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.

 

Dinosaur Study Backs Controversial Find

page: 5
51
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


Just to sate my curiosity, would you mind sharing with me your secret that makes you so sure?


What makes him so sure is likely because he knows what the scientific method is. You people begin with a premise that man coexisted with dinosaurs and then you seek evidence to prove it. At the same time, you disregard anything that challenges that preconception.

In contrast, the scientific method begins with observable and quantifiable physical evidence, e.g., bones found in 65 million year old rock. Even before radiometric dating, the first geologists understood that older rock was found below newer rock. A hypothesis is formed based on that evidence. We don't try to age unicorn or leprechaun bones because we don't have any. Folklore talks about them but there is no physical evidence they exist. Scientists use objective experimentation or systematic obervation to make hypothesis and later while they actively attempt to disprove those hypothesis. REAL science tries to disprove itself. Religion, on the other hand, asks people to actively prove it by looking for feeling or subjective signs around them.

What makes science science is that its rules don't have any mystery - their conclusions and supporting evidence are in the open. No scientific principles are grounded on secret evidence because those principles would never have been reached and accepted if that evidence hadn't been revealed to the world.




posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


I am no bumpkin.
We are not talking about a subject that i cannot comprehend, or am not versed well enough to converse with the average layperson. I am likely misreading your post, but it kind of seems that you are chalking my disagreeing with you up to being infirm of mind. I can assure you that if that were to be so, such use of a fallacy of relevance in the form of an Appeal To Intellectual Capability will not likely gain you any comaraderie or support.


I will, however, assume positive intent going forward and just state my generic position plainly:

We are mired in compound ignorance. We don't know what we don't know. Sure, we could be right about everything right now, but i doubt it (the rift in physics is a prime example of why). I will say that i have recently immersed myself in subject matter that might give a different model for elements and how they behave. The theory is as old as humanity, and was used in antiquity to acheive several different feats (some hidden, some not so hidden, such as the pyramid).

I will also say that if you took a view of the consensus realities that are called science you will see that to date, just about every single theory and model has fallen by the wayside (currently held dogmas being the exception). It was not too long ago that it was believed that spontaneous generation caused flies to be created by the magical emission of maggots by rotting meat.

My only real problem with science as it currently stand is that it is so mired in the most extreme of arrogance that the possibility of considering anything outside of the standard models is not just seen as unlikely, but is actually treated contemptuously.

Of course, if i were not to assume positive intent, i might point to your post as an example of this contemptuous arrogance. But i don't think that was your intent.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


Are you an Author or Writer? That is an example of genius being applied to words. I was very impressed with what you wrote down. Posts like those are the reason I come to ATS.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bspiracy
reply to post by dragonridr
[more
funny enough, people have gone to China to see the "ole wise folks" to check their "dragon bones" being used for healing and other craft of lore.
It turns out that any dragon bone used was actually from different diosaurs easily cataloged.
The regions in which people live in, or have lived in hundreds of years ago spotting winged serpents and what not are most likely geological hotspots that turn the bones up more often than other areas. Easy to look at a set of bones and say it's a "winged serpent dragon thing"

b




Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago but just maybe not ALL of them died. I have always wondered about all the dragon stories from all over the world. Is it just possable that Dinosaurs and dragons are one and the same? Maybe ALL Dinosaurs bones need to be re-dated. Just maybe some of them would come back a lot younger than we first thought. May be they have and we are not being told about it. Makes you wonder.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 09:42 PM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


Science, when done properly, sure is an ideal solution to study nature. Problem is, man is the administrator of science and man is prone to acts of irrationality (especially when their reputation might be on the line, or funding is at stake).

Of course, we could trot out example after example of science ignoring facts that it deems irrelevant due to it being labelled "Anamolous". Until science can explain the anomolies, i am unsure i can put as much faith in it as you (at least, the established science that is forced down the throats of humanity). The way science, on the whole, is practiced has put it in the realm of religion.

I think it bears on the conversation to point out to you that i do not think the 6000k year mark is correct. I am not Christian, and despise religion (the bastardization of faith). If you are viewing this from the idea of me being in that box, i am not.


I am just saying that the certainty with which things are stated is mind numbing. "Science" doesn't have a very good track record until recent years...and the math still isn't adding up. So, we are closer, but we aren't there yet. I see nothing that would make me so sure, as it seems others here are.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   


I see nothing that would make me so sure, as it seems others here are.
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


I understand your point, and forgive me for commenting on your reply to someone else.

But are you prepared to say that you are so unsure of science that you think its possible that dinosaurs and humans co-existed?

I believe that there are many things in this world that mainstream science has yet to grasp, however the fossil record is not something that is stuffed down peoples throats, its there for you or I to go and look at.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   
reply to post by seabhac-rua
 


Yep, you are right. We CAN go look at it. I spend quite a bit of time doing just that. While living in Laramie, WY i was blessed to have access to Dr. Bob Bakker, as well as the rest of the department (including the guy who found the first Allosaur, on display and named Allie at the Univ of Wyo museum).

I see too many OOPARTS, however, to be able to commit. Stucky the dog, the boot found with a fossilized boot down near Ozona, TX, the artifacts found inside coal.

Add to that the complete lack of explanation of how humanity managed to peak during the Egyptian dynasties and has since been on a downward descent.

It seems to me that it is all guesswork. Do i believe dinosaurs and man walked together? Sure i do...just not during the dinosaur's "heyday". But i do believe that dino's managed to exist until recently. In Texas we have had multiple reports of flying creatures that looked like Pterodactyls. The mokele-mbumbo, nessie, coelecanth, bigfoot sightings...there is just too much left unexplained by the current model.

But, having said that, it is entirely possible that the current model is mostly correct and just doesn't have the points of reference built in yet that would allow the accounting of these things.

I think that if you study the alchemy of the early middle ages (since you can find some writing on it, just not much) you can see another model (explained in very esoteric and metaphorical terms) that makes just as much sense, and is in some cases similar to the current model.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Stucky the dog,fossilized boot down near Ozona? Where can I read more about this? I like to read all about OOPARTS. I think they are the biggest most powerful mystery of all. In fact they may be the answer to our whole history.



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 11:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by fixer1967
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


Stucky the dog,fossilized boot down near Ozona? Where can I read more about this? I like to read all about OOPARTS. I think they are the biggest most powerful mystery of all. In fact they may be the answer to our whole history.




Guess you'll have to wait for FatFurryTexan to get the low-down on Stucky the dog, but googling "fossilized boot Ozona" got me to here:
paleo.cc...
"The Limestone Cowboy"



posted on Aug, 1 2009 @ 11:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


Like a Limestone Cowboy...Riding out on a straw horse in a star spangled rodeo!




Sorry mods don't execute me. I....just....couldn't...resist.

I also just recently learned to embed. I know...don't abuse it or I will lose it.


[edit on 1-8-2009 by TurkeyBurgers]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 12:32 AM
link   
wouldn't a more simpler explanation be that not all the dinosaurs died out right away, (and some might evn still be alive today) , rather than exclaiming 'OMG THIS PROOVES GAWD EXISTS!!1111LOLOLZ!1"



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gren
wouldn't a more simpler explanation be that not all the dinosaurs died out right away, (and some might evn still be alive today) , rather than exclaiming 'OMG THIS PROOVES GAWD EXISTS!!1111LOLOLZ!1"


I think your right the whole concept of the earth being a couple of thousand years old according to the bible is silly at best.Ive come to the conclusion the extinction of the dinosaurs was a much longer process than we thought. Best comparison is humans we now span the entire globe short of blowing up the planet or earth becoming inhospitable to life pockets of humans will survive even if there is a mass extinction.Dinosaurs covered the entire planet as well they were not regional.Isn't it likely that pockets managed to survive. I find it hard to believe that they just disappeared after being here for millions of years.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by fixer1967

Originally posted by Bspiracy
reply to post by dragonridr
[more
funny enough, people have gone to China to see the "ole wise folks" to check their "dragon bones" being used for healing and other craft of lore.
It turns out that any dragon bone used was actually from different diosaurs easily cataloged.
The regions in which people live in, or have lived in hundreds of years ago spotting winged serpents and what not are most likely geological hotspots that turn the bones up more often than other areas. Easy to look at a set of bones and say it's a "winged serpent dragon thing"

b




Dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago but just maybe not ALL of them died. I have always wondered about all the dragon stories from all over the world. Is it just possable that Dinosaurs and dragons are one and the same? Maybe ALL Dinosaurs bones need to be re-dated. Just maybe some of them would come back a lot younger than we first thought. May be they have and we are not being told about it. Makes you wonder.


Yes indeed, there are still 'living dinosaurs' - they are called "birds".

The popular press sometimes refers to 'living fossils' or 'living dinosaurs' like Crocodiles and Monitor Lizards, but these are neither fossils (of course) nor dinosaurs.

The monitor lizards ancestors, alive during the 'dinosaur age' 65 million years ago and older, were mosasaurs which were not dinosaurs but lepidosaurs (reptiles with overlapping scales, dinosaurs had skins).

Crocodiles have survived pretty much unchanged for 200 million years, but they are not dinosaurs. Dinosaurs, crocodiles, and Pterosaurs were 'cousins', all descended from archosaurs.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blacknapkins
Cut the crap with the whole "Man and Dinosaurs lived at the same time". That is UTTER NONSENSE. We would have been wiped off the planet, no human could survive the onslaught of viscous reptiles like that.


Without arguing the rest, i'd disagree with this part entirely.

A forest that could support and feed lets say 6 T rex, (even if we assume it was a direct predator which many scientists doubt) would be quite large and have to support allot of prey as well...

Dropped into that scenario, I would not be the first target, I might not even be recognized as a target initially even if it saw me, but i'd have range and the ability to operate that's for sure...

It a very short time... I would be king of that forest and the T - Rex's would be extinct...

All it would take is a bit of patience to not get spotted and time...

within a few days I would know if they were nocturnal or daytime feeders... shortly after that i would start on the spikes and pits and large stacks of sticks for bon fires, identifying any burnable oils I could make... the fire would herd them where I wanted and they would die quickly

Accidents happen but you have to remember the T rex would only be there if it had plenty of natural prey

It wouldn't be out looking for me... but i'd be working daily to to put an end to it, it certainly wouldn't recognize me as a threat or know when I had it surrounded by combustibles when it pursued me or when it was being herded thinking it was the hunter but in reality the prey...

No

Your 100% wrong

I could wipe a forest of all it's T Rex in a matter of a month or so...

Barring accident or making a mistake of course

But i'd put 10 -1 odds to be fair, on myself in the scenario...



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by rnaa

Originally posted by skycopilot
reply to post by chiron613
 


Ever been to Paluxy,TX? There is a Dinosaur Valley State Park there, and in a creek or river bed are footprints - Very large dinosaur footprints in rock. And Oh, yeah, human footprints also. This is well known, and the info is in many books (but not in NGeo, the Smithsonian, and other sy-fy government shills of misinformation.)

In other words, human and "dragons" (which is what they were called before the mid-nineteenth century) co-existed. And it was thousands, not miilions of years ago.


Sorry Sky, the Paluxy Man Tracks are totally and completely debunked. And that is admitted leading Creationist scientists, not just mainstream scientists.


You are very right RNAA. Yes I have been to Dinosaur Valley and walked the river bed. The tracks are not human at all. It does not take a scientist to see that in person.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 06:00 AM
link   
The dinosaurs were killed when Saturn was captured by the Sun's electrical field and shut off it's plasma coma.

The Earth was at one time a moon of Saturn, it was much smaller, and Saturn was itself a brown dwarf star.

When Saturn was captured by the Sun, that's when Earth was moved out of its orbit around Saturn and placed into orbit around the Sun as well.

This transition period is what caused the ice ages where glaciers covered most of the earth. - the earth did not have a near by source of heat during this transition.

This ice age transition is also the cause of one of the mass extinction events that wiped out the dinos.

Most of the dinosaurs could not have lived in our gravity. Their hearts would not have been able to pump enough blood to their brains to keep them conscious, large flying dinosaurs could not have gotten off the ground to fly, and the largest of the dinosaurs would not have been able to lift themselves off the ground just to walk.

Such a transition period also means our notions of carbon 14 dating are wrong because it depends on the assumption of a stable sun and stable earth orbit around that sun.

precedings.nature.com...

www.dinosaurtheory.com...

saturniancosmology.org...



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by skycopilot
reply to post by chiron613
 


Ever been to Paluxy,TX? There is a Dinosaur Valley State Park there, and in a creek or river bed are footprints - Very large dinosaur footprints in rock. And Oh, yeah, human footprints also. This is well known, and the info is in many books (but not in NGeo, the Smithsonian, and other sy-fy government shills of misinformation.)

In other words, human and "dragons" (which is what they were called before the mid-nineteenth century) co-existed. And it was thousands, not miilions of years ago.


This has been debunked. There is no evidence to suggest humans existed during the time of the dinosaurs.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by mewize
The tissue is still testable because it is only a few thousand years old. The animal died in the flood of Noah and evolutionists are hopelessly searching for a way to work around creation-evidence just like they do every other time they misinterpret such obvious clues that explain our origins

God did it just like He said He did in the Bible. When you come to grips with this fact, everything in the Universe begins to make sense is spite of ourselves...


Oh my god that's funny


I hope you're kidding


If you are....GOOD ONE !!



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Udontknowme
Kinda supports the theory that dinosaurs are not as old as we think, and carbon dating is skewed from fires.

Actually it doesn't support that IDEA. I wouldn't call it a theory as a theory is:

In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.



Tissue remaining? Wow.

Darwinism is going down. Bring in God.

Actually EVOLUTION is doing just fine. What we've learned is that tissue can survive a lot longer then we thought.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ziggy1706
Now.. what bothers me the most about dinosaurs and evolution, is how creatures so huge and big..some biger than houses! over time shrank to the size a fist and smaller, grew feathers and flew,a nd becaome some of the msot beuiful of sepcies on earth.Thats what bothers me the most..casue ti dosnt click or make sense. flesh eating carnivores, wtih razor sharp machette teeth, predators, turned into little chirp chirps who eat only bread and insects...
Thats like one day, humans evolving into insects and praying mantisis!


I understand the idea can be overwhelming if not familiar with the subject of evolution. I might suggest researching evolution. There are many good sites on the net that will take you through it step by step.



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join