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.

 

Dinosaurs and Humans

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
No, I was referring to the Archaeoraptor Hoax. It reminds me of the Piltdown Man. I'm not saying this conclusively disproves everything evolutionists say, I'm just saying it makes me take every claim witha grain of salt, as they are not free of fraud and hoaxing in order to prove their point.

As for the problems with C-14 dating, you can simply do a search in Google for it, and find a wealth of information. Here are some sources I've found:

Contender Ministries
This is a Christian Website, which obviously doesn't want to believe in C-14 Dating.

Religious Tolerance.org
This is a response from a scientific perspective on why these anomoluies occur. The explanation is something called the "upwelling effect", where these creatures ate and survived in an area that had an increased concentration of old carbon molecules. Of course, I don't see how this explanation is meant to increase ones faith in the reliability of the testing. Chaos theory would dictate that this would be unreliable, because of the continuously moving and shifting nature of our environment, Corbon concentrations would never be uniform, and therefore, would be an unreliable source for concrete dating.

Also, there are many more instances of fossilized dinosaur footprints overlapping with human. I'm not saying this is definative evidence that they co-existed, I'm just curious how the evolutionary minded explain away this fossil record. You can see more photos of other sites where this phenomena has occure here.

Editted for spelling. Sorry about that!


[edit on 13-6-2006 by Athenion]




posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by deadleaves
[and if he did create them where or why doesn't it say in the BIBLE ABOUT THE DINOS???????????


The Bible does mention dinosaurs.

Genesis 1:
[24] And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
[25] And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Job 40
[15] Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
[16] Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
[17] He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
[18] His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
[19] He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
[20] Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
[21] He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
[22] The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
[23] Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

Job chapter 41

www.clarifyingchristianity.com...



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Athenion
No, I was referring to the Archaeoraptor Hoax. It reminds me of the Piltdown Man. I'm not saying this conclusively disproves everything evolutionists say, I'm just saying it makes me take every claim witha grain of salt, as they are not free of fraud and hoaxing in order to prove their point.


Thus the need for good controls and reliable evidence.





As for the problems with C-14 dating, you can simply do a search in Google for it, and find a wealth of information. Here are some sources I've found:

Contender Ministries
This is a Christian Website, which obviously doesn't want to believe in C-14 Dating.



C-14 dating is only good for dates up to around 60,000yrs - so this...


Carbon-14 dating is the standard method used by scientists to determine the age of certain fossilized remains. As scientists will often claim something to be millions or billions of years old (ages that do not conform to the Biblical account of the age of the earth), Christians are often left wondering about the accuracy of the carbon-14 method.

contenderministries.org...

...is very much disinformation.





Also, there are many more instances of fossilized dinosaur footprints overlapping with human. I'm not saying this is definative evidence that they co-existed, I'm just curious how the evolutionary minded explain away this fossil record. You can see more photos of other sites where this phenomena has occure here.


Yeah the Paluxy tracks - hence the need for good controls and reliable evidence...



But going back to your first post - yeah, there is no reason why faith and ToE cannot be accepted together. Many christians seem able to take this position.

[edit on 13-6-2006 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   
Ok, Athenion...

How about dating using uranium? Is that fake too?


And, what about that hoax when people making a documentary about Noah's ark accepted a piece of wood from a prankster WITHOUT bothering to test the wood?

And, how do you explain the dormant gene in birds that can produce teeth when turned on? I guess Bible god is testing our faith again...




posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by AthenionAlso, there are many more instances of fossilized dinosaur footprints overlapping with human. I'm not saying this is definative evidence that they co-existed, I'm just curious how the evolutionary minded explain away this fossil record. You can see more photos of other sites where this phenomena has occure here.


The Paluxy tracks have been debunked (we know what they are, and they're not human).

The "Ryals Track" story is just a tad TOO convenient. Nobody sees the tracks except Patton. Patton speaks all over the country about these (for years, apparently One fossil footprint was apparently on display at a clinic.) Then one day at a conference a group of paleontologists hears him (50 years after these have been discovered.) The "hit squad" of scientists who just HAPPEN to deduce the exact location from the photos (have you ever BEEN to Glen Rose, Texas? We have relatives who live there) just happen to find the right spot (without a GPS) and smash the evidence.

Sounds awfully silly to me.

That site is famous for other bad examples... look up the "fossilized cowboy boot" if you'd like a good laugh. (for those of you not familar with this, fossilization occurs when the soft parts of something are replaced by other minerals (so bone becomes stone, in other words. Not bone wrapped in stone.))



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by truthseeka
Ok, Athenion...

How about dating using uranium? Is that fake too?


And, what about that hoax when people making a documentary about Noah's ark accepted a piece of wood from a prankster WITHOUT bothering to test the wood?

And, how do you explain the dormant gene in birds that can produce teeth when turned on? I guess Bible god is testing our faith again...



Turthseeka, a few thoughts.

#1 - No, I don't think theres a problem with using uranium to date things. Of course, most organic material doesn't have uranium in it, so I fail to see the point of your arguement. I'm saying there is no reliable way to know if the levels of C-14 have increased or decreased, thus severely affecting the dates given by C-14 dating. But please, continue to use asanine off topic arguements, instead of reason and logic.

But I think you're misunderstanding the point of my post. I'm simply pointing out that both sides claim to know the absolute truth, and throw stones at the other side, while claiming they are infallible, while both sides bend facts and ideas to fit their world view.

It's easy to point out the myriad stupid things that Creationists have done. I'm simply pointing out some of the stupid things Evolutionists have done. Am I a Creationist? Probably not, although I haven't seen enough compelling and solid evidence from either camp to convince me with any amount of certainty.

Do I honestly believe that Dinosaurs and Humans co-existed? No. But my point is, let's not pretend that your myopic world view somehow has the answers to all the questions. Thats incredibly counterproductive and close minded.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 09:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Athenion

#1 - No, I don't think theres a problem with using uranium to date things. Of course, most organic material doesn't have uranium in it, so I fail to see the point of your arguement. I'm saying there is no reliable way to know if the levels of C-14 have increased or decreased, thus severely affecting the dates given by C-14 dating. But please, continue to use asanine off topic arguements, instead of reason and logic.


But very few fossils are less than 60,000yrs or contain organic material. Usually Ar-Ar or U-Pb methods of dating the rocks in which the fossils lie are used.

If you are interested in learning about radiometric dating there is a very good summary here.



posted on Jun, 18 2006 @ 12:45 AM
link   
Before I say anything, I didnt read the entire thread. Bad me, I'm evil and don't have enough time. Dinos are mentioned in the bible. In Job someplace, and its called Behemoth. Look it up.

www.genesispark.com...



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   
just for people to be clear

they use argon dating for fossils
carbon-14 for anything that they suspect is no older than 60,000 years (they'll know if they messed up, it'll come out messed up so royally that the test doesn't give a result)

using piltdown man, the archaeoraptor hoax, etc, is nothing more than a straw man argument

also, human and dino bones could end up together because of seismic activity.

there is no evidence that dinos lived with humans.

and dbrandt, those passages refer to an elephant imo...

[edit on 6/19/06 by madnessinmysoul]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
and dbrandt, those passages refer to an elephant imo...



I have yet to see an elephant with a tail like a cedar tree. But some dinosaurs did have tails like cedar trees. It's quite obvious it's talking about what we call a dinosaur.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbrandt

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
and dbrandt, those passages refer to an elephant imo...



I have yet to see an elephant with a tail like a cedar tree. But some dinosaurs did have tails like cedar trees. It's quite obvious it's talking about what we call a dinosaur.


they may have mistaken the head for the rear
the trunk of an elephant is incredibly similar to a "tail like a cedar"
also, it isn't obvious, it's called interpretation. there is no picture, no scientific explainations of the creature.
people interpret the things differently, ESPECIALLY religious texts



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 06:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin
If you are interested in learning about radiometric dating there is a very good summary here.


Thank you sir! That's a great site. You learn something new every day...



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Now you people are getting me confused.
Carbon dating is only corect upto 60,000 years?
Assuming this is true then this still doesnt conform with the bible which someone used to calculate the age of he Earth as 10,000 years well even if that perosn orgot to carry his ones there is no way that the bible and real life match up.

And why the hell would god create the dinosaurs shouldnt he be able to just make it, or has the emaning of absolutly adn completly all poerful changed int he past 2000 years.

Oh wait I forgot that god does this just to test our faith, well I guess I failed the test.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
they may have mistaken the head for the rear
the trunk of an elephant is incredibly similar to a "tail like a cedar"
also,


Then it would read a nose like a cedar or front appendage. It says tail.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
drandt, you skipped over the part where i said that it is all about interpretation

can't you admit that different people will interpret that passage in different ways?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join