Did Ancient Humans Coexisted with Dinosaurs?

originally posted by: Akragon
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

Funny, the stupidity I see is claiming scientific evidence and not posting it up

I am just asking for evidence
All I get is "I have shown you" but you all have shown none, just random assumption with no scientific evidence

I see everyone do everything but
No evidence, Phants little diagram, seriously, you will claim
M that as evidence and it sure as hell ain't evidence, not a drop of it is
I would have to be stupid to believe that's evidence and Phants knows it

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

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.

The other, better, more mature and reasonable option
Post the evidence that proves the geological time scale is accurate

But no, that's logical ( read impossible)

a reply to: Raggedyman



You keep saying over and over... "post the evidence" as if nobody has ever done so in the dozens and dozens of post that you dance the same steps every single time. The evidence has indeed been posted ad nauseum. So let's try a different approach. The science of Geology is well known. Since you believe that the science is fundamentally flawed, could you
perhaps detail what the errors are? We can start with something easy like the Law of Superposition and stratification.

Since you claim that nobody else here knows science, that must mean that you are the more knwledgable individual in these matters and therefore it should be an easy task to lay bare the fundamental flaws and errors in what is considered established science.

I eagerly await your insightful look at why the science is incorrect.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Why not take it then. Post evidence on how the science is wrong?

Oh that is right, you can't.

a reply to: Raggedyman

No it is not a strawman.

You argue against evolution, you disagree about radiometric dating methods. You claim evolution must take into account how life started.

You are quacking and waddling, thus a duck (creationist).

I've posted the evidence, repeatedly. YOU ignore those posts. I had to badger you to talk to the last bit I posted.

QED

You are the troll.

a reply to: Noinden

They still use circular reasoning, dating rocks with fossils and vice versa
It's also a 200 year old theory with no scientific evidence

Your argument is a chooks argument, clucking and running around in circles
Fake scientists thus chooks

I am not arguing anything, just asking for,scientific evidence for the geological time scale, not silly pictures that prove nothing

originally posted by: Phantom423

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...

Is this it, is this your proof, am I expected to fall for this nonsense, a chart, what

How does this prove anything, why even post this childlike babble
It is nothing and you try to pretend it has valid information

Is this your best?

a reply to: peter vlar

Let me see if I understand you

I have not seen any evidence of a geological time scale, none, not in the real world or text books
So, now you want me to prove what there is no evidence for is wrong

That's like saying I have an invisible glass of water, prove I don't have an invisible glass of water

Now, if you have evidence, post it up and finish the argument

I don't believe in Gravity, it doesn't exist, I see no evidence for gravity

originally posted by: Padawan Raggedyman
a reply to: peter vlar

I don't believe in Gravity, it doesn't exist, I see no evidence for gravity

Youngling, this proves you dont understand science.

Ill put this in real simple terms that even someone with home schooling education can understand.

'Gravity' is the 'label' we put on the natural phenomena of objects with mass being attracted to each other.

When you drop something Padawan, the action of it falling to the ground is 'labelled' as 'Gravity'.

Master Coomba

a reply to: Raggedyman

You really do not know what you are talking about.

Demonstrate the circular reasoning. Don't say it. Show it.

Again when we (and it is not just I) supply information. You refuse to respond

a reply to: Raggedyman

When you understand science, you will get this.

If one can measure it. It is there. You can't see an electron, yet if you stick a fork in a wall socket, you will discover what a bunch of them can do.

a reply to: Padawan Raggedyman

Padawan, as Master Yoda has said:

"Much to learn you still have…my old Padawan"

Master Coomba

Wow awesome guys love it
I now believe in Gravity, didn't but look now I do
I read the evidence, saw the apple fall and noted it was repeatable observable and testable
I am a Gravity convert

Simple scientific evidence, you have won me over, yippee for gravitee

So look, now you can do it

Scientific evidence for the geological time scale, just do the same thing with evidence
It's not hard if you have evidence
Just try

Not silly meaningless graphs, ridgy dodge proof
Then like a bad dream it will all be over

originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: Padawan Raggedyman

Padawan, as Master Yoda has said:

"Much to learn you still have…my old Padawan"

Master Coomba

If you want to be a master Coombs, might want to do more than stick your foot in your mouth
Cos from where I sit, you have made everyone on your team look like a fool
Master of that ship, congratulations

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

When you understand science, you will get this.

If one can measure it. It is there. You can't see an electron, yet if you stick a fork in a wall socket, you will discover what a bunch of them can do.

More talk, no evidence
Consistant theme around here noindy

So what are your thoughts on this 300000 year old triceratops horn? www.ancient-origins.net...

originally posted by: 00018GE
So what are your thoughts on this 300000 year old triceratops horn? www.ancient-origins.net...

Its bunkum. Pure and simple. Bad methodology and incorrect results.

Just for a start, Carbon-14 dating is worthless for anything beyond 50k years, let alone 300k years.

originally posted by: Padawan Raggedyman

Scientific evidence for the geological time scale, just do the same thing with evidence
It's not hard if you have evidence
Just try

Not silly meaningless graphs, ridgy dodge proof
Then like a bad dream it will all be over

Padawan, what part of the evidence dont you understand... i mean disagree with?

Be specific and not vague.

That way people like Master Noinden and Master Peter Vlar who understand that subject better than me can respond to your specific concerns.

Master Coomba

a reply to: Raggedyman

Read the previous posts we've had on this. I've posted multiple articles. Just like the book which is a collection of such, you refuse to read.

It is thus demonstrated, you are not engaging this discussion in good faith.

a reply to: 00018GE

That it is no such thing. C14 dating beyond 50K years? No. the very source is (ancient-origins) is questionable too