Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

page: 4
130
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by nyk537
 


How could an entire scientific community supress this information without someone making a fuss? I find that hard to pull off!

On a side note: I do not believe their is one bit of evidence to actually prove evolution in any way. There is proof of de-evolution in vestigal organs, but evolution itself has little face to stand on......that's why it's only a theory and not fact.


You do not prove scientific theories. You disprove them.

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 - which may result in their total rejection or, more commonly, in the theory being improved upon. Evolution, Plate Tectonics and the creation of the Solar System being good examples.

So far as evolution goes, the current theory (much changed since Darwin's days) provides the best explanation for the fossil record and the current biology of life on Earth. It may not explain everything, and will undoubtably change many times in the future as we learn new things. I personally doubt it will be rejected though I suspect ideas on the mechanism for evolution may well change.




posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by FortAnthem

There is evidence that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time. You don't have to be a religious creationist to believe this.


Which could also be explained by more dinosaurs than previously thought having survived the K-T extinction event.

Why aren't we finding these soft-tissues everywhere then? One or two examples does not an entire planet-full of dinosaurs make.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Kryties
 


Carbon 14 dating only examines the presence of Carbon 14, which cannot exist after a certain time. This is not used to date anything as you may think...it only places something withing a recent range.

Radiometric dating is what is used to specifically date the life of something...and it is that test that has been proven to be inaccurate.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
I have always wondered why people from as far afield as China to Wales etc have so much dragon belief and symbolism. Nothing we know in nature resembles a dragon yet these exotic things are very much alive even in the minds of kids. Are these some kind of primordial memory and should the question be how old is man and does his real age reflect an era crossing over between dinosaurs and men.

However its a bit of a mind boggler to challenge the somewhat comfortable 64 million year extinction gap between us and them, especially as many of them dinosaurs looked darn unpleasant and we would have been food. Its not a comfortable thought of having them dining on our ancestors of only 30,000 years ago, bit too close to home.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stovokor


Now show me a fossilized stegosaurus with a saddle then I might start to believe In the looney.









Ofcourse these things are debated a lot, they fit nicely with the O.P.

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


+4 more 
posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
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.


1. Creationist are notorious for dismissing radioisotope dating results. Always banging on about how they cant be trusted because scientists lie and they make assumptions are are otherwise incompetent.
And yet here, you demand a radioisotope test to be done!
Pick one. Is radioisotope dating a valid method or is it not.? Choose.

2. So, the MOR 1125 femur reported by Schweitzer et al happens to be one of the better dated dinosaur bones known to exist. The independently established age of this bone is based on 86 separate chemical analyses on three different kinds of minerals, based on four independent radiometric decay series. It doesn't get much better than that.
T.O.

3. The rocks themselves...

tektites 40Ar/39Ar total fusion 28 64.8±0.1
tektites 40Ar/39Ar age spectrum 1 66.0±0.5
tektite 40Ar/39Ar age spectrum 1 64.7±0.1
tektites 40Ar/39Ar total fussion 17 64.8±0.2
biotite, sanidine K-Ar 12 64.6±1.0
biotite, sanidine Rb-Sr isochron, (26 data points) 1 63.7±0.6
zircon U-Pb concordia (16 data points) 1 63.9±0.8


4. Creationists are always banging on about "out of place" fossils. "New" things supposedly found in "old" places that prove the earth is young.
Pick one. Either you DO date things by the rock they are found in, or you DONT trust dating by the rocks they are found it. Choose.
edit on 16-8-2011 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by EartOccupant
 


How many people died taming that poor o' dinosaur. The creature must have been huge and killed more then a dozen men.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 


Or, perhaps that New York and Japan were both inhabited by Godzillas? And Scotland was home to boy wizards .... Which is perhaps the better analogy?

To me it's no surprise that on finding giant fossilised bones, people in the past assumed they must have belonged to giants and monsters. Or, on seeing fossilised shells on a hill top, came up with the idea that maybe there had once be a big flood. What else could the explanation be?

The way some seem to suggest that only today are people able to create fictional stories for entertainment - and that all old stories must be based on real events etc is, I think, slightly insulting to our ancestors. They were as clever and imaginative as we are. Just less knowledgeable.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by EartOccupant
 


oops!

edit on 16-8-2011 by zerozero00 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 

Is it just me or does your explanation of the scientific process seem regressive?

It sounds like you saying "we use new data to debunk old theories, instead of creating new theories based on new facts!".

Does that seem right?



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
Carbon 14 dating only examines the presence of Carbon 14, which cannot exist after a certain time. This is not used to date anything as you may think...it only places something withing a recent range.

Radiometric dating is what is used to specifically date the life of something...and it is that test that has been proven to be inaccurate.


I'm going to assume ignorance here rather than delibertaly trying to mislead your audience.
Your description of Carbon 14 dating is siomply wrong.
It *is* a radiometric test, which you then go on to say you dont trust anyhow.


Radiocarbon dating (sometimes simply known as carbon dating) is a radiometric dating method...

wikipedia



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:58 AM
link   
There is definitely some evidence for this.Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Maybe


www.creation-vs-evolution.us...



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
I'm still trying to find an article that says that scientist won't test Schweitzer's T-Rex bone with Carbon-14 dating. I can't find it anywhere.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemooone2
There is definitely some evidence for this.Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Maybe


www.creation-vs-evolution.us...
Either that's a giant foot, or it's a small dinosaur...



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by alfa1
 


I think you miss the point.

Radiometric testing does yield inaccurate results when attempting to date something. I am also not demanding a carbon-14 test be conducted. I only wonder what reason scientists have for not wanted that particular test done on the T-rex bone.

I don't trust the tests when used to date something, but using the test to simply find the presence of carbon 14 is something entirely different.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
I only wonder what reason scientists have for not wanted that particular test done on the T-rex bone.
Again, can you show me where you get this information, that they don't want to do a carbon-14 test on the bone?



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by bluemooone2
There is definitely some evidence for this.Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Maybe


The Paluxy river tracks arent worth looking at. Although popularised by some creationists a few years back, a lot of creationists also think they're just fakes.

The answersingenesis site, as a random example...


Arguments that should be avoided (because further research is still needed, new research has invalided aspects of it, or biblical implications may discount it)
8. Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.


AIG



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I think it is possible that some remnants 9very small populations) of what people consider Dinosaurs continued to exist along with man until becomming extinct. There is even a small chance we could still find one or two old creatures holding on in remote unexplored areas of earth today. I don't however believe the silly young earth stuff.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:17 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 



In 2005, excavation teams from the same area in Montana unearthed fossils from a triceratops and a hadrosaur. Based on the findings of the T-rex bone, the teams were compelled to determine if these bones also still contained any remains that had not yet fossilized. Wouldn't you know it, they did! The next move to make was to test these bones for Carbon 14, which would place them less than 100,000 years old. For this test, the industry-recognized Accelerated Mass Spectrometer was was used to test for Carbon 14. Even more, the Geochron Laboratories and the University of Georgie Isotope Center were on hand to examine the results independently. You may not be surprised to learn that both bones yielded positive results for Carbon 14!

According to multiple tests, the triceratops registered an average of 30,890 years old, while the hadrosaur tested to an average of 23,170 years old!


So are Carbon 14 dating tests accurate or not? Considering what we know of course, that C14 tests ARE radiometric tests.....



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
I don't trust the tests when used to date something, but using the test to simply find the presence of carbon 14 is something entirely different.



Once again, you need to do some reading to learn what carbon dating is.
Fundamentally, it is *exactly* the same principle as potassium-argon dating, uranium-lead dating or Chlorine 36 dating.
It is a test that measures the ratio of isotopes, and yes, it does date.

And anyhow, you still havnt provided a source for the "will not allow" assertion.

And furthermore, just as a matter of principle, answer a "what if"...
Dating is never done in isolation. A single test type is always regarded with suspicion. As I cited above, MULTIPLE tests of different type were done on the rocks in which this bone was found.

So, "what if" the test results of dating came out as follows. What would you say?
(I'd say it show that C14 was an invalid test)

Uranium-lead dating method = 65 million years
Samarium-neodymium dating method = 65 million years
Potassium-argon dating method = 65 million years
Rubidium-strontium dating method = 65 million years
Uranium-thorium dating method = 65 million years
Radiocarbon dating method = 8000 years
Fission track dating method = 65 million years
Chlorine-36 dating method = 65 million years
Luminescence dating methods = 65 million years





top topics
 
130
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join