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: 19
35
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 05:38 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 




posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 06:25 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:28 AM
link   

REMINDER!!!


All rules for polite debate will be enforced. Bickering and trolling is not part of polite debate.
Go After the Ball, Not the Player!

Community Announcement re: Decorum

You are responsible for your own posts.....those who ignore that responsibility will face mod actions.


and, as always:

Do NOT reply to this post!!



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: ancienthistorian
It's quite possible they evolved into the 6 foot predator that roamed North America. It was biped and looked like a bird. But flightless.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 03:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

No every one else who has replied to you has given you evidence which you are ignoring.

Again I presented a collected edition of evidence.

The Geological Time Scale 2012 edited by F M Gradstein, J G Ogg, Mark Schmitz, Gabi Ogg

Which you refuse to acknowledge.

It can thus be assumed that you are unwilling to actually fairly engage in this discussion.

Prove us wrong, read the source material. Then question.

OH and radioactive decay is first order.



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 10:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

No you presented a book and title
No thanks, that is not how a forum like this works

Imagine if someone started a thread like that

Scientific evidence that the geological time scale is valid.
That's all I am asking



posted on Sep, 19 2017 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

I presented you subject matter. It is upon you, to see what it contains. You asked for a citation. I gave you one.

Previosuly, when I presented the evidence, you said "where is the proof" and I posted peer reviewed papers.

YOU ignored those. Like the book.

The Book is a collection of guess what? Articles based upon peer reviewed papers. It contains .... Evidence.

QED

SO either admit you refuse to look at the evidence, and be honest. OR stop posting. Because it is very clear, you will never admit you are wrong. Which would be fine, excpet multiple people have had this discussion with you. The fault is with you. Not us, not the evidence.

Yep, this is a discussion forum. You don't discuss. You troll.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

I presented you subject matter. It is upon you, to see what it contains. You asked for a citation. I gave you one.

Previosuly, when I presented the evidence, you said "where is the proof" and I posted peer reviewed papers.

YOU ignored those. Like the book.

The Book is a collection of guess what? Articles based upon peer reviewed papers. It contains .... Evidence.

QED

SO either admit you refuse to look at the evidence, and be honest. OR stop posting. Because it is very clear, you will never admit you are wrong. Which would be fine, excpet multiple people have had this discussion with you. The fault is with you. Not us, not the evidence.

Yep, this is a discussion forum. You don't discuss. You troll.


What y ou posted as peer reviewed even admitted it was assumption
Do you understand science, how to read, comprehend
Your evidence admitted it was assumption and only assumption, go back and you read it again, properly

Scientific evidence for geological time scale, not assumption

What you linked admitted it was assumption



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 06:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

No every one else who has replied to you has given you evidence which you are ignoring.

Again I presented a collected edition of evidence.

The Geological Time Scale 2012 edited by F M Gradstein, J G Ogg, Mark Schmitz, Gabi Ogg

Which you refuse to acknowledge.

It can thus be assumed that you are unwilling to actually fairly engage in this discussion.

Prove us wrong, read the source material. Then question.

OH and radioactive decay is first order.


That's a great book - thanks for posting it - very detailed in measurement methodology. The relationship to the astronomical time scale is fascinating. A link to the full PDF from Google Scholar is below if anyone wants the full text.



www.researchgate.net...



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Do you understand how Science works? No clearly not. Science uses assumptions which are tested. As opposed to say your creationist stance. Which uses assumptions, and never tests them.

Read the cited articles, read the book. Then you may comment.

As of now. You are a troll. Not even a creationist adherent. You are a troll, as you can't debate the subject.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman
Do you understand how Science works? No clearly not. Science uses assumptions which are tested. As opposed to say your creationist stance. Which uses assumptions, and never tests them.
Read the cited articles, read the book. Then you may comment.
As of now. You are a troll. Not even a creationist adherent. You are a troll, as you can't debate the subject.


Give up.



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Nah, I'm a stubborn SOB. Eventually he's going to violate the rules



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 03:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

unfortunately lack of reading comprehension, or blatant stupidity doesn't break the rules




posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Well no, but you and I know we will get an abusive post eventually



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 04:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Noinden

Not necessarily...

Just gotta keep your calm... and with people like this it can be extremely frustrating

I tend to trust that mostly everyone reading here can see stupidity

Plus raggity is notorious for his trolling, and using words he doesn't actually understand

im regularly called a "gnostic"... but i just remind him not to use words he doesn't know the meaning of




posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   
Is there a scenario where a "prehistoric" Creature, for lack of a better term, could have lived through till the age of man and gone extinct before more modern times. Think Sharks, Caiman, Bees and Crabs except larger and outright went extinct

Yes...no?



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
Is there a scenario where a "prehistoric" Creature, for lack of a better term, could have lived through till the age of man and gone extinct before more modern times. Think Sharks, Caiman, Bees and Crabs except larger and outright went extinct

Yes...no?


Coelacanth




posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon

Sorry let me rephrase... HE will get abusive. I base this on his previous patterns.

He's also taken this thread from its topic: Did humans and dinosaurs coexist. To "Science is wrong about things".



posted on Sep, 20 2017 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: amazing

Sure there is. Dinosaurs, in the sense people think of them, like the OP is thinking...no.



posted on Sep, 21 2017 @ 02:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

Do you understand how Science works? No clearly not. Science uses assumptions which are tested. As opposed to say your creationist stance. Which uses assumptions, and never tests them.

Read the cited articles, read the book. Then you may comment.

As of now. You are a troll. Not even a creationist adherent. You are a troll, as you can't debate the subject.



No noindy, this has nothing to do with creation, that's a strawman lie
It's about evidence

Take Phants little picture, it is meaningless data with no evidence at all
Might as well be a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur for all its relevance to the topic

Troll, as opposed to a hack scientists with delusions of grandeur

Post the evidence or remain a hack scientist, as if there were other options



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join