Human Footprints in Ancient Geological Layers

a reply to: Kreeate
I was not insulting anyone. I was making an observation about an insult.

lol, if you can't dispute the evidence

What evidence do you have, other than adaptation? Nobody disputes that we, and all life, adapt.
We know it happens. We can see it. We can prove it.
Anything beyond that is taken on faith.

a reply to: cooperton

It's obvious that you won't answer any science related questions regarding the footprints. Why is that? Is it because you know they're all frauds? Or is it because you don't bother to read the science.

So once again, who exactly is 65M years old - the humans, the dinosaurs, both or neither - the science, no bs.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

It's obvious that you won't answer any science related questions regarding the footprints. Why is that? Is it because you know they're all frauds? Or is it because you don't bother to read the science.

I was waiting for you to say it with a little better manners. Good job it looks like you almost got through an entire post without some sort of sly or condescending remark.

who exactly is 65M years old - the humans, the dinosaurs, both or neither - the science, no bs.

The evidence shows that dinosaurs lived along side humans in our recent past. This is hard to believe because we were all raised and conditioned to believe dinosaurs are millions of years old, but we were never really given a good reason besides generic statements like "the fossil record". Yet our own ancestors in the past thousands of years have depicted dinosaurs consistently among all continents and cultures. The dinosaurs they describe are dinosaurs that are native to their respective area. For example, Protoceratops are found all over China, and here are Chinese depictions of the protoceratops:




Brachiosaurus fossils are found all through the Americas, and surely enough the native Americans depicted them in their art:


Granby Idol


Utah


Utah


Amazon


As you can see our ancestors saw dinosaurs and depicted them. This, along with the evidence in the OP that shows that human footprints are in the same geological strata as dinosaurs, corroborates to prove that humans lived with dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were much younger than previously thought, which is confirmed by carbon dating data. Yes, you can carbon-date dinosaurs now that we have found soft tissue, which contains carbon! Like terraliga said:

originally posted by: TerraLiga
There are those that embrace change and discovery. Their lives are enhanced and enriched by advances in technology and science. New discoveries are exciting.

Are you open to new discoveries based on emerging evidence, or will you stay stagnant in a theory that makes less sense with each progressing day of discovery?

a reply to: cooperton

Is that all you have? How many times have you used these pics? You must have them in a file ready to use every six months. Honestly pal, you must think everyone is stupid or too lazy to look for themselves.

www.paleo.cc...

a reply to: cooperton

I specifically said SCIENTIFIC evidence i.e. dating and stratigraphic evidence. You're posting opinions, not hard data.
Where's the hard data.

a reply to: cooperton

Oh look coops is whipping out the same old same old, nothing new, nothing verifiable. As Phantom has said, put something verifiable out, or admit you have nothing.

originally posted by: cooperton
The evidence shows that dinosaurs lived along side humans in our recent past. This is hard to believe because we were all raised and conditioned to believe dinosaurs are millions of years old, but we were never really given a good reason besides generic statements like "the fossil record". Yet our own ancestors in the past thousands of years have depicted dinosaurs consistently among all continents and cultures.

There is not a single piece of evidence that shows any species of homo living with dinosaurs, let alone homo-sapiens.

I don't know about your education, but ours in the UK gives good, referenced geological data as one of the many reasons for believing dinosaurs are millions of years old. Much of the early fossil hunting was done in Great Britain or by Britons overseas, and is part of our rich history.

There is no suggestion, evidence or proof that the pictures you are showing are dinosaurs, or are even genuine.

a reply to: cooperton

Here's a paper which discusses dating methodology. Can you date the human footprints using the same dating techniques and achieve similar results:

High-precision U–Pb CA–ID–TIMS dating and chronostratigraphy of the dinosaur-rich Horseshoe Canyon Formation (Upper Cretaceous, Campanian–Maastrichtian), Red Deer River valley, Alberta, Canada

Abstract
The non-marine Horseshoe Canyon Formation (HCFm, southern Alberta) yields taxonomically diverse, late Campanian to middle Maastrichtian dinosaur assemblages that play a central role in documenting dinosaur evolution, paleoecology, and paleobiogeography leading up to the end-Cretaceous extinction. Here, we present high-precision U–Pb CA–ID–TIMS ages and the first calibrated chronostratigraphy for the HCFm using zircon grains from (1) four HCFm bentonites distributed through 129 m of section, (2) one bentonite from the underlying Bearpaw Formation, and (3) a bentonite from the overlying Battle Formation that we dated previously. In its type area, the HCFm ranges in age from 73.1–68.0 Ma. Significant paleoenvironmental and climatic changes are recorded in the formation, including (1) a transition from a warm-and-wet deltaic setting to a cooler, seasonally wet-dry coastal plain at 71.5 Ma, (2) maximum transgression of the Drumheller Marine Tongue at 70.896 ± 0.048 Ma, and (3) transition to a warm-wet alluvial plain at 69.6 Ma. The HCFm’s three mega-herbivore dinosaur assemblage zones track these changes and are calibrated as follows: Edmontosaurus regalis – Pachyrhinosaurus canadensis zone, 73.1–71.5 Ma; Hypacrosaurus altispinus – Saurolophus osborni zone, 71.5–69.6 Ma; and Eotriceratops xerinsularis zone, 69.6–68.2 Ma. The Albertosaurus Bonebed — a monodominant assemblage of tyrannosaurids in the Tolman Member — is assessed an age of 70.1 Ma. The unusual triceratopsin, Eotriceratops xerinsularis, from the Carbon Member, is assessed an age of 68.8 Ma. This chronostratigraphy is useful for refining correlations with dinosaur-bearing upper Campanian–middle Maastrichtian units in Alberta and elsewhere in North America.

cdnsciencepub.com...

I hope you're prepared to write them a letter contesting their results.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

I specifically said SCIENTIFIC evidence i.e. dating and stratigraphic evidence. You're posting opinions, not hard data.
Where's the hard data.

Ancient artifacts and archaeological evidence is scientific. But if you want dating here is a good summary of the C-14 data on dinosaurs:

Carbon dating on dinosaurs: all less than 40,000 years old

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Here's a paper which discusses dating methodology. Can you date the human footprints using the same dating techniques and achieve similar results:

High-precision U–Pb CA–ID–TIMS dating and chronostratigraphy of the dinosaur-rich Horseshoe Canyon Formation (Upper Cretaceous, Campanian–Maastrichtian), Red Deer River valley, Alberta, Canada

Abstract
The non-marine Horseshoe Canyon Formation (HCFm, southern Alberta) yields taxonomically diverse, late Campanian to middle Maastrichtian dinosaur assemblages that play a central role in documenting dinosaur evolution, paleoecology, and paleobiogeography leading up to the end-Cretaceous extinction. Here, we present high-precision U–Pb CA–ID–TIMS ages and the first calibrated chronostratigraphy for the HCFm using zircon grains from (1) four HCFm bentonites distributed through 129 m of section, (2) one bentonite from the underlying Bearpaw Formation, and (3) a bentonite from the overlying Battle Formation that we dated previously. In its type area, the HCFm ranges in age from 73.1–68.0 Ma. Significant paleoenvironmental and climatic changes are recorded in the formation, including (1) a transition from a warm-and-wet deltaic setting to a cooler, seasonally wet-dry coastal plain at 71.5 Ma, (2) maximum transgression of the Drumheller Marine Tongue at 70.896 ± 0.048 Ma, and (3) transition to a warm-wet alluvial plain at 69.6 Ma. The HCFm’s three mega-herbivore dinosaur assemblage zones track these changes and are calibrated as follows: Edmontosaurus regalis – Pachyrhinosaurus canadensis zone, 73.1–71.5 Ma; Hypacrosaurus altispinus – Saurolophus osborni zone, 71.5–69.6 Ma; and Eotriceratops xerinsularis zone, 69.6–68.2 Ma. The Albertosaurus Bonebed — a monodominant assemblage of tyrannosaurids in the Tolman Member — is assessed an age of 70.1 Ma. The unusual triceratopsin, Eotriceratops xerinsularis, from the Carbon Member, is assessed an age of 68.8 Ma. This chronostratigraphy is useful for refining correlations with dinosaur-bearing upper Campanian–middle Maastrichtian units in Alberta and elsewhere in North America.

cdnsciencepub.com...

I hope you're prepared to write them a letter contesting their results.

In your own words, explain how, with a high degree of certainty, they were able to know the initial concentration of the isotopic ratio that they were dating. Did they simply assume the initial ratio was 100-0? There is no full access, you're going to need to tell me this information if you want to discuss this paper further.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

There is not a single piece of evidence that shows any species of homo living with dinosaurs, let alone homo-sapiens.

Besides the many examples in the OP, and on the 3rd page of this thread, as well as this post which offers an abundance of empirical verifiable historical artifacts and artwork that confirms that humans saw dinosaurs.

I don't know about your education, but ours in the UK gives good, referenced geological data as one of the many reasons for believing dinosaurs are millions of years old. Much of the early fossil hunting was done in Great Britain or by Britons overseas, and is part of our rich history.

So you should have a sure answer for this question then - How do they know the initial concentration for their radiometric dating techniques? Carbon 14 dating they can somewhat estimate because they can somewhat assume there is the same atmospheric carbon 14 levels as there was in the past, but other forms of dating have no reliable estimate for the initial concentration. Even zircon crystals you still don't know when the crystal was formed, and an abundance of helium present in zircon (from alpha decay of uranium) indicates that it is actually way younger because helium should have diffused out of the crystal entirely if it actually was as old as they assume..

Carbon 14? That's like counting a packet of rice grains by only using 10 fingers. However many grains there are you'll only ever count 10. Are you serious? When you say things like this it just makes you look stupid. You must be aware of that, surely? What does radiometric dating say? Post that.

I've seen your links and I've seen your pictures. Did you have a look at the link I posted?

originally posted by: TerraLiga
Carbon 14? That's like counting a packet of rice grains by only using 10 fingers. However many grains there are you'll only ever count 10. Are you serious? When you say things like this it just makes you look stupid. You must be aware of that, surely? What does radiometric dating say? Post that.

I've seen your links and I've seen your pictures. Did you have a look at the link I posted?

Yeah your link pretty much said they're not actually depicting dinosaurs or are all hoaxes. It's a cop out, because they're obviously dinosaurs and some are even artifacts that are housed in museums.

C14 can be used on dinosaurs due to soft tissues being present. If there was no C14 left in dinosaurs, which would prove an older date, then the AMS testing would indicate such a result. But all samples are younger than 40,000 years old.

a reply to: cooperton

In your own words, explain how, with a high degree of certainty, they were able to know the initial concentration of the isotopic ratio that they were dating. Did they simply assume the initial ratio was 100-0? There is no full access, you're going to need to tell me this information if you want to discuss this paper further.

I don't have to tell you anything. The data speaks for itself. Isotopic ratios are used in medicine, physics, nuclear physics just to name a few. If all isotopes are wrong, then they're all wrong too.
You've made this ridiculous argument before. It didn't hold water then and it doesn't hold water now.
It's a complete asinine way of weaseling your out of the real science.
The next time you go to your doctor, make sure you tell him/her that you don't want anything to do with treatments that include isotopes. See how well that goes over. Maybe like a lead balloon?

originally posted by: Phantom423

I don't have to tell you anything. The data speaks for itself. Isotopic ratios are used in medicine, physics, nuclear physics just to name a few. If all isotopes are wrong, then they're all wrong too.
You've made this ridiculous argument before. It didn't hold water then and it doesn't hold water now.
It's a complete asinine way of weaseling your out of the real science.
The next time you go to your doctor, make sure you tell him/her that you don't want anything to do with treatments that include isotopes. See how well that goes over. Maybe like a lead balloon?

False equivalence. You know by now that you can't solve for time (t) in the half life equation unless you know the initial isotopic ratio.



The other applications you mentioned we know the initial concentration. For nuclear power plants we know the starting isotopic ratio for the radioactive elements that will be used for fuel. If you can't have a normal convo without lashing out I'm going to stop responding

That is not at all how radiometric dating works. Why don't you look up the decay chain of various isotypes and see how that can be used as an incredibly precise clock.

Instead of researching creation you should be researching nature. As I said before, I could be a much better creationist than you, and I don't believe in it.

originally posted by: TerraLiga
That is not at all how radiometric dating works. Why don't you look up the decay chain of various isotypes and see how that can be used as an incredibly precise clock.

Instead of researching creation you should be researching nature. As I said before, I could be a much better creationist than you, and I don't believe in it.

lol it actually is exactly how it works. They assume the initial isotopic ratio was 100-0, which is absurd because 100% pure samples never occur in nature. Even with a chain of radioactive elements, you still don't know when the cascade started, and therefore you can't know the age of the sample. Their assumption that the sample started as 100-0 is why all the age dates are so absurdly long ago.

You have never demonstrated that you know what you're talking about. Like Quad said, you resort to the opinions of others to defend your beliefs. This sort of blind belief is why you get so angry, because you have to respond with emotions in lieu of an actual logical defense.

a reply to: cooperton

Here's the address of the American Geophysical Union. Write them a letter with your equation explaining why isotopic dating is wrong. Don't forget to suggest that they retract all research papers which utilize isotopic dating.

American Geophysical Union
2000 Florida Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20009
Phone: +1 202 462 6900
Toll Free: 800 966 2481 (North America only)
Monday-Friday from 8:30 am – 6 pm ET

originally posted by: TerraLiga
a reply to: Kreeate

People like Quad don't affect me with their insults. A nerve has been struck, and that's good. I also believe there are two different types of people in the world;

I did not insult you. I made an observation.

1) Those that embrace change and discovery. Their lives are enhanced and enriched by advances in technology and science. New discoveries are exciting.

I agree

2) Those that refuse to accept any challenge to their dogma. They are so entrenched in, and wedded to, their beliefs that any refutation is deeply personal and challenges their own identity. New discoveries trigger anxieties whether their belief system will be challenged yet again.

Think about how you act to anything that threatens your religion....
Your above statement applies to you just as much as you think it applies to others. We have all seen you lash out at those who interpret science differently.
Why?
To you it is a form of religion, to many others it is science. It is meant to be questioned and interpreted.

You see, I can have baseless opinions too.

I have noticed.

a reply to: cooperton

lol it actually is exactly how it works.

No its not if you like i can invite you to my la and we can go over how it actually works.

They assume the initial isotopic ratio was 100-0, which is absurd because 100% pure samples never occur in nature.

100 percent is the initial amount it doesn't mean the entire rock was made of it. This just proves you dont understand the process. The typical way is whats called fission-track dating. You can tell whet the initial amount was y seeing what has decayed in your sample.

Their assumption that the sample started as 100-0 is why all the age dates are so absurdly long ago.

The only one making an assumption is you since you don't understand the process involved.

You have never demonstrated that you know what you're talking about. Like Quad said, you resort to the opinions of others to defend your beliefs. This sort of blind belief is why you get so angry, because you have to respond with emotions in lieu of an actual logical defense.

You have provided zero evidence yourself show us a paleontologist that agrees with you. Lets read his paper and evaluate the evidence. Ill even give you a gimme some dinosaurs may have survived longer than we suspect or certain fringe scientists have claimed anyway. However, if they did it would likely be some of the avian-like ie raptor's as they adapted into birds.

originally posted by: dragonridr




100 percent is the initial amount it doesn't mean the entire rock was made of it. This just proves you dont understand the process. The typical way is whats called fission-track dating. You can tell whet the initial amount was y seeing what has decayed in your sample.

You're misunderstanding. By referring to the isotopic ratio it is understood that I'm referring to the Uranium-lead ratios, not the rock as a whole. We can have a discussion if you're willing but it is apparent you only want to try to catch me in my words.

The only one making an assumption is you since you don't understand the process involved.

Why do you suppose we can assume an initial isotopic ratio of 100-0 (uranium-lead)??

You have provided zero evidence yourself

The OP alone makes reference to many primary resources and empirical examples. Your statement is patently false. Where's your empirical evidence? Don't hide behind appeals to authority

Ill even give you a gimme some dinosaurs may have survived longer than we suspect or certain fringe scientists have claimed anyway. However, if they did it would likely be some of the avian-like ie raptor's as they adapted into birds.

Our ancestors depicted sauropods, ceratops, tyranosaurs, stegosaurs, and so on... this indicates the entire conventional timeline is off.

Thank you coop and quad for resorting to personal attacks. It shows how weak your arguments are.

Coop, are you suggesting that all geochrono sciences are incorrect?