Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Did Man and Dinosaures co-exist?

page: 3
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   
I think it's not impossible, but we simply haven't found the fossils for proof. Until we find one I will continue to be skeptical.




posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 09:01 PM
link   


And REALITY points out there wasn't.


what reality?
there have been many findings on giant human skeletons and bones, even Kent Hovind has a giant femur in his museum.

there were giants in the earth and the reason they are not published is simply because it goes against the evolution theory. it really does. its totally opposite of the evolution theory, if we evolved from somethign bigger and are now getting smaller, that doesnt prove evolution so that needs to be thrown out. that is first of all, not science and is also not fair to throw out facts just because it doesnt support the theory.

as for carbon dating and other radiometric dating, they are all based on flaws and assumptions.
also, "radiometric dating wouldnt even be feasible if the geologic collumn were not erected first."
I forget exactly who said that, but if you want the name bad enough, ill look it up just for you.
nothing proves that this earth is millions of years old
the magnetic field shows that the earth has to be less than 25,000 years old. the magnetic field is getting weaker, this means that it used to be stronger. at the rate of losing about 6% ever 150 years would maximize the earths age to 25,000 years old, because at approximately 25,000 years ago, the earth would have fried due to the heat generated by the magetic field.

also the sun is shrinking. losing mass and matter. if you go back too far, the sun would be bigger and more massive. this would upset the gravitational relationship between the sun and the earth and the earth would feel a lot more heat since the sun would be bigger.
if you go back too far, the sun would have been toughing the earth, the sun loses about 1/10 of a percent each century. that is a fact.

this earth is not billions of years old, you dont need carbon dating to try to disprove it. of the earth is already limited to 25,000 years old, the earth cannot be millions of years old which is what all radiometric dating methods insist. so there is my proof, the earth is not millions of years old due to the fact that the earths magnetic field is losing strength and cannot be more than 25,000 years old. earths atmosphere was estimated to reach equilibrium within 30,000 years. it has not yet reached equilibrium. its less than 30,000 years.

wonder why....


EC



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 09:49 PM
link   
EC i'm not even going to get into it any more. You are just regurgitating the same crap even after is shown otherwise. Basic freshman geology. The earth is proven to be older than 6000 years. That is a fact.



posted on Aug, 4 2005 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher



And REALITY points out there wasn't.


what reality?
there have been many findings on giant human skeletons and bones, even Kent Hovind has a giant femur in his museum.

It's probably a cow bone or made of plaster.. AGAIN Hovind is a FRAUD.. your insisting on using his fiction makes you a fraud as well.. or just really gullable [or possibly Hovind himself which would explain why you are so adement that he's credible even though he talks crap.. thats just another theory of course].

there were giants in the earth and the reason they are not published is simply because it goes against the evolution theory. it really does. its totally opposite of the evolution theory, if we evolved from somethign bigger and are now getting smaller, that doesnt prove evolution so that needs to be thrown out. that is first of all, not science and is also not fair to throw out facts just because it doesnt support the theory.

No it doesn't. If giants existed.. they'd be just a different branch of primates.. as it is little people have been found in indonesia .. they are thought to have evolved from something close to modern human so your point is kind of ridiculous. See.. you don't even understand evolution.. 'bigger' [in the case of evolution anyway] isn't always better.

as for carbon dating and other radiometric dating, they are all based on flaws and assumptions.

Of course you are unable to disprove the others as well. The only assumptions being made about dating methods are from you.. you have no proof to back up your claims that they are false.. the only 'proof' you have is that they conflict with the bible.. at which point you assume they must be wrong because you don't want to face the fact that the bible is wrong and you believe in fiction.

also the sun is shrinking. losing mass and matter.

More bull. No it isn't.. if it 'used' to be bigger the planet wouldn't be habitable and we wouldn't be here. Again you fail to back your claims up with facts.. oh but wait.. there are no facts to back up your claims which is exactly why you don't provide any.
Edit. The sun will shrink just before it goes supa nova, tunr into a red giant and destroy our lovely planet but that is a little ways off yet and doesn't prove dinosaurs and humans co-existing.

[edit on 4-8-2005 by riley]



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 12:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
there have been many findings on giant human skeletons and bones, even Kent Hovind has a giant femur in his museum.

Kent Hovind does not have a museum. You are thinking about Carl Baugh's creation "musuem'.

There are no giant human skeletons anywhere, probably because there were never giant humans.


there were giants in the earth and the reason they are not published is simply because it goes against the evolution theory. it really does. its totally opposite of the evolution theory, if we evolved from somethign bigger and are now getting smaller,

There is absolutely nothing about giantism that disproves evolution. Any changes in a population over time are evolution. Up down, big to small, sharp toothed to flat toothed, doesn't matter. A reduction in size, in particular, is a well known evolutionary process. When giant mammoths are isolated on small islands, you get pygmy mammoths (seems like an oxymoron, sort of like jumbo shrimp
). When primitive humans were isolated on small islands, like Flores, they became much reduced in size (far more than african pygmys).
Evolution does not predict that all species get bigger and stronger.

as for carbon dating and other radiometric dating, they are all based on flaws and assumptions.

I think it should be pretty obvious at this point that they aren't. I will repeat some of the short pages that handle these claims.
Radiometric dating falsely assumes rocks are closed systems.
Radiometric dating falsely assumes initial conditions are known.
Isochron dating gives unreliable results.


also the sun is shrinking. losing mass and matter.

The sun is not shrinking.
The incredible shrinking sun?
Solar FAQ

so there is my proof, the earth is not millions of years old due to the fact that the earths magnetic field is losing strength

The earth's magnetic field constantly changes throughout its history, often completely reversing.
The earth's magnetic field is decaying, indicating a young earth?
On Creation Science and the Alleged Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field


earths atmosphere was estimated to reach equilibrium within 30,000 years

How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?
The jist of it is that this arguement is based on....faulty assumptions about the rate of formation and loss of C14. See, assumptions are bad and can mean that a theory and the conclusions drawn form it are wrong, when the assumptions are critical to the operation of the theory, and when the assumptions are contradicted by the evidence but made anyway. Unlike the assumptions invovled in the 'radiometric dating', which are reasonable and supported by the evidence, the assumptions in the equilbrium arguement are unreasonable on the face and are simply contradicted by the evidence.


its less than 30,000 years.

The Age of the Earth



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 12:48 PM
link   

if it 'used' to be bigger the planet wouldn't be habitable and we wouldn't be here.

That is not why the sun is not shrinking. The sun cannot be said to be shrinking because the evidence does not support it as shrinking. The problem you note is the entire logic behind the creationist arguement that the world must be young; that if the sun is shrinking at such and such rate, then millions of years ago the earth'd've been destroyed; and since it wasn't, then the world is recently created.



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 01:03 PM
link   


That is not why the sun is not shrinking. The sun cannot be said to be shrinking because the evidence does not support it as shrinking. The problem you note is the entire logic behind the creationist arguement that the world must be young; that if the sun is shrinking at such and such rate, then millions of years ago the earth'd've been destroyed; and since it wasn't, then the world is recently created.


dude either you are ignorant or you are lying. the sun is shrinking. that is a fact. and they measured the rate at which it shrinks. so based on that rate, the earth cannot be more than X number of years old. and so what if that is a creationists logic, if its scientific, than its scientific. debunking just because ones belief and support of that belief, should not be a determining factor.


EC



posted on Aug, 5 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
EC, Pleas provide backup to support your contention thatthe sun is shrinking.



posted on Aug, 8 2005 @ 10:11 PM
link   


EC, Pleas provide backup to support your contention thatthe sun is shrinking.


dude just google it, this is one that does not take a lot of work to find. but if you want I will provide some references for you.

www.answersingenesis.org...
www.asa3.org...
www.icr.org...

im sure there are more out there for both sides of the argument. both sides of the story are presented. and I think that the only reason evolutionists refute limiting factors such as; the suns size and shrinkage, carbon 14 in the atmosphere and the magnetic field losing strength is because if they included those, evolution would not be true becasue without millions of years, the theory looks very stupid.


EC



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 12:43 AM
link   
No, we never walked with dinosaurs.

Dinosars went extinct 65 million years ago, and modern man (Homo sapiens) is 100,000 years old. There is no discussion...



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

dude just google it, this is one that does not take a lot of work to find. but if you want I will provide some references for you.

www.answersingenesis.org...
www.asa3.org...
www.icr.org...

im sure there are more out there for both sides of the argument. both sides of the story are presented. and I think that the only reason evolutionists refute limiting factors such as; the suns size and shrinkage, carbon 14 in the atmosphere and the magnetic field losing strength is because if they included those, evolution would not be true becasue without millions of years, the theory looks very stupid.


EC

EC actually read the ASA article. You might find it amusing.



Look near citation 13 of the ASA paper

Of particular What began as an interesting puzzle in the arena of solar astronomy has been transformed into a "proof 'for recent creation. relevance to the present discussion is the result that during the period from 1967-80 the sun exhibited an increase in diameter at the mean rate of 0.03 are second per year, equivalent to a linear rate of eight feet per hour. Since 1980 the solar diameter has remained nearly constant, with a weak suggestion of decreasing.


That paper show why and how the shrinking sun myth is just that. It is also well cited I might add.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 04:43 AM
link   


Isochron methods do not assume that the initial parent or daughter concentrations are known.

They assume there was none all together?
Watch this. In this answer, all they do is extend the problem down the road further by bringing in 'D2'. Now there will be two assumptions where there was one.



In basic radiometric dating, a parent isotope (call it P) decays to a daughter isotope (D) at a predictable rate.


Past performance is no ....err...nm. Different subject. :p


The age can be calculated from the ratio daughter isotope to parent isotope in a sample. However, this assumes that we know how much of the daughter isotope was in the sample initially. (It also assumes that neither isotope entered or left the sample.)

There is two.



With isochron dating, we also measure a different isotope of the same element as the daughter (call it D2), and we take measurements of several different minerals that formed at the same time from the same pool of materials. Instead of assuming a known amount of daughter isotope, we only assume that D/D2 is initially the same in all of the samples.

There is another.
Now we assume that D and D2 conform to the quote above this one, as well as this one.


Plotting P/D2 on the x axis and D/D2 on the y axis for several different samples gives a line that is initially horizontal. Over time, as P decays to D, the line remains straight, but its slope increases. The age of the sample can be calculated from the slope, and the initial concentration of the daughter element D is given by where the line meets the y axis. If D/D2 is not initially the same in all samples, the data points tend to scatter on the isochron diagram, rather than falling on a straight line.
and the results are tossed out as meaningless because they do not fit the desired result.

Faith in evolution requires belief that this system is fact, when it can be clearly seen it is not.

source of quotes



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by silentlonewolf
EC actually read the ASA article. You might find it amusing.



Look near citation 13 of the ASA paper

Of particular What began as an interesting puzzle in the arena of solar astronomy has been transformed into a "proof 'for recent creation. relevance to the present discussion is the result that during the period from 1967-80 the sun exhibited an increase in diameter at the mean rate of 0.03 are second per year, equivalent to a linear rate of eight feet per hour. Since 1980 the solar diameter has remained nearly constant, with a weak suggestion of decreasing.


That paper show why and how the shrinking sun myth is just that. It is also well cited I might add.


I know. My 90 year old grandmother shrunk almost an inch last year. Which means, according to Dr. Akridge, Assistant Professor of Physics at Oral Roberts University,
she must have been born over 13 feet tall!


Oh man *wipes tear* ...I love "Cretinism Science."

[edit on 9-8-2005 by RANT]



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 07:38 AM
link   
Science based on religion :shk: People are sourcing ORU
. You might as well get smoking data from the Tobacco Institute, they may be more objective.



This is where alot of you seem heading. Honestly :shk:


You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.
Tell It Like It Is



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   

No, we never walked with dinosaurs.

Dinosars went extinct 65 million years ago, and modern man (Homo sapiens) is 100,000 years old. There is no discussion...


now do you know that for a fact? or is that what you believe?
you know, in order to draw a dinosaur, you need to know what it looks like. and many ancient cultures have drawings of dragons on stones, many different cultures have drawings and they look very similiar. that does not happen by chance, that happens because man was with dinosaur the entire time.
what about mokele bmembe? that is described as a dinosaur.
same with nesse. and other reported water monsters.

like I asked you before. do you know for a fact that dinosaurs went extinct 65 millions years ago, or is that what you believe? there is no way to prove that. so whats your proof?


EC



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

like I asked you before. do you know for a fact that dinosaurs went extinct 65 millions years ago, or is that what you believe? there is no way to prove that. so whats your proof?


I think you confuse belief with knowledge. I don't "believe", I "think". And that is just as valid as belief.

You say there is no proof, yet you deny the proof that exists. I can select evidence to support any radical, unfounded position all day; but it's the amount of evidence in the big-picture that must be looked at.

Also, keep in mind that modern science is less than 300 years old. Of course there are problems with physics, chemistry, biology, etc....But it's science's pursuit of knowledge and fact (not truth - I don't think there is truth) that has my support. Holes and problems in science can and will be dealt with because of human curiosity - not a supernatural deity. Science changes with evidence, but too often, religion shapes evidence to fit its beliefs.



posted on Aug, 9 2005 @ 05:19 PM
link   

I think you confuse belief with knowledge. I don't "believe", I "think". And that is just as valid as belief.

You say there is no proof, yet you deny the proof that exists. I can select evidence to support any radical, unfounded position all day; but it's the amount of evidence in the big-picture that must be looked at.

Also, keep in mind that modern science is less than 300 years old. Of course there are problems with physics, chemistry, biology, etc....But it's science's pursuit of knowledge and fact (not truth - I don't think there is truth) that has my support. Holes and problems in science can and will be dealt with because of human curiosity - not a supernatural deity. Science changes with evidence, but too often, religion shapes evidence to fit its beliefs.


no im not confusing belief with knowledge.
knowledge is the def inition for science, or rather part of the definition.
science is knowledge gained by observation, testing and demonstrating.
notice that nowhere in there was the word assumption.

Evolution is based off of belief. you have to believe that the stars evolved, you have to believe that bacteria turned into humans ofer millions of years. and you also have to believe that animals can change from on kind to another kind of animal. you believe we ultimately came from a rock about 4.6 billion years ago. you believe that matter an create itself out of nothing. you also believe that space can expand when there was no space to begin with (according to the theory) you also believe that the earth is billions of years old when in fact the carbon 14 ratio in the atmosphere proves that the earth is less than 30,000 years old.

you believe a lot of things and its ok to believe them, but they are not science and they are not evidence for any kind of science.
the only kind of evolution we have ever observed is micro evolution and like ive said before, the bible does not have a problem with micro evolution, its just a variation within a certain kind of animal. some call it divergent evolution.

now those are things that you believe and things that cannot be observed, tested, or demonstrated. so how is it science? there is not science in those beliefs. you say that it all must have happened because the only alternative is to believe in a creator.

Evolution is a religion. you have to believe that it all happened, there is no way to know, no way to observe, no way to test, and no way to demonstrate. its a religion. nothing more. so is my theory (belief) but I admit mine is a theory.


EC



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 01:21 AM
link   
But there is a point when circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, and theories become accepted fact. Evolution is in this category. Among almost all scientists, evolution is accepted.

The debate is political and religious. However, neither have any bering on reality. Science - while human created - examines nature and finds answers. There is no philosophical aspect to true science. Constructions are taken from data to create what would likely have existed. These constructions can change with new natural or mathematical evidence.

Religion is purely philosophical. Nothing can be proven or disproven because it's entirely in the human mind. Evolution occurs whether humanity is on earth or not, but I don't "believe" religion does. But that is where we differ...

[edit on 10-8-2005 by brianptx03]



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 03:03 AM
link   


But there is a point when circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, and theories become accepted fact. Evolution is in this category. Among almost all scientists, evolution is accepted.


so, because it is widely accepted, it makes it right? so basically its majority opinion. well I would have to agree that over half of the scientists believe in darwinian evolution (about 55% last time I checked) but are you sure that makes it truth or right? just because they believe doesnt mean its right.

you say that religion is totally in the mind. well so is evolution, you have to imagine that evolution happened. you cant prove any of it. all I ever hear is "the evidence is so strong and there is so much of it." and I always hear contradicting theories on evolution, the big bang, how life evolved, ect.

Just because it is widely accepted does not make it right. there are even examples in the bible that shows when the majority was wrong, one example would be when Moses was up on the mountain and the people built a golden calf. they were wrong.


Evolution occurs whether humanity is on earth or not, but I don't "believe" religion does.

you have to believe that too, thee is no way to know that. Its something you believe.

I don’t think you read my last post good enough. If you noticed, the evolution theory is based on beliefs, beliefs that cannot ever be tested, demonstrated, or observed. Evolution simply does not meet the definition of science. You have to believe that matter and energy can come from nothing. That is a belief, that is your religion. You have to believe that the stars can evolve from whatever exploded that came from nothing. That again is a belief that is your religion. You have to believe that the elements can evolve and as far as I know, the evolutionists believe that all 92 elements are the same throughout the universe. How do they know that they aren’t the same throughout the universe? But now we have a problem. Stars have the energy and the process of fusion to form higher elements, but you need the elements to make the stars first.
The elements make up the stars, but you need that stars to make up the elements. This is called the chicken and the egg problem. In order to overcome this problem you have to believe that stars can evolve from dust clouds. This has never been observed. But this is the same logic they use to support spontaneous generation. “Well we don’t know exactly how they evolved but they had to of evolved because they exist.” This is not logical. that’s called, its part of your religion.
You also believe that life can spontaneously generate from non-living material. This has never been observed, or demonstrated. It has been tested many times but the tests seem to have failed every time, therefore its not scientific and the answer I get all the time for this one is, “life is obviously here, so it had to come from somewhere and spontaneous generation sounds a whole lot better than the idea that God made everything.”
Again this is religious and not scientific.

And the last thing the evolutionist believes is that organisms can slowly evolve into something other than their kind. No one has ever observed this, its not testable and also not demonstrable. No one has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog and no one has ever seen a dog come from a non-dog. this, again, is purely religious. The evolutionists will say, “well, it must have happened, because the only other option would be that God did it all and that isn’t scientific because science doesn’t include the supernatural.”

Well I don’t know if you got my point yet, but I cant stress enough that evolution is not scientific, it doesn’t meet the definition of science. Evolution requires faith. You have to believe that it happened. You have to believe that evolution can happen as long as there are millions of years. Well hardly anyone can live past 100 these days. So how do they know that if occurred over millions of years. It wasn’t observed and its not testable or demonstrable, so how can they prove that is happened? They cant. Evolution is a religion.
Science is science. Science is knowledge gained by: observation, testing and demonstrating. Evolution is not science. You have to believe that it happened. And if you want to argue that religion needs a supernatural force, you still have yourself a religion. Time seems to be what causes supernatural things to happen. (dog producing non-dog, or dog coming from non-dog). time is the god of evolution. Without millions of years, he theory is not feasible.

EC



posted on Aug, 10 2005 @ 08:04 AM
link   
I think Evolution Cruncher may be an Expert999 reincarnation and nominate him for banning since he starts his old behviour again of deliberately disseminating false information.

[edit on 10-8-2005 by Simon666]





new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join