Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
ok I have a question on the dinosaurs and man co-existing. people drew on pots and stones, dinosaurs with circle patterns, how would they know if it
had circle patterns on the skin without ever seeing one?
Is that the only reasonable explanation for them having drawn them like that?
Does it mean that the artists for the flintstones knew what they looked like even tho science didn't?
Mwa ha. Couldn't resist!
I would say that they had to see one in order to know what the skin looked like.
Thing is, they didn't make accurate representations of the skin, espeically the ones that were feathered and the ones that had feather like
also as josh mentioned earlier in this thread, tha Ica Stones show Man and dinosaurs together, if man and dinsoaurs are drawn together, it was
probably because they were together alive.
The ICa stones are admitted frauds, admitted by the people that made them. They were also not taken seriously scientifically because they had
evidence of recent manufacture. Also, as the popular understanding of what dinosaurs looked like increased and became more detailed, the
representations on the ica stones became more detailed and accurate.
And lets just think about it for a moment, if dinosaurs were running around the world in large populations along with man and they interacted a lot
(heck, the ica stones show men riding them like horses), then where
are the modern remians of these things? Why are there onyl remians in
fossil beds that 'just happen' to date to millions of years ago (and the multiple independant dating methods all 'just happen' to agree with one
another too?) and never have any advanced modern like mammals in them?
also what about the legends of people slaying dragons? some are probably false or fairytales, but im sure at least one of them are true.
There are reptiles in the modern world. Some are pretty big, like pythons, crocodiles, and monitor lizards. Why should there have to be dinosaurs in
order for people to have myths about really big lizards? And dinosaurs weren't
just really big lizards, they wre extraordinarily different
from any other reptile group. And huge numbers of them were completely covered in all sorts of feathers
, but dragons have leathery wings and
hard tough scales (the heroic epics even state as much).
is a link that shows a few things that were found that contradict the geologic collumn.
There are a lot of 5 fingered tetrapods in the fossil record and they are oftem mistaken by amateurs to be human hand prints. I notice that that photo
is just of a slab of rock, out of context, without, say, three other similar prints to indicate that its a four legged land animal. And that there is
no mention of the layer in which it was found nor a scientific study of it and the context.
THey've got to be joking. THey even claim its been CT scanned and is perfectly consistent with a human finger. But then don't show a scan showing
the muscularture, nail root, bones, etc.
Malachite man is a fraud, the skeleton doesn't even exist and its a photoshopped photo. And, agian, notice, no supporting data, not mention of the
context, no scientific study of the fossil layer its found in, no orignal report of the discovery, nothing. Just cliams and a green 'bone'.
The hammer is encrusted with calcium carbonate, which can happen quickly. The fossils are in nearby rocks, not part of the material encrusting the
hammer. There is no evidence that the hammer is more than a few decades old.
what about the blood cells found in the Trex bones. blood cells arent going to last for millions of years unless its frozen and it wasnt.
You have been misinformed. Blood Cells have never been found in dinosaur bone.
Dr. Mary Schweitzer did, however, find paleo-proteins, garbeled remnants of proteins that are surprisingly often preserved in fossils. Several
researchers, infact, have discovered paleo-proteins. There is no reason to think that they can't survive, its impressive
, but hardly
immpossible. And, again, it wasn't actual red blood cells. It was proteins associated with blood. Others have found bone proteins preserved, and
Dr. Schweitzer even more recently made a great discovery of even more proteins and degraded, but still gooey, tissues. These results are not
inconsistent with what is known about the preservation of these materials however.
are these wrong? if they are why are they considered wrong?
Because their reports are factually incorrect and they don't seem to undestand the science behind fossilization nor preservation of proteins.
also carbon dating does not work unless the earth has reached equalibrium of radioactive carbon 14.
This has come up in other threads, so I will just provide the specific link to why this is not relevant.
Also you might like this
page, since it deals with a specific instance of Hovind
using this arguement and deals with it in more detail and covers a number of other points you bring up.
I see plentiful evidence for human - dinosaur coexistence, and the information provided in your furnished links merely adds support to my, already
held conclusion, that dinosaurs existed for much longer than mainstream science cares to admit.
Why in the world would a scientist cover up this information if it was true? If anything, a person could make a career out of having man fossils
along with dinosaur fossils. They way the system is set up, there is pressure to do just that, not to cover it up.
Can you tell me what assumptions the Scientific Method leaves room for?
Reasonable ones and ones that are not contradicted by the evidence. There is no evidence that the concentration of these elements was all out of
whackin the distant past nor that entire series of decay rates have been 'screwy', let alone all equally schewed in such a way as to make them all
agree on similar dates. Its a hell of an assumption to say that they are
incorrect and that these rates and conditions were completely
different and have changed thru time, its not much of an assumption to say that, given that there is absolutely no evidence that they weren't, that
they indeed weren't. The scientific method is perfectly accepting of assumptions like that.
Before I cross the street I look both ways, I don't assume that there are no cars. That'd be a poor assumption. After making a reasonable check
for cars, I don't fail to cross the street, assuming that there are invisible cars screaming down the road, that would be a poor and irrational
when I can test
for cars and those tests come up negative.