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.

 

fossils and Dinosaur limestone...which came first the chicken or the egg??

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   
in the paluxy river in glenrose texas, frozen in time (a layer of fossilized limestone) for all who care to see are two sets of footprints, one on top of the other that stride for over 20 yards: the bigger set belong to a Dinosaur are on the bottom, the smaller set to that of a human. the human prints are inside the Dinosaur, like he was tracking him....whatever he was doing...this has been dated and shatters any proof that evolution is credible. we both lived here at the same time. man was to have come on the scene how many eras after the giant lizzard??????????? creationism (or inteligent design) has to be closer to the truth. even the myan priests mention a race of giants as does the bible, and in the bible it calls Dinosaurs Leviathans and behemoths. so u tell me, can eveloution whose every claim is built on statements like "is thought to be" and "supposed" and "might have happened" anything but a religion?? it cant be subjected to the scientific approach, it cant be tested, proven, or reproduced...it is therefore a theory at best. and a poor one to boot. any comments?




posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by gemini6767
in the paluxy river in glenrose texas, frozen in time (a layer of fossilized limestone) for all who care to see are two sets of footprints, one on top of the other that stride for over 20 yards: the bigger set belong to a Dinosaur are on the bottom, the smaller set to that of a human.

The human prints are fakes. This was discovered a long time ago.


this has been dated and shatters any proof that evolution is credible.

ACtually if it were true it wouldn't. It would mean that a lot has been wrong and that man co-existed with dinosaurs, but it wouldn't somehow undue the fact that populations of organisms evolve.


even the myan priests mention a race of giants as does the bible

Thats pretty meaningless.


, and in the bible it calls Dinosaurs Leviathans and behemoths.

The descriptions do not, infact, resemble dinoaurs, outside of them being 'big animals'. And of course many dinosaurs were not big animals at all. ALso, the only thing that specifically resembles a dinosaur like description is the bit about the 'tail swaying like a cedar', but when taken with the original language and in combination with the associated line 'his strength is in his loins', this is probably a description of the phallus of a large mammal, not a dinosaur.


so u tell me, can eveloution whose every claim is built on statements like "is thought to be" and "supposed" and "might have happened" anything but a religion??

Evolution speaks in the exact same language as phyiscs, chemistry, and any other branch of science. Its clearly not a religion.


it cant be subjected to the scientific approach

Completely incorrect. It can be and has been and currently is being studied scientifically.

, it cant be tested,

Its constantly tested and constantly stands up to the best tests that hard working scientists can throw at it.

proven

No scientific theory is ever proven. Ever. Theories don't become facts. Ever.

, or reproduced...it is therefore a theory at best.

Yes, thats why its called the Theory of evolution.

and a poor one to boot.

If by 'poor' you mean well substanitated and backed by over a hundred years of evidence and extensive research, then sure.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 11:22 PM
link   
to NYGDAN, no it isnt fake. i was there. im not a creationist so i have nothing to gain either way, but along with my college science class, i observed this to be a genuine fossil, whats more, its been carbon dated...the rest of your comments are just not worth responding to...you need to be better read...oh, but one last thing nygdan...evolution is nothing but faith: read on:

A frequent criticism made of the scientific method is that it cannot accommodate anything that has not been proved. The argument then points out that many things thought to be impossible in the past are now everyday realities. This criticism is based on a misinterpretation of the scientific method. When a hypothesis passes the test it is adopted as a theory it correctly explains a range of phenomena it can, at any time, be falsified by new experimental evidence. When exploring a new set or phenomena scientists do use existing theories but, since this is a new area of investigation, it is always kept in mind that the old theories might fail to explain the new experiments and observations. In this case new hypotheses are devised and tested until a new theory emerges.

There are many types of ``pseudo-scientific'' theories which wrap themselves in a mantle of apparent experimental evidence but that, when examined closely, are nothing but statements of faith. The argument , cited by some evolutionists, that science is just another kind of faith is a philosophic stance which ignores the trans-cultural nature of science. Science's theory of gravity explains why both creationists and scientists don't float off the earth. All you have to do is jump to verify this theory - no leap of faith required.

in other words: to be scientific, you have to include the following:

Observation
Question
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experiment
so:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.
...........you have to observe...(got any evolution happening right now that u can cite as observable??)
2. question: You want your question to be answerable. Science can answer many questions, but there are some which cannot be answered by science. An example might be: why am I here? The word why implies purpose, and begs an answer from a creator. This question cannot be answered by science as we cannot test a creator for humans by the means available to science. (so its faith, which makes it a religion, clearly...not a science as once again, it doesnt hold up to the the second step of the scientific meathod.)
3. Prediction
The prediction is a formal way to put a hypothesis to a test. If you have carefully designed your hypothesis to be sure it is falsifiable, then you know precisely what to predict. The prediction has three parts:

If my hypothesis is true...
Then _____ should happen
When _____ is manipulated
The manipulation is what you knew would likely falsify your hypothesis.

If Ross Koning is sleeping...
Then his breathing will remain slow and even
When I brush his cheek with a feather

if thats not good enough for you: A prediction is the expected results if the hypothesis and other underlying assumptions and principles are true and an experiment is done to test that hypothesis. For example, in physics if Newton’s Theory of Motion is true and certain “unexplained” measurements and calculations pointing to the possibility of another planet are correct, then if I point my telescope to the specific position that I can calculate mathematically, I should be able to discover/observe that new planet. Indeed, that is the way in which Neptune was discovered in 1846.


got a question to prove or better...disprove the evolution claim? or creation claim? both are clearly religions.

4. and lastly:testing:
In science when testing, when doing the experiment, it must be a controlled experiment. The scientist must contrast an “experimental group” with a “control group”. The two groups are treated EXACTLY alike except for the ONE variable being tested. Sometimes several experimental groups may be used. For example, in an experiment to test the effects of day length on plant flowering, one could compare normal, natural day length (the control group) to several variations (the experimental groups).

When doing an experiment, replication is important. Everything should be tried several times on several subjects. For example, in the experiment just mentioned, a student scientist would have at least three plants in the control group and each of the experimental groups, while a “real” researcher would probably have several dozen. If a scientist had only one plant in each group, and one of the plants died, there probably would be no way of determining if the cause of death was related to the experiment being conducted.

TELL ME, CAN U CONTROL ANY ASPECT OF EVLOUTION? OR REPEAT IT FOR THAT MATTER???? so then, nygdan, you are obviously uneducated on the matter of what is and what is not science. if it were like phyiscs and chemistry, then it could be proved wrong, as in deed these two disiplines are, as it is mandated by the scientific meathod to be considered scientific...being studied using science doesnt not make a thing studied science. it cant stand up to even one test a real scientist can 'throw at it' as it fails on all counts of the scientific meathod. theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable. In fact, most experiments and observations are repeated many times (certain experiments are not repeated independently but are repeated as parts of other experiments). If the original claims are not verified the origin of such discrepancies is hunted down and exhaustively studied.

When studying the cosmos we cannot perform experiments; all information is obtained from observations and measurements. Theories are then devised by extracting some regularity in the observations and coding this into physical laws.

There is a very important characteristic of a scientific theory or hypothesis which differentiates it from, for example, an act of faith: a theory must be ``falsifiable''. This means that there must be some experiment or possible discovery that could prove the theory untrue. For example, Einstein's theory of Relativity made predictions about the results of experiments. These experiments could have produced results that contradicted Einstein, so the theory was (and still is) falsifiable.

In contrast, the theory that ``the moon is populated by little green men who can read our minds and will hide whenever anyone on Earth looks for them, and will flee into deep space whenever a spacecraft comes near'' is not falsifiable: these green men are designed so that no one can ever see them. On the other hand, the theory that there are no little green men on the moon is scientific: you can disprove it by catching one. Similar arguments apply to abominable snow-persons, UFOs and the Loch Ness Monster(s?).

so creationism is not science, its is a theory: A theory is a generalization based on many observations and experiments; a well-tested, verified hypothesis that fits existing data and explains how processes or events are thought to occur. It is a basis for predicting future events or discoveries. Theories may be modified as new information is gained. This definition of a theory is in sharp contrast to colloquial usage, where people say something is “just a theory,” thereby intending to imply a great deal of uncertainty.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by gemini6767
no it isnt fake.

Indeed, the tracks are fakes, they were created by creationists to back up their 'ideas'. Thru fraud.
The short refutation is available here. A link to that index is one of our 'stickied' threads at the top of the forum, available [ulr=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread150345/pg1]here[/url] This site also examines a number of the assortments of tracks and provides references, some apparently even from creationist magazines, that find for fraud, alteration of the tracks.


i was there.

Irrelvant.


im not a creationist so i have nothing to gain either way, but along with my college science class, i observed this to be a genuine fossil




, whats more, its been carbon dated

Carbon dating can not be used on dinosaur fossils or anything of the sort. What 'college science class' did you take? ANd what do you mean 'class'? THere is no single class that is going to permit a college student to identify all of these things while acting as a tourist.


...the rest of your comments are just not worth responding to...you need to be better read



...oh, but one last thing nygdan...evolution is nothing but faith: read on:
Oh, so now we're going to drop the whole 'there are man tracks' at paluxy and 'switch gears' to another, probably similarly falsified and baseless 'attack' on evolution eh?


it is always kept in mind that the old theories might fail to explain the new experiments and observations.

And this is well known and well established, its part of why science has been so incredibly successful, and its precisely how evolutionary biology operates, its a branch of science. Evolutionary theory is well tested, and has been for over a hundred years, and has more than withstood the excellent tests that researchers have put it too.



There are many types of ``pseudo-scientific'' theories which wrap themselves in a mantle of apparent experimental evidence but that, when examined closely, are nothing but statements of faith.

Yes, this is exactly what creationism is. Clearly. If you are not a creationist, then you'd be focused on how creationism is obviously a pseudo-science, not pretending that the thouroughly scientific evolutionary biology is one.



The argument , cited by some evolutionists, that science is just another kind of faith is a philosophic stance which ignores the trans-cultural nature of science. Science's theory of gravity explains why both creationists and scientists don't float off the earth. All you have to do is jump to verify this theory - no leap of faith required.

WHich is precisely why creationism is not a science, it would not exist were it not for the bible and a cultural-theological interpretation of the bible as literal. Creationism takes the bible, and tries to find interpretations of 'evidence' that seem to back it up. Whatever evidences refute or erode support for those bilibcal conclusions, are ignored. Literally, members of creationist 'research' groups have to affirm that they have faith in creationism and that they're only publishing stuff that supports it. Science is critical of itself, and evolutionary biology, being a science like chemistry or phsyics, does just that.


in other words: to be scientific, you have to include the following:

Observation
Question
Hypothesis
Prediction
Experiment

There is far more required for a system to be scientific than this rather basic and elementary description. Science requires that there be certain aspects of those hypotheses, and that there are restrictions on the methods of experimenting and the phenomena that can potentially be examined, and the like. Since this is the exact sequence that is taught in high school and 100 level science courses, take it that the 'class' you took on science was an introductory one? How did this allow you to distinguish between the tracks of humans and the tracks made by the metatarsals of therpods?



got any evolution happening right now that u can cite as observable??

Along with the change in allele frequencies over time within a population that is the very definition of evolution, scientists also have Observed Instances of Speciation. Infact, there are many more examples of it. These are observations of what's often (somewhat incorrectly) refered to as 'micro-evolution' and "macro-evolution".


An example might be: why am I here? The word why implies purpose, and begs an answer from a creator. This question cannot be answered by science as we cannot test a creator for humans by the means available to science.

You don't seem to understand. Thats an arguement for why we can't scientifically examine super-natural events, such as those stated to have occured by creationism and intelligent design. Evolution does not ask these 'why are we here' questions, but rather deals with that which can be studied scientifically, which, it turns out, is quite a bit.



If you have carefully designed your hypothesis to be sure it is falsifiable,

Evolutionary Theory is perfectly falsifiable. Attempting to falsify evolution is what evolutionary biologists do.


II Ross Koning is sleeping...
Then his breathing will remain slow and even
When I brush his cheek with a feather

This statement made me realize that you are possibly plagarizing from multiple websites, as possibly revealed from
this, this, and even this, search for specific phrases in your text. Lets just be clear. According to the T&C that you agreed to when signing up to this board:


You will not cross-post content from other discussion boards (unless you receive my advance permission).


This is a discussion board. People come here to talk about and hash over lots of different topics. If you want to talk about evolution and creationism, then by all means, do so. But cutting and pasting or regurgiquoting information from other boards is completely and utterly pointless, and actually rather dishonest.


A prediction is the expected results if the hypothesis and other underlying assumptions and principles are true and an experiment is done to test that hypothesis.

A statement that is right out of
this biology deparment's webpage. Please cite your sources when you are clearly cut-and-pasting from them. That particular phrasing only turned up for that school, and two other webforums. Do you at least go to that school, the university of cincinati at clermont?


Indeed, that is the way in which Neptune was discovered in 1846.

And evolutionary biology makes predictions, tests hypotheses, and is entirely falsifiable and potentiall refutable. But rather than having been refuted, its been corroborated time and time again. Its predictions have been confirmed, its been an incredibly successful too thru which nature can be studied. In science this means its a 'powerful' theory.



got a question to prove or better...disprove the evolution claim? or creation claim? both are clearly religions.

You have done absolutely nothing to show that evolution is not scientific. You've stated that its not, then showed examples not involving evolution that are scientific, and now ended with your original statement. At no point did you make even a weak case for evolution being unscientific.


In science when testing, when doing the experiment, it must be a controlled experiment. The scientist must contrast an “experimental group” with a “control group”.

Your understanding of how science operates is defficient. This is not how most scientific endavours operate. There are no controls for cosmological theories nor many advanced physical experiments, and indeed its rare that one has two groups, a control and an experimental, outside of medical research, and even then its not allways at hand. Fortunately in evolutionary biology there are such groups, we've seen species arise and differentiate when one group is subjected to selection pressure and another is not, acting as a control.


TELL ME, CAN U CONTROL ANY ASPECT OF EVLOUTION? OR REPEAT IT FOR THAT MATTER????

Have you ever researched any aspect of actual evolutionary biology? I don't mean as a degree holding scientist, but rather just as an interested and inquisitive individual?

you are obviously uneducated on the matter of what is and what is not science.

But you, with your 'science class' and theft from other science websites are 'thoroughly educated' no?


if it were like phyiscs and chemistry, then it could be proved wrong

The repitition of your cluelessness is wonderfully astounding.


In contrast, the theory that ``the moon is populated by little green men who can read our minds and will hide whenever anyone on Earth looks for them, and will flee into deep space whenever a spacecraft comes near''

Wow. Do you have any orignal material in this post? Practically everything that is checked turns out to be a cut and paste from another website. And worse, its all a bunch of bs.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Indeed, much of your information tracks back to Jose Wudka on the scientific method. Except, entirely dishonestly and completey transparently, you've replaced things like 'creationist' with evolutionist, and even done so in such a way that it doesn't even make sense. Did you even bother to read the information that you stole from someone else? The fact that you can even pretend to be in a position to call someone else 'uneducated' on anything is pathetic. Why don't you try answering some questions honestly now, such as what school you are enrolled in, was it one of the several that you cut-n-pasted from? What was the title of the 'science' class you took? Are you here to have a discussion about the subjects invovled or are you actually so deluded that you think that anything is accomplished by powerlessly trying to use this (and other?) web-forums as soap boxes from which you can spout ridiculous and false propaganda?

edit to add:
indeed, I don't even beleive at this point that you have anything beyond a high school education, since all your information has been at that introductory level, and even more apparently all your information on 'what science is' is from the above website and its 'flow diagram'.

[edit on 15-7-2005 by Nygdan]



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I must admit I was looking forward to your response to this with great anticipation. Well said


It gets irritating to be presented with fiction dressed up as facts all the time.. hopefully real science will gets though this time of creational savotage without to much scarring to it's credibility.

[edit on 15-7-2005 by riley]



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 02:36 PM
link   
There are SEVERAL sets of tracks in Glen Rose.

Nygdan, the ones that Gemini are talking about are probably the ones in Dinosaur Valley State Park in Glen Rose, Texas:
www.tpwd.state.tx.us...

However, as Nygdan says, they're misinterpreted by people who insist that the world is really only 6,000 years old. Here's a better look at those tracks from a site that nicely reviews ALL the claims:
paleo.cc...

Larger photo is here:
paleo.cc...

Creationists eventually had to backtrack on their claims about the Paluxy site:
paleo.cc...

The FAKED Paluxy tracks are mentioned here in the first story. Many Christians fell for these faked tracks.:
www.strangescience.net...



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 01:36 AM
link   
I think it is safe to say that gemini6767 has been

BURNED!!!!!



posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 11:57 AM
link   



Brave Sir Robin ran away.
Bravely ran away, away!
When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Sir Robin turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
Bravely taking to his feet
He beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, Sir Robin!





posted on Jul, 24 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Well I dunno about dinosaurs adn limestone but the chicken adn the egg is easy-
The egg cso the chicken it came from wasnt as fully evolved as it was so it wasnt classed as a chicked see easy.







 
0

log in

join