Did Ancient Humans Coexisted with Dinosaurs?

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Raggedyman

Do you have evidence that decay rates of isotopes can change?

No why would I
Do you have evidence, scientific, that it is all constant?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

Oh look some creationist dogma. How droll.

Tell you what, when you can personally debunk evolution, radioisotope dating, etc. Then we can talk. Till then You are a YEC, who can only cut an paste

Slan leat, don't let the door hit your read.

So asking for scientific evidence is dogma
Clearly indicates you don't know science from toilet paper

Tell you what, when you understand what science is, how it's applied, please come back.
For now, no thanks, you religious fundies, nm

a reply to: Raggedyman

Ahh and we are back to Raggedyman's dance of "I will not read the sources we give you". Why would any of us give you that again? We've done this dance, you ran away, then claimed victory.

chem.libretexts.org...

I'd cite journals, but you'd say you can't read them

a reply to: Raggedyman

Again, we give you evidence you ignore it. IF another poster was bored/massochistic they would look at the history of you posting in this forum, and see all of us have given you large amounts of evidence, You ignore it.

The critical thinking answer is you are either a troll, or have some sort of inability to think out side of your YEC paradigm.

I can see that there are probably many gods out there, and be a scientist. You can't see that science is right, based on the evidence.

a reply to: Noinden

This is my question
Do you have evidence, scientific, that it is all constant?


This was your answer, kinda
chem.libretexts.org...


Home Core Physical and Theoretical Chemistry Nuclear Chemistry Nuclear Kinetics

Half-Lives and Radioactive Decay Kinetics

Last updated
16:13, 11 Jun 2017

Save as PDF
Share

Skills to Develop

To know how to use half-lives to describe the rates of first-order reactions

Another approach to describing reaction rates is based on the time required for the concentration of a reactant to decrease to one-half its initial value. This period of time is called the half-life of the reaction, written as t1/2. Thus the half-life of a reaction is the time required for the reactant concentration to decrease from [A]0 to [A]0/2. If two reactions have the same order, the faster reaction will have a shorter half-life, and the slower reaction will have a longer half-life. The half-life of a first-order reaction under a given set of reaction conditions is a constant. This is not true for zeroth- and second-order reactions. The half-life of a first-order reaction is independent of the concentration of the reactants. This becomes evident when we rearrange the integrated rate law for a first-order reaction (Equation 14.21) to produce the following equation:

Now my scientific illiterate wannabe adversary
That answer does in no way prove scientificaly anything, its assumption (bolded)

You cant dazzle everyone with lies, some people see through it

Go find a fool, plenty out there

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

Again, we give you evidence you ignore it. IF another poster was bored/massochistic they would look at the history of you posting in this forum, and see all of us have given you large amounts of evidence, You ignore it.

The critical thinking answer is you are either a troll, or have some sort of inability to think out side of your YEC paradigm.

I can see that there are probably many gods out there, and be a scientist. You can't see that science is right, based on the evidence.

Rather than offer evidence you

Blame me

Call me names

Push your faith as science

Poor argument disguised as science
I dont think I will go anywhere here, you dont understand science, have no concept of the scientific method, dont understand common sense
Thanks Noindy but, I have no pearls to waste...

a reply to: Raggedyman

You are using a home schooling source?

You are really missing the point. You listed kinetics for chemical reactions here (Zero Order, First order and Second order reactions).

Do you understand what you have listed here?

Chemical reactions are not radioactive decays. In that you listed a reaction where A and B react, presumably to make AB. In first-order reaction, the reaction rate is directly proportional to the concentration of one of the reactants. While The simplest kind of second-order reaction is one whose rate is proportional to the square of the concentration of one reactant.

Now when talking about a radioactive half life. We are talking about the time it takes quantity of a radioactive isotope to reduce to half its initial value. In that half of the material has changed to another element. That is not a chemical reaction, it involves subatomic shennanigans (it depends on how it decays what those are).

Half-life is constant over the lifetime of an exponentially decaying quantity. Unless you take it into a the LHC at CERN or similar.

So when you actually know the difference between a chemical half life, and a radioactive half life, you will be unable to keep up. You just did the equivalent of googling about the planet Venus, and talking about a certain armless statue. *golf clap*

a reply to: Raggedyman

Again, I've repeatedly offered up evidence. In multiple threads. Your response is to always ingore it. And as you just did, you try to rebut it, but you do so, using the wrong science.

Good job.

But basically myself and the other educated folk are offering you solid gold, and you ignore it

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

Again, we give you evidence you ignore it. IF another poster was bored/massochistic they would look at the history of you posting in this forum, and see all of us have given you large amounts of evidence, You ignore it.

The critical thinking answer is you are either a troll, or have some sort of inability to think out side of your YEC paradigm.

I can see that there are probably many gods out there, and be a scientist. You can't see that science is right, based on the evidence.

Rather than offer evidence you

Blame me

Call me names

Push your faith as science

Poor argument disguised as science
I dont think I will go anywhere here, you dont understand science, have no concept of the scientific method, dont understand common sense
Thanks Noindy but, I have no pearls to waste...

there is only one person here pushing a faith.

a reply to: growler

Oh no no, don't you know? According to Raggy, Science is a religion. He will scream that from roof tops. No proof, just screams, perhaps some wailing too? But these arguments come down to.

Raggy: Evolution is wrong. It is a beleif of the religion of science.
Poster: *Posts evidence disproving that statement*
Raffy: WRONG. You are brainwashed and can not provide proof.
Poster: Did you read the evidence?
Raggy: Silence/attacks Science as religion.

So in a thread about if we lived with Dinosaurs, one can only conclude that Raggedyman thinks we did. Which to be fair, sits with hist YEC beliefs.

a reply to: Noinden

Oh and just to make it clear

Radioactive decay is considered to be first order.

Attention Please:

The topic is not each other or opinions of each each other. Please stick to the topic and only the topic.

Do not reply to this post.

a reply to: ancienthistorian

Sure, why not? Seems like a logical, rational, educated assumption backed up by all the scientific data in the world.

The world, of course, being only 6000 years old, hollow and also simultaneously flat...

a reply to: noonebutme



Like I said in an earlier post, I saw a documentary trailer a while back....

In all seriousness if this was a YEC, I'd be satisfied. Case closed It is hard to tell if the OP is one (I am leaning to yes).

I just don't know why some carvings of something that does not look like a Dinosaur is evidence

a reply to: ancienthistorian

Ok this has been bugging me .... you posted a frame of Kazar and Sabu (Marvel Characters) .... yeah he came across Saurians. In the "Savage Land" a land in the antarctic alien technology kept all sorts of ancient creatures safe in. So yes Dinosaurs, a smilidon (Sabu) etc. its a comic. You understand that right?

a reply to: Noinden

In all seriousness, I *suspect* it comes down to culture and mythos. There's cave paintings of people hunting large animals of prey depicted. But the examples of people fighting dragons and other mythical beasts...

Well, I suppose by definition of the absence of evidence, it's *possible* such creatures existed at *some* point in time. However, I find it very suspect that we have absolutely zero fossil records of fire breathing dragons, or basilisks or other mythical creatures.

The fossils we DO have, are dated to periods when we have no evidence modern or even fairly ancient human-like beings were running around the planet. I think there is a significant difference between Jurassic period (120+million years ago) and the earliest mammal divergence into primate like mammals (56-80 million years ago).

So - no. I don't think humans or early human ancestors lived alongside dinosaurs.

Nor do I think dragons ever existed, as boring as that might sound.

a reply to: noonebutme

That is a pretty good supposition IMHO. I just don't get why his (?) brain did not go to say "terror birds" and similar?

a reply to: Noinden

Heheh, well, one could always argue X is possible is there's no evidence to disprove it. Can't disprove a negative

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

You are using a home schooling source?

You are really missing the point. You listed kinetics for chemical reactions here (Zero Order, First order and Second order reactions).

Do you understand what you have listed here?

Chemical reactions are not radioactive decays. In that you listed a reaction where A and B react, presumably to make AB. In first-order reaction, the reaction rate is directly proportional to the concentration of one of the reactants. While The simplest kind of second-order reaction is one whose rate is proportional to the square of the concentration of one reactant.

Now when talking about a radioactive half life. We are talking about the time it takes quantity of a radioactive isotope to reduce to half its initial value. In that half of the material has changed to another element. That is not a chemical reaction, it involves subatomic shennanigans (it depends on how it decays what those are).

Half-life is constant over the lifetime of an exponentially decaying quantity. Unless you take it into a the LHC at CERN or similar.

So when you actually know the difference between a chemical half life, and a radioactive half life, you will be unable to keep up. You just did the equivalent of googling about the planet Venus, and talking about a certain armless statue. *golf clap*

I used your own link, the link you provided
I used your source and you are saying its wrong when I quote it
What
Noindy, go learn science, go learn what science is and how it works, you have no clue, you are embarassing yourself

. *golf clap*

a reply to: Noinden

Ni science is not a religion

Some science is a religion because its taken on faith

You are flat out lying to boost your faith in pseudo science

and I havnt pushed religion, just asked for scientific evidence that the geological scale is proven with science, not assumption

Here I am