Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

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

Cherry picking tests, ideas and quotes are a staple form of creationist argument.
C14 dating IS accurate if it supports your point of view and only then.
C14 dating is NOT accurate because its a radioisotope test and creationists hate those.

Actually, I'm not as good at debating creationists as I was 10 years ago. Back then, I could slam a rebuttal back at any creationist argument by using nothing but statements from creationists themselves (as I did a few posts back with the Paluxy river tracks).
Thats cause they have no idea what they really believe in, nor have any consensus on what data is "good" or even how old the earth really is.

To this effect, in hindsight, I could quote a lot of creationist arguments back to the effect that the earth is only about 10 - 12 thousand years old, and thus the Montana triceratops date of 30,890 years old, and hadrosaur date of 23,170 years is completely are totally invalid, by their own creationist arguments!
Own goal!!

Originally posted by nyk537
Keep in mind the only reason that this is strange is because according to evolutionary assumptions, the existence of dinosaurs was supposed to be unknown until the nineteenth century.

What? Surely you mean according to historical assumptions.

Or perhaps you're implying that evolution is based on assumption? It's not - it's based on cold, hard evidence. Creationism is based on assumption. Worse actually, it's based on assumptions made by ignorant desert dwellers who's only education was to shovel goat crap.



Find me a human skeleton under a dinosaur skeleton. There must be LOADS if both species co-existed...



What's the moto of this site? Embrace ignorance?

reply to post by nyk537


Sometimes I think the conspiracy crackpots on this site don't understand what a true conspiracy is or how one works. I'm sorry, but no scientist is going to try and 'cover-up' such an amazing discovery. To claim science is doing such a thing is to claim that every god damned student that goes into the field does so by undertaking a secretive oath to cover-up these things... of course unless you find this information on creationiat sites!

I think the OP has some credibility if you look at these tracks that were found years ago.



source


and maybe the most famous one

Originally posted by triplereiki
Firstly thank you for posting this.
Many years back, before I got on the internet, I always used to hang out at the library.
It's been so long, I cannot remember the title of the book, but it was in the reference section (NOT Sci-Fi).
I read about some tribe (I think they were the bushman) who told of some years back they found a large animal, and how they described it, it sounded like they were talking about a Alosaurus. Anyway, they hunted the animal, and brought chunks of meat back to their village. People got sick from the meat of this strange animal, and they decided from that point not to eat the meat of the long-neck animal.

sounds like Mokole-Mbembe
en.wikipedia.org...


Reverend Eugene Thomas from Ohio, USA, told James Powell and Roy P. Mackal in 1979 a story that involved the purported killing of a Mokèlé-mbèmbé near Lake Tele in 1959.[10] Thomas was a missionary who had served in the Congo since 1955, gathering much of the earliest evidence and reports, and claiming to have had two close-encounters himself.[11] Natives of the Bangombe tribe who lived near Lake Tele were said to have constructed a large spiked fence in a tributary of Tele to keep Mokèlé-mbèmbé from interfering with their fishing. A Mokele-mbembe managed to break through, though it was wounded on the spikes, and the natives then killed the creature. As William Gibbons writes, "Pastor Thomas also mentioned that the two pygmies mimicked the cry of the animal as it was being attacked and speared... Later, a victory feast was held, during which parts of the animal were cooked and eaten. However, those who participated in the feast eventually died, either from food poisoning or from natural causes. I also believe that the mythification (magical powers, etc) surrounding Mokèlé-mbèmbés [sic] began with this incident." Furthermore, Mackal heard from witnesses that the stakes were in the same location in the tributary as of the early 1980s.


www.cryptozoology.com...
dragon of ishtar (carvings) look dinosaurian

Originally posted by alfa1

To this effect, in hindsight, I could quote a lot of creationist arguments back to the effect that the earth is only about 10 - 12 thousand years old, and thus the Montana triceratops date of 30,890 years old, and hadrosaur date of 23,170 years is completely are totally invalid, by their own creationist arguments!
Own goal!!

Yeah I thought that exact thing earlier. Blows the whole Bible time-line out of the water.

"But wait" I hear creationists scream "God's time is different to man's".........

Prove it.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/89299b403b5b.jpg[/atsimg]

the point is...the whole dating system is a mess and lacks credibility.

"First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.[2]

Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.[3] This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.

Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the “clock” is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records."

souce: www.christiananswers.net...

reply to post by works4dhs


Original Video


Response Video

I had to share these videos; since I know they will be brought up or would be relevant to other users.

reply to post by works4dhs


Honestly, regardless of dating accuracy, any scientist would be insane to cover up such a find. It doesn't even affect evolutionary theory as the op stupidly tries to make it sound like. Such a discovery would make someone very famous. Why is it we only see such 'discoveries' on creationist sites only? Why are a lot of the 'evidences' shown in these threads well known hoaxes?

Originally posted by works4dhs
First, plants discriminate ...
Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant...
Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects...

Well hey, more double standards and hypocracy.
The ONLY reason that we know all of the various things that need to be taken into account when doing C14 measurements (and there are a few more you didnt list) is because REAL SCIENTISTS have discovered them.

Real proper scientists doing real proper science have discovered things that creationists then take to say that real scientists dont know what they're doing.

It'd be funny if it wasnt true.
Actually, I think its just pathetic.

reply to post by works4dhs

And all of the reasons you listed are why calibration curves are developed for radiocarbon dating. It's also why radiocarbon dating isn't used for anything older then 50kBP -- you use other radiometric dating methods instead. I've seen multiple people make a claim on this thread that radiometric dating methods are wrong without a single citation of evidence to back that claim up.

It's not a conspiracy, it's just people being people. They ignore the anomalies in the carbon dating data because they believe strongly in its veracity. Whatever. Stupid.

The thing is, the anomalies don't prove anything except the fact that we don't know how old the earth is.

I think the earth is much older than we calculate. What do you think? The data doesn't prove one way or the other so far, it just proves we're wrong.

reply to post by FortAnthem


And what exact weaponry did man have thousands of years ago that could take out a T rex? I am waiting to hear this explanation....

reply to post by nyk537


Its also called the geological time record. If you paid attention in 5th grade science class you would of known about it. There are dozens of methods from the geological time record to ice core sampling to tree rings to speciation that scients use to date something. It is not a single person in a single lab, it is many qualified people running tests for years, to come to these conclusions. Which is why so many times, news comes out 3 years after a discovery is dug up.

reply to post by Fisherr


The bible doesn't give any age for the Earth. Not sure where you got six thousand years from.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by FortAnthem

 

And what exact weaponry did man have thousands of years ago that could take out a T rex? I am waiting to hear this explanation....

I think they used one of these on them:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/45cc22b680c9.gif[/atsimg]


Actually, enough guys with spears could probably do it. You have to remember that humans are pack animals after all. A pack of hyenas can kill a lion so, how is this any different?

Originally posted by nyk537
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.

C-14 has a half life of 5,370 years so it's only accurate for fossils up to 70,000 years.

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.

Its not the only test that dates life. It is more accurate because the isotopes in the elements used have longer half lifes than Carbon. This is basic Chemistry taught in High School.

Can the creationist websites you get your info from even name all the types of Radiometric Dating mehods?

reply to post by FortAnthem


But you said humans were able to make them extinct, yet you hae no idea what weapons were available to them.
Lets look at the odds. A t rex, not even that big of a dinosaur, was longer then an elephant and a little lighter.
So how many people with just spears do you think it would take to take down a t-rex of that size? Not to mention, trex was fast and estimated to run 25 mph. So it may not have been big, but it could haul ass and had 9 inche teeth and a head 5 feet long.

Why would humans expend so much energy trying to take down such a large prey, and how many humans would it of taken to take down all of them. I doubt that the fraction of the population needed to do this existed at the time.

And this is only the t rex. What massive amount of resources would it take for a brontosaurus?

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

reply to post by nyk537


I'm not a christian. And personally, I believe the earth is quite old. And so is man. So I don't have a problem believing man and dinosaur lived together. And probably got along better than we do today.

S&F from me, and looking forward to reading the thread.

reply to post by nixie_nox


If there's a big lizard chasing down your friends and family and eating them, you would expend whatever resources were necessary to get them before they get you. We've all seen the cave paintings of dudes ganging up on the mastadons with spears to kill them. I'm guessing a T-rex hunt would be a lot like that. Hit him with enough spears and, no matter how big he is, eventually he'll go down.

As for all the resources it would take to bring down a bronto; just imaging how much food and stuff they would get out of one bronto carcass. If they were to use the bones for weapons and building materials, the skins for clothes and shelters, and don't forget all the food that would come from a kill; they would be feasting until they explode!

You better believe it would be worth the resources it would take to bring one of them down.