Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

reply to post by FortAnthem

there wouldnt' be enough resources to take them down. Not enough people, not enough spears. Only the males would of fought,leaving out 3/4 of the population, and what was the population?

Adn there is a different between a mammoth and a trex, the mammoth is aggressive, but not a carnivore. Trex sees you as an appetizer, and is designed to attack.
It would be the different between fighting a small whale or a shark in the water. big difference between taking an herbivore and a designed killer.
If they did have all that meat and bones and skin, where is it?
Because we can know that native americans ate corn 10k years ago, there would be some evidence of dinosaur around.Just like there was evidence of mammoth.

HAHAHAHAHA

This thread is the kind of crap you'd hear from a bunch of stoned extremist Christians.


THE ANSWER IS A RESOUNDING

NO!

Humans+Dinosaurs=Did not co-exist

reply to post by nyk537


The earth isn't younger.... Humans are just much older than most think. There is easily enough evidence to absolutely crush the theory that the earth is 6000 years old.

Not to mention, the bible isn't a science book, it wasn't written by scientists, and in fact, you nor anyone else knows who wrote the stories in the bible because you weren't there at the time they were written. Just because the bible says its the word of god doesn't make it so. It's just a book full of stories that may or may not hold truth.

Scientists today, living right now, can test theories over and over again to actually provide evidence that something is or isn't true. The evidence shows that the earth is much older than 6000 years. There is also evidence that humans have been around for millions of years. I think the most probable scenario is that humans may have been present 65 million years ago, not that dinosaurs were present 6000 years ago..

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by FortAnthem

 

there wouldnt' be enough resources to take them down. Not enough people, not enough spears. Only the males would of fought,leaving out 3/4 of the population, and what was the population?

Adn there is a different between a mammoth and a trex, the mammoth is aggressive, but not a carnivore. Trex sees you as an appetizer, and is designed to attack.
It would be the different between fighting a small whale or a shark in the water. big difference between taking an herbivore and a designed killer.
If they did have all that meat and bones and skin, where is it?
Because we can know that native americans ate corn 10k years ago, there would be some evidence of dinosaur around.Just like there was evidence of mammoth.

Not just that but you would find the remains of bones and anything else the native americans couldnt use, which wouldnt have been a whole lot unless accumulated over time. Native Americans do not waste recources and they used almost everything from bone needles to the intestines (for making sinew for bows), and the brains were used to cure hides, and bones would also have been used to make knives, so there is little they wouldnt use unless these bones were just too huge and cumbersome to bother with. Even then with bones that large they most likely would have used them in making homes or firepits. Ofcourse i have a previous post stating that around 12,000 B.C.E the oceans began to rise so if there were remains they would be under the oceans, skip back and read it.

Why does this thread seem to be turning into the bible vs science?

Originally posted by Essan


A scientific theory is the best explanation available for all the known evidence. However, in science, the aim is always to find new evidence and to attempt to falsify existing theories

This is where I would say you are wrong in my opinion. For the most part since the turn of the century and since big money and research have gotten their hand in the game actual research and study to "Disprove" ideas that keep allot of tenured prof and the like employed WILL NO BE QUESTIONED.

The idea in the scientific community has come to a screeching halt in terms of fringe/cutting edge research, if you want a good example of this look at the pharma/medical industry. These people are in it for the long term (ie drag it out as long as possible while making the most money possible) with "therapy" and "treatments" and not actual cures, as this would put them out of business and they would have to apply those so called eggheads to a different task. THEY WONT

Now as much of a tangent as that was I don't hold to any religious dogma nor do I think the OP was saying that he believes the world is 6000 yrs old (actually by what he was saying and the carbon dating I think he might believe it to be around 20-30000). I think the point he was getting at was the doubts brought up with radimetric carbon dating as with any method like this YOU NEED TO KNOW THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT/ CONCENTRATION.

This isn't a hey guys god told me we used to ride dinos 200 years ago thread, and anyone saying so is twisting words or just being ignorant. This is a valid argument that a layman can tackle as I doubt most here would be able to scientifically retort other topics along the same lines like the scientific bastardization of the post peer reviewed michelson morley interferometer experiments. (I just said that so sound smart......or did I?)

Anyways I digest.......food lots of it but for real..... this actually is not something that is hidden by a vast conspiracy of scientists but a reflection of how the base of their knowledge is taught to them. If they are never told or encouraged to question the base of their knowledge how would they know their peddling something that is a half truth.

Good post and info nyk537 although I am no supporter of any organized "religion" BUT that does not mean what you have brought up here is not valid and should raise some serious eyebrows for those that do not know about these methods of dating.


P.S To the above post.
It is being made into that debate by those who cannot allow info to come into their mind and allow for an unbiased judgment. I don't like religion but Im not going to let that get in that way of information that should be discussed without bias.

Originally posted by RobbWonder
Why does this thread seem to be turning into the bible vs science?

Because these threads always end that way. I've been doing my best to stifle it from exploding into a full blown "God is real, oh no he isnt" thread. I rather just like to talk about the topics at hand but theres always that one person who tries to land a killing blow on either side of that God versus Science debate.

If people drew what looks like dinosaurs pictures in anceint artifacts then maybe one might use common sense and think to themselves.:"Gee maybe humans beings saw dinosaurs and they are not as old as we think they where".The other thing I cannot understand when it comes down to proven biblical history it is humans who go totaly looney over the bible,which is a major important historic document.Like people think all other documents of history are awesome except that dog gone bible stuff is all fake and the people who believe that book are all looney and crazy.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by RobbWonder
Why does this thread seem to be turning into the bible vs science?

Because these threads always end that way. I've been doing my best to stifle it from exploding into a full blown "God is real, oh no he isnt" thread. I rather just like to talk about the topics at hand but theres always that one person who tries to land a killing blow on either side of that God versus Science debate.

I would have thought people here were above that

reply to post by RobbWonder


Well if you want to talk about religion we have off topic forums for that, but the nature of this topic drags you in kicking and screaming wether or not you want it to. Such is the nature of creation science.

reply to post by GhettoRice

The idea in the scientific community has come to a screeching halt in terms of fringe/cutting edge research

What about the recent research article claiming to have proven telepathy, or the legitimate research being done in regards to the holographic universe hypothesis, or a lot of research pertaining to quantum phenomena. The reason we don't see research into fringe topics is because they don't produce results. We have spent at least a century doing scientific research on psychic phenomena and the best we have is Rhine who was shown to have falsified his data. Most of the support for "forbidden archaeology" comes from 19th and early 20th century sources that have since been shown to be false. There's not some grand conspiracy to stifle ingenuity in science.

Originally posted by RobbWonder
Why does this thread seem to be turning into the bible vs science?

Because creationists have no science, or evidence of any kind to back up thier beliefs, so the bible is the only thing they have to fall back on.
Otherwise, they'd present their own peer reviewed science as evidence. Which they dont.

Originally posted by GhettoRice
I think the point he was getting at was the doubts brought up with radimetric carbon dating as with any method like this YOU NEED TO KNOW THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT/ CONCENTRATION.

And the OP, like yourself, would be wrong yet again.

The advantage of isochron dating as compared to simple radiometric dating techniques is that no assumptions are needed about the initial amount of the daughter nuclide in the radioactive decay sequence.

Isochron Dating

Is it actually possible for a creationist to make any accurate scientific statements at all? I've not seen any in this thread so far.

All i know is i have seen FOSSILIZED dinosaur bones....

I have not seen any FOSSILIZED human bones.....

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by alfa1

 

I'm not lying at all.

Here only defense on those bones is that the area is 65 million years old. Based on what? A faulty dating method!

She provides no reasoning for why the bones contain soft-tissue, she simply swipes it away by claiming the entire area is a certain age! The bone has also never been allowed to be dated for Carbon 14 to this day.

I wonder why?

Statements such as above betray how ignorant you actually are to hard science which makes it easier for you to believe such silliness. C 14 dating is only accurate for dating objects back to approximately 60,000 years and even at that it is known to be slightly inaccurate within that frame of reference the farther back you go. Furthermore C 14 dating is used only on organic matter not geologic formations or fossils. What you try to claim is a bone that they refuse to submit to carbon dating is not bone at all. The calcium has been replaced and whT they have is a fossil not a bone. They won't submit it for C14 dating because there is no C14 in the rocks to date. You speak of scientists with an agenda. While some may be predisposed to look at things a certain way it is true for only a fraction of people who work in these fields as opposed to creation "scientists" who are quite definitively pushing a very specific agenda. Believe it or not most people go into science or research because they genuinely love what they are looking into and want to find out what the truth is because half the fun if scientific research is getting an answer not making the pieces fit into the puzzle you already have formulated in your own mind.

I respect your opinion but can't get behind your conclusions. I'm no creationist but I also don't fully accept the scientific dogma, so I think you have some good points there. I don't fully accept evolutionary theory - especially the notion that its all somehow just one big random accident yet infinitely complex - but I think its currently the best model for how we got here.

I just think there's probably alternative explanations for the evidence you've presented. For example the pictures of what looks like dinosaurs on the sword - could be that they found bones, got a good idea of what they would have looked like and worked them into their myths and legends (many ancient cultures talk about Reptilian gods or creatures). I could easily see Dragons/dinosaurs being like the boogey man back then - be good tonight children or the Dragon will eat you! The Dragon mythology is so prevalent in ancient cultures that there has to be some common thread IMO. It could well be that they found Dinosaur bones or perhaps it is a symbol for something else (e.g. Kundalini in some eastern religions is represented by a serpent rising up the spine).

Similarly, they could have been based on actual living animals such as Lizards, Komodo Dragons etc all of which are related to the dinosaurs if you believe in evolution. The other possibility is the Mega-Fauna like those that roamed in Australia until relatively recently compared to the age of the dinosaurs (not sure dates off the top of my head).

As for the Beaver Lodges, I imagine that modern beavers can build similar burrows (again correct me if I am wrong) and so they would observe what living beavers did and then found the spiral structures and assumed they were made by the same creature.

Originally posted by ManOfGod267
reply to post by nyk537

 

Do you believe some form of creation and some form of evolution can exist? I am skeptical of a lot of things and the site posted by the other user I'm skeptical of. Since you never know those pictures can be faked, edited, or torn of context.

Yes. God created the elements that make up the universe. Science is right about everything else that followed.

I would very much like to believe that humans and dinosaurs can get along. I am just curious how really long ago the dinosaurs actually ceased to exist from human civilization. Perhaps, science and it "poorly designed" instruments for testing are not really telling us the whole picture of life on earth.

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

 

Why is that funny?

Why is it any easier to accept the results of tests that are obviously inaccurate? What gives evolutionary scientists any more credibility that creationist scientists?

let's assume for the moment that I believe you. You've found numerous flaws is science; evolution is just plain wrong.

What evidence are you using to support the next step in your argument; that the earth's age must be calculated using the Bible? I mean, science might be wrong -but why haven't you turned to the iriquois creation story? or the Buddhist? Or the Islamic? Or any number of religions that exist in our world? What evidence are you putting forth to sustain the notion of judeo-christian biblical timelines? In your own terms from the above quote, what gives the Bible any more credibility than any other religious text in history?

Originally posted by TheComte
Religion or science, just two different kinds of belief systems.

You must have faith to believe in either one of them.

Unless you are some kind of modern day daVinci whose done thousands of experiments himself, with stacks of notebooks outlining his proofs, you probably just take some guy's word for it that the scientific theories are all correct.

Not really. The bible can tell me there was a flood. It can't explain the processes behind it. The bible can tell me God said let there be light but nowhere is the bible does it say,


And God said:
∇ • E = ρ / εo
∇ • B = 0
∇ x E = - ∂B/∂t
∇ x B = μoJ + μoεo∂E/∂t
And then there was light.