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: 22
35
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 04:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Raggedyman

what the hell are you talking about?




So are you saying showing me a picture of a 200 year old artists rendition of what they think might have happened is scientific evidence supporting the geological time scale
Well then I am amused


Well... im sure everyone else is amused with your silly rambling


Three days kayaking the Blackwood and I return to
Still
No empirical evidence for the geological time scale

Not surprised at all


See the problem is, just as i've told you many times before...

You're using words you don't actually understand...

words like... Science, and Geology

Geological knowledge isn't 200 years old as you've been insinuating... Its just that little has changed

Rocks don't change... we know generally where substances are found... they're made of the stuff of the universe.. which is chemistry....

another word you don't understand





Really, you showed me the geological time scale is the scientific evidence for the geological time scale

Hey Ak, I asked somebody to prove it is actually exists, that it is in nature, that their is evidence for the geological time scale,

I didn't ask for a picture of it

It's as if I asked for evidence of Santa and you have shown me a picture of Santa and said " look a picture of Santa, that's the evidence"
It's silly

Here is a tip Ak, go search google for scientific evidence for the geological time scale



(post by coomba98 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 08:02 AM
link   
a reply to: coomba98

He doesn't want to play that game. He simply gets off on mocking specific posters and picking apart their particular replies. If he had a clue about how science works or understood a 101 level version of any of the material at hand, he would know enough about the subject matter to determine the validity of it. All he's doing is regurgitating BS from sites like AIG. His replies betray his utter lack of knowledge about any of the material and all he can do is repeat talking points. It's a futile effort to engage with someone who isn't willing to learn let alone admit they could be in error.



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: coomba98

He doesn't want to play that game. He simply gets off on mocking specific posters and picking apart their particular replies. If he had a clue about how science works or understood a 101 level version of any of the material at hand, he would know enough about the subject matter to determine the validity of it. All he's doing is regurgitating BS from sites like AIG. His replies betray his utter lack of knowledge about any of the material and all he can do is repeat talking points. It's a futile effort to engage with someone who isn't willing to learn let alone admit they could be in error.


What Peter
Are you one of the Ak people who think a picture of the geo time scale is evidence, scientific evidence
Can you prove the geo timescale exists in nature, So Far No

Can you prove it with scientificaly tested and proven dating methods , So Far No

Can you prove the geo time scale scientificaly without circular reasoning, So Far No

My utter lack of knowledge? Really?

I am engaging you wth questions and so far nothing valid, nothing based on scientific evidence at all has been offered

Repeatable, observable and testable,as required by science

Go get em boy, be the hero and finish me off, please...
Even I am bored to death of the lack of evidence being offered, you say it's lack of knowledge, where is the evidence, scientific evidence

I am not mocking anyone, picking apart replies, just asking for scientific evidence over and over and over again

Seems the dunning Kruger effect has you blinded to reality Pete, step up, address me, don't hide by addressing your friends, step up and address me with evidence, don't pretend I am not here.

Show me the scientific evidence, you talk behind my back because you are in fear of having to deal with the real issue, no scientific evidence. To my face

Come on Peter, what's your best evidence, even Ak had a crack, it was week and poor but at least Ak tried, you are to scared to even address me, you turn to supporters and seek their support rather than do what I ask

That's cowardice to some people.
Right here, going nowhere....
Address me, the science, the evidence, the geological time scale

200 year old theory with no scientific evidence offered, not a drop
You believe it by faith, I don't
Prove the geological time scale with scientific evidence, address me, don't run to anyone else for support, address me

Don't put in a link, don't try to baffle me with silly irrelevant pictures that mean nothing.
Address me with evidence, scientific evidence

Or, just admit the geological time scale is a 200 year old unproven theory that people accept because they have no other choice and there is no scientific proof to justify it in reality

I always note in these threads the nature of the weaker argument is to attack the poster and offer no reply to the question, I also note when things get extra tough, the weaker individuals gang up,to shoes their communal strength and attack the poster and not the argument
Watch how it happens, no evidence will be offered, just the same old same old tired rebuttal, with no evidence to a 200 year old theory

Dinosaurs living with humans, why not, who knows
edit on 25-9-2017 by Raggedyman because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Absolute age methods date the timing of events not relative to each other but rather the time elapsed between rock forming events and the present time. Margins of error are less than 1 million years in general. This precision is possible because the nuclei of minerals which DO NOT migrate from the radioactive parent atom can be measured in the daughter atoms which are produced by decay over billions of years. The daughter atoms remain IN THE MINERAL thereby confirming the accuracy of isotopic decay rates in the past. Absolute ages can date back to the earliest rocks on Earth. This method can also correlate even younger rocks to fossil samples. Zircon is an example – I think Peter V posted the zircon example earlier.

In addition to absolute dating measurements, other spectroscopic methods confirm the accuracy of isotopic decay metrics - Post-infrared/infrared stimulated luminescence (pIR-IR) and thermally transferred optically stimulated luminescence (TT-OSL) Palaeomagnetic studies also agree with isotopic dating methods and stimulated luminescence.

These methods produce EMPIRICAL data because they are observed directly and have a high degree of correlation. The margin of error is well within a normal distribution and standard deviation. The Gaussian curve of the data shows the same - normal distribution within a standard deviation.

Standard error of formula for the "p" value
, where n = sample size, also places the data at a high confidence level of +90%

Not expecting the usual suspects to understand any of this – which doesn't matter in the least. The so-called “science project” at ICR entitled RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) has been debunked enough times that there's no need to discuss it. Note that the project was shut down permanently after overwhelming evidence that their findings were bogus was published.

BTW, all this information has been posted previously over the YEARS. To me that says that the naysayers are proof that there is no such thing as intelligent design! Or we have a lot of outliers around the intelligence curve on this board!
edit on 25-9-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-9-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-9-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 02:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

You wave the phrase empirical around, with out knowing what it is. Every time this happens, one of us brings actual empirical evidence to the table, and you run away, or ignore it.,



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 02:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Too scared to address you? Not even close. Too smart to waste my time. Every single instance that ive taken the time to format a lengthy and fact laden rebuttal to your BS you give your standard reply if "I dont care what you went to school for or think you know, I'm not wasting my time reading your reply". So why on earth would I take time away from important things like my kids and waste it on showing you information you will either refuse to look at or not have the capability to understand?

I'll say it for the 3rd time now, because as YOU keep saying, Geology is indeed a 200 year old field of science(it's not a "theory" btw). Therefore there is a dearth of material available in the public domain. I gave you something very easy, tell me what is wrong with the Law of Superposition and lay out the flaws in the science. Prove that I'm a hack and thst you actually understand the material. Or are YOU the scared one? I've yet to see you address this and simply repeat the same garbage empirical this... evidence that... you've got NOTHING.

The science is accepted. I don't have to prove it to you. You have to demonstrate the errors if YOU think the science is wrong. For someone of your intellect, and understanding of many scientific disciplines it should be a no brainer.

So anytime you want to do your own research and lay out the errors, please feel free. Until then, I'm not wasting time that you don't deserve based on past interactions.


edit on 25-9-2017 by peter vlar because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 04:02 PM
link   
I would remind the usual suspects also that there is NO EMPIRICAL evidence for the Bible. Yet you believe it regardless of the accuracy of translation (seriously doubt any Creationist speaks biblical Hebrew or Aramaic).

In any case, the evidence is self evident. And it doesn't require anyone's approval to be used in the pursuit of new knowledge.

The criteria outlined in the scientific method holds regardless whether scammers and fraudsters avoid it like the plague.




posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   
WANTED



Hominid discovered in Flat Earth, Kentucky.
Dated to 333,000,000 BCE
Identified as Homo Stupidous Ignoramous, rare but not extinct.

Please report any sightings to: ahhh, on second thought, we don't want to know.



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 06:40 PM
link   
So as I stated, no evidence just attacks
Big surprise, bring back coombs and Ak, as childish as their evidence and argument is, at least they try

Oh that's right, I don't deserve to be shown evidence

That others reading along have not seen any evidence, what, they don't deserve evidence either?

And then look, Phanta starts talking about the bible, what Phantom
Seriously, I never said the bible had evidence, that is not an argument, that's not even related to what we are dealing with in this thread. How is that relevant
That actually sounds like you have conceded the entire argument by grasping at irrelevant straws. Then babble on about Greek and Hebrew as if you are turning the whole argument where it was never and should never
Give up on the science and then create another argument based on irrelevant information to deflect the complete and utter failure of all your statements

Phanta, please don't bring Hitler up, that's poor form



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 06:47 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

Do you have an undisclosed issue with learning? OR do you just not read what is posted? OR do you deliberately ignore posts that don't fit your paradigm?

Evidence has been posted.
QED
You
are
wrong


(post by coomba98 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 07:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

LOL bring us back?

We never left... And im sure theres a stack of others laughing at this thread

fact is you wouldn't know evidence if it slapped you in the face... you'd still be denying it while nursing your black eye

I've only posted one link, by actually doing just what you suggested afterwords... google is your friend

Well... not your's but most people can do a simple search

This whole thread is a 404... similar to your ability to understand simple things




posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423



See at the bottom of this scientific method
The "communicate results" part
Thats what I am interested in
Not the childish bickering

Where is the evidence



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 07:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423




Also the Test with EXPERIMENT part

That would be cool as well

You know
Just the evidence


(post by coomba98 removed for a manners violation)
(post by coomba98 removed for a serious terms and conditions violation)

posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 09:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phantom423
Absolute age methods date the timing of events not relative to each other but rather the time elapsed between rock forming events and the present time. Margins of error are less than 1 million years in general. This precision is possible because the nuclei of minerals which DO NOT migrate from the radioactive parent atom can be measured in the daughter atoms which are produced by decay over billions of years. The daughter atoms remain IN THE MINERAL thereby confirming the accuracy of isotopic decay rates in the past. Absolute ages can date back to the earliest rocks on Earth. This method can also correlate even younger rocks to fossil samples. Zircon is an example – I think Peter V posted the zircon example earlier.


Theory, no evidence offered


originally posted by: Phantom423

In addition to absolute dating measurements, other spectroscopic methods confirm the accuracy of isotopic decay metrics - Post-infrared/infrared stimulated luminescence (pIR-IR) and thermally transferred optically stimulated luminescence (TT-OSL) Palaeomagnetic studies also agree with isotopic dating methods and stimulated luminescence.


Telling me or offering evidence, is there a disconnect here



originally posted by: Phantom423
These methods produce EMPIRICAL data because they are observed directly and have a high degree of correlation. The margin of error is well within a normal distribution and standard deviation. The Gaussian curve of the data shows the same - normal distribution within a standard deviation.


Where, Show me the data



originally posted by: Phantom423

Standard error of formula for the "p" value
, where n = sample size, also places the data at a high confidence level of +90%


Based on what evidence


originally posted by: Phantom423
Not expecting the usual suspects to understand any of this – which doesn't matter in the least. The so-called “science project” at ICR entitled RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) has been debunked enough times that there's no need to discuss it. Note that the project was shut down permanently after overwhelming evidence that their findings were bogus was published.

I am not discussing ICR, I am discussing the Geo Time scale
Keep up


originally posted by: Phantom423
BTW, all this information has been posted previously over the YEARS. To me that says that the naysayers are proof that there is no such thing as intelligent design! Or we have a lot of outliers around the intelligence curve on this board!


Yes it has, and yes I question the lack of evidence


Again we are stuck

Because I cant see an experiment
Its just assumption on ALL LEVELS

How do you prove a constant in relation to the rock forming events
Not that I think your intelect will give you the capacity to understand what I am asking

Your error margins are based on what constant, increasing, decay rates, what, its bulldust, you have offered nothing at all relevant

The daughter atoms, crap. We havnt yet established the constants of parent atome, assumption and faith and blinding stupidity
I asked for scientific evidence, NOT THEORY AND THIS IS THEORY

Where is the evidence, theory is not relevant


originally posted by: Phantom423

These methods produce EMPIRICAL data because they are observed directly and have a high degree of correlation.


So where is the empirical data, star wars boy might think you have shown some but, be hounest
Produce it



posted on Sep, 25 2017 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

So did you read the reference which I provided?

Let us try again:

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

Phantom provided a ]Link

Now you can not honestly say, if you've read that, no evidence has been provided.

So go forth and read it.


edit on 25-9-2017 by Noinden because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-9-2017 by Noinden because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
35
<< 19  20  21    23  24 >>

log in

join