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: 24
132
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
how can we see stars farther than 6000 light years away if the creationist theory of a young earth was factual?




posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Also, I recently watched an episode of "Through the Wormhole," and there is undeniable evidence that radioactive decay is affected by the sun; in the episode they showed that decay rates were affected when the Earth was closer to the sun. I don't know if the recent (somewhat) discovery of the fact that decay rates are affected by the sun goes with your theory, but it seems like it would.

www.physorg.com...


A team of scientists from Purdue and Stanford universities has found that the decay of radioactive isotopes fluctuates in synch with the rotation of the sun's core. The fluctuations appear to be very small but could lead to predictive tools for solar flares and may have an impact on medical radiation treatments. This adds to evidence of swings in decay rates in response to solar activity and the distance between the Earth and the sun that Purdue researchers Ephraim Fischbach, a professor of physics, and Jere Jenkins, a nuclear engineer, have been gathering for the last four years. The Purdue team previously reported observing a drop in the rate of decay that began a day and half before and peaked during the December 2006 solar flare and an annual fluctuation that appeared to be based on the Earth's orbit of, and changing distance from, the sun, Jenkins



Could our current data we've relied on for years be tainted do to this new discovery of the fact that radioactive decay rates vary with the Sun's rotation, as well as solar flares?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Unfortunately it seems as though this thread has been hijacked and is no longer really about what I had intended. We hare not here to discuss God vs Science or any combination of such....we are here to discuss that dinosaurs and man were alive on this planet at the same time...and what I believe to me much more recently than we have been led to believe.

I think the young earth discussion is what started to derail this thread. There are many different variations of the young earth creationist. The most hardcore of these do in fact believe that the earth is only around 6,000 years old. This age is reached by taking the days of creation literally and then adding the lineage of Abram and Moses and so on from the Bible.

There are also other creationists out there (like myself) who believe the earth is much younger than what we are being told now...but honestly really don't know how old it is. I don't believe anyone can accurately tell us the age of the earth. I do however think that our time and God's time is different...so the days of creation could be thousands of years each to us.

In any case, I would really like to see this thread get back on topic if it's possible. I think there is still a lot to be discussed about dinosaurs and humans coexisting.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   
Maybe not as many dinosaurs died in the meteor impact/flood as we thought, I know alligators and crocs are pretty much dinosaurs and I think some other animals like turtles basically survived past the event, so maybe others did too?

Knowing how humans work id say any that were left got killed and eaten, and maybe climate/environment changes took care of the rest



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   
Well OP, I guess you know now why you are %100 wrong about every point you've attempted to make.

Next time when you are in church, try not to think you are in a lab doing helpful things for humanity, realize that you are only doing it for your own entertainment/needs, and please keep the spiritual "feel good" side of the universe away from the hard facts.

And guess what OP, if you were totally right about your theory, science would adapt to try and make a model with the new discoveries, which is why science is not adapting due to what is observable and replicated by other scientists.

Scientific logic =
A. "I have a baseball"
B."Oh yeah show me"
A. Shows baseball
B." Yes you do have a baseball.

VS

Religious Logic
A. "I have a baseball"
B. "Prove it"
A." YOU CANT PROVE THAT I DON'T!!!"
B. "What the f?"


Why do humans and dinosaurs need to live together? Why does the planet need to be young? Why does everything that has been proven, need to be disproven by religious factions [I refuse to call them "creationists" it just makes them sound less religious]




edit on 17-8-2011 by Jrocbaby because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-8-2011 by Jrocbaby because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Jrocbaby
 


Apparently you have no real grasp on what you are trying to say here. You attack me about science, yet your only basis for attacking me is attacking religion.

Really?

Let's talk about how my points and evidence have been "100% wrong" based on those facts and evidence shall we? It seems like a better idea than telling me I'm wrong because you don't agree with religion.

And why does everything textbooks have told us have to be correct beyond questioning? At some point in time all great minds and thinkers were considered quacks and lunatics. I'm sure there were people telling Galileo and Einstein and others the same things you are telling me now. (Not that I consider myself a great mind or thinker by any means)
edit on 17-8-2011 by nyk537 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by A-Dub
Maybe not as many dinosaurs died in the meteor impact/flood as we thought, I know alligators and crocs are pretty much dinosaurs and I think some other animals like turtles basically survived past the event, so maybe others did too?

Knowing how humans work id say any that were left got killed and eaten, and maybe climate/environment changes took care of the rest


The again there are the stories of 'Dragons' and the men that hunted them, medieval men didnt classify dinosaurs the way we do today, if it was big and reptilian it was probably a Dragon.
And to that point IMO where did the stories of Dragons come from? What kind of creature roamed the Earth to the point that men saw different variations of it and seeing as man didn't really travel the globe as much or as easily as we do now then how did the stories, descriptions as well as drawn pictures that look similar appear in different cultures and countries?
That is one question I have pondered over the years.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:28 AM
link   
If you want to try to refute the science of evolution in a believable and meaningful way then:

- Cite references for all scientific facts pointed out in a document
- Base it purely on science and not on anecdotal or circumstantial evidence
- Show that you actually have some knowledge and understanding of evolutionary science by referring directly to specific faults in its premises and details

Your sweeping, generalized and unscientific references are typical of someone with very limited understanding, simplistic thinking and a huge amount of bias to start with. You see, to be truly scientific you have to start without any bias. In case you don't understand what that means, it means that you shouldn't CARE what the answer is to the matter you are investigating. NOT start with the 'answer' then try to prove it.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by FortAnthem
 


Then, why aren't t rex and bronto parts found throughout civilization?


Hi, first of all I would like to apologize for all these people not taking you seriously, and just posting arrogant childish answers aimed to ridicule your original post - that's what jref is for!

I think your point is well made, with enough evidence to have to seriously think about it. I also agree, that perhaps humans didn't live with dinosaurs, but perhaps we lived with a few that were left. Which could explain local legends, and why there would be legends (you don't make a legend about something commonplace but something rare). I however don't buy into the 6000 year old theory either. Do you really think they carbon dated everything wrong, so that the oldest thing must be 6000 years old? Do you really see God as an architect/designer?

My opinion is that perhaps the earth is as old as it is, and that some of the remaining dinosaurs lived with humans. I don't know what would be so far fetched about that (besides for the mainstream timeline).

Also, I quoted FortAnthem above, because I thought he made a great point. Although maybe they didn't have any use for their body parts, and maybe didn't eat them?

Anyways, I thought I was going to read your post and think you're off your rocker by proposing some ludicrous theory full of holes and having no evidence, but I commend you on your presentation and the evidence you provide. It's at least thought provoking.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:37 AM
link   
I usually don't respond to OPs so far along with over 20 pages of comments as anything I say is moot.

HOWEVER, there seems to be a lack of understanding on display here.

I have yet to see much evidence that man and dinosaur ever co-existed.If you travel to UTAH and really look at the formations and fossils there, you can use logic to determine that man and dinosaur did NOT co-exist.

If erosion takes hundreds of thousands of years to carve a canyon, and we can determine the general rate of erosion by looking at how much takes place over a set period of time...against the amount of erosion that has occurred....

Then we know that in order for erosion to occur, the rock/strata formation had to be there before the erosion could occur.

In order for the strata to be there...with fossilized dinosaur remains in them...we have to go back that much further...not hundreds of thousands of years...but millions..in order for those fossiles to be in the original layering of strata...

Then...determine how long does it take a bone or similar organic remain to turn to turn to stone and have its organic compounds replaced with minerals to form a fossil... a week?...maybe a year?...how about a millenia?....NOPE...a few hundred thousand years...?...millions of years?

My point is you can't have dinosaurs walking above the very strata that they are fossilized in and get a magical timeline to suddenly bury them there... .

As for the Bible...no where in there does it say the Earth is 6000 years old...no where. That is a skewed interpetation. The Bible is an account of the Israelites, Judaism, and Christianity and the beginnings of the Church from about 5000bc to about 70ad...it is from a religious and Judaic and Christian perspective. Despite some very detailed and proven historical accounts..ie Ninevah's existence... the Bible is not a history book.

Even in Job..God refers to behemoth in the past tense.

The stories of the creation are from oral traditions...and when taken literally, the interpretations and meanings are speculative at best. However, there are many para-Biblical and unorthadox writings that explain much of what Genesis is about... none deal with dinosaurs.

Based on scriptures in Genesis, Jeremiah, and Peter...I believe the Earth has had 3 ages...at least 3... and like the Mayan accounts..we have risen and fallen several times. Archeology does NOTsupport dinosaurs lingering to modern times...it does support civilizations predating the last Ice Age...

I am open to the idea of some prehistoric creatures surviving and evolving in limited numbers and hiding out in the vast remote areas of Earth...S America...Africa...Eurasia...American NorthWest...and of course the oceans.

If you read much, you know there were many animals that filled the void left by dinosaurs and were every bit as terrifying and they DID coexist with man...ie a large "dino-bird"...much like an ostrich on steroids that roamed what is now the southern US and Mexico... and hunted out of existence.

Just some studied thoughts from an educated Christian.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Jrocbaby
 



Let's talk about how my points and evidence have been "100% wrong" based on those facts and evidence shall we? It seems like a better idea than telling me I'm wrong because you don't agree with religion.

And why does everything textbooks have told us have to be correct beyond questioning? At some point in time all great minds and thinkers were considered quacks and lunatics. I'm sure there were people telling Galileo and Einstein and others the same things you are telling me now. (Not that I consider myself a great mind or thinker by any means)
edit on 17-8-2011 by nyk537 because: (no reason given)


Your carbon dating point has been proven wrong, that the scientist that made those claims is a fraud, but nobdoy really commented the guy that posted it, nor did you respond to him.

And textbooks are based off of %100 questioning what they are writing, when someone figures out it is wrong, THEY CHANGE IT. Vs religious books that are virtually the same for 2000 years and was written in a time where modern science was 1800 years in the future. I'm not attacking you at all, ive read this entire thread and the people who have POINTED OUT EVERY argument you made, which you just ignored.

And yes, great people have had wacky ideas, that is different from entire groups with millions of people thinking something wacky.

Lol we are the ones following blindly to a book? Are you sure you are not talking about yourself?

edit on 17-8-2011 by Jrocbaby because: (no reason given)

edit on 17-8-2011 by Jrocbaby because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by manontrial
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


He never mentions religious faith. He just presented some evidence, that's all.
And aren't you a 'member' of ATS? Yet you blindly believe everything the 'mainstream' scientific community presents as 'fact'?

Mmmmm? Deny ignorance: That mean anything to you?



He is a young earth creationist, yes? Of course his views are tainted by his religious beliefs. No sane person supports a young Earth without a major religious bias.

As for denying ignorance, that is precisely what I am doing by denying the ignorance presented by the opening poster. Nothing in my post implied that I blindly believe everything mainstream science presents as fact, I have reviewed much of the evidence presented for evolution and an old earth, and found it compelling.

Much of the so called 'evidence' for dinosaurs co-existing with humans has been hoaxed, and other drawings that show resemblances to dinosaurs are simply drawings of other similar creatures. The giant skeleton shown as evidence for giants living among us is a well known hoax, too, as has been pointed out already.

As I said before, you're not going to overturn decades of scientific research conducted by many thousands of experts in their fields, by searching google and posting a couple of images that resemble a dinosaur.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:43 AM
link   
Oh, and the very fact this is on the front page with dozens and dozens of stars is proof positive that the mantra of ATS should actually be "embrace ignorance". It doesn't have to be that way, though.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:49 AM
link   
This is ridiculous, it’s not a matter of evolutionist theory or creationism this is simply solved by using logic.

We’ve uncovered bones from ancient worlds, worlds that were completely separate from each other, for example; Giant insects, Giant sea creatures, Ancient mammals, Giant lizards and so on.

These worlds don’t mix, we can see that every eco-system in the world today has one or two super predators – you can’t lump in millions of years of different carefully structured eco-systems in to one time period it’s ludicrous, it wouldn’t work and that’s why your theory holds no ground.

Another point you’re overlooking is that you’ve tried (and failed) to make a hole in one of many cases of strong evidence to prove the earth is a lot older than the “bible” tells you. If you’re going to try and disprove something, you need to cover the whole subject. Here’s a brief list of things you may want to consider:

The stars we see in the sky are millions of year’s old, fact. We know this because we know how fast light travels and we can see how far these stars are away from us, allowing us to calculate exactly how long it’s taken for the light to get here. This contradicts the “bible” as it proves that 6000 years ago or whatever, an entity didn’t create everything.

We have proof that the oldest known rock on the planet is 4.28 billion years old. You can question scientists methods on dating such things however the margin for error would only be .5 million years or so.

Dinosaur bones are found under millions of years of soil deposits, you can look at a dig site and be looking at a real life timeline. Scientists see layers of ash that were deposited there eons ago by volcanoes and you can also see the sheer volume of soil that would require millions of years to build up.


The earth is billions of years old, we’ve proven this and any logical thinking person in the world knows this as fact. There’s no use trying to disprove something that is solid fact; there are countless other excellent examples of how we know this. Unless you’re talking about crocodiles or a few other species than no, dinosaurs survived in their own eco-system until they went extinct allowing the rise of a new era on earth.

edit on 17-8-2011 by NeverEnding because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:52 AM
link   
reply to post by MegaplateausFlight
 

Why would something devoid of carbon be able to be dated accurately using a method relying on the presence of carbon?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by lestweforget
 

i've heard this before. and i find it quite compelling. to have a predisposed theory and then fill in the blanks to augment the agenda. i'm not sure i buy into dragons, but there are some huge holes and gaps in the history that man is trying to recreate in his mind. if everyone knew and saw the number and placement of actual bones found, we would not be so quick to make a grand theory for all to follow.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   
I respect your right believe in a young earth, despite evidence to the contrary. I must however ask, why and how religion is able to date the earth. Are there specific texts in any language that dictate the age of the earth?

Also in the case of proto-man, say Homo Erectus? where do they fall in all of this?

I am concerned as to why evolution or 13.8 billions years since the big bang is a point of contention?

If you truely want to believe in God and creationism, then great, but why open yourself up for feaverous debate?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Mallik
 


Gee i wonder why no real scientists join our very intelligent discussions here on ATS.

Just curious -- what constitutes a "real scientist" for the purposes of this discussion?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 07:59 AM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 


I did read your post and it was an accurate point. But that doesn't mean that ALL areas that were inhabited by man are underwater. There is still perefectly preserved evidence of native americans that is ten thousand years old in the southwest. this goes for other areas too. And not to mention, if someine was discarded, that in itself could be buried and preserved.



new topics




 
132
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join