It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by stonespiral
I like the evidence you posted, but I don't think I agree with the Earth being younger than we're led to believe. If anything I think it may be much older than we're led to believe. Probably by accident, or that the materials and methods aren't available to show that it's much older.
That being said I wouldn't be surprised to find older and older human remains, assuming those remains still exist. I also wouldn't be surprised to find human and dinosaur remains from the same time and relatively near one another.
The future is an exciting place to dream!
Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by alfa1
I'm not lying at all.
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.
I wonder why?
An interesting new paper is just out today in PLoS ONE. You recall the announcement a few years back that soft tissue that resembled organic tissue had been isolated from a Tyrannosaurus femur. This started off a huge controversy in the field (and beyond)--researchers disagreeing with each other whether the structures seen were indeed blood cells and vessels; creationists crowing about how this finding represented "proof" that the earth was indeed young and dinosaurs had existed just a few thousand years ago; and of course, talk of cloning and DNA analysis. On the side of "soft tissue = dino blood" were findings that reported identification of the iron-containing protein heme (potentially from the red blood cells) and morphology of cells and vessels similar to that seen in modern-day ostriches and emu. However, the new paper by Kaye et al. provides an alternative explanation: that the structures aren't actual vessels and cells, but are instead iron-rich bacterial biofilms.
Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by nyk537
I really appreciate you confronting this conundrum and providing information backing up the high probability that dinosaurs and humans were alive at the same time.
I briefly touched upon this idea in another thread recently and, of course, someone was immediately there to make jokes. When will these close minded people learn that humiliating someone for their ideas only causes themselves to look foolish?
Good for you, Op. Stick to your guns!
24for he views the ends of the earth
and sees everything under the heavens.
25 When he established the force of the wind
and measured out the waters,
26 when he made a decree for the rain
and a path for the thunderstorm
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
1 Corinthians 15:41
41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.
6The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.
24Pleasant words are as an honeycomb, sweet to the soul, and health to the bones.
II Peter 3:10
10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by jyze420
I'm going to forgo asking for proof on this one, but I do have one question. What is the difference between a dinosauroid and a reptoid? I ask because dinosaurs were reptiles.
The realization that dinosaurs are closely related to birds raised the obvious possibility of feathered dinosaurs. Fossils of Archaeopteryx include well-preserved feathers, but it was not until the early 1990s that clearly non-avialan dinosaur fossils were discovered with preserved feathers. Since then, more than twenty genera of dinosaurs, mostly theropods, have been discovered to have been feathered. Most fossils are from the Yixian formation in China. The fossil feathers of one specimen, Shuvuuia deserti, have tested positive for beta-keratin, the main protein in bird feathers, in immunological tests.
Scientific fact: Domesticated dogs were bred from wolves.
Stop acting like evolution is scientific fact when it's not, it's an assumption.
I go on for hours explaining to you how it's inaccurate
Yes,I believe in the Big Bang Theory of the creation of the universe, and no I don't believe that life combusted out of "nothing", because life formed from chemicals that were present on the early earth. So really, life formed from "something".
The bible illogical? You believe the most illogical belief of the big bang theory and that life combusted out of nothing and evolved into humans?
Maybe you missed this?: Scientists create cell
When SCIENCE proves that it's IMPOSSIBLE to combust non-living molecules into life.
Creationist scientist. Very nice oxy-moron you got there.
Originally posted by samaka
Stop acting like evolution is scientific fact when it's not, it's an assumption. I go on for hours explaining to you how it's inaccurate
Originally posted by samaka
Just because you believe in a group of scientist that supports evolution doesn't make it fact. There many scientist that don't support evolution and believe it should be swept under rug due to it's in-accuracies
Originally posted by samaka
The bible illogical? You believe the most illogical belief of the big bang theory and that life combusted out of nothing and evolved into humans? When SCIENCE proves that it's IMPOSSIBLE to combust non-living molecules into life.
The bible is actually scientifically accurate, show me where it fails at that?