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: 6
51
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Centurionx

And a science book is?


Text books based on well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. They tie together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions.

Hope this helps




posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Redfield
You realise dinosaurs died after the flood? the flood wasnt a tiny ammount of rain, the water came from the skys and broke out of the earth. It destroyed part of the earths atmosphere ( i think it was a hydrogen sheild ) and made the atmosphere thinner. The dinsouars died out because the atmosphere couldnt support the size of the dinosaurs, they basically would die from heart attacks because there would of been less oxygen for them.

Any evidence to suggest a world wide flood and it destroyed parts of earths atmosphere?


Also if its 2 of every animal the lord said to bring..then alot would of died during the flood aswell.

Too bad god wasn't smart enough to realize that you can't get a breeding population with only 2 animals.
And why would god put dinosaurs in the imaginary ark and then have them die out anyway? Seems like he screwed that up too huh?


[edit on 2-8-2009 by jfj123]

[edit on 2-8-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The dinosaurs were killed when Saturn was captured by the Sun's electrical field and shut off it's plasma coma.

No real scientific evidence to suggest this. Right now the best evidence points toward Asteroid...the impact crater and iridium layer has been found.


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

No evidence to suggest this either.


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.

No evidence again.


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.

There have been ice ages when the earth was in it's current orbit.


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

Climate change caused by asteroid impact.

also, if the earth did not have a near by source of heat during this transition, that means it moved from it's current orbit to a further orbit then back again. No evidence to suggest this.


Most of the dinosaurs could not have lived in our gravity.

Of course they could. There's no skeletal evidence to suggest they couldn't have supported themselves in earths gravity. This can easily be determined by skeletal layout, tendon attachment, etc..


Their hearts would not have been able to pump enough blood to their brains to keep them conscious,

Nonsense.


large flying dinosaurs could not have gotten off the ground to fly,

Utter nonsense. As just ONE example:


By IRVIN MOLOTSKY, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: January 28, 1986

A half-size model of the giant pterodactyl, a flying reptile that lived 70 million to 140 million years ago, has been successfully flown for the first time under its own power and guidance, the Smithsonian Institution said today.

www.nytimes.com...


and the largest of the dinosaurs would not have been able to lift themselves off the ground just to walk.

More utter nonsense.
PROVE everything you've claimed.
One of my degree's is in Exercise Physiology and Biomechanics so I will EAGERLY await your posts



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by chiron613
To say that there is no means by which the peptides could be preserved is to claim that all possibilities are known. This isn't the case. All we can say is that we don't know of amy means by which peptides could be preserved for such a length of time.

Now we have evidence that, in some cases, peptides can survive millions of years. Perhaps this evidence is contaminated or otherwise invalid. Perhaps T-Rex lived only thousands of years ago. However, the best hypothesis, the one that fits the facts, is that in some cases peptides can survive much longer than we thought.

It wouldn't be the first time we've guessed wrong about something in science.



the best hypothesis, the one that fits the facts, is that in some cases peptides can survive much longer than we thought


'the one that fits the FACTS' hmmm . if the facts are wrong, it must change. One can not twist and form the evidence to fit the 'thoght to be fact' like that..

'' If the Evidence CHANGE, so must the THEORY' , prett simple..



It wouldn't be the first time we've guessed wrong about something in science.

You Don't say !!



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Centurionx

And a science book is?


Text books based on well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. They tie together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions.

Hope this helps


So, with all this Well-this and that, and when I quote :

It wouldn't be the first time we've guessed wrong about something in science.

it shouldn't rais consern that there could be any thing Wrong in Any of these books, that is what you say ??



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:01 PM
link   
Here is the problem with me finding stuff on Stucky the dog: the people who "own" it are VERY aggressive in protecting their copyright. Over the last 5-6 years every image source that i know of has been pulled down after legal action.

There are still references online, but they are more and more scant. Might it be mistaken or a hoax? I am unsure. Here is a reference to it from 2002:

www.fark.com...

Here is the main page of "Southern Forest World", the attraction that displays Stucky:

www.okefenokeeswamp.com...



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
Is this a sequal to the news story from a few years ago where a museum employee dropped the thigh bone of a T-Rex and they found marrow that wasn't fosslized completely?

for some reason this came to mind.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers


Ancient Man riding T-Rex would be awesome!

Whats that Alexander the Great? You got Elephants? LOL My T-Rex cavalry will crush your forces! Send in the Raptor Chariots!


Is that .... Sarah Palin on a T-rex???



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by andrewh7

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.



ANCIENT DINOSAUR DEPICTIONS
To the right is a picture of a dinosaur fighting a mammoth from the book Buried Alive by Dr. Jack Cuozzo (click to enlarge). It was taken by the author in the Bernifal Cave, one of the caverns in France that is renowned for Neanderthal artifacts. The cave has been closed to the public. Science News was given the opportunity to publish the remarkable photo, but declined. It seems that evidence against the prevailing paradigm of naturalistic origin was selected against. It is buried alive by the scientific establishment. As Cuozzo says, this is natural selection in the most literal sense!


~Snip~

Deep in the jungles of Cambodia are ornate temples and palaces from the Khmer civilization. One such temple, Ta Prohm abounds with stone statues and reliefs. Almost every square inch of the gray sandstone is covered with ornate, detailed carvings. These depict familiar animals like monkeys, deer, water buffalo, parrots, and lizards. However, one column contains an intricate carving of a stegosaur-like creature. But how could artisans decorating an 800 year old Buddhist temple know what a dinosaur looked like? Western science only began assembling dinosaurs skeletons in the past two centuries. (Pictures are courtesy of Don Patton.)



So, what is going on here ?? Did the mammoth's die million of years ago too, with the Dino's ?? Or did the Dino's live not that long ago with the mammoth's ??


Source here
Most of the mammoths are believed to have gone extinct somewhere at the end of the last Ice Age (Pleistocene) about 10,000 years ago. A small group on Wrangel Island, north of Siberia, survived until about 3,700 years ago, and another group on St. Paul Island, Alaska, in the Arctic Ocean, survived until about 8,000 years ago.



Source here
“The last of the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago,”1 according to an unsupported claim by evolutionary researchers that has been popularized in books and movies such as Jurassic Park. This conclusion is so ubiquitous that most people don’t even question whether or not it’s true. But researcher James Fassett has discovered considerable evidence that may finally convince ardent believers to re-evaluate this assumption.

Fassett found hadrosaur fossils in the Ojo Alamo Sandstone of the western United States, and they appear to have come from dinosaurs that were alive during the era when the sandstone was deposited.2 The “problem” is that this sedimentary layer and the fossils it contains have independently been shown to be Paleocene rocks that supposedly range from 65 to 55 million years in age, just younger than the Cretaceous layers that are usually considered to be the resting place for earth’s last dinosaurs.


And I gonna use this again :

It wouldn't be the first time we've guessed wrong about something in science.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChemBreather

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by Centurionx

And a science book is?


Text books based on well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. They tie together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions.

Hope this helps


So, with all this Well-this and that, and when I quote :

It wouldn't be the first time we've guessed wrong about something in science.

it shouldn't rais consern that there could be any thing Wrong in Any of these books, that is what you say ??


Sure there could be something wrong with a book or two. Sure some scientists could even be wrong...it's a possibility.
But when you tie all these things together and they support each other from many, many different angles...

And once again:
well-documented explanation for our observations. They tie together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions.

Not a single observation but MANY.
Not a single fact but MANY.
An explanation that fits ALL the OBSERVATIONS. These observations can be used to make predictions and when those predictions come true, that cements the previous observations all the more.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:38 PM
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...


boy, this post got my blood boiling, but it's got to be sarcasm. the horror is the reason it's hard to identify as sarcasm is that so many people believe this. it's just shocking. if you ever think the human race has the potential to transcend itself and destroy the cycle of death, misery and mayhem, just look around at your co-species members and recognize our ignorance solidifies our doom.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jfj123
 


I understand where you are coming from with the predictive capability of science. But astrology has been shown for ages to have a predictive capability. Do you put credence in astrology?

Take, for example, the predictive capability of Newtonian physics. It is an excellent way to explain the movements of large, visible bodies. But it falls far short on predicting the movements of the sublime. This is an excellent example of how, while it can predict accurately in one frame, since it cannot in another frame the science has a flaw.

Science was a great achievement of man back when it was mostly an art of philosophy and reason. It is when science became an institution, much like religion, that it poisoned itself. When it should be defending truth, instead it hides truth to defend dogma.

If science is to be taken seriously it will have to start admitting its own shortcomings. Until then, my opinion will not change and we will still be sitting here on Earth paying 4 bucks a gallon for gasoline, arguing about whats possible.

"Most correct" doesn't mean "correct".

[edit on 2-8-2009 by bigfatfurrytexan]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by andrewh7
 


Here is some Info on that dating method, warning, contains info you dodnt want the people to know !!



Source here
Picture a swimmer competing in a 1,500 metre race and an observer with an accurate wristwatch. We note that at the instant the swimmer touches the end of the pool our wristwatch reads 7:41 and 53 seconds. How long has the competitor taken to swim the race?

When I have asked an audience this question they have looked at me incredulously and said, “Starting time?” They realize that you cannot know how long the swimmer took unless you knew the time on the wristwatch when the race started. Keep that in mind when you think about working out the age of something. Without knowing the starting time it is impossible to establish the time for the race. Note: Impossible.

Actually, knowing the starting time is still not enough. During the race you have to watch the swimmer and count how many laps he has swum so you know that he has done 1,500 metres. And you have to check to make sure he touches the end for each lap. Without these observations you cannot be sure that the time is valid. That is why you need three timekeepers to independently record the times during the race to meet the standard needed to enter the record books.

Would it make any difference if the watch we were using was more accurate? Absolutely not! You could talk about the tiny quartz crystal and the piezoelectric effect used to provide a stable time base for the electronic movement. You could describe the atomic workings of the quartz oscillator and how it resonates at a specific and highly stable frequency, and how this is used to accurately pace a timekeeping mechanism.

The fact is that you can only establish the time for the race if it was timed by two or more reliable eyewitnesses who observed the start, the progress and the finish of the race.

This illustrates the problem with the radioactive dating of geological events. Those who promote the reliability of the method spend a lot of time impressing you with the technical details of radioactive decay, half-lives, mass-spectroscopes, etc. But they don’t discuss the basic flaw in the method: you cannot determine the age of a rock using radioactive dating because no-one was present to measure the radioactive elements when the rock formed and no-one monitored the way those elements changed over its entire geological history.

The educational page hosted by the US Geological Society provides one recent example of the way radioactive dating is explained to the public. They focus on the technicalities of radioactive decay, etc. but don’t even mention the fact that we can’t measure the concentrations of isotopes in the past.


Just to quote from the thread !!!

It wouldn't be the first time we've guessed wrong about something in science.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by jfj123
 


I understand where you are coming from with the predictive capability of science. But astrology has been shown for ages to have a predictive capability. Do you put credence in astrology?

Actually I've not seen nor heard of any evidence suggesting astrology meets any scientific criteria that would put it in the same category as I've stated. In short, astrology has not been shown valid.


Science was a great achievement of man back when it was mostly an art of philosophy and reason. It is when science became an institution, much like religion, that it poisoned itself.

Science cannot be compared to religion as they are polar opposites.
Science is the belief in something only based on factual evidence to support it's existence.
Religion is based on faith which is, belief in something without the need, want, desire, etc.. for evidence to support it's existence.


When it should be defending truth, instead it hides truth to defend dogma.

Not at all.


If science is to be taken seriously it will have to start admitting its own shortcomings.

It does all the time. Theories are changed and modified all the time when new evidence becomes available.


[edit on 2-8-2009 by jfj123]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by mnemeth1
The dinosaurs were killed when Saturn was captured by the Sun's electrical field and shut off it's plasma coma.

No real scientific evidence to suggest this. Right now the best evidence points toward Asteroid...the impact crater and iridium layer has been found.


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

No evidence to suggest this either.


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.

No evidence again.


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.

There have been ice ages when the earth was in it's current orbit.


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

Climate change caused by asteroid impact.

also, if the earth did not have a near by source of heat during this transition, that means it moved from it's current orbit to a further orbit then back again. No evidence to suggest this.


Most of the dinosaurs could not have lived in our gravity.

Of course they could. There's no skeletal evidence to suggest they couldn't have supported themselves in earths gravity. This can easily be determined by skeletal layout, tendon attachment, etc..


Their hearts would not have been able to pump enough blood to their brains to keep them conscious,

Nonsense.


large flying dinosaurs could not have gotten off the ground to fly,

Utter nonsense. As just ONE example:


By IRVIN MOLOTSKY, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: January 28, 1986

A half-size model of the giant pterodactyl, a flying reptile that lived 70 million to 140 million years ago, has been successfully flown for the first time under its own power and guidance, the Smithsonian Institution said today.

www.nytimes.com...


and the largest of the dinosaurs would not have been able to lift themselves off the ground just to walk.

More utter nonsense.
PROVE everything you've claimed.
One of my degree's is in Exercise Physiology and Biomechanics so I will EAGERLY await your posts




LOL

That's some awesome debunking you did der.

I noticed you didn't bother to look at any of the accompanying links I posted or post any references of your own, you simply claim "no evidence".

I would argue that there's more evidence to support Earth being a moon of Saturn than to suggest that Earth formed around the Sun.

For starters, dust in the vacuum of space doesn't form into planets.

Just looking at Saturn's rings should be proof enough of that, but here's a study on it anyway.

www.space.com...

Planets are formed in the heart of brown dwarfs and gas giants.

They are electrically ejected.



[edit on 2-8-2009 by mnemeth1]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 04:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
Actually I've not seen nor heard of any evidence suggesting astrology meets any scientific criteria that would put it in the same category as I've stated. In short, astrology has not been shown valid.


Not to science, because science will not consider what it cannot objectively quantify. Take, for example, PSI. Most scientists cannot objectively quantify it, so it is ignored (despite thousands of testimonials).

The worst part of the whole thing is that these events are completely ignored by science, thus leaving its followers to ridicule.



Science cannot be compared to religion as they are polar opposites.
Science is the belief in something only based on factual evidence to support it's existence.
Religion is based on faith which is, belief in something without the need, want, desire, etc.. for evidence to support it's existence.


Science does require factual evidence. However, it ignores factual evidence. Cherry picking is not logic or reason. It creates an environment that is totally similar to religion (which, it would seem, has a few kernels of truth in it as well).



Not at all.


We will agree to disagree, then.





It does all the time. Theories are changed and modified all the time when new evidence becomes available.


[edit on 2-8-2009 by jfj123]


So can you direct me to the scientists who are accepted in academia while considering the evidence for ante-Clovis civilization? Science discards available evidence all too often. If it didn't, i would not have the opinion i have.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 04:56 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You always spout this nonsense.
It's apparent that you've been brainwashed by some electric universe cult. This is the same mentality as the creationists who claim that dinosaurs were on noah's imaginary ark.

Good luck with your delusions.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


You always spout this nonsense.
It's apparent that you've been brainwashed by some electric universe cult. This is the same mentality as the creationists who claim that dinosaurs were on noah's imaginary ark.

Good luck with your delusions.


This is exactly what i am talking about. The people who follow/believe/support science will, when faced with anything that contradicts their beliefs, resort to formal and informal fallacies.

Your multiple uses of ad hominem above only hurts your arguement. If your position is so strong, one would think you could defend it without resorting to such fallacious retorts.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:01 PM
link   
I see your ad hom attacks and raise you a study showing winged dinosaurs could not fly:

precedings.nature.com...

Gravity was far less in the past than it is now.



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 05:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 



Rocky planets like Earth are thought to form when dust motes around a nascent star gather to form rocks. Rocks collide, and some stick and grow.

"The dust bunnies under your bed grow in a similar way," said Scott Kenyon, a planet-formation theorist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. "And after a million years, a dust bunny can get pretty big."

The process is not always smooth. Our Moon is thought to have formed when a Mars-sized object hit Earth shortly after our planet gathered itself together. For a few hundred million years thereafter, impacts of huge asteroids rocked all the worlds of the inner solar system. Craters on the Moon serve as a record of that chaotic time.

www.space.com...


How did the terrestrial planets form?

After the heavier elements and minerals condensed into solid bits of rock, they all orbited the Sun at about the same speed. As you can imagine, collisions of objects moving at the same speed are less destructive than those of objects moving at different speeds. Thus, when rocks orbiting the Sun move close to one another, they stick together more often than they destroy each other. These pieces gradually grow larger in a process called accretion. Once they are large enough, gravity forces them into spherical shapes.

lasp.colorado.edu...

I could post hundreds of these if you like



new topics

top topics



 
51
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join