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.

 

Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

page: 10
132
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by mrwiffler
 


It's not a conspiracy, it's just people being people. They ignore the anomalies in the carbon dating data because they believe strongly in its veracity. Whatever. Stupid.

The thing is, the anomalies don't prove anything except the fact that we don't know how old the earth is.

Not sure what you're getting at here since radiocarbon dating isn't used to determine the date of the Earth.




posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by David291
What I also find funny is, if it was true that man was alive at the same time as dinosaurs(6,000 years ago) how the hell did we manage to fight against them? Seriously, use resources at hand? You mean sticks and stones? I know someone mentioned this before but ... how big was a T-rex exactly? It would take a tank, or more take one of them down ...


Clearly no one has watched Jurassic Park.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:38 PM
link   
reply to post by gazzachel
 


Cremo's work is highly flawed. For one he jumps to complicated conclusions while ignoring simpler ones that explain the data as well if not better. Second he uses outdated research while ignoring more recent research that proves his claims wrong. Finally, many of the sources he does use do not say what he says they say. Cremo is the perfect example of how not to do science. He starts with his conclusion then hunts through mountains of evidence that support his beliefs while ignoring those sources that prove him wrong.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:41 PM
link   
reply to post by novastrike81
 


Did you read what I said? Jurrasic park is in MODERN times. Not 6,000 years ago where we was using spears carved from wood and rock. Sigh ... or did we have tranquilisers six thousand years ago?

face palm.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by samaka
 



The bible is actually scientifically accurate, show me where it fails at that?
The Bible says that a wizard man created everything, but there is absolutely no proof for this magical creator.

The Bible says that if you pray, your prayers will be answered, and this is false.

The Bible says that an elderly man put two of every animal on a boat, yet I've already explained why this is impossible.

The Bible says that there was a snake that could talk, but snakes are incapable of talking.

The Bible says that humanity was inbred into existence by two people in a magical garden.

The Bible says that the first woman was created from some dirt and a bone.

+



=




The Bible says that when you die, you go to a land of clouds, happiness, and dead relatives, which has no proof backing it.

The Bible says that a man survived in a fish for three days, which is impossible.

The Bible says that a bush that was lit on fire was capable of talking, which isimpossible because a plant is incapable of talking.

The Bible says that all animals were created together, and this is not true because there are no fossilzed remains of most animals that exist today, yet there is fossilized evidence of animals that are now extinct and have been for a long time.
edit on 16-8-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:42 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


That's my point. If C-14 is found on a dinosaur fossil that is said to be at least 65 million years old...then it throws the entire theory of evolution into a tailspin.

So when you have multiple dating methods that agree that a fossil is on the order of tens of millions of years old and only one that says that fossil is tens of thousands of years old, you're willing to throw out all of the other data points in favor of the lone data point that tells you what you want to hear?

Also, the evidence for evolution is hardly limited to what is provided by paleontology. Modern evolutionary synthesis relies more heavily on genetic evidence. There's enough genetic evidence in support of evolution that, even in the absence of a fossil record, evolution would still be the dominant scientific theory to explain biodiversity.


If scientists were wrong about that, then why should we not questions everything they have told us about these dates and the age of the earth?

You have yet to show that they're wrong for the reason described above -- one radiometric dating method gives anomalous results when used to date objects that are over 50ky old. The remaining radiometric dating methods agree. Using radiocarbon methods on specimens that are older that 50ky is like using an optical microscope to count the number of water molecules in a water droplet and then claiming that it must not be water because you can't see the molecules -- it's the wrong method to get an accurate age on the specimens you're describing.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:44 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 

The thing I have not been able to understand is the debate between evolution and creation. There is a separation between science and religion for a reason. One is fact based and the other is faith based, the former is provable the latter is not.
How do you destroy a belief? Prove it as fact.
One cannot prove nor disprove the existence of God. This works for me but then we have this debate going on.

Evolution has been proven beyond any doubt that it does indeed happen. However the timeline of the life of certain animals and when they went extinct is questionable. You could very well prove that humans existed along side dinosaurs but this would not disprove evolution.

Because of this debate between creationists and evolutionists, as it were, I find that I disbelieve both sides. To even debate from either side of this issue is to discredit ones own stance, or point of view, except to show how ridiculous it is to have this debate. Science and religion are two separate things for a reason.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   
I skim read the OP and I would just like to point out that scientists use a variety of different methods to date fossils found in rocks. All of these methods are known collectively as radiometric dating. The most common one which you will probably have heard of is carbon dating. Scientists do not use this method for dating fossils however as it cannot date fossils of that age (carbon dating is useful for objects up to 60,000 years old)

Uranium-lead dating is the method used for dating dinosaur fossils as it has a range of 1 million years to 4.5 billion years with an error margin of ~0.1%.

This video is really good at explaining in a simple format the age of the earth and is also backed up by fact



Edit: He has a great video series which I recommend to anyone interested. Check out this video too:


edit on 16/8/2011 by Griffo because:



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:45 PM
link   


This is the type of evidence that no evolutionists wants to see or discuss, and I find it to be absolute proof that dinosaurs are much younger than we have been told.


And there is a lot of evidence that neither the creationists or the proponents of the status quo Mainstream science theory want to discuss that homo sapiens sapiens (modern humans) are much much older than we are led to believe by years counting in the millions. Read "Forbuidden Archaology" by Micheal Cremo. There have been many anamalous archeological finds that support that idea.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:46 PM
link   
I didn't read all the topic, but do you know what i think it's funny?

The evolucionist guys make fun and put down the creationists, saying that "what they believe is stupid and retrograde", and that they "blindly follow a stupid faith" or something around this.

But most of these evolucionists also blindly follow science, and most of the time don't even research for their own when scientists come up with some new theory.

Take a good look to yourselves before talking about someone else.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:48 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 

A book published by the ICR hardly carried the same weight as a multitude of peer-reviewed research papers from reputable journals. And it's not like Woody's book hasn't been thoroughly refuted: Dr Kevin R. Henke exposes John Woodmorappe's fraudulent attacks on radiometric dating and reveals other creationist misrepresentations.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by coyotepoet
 


Please refer to my last post as it pertains to Cremo. To summarize it for you, Cremo is no better than other Creationists. He cherry-picks facts and outright lies so it looks like his position is tenable.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
This is silly.

Evolution exists as well as creation. Actually there is no difference between the two, except the time it takes for each to reach a certain outcome. Man is both the product of evolution and creation. You see evolution is slow and takes a long time, its a natural process, while creation is consciousness working with the basic ingredients of life to speed progress and create life. Forget about God, when two persons make love, they CREATE a new life. We are all creators, we just do not know it. God is the best at it that is all.

As for this thread I think the OP does not make any clear hypothesis?

There is a real chance that some form of dinosaurs evolved and survived the extinction and could intersect with humans. Also there is enough evidence to suggest that we are not the first to be "civilized" and have this knowledge about dinosaurs and many other things. Thus somewhere in our history way back people knew this stuff, was forgotten, and now we discover again such proof, but that does not mean we lived with the dinosaurs from 65 million years ago, unless someone else did that has little to do with us today. Its not impossible unless you think we are alone in the Universe. I am more than sure than in million of years this planet was visited by many advanced species.
edit on 16-8-2011 by Pericle because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:56 PM
link   
I don't know whether or not this has been pointed out yet, I stopped reading around page 7.

Radioisotope dating does not test the fossils. It's tests the dates of the strata above and below the fossils, and determines a DATE RANGE for the fossils.

Testing your T-Rex bone for Carbon-14 would do nothing. It would not be found because fossils do not contain radioisotopes, only volcanic strata is used for radioisotope testing. This is why your bone has not been sent for testing.

This is 5th grade earth science.

So when the scientist "dismisses" the idea that these bones could be recent, based on the age of the site, NOW YOU KNOW WHY.
edit on 16-8-2011 by Backslider because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 06:59 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


Interesting however I have an issue subscribing to a "creationist" ideal when I know for a fact and see every day "evolution" take place. Evolution is about an observable measureable fact if there ever was one. Its the process by which anything changes due to circumstances.

Unless you were a "creationist" at birth you had to go through a path of "evolution" to become one. Evolution isn't limited to physical appearance and genetic structure...its all encompassing. So knowing that evolution isn't made up and is mostly misinterpreted or misrepresented it is STILL a possibility that has to be acknowledge in regards to the history of life on this planet.

Having said that I also see creation every day but whatever is "created" is created through an evolutionary process of change over time. THE TIME of CHANGE is what is at question.

Could dinosaurs and man walked the earth at the same time? Absolutely and that is a possibility merely because that is HOW LITTLE we truly know about life history.

How do we not know that man and dinosaur co-existed because man was around millions of years ago? But instead you pull dinosaurs into the present as the ONLY way they could have co-existed??



edit on 16-8-2011 by Sly1one because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 07:01 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


And that particular book is full of secular scientists...not creationist scientist. And what makes the "agenda" of an evolutionary scientist any more credible than the "agenda" of a creationist scientist?

Full of secular scientists that have been taken out of context or quote-mined. Why would someone who is on the right side of the debate feel the need to treat his source material with such intellectual dishonesty?
edit on 16/8/2011 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by bluemooone2
There is definitely some evidence for this.Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Maybe


www.creation-vs-evolution.us...
Either that's a giant foot, or it's a small dinosaur...

Or theleft human footprint is out of the frame and that(dinotrack) is just a giant pile of fossilized neanderthal pooh dropped between the two human foot prints.They photographed a paleolithic rest area!
edit on 16-8-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-8-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-8-2011 by 46ACE because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 07:04 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 

Already read it. You know what they didn't do that a good scientist would have done when faced with a seemingly anomalous data point? Crosscheck it using another radiometric dating method. So the creationist pseudoscientists who wrote that paper were incompetent on a scientific level. Either that or they did have it tested and just didn't report the results because they disagreed with the radiocarbon data. Which would make them dishonest. So you can take your pick -- were they stupid or lying?
edit on 16/8/2011 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 07:19 PM
link   
I was just thinking, there is a giant sphinx statue in Egypt. I guess that means that at one time Egyptians walked hand-in-hand with sphinxes. Also, there are statues of gods in Greece. It must mean that at one time humans and gods really did walk about together.

For those saying that evolution does not happen, I have news for you....scientists witness it all the time in labs. Of course that is microevolution. But, if microevolution exists why can't macroevolution? Have you looked at dna studies and the comparisons between different species? Does that really mean there is a "common designer", or does it make more sense that we are all related? Why would an all-powerful designer use the same dna in most creatures? To trick us to believe in evolution? Could he not come up with totally differing ways to create things? That could have put the nail in the coffin right there.
edit on 16-8-2011 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 07:20 PM
link   


And what is your reason? Because some textbooks written by scientists with an agenda told you so?
reply to post by nyk537
 
I like your thread and the way you think, but...if you are going to make a statement like this, you should also apply this to those who wrote the Bible. I mean it's not like they didn't have an agenda either.

Very good thread. S&F



new topics

top topics



 
132
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join