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.


Evidence for the Co-Existence of Humans and Dinosaurs

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 12:13 PM

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Xtrozero

So carbon dating can only date the last 50k years.
Can someone eplain how they say mountain ranges are 200 million years old?

Therefore, by examining the ratio of carbon-14 atoms to carbon-12 atoms, scientists could determine the age of organisms' remains up to about 70,000 years. In 1960, this feat, called radiocarbon dating, earned its discoverer, American chemist William Frank Libby, the Nobel Prize for Chemistry.

Scientists then applied this dating technique to inorganic materials like rocks. They were able to measure the decay of various isotopes like uranium- 238 and thorium-232 in rocks to determine their absolute ages. The half-life of uranium-238, for example, is 4.5 billion years. Based on this science, we have been able to date rocks tens and hundreds of million years old and have determined that the Earth itself is some 4.6 billion years old.

This might help a little...

posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 12:52 PM
a reply to: Gazrok

Excellent point - people like to throw around Occam's Razor until it comes to the idea of cross continental written texts of dragons in various cultures and across time.

Occam's Razor doesn't suit the orthodoxy in this instance.

posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 12:59 PM
a reply to: Xtrozero

No source?

Many global warming studies may be wrong as carbon dating found to be highly unreliable for organic matter over 30,000 years old

posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 03:33 PM

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight

No source?

Many global warming studies may be wrong as carbon dating found to be highly unreliable for organic matter over 30,000 years old

Don't think a source is needed..I was replying about non-organic..i.e. rocks, so I'm not sure your point.

edit on 3-7-2018 by Xtrozero because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 03:42 PM

originally posted by: Gazrok

Next you're gonna tell us that the unicorns on the friggin ark were ACTUAL UNICORNS not rhinos right?

So, Unicorns are mere fantasy, yet the idea of a man building a boat to house two of every animal in the world, for over a month....THAT is perfectly plausible?

One question for the Noah folks.... What did the carnivores eat during the voyage?

Ken Ham solved that one...

Apparently they were vegan before the flood... even the dinosaurs

posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 05:40 PM
a reply to: Astrocyte

an overzealousness to make assertions without realizing that you do it for the social-affect i.e. a 'pride' like state of being 'one who knows'.

There you go again; you cant help yourself but denigrate the poster through some quasi psycho analysis at a distance.

What does gnostic spiritualism have in its favor? Other than the brutal history of the dissemination of warrior cultures which have played such a prominent role in human history for the last 5,000 years, seemingly beginning with the Yamnaya culture?

Yes, spiritual and transcendental experiences are important, and they have an important place within the scienific agenda, but it is not to be interpreted so tendentiously, and in such a self-serving way, as it is clearly done by the 'elite' culture that has dominated Eurasia, the Indian subcontinent, and many other places for quite a long time.

gnostic spiritualism? Are you in the right thread? What does this have to do with the poster you're responding to?

All true science, in my opinion,

There is no such animal, its either science or not science.

Within scientific thinking, the neurobiological aftermath of psychological trauma adequately explains why belief systems like gnosticism form. It's very logical. Common sense stuff.

You always seem to bring up trauma into any and all discussion. Why constantly derail?

What does trauma have to do with the post.

posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 05:44 PM
a reply to: Gargoyle91

Exactly; noticed that they avoided the elephant in the room namely coopertons...

They refused the data, not based on any sort of clerical or methods error, but rather, they blindly refused it based on their own bias. This is the opposite of how science should be conducted. These tests were conducted by accredited AMS Labs (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry). They stood by their results, until they discovered that their results indicated a 50,000 years old if that is the case. But in all attempts at carbon-dating dinosaurs, it has been younger than 40,000 years old.

posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 07:43 PM

originally posted by: turbonium1

You believe that dinosaur bones were probably found long before the late 1800's?

Nobody knew what the bones, and didn't care about it, anyway. They never showed anyone the bones, or mentioned it, either. All the people who discovered dinosaur bones did the same thing, for thousands of years...until the late 1800's, when they told the world about it?!?

Finding a massive skull, with 8-foot long teeth, happened many times over the centuries, but they didn't know what it was, so they left it there, and never mentioned it afterwards!

Are you serious?

You must try to understand that people were massively supersitious.

The bones wouldn't merit a mention because they already believed even more extravagant stories anyway. If the knew little about taxonomy they would assume the bones came from giant humans. If they knew a lot, they would recognize the bird/lizard qualities.

It's in the modern world that we are amazed when we find large bones.

More likely, the reason nobody mentioned dinosaur bones is .....nobody had ever 'discovered' dinosaur bones....until the late 1800's .

When you consider just how many sites around the world there are where they've been discovered by accident, what is the probability that a thousand years would pass and nobody finds even one bone by accident?

Suppose a poor farmer of the day had found a T-Rex skull in his field. When the word gets out, his land is suddenly worth a small fortune. Life-changing.

He would probably sell the skull, not the land it was found on.

It wasn't until modern times that we began to realize the bones are usually found together in the same area. He'd just think he was lucky that one "dragon" had happened to die on his lot so long ago.

It would be highly unlikely for even ONE of the discoveries to remain unknown, let alone each and every one of the discoveries, over thousands of years, over the entire world!!

In ancient civilizations, they searched for bones of a unicorn, or a dragon, or a winged horse...They dug for unicorn horns in the ground, as we have dug for dino-bones. They dug for gold, for buried treasure, for water, and many other things, over thousands of years. Digging deep into the ground didn't start in the 1800's, and discoveries within the ground didn't start in the 1800's. Nor were 'unknown' discoveries seen as worthless, or even mention, before the 1800's.

Right, but they thought the bones were from more recent deaths.

As such, they would not think of it like gold, where if you find one nugget there are likely to be more nearby.

They would just think "cool! one dragon happened to meet it's end here!"

And you are correct that dinosaur/dragon bones did sell for a high price in China. They would be ground up and added to elixirs and sold to people who believed drinking it would do some kind of magic.

Do you see why there is something very odd about this?

Yes. I think it is odd that you're not adding context. If you want to step into the shoes of an ancient person and try to imagine how they would think, you need to be wearing both shoes.

'We didn't know what was in the ground, or why we wanted to dig into the ground, or why we decided to dig into ground at that particular area.'

Maybe because digging is hard work? Especially with no automated digging machines.

'It was lucky that we found the first ever dinosaur bones at that spot. Someone had spent a lot of money on this expedition, to dig into the ground at that spot, for a long time.'

This was a 'discovery' which never happened for thousands of years, until they funded an expedition, for some reason, to dig deep into ground, for some reason, at a specific area, for some reason, where they found the first dinosaur bones, which nobody knew even existed.

After they knew dinosaurs existed, it was easy to find a lot of dinosaur bones, everywhere else. Finding the first dinosaur took thousands of years, but after that, you'll start finding dinosaurs all over the world, and within a few years, you'll 'discover' many types of problem!

That's when dinosaurs were understood as 'fossil fuel'. Dinosaur remains created all the world's oil. And why we refer to oil as fossil fuels - to this very day!

Standard Oil knew dinosaurs made oil, right after the discovery of many dinosaurs. Good thing they found dinosaurs everywhere, just before oil became the key to modern society!

I think what made that happen is that the world had stopped believing in "dragons". And then found conclusive proof for something like a dragon.

Of course it wasn't exactly like the myth, and didn't live alongside mankind. But it still sparks childrens' imaginations to this day.

posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 09:12 PM
a reply to: bloodymarvelous

There is no danger of truly running out, because we can make synthetic oil using just CO2, water, and electricity.

At the time of Rockeffeler, no. Read in context. Scarcity of oil reached fever pitch in the 70's.

posted on Jul, 3 2018 @ 09:59 PM
a reply to: Gazrok

don't imagine they breathed fire.....

What if the fire they breathed was a "death ray" or "laser shot"?

Its funny the recurring theme of lizard people pop's up again & again.

Now if the stories are true and that we co-exist with reptile/humanoids maybe David Icke is onto something.

In 1954, then-President Dwight Eisenhower made a pact with three species of aliens, said Schneider in a lecture at the 1995 Preparedness Expo. In exchange for alien technology, Eisenhower allegedly gave aliens permission to abduct some cattle and a limited number of human beings

Schneider asserts that he was suspicious of the engineering operation while noticing the presence of Green Berets and Special Forces. His fears were realized when after drilling underground he came face-t0-face with a 7-foot tall, stinky, gray alien. Obviously he freaked out and grabbed a pistol he was carrying (because that’s what engineers do?) and shot and killed two aliens. Another alien shot some laser-plasma ball or whatever at him and blew off some of his fingers

embellished, etc. until eventually taking form as a dragon we recognize.

how about one we dont recognize?

Artefacts found in Bolivia and South America suggest an ancient Sumerian connection

posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 06:57 AM
a reply to: Gazrok

Simply put yes...

Not really of course, and no I don't believe the ark story.

I mean, I watched the Flintstones too (and Dino Riders!) as a kid. So I understand the visceral temptation in all of this, I really do. But the science just doesn't support it.

Like I said in my post, the entire carbon 14 isotopic dating thing is a red herring's red herring since so much more goes into dating this stuff than just that.

Also, for the Ark story to be true we'd pretty much have needed around 7 new species to pop up EVERY DAY from the first day that stupid boat ran aground to now in order to have anything close to the biodiversity of "land animals" we do now!

And the OP can feel free to come at me if he wants over my "bringing the ark into this" but the reality is I know where his "research" comes from and what "agenda" it's ultimately pushing and therefore it's more than fair game!

Also, while it may have escaped the notice of others it most definitely did not escape my own notice that he was EXTREMELY CAREFUL to lie without "technically lying", sidestep, and or outright ignore quite a few of my main thrusts that he knows I have him dead to rights on!

And that...

Is EXACTLY why I go hard at these YEC types because fundamentally at the end of the day they are scumbag disinformation peddlers who wouldn't know the truth if their God himself told it directly to them! (Nor would they care even the tiniest bit for what the actual word or will of the God they claim to serve was if it was materially or otherwise inconvenient in the slightest to or for them!)

They make a mockery of everything they claim to believe in with every single thing they do and it frankly sickens me.

I'm not religious, but I do know some very good and very devout religious people who I hold the utmost love and respect for!

So to see people debasing things I associate with some of the best most caring amazing people I've ever known, it makes me angry.

And I won't apologize for that

posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 07:26 AM
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

There's actually a bunch of super valid reasons for this, none of which are what you think they are.

First of all old Cooper here is being plenty dishonest enough for all of us, and quite conspicuously ever so pedantically careful when he made his rebuttal there. (Which was a very very poor rebuttal all things considered on top of being dishonest as hell)

The reality is that there's maybe a single or double handful of people on this site that could really do justice to explaining the other stuff beyond "carbon dating" basics when it comes to the isotopic dating stuff. (Which as I already pointed out is NEVER accepted as valid on it's own in any real peer reviewed anything!) This leaves us being forced to call BS on Cooper, who I can assure does not feel the same reticence we do about taking liberties with the truth, without really diving into the very specific, technical, and multi disciplinary arena of properly dating stuff you dig up!!

I have honestly tried to do enough reading to really get a handle on anything past the almost too basic to be useful general descriptions and etc of dating stuff dug up out of the ground specifically to counter wild ass theologically motivated assertions like this in a way that does it justice and have failed every time!

But that's not because there's anything to what Cooper and people like him are saying!

Rather, it's because it's a particularly well selected and tactically emplaced god of the gaps argument that is sited in scientific terrain of irreducible complexity to anyone attempting to come at their bogus arguments! (The only thing worse than dad jokes, snarky nerd memes!)

This sucks and I wish I could do better at providing a nice concise easily understandable well sourced refutation of the dating allegations being made rather than just having to point out that what Cooper originally said was deliberately fallacious and misleading and his rebuttal to my initial response was even more dishonest in a pretty slimy but extremely careful way / just flat out repeat that what he's alleging just isn't how things are actually done!

It's frustrating

posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 03:07 PM
a reply to: roguetechie

without really diving into the very specific, technical, and multi disciplinary arena of properly dating stuff you dig up!!

Sounds so self referential - that we mere mortals couldn't comprehend.

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
Albert Einstein

posted on Jul, 4 2018 @ 04:34 PM
There's bit of a difference between Jurassic Park and Game of Thrones.

posted on Jul, 5 2018 @ 12:19 AM
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

No... It's me admitting I can't possibly do an explanation justice because I don't understand it well at all.

It's not my field or one even close to mine and it's... I'd just screw it up really bad if i tried!

My point was that The last thing discussions like this need is MORE bad information!

And I'm sure that some people will be like well if you don't fully understand the explanations and intricacies how can you possibly know it's correct? And basically I have to outright admit that I am taking people's word on stuff, but the sum total of human knowledge is so great at this point that sometimes you just have to do this!

At the same point though there's crossover between this and other fields where there's just too much money and etc at stake for blatantly false data math and et cetera to stand. So it's at least a situation where you can trust a little Because rich and powerful people do not like their source of money and power F***ed with!

Does that make sense?

I wish I personally had better answers to give but I just don't!

posted on Jul, 5 2018 @ 12:24 AM

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: roguetechie

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.
Albert Einstein

He's definitely right, I don't understand it well enough, that's what I was trying to get across!

The secondary issue though is that if you don't give a F*** about the truth ANYTHING can be easily explained in "layman's terms"!

Einstein wasn't wrong to say what he did, but it sure as hell wasn't a complete breakdown of the situation!
edit on 5-7-2018 by roguetechie because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 5 2018 @ 05:51 AM
a reply to: roguetechie

Does that make sense?

It does. Having said that I still maintain like you,

Because rich and powerful people do not like their source of money and power

that the status quo has too much invested, careers, grants etc in "mainstream science"
I use the word science loosely in regards to paleontology, unlike maths.

I suspect there is a lot we aren't allowed to fathom about our past.

Who we are where we come from and whether previous high tech civs have disappeared from the face of the Earth.

posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 12:01 AM
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

I agree with you there... I'm just not sold on dinosaurs and humans hanging out together.

I'm also not 100% of the belief it didn't happen either, those myths exist so prevalently for a reason and I don't buy the they found old bones story any more than Cooper does honestly.

People like us who don't buy the narrative are going to be called kooks and whackos no matter what and I know that, but I think that we shouldn't make their jobs easy by providing easy to mock and discredit scientific half bakery and purporting it to be evidence.

posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 12:04 AM
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

Albert Einstein

Where and when did he say that?

posted on Jul, 6 2018 @ 05:02 AM
a reply to: Phage

There seems to be a little controversy over that quote. (I cheated and googled it)

There's this version, the barmaid version, and a version where the person you're explaining whatever to is a six year old all of which are attributed to Einstein according to a very non scientific polling of Google images...

I can just see the encyclopedia entries for 2010-2020 explaining how one surprising consequence of the Meme wars was an international ban on misattributed quotes to go along with the previous bans on land mines and cluster munitions added to the internationally recognized laws of land warfare under the international criminal Court out of the Hague. (Note: No international consensus could be reached on the topic of forum raids and cartoon frog s***posts after a guerrilla raid from 4chan consisting of several chartered Antonov cargo planes of Uzbek registry air dropped 350 metric tons of live and beanie frogs on the convention participants who tabled the issue of weaponized S***posts for the duration of the current conference after word came down that Bitcoin had dropped another $900 in 37 minutes and over a third of the block chain appeared to be on it's way to accounts belonging to Uzbek nationals indicating a potential inbound second wave)

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in