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: 18
35
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 04:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

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!


Yeah, Harry Potter
Did we forget about the evidence
The scientific evidence for the geological column again

Are you scared of science
All a fossil proves is an animal died, nothing else

And how come you assume again, I asked for evidence, why do you like assumption, you don't understand science, you are more zealous than me




posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Why don't you go into depth about why the evidence is wrong. Not a "it is wrong" or "its not scientific" or "its not there". But an indepth deconstruction of your issues.

If you can not do that.

You are the one at fault. Not the science.


(post by Raggedyman removed for a manners violation)

posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

Why don't you go into depth about why the evidence is wrong. Not a "it is wrong" or "its not scientific" or "its not there". But an indepth deconstruction of your issues.

If you can not do that.

You are the one at fault. Not the science.


Because ther is no evidence, don't you get that.
Search circular reasoning and the geological time scale

There is no evidence I can prove wrong



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You can imply what you like. I will return to the fact that there are innumerable posts from myself, Barcs etc with citations. Which you choose to ignore.

There are consequences to how you behave Raggedy. Sometimes you get your threads iced, sometimes you get your posts removed. Sometimes you get posts which say "see previous reply to this very topic". This is the latter. We've been over this 6 months back, 12 months back, 18 months back.

You are showing you are unwilling to engaged in an open and honest manner. Rather it appears that you are here to troll scientists.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

There is much evidence.

For example go find the Geological Time Scale 2012 edited by F M Gradstein, J G Ogg, Mark Schmitz, Gabi Ogg

Do your own work.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Its pathetic
You claim you are a scientist yet can't do science

I am not reading a book, I have read many
I am asking you for evidence, you waded into the issue, made claims and now you won't back them up
Troll scientists? I havnt seen any around here to troll

I am asking anyone, if you have evidence for the geological time scale, please post it up
I have no interest in reading any books, I want a discussion, argument, whatever.
I want to reply to the pseudo science of the geological time scale.

Noindy, you have spent over a week, dodging and running, now run away.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

There is much evidence.

For example go find the Geological Time Scale 2012 edited by F M Gradstein, J G Ogg, Mark Schmitz, Gabi Ogg

Do your own work.


This is a forum where you discuss things.
If you are not prepared to offer anything, go away

Or be a scientist, go study, find the evidence, post it up

That's how discussion forums work, amazing hey



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Yes indeed your repeated refusal to read cited sources is pathetic. You have yet to read one. Then when you try to engage in science, you screw up.

VIz

Radioactive decay is a first order Kinetic process.

Do you even know what that means.

You have no interest in reading books? It shows. When we discuss, you ask "show me a source". We show you a source. You have no interest in reading books.

So no, the one only dodging and running away, is you. Go back, read the sources we've given you over the years. THEN discredit them.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

I've studied the evidence neighbour. I've done experiments measuring radioactive decay of certain isotopes. I've measured molecular clocks, and performed constructions of phylogenetic trees.

In the end.

You are the one not discussing. Not I.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 09:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

I've studied the evidence neighbour. I've done experiments measuring radioactive decay of certain isotopes. I've measured molecular clocks, and performed constructions of phylogenetic trees.

In the end.

You are the one not discussing. Not I.


Blah blah blah
Cite a source, bring it to the table, show me and everyone on the thread and allow me to dissect it once again

Scientific evidence for the geological time scale, still...

You still havnt proven that radioactive increase has a constant is a fact, you even admitted it was an assumption with your citation. Evidence for a constant, off you go

200 years ago when the geological column was initially imagined, how old did the amazingly intelligent scientists think the earth was
Now today, with the same geological time scale intact, unchanged, how old do these boffins think the earth is
Can you show me the geological time scale in nature
Do they date rocks by fossils and fossils by rocks

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



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

The last source you showed me admitted assumption



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 09:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

I've cited these sources before. If you are too lazy to go read them then, I'm not about to do so again. I've already cited source in a recent post. You ignored it. Saying you don't want to read books. Guess what. The evidence is in peer reviewed papers, books written by experts etc. You read them to get access to the information.

What you do not understand is, that science will adapt to the evidence. It is the intellectually honest position. Not that you know anything about that.

Oh and you still do not understand radiometric dating. It is clear.

When you are able to read the sources I post. We can talk.

Until then. You are just ignorant.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 09:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You have not read :The Geological Time Scale 2012 edited by F M Gradstein, J G Ogg, Mark Schmitz, Gabi Ogg in the time since I suggested it.

You still do not understand Kinetics. Or how science works.

Viz

The process of science builds reliable knowledge about the natural world. ... The process of building scientific knowledge relies on a few basic assumptions that are worth acknowledging. Science operates on the assumptions that: There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us.

SO prove that radio half lives are not constant, rather than just say it is that way.



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

You have not read :The Geological Time Scale 2012 edited by F M Gradstein, J G Ogg, Mark Schmitz, Gabi Ogg in the time since I suggested it.

You still do not understand Kinetics. Or how science works.

Viz

The process of science builds reliable knowledge about the natural world. ... The process of building scientific knowledge relies on a few basic assumptions that are worth acknowledging. Science operates on the assumptions that: There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us.

SO prove that radio half lives are not constant, rather than just say it is that way.


Why do you hate and mock real science
Why do you turn science into a circus, be the clown, make it look like a fools paradise
A faith of assumptions where ignorance reigns over reality

I ask for scientific evidence that the geological time scale is valid
That dating fossils with rocks and rocks with fossils is valid science
The age of the earth and the geo scale over 200 years and what
Nothing
Nothing at all
Why?

You have nothing

Show me the scientific evidence that the geological time scale is accurate



posted on Sep, 18 2017 @ 10:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You are engaging in logical fallacies here. Non Sequitur, and circular reasoning to begin with.

You have been given the information, and you refuse to acknowledge them.

Again, have you looked at The Geological Time Scale 2012 edited by F M Gradstein, J G Ogg, Mark Schmitz, Gabi Ogg as was suggested? No, clearly not.

Again where is your evidence that radio half lives are not constant?



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 03:05 AM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Evidence that the geological time scale is accurate, that's all I am asking for
Over and over and over again



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 03:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman
Yes, yes you are.
And over.
And over.
And over.

The reasoning has been presented.
Over
and over
and over.

So, now what. I suggest you stop asking because you're not going to get anything else.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 03:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

and over

and over

and over

again....lol

its amusing at least...

reminds me of something i caught on FB recently

www.boredpanda.com...




posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 05:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Raggedyman
Yes, yes you are.
And over.
And over.
And over.

The reasoning has been presented.
Over
and over
and over.

So, now what. I suggest you stop asking because you're not going to get anything else.




Well here is your chance phage, step up and show some empirical science suggesting the geological time scale is valid
And then
Not 5 or 6 posts ago I asked some simple questions
You game, no one else is...
I am here

Over and over

I am not interested in reasoning, I asked for evidence
Phage, same page

It's not a game, it's about empirical evidence or it's a faith

Empirical evidence the geological scale is valid



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join