Evolutionists: How does your theory explain mummified hadrosaurs?

Question

Prominent creation scientist Em Adjineri (she's baa-aack) has recently discovered a mummified hadrosaur that disproves evolution. By "discovered," I mean she skimmed an article about it.

It is clear that such a dinosaur proves the Creation "Museum" in Kentucky's claim that people and dinosaurs coexisted. There have never been any examples of animals other than humans capable of mummifying a corpse.

Since there's no evidence for animals that mummify corpses, animals that mummify corpses can't exist (right, atheists?). Therefore, that dinosaur must have been mummified by humans. But if humans mummified that dinosaur, they must have known it when it was alive. It was probably their pet, like Dino on that documentary "The Flintstones."

Since the Bible is the only source that claims that dinosaurs and humans coexisted (Job 40:15), and the Bible is accurate on that point, the entire Bible must be literally true. Therefore, creationism is a better theory than evolution.

If anybody hasn't seen the article, here it is.
http://dinocreationistsfairytale.wordpress.com/2007/12/03/a-mummified-hadrosaur-like-no-other/

(You might also want to read the banner at the top of the screen... it should help clarify my entire post. Trying to pronounce Em Adjineri's name might also help to clarify things.)

Answer 1

Unfortunately my mind is weakened by a slight fever. I have no cautiously witty parry to your mind altering thrust. Suffice it to say that I'm sure we will definitely NOT see imprints of saddle straps on the mummified skin. Everybody knows that they used Velcro back then.

Answer 2

Welcome back, Dr. Adjineri!

Unfortunately, the line of reasoning here is a little off. The term "mummified" is being used a little differently than what Boris Karloff experienced in one of his most interesting roles. Any body left in a very dry, pretty airless environment may dry out while remaining intact and thus be well preserved. I am reminded of the "mummified" frog that was found tangled in the strands of the floor mop at the Amphibian Facility when I worked there. (Tells you something about how long since that mop had been used, doesn't it?) Dr. Nace explained that because there were no bacteria inside it to make it rot, it simply dried out.

In this case, the hadrosaur apparently was not only mummified, but petrified. That is, the cells of the body were gradually replaced by crystallized minerals, like petrified wood. That is a very slow process. Indeed, it may well take more than 6,000 years.

Of course, the rest of the argument is equally fallacious, but then you knew that.

Answer 3

I lolled till my sides split. The first line was the funniest if Im honest. "creation scientist?" don't make me laugh. Firstly The only "proof" that a creationist will ever come up with is the disproof of another theory as there is no scientific way testing their hypothesis. I have to say it irritates me when people clearly dont understand the evolutionary process. Evolution does not say something instantly changes into something else as many creationists believe. It is very small consecutive changes over a long time period. People say the eye cant be explained in evolutionary terms because they believe 5% of an eye woud be no good, do you not agree if for instance that 5% could allow you tell the difference between light and dark would that not be an advantage? It also gets me when people dont understand fossilization. It is a very rare process with many conditions that have to be just right for it to happen. We are not going to find every evolutionary step in lifes history because not everything was able to be fossiized. And how do religous people accept fossils are real isnt the world only meant to be 6000 years old? Species dont have a reason to evolve it just happens as result of the selectuve pressures that were around at the time. A species doesnt decide to evolve it just does. The fact is we cant go back in time an see what the conditions were like so we have to make the best guess. I asked this question earlier and got some good reponses why are creationists allowed to use the argument "if you cant see it didnt exist" but then use the opposite to prove gods existance. That to me as I stated before is hypocrisy. Also why did he pick butter and butterfly? just because the name is alike? why did he not pick two closly related species and find reasons for them to diverge? is that because he could probably find a reason? This scientist is crazy, butter doesnt reproduce it just contains the DNA left over from when the cow made the milk. One of the fundamental principles of evolution is the ability reproduce butter doesnt have that ability thats why we dont see tubs of margerine mating.

Answer 4

I hope you're just a sarcastic atheist, because I do not want you on my side of this debate. If YOU had actually done more than skim articles yourself and jump to wild conclusions, you would have read that it was not really a "mummified" hadrosaur, by natural or unnatural means. Rather, it was fossilized far faster than it decayed, leaving immense detail of skin and internal organs, rather than just bone. Mummys usually have intact internal organs as well. The only reason this was called a mummy is for sensationalism. This discovery in itself niether proves nor disproves creation nor evolution.

Answer 5

Well she is not the only scientist that has pointed out the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. Paleontologists who discover these findings put evolution in doubt. And it is indeed evidence against evolution..so what say the atheists? Evidence not good enough for you? And there are plenty of more things to be discovered that will debunk evolution altogether as just a very believable theory.

Answer 6

There are a ton of natural environments that will mummify anything that dies in that location. For example the Turin Valley in Western China. You know that place were they discovered Caucasian Man living 2000 BC in China.

Answer 7

God of the Gaps

Hey guys, there was a mummified dinosaur so that proves God exists! Oh an besides that, they were vegetarians with sharp teeth to eat those hard leaves! And that proves they Got on the ark..... because they were vegetarian.

Answer 8

clearly this well researched article will challenge all the faith I have in evolution and now allow me to trust the evidence based theory of creation, exactly how it's defined in the bible.

Answer 9

If not for Em Adjineri science, the holy cause of Creationism would be doomed!

Answer 10

This is why I affectionately refer to the Creation Museum as the Creation Amuseum. On account of it being amusing.