It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did Ancient Humans Coexisted with Dinosaurs?

page: 16
35
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

I'm still waiting for someone to get explain how 14c dating that was calibrated against dendrochronology in trees if known ages and always comes in with a date well within the known margin of error is still wrong. It's laughable the lengths people who can't even dispute the science because they don't grasp the basics of it in the least, will go through to insist that the science is wrong. The entire premise is a joke perpetrated by people that couldn't pass a 10th grade biology course.




posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: ADSE255

No they have not..if memory serves

Those are a known dinosaur and were falsified by a the creationist making that claim in the first place..


"The Paluxy River became famous for controversy in the early 1930s when locals found dinosaur and supposed human footprints in the same rock layer in the Glen Rose Formation, which were widely publicized as evidence against the geological time scale and in favor of young-Earth creationism. However, these anachronistic "human" footprints have been determined to be mistaken interpretation or hoaxes.[2][3]"

en.m.wikipedia.org...


Actually, there are such things. I have personally seen one, and not at the Paluxy River site, either. No mistaking what it was, and in the same layer of rock as dinosaur prints - verified ones - and also other mammalian prints. The print we saw was about a half-size to a size smaller than my foot. Last I knew, many years back, the people that verified the dino tracks still refused to even come look at this one, to try and verify it.

They know they are real. That's why the Paluxy tracks were destroyed - not disproven.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: ADSE255

Lucy wasn't found to be a hoax...

*snip*


One hoax does not another hoax disprove.

Why was a baboon bone found in Lucy's skeleton? Scientists make bizarre discovery in 3.2 million-year-old fossil of early human Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk... arly-human.html#ixzz4smuev3fG Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Lucy: Clearcut Case of Evolutionist Fraud

Lucy Fails Test As Missing Link

Nope; that knuckle-walking ape was o ancestor of humans, and no "missing link".
edit on 15-9-2017 by LadyGreenEyes because: typo



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: audubon

That one does, indeed, look faked.

How about this one, though?




posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes




For example, at Angkor Wat, there is a carving of a stegosaurus on a pillar.
No, there isn't. Stegosaurus didn't have horns and they had a rather small head, tiny in fact. It looks nothing like a stegosaur. The "plates" seem to be somewhat behind the creature. Decorations.
guiddoo.s3.amazonaws.com...
www.enchantedlearning.com...
alisonincambodia.files.wordpress.com...
4

No horns on this -



Looks quite like a stegosaurus to me. Same small head, same plates clearly ON the back, etc.




posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 06:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Phantom423

Oh please, do tell what dating method is used on "65 million year old" rocks? Is it the strata that it's in? or the fossils that are found within the rock...lol...

It sure as hell isn't potassium argon or any other radiological dating method. None are capable of going back far enough...Interesting how the dating isn't falsifiable...lol...

Jaden


I don't particularly want to rain on your parade, on the other hand - --- I really don't give a crap.


Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) Dating in Archaeology

Renaud Joannes-Boyau

Introduction
Electron spin resonance (ESR) has been used for absolute dating of archaeological materials such as quartz, flints, carbonate crystals, and fossil remains for nearly 50 years. The technique is based on the fact that certain crystal behaves as natural dosimeters. This means that electrons and holes are accumulated over time in the crystal lattice induced by surrounding radiation. The age is obtained by calculating the dose received compared to the dose rate generated by the surrounding environment, mainly radioisotopes K, U, and Th. The dating range is dependent on the nature and state of conservation of the sample and the surrounding environment but is between a few thousands and a couple of million years. Since, ESR dating is best and most commonly applied to tooth enamel in archaeology, this paper predominantly focuses on its direct application to fossil remains.

Fascinating method, truly. One question, though; how does one determine the environment of the item to be dated from a few million years back? Seems to be that could not be stated with any degree of certainty.


Various types of stratigraphical analysis. Here's a few examples:

en.wikipedia.org...


The law of superposition is an axiom that forms one of the bases of the sciences of geology, archaeology, and other fields dealing with geological stratigraphy. In its plainest form, it states that in undeformed stratigraphic sequences, the oldest strata will be at the bottom of the sequence. This is important to stratigraphic dating, which assumes that the law of superposition holds true and that an object cannot be older than the materials of which it is composed. The law was first proposed in the 17th century by the Danish scientist Nicolas Steno.


en.wikipedia.org...


The principle of faunal succession, also known as the law of faunal succession, is based on the observation that sedimentary rock strata contain fossilized flora and fauna, and that these fossils succeed each other vertically in a specific, reliable order that can be identified over wide horizontal distances. A fossilized Neanderthal bone will never be found in the same stratum as a fossilized Megalosaurus, for example, because neanderthals and megalosaurs lived during different geological periods, separated by many millions of years. This allows for strata to be identified and dated by the fossils found within.




www.crowcanyon.org...

Remember, they're not dating down to the exact year - it's over millions of years. Peter V would be more knowledgeable about this. I presume that they also compare various types of spectroscopic data with the strata samples. The oil industry was actually very instrumental in developing dating techniques and identifying various types of geological formations.



That doesn't address the question I asked, which was, how does anyone know what the environment at those times was actually like? How does anyone know what changed, or didn't? The simple fact is, we do not know. Also, note, from your own sources:


it states that in undeformed stratigraphic sequences, the oldest strata will be at the bottom of the sequence.


Note the phrase, "in undeformed stratigraphic sequences". We all know that these "sequences" are quite often not in the same order, in different places. So, it's claimed that layers in some areas are "deformed". Dating stuff found in inconsistent layers, by the layers, and dating the layers by what's found in them, isn't scientific at all.



posted on Sep, 15 2017 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Phantom423

Oh please, do tell what dating method is used on "65 million year old" rocks? Is it the strata that it's in? or the fossils that are found within the rock...lol...

It sure as hell isn't potassium argon or any other radiological dating method. None are capable of going back far enough...Interesting how the dating isn't falsifiable...lol...

Jaden


I don't particularly want to rain on your parade, on the other hand - --- I really don't give a crap.


Electron Spin Resonance (ESR) Dating in Archaeology

Renaud Joannes-Boyau

Introduction
Electron spin resonance (ESR) has been used for absolute dating of archaeological materials such as quartz, flints, carbonate crystals, and fossil remains for nearly 50 years. The technique is based on the fact that certain crystal behaves as natural dosimeters. This means that electrons and holes are accumulated over time in the crystal lattice induced by surrounding radiation. The age is obtained by calculating the dose received compared to the dose rate generated by the surrounding environment, mainly radioisotopes K, U, and Th. The dating range is dependent on the nature and state of conservation of the sample and the surrounding environment but is between a few thousands and a couple of million years. Since, ESR dating is best and most commonly applied to tooth enamel in archaeology, this paper predominantly focuses on its direct application to fossil remains.

Fascinating method, truly. One question, though; how does one determine the environment of the item to be dated from a few million years back? Seems to be that could not be stated with any degree of certainty.


Various types of stratigraphical analysis. Here's a few examples:

en.wikipedia.org...


The law of superposition is an axiom that forms one of the bases of the sciences of geology, archaeology, and other fields dealing with geological stratigraphy. In its plainest form, it states that in undeformed stratigraphic sequences, the oldest strata will be at the bottom of the sequence. This is important to stratigraphic dating, which assumes that the law of superposition holds true and that an object cannot be older than the materials of which it is composed. The law was first proposed in the 17th century by the Danish scientist Nicolas Steno.


en.wikipedia.org...


The principle of faunal succession, also known as the law of faunal succession, is based on the observation that sedimentary rock strata contain fossilized flora and fauna, and that these fossils succeed each other vertically in a specific, reliable order that can be identified over wide horizontal distances. A fossilized Neanderthal bone will never be found in the same stratum as a fossilized Megalosaurus, for example, because neanderthals and megalosaurs lived during different geological periods, separated by many millions of years. This allows for strata to be identified and dated by the fossils found within.




www.crowcanyon.org...

Remember, they're not dating down to the exact year - it's over millions of years. Peter V would be more knowledgeable about this. I presume that they also compare various types of spectroscopic data with the strata samples. The oil industry was actually very instrumental in developing dating techniques and identifying various types of geological formations.



That doesn't address the question I asked, which was, how does anyone know what the environment at those times was actually like? How does anyone know what changed, or didn't? The simple fact is, we do not know. Also, note, from your own sources:


it states that in undeformed stratigraphic sequences, the oldest strata will be at the bottom of the sequence.


Note the phrase, "in undeformed stratigraphic sequences". We all know that these "sequences" are quite often not in the same order, in different places. So, it's claimed that layers in some areas are "deformed". Dating stuff found in inconsistent layers, by the layers, and dating the layers by what's found in them, isn't scientific at all.


Well if you disagree with the methodology, you need to explain your rationale with evidence. You're stating your opinion. Which is fine. But unless it's backed up with evidence, the data that scientists have accumulated is what we have.

I think non-scientists don't understand that science is built on the shoulders of those who came before them. That means that if you have a better idea as to how to estimate the age of the sediment, then you should stand up to the plate and present your hypothesis and your evidence. Asking questions is wonderful - we all have them. But if you want to answer your questions, then you either work with what's already known and build on it. Or you come up with your own methodology. And it's perfectly fine. Science doesn't care what you're interested in as long as you provide the evidence. That's the process of discovery - building on the known evidence - proving it right or wrong or somewhere in between.

You question the evidence that I posted. I'm not an archaeologist but I would say that they used the best equipment, instrumentation and science that was available to come to their conclusions. Again, if you think they're wrong, you need to say why they're wrong and what alternative experiments you have that disprove their evidence.

It's simple logic. You use what you have to answer the question. Others in the same field evaluate it review the evidence and determine whether the research is compatible with known methods of discovery. Science is not a religion. There are no closed doors. The door is always open for more evidence, controversial evidence, any evidence as long as it follows the scientific method. It's that simple - and that complex.


edit on 15-9-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 08:33 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman




try wikipedia, try micro evolution, a whole new world will develop before your eyes, I promise


I know about "micro evolution" and "macro evolution", they are exactly the same thing, looked at 'up close' or 'at a distance'. Understand that and a whole new new world will develop before your eyes, I promise.



Now as for stegasauri, old, real old stegasauri may have grown horns, maybe a branch of stegasauri, maybe a evolutionary change within a species of stegasauri


It is really very simple: stegasauri don't have horns. If a fossil is found that is just like a stegasaurus, but it has horns, then it is not a stegasaurus - it is something else. Maybe we could call it a "Raggedymanasaurus" or something.

The key is, as has been explained to you before, individuals don't evolve, populations evolve. And they do it little by little, generation by generation. That's 'micro evolution'; lots of 'micro evolution' changes add up eventually to 'macro evolution'. Micro/Macro is a false distinction and not a foundation on which to build an argument; evolutionary change is a continuum.

Evolution isn't a mating pair of animals without horns suddenly producing offspring with horns. It doesn't happen and if it did it would prove evolution wrong.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: rnaa

Ok show me evidence of macro evolution

As for stegosaurus and horns, some dear have horns some don't, yet they are all dear
Imagine a stegosaurus evolving horns and not being discovered...



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 09:29 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

You can always use evidence to support your argument and stop me asking or tell the truth and say, there is none



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 10:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Phantom423

You can always use evidence to support your argument and stop me asking or tell the truth and say, there is none


No one is required to give you evidence. If you choose to believe that there is none, then that's your choice and your problem.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 10:21 AM
link   
a reply to: Phantom423

No, nobody is required to give me evidence
Though science is required to establish evidence for a theory

Now, can you show me evidence that the geological time scale is accurate
If not, why not
Because it's a 200 year old theory that has never been proven or changed but the whole age of the earth rests on it so it can never be questioned

You can't give me what doesn't exist Phants pants



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Phantom423

No, nobody is required to give me evidence
Though science is required to establish evidence for a theory

Now, can you show me evidence that the geological time scale is accurate
If not, why not
Because it's a 200 year old theory that has never been proven or changed but the whole age of the earth rests on it so it can never be questioned

You can't give me what doesn't exist Phants pants



As I said, whatever you believe is your problem.



posted on Sep, 16 2017 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Phantom423

No, nobody is required to give me evidence
Though science is required to establish evidence for a theory

Now, can you show me evidence that the geological time scale is accurate
If not, why not
Because it's a 200 year old theory that has never been proven or changed but the whole age of the earth rests on it so it can never be questioned

You can't give me what doesn't exist Phants pants



As I said, whatever you believe is your problem.


Funny thing is
From my vantage point
You have taken my problem on and it causes you some serious concern

You coulda stayed out or offered the evidence, what did you do...



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 11:40 AM
link   
a reply to: ancienthistorian

It is highly improbable that humans and the larger species of Dino's coexisted together. They would need copious amounts of food to survive the asteroid hit. The predators would die out too due to lack of enough herds to feed on depending where they were.
Pockets of animals would have survived in various parts of the world. Leaving other areas bare of mobile life. Once the low numbers of animals hit the no return point the larger ones died out. Due to not enough food or the lower temp and dust and debris in the air. This dust and debris kept the sunlight from heating the earth and the dust more than likely hampered breathing in some animals. The could not have survived long enough to see the advent of humans.
Given the strata in the rocks and the fossil record, there have not been any confirmed cased of where Dino's and human fossils or remains have been found together.
Given that the smaller Dino's had a better chance of surviving the destruction, I can see possibly that they did survive millions more years.
However once again the known fossil record does not confirm this. Carbon dating and the other tools show a vast time spam where the Dino's died off and we see Australopithecus come on the scene.
However there are carvings and paintings which clearly show dinosaurs. Primarily the stegosaur and diplodocus. Which according to the fossil record they should not have existed 15 to 20 thousand years ago.
Given reproductive rates of the larger Dino's which I believe we do not know. Except that they laid eggs or gave live birth. It is highly improbable that even if they reproduced enough young, the destroyed vegetation would still leave not many alive. Humans came on the scene at the known earliest around 3 million years ago with Australopithecus aferensis...or Lucy if you prefer.
They did not leave much in the way of drawings or pictograms.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 01:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck
a reply to: ancienthistorian
Nope.



But there is quite a bit of "evidence" suggesting otherwise:


"Most dinosaurs were reasonably small — about the size of a sheep or a pony. Even large sauropods were much smaller when they were young (just like a crocodile is small at first — when it hatches out of an egg, you can even hold it in your hand!). So the Ark had plenty of room for all the land animal kinds, including every dinosaur 'kind.'"


I mean, if you really want to ask the difficult questions, you start with a logical premise:


"Dinosaur fossils don't come with tags on them telling us how old they are, where they lived, what they ate, or how they died. We have to figure that out from a few clues we find.
But because we never have all the evidence, different scientists can reach very different conclusions, depending on their starting assumptions.


No tags. So there. The entire read here creationist museum is pretty great.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 01:34 PM
link   
I dont believe that to be true. It has been found that juvenile Dino's do not closely resemble adults. There was a argument among paleontologists about it. Apparently according to the findings alot of horned Dino's grew their horn after birth.after a closer study of fossils some species were actually juvies of another species a reply to: rnaa



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You have your answers. I was able to speak as a chemist too them, and you could not rebut them.

You can't actually talk to the science, and thus refuse to try to understand.
edit on 17-9-2017 by Noinden because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

SO

Stegasuars lived around 150 to 145 million years ago.

Dinosaurs went extinct around 65 million years back

(one assumes no one is being a young earth Creationist here).

Generally their fossils are found in the bits that are now "the western United states" and "Portugal".

If one was to believe that carvings are of a Stegosaur (or losely related decendant). One has several optionms

(a) The Stegosaur survived the not only extinction event, but about another 85 million years and did not particularly evolve to something different. One (or some) survived long enough to be carved by some people in CAMBODIA carved in about the 12th century. Lets ignore that technically the bits we know Stegosaurs roamed in were not near where Cambodia was 150 million years ago. Perhaps they walked?

(b) Someone time travelled or projected their mind back in time, and carved what they saw/

(c) It is representing something else. After all the head on it looks more like a Rhinoceros.


Which is it? A single point of evidence is not ... evidence.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

You have your answers. I was able to speak as a chemist too them, and you could not rebut them.

You can't actually talk to the science, and thus refuse to try to understand.


Yeah I rebutted them because the scientific method WAS NOT used in the experiment, remember

Show me the scientific method, not assumption

This is repetitive

You can't call science and then use assumption



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join