail) or the Brontosaurus (4 legs and a tail) that lived about 140 million years ago become a cow (4 legs and a tail), for example?

You might also ask what brought them about in the first place?

Really, we fall back on the mystical, unexplained "magic wand effect" that transforms humans into deities and dinosaurs into lambs.

Who waves this magic wand and how does it work?

If there are no answers then I am afraid that we are just in fairy story land because such things only happen in children's fairy stories.



  • Posts: 132
  • Joined: 15 Jun 2006
  • Location: Delhi

Re: Fossil fish fills evolutionary gap

Post21 Oct 2006

Who waves this magic wand and how does it work? If there are no answers then I am afraid that we are just in fairy story land because such things only happen in children's fairy stories.


I know is complicated, science makes it even more complicated, as Baba (Virendra Dev Dixit) said that we don't know how the scientists apply the practice of carbon dating.

But let me tell you that I had gone back to my birth place - that is in a very remote part on this Planet Earth and I was amazed by my findings. I used to go to the jungle and eat fruits from special trees that grow in that forest and now after revisiting the same forest I found that the same fruits giving trees are still there but the fruit has changed shape and taste also changed, means is not as good as it was before. Even the vegetation around changed or completely transformed itself into some other kind of shapes and forms.

User avatar

Pink Panther

  • Posts: 1813
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2013

Re: Dinosaurs and the fossil record

Post02 Apr 2014

A lot of focus in such debates goes on specific questions and then specific answers or explanations are brought up that may clarify or blur the acuity of a specific - what about the dinosaurs? What about radio-carbon dating? and so on.

Any single answer to any of these from a BK sophist may seem worth a cheer by his ”side” (My team, right or wrong).

The real matter to hand is the ”whole picture” ...


You may argue about dinosaurs being at the confluence of Silver and Copper ages, but what about accounting for the whole timeline - We have no historical record (literally written or corroborating archeological discoveries) of creatures from the last Ice age like sabre-tooths and mammoths? Each of the steps of the paleontological timeline has to fit with other corroborating evidence from geology (stratification, fossilisation etc), chemistry (not only radio-carbon 14 dating but also others like uranium-lead half-life etc).

Gyan has only ever attempted to explain away particulars, raising doubts about particulars, but never addressing the whole schema, or the essential aspects of verifiable evidence needed for cohesive explanation of EVERYTHING that we know about the past.

Much new evidence has been found in the last 10 years, some of those are posted or linked to in this forum. Some of this new evidence has led to some fine-tuning of existing theories (that most of us learnt at school) but none of it has contradicted them. Most adjustments lengthen rather than shorten the timelines.

Creationists and other theologically-based short timelines occasionally find a piece of evidence that can fit into their theory but only if used selectively, that is, if they ignore the rest of the evidence.
User avatar

Mr Green


  • Posts: 1877
  • Joined: 07 Apr 2006

Re: Dinosaurs and the fossil record

Post06 Apr 2014

surely the dinosaurs are a memorial of the Dadis!


BK supporter

  • Posts: 35
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2015

Re: Dinosaurs and the fossil record

Post12 Feb 2015

For all souls who swear that scientific dating methods are accurate, there are tons of other scientific R&D material available ...

Thanks to howiemac for sharing resources. I wish to add a few more:

http://www.debate.org/debates/Radiometr ... ccurate/3/


http://creation.com/the-way-it-really-i ... ric-dating

As for determining the "age of rocks", it is just another "dating method". Though the extent of my research may not be comprehensive and exhaustive, I do have sufficient information from various apparently reliable sources such as public archives, key notes from scientists and other material from the scientific community, to infer that authorities themselves accept that dating methods are generally quite inaccurate.

PFB some excerpts:

But what about the radiometric dating methods? The earth is supposed to be nearly 5 billion years old, and some of these methods seem to verify ancient dates for many of earth's igneous rocks. The answer is that these methods, are far from infallible and are based on three arbitrary assumptions (a constant rate of decay, an isolated system in which no parent or daughter element can be added or lost, and a known amount of the daughter element present initially).

source: http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html

All of the parent and daughter atoms can move through the rocks. Heating and deformation of rocks can cause these atoms to migrate, and water percolating through the rocks can transport these substances and redeposit them. These processes correspond to changing the setting of the clock hands. Not infrequently such resetting of the radiometric clocks is assumed in order to explain disagreements between different measurements of rock ages. The assumed resettings are referred to as `metamorphic events' or `second' or `third events.

It is also possible that exposure to neutrino, neutron, or cosmic radiation could have greatly changed isotopic ratios or the rates at some time in the past. It is known that neutrinos interact with atomic nucleii, so a larger density of neutrinos could have sped up radioactive decay and made matter look old in a hurry.

source: http://www.parentcompany.com/handy_dandy/hder12.htm

As in all dating systems, the ages calculated can be affected by the presence of inherited daughter products. In a few cases, argon ages older than that of the Earth which violate local relative age patterns have even been determined for the mineral biotite. Such situations occur mainly where old rocks have been locally heated, which released argon-40 into pore spaces at the same time that new minerals grew. Under favourable circumstances the isochron method may be helpful, but tests by other techniques may be required. For example, the rubidium-strontium method would give a valid isotopic age of the biotite sample with inherited argon.

"Laboratory experiments have been conducted on the solubility of argon in synthetic basaltic melts and their associated minerals.31, 32 Minerals and melts were held near 13000C at one atmosphere pressure in a gas stream containing argon. After the material was quenched, the researchers measured up to 0.34 ppm 40Ar within synthetic olivine. They noted, 'The solubility of Ar in the minerals is surprisingly high'.33 Their conclusion is that argon is held primarily in lattice vacancy defects within the minerals.

source: http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r01/

There are tons of other materials if have the desire...

Another point is that I feel that some souls have developed a notion that only BKs claim to know the truth or that every BK has the same level of understanding.

I don't believe that either notion is correct. I believe that there exist souls, who may or may not be a BK, who are truly enlightened, or are close to true enlightenment. These are the souls closest to God and are the most powerful.

The rest have varying degree of enlightenment (partial enlightenment) and thus they will see only the partial truth and thus can tell you only so much.

This is the why I believe one has to experience the truth for oneself, going beyond what one has understood through listening about it from someone or reading about it somewhere. Only then can one be sure.

Happy enlightenment! Om Shanti!

Return to Scientific questions for BKs