Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

reply to post by jpb0801

Anyways to my point... I'm an undergraduate physics major and recent scientific findings say that radioactive decay is unreliable, now the reason I bring this up is because us scientist use Carbon 14 dating to date things by the "amount" of decay over given time which gives a rough yet what is thought to be accurate dating process.

If you're talking about the work of Fischbach and others, then there are a couple of points to remember:

1. Those results have yet to be replicated by another lab, so the jury is still out over whether they're really seeing what they thing they're seeing or not. Even if it this cyclic variation really exists, if you do the calculations based on their published data, the variations are on the order of days over periods of thousands of years.

2. The variations occur based on a 33 day cycle, that of the solar core. What is being observed is not a net acceleration or deceleration of decay rates over long periods of time, just on a day to day basis during that cycle. One of the researchers explicitly stated that this would have no significant impact on archaeological data. Which leads to...

3. Radiocarbon dating methods are calibrated based on samples of known age. Research teams publish their calibration curves regularly. Someone would have noticed and published if results deviated significantly from expectations. It would be a great way to get grant funding for life, maybe even a Nobel if they could explain it. But radiocarbon dating isn't the only method, which leads to...

4. Decay rates haven’t been observed to change significantly since we’ve started measuring them. We can observe gamma ray frequencies and fading rates from multiple supernovae that we’ve observed at distances ranging from the hundreds of thousands of light-years to billions of light-years and those frequencies are accurately predicted by our current terrestrial decay rates. There are other methods for verifying that decay rates are stable, and the most deviation they've found is 0.000005% over the last two billion years.

reply to post by outerlimits

Given that evolution is an observable phenomenon, which part of it do you find unscientific? Just to make it a little easier, let me point you to this thread: This Is What Evolution Is.

Thank you for posting your views which I found a most interesting read. For myself, I have an open mind on things and I find it always a bit of a joke when I hear of past billions and trillions of years. For one thing, no one really knows if the earth has always travelled at the speed it is now; perhaps it was faster ... or slower .... no one was here at the creation of our planet. We can only guess at what, when and how anything evolved.

We've been told that dinosaurs roamed the earth for some 150 million years ... got wiped out by an astoroid ... and then humans evolved from ??????? who knows .... and what was here before the age of dinosaurs?

I believe that we are not told the truth about anything, but we're expected to accept what 'they' (the experts) want us to believe.

I am a self confessed agnostic because I don't know what happened in the beginning ...the bible is no more than a collection of writings and myths that have been edited and revised time and time again. Books and historical information that would have shed light on earth's past history were destroyed long long ago. If dinosaurs and humans existed at the same time, my skeptical mind would probably lean to their extinction having been caused by humans.

I don't know and I will never know on this side of life what's true but I enjoyed reading the OP and the challenge it presents

Originally posted by GJPinks
reply to post by Hydroman

 

Yes, Eggs and baby dinosaurs.

How did Noah know which eggs to pick to get the right genders for future mating? Noah took care of baby dinosaurs? That's a lot of babies to take care of, which would need much more attention to keep them living than adult dinosaurs. Why did god put dinosaurs on the ark only for every one of them to go extinct a few years later, as he is all-knowing?

Big News Everyone

Because of the great discussion on this thread, our own JohnnyAnonymous has booked a special guest for this Saturdays episode of ATS LIVE!

None other than Michael Cremo of "Forbidden Archaeology" will be on the show to discuss dinosaurs and humans and many other topics of interest to this discussion.

Forbidden Archeology
Michael Cremo

Please make sure to tune in this Saturday and listen to the discussion. Barring any setbacks I'll be calling in to the show to ask some of the questions we've talked about in this thread. You don't want to miss it!

One thing about the bible I've always been curious about, it how they came up with the idea that life was first created in the water

Day 5 - God created every living creature of the seas and every winged bird, blessing them to multiply and fill the waters and the sky with life.

Day 6 was when the human was allegedly created, along with land animals.

What was the logic behind the suggestion of The Bible of suggesting sea creatures were created before land creatures, and mankind as well?

What evidence at that time would suggest it? How would someone at that time know that aquatic life was older than life on land?

reply to post by N34Li3Z


It's not really a matter of knowing that certain life was older than others...it just simply...was.

The general consensus among scholars is that Genesis was written by Moses under the direction of the holy spirit. This would mean that the story of creation was given directly to Moses by God himself.

reply to post by Hydroman


I am not sure that what God does needs to be completely understood by us. I don't even remember God promising eternal life for any of his creations (after the fall that is) so I don't see any issues here.

reply to post by SusyQ30


You are correct, the age of the earth is not given anywhere in the Bible.

That date was reached by people taking the days of creation as literal days (as we know them) and then adding on the lineage given in the Bible. Since the Bible lists many ages and lineages, an approximate date based off of that can be reached.

I've always subscribed to the belief that days to God are probably different than the days we came up with. This doesn't conflict with my belief that earth is much younger than we have been told though.

reply to post by N34Li3Z


Fish and the like have always been seen as lesser creatures. They simply don't display the same level of intelligence that most land animals display and thus could have been considered a lower order. Even today there are a lot of people who will not land animals, but have no problem eating fish.

reply to post by steveknows


i was just think that while going through this thread

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Fisherr

 

My point exactly. This is written from a Creationist viewpoint (which I am) not an evolutionary one. I'm trying to make the case (among others) that evolutionary timelines are wrong, and that the Earth is much younger than we have been led to believe.

Well,if you go by a Creationist timeline no wonder you think humans and dinosaurs coexisted.

They think the whole world is what,6,000 years old?

I agree, it's as if they never heard of carbon dating. Also dogs wear space helmet's in the future, I seen it on the Jetson's. Levity, it's what keeps me sane.

reply to post by nyk537


excellent scientific presentation!

if true - and the door is now left open - then this would go a LONG way to explain:

-Admiral Bird's strange greengrass, animal, and caveman sightings in Antarctica on one of his flyovers in the 30's...

- Nessie, of Loch Ness

- Bigfoot, and maybe the (damn) Mothman

- my favorite hard to believe aliens, the 'Dracos' (underground saurians)

- The 'Seven Daughters of Eve' out of Africa hypothesis of our common origin from Eden near the Olduvai around 200,000 years ago (ie., language gene appears then, our quantum leap, mutational "enlightenment") and Sitchin's tie in to the giants of old.

- And most disturbing - since the dinosaurs are now gone - the much shorter cycle of mass extinction events implied!

reply to post by drphilxr


It's all very interesting indeed. Be sure to listen in this Saturday evening to ATS live and get some extra insight from our special guest.

While his views are way off from where my are coming from...he still has a view that humans and dinosaurs did coexist. His views on the age of the earth and man are different though. It should be very good.

reply to post by Stovokor


The scriptures might not be a scientific book, but it is scientifically accurate. www.clarifyingchristianity.com...
Examples:

Leviticus 17:11
‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood' (too bad our brilliant scientists/doctors who not long ago drained blood to help people get better.... Not to smart...)

Genesis 1:25
"And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind," (there has never been a witnessed in recorded history the birth of a crocodile by a frog. Or a shark from a bass. As much as evolutionist hate this one... common sense wins again, don't need much test tubes to easily see this one, but you do need A LOT of creative logic.

Job 36:27-29
For He draws up drops of water,
Which distill as rain from the mist,
Which the clouds drop down
And pour abundantly on man.
Indeed, can anyone understand the spreading of clouds,
The thunder from His canopy?
(The hydrolic Cycle)

Job 38:16
Have you entered the springs of the sea?
Or have you walked in search of the depths?

These vents were discovered within the last 100 years, science finally catching up to the bible!

Evolution is not a scientific theory either, and it's a faith filled guess with no solid evidence to back it up. It lacks common sense, reason and it's void of any real facts.

Common Sense Arguments:
- Mutations kill or sterilize the species
- There is NO accurate dating methods used, all have been proven grossly inaccurate but still highly regarded by all religious atheists since it's really all they have (nothing)
-The moon is going away. so from the rate of departure, it would have hit us 30,000 years ago. Millions not an option
-The sun is shrinking, fast. It's going at about 5ft per hour now (.1% every 10 years), and probably faster earlier when it had more surface area. for a 6,000 year old earth this is only a 6% gain in circumference, not a big deal (especially if the canopy theory is correct, annnnnd it is). For evolutionists that need millions of years to sound intelligent, the sun would double in size just 100,000 years back; which would be like starting life on earth in the middle of a bonfire.... www.icr.org...
-Biggest reef is less than 4,000 years old (great barrier reef) www.answersingenesis.org...
-Biggest desert on earth (Sahara) is only 4000 years old (FLOOD was 4k ago)
- Oldest tree about 4000 years old (hmmmm…)

Dinosaurs living with Man? YES, but ‘dinosaur’ is a recent term, they were called Giant Lizards/dragons 200 years ago.
Lists of evidence for the common nay-sayer: www.dinosaursandman.com...
- Common accounts among all cultures have dragon encounters that picture dinosaurs in description
- Live tissue from dinosaurs have been found multiple times. www.smithsonianmag.com...#
- Foot prints of man and dinosaurs have been found next to each other
- Recent pictures of men with dinosaurs have been found in every old culture around the world. www.creation-vs-evolution.us...
- Natives that do not care about the evolution/creation debate and visitors claim to have seen dinosaurs in Africa’s largest swamp, and accounts from Lockness and other freshwater bodies of water around the world regularly.

More evidence can be gained from their remains. The brontosaurus had nostrils that are far too small to actually support the giant animal in today’s 785 Nitrogen and 21% oxygen environment. There had to be a much denser oxygen atmosphere back then.
- Reptiles do not stop growing till they die. www.nytimes.com...
- If the canopy theory was correct (a giant ice canopy that pressurized the air condensing oxygen molecules and block lots of harmful radiation from the sun), and there’s tons of evidence to support it, the earth was basically a hyperbolic chamber. Reptiles could grow to enormous sizes, and probably many other species as well. This theory is further supported by the super recovering effects of higher oxygen levels in an increased atmospheric pressurized environment (Hyperbolic Chamber). And by the rapid aging effects of less presser shown in astronauts after their return. This would also help solve the fact that there are fossilized forests under both poles where not life lives. A canopy would keep it temperate all over the earth.
I could go on, but I think this is enough. I’m sure there’s a number of points here that can be argued and would be hard to prove either way, but I doubt anyone could explain the biggest proof of a young earth, Shrinking sun. If you would like more evidence on any of these topics, you can find both sides to the arguments on google. Atheists try so hard to keep their religion a float… But I urge you to look at all the facts and use common sense to come to the conclusion that you were in fact created, you are not a mutated monkey that came from a rock. There is a Creator that Is who HE Is, and many people have misrepresented H-m, but HE will not bend to what any finite man thinks or does. You can find H-M in the scriptures, I recommend starting in Genesis and not asking anyone else to interpret what you are reading till you get to Revelations. If it doesn’t scare you, and give you hope once you know the Creator, try again.

In the book of Kings PI was exactly 3 - now feel free to build your car according to the bible and watch when your wheel falls off.

reply to post by CalledOUT


Evolution does not mean a dog turning into a cat or a horse turning into a snake. You are seriously mistaken if that's what you think evolution is.

What about where it says in the bible (probably genesis) that bats are birds? They are not; they are mammals

Evolution is not a scientific theory either

I don't know where you got that idea from.

and it's a faith filled guess with no solid evidence to back it up. It lacks common sense, reason and it's void of any real facts

Can't tell if trolling, but just incase:

Here is a list of observed instances of speciation (evolution)

Here are some more

I posted two videos earlier on (~ page 10), here is another in the series that would do you good to watch



Also



The most persuasive evidence for evolution is in the form of genetics, and in the field of genetics, ERVs (endogenous retroviruses) are the most compelling. I'd consider anyone who rejects ERVs without reviewing them, or common descent once they are exposed to the evidence of ERVs to be making an error. Consider one or both of the following videos or do some investigating yourself.

ERVs (endogenous retroviruses) demonstrate common descent. Once you understand that evidence, there's no valid response to ERVs beyond agreeing that common descent and thus evolution is a fact.

Evolution: Genetic Evidence - Endogenous Retroviruses

Evidence of common ancestry: ERVs

I cannot believe that people are still arguing evolution as though it was not a (natural) law like Newtons Laws of Physics. You cannot prove mathematically that energy is conserved but it looks as though it is in every thing we test.

Likewise, it would be easy to disprove evolution, find a complex organism fossil in a lower strata of rock where it does not belong.

As for Carbon 14 testing, it has a half life of around 5,000 years. It can be used on archaeology - from 500 years onwards. We have other ways of cross verifying the age - using dendrochronology - tree rings.so we can check the age of a piece of wood say 700 years old by two methods and they tally.

Follow this pattern, tree rings prove the accuracy of carbon14, carbon 14 then proves the accuracy of the next radioactive decay to be used. This is science.

Originally posted by CalledOUT
-The moon is going away. so from the rate of departure, it would have hit us 30,000 years ago. Millions not an option...

We did this one in another thread a few days ago.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
The upshot is that your source, Dr DeYoung, used a bogus value for the rate the moon is receeding.
You've simply been lied to by creationists about the rate of departure.

Originally posted by CalledOUT
-The sun is shrinking, fast. It's going at about 5ft per hour now...

No, you've been lied to by creationists yet again.
They cite one single abstract from 1980 by Eddy and Boornazian, which was never put into a paper, never published as an article and more importantly, never observed by anyone else ever.

Originally posted by CalledOUT
- If the canopy theory was correct (a giant ice canopy that pressurized the air condensing oxygen molecules and block lots of harmful radiation from the sun),

The "canopy theory" is so bad that even answersingenesis dont want to touch it with a ten foot barge pole.

Arguments that should be avoided...
3. There was a water vapor canopy surrounding earth before the Flood.

AIG



Note to other readers, this is how creationism works.
By lying to their audience, using bogus out of date studies that nobody has ever replicated, or using such bad ideas that *even other creationists* wont use them.

And yet, no matter how many times these creationist arguments are shot down in flames, no creationist will ever give them up. All of the above arguments, lies and misrepresentations, will still be put forward as "evidence" many decades from now.

As I said in a previous post, discussing creationism is much like "whack a mole".
Now that I've shot shown those moon and sun arguments, note that NO creationist will stand by them or provide any other evidence to counter my claims. They will now desert them and rush off to look for some other arguments instead.

Originally posted by nyk537
I am not sure that what God does needs to be completely understood by us.

Translation: "There is no basis for any of my claims, but then God does works in mysterious ways."

Dude, this argument wouldn't fool a five year old these days...