It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 18
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:08 PM
Very interesting post, haven't read all of the replies yet but I think we need far more open minded people willing to question accepted beliefs. If we never questioned the mainstream beliefs from the generally accepted scientific community than we would still believe the earth was flat and the center of the universe.

Not even addressing the religious aspect that everyone is going too I would agree that the generally accepted dating methods are most likely flawed. As a race we are still ignorant of most things and in the future most likely a lot of our beliefs we accept to be true will be laughed at if we survive as a race. Just as we laugh about many of the beliefs and practices of the past.

Generally I am against most religions but automatically blowing them off stating that they are imaginary while science if hard fact is stupid. NO ONE can disprove any religion, that is an actual fact. A lot of science is basically the same thing as religions, people coming up with their own beliefs (theories) and then they try to justify them and many go on to claim anyone not believing in them is ignorant or flawed in some way. They go on to push these theories when they cannot provide absolute proof but believe just as strongly as religions belive in god.

There is no real difference on either side, most people are so full of such arrogance that they believe no one else could possibly be right. The scientific community has many historical examples of covering up information they felt the public was not ready for or that they felt wold make them look stupid basically. Writing this off completely because of your own personal beliefs is the same as blindly following any religion.
edit on 16-8-2011 by seeker1977 because: spelling error

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:10 PM
I never have bought all the fossil fuel theories any how.
I dont think dino dna has been found in crude oil.

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:11 PM
carbon 14 testing is unreliable. you could test an apple you just picked from a tree and it will say it's 14 million years old.

its a shame that people use science to disprove God instead of using science to glorify God and benefit mankind.

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:11 PM

Originally posted by alfa1

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.

That might not be completely accurate, regarding Isochron Dating. Definitely don't understand the math in the first link below, but it appears that there can be scenarios where Isochron dating can still error with significantly older results. Not saying at all it debilitates the method, just that it's not necessarily rock solid (pun intended) and unquestionable.

Isochron Dating

The Problems with Isochrons

By the way, there is a great quote in the first link:

This paper attempts to accomplish two objectives: First, to explain what isochron dating is and how it is done, and second, to provide an analysis of how reliable it is. In this kind of evaluation, it is important to avoid both over- and underestimates of its reliability. While I will offer tentative conclusions, substantive challenges to those conclusions are welcomed. Unfortunately, there is no way to deal with the subject without at least mentioning mathematics. This means that math phobics cannot be completely accommodated; they will at least have to see equations. It also means that those who are ignorant of mathematics will need to educate themselves regarding the equations, or else take them on faith.

edit on 16-8-2011 by quadagent because: added quote

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:21 PM
With only 10% of bones of LARGE dinosaurs ever being discovered, (thats right 10%) the rest fabricated, i believe the large bones found are either those of the nephilym or dragons.

Not everyone believes in dinosaurs, one country that comes to mind does not even teach a possibility of dinosaurs existing.

Most dinosaurs are not even realistic in terms of physical capabilities, most dinosaurs could not even stand back up if they fell over. Hey maybe i just solved why dinosaurs became extinct, there was an earthquake and all the large dinosaurs fell over, couldnt get back to their feet and starved to death.

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:25 PM
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

just out of curiosity: are you saying that only religious people are greedy or pedophiles? i'd call that really bad science, right there. don't exaggerate to make your point as you only prove to people you are trying to reach with the rest of your logic that you're not working within the confines of reality.

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:29 PM

Originally posted by Stovokor

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Essan

I am saying that the earth is not as old as we have been told and that, yes, there were still some dinosaurs on earth living with humans.

"the way to see by faith is to shut one eye to reason"

Ben Franklin

Ben was such a wise Freemason, wasn't he.

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:31 PM
hmmmm...someone just watch the recent episode of Ancient Aliens.

But I agree and I believe that people in those days drew and wrote what they saw and so many have strange Dinosaur appearances its is hard to discount.

I believe our whole history is wrong and off but millions of years!

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:34 PM
Mankind has been digging up bones and fossils for thousands of years. It doesn't take a lot, even in primitive human's minds, to get a general idea of what the dinosaurs looked like by studying the bone structures, etc. and even using a little clever imagination. We sometimes have a tendency to not give our early ancestors credit for being able to extrapolate such ideas.

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:38 PM
reply to post by nyk537

Although i agree that dating methods are highly suspect, i do not think the earth is young. rather, i think there was a different dispensation of creation, called the angelic dispensation, on the earth, before the arrival of homo sapiens this is born out by the translation of the word "Seraph" (which is singular for Seraphim, a group of angels). the thing is, the word seraph is:
yeah you guessed it, "serpent"

theoretically, the seraphim are a race of serpent beings, which to fully understand it means "reptiles." a race of sentient, bipedal reptiles or simply, reptilians for short. dinos and sentient bipedal reptilians co-existing together is not hard to believe.

afterall, the angels were created before homo sapiens were.

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:44 PM
reply to post by alfa1

While I will agree Isochron Dating does solve "some" of the problems versus carbon dating it still relies of a few ASSUMPTIONS

1. All areas of a given specimen formed at the same time
2. The specimen was entirely homogenous when it formed (not layered or incompletely mixed)
3. Limited Contamination (contamination can form straight lines that are misleading)
4. Isochrons that are based on intra-specimen crystals can be extrapolated to date the whole specimen

You can read up more on Isochron dating as well as all the others involved here instead of hoping on the first wiki page you find.

Please educate yourself on this topic a little more.

P.S. The iso info is at the bottom of that page
edit on 16-8-2011 by GhettoRice because: P.S

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:46 PM
Greetings! I'm a brand spankin' new member after stalking from the shadows, but this is a topic of particular interest to me.

I of course mean no offense to any if I tread on toes here, I'm strictly speaking from an amateur-ish perspective on the topic.

Without delving deeply into creationism/evolutionism I agree with you OP that dinos and man had, at one point, coexisted on this planet. From 'recent' findings, especially of interest the Paluxy Dinosaur and Man tracks (among numerous others) that have been through much scrutiny from both sides still remain 'unexplained.' But have stood up to much testing and study over the years.

I don't usually like to cite the Bible, as it tends to grow into heated arguments over religion, faith, and what have you. But if nothing else, the Bible has proven, even for non-believers, to be a credible source of historically accurate information, from the time of the Babylonians and Egyptians, etc.
Within the text, we are provided written accounts of sightings of dinosaurs: the behemoth (book of Job) and leviathan (throughout text). Now whether those exact names are symbols/figurative is up for grabs, but seeing as how the descriptions given remain consistent with archaeological findings, I find myself intrigued.

Now, as for dating mother earth, I think a 6000 year (creation/believer) estimate may be a bit premature. I thought that 'earth age' came from tracing genealogy (biblical) and the story of creation (of Genesis). Now for all I've heard and read of the subject, 6000 years is debatable: gap theory, sun-up sun-down theory. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But I do greatly argue the validity of carbon dating, as you do OP. They once carbon dated a sneaker, and came back with a carbon dating of some millions-of-years old!! I cry foul on that one. lol

ATS cherry: breached
edit on 16-8-2011 by bojimbo because: truncate

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:49 PM
reply to post by GhettoRice

i read an article on how they date dig sites today, as well. they assume prior dating of the strata in the area is sufficient to cover any artifacts found within it. if perhaps an out of place artifact (soda can for example) is found in the area, it's considered contamination and thrown out. it's not dated. this means that dig sites are the victims of assumption quite often, and although those assumptions are probably frequently true, it sure isn't as accurate as it should be. they claim the reason they don't date everything in a dig is because they don't have the man power or the money, to do so. just imagine how many assumptions can be made, without any oversight whatsoever, because they're already working the area from a presupposed premise.
edit on 16-8-2011 by undo because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:50 PM
I just love how this is a debate. For me it is no debate. God made a machine, from his pespective it was a bunch of simple math but to you, you inhabit just a speck out of the whole iceberg of perception. God built a machine that is brilliant on so many levels that to think he would specifically tailor everything is silly. Why not build everything with the right math equation and let the universe resolve itself?

Furthermore it is clear that things evolve, so why fight it? Why not embrace this fact and say that god was smart he made things that "adapt" to circumstances around them no matter what they are? If he/she/whatever specifically created everything to be one way then why make things that adapt like they do?

I've heard the creationist bullcrap before, that's what it is, totally backwards stone-age era thinking and anybody with a brain above their shoulders should be ashamed of thinking so one-sided on this debate because evolution is not exclusionary to creation like you religious cronies always seem to portray it as.

Also, creationists always pitch the same arguments. Can't you think for yourself and come up with one scrap of original material, because almost front to back your points are regurgitated 7th day aventist sales pitches.

The earth is not young, it took a very long time for it to become what it is, but of course god created the earth with a moon that hit recently enough life shouldn't exist at all on this planet that it does according to your crappy timeline of things. Just because carbon dating is not accurate doesn't mean we cannot make relatively approximate guesses. It is NOT possible for the earth to have recovered from some of the biblical scale events in the past that scar her surface, simple as that (at least not with the lack of age your ilk assign to it).

I bet you the world flooded and killed the dinosaurs right? And noah built an ark, blah, blah, blah. Ok maybe noah did build an ark but the whole planet wasn't flooded only a totally uneducated fool would believe that.

Also, man is living amongst dinosaurs, they are turtles, crocodiles, lizards, snakes, etc, most reptiles, lots of fish, etc. The dinosaurs never left some of them are still here. Your bible isn't literal fact it was made to teach you a lesson, read it somemore maybe you'll clue in one day (or maybe you'll forever be a retarded zealot).

I suggest learning a thing or two about physics because once you get a bit of a handle on it you'll gain some insight that bible never taught you as to how rediculous you sound.[
edit on 16-8-2011 by TheLastStand because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:51 PM
Ive noticed throughout this whole site when it comes to creation v's science that the creationist continue to throw around the term theory. That's just a theory... What gives your theory more strength than what the bible says... and so on. I notice that church groups do this all the time when selling religion on TV and I really mean selling as therer's a profit in belief.

A thoery is a conclusion reached only after deep, long. painstaking research. It's not a guess or a hunch or a belief. When science releases a theory it does so only after all evidence points in a direction. And before putting it out there as a scientifically accepted theory it is subject to a process of critical thought and follow up experiments and /or analysis by the the scentifc world. When a theory can be shown through tangible evidence to have been correct it then becomes scientific fact.

Dinosaurs lived. That's scientific fact. scientific evidence shows that dinousars died out about 60 million years ago so it's scintific fact. The oldest form of tangible evidence of human existence is 3.5 million years. That's scientific fact. all evidence point's to the ending of the dinosaur through a Cataclysmic event being an extinction event (also extinction-level event, ELE) by an asteriod impact. All painstaking scientific research conducted over years points to this so it is a thoery, not a guess.

A theory is not a guess. It is evidence that has strong elements of proof
edit on 16-8-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:52 PM
Actually, there are scribbles of Stegosaurus...and based on the design and effort, you might as well put a saddle on it and gold tip it's horns.

Admiral Byrd also mentioned in his Diary, that he spotted Wooly Mammoths while adjusting his altitude around the North Pole.

"1005 Hours- I alter altitude to 1400 feet and execute a sharp left turn to better examine the valley below. It is green with either moss or a type of tight knit grass. The Light here seems different. I cannot see the Sun anymore. We make another left turn and we spot what seems to be a large animal of some kind below us. It appears to be an elephant! NO!!! It looks more like a mammoth! This is incredible! Yet, there it is! Decrease altitude to 1000 feet and take binoculars to better examine the animal. It is confirmed - it is definitely a mammoth-like ani mal! Report this to base camp".

Crocodiles still live, Komodos, Shark...even the elusive 6 gill. Japanese TV show posted a feeding frenzy near the bottom of the ocean one time, which captured several 2 and 3 meter sharks feeding...and rudely interrupted by some other type of shark at least 10 times their size.

Watch the second half..

Your guess is as good as mine..

I think that there are things on this world that are simply unexplained or disbelieved, We don't know all the answers and shouldn't act like we do, and say...that's impossible or no way.

My 2 cents..

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:52 PM

Originally posted by Fisherr
The idea of man and dinosaurs living together sounds crazy only if you've been brainwashed into thinking the earth is billions of years old. If the world is as young as the bible says it is (about six thousand years old), then man living with dinosaurs makes perfect sense.

I remember this site..

Times like these I wish I had a facepalm smiley...

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:54 PM
reply to post by TheLastStand

did you know there's really no "stone-age"? that stone age type civs co-existed with copper tool civs, iron tool civs, etc? you can even find remote tribes still living in examples of stone age type conditions. to suggest these are real ages in which the bulk of societies at the time were at exactly the same level of advancement, seems disingenuous to me.

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:57 PM
reply to post by Cosmicdjinn

fixing your links

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

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 12:02 AM
reply to post by undo

Sure, granted there were pockets of smarts but that knowledge needed libraries. I think we were technologically more advanced and lost that knowledge several times over, the burning of the great library is one such example. Things engineered to a degree of precision we would have trouble are proof enough that we once knew things we do not know today. Lots of things have been invented twice. I'll give you that one. I'm sure one day we'll invent real damascus steel again.

That's a nano-tech product. So yes I believe tech levels vary greatly but the overall reference applies. Most people were building things with rocks when this guys wacky beliefs were invented and followed. Since when did the bible ever teach people to be irrational and stupid I always thought it was meant to be inciteful and mind expanding?

new topics

top topics

<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in