Did Man and Dinosaures co-exist?

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joshm2u
where is the proof that dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago?

You are not familiar with the evidence associated with it?? You have never researched it?




posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joshm2u
where is the proof that dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago?


There are two bits of evidence 1. Carbon Dating and 2. Our species exists!!! There is no way we could compete with dinosaurs even with their tiny brains( for reference think of the size of a young Earth Creationist's brain i.e. Kent Hovind)



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   
1) carbon dating is not accurate. it is only good for substances under 4,000 years old. the earth was different when it was first created. there probbaly wasnt as much UV light from the sun entering our atmosphere, which is what converts the nirtogen into carbon 14
2) of course we are still here, but that doesnt mean the earth is millions of years old. oh wait....what if humans were bigger back then...giants maybe. the bible referes to giants, here is one verse.....genesis 6:4 "There were giants in the earth in those days"



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joshm2u
1) carbon dating is not accurate. it is only good for substances under 4,000 years old. the earth was different when it was first created. there probbaly wasnt as much UV light from the sun entering our atmosphere, which is what converts the nirtogen into carbon 14

Actually it is. In the 1970/80s it was questionable.. now it has more or less been perfected. Please in future back up what you say with a source as the entire scientific community accepts it's credibility so you'd need something pretty compelling to refute it other than 'probably wasn't much UV light'. Oh wait.. sounds familar. Well at least you put what you read from the creationalist site in your own words instead of blatently cutting and pasting. Cudos to you.



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Joshm2u
it is only good for substances under 4,000 years old.

Correct, carbon dating is not used for dinosaur fossils and the like.



the earth was different when it was first created. there probbaly wasnt as much UV light from the sun entering our atmosphere, which is what converts the nirtogen into carbon 14

This is the sort of effect that scientists are able to account for and calibrate their results to. IOW, this does not represent a problem for carbon dating.



what if humans were bigger back then...giants maybe. the bible referes to giants, here is one verse.....genesis 6:4 "There were giants in the earth in those days"

There's a trend amoung primitive people's to think of the past as being more heroic than the present, thus we see an age of heros in ancient greece, or gilgmesh fighting a gigantic bull in his epic, and even a story of a fall and deterioration amoung the ancient hebrews. Even today, the 'old days' were back when things were better. This has allways been the case, even in the old 'glory days'.

So, agian, have you not looked at the evidence around the dating of the dinosaurs and the like? If you have, what specifically was wrong with it?



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   
You and I have investigated it together Nygdan. We came to the conclusion that the dating methods are not in compliance with the scientific method.
They are based on assumptions

Regardless of the soundness of the logic used, or the mathmatical odds given, if it is not in compliance with the scientific method...then there is room for error.

The odds were pretty slim that a tile falling off the fuel cell and hitting the shuttle would cause a catasrophic defect that would doom the shuttle. All of science was on that one. Yet it happened. Tiles have been falling off for years...but this time....

Back to topic.

The dating methods do not comply with the scientific method. They are based on assumptions. Are we in agreement?

[edit on 25-7-2005 by jake1997]



posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 08:51 PM
link   
As I understand, the two main methods used, in conjunction, are stratigraphy & radio-isotope dating. C-14 is good to around 60k yrs, so not too useful for dinosaurs, not the 5k mentioned (that's probably half-life). Basically this entails (1) How deep is the fossil, taking into consideration any geostratic displacement (along with polarity changes in the strata) which may have occurred, and (2) Selecting some igneous rocks from the immediate area of the find, and analyzing it for the amount of U-235 left, or it's breakdown element, if present. I think it's Lead-207 for U-235. I believe they also use analysis of other elements, like Potassium-40.
I think they now have what is referred to as "high-precision" spectrum dating, based on Argon somehow. And yes, I'm an archaeology buff.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 05:56 AM
link   
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? I would say that they had to see one in order to know what the skin looked 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.

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.

here is a link that shows a few things that were found that contradict the geologic collumn.
here is another


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.

here is a third article contradicting dinosaurs being millions of years old.

a fourth
a fifth
and a sixth

I found more, but I dont want to make this post too long.

are these wrong? if they are why are they considered wrong?

Just because it is a creationist making scientific claims that go against evolution theory does not mean that they are wrong. it could mean that they are right.


also carbon dating does not work unless the earth has reached equalibrium of radioactive carbon 14. carbon14 is forming almost twice as fast as it decays. and because of that, the results are not going to be accurate no matter what object is dated.
the amount of C14 in the dated object is compared to the amount of C14 in the atmosphere, since the ratio is constantly increasing in radioactive Carbon14, the dating method will not work because the atmosphere is constantly changing.
most people think that this isnt a problem, when in fact it is. if the rate formation is still faster than the rate of decay, the dating method will not work. and that is the problem with carbon dating.








[edit on 31-7-2005 by Evolution Cruncher]



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Good post, EC.

I'm not a creationist, but I don't always buy the sientific community's line either. 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. I've never been a fan of mass extinction theory; it's much harder to wipe out life than that. I tend to lean toward the Cyclic Catastrophism Theory, myself. In that scenario, you lose/confuse alot of your evidence for accurately tracing geologic history. Not only that, but, who can prove that our Genesis was the first?


(Edited to remove redundancy)

[edit on 31-7-2005 by Lordling]



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 05:03 PM
link   
I'll get back to this on later but EC Link 3 debunks four five six. Site one with the malachite man thru the hand print is bunk. The hand print is an obvious fake. I'll get back to the others on that site later. Also number two (the one on the pauxleys prints) is an admitted fraud and has been covered over and over on these forums.



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   
Thanks SLWolf.....I dug a little & found what you are referring to. Better faith through deception; gotta love it!



posted on Jul, 31 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   


I'll get back to this on later but EC Link 3 debunks four five six. Site one with the malachite man thru the hand print is bunk. The hand print is an obvious fake. I'll get back to the others on that site later. Also number two (the one on the pauxleys prints) is an admitted fraud and has been covered over and over on these forums.


so its fake just because its you think its fake or just because its on a christian website that supports creation. I do know that some things are fraud or hoax but that doesnt mean that all of them are.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 03:03 AM
link   
First of all the handprint is in limestone. Limestone is formed on continetal shelfs at about 50-200 feet deep water that is calm and warm. So it can only be from an animal that died and was carried out to sea with the tide, sank and then was buried and fossilized. Now look at the handprint, it's like a kids cast made in school with the fingers laid out, a dead body would not make that type of mark.

I will use another from among those sites. The fossilized worms.


first paragraph
Several locations reveal thousands of fossilized worms that are perfectly three dimensional. If anything should be mashed flat it would be worms, but they are not. Obviously, very rapid lithification is required in order to preserve such astonishing detail.


The worm is not the actual worm but a cast. The lower layer starts lithification around the worm. The worm decays, leaving a mold for instance.
as the sediment piles up it fills in the mold. when you seperat the the two layers you have a cast of the worm on one side and a mold of it on the other. It helps with identifing superposition. that is the bottomside of the rock layer they show in the picture.

edit to fix link and correct a couple spelling errors

[edit on 1-8-2005 by silentlonewolf]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 03:10 AM
link   
also for the malachite man see here

from talkorigins
The skeletons are the same bones as the discredited Moab man bones, apparently with skeletons from eight nearby Indian burials added (Kuban 1998).


All details given in the account are apparently false. The bones were found fifteen feet deep in soft, unconsolidated sand. They were clearly intrusive (i.e., buried there long after the sediments were laid down). The Dakota Formation is approximately 90-115 million years old, straddling the Early and Late Cretaceous. Dinosaur National Monument is in the Morrison Formation, which is Jurassic (Kuban 1998).


The people making claims about Malachite Man have not been cooperative in supplying information that might be used to verify their claim. This would be surprising if they thought their claims could actually be verified.


It's fake. I figured as much when they said a bulldozer driver found it but the rock was too hard for the bulldozer to dig through the sandstone. So it had to be relatively shallow sediment.

[edit on 1-8-2005 by silentlonewolf]



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by jake1997
You and I have investigated it together Nygdan. We came to the conclusion that the dating methods are not in compliance with the scientific method.
They are based on assumptions

Radio-isotopic dating is perfectly in line with science and the scientific method. Yes, it makes assumptions, all science makes basic assumptions about reality. Moreover, the few assumptions involved in radio-isotopic dating are perfectly reasonably ones, and no evidence suggests that they are faulty.
There are numerous radio-isotopes that can be used in radio-isotopic dating, each one is basically an independant test of these ages. They all are in agreement with one another, that in itself speaks to the power and accuracy of these methods, and their agreement with the relative ages assigned to the geologic column and the ages derived by biostratiagraphic methods all re-inforce one another and show that the earth is clearly older than, say, 6,000 years.



posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Can you tell me what assumptions the Scientific Method leaves room for?



posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 01:13 PM
link   

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 projections.



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.

Why?

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).

here is a link that shows a few things that were found that contradict the geologic collumn.
external image
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

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'.


short refutation
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.
Claim CD002
Claim CD011.1
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.


Lordling
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.


Jake1997
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 assumption, especially when I can test for cars and those tests come up negative.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 07:07 AM
link   

quote: Originally posted by Joshm2u
where is the proof that dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago?

There are two bits of evidence 1. Carbon Dating and 2. Our species exists!!! There is no way we could compete with dinosaurs even with their tiny brains( for reference think of the size of a young Earth Creationist's brain i.e. Kent Hovind)


our species exists? what does that prove? it proves that our species exists, and thats about it. our species existing does not prove that dinosaurs existed millions of years ago.

I dont know how many times I have to explain carbon dating, it doesnt work. carbon dating does not work at all. its not accurate no matter how old the object is.

as for surviving against a dinosaur, the bible points out that there were giants in teh earth before the flood and some after. if there were giants, im sure that people had a pretty good chance surviving against dinosaurs.

have you seen the articles on giant human bones?



EC



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
I dont know how many times I have to explain carbon dating, it doesnt work. carbon dating does not work at all. its not accurate no matter how old the object is.

At all? You are either lieing or repeating lies.. if it did not work they wouldn't use it- it would be obsolete. I notice you conveniently forgot to mention that it is usually used in conjunction with other dating methods.

as for surviving against a dinosaur, the bible points out that there were giants in teh earth before the flood and some after.

And REALITY points out there wasn't.

[edit on 4-8-2005 by riley]



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

here is a link that shows a few things that were found that contradict the geologic collumn.
here is another

...

are these wrong? if they are why are they considered wrong?


Actually they are wrong. The first 'find' shown on the first link given is a perfect example...


From the www.bible.ca site
Malachite Man
Fossil remains from at least 10 perfectly modern humans (5 males, 4 females, 1 infant) have been excavated fifty feet down from the surface, within the Dakota Sandstone, the same formation found at Dinosaur National Monument, famous for its dinosaurs.


You can look here for an indepth explanation of this find. It is simply a debunked 1970's creationist claim being recycled. Check the link above and compare the pictures of the bones, they are the same. Read the description of the person who actually FOUND the bones, 15 ft down not 50 ft, in sandy soil not embedded in rock.

The bones were buried there and are not more than a couple of hunderd years old. The story presented on the www.bible.ca site accompanying the photo is just plain and simply not true.





new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join