Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

reply to post by novastrike81


This article is saying that it won't work because dinosaur bones are millions of years old. This is assuming that the bones are millions of years old. It also says that it's effective on things that are less than 50,000 years old. Which means if they did test it and C-14 was found then the bones would have to be less than 50,000 years old.

It doesn't disprove anything.

reply to post by Hydroman


To make sure that evolution stands as they see it. They have built their careers on evolution, why would they openly embrace something that proves everything they believed in is wrong?

i just read a fascinating book by this guy Farrel, who wrote i think Babylon's Banksters. his new book is about bloodlines.

basically, 'people' existed with the dinosaurs. the problem is, they were probably not human (aka homo sapiens.)

we have been around for 400,000 years, i think. or 150,000, i forget the exact number. but there were not just [probably] off planet visitors before that, but people have found gold chains, a cup, coins, etc from millions of years ago.

so back then, there was another intelligent species, and they probably either took off, or were stupid enough to kill themselves off.

reply to post by nyk537

You may not be surprised to learn that both bones yielded positive results for Carbon 14!

You may not be surprised to find out that most dinosaur fossils DO NOT contain Carbon 14, so either these samples were contaminated OR some dinosaurs are over 65 Millions years old while some are only in the tens of thousands. Anyway all of these tests are carried out without the publishing of legitimate peer reviewed science usually by those with preconceived Creationist bias.

The scientific consensus, and all the scientific evidence, point toward dinosaurs and man never co-existing. Native Americans having some understanding of ancient beavers and a photo of a seal supposedly showing a sauropod prove nothing.

As for the seal supposedly found in the tomb is this piece in a museum, does it exist outside of this article AND last, but not least, why is the assumption that those are dinosaurs? These could just as well be depictions of elephants.

I want to start with a story that was originally published in Creation Magazine in September of 2003.

Clearly a respectable scientific source

As for Schweitzer's find I've repeatedly checked the ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC literature on the subject and discussed it here in another thread. Not only is Schweitzer's find disputed by some scientists BUT none of the scientific papers written on the subject of the T-Rex (or the hadrosaur where collagen was also recovered) suggest that these animals weren't just as old as ordinary dinosaurs. Here's an excerpt from the ABSTRACT of a paper about the Hadrosaur

Microstructural and immunological data are consistent with preservation of multiple bone matrix and vessel proteins, and phylogenetic analyses of Brachylophosaurus collagen sequenced by mass spectrometry robustly support the bird-dinosaur clade, consistent with an endogenous source for these collagen peptides. These data complement earlier results from Tyrannosaurus rex (MOR 1125) and confirm that molecular preservation in Cretaceous dinosaurs is not a unique event.

So the conclusion is actually that in some cases collagen can be preserved over vast amounts of geologic time and that examination of the collagen actually supports the bird-dinosaur evolutionary lineage. Rather than serve as a problem for Evolution these finds support it. You'll notice that even though these finds support Evolution they are still disputed by many scientists. Why? Because science is skeptical, if it forgoes skepticism the paradigm would be shifting on a weekly basis and we'd have no grasp on reality.

had not finished decomposing!

If you'd read even a tiny fraction of the actual scientific literature on the subject you'd know how painfully wrong you are.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/01e86b401205.jpg[/atsimg]

Unfortunately in order to see the full papers on both the hadrosaur and t-rex you have to sign up for a free account and actually be willing to read them. Now I'm just a layman so I don't understand every technical term but that doesn't stop me from understanding that neither of these finds prove a problem for evolution or the age of dinosaurs.

Biomolecular Characterization of Protein Sequences of the Companion Hadrosaur

And before anyone accuses me of being closed-minded, mean or, insert ad hom here, I used to be a Creationist, I was raised in a Fundamentalist home, and I have looked into the subject fairly thoroughly since then.

Analyses of Soft Tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex suggests protein

If you want you can deal directly with the scientist and email Dr. Schweitzer about her finds:

[email protected]

Originally posted by nyk537
To make sure that evolution stands as they see it. They have built their careers on evolution, why would they openly embrace something that proves everything they believed in is wrong?

They believe in evolution because that's where the evidence points. There are even christian evolutionists.

reply to post by nyk537
[more



The argument I have with creationists is that they NEVER specify that it is the Biblical version of creation that they subscribe to. See?

I also believe in creation. The big bang event discovered by science is the creation that I believe in. Why is this version so terrible? "Oh heavens it's not in the Bible". Who cares? That doesn't make it false.

Now, regarding dinos and people. Sure I believe they coexisted. But again here is the argument. "Creationists" believe that dinos were around only a few thousand years ago. I believe the people were around a hundred million years ago. See?

I'd like it very much if Biblical creationists could be polite enough to be more specific in their statements.

This is soooo typical of humans. We tend to mis-state, mis-interpret and mis-understand the beliefs of others.

Ok...I'm going to step back for a moment and go a little deeper into something that pertains to this argument. One of the things that must be discussed in order for man and dinosaur to be placed together is the age of the earth.

What follows is a segment from Gregg Bridgman, a good friend of mine who regularly posts on his wife's blog about creation issues. The full blog can be found here

Darwinists used to claim that earth and the universe were infinite and eternal. This allowed them the wiggle room of infinite possibility. Real science keeps limiting their timeline, though. As we have already covered, even vast amounts of time don’t allow for the logical or mathematical possibility that Darwinian evolution could take place.

Vast amounts of time don’t prove Darwinism. However, the converse does not follow. Short amounts of time, young ages, directly refute Darwinism. This is why Darwinists have worked so hard over the last half century to make anyone who believes earth and the universe to be, in fact, rather young look like a quack, a nut, or someone with an agenda.

Whether Darwinist tar me as a quack is pretty far outside of my concern. What I will do is present some facts about the age of the earth and the universe in which we exist. While opinions can vary pretty vastly, the fact is that there are many evidences that our world is quite young.

Consider Evidence from the Stars

STAR CLUSTERS: There are many star clusters in the universe. Each one is a circular ball composed of billions upon billions and sometimes even over a trillion stars, each with its own orbit. It can be scientifically and mathematically shown that some of these clusters of stars are moving so rapidly, moving together, moving in certain directions, that it should be impossible for them to remain together if the universe were very old.

VERY LARGE STARS: Some stars are so enormous in diameter that they could not have existed for even a few million years, otherwise their initial larger mass would have been impossibly large. These massive stars radiate energy very rapidly — some as much as 100,000 to 1 million times more rapidly than our sun. On the hydrogen fusion basis of stellar energy, they could not have contained enough hydrogen to radiate at such fast rates for long ages, because their initial mass would have had to be far too gigantic. Conversely, if solar collapse is responsible for stellar light and heat, they could not be more than a few million years old.

HIGH-ENERGY STARS: Some stars are radiating energy so intensely that they could not possibly have survived for a long period of time. This includes the very bright O and B class stars, the Wolf-Rayfert stars, and the P Cygni stars. These stars emit radiation levels 100,000 to 1 million times greater than our own sun, yet by the standard solar energy theory (hydrogen fusion theory), they do not contain enough hydrogen to perpetuate atomic fusion longer than approximately 50,000 to 300,000 years at most. Conversely, if solar collapse is responsible for stellar light and heat, they could not be more than a few million years old.

HYDROGEN IN THE UNIVERSE: According to the hydrogen fusion theory of solar energy, hydrogen is constantly being converted into helium as stars shine. But hydrogen cannot be made by converting other elements into it. Astronomers maintain that if the universe were as old as Darwinists contend, there should be little hydrogen left. By now, 20 to 15 billion years into the Big Bang timeline, nearly all the hydrogen in the universe should have been transformed into helium. Yet stellar spectra reveal an abundance of hydrogen in stars which fact argues that the universe must be quite young.

All of these are facts. Each single fact represents a single limiting factor that directly refutes Darwinist theories. Each single fact would have to be accounted for in order for the theory to remain intact. Since facts cannot be accounted for, they simply are, these facts alone are sufficient to refute the entire theory. But there are many, many more facts.

I will end this post by discussing something called the Oort Cloud. In 1950, Dutch astronomer Jan Hendrik Oort theorized that a cloud of ice and rocks existed as the source for comets. The theoretical band of ice and asteroids surrounds our solar system a mere 50,000 AU (Astronomical Units — 1 AU being roughly the distance from the earth to the sun) or, approximately 1 light year away and allegedly decides to occasionally and randomly hurl rocks and ice at our sun.

The entire theory is merely yet another Darwinist rationalization for why young comets and asteroids keep appearing. In short, no one has ever seen the Oort Cloud. Oort never saw the Oort cloud.

Basically, Oort logically begged the question by stating that “since Darwinism is true, a source for these young comets must exist that no one can see and for which there exists no empirical evidence. I’ll name it after myself.” His hypothesis that the comets have a common origin was later proven, and in some detail, to be incorrect. This fact is widely known by astronomers, along with the fact that no direct observations or confirmation that the Oort Cloud exists have ever been made. Yet the Oort Cloud is still referred to as if it actually exists.

I find it ironic that comets actually exist. Humanity has witnessed them throughout our history. Comets also present some pretty compelling empirical evidence, evidence which is rather irrefutable. Yet the empirical irrefutable evidence comets present is handily discounted by Darwinists based on a 69 year old fantasy construction of the mind for which absolutely no empirical evidence exists and, in fact, with the Hubble telescope, a large body of evidence refutes.

This is an excellent metaphor for methodology of the perverted and reprobate Darwinist thought process. Every article of evidence that refutes their disbelief, their fanatical religious belief in secular humanism, is discounted with an invention based on a fabrication built on a fantasy.

reply to post by nyk537


Neither of these things look like dinosaurs. And if man and Dinosaur did live together, we WOULD see proof.

reply to post by Fisherr


lol

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Stovokor

 

And what is your reason? Because some textbooks written by scientists with an agenda told you so? The radiometric dating system is obviously flawed, and there are countless examples of recorded history detailing dinosaurs long before they were discovered.

How do you explain those things? What reason leads you to believe them?

Im Sorry But there clearly flawed issues with your statement....

because (as i think anyway) the dating is wrong doesnt mean the dating in the bible must be right?
as in the planet could still be 20 million/ 80 million or even 2 billion years old... we're just not testing it right


furthermore... do you think human bones that are 4000 years old... say like egyptian mummies have fossilised? if so can you provide information to back this up.. as from my understanding there is no proof of these bones being fossils...

What about the holy books from around the world.. at no point do they go off on pages and pages of dino's floating around eating people or similar... why would such a thing be left out?

more so with all the animals named as being suitable to be eaten (or not suitable) for christians/jews/muslims why were all species (remeber there were a few species) left out of that list... surley someone ate some form of giant lizzard if they lived at the same time as dinosaurs... are we suggesting that god was niether here nor there with them when it came down to eating them.... even though he had issues with various other creatures.......

why are there no pictures in the ancient pyramids of lots and lots of dinosaurs kicking about the streets of giza?

what about the aztecs... or mayans.... they seemed to overlook the giant winged dinosaurs or ravenous meat eating dino's or the giant super plant eating dino's but managed to plot out the solar system and accuratley choose and end date for the rest of the world,

or ancient summerian tablets, which there are 100's.. surley one would talk about a dinosaur...

i have no doubt that we date the earth and our findings wrong... i have no doubt that in the 10th -19th century we seen Dino bones from time to time, probably what we base cyclopses, Dragons, other titans and huge mythological beasts on because we stuck odd parts together... of bones we found relativley close to the top soil... however i just cant see how we would be the most important species on earth and become chief predator when there were super predators running around on land..

its just makes very little sense!


just my thought though

reply to post by nyk537


But at the same time, we can look at the stars and see that the universe is old, if you agree that scientists understand speed of light. We have observed many supernovas, some 250 million light years away. Observing this from the earth, that tells us that the light from the exploding star took 250 million years to get here. Now, if you believe as the bible states, that the earth and universe were created within the same week, the earth is at least 250 million years old. At least. There are stars that are much further out that have gone supernova and we see the light from them as well, some are in the billions of light years away.

Supernova 1997ff is located approx 11 billion light years away. www.solstation.com...

All right... they do carbon dating in order to determine the age of the Earth and dinosaur remains. And the reason that dinosaurs are able to be drawn by some cultures is not because they existed alongside them, but because the cultures found their remains. Yes, in some situations, things do not decompose.

There is extremely little (no) scientific evidence to support the fact that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. This is strictly a religious belief used for religious purposes when interpreting the Bible too literally. There is a reason for this, yes, it is to protect the hard-line religious culture from the truth that some fear would break it apart. However, it isn't real or scientific. Really.

reply to post by nyk537


i find this post increadibly missleading.. essentially because it suffers from the same issues you pointed out about the dating process of earth,

when the OP who is your friend posts about stars.. he is basing it on modern scientific understanding of physics chemestry and the way the universe works..

how can it be ok to automatically shoot down science for dating things wrong and covering up the truth but then argue how the universe can only be young based on modern science and earth physics,

this is my problem with creationist arguments, they are increadibly hypocritical...

scientists use theories and then try to prove them wrong to understand the universe. in science nothing is fact it keeps evolving.

Creationists use stories and argue if you cant prove them wrong they must be fact. its flawed scientific method for any form of reasearch



Also... you two or three times spoke about other posters and them believing information from text books

the bible is just a big book of right and wrong and some bedtime stories... its a story book, surley you should base less beliefs in that?

reply to post by nyk537


I'll openly give you that I've had some questions about those dating methods myself, but I simply don't believe that this planet is only 6,000 years old as is the common creationist standpoint. The flood would have occurred in the middle of several very well documented, very well researched, very carefully dated old civilizations, but these civilizations do not seem to have been interrupted. An age of 10 thousand years or so and I could begin to at least see this stuff as plausible.

reply to post by nyk537


I want to see the articles where these 2 dinosaurs were dated to have lived 20k and 30k years. Biblically the form of serpent that Satan took the form of was a biped or quadraped, leading many to believe that adam and eve were running around the same time as large scale reptiles were.

Personally i doubt anything could live that long, cellular decay would have destroyed those creatures after a few hundred years of life. Look at just what 80-90 years of life does to creatures as small as humans compared to creatures that live anywhere from 3 feet tall to 50 feet (or sauropods like a brachiosaur that are over 100 feet tall). I find it very hard to believe that these dinosaurs could live that long and not get eaten by a tyrranosaur or allosaur or a pack of velociraptors. It just doesnt add up. These creatures could not have lived in peace, otherwise carnivores wouldn't have those sharp teeth specially evolved to rend and tear felsh. You're going to have to do better than this. I like your train of thought, but you need concrete proof to back it up.

Science has on the other hand proven that dinosaur fossils are not rocks. I forget the name of the paleontologist but she was cleaning a fossil and dropped it into an acid bath to clean it off and when she came back it wasnt rock anymore, the membraneous and connective tissues were supple and stretchy and when she looked under a microscope she could see actual blood vessels, thus rewriting everything paleontologists knew about fossils. However, no DNA could be extracted for study.

Originally posted by Fisherr
The idea of man and dinosaurs living together sounds crazy only if you've been brainwashed into thinking the earth is billions of years old. If the world is as young as the bible says it is (about six thousand years old), then man living with dinosaurs makes perfect sense.

I remember this site.. www.genesispark.com...

My own people have an oral history dating back more than 10,000 years....While i do not believe the bible is wrong, i do believe that you're wrong about the bible....

A few assumptions though, in the OP...

1) Just because scientists state a given time period for when an animal went extinct, and a later specimen is found, it doesn't mean they conspire to then cover it up. Take the lungfish (Celocanth, spelling?) found in the 70's, thought to be extinct for millions of years...yet there it was, in the flesh, hardly changed at all in all that time. They can be wrong, but when proven so, it is admitted.

2) Rather than dinosaurs, the crude depictions in some artwork could likewise be other, prehistoric animals (or even just poor artists). Personally though, I'm of the belief that some species of dinos survived well into the time of early man, and that these creatures formed the basis of our ideas about dragons, unicorns, and other beasts we think of as myths.

3) Even, assuming some dinos did live with early man, it still doesn't nullify the dating techniques used for rocks, the age of the planet, etc.

As for evolution...the evidence is insanely everywhere. Simply look at the whale's vestigial leg bones...or even our own young born with tails. Look at the creatures that can undergo metamorphosis in their own life cycles even.

Still though, even the existence of evolution doesn't necessarily disprove God... No reason He still couldn't have been the driving force behind it all, and set the whole mechanism in motion.

Not my own personal belief, but still, I must acknowledge the possibility. Since I don't know the answer, I have to consider all of the possibilities. Even Science almost needs some kind of spark of divinity to explain where the singular point first came from, that then became the Big Bang. So far, their only answer is that it sprang out of nowhere...it simply was...which, isn't really all that different than the idea of God, now is it?

Originally posted by Stovokor

Originally posted by Fisherr
The idea of man and dinosaurs living together sounds crazy only if you've been brainwashed into thinking the earth is billions of years old. If the world is as young as the bible says it is (about six thousand years old), then man living with dinosaurs makes perfect sense.

I remember this site.. www.genesispark.com...

The bible IS NOT a scientific document..

It might not be a scientific document, per se, but it sure is full of scientific facts, a lot of which were not "discovered" by modern man until recently: www.remnantofgod.org...

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!

I have a funny feeling I'm going to regret getting involved in this thread, but here goes. The results you repeat here were not the work of a legitimate paeleontologist working with independent laboratories in an unbiased way. They were written by Hugh Miller of the Creation Research, Science Education Foundation (CRSEF), I found two identical versions of the paper online:

"Recent C-14 Dating of Fossils including Dinosaur Bone Collagen" by Josef Holzschuh, Jean de Pontcharra and Hugh Miller.
www.sciencevsevolution.org...

"DIRECT RADIOCARBON DATING OF DINOSAUR BONES AND OTHER FOSSILS - same radiocarbon age-range as that for megafauna." by Robert Bennett and Hugh Miller. (In the MS word version, Bennett's name is struck out!
webcache.googleusercontent.com...:qxYMg_yZj4EJ:users.rcn.com/robert.bennett/BennettrevRB122708v2.doc+DIRECT+RADIOCARBON+DATING+OF+D INOSAUR+BONES+AND+OTHER+FOSSILS+-+same+radioca
(I'm not sure if this link will work.)

Mr. Miller has a history of making fraudulent claims in order to get the sort of results he wants:

CRSEF obtained several fragments of fossilized dinosaur bone from the paleontological collections of the Carnegie Museum of Natural History “by disguising the nature of the creationist science group” (Lafferty 1991:2B) and by misrepresenting the nature of their proposed research. James King, Director of the Carnegie Museum, says Hugh Miller and his party identified themselves as chemists who wanted to do some analyses of the chemical composition of the fossils. King says that small “bits and pieces” which had spalled off the surfaces of various specimens were offered to Miller with the explicit warning that the fossil bones had been “covered heavily in shellac” and other “unknown preservatives.” Miller accepted the fragments and indicated that the coatings posed no problems for the analyses they were considering. Subsequently, several of the bone fragments were submitted to the University of Arizona’s Laboratory of Isotope Geochemistry for radiocarbon dating. CRSEF “also arranged the Arizona testing by not revealing its origins” (Lafferty 1991:2B). Austin Long, professor of geochemistry at the University of Arizona, informed Miller that there was no collagen (a protein which is the source of most of the carbon in bones) in the samples and that large amounts of shellac and other contaminants were present. Miller indicated that he wanted the samples dated regardless....

[Major edits for brevity --DJW001]

Actually, with regard to the specimens obtained from the Carnegie Museum, there is no need to speculate about the nature of the blackened surfaces of the fossils. Leonard Krishtalka, a Curator in Vertebrate Paleontology and Assistant Director of the Carnegie Museum, states that the museum archives include a 1922 film of curators applying a black resinous preservative to the dinosaur fossils excavated from Dinosaur National Monument. No one today knows exactly what this black resin consists of, but it is completely impervious to the solvents used by modem curators who have tried to remove it.

www.fleming-group.com...

There is absolutely no reason to believe that the tests Miller did were in any way legitimate. He may very well have intentionally contaminated the samples to obtain the data he needed.

Edit to add: the link does not work. Google: Bennett Miller Carbon 14

Originally posted by AnIntellectualRedneck
reply to post by nyk537

 

I'll openly give you that I've had some questions about those dating methods myself, but I simply don't believe that this planet is only 6,000 years old as is the common creationist standpoint. The flood would have occurred in the middle of several very well documented, very well researched, very carefully dated old civilizations, but these civilizations do not seem to have been interrupted. An age of 10 thousand years or so and I could begin to at least see this stuff as plausible.

Creation science has moved beyond the 6,000 year tenet, that is so 19th century. Archeologically i can tell you for a FACT that underwater archeology has revealed underwater settlements under the English Channel down farther than 100 feet so we know for a fact that England used to be the western penninsula of Europe as far back as 12,000 B.C. There are other sites like Seven Temples in India where the other missing temples have been found to be underwater buried under the sand and silt after the oceans began rising. We now know that since 12,000 B.C. the earth's oceans have risen as much as 360 feet. This would have been around the time when Bermuda and Cuba would have been apart of the North American Landmass.

Settlements have also been discovered on the bottom of the mediteranean sea to corroborate the evidence gathered from England. Were not exacty clear on what happened during the Great Flood, but we know that it did happen. For some reason the mediteranean sea flooded which at that time it was a large lake, this large influx of water into the mediteranean sea cascaded for hundreds of miles causing the water of the lake to rapidly rise and wash across the land wiping out entire settlements and possibly even cities. As the mediteranean rose the salt water invaded the Bosphorus River (istanbul straight) leading to the Black Sea (a large lake of fresh water). As the salt water invaded the freshwater it killed off all the freshwater fish and created a toxicity to the water.