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: 17
35
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
When Lucy was found she was in a wide area. A piece here and a piece there. She was not totally complete. My guess that since there was a baboon living around that time the two skeletons were intermingled in the same area.




posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Except we have the Ica stones, cave art, Babylonian art, Marco Polos documents, multiple accounts of dragons and other crypto beasts

Time travel, yeah that's it, Doctor Who is real, I am sure the scientific method justifies his existence
Leaps of faith



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 04:19 PM
link   
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes while that is true....in deformed layers or split layers. If they fell at the same time they would be the same date. Even though there might be more layers in one area than the other. Examples could be volcanic ash. Rivers overrunjng banks and bringing sediment or flash floods on a Delta area.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
a reply to: audubon

That one does, indeed, look faked.

How about this one, though?



So real.






edit on 17-9-2017 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

How do you know scientific method was not used? Way back when when I cited the origional and subsequent papers, you moaned you could not access them

The onus is on you to read the material, and rebut that. Not assume they did or did not do something.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Again, these bits of art are open to interpretation as to what they show (and in somecase their authenticity). It is funny how Creationists use them to show their timeline is correct


There is questions as to the authenticity of many of those stones, given they've not been found in situ with (a) So called Dinosaurs and (b) with advanced technology. Only the ones Javier Cabrera Darquea has said that " Basilio Uschuya" gave him depict these things... strange

Now remember these stones show dinosaurs, advanced tech, and such. As they've not been found in situ, they can't be dated.

Similarly with cavepaintings.

They are not evidence.



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 07:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Hmm, let me see
You are claiming the geological time scale is accurate
I don't think it is, I think it is 200 year old pseudo science with no evidence to,support it at all
I asked for the scientific evidence to prove the geological time scale, the geological time scale that is not even present in nature but is evidently proven by science

Scientific evidence? No, can't have it, it is secret, kept hidden, 200 year old science that is hidden. Yeas you say you have shown me the evidence, proven to me with science, but wait, I am not allowed to access the evidence you have shown me
Really...

So I have no evidence the Ica stones are accurate, you have none of the evidence for the scientific method and the geological time scale, to suggest you do proves you have no idea what you are talking about


Bang on all you like but you have nothing of value to offer.
You hate science, you poison it, you don't even believe in science
Science is nothing but a tool to make money and justify yourself
You don't believe in any science, just manipulation and greed to feather your own nest
People like me have lost faith in science because of people like you

Science deniers, scientific method manipulators, for self gain.
edit on 17-9-2017 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 07:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You have yet to illustrate what you are calling a pseudo science is actually a pseudo science. Just because you say it is so, does not make it so.

You questioned (and have in the past) radio isotopic dating being constant (not what you claimed with evidence of the geological timescale). I provided it (and have in the past, indeed including citations then). You dismissed it, with out examining it.

No scientific evidence is secret or hidden. It might be beyond your limited ability to grok or comprehend, but it is not hidden.

I have not shown you the Ark Museum? Ever.

You have lost your ever loving mind if you think I have.

You now accuse me of "lining my own nest" with money. Well yes, I am paid to do Science. I produce the experimental pharmaceuticals in the required amount, and quality asked for. That is my job. Science is after all not a religion, but a job.

I speak as a chemist, biochemist, and thus a scientist. You don't know what science is Raggedyman, oh and 11 wants you to cease and desist with using his nickname, or he will send Amelia to sort you out



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

My mistake on the creationism,us emu,,excuse me

Yes I have questioned radio isotopes and you proved nothing
You assumed that everything has always been in constant and provided no,scientific data at all.
Just assumption

Stop,saying you have proven what you havnt, I want scientific evidence based on the scientific method

Prove constant

This is stupid and you know it is, if you don't know it is then you are not a scientist



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 07:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You are not equipped to have anything shown to you. Why? Conformation bias. You will not read anything that might disagree with you.

The evidence has been posted. You refused to acknowledge it. Again the onus is on you.

What is stupid, is several people on here know who I am and that I am a scientist. You just don't want to admit that


Run along, the oncoming storm is after you



posted on Sep, 17 2017 @ 09:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes

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.


I seem to remember you asking:




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.


To which I gave you an answer here: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why didn't you ask the same question when the footprint of a man and a dinosaur showed up per your example? You obviously accepted that the fossils found at those sites were genuine and stratigraphically correct and that the human footprint/dinosaur find was valid. But for some strange reason, you can't wrap your head around the exact same process being utilized to determine the age of other fossils? So I guess the science works for YOU when it gives you what you think you want. But it doesn't work for EVERYONE ELSE who might have a different opinion.

Here's the bottom line:

You're a fraud, my dear. And a very ordinary one at that.
edit on 17-9-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 01:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

You are not equipped to have anything shown to you. Why? Conformation bias. You will not read anything that might disagree with you.

The evidence has been posted. You refused to acknowledge it. Again the onus is on you.

What is stupid, is several people on here know who I am and that I am a scientist. You just don't want to admit that


Run along, the oncoming storm is after you


You are not a scientist, you are a follower of what people tell you to believe

Where is the evidence that the geological column is scientificaly proven

Stop the smoke and mirrors and use real science, stop hating, poisoning and pretending science and prove the geological column is true

Scientist or not, you carry no weight, have added nothing but your own self important opinion, delusions of grandeur, like a tv evangelist, got nothing,Mahon nothing, proven nothing

Go away and leave it to real scientists to do the science



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 02:47 AM
link   
No.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 07:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

You are not equipped to have anything shown to you. Why? Conformation bias. You will not read anything that might disagree with you.

The evidence has been posted. You refused to acknowledge it. Again the onus is on you.

What is stupid, is several people on here know who I am and that I am a scientist. You just don't want to admit that


Run along, the oncoming storm is after you


Raggedy is a raging crackpot scientist. I even doubt he believes his own crap. His only intention is to annoy people and disrupt a conversation. Could you imagine having this guy in a classroom?

Wait - there may be an ulterior motive - maybe Raggedy, Master Jean and LadyGreenEyes are going into the restaurant business with Ken Scam down at Dinosaur Park! Who would want to eat a 1M old dinosaur?


edit on 18-9-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 08:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

You are not equipped to have anything shown to you. Why? Conformation bias. You will not read anything that might disagree with you.

The evidence has been posted. You refused to acknowledge it. Again the onus is on you.

What is stupid, is several people on here know who I am and that I am a scientist. You just don't want to admit that


Run along, the oncoming storm is after you


Raggedy is a raging crackpot scientist. I even doubt he believes his own crap. His only intention is to annoy people and disrupt a conversation. Could you imagine having this guy in a classroom?

Wait - there may be an ulterior motive - maybe Raggedy, Master Jean and LadyGreenEyes are going into the restaurant business with Ken Scam down at Dinosaur Park! Who would want to eat a 1M old dinosaur?



So your evidence of the geological time scale is to rant about Ken Ham, post pictures unrelated and generally cloud the issue with disinformation
Hmm, how should I reply

I know
Scientists have this geological time scale, they say it's scientificaly accurate and we should believe it
Cool, but... I wouldn't mind seeing the scientific evidence of that geo time scale

Any chance we can work on that
Seriously, not talking anything else, just asking for scientific evidence the geo scale is scientific

Phantom, I know you hate science, love your faith, love to cloud real science with your faith, but
Lets do the geological time scale evidence thing hey



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: LadyGreenEyes
No horns on this -

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


You guys live in complete fantasy land. There are very clearly horns on that sculpture and it doesn't look anything like the head on that skeleton, plus the back plates are completely different shape and there are no spikes on the tail. Kind of an important detail to leave out. No scrutiny whatsoever... You guys constantly criticize science and hold it to impossible standards, but then yet believe crap like this because it "kind of looks like it". If there is a valid reason for the blatant double standards and hypocrisy aside from insanity, I'd love to hear it.
edit on 9 18 17 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: ronthealien
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes
When Lucy was found she was in a wide area. A piece here and a piece there. She was not totally complete. My guess that since there was a baboon living around that time the two skeletons were intermingled in the same area.


It's downright laughable for people to claim Lucy is a hoax. At first we didn't have a lot of fossils, but they found several more specimens down the road and found their cousin species who lived at the same time (Australopithecus Deyiremeda) along with a handful of other related species as well. I guess it's easier to just deny than to do the research.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 11:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Noinden

Except we have the Ica stones, cave art, Babylonian art, Marco Polos documents, multiple accounts of dragons and other crypto beasts


LMAO! You also have Harry Potter, Land of the Lost, and Lord of the Rings! That's totally evidence for Humans coexisting with wizards, hobbits and dragons LOL!

Science has fossils and data to verify them.. but forget that, let's just assume anything ever written about by ancient people is automatically absolute truth. Y'all are killing me today!



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Go to google scholar. Read some papers. If you are as good as you think you are, you will be able to come to conclusions based on the evidence. As opposed to your creationist biases.

These real scientists are who? After all you don't know who I am



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 03:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You really are playing silly buggers here. You know that Barcs has done his due dilligence (as have I and others) to your accusations in the past. You ingored them. Hence you get what you are getting now




top topics



 
35
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join