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: 35
<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:06 PM
reply to post by CalledOUT

Yes, but that's not nearly fast enough to replace the energy/mass lost.

I never said it was. You're the one claiming that the sun is shrinking at such a rate that if we back calculate the size of the sun 4.5Bya it would have engulfed the Earth, or something to that effect. It's up to you to provide evidence to support that claim, which you have failed to do. The only evidence you were able to provide was a paper published by the ICR based on an abstract to an unpublished paper.

You misunderstood me.

No, I'm not misunderstanding you. You're misunderstanding the difference between a mutation and adaptation.

I meant, if they guy adapted to poison,

Building up a resistance to a toxin isn't an adaptation unless the change is transmissible on a genetic level. You can call it an adaptation all you want, but it's meaningless when it comes to a discussion of evolution, which is based on heritability.

it would not make him or his offspring a different species.

Agreed, for the exact reason I state above.

and viruses can adapt to drugs and immune systems, but they will remain viruses. you can call it mutation, but adaption is a better description of what is going on,

Mutation is what goes on at a genetic level. Mutations can be detrimental, neutral, or beneficial. Beneficial mutations are often referred to as adaptations because they help an organism adapt to its environment. I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. No genetic change that can be passed on to a future generation means no adaptation in any meaningful sense of the word.

because it does not correlate to larger mutations to new species.

And, yet, speciation has been observed. This is like back when the Church made Galileo recant his heliocentric theory -- it didn't make it any less true.

As for the Rock origins: Okay, well the theories change so much it's almost useless trying to keep up because atheist keep getting proven wrong and need to change their theories like a kid trying to get out of a bad lie.

Like the lies you told in your earlier post that you've been backpedaling from?

So educate me, if we did not come from rocks, what was to origin of life from?

Start with the Miller-Urey experiment. And by that I mean actually read the work that they published and the work of other scientists that followed up on their results, not creationist websites that only seek to refute it. All you'll get from there is a lack of real understanding of the science involved.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:09 PM

cant wait Saturday you said...

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:12 PM
reply to post by iterationzero

Start with the Miller-Urey experiment. And by that I mean actually read the work that they published and the work of other scientists that followed up on their results, not creationist websites that only seek to refute it. All you'll get from there is a lack of real understanding of the science involved.

I would like to place specific emphasis on Jeffrey Bada's follow-up to the Miller-Urey experiment. In this he recreated the volcanic nature of early Earth and then introduced the electrical charge. This method was able to produce 22 amino acids, many of which would be able produce proteins necessary for life.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:15 PM
reply to post by ripcontrol

there is so much... so much

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:22 PM
The examples you give are still flawed.
Example 1 has scientist telling me that I just have to accept that complete evidence doesn’t exist. But trust us anyway. I could easily use their argument against them. Saying that all life was present day 1 just some species became extinct and some didn’t create fossils very good due to their makeup or the environment.

Example 2 only proves that early man may not have looked the way we do. And that as early man moved around and settled they developed noticeable differences. The bible has its own explanation but that’s not really important to the thread. The only conclusion I can draw is micro evolution is real and I already acknowledged that. But I still don’t see the monkey turning into a man.
When an evolution sees something it is science and becomes a fact.
When a creationist sees something it is faith and therefore not a fact.
Unfortunately neither of these arguments can truly be called a fact by scientific method. So I will stick to creationism.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 07:22 PM
reply to post by CalledOUT

Sure! Living snails dated at 27,000 years old.

We'll say they were 5 years old, and that's generous for snails.

5 / 27000 = .00018518% accurate.

All you've proven with this is that you can quote a creationist website. Did you do any further research to try and understand why radiocarbon dating would give results like that when analyzing a snail shell? It's a well understood phenomenon called the reservoir effect -- in short, if molluscs draw carbon from a "dead carbon" source, the apparent age of the shell will be much older than is reasonable. Scientists are aware of this and correct for it.

But i forgot.... it's supposed to get more accurate when it's measures things billions of years old, even though that's what it measures everything at...

You're confusing radiocarbon dating, which is only good to about 50kya because of the calibration curves required for accurate dating, and other radiometric methods which don't require calibration curves. Again, if you spent a little time reading the actual research for yourself and not just regurgitating, you'd be aware of that.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:05 PM
The theory of evolution and the accuracy of carbon dating are common talking points on ATS and while their mention in such a thread was inevitable i dont think it should be the focus, there exists many threads dealing with such.

In order to determine whether or not dinosaurs co-existed with man one would have to determine whether or not large dinosaurs (as we know them) even existed at all. Apart from a complete 27m Diplodocus discovered 100 odd years ago in the US, complete finds for LARGE dinos are extremely rare.

As i mentioned earlier in this thread only 10% of bones from LARGE dinos have ever been discovered, so how could anyone possibly come close to accurately recreating a creature with such a minimal amount of skeletal remains?

A process of educated guesswork at best!

I have tried in vain to find exactly which bones are real and which are a fabrication in order to do some creating of my own, throughout the many dinosaur displays in our museums i believe discovered bones should be one colour and undiscovered (fabricated bones) should be another for some clarification.

I am fully aware some will ridicule what i have proposed but i find this subject intriguing and am sincere in my ideas.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:39 PM
I think some "anti" evolution people should watch this.

I won't embelish on what is said, simply because I'm not qualified to do so.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:42 PM

Originally posted by windword

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by bluemooone2
There is definitely some evidence for this.Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Maybe
Either that's a giant foot, or it's a small dinosaur...

Or some kind of Emu or Ostrich.

That is a hoax if ever there was one. Consider the weight of even a small dino and then the weight of a man and note that the two prints are the same depth in the same material. Doesn't make sense. The dino's print should be waaaay deeper (even if the dino was a quadroped).

Based on that I call this pure bunk.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:44 PM
Creationists like the OP seem to almost always form their hypothesis first, THEN make observations to fit the hypothesis later--which is a backwards scientific method. And unlike real scientists they will never reevaluate the validity of their hypothesis because to do so would undermine their faith in a literal interpretation of the Bible...which is the whole reason they're trying to make this 6000 yr. old dinosaur argument in the first place.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 08:50 PM

Here it is in plain language. There is no such thing as a "Darwinist". There are only scientists.

All those statements that are provided are identical to those used by creationists. They use phrases like, "it would be impossible...etc". Those arguments appeal to the ignorant masses but not to real scientists.

If creationists want to impress me they will have to develop a curriculum that will be acceptable to the scientific educational establishment. They will have to cause to be created (no pun) a dept of creation science at mainstream universities. When they can do this I'll give them respect. Not before. Simply ragging on evolution as a means of promoting creationism is wholly unacceptable.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:10 PM
I wear blue jeans. I like red wine. Therefore everyone that wears blue jeans MUST like red wine.

If you agree with the above statement you are a creationist. If you disagree, you're educated. The intelligent people will understand my argument, the stupid (creationists) won't.
edit on 18-8-2011 by WhatAliens because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:12 PM

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by CalledOUT

I guess you missed this at the bottom of the link you posted:

What this means in simpler terms is that the shells of the snails were formed from existing ancient material from which most of the carbon 14 had been depleted. It is an exception to the normal way carbon 14 is absorbed by living things. There is nothing wrong with carbon dating, per se. Riggs’ point was that what causes anomalies must be accounted for. To hold this example up as a reason to distrust carbon dating is completely bogus.

ooOOOoooo, so Guss everything is exactly the same age with C14 dating since it's all a food chain. GREAT...

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:15 PM
reply to post by Threadfall

I'm not making a 6,000 year old dinosaur argument...and to suggest that shows that you didn't read the thread (or the OP for that matter)...and that you would simply throw your two cents in and try to make a point.

My point is that humans and dinosaurs coexisted...and yes...I am a believer in creation. I don't believe the earth to be merely 6,000 years old, but I do believe it to be much younger than we have been told.

Thanks anyway though.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:16 PM
reply to post by WhatAliens

Personally I think your judgement of those with different opinions and views speaks volumes about "intelligence".

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:18 PM
reply to post by trailertrash

I'm honestly not sure if creationists are worried about impressing you. (my guess is their not)

You may forget that evolution is also just a theory, and blindly embracing it in the face of real and actual evidence to the contrary is the same ignorance that you accuse others of.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:30 PM

Originally posted by ripcontrol

cant wait Saturday you said...

WHAT!?!?!?!? Has this been Peer reviewed!?!? You can't use history and common sense to prove anything!! You need 25 degrees and a government stipend if you want to get an ear! And the holy grail of science.... CARBON DATING says that they are 65 million years old!!! Let me through 10 links to PEER REVIEWED journals that say I'm correct and this is ingnorant, hate filled, B. S. Did I mention I'm smart!?!?! I come from a house of learned doctors! flame:

HA! Sorry, loved it! great video!! Just being a little sarcastic about how an evolutionist would respond to this.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:34 PM
reply to post by nyk537

You're problem is that you make a lot of assumptions. You assume I did not read your post because I disagree with you. I did, by the way--read it, I mean. You assume that dinosaurs and humans must have coexisted because a tomb had a lizard on it and because carbon dating might be less accurate than currently believed. If you had a quarter for every half baked assumption within this thread alone...well, you'd be a rich homo sapien.

You deny my accusation that you are creationist that thinks the Earth is 6000 yrs. old. How old would you argue that the Earth is? If you have answered this I apologize but If I read every page of every thread I wouldn't have time for anything else in life.

OP, I know you offered a couple (weak) examples, but don't you think that if man and dinosaur coexisted there be a nearly limitless accounts of these awe-inspiring beasts scattered throughout history, as dinosaur and man intermingle nearly every landmass on Earth? Personally, I require more proof than a sepulcher that has a lizard (or some other animal) on it.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:45 PM

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by WhatAliens

Personally I think your judgement of those with different opinions and views speaks volumes about "intelligence".

Opinion based on evidence verses faith based on faith.

I don't straddle the fence here... I know exactly which side I sit on.

posted on Aug, 18 2011 @ 09:52 PM
Incidently - I may be accused of writing in a brief manner. That's a fuction of my job - I condense a few thousand words into about 50. That's what i'm paid for! BUT I never ALTER the meaning of the authors words. Only creationists do that...

top topics

<< 32  33  34    36  37  38 >>

log in