Jump to content


Photo

Did Humans Co-exist With Dinosaurs?


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#21 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 09 September 2007 - 06:12 PM

That's an upper limit, and know one has any idea of how something that should be completly broken down in 200k years looks like its still basically intact.

Golly gee whiz, no kidding..........  To admit what the the bones actually are screaming to them would mean they would have to flush their world view, not to mention their PhDs down the toilett. :o
The amino-acids in the fossils means they are most likely far far far less than 200k years old. It also means that the other dating techniques that date the age of the surrounding material are in question.

Whether anyone thinks they look like chicken bones or not has nothing to do with the discussion.

Terry

View Post



Dinosaur bones have been found on a lot of places on this planet - and there are a LOT of species of dinosaurs that have been found (stegosaurus, tyrannosauras, raptors, triceratops, etc see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur). And of course, the bones of what evolutionists call modern mammals are relatively common in recent sediment (e.g., humans, monkeys, elephants, whales, dolphins, cows, hippos rhinos, llamas, horses, dogs, wolves, zebras, sheep, cats, tigers, even mastadons, sabre tooth tigers etc).

Has anyone ever found a dinosaur in the same layer as a modern mammal? Has anyone ever found a dinosaur in a layer above a mammal?

Has anyone ever found evidence that a dinosaur ate a modern mammal? (I know that the bones of their prey have often been found in the stomachs of dinosaur fossils).

Wouldn't one expect that somewhere on the planet the Flood would have mixed these bones into the same geologic layer or put mammals in lower layers if they lived at roughly the same time?

As far as I know, no modern mammal has been found below the KT boundary and no dinosaur has been found above it. But if there is evidence to the contrary I would love to see it.
http://en.wikipedia....iki/Kt_boundary

There are certainly a lot of bones out there to test the hypothesis (that any modern mammal coexisted with any dinosaur) and over 150 years of people looking.



James,

p.s. There is a nice little book called the Dragon Seekers that looks back at the dinosaur hunters in the hundred years of so before Darwin and some of the theories they suggested to account for the lack of overlap in the fossils.

#22 Guest_Epp_*

Guest_Epp_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 September 2007 - 02:12 AM

Call it a hoax if you want. This and other evidence, clearly indicates that man and dinosaurs lived together. The book I posted a link to also backs that up. Evolution is a worldview where new "scientists" are taught by the old to look at the evidence in one way only. Any anomolies must be ignored. This worldview must be supported with copious funds since removing God from daily life is the goal.

Transitional fossils. What nonsense. I remember the recent stir over the fossil of a fish whose fins, it was claimed, were turning into hands. I immediately thought of the common seal that walks on land using its flippers.
God bless,
Al

View Post

Do you mean to tell me that you do indeed really believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted in Malaysia in 1184 A.D.?

#23 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 10 September 2007 - 08:42 AM

First off I believe in evolution over creationism.

There are written accounts of what are supposed to be dinosaurs as well. this link leads to some information available online: Supposed writings about dinosaurs

Yes it is a creationism site but that does not mean that all the information presented there is invalid and could actually lead to further research.

Now let us assume for the sake of argument that the visual and written records do indeed reflect that dinosaurs, at least pockets of them, existed alongside men. That alone does not indicate a young earth or preclude an old one. No proof has been forthcoming that dinosaurs are a mere 6000 years old. Yes there are tracks of dinosaurs supposedly alongside human tracks but there are remains of dinosaurs in those same areas that are in strata far below remains of humans.

Without definitive proof that dinosaurs are only 6000 years old, the possibility that dinosaurs species did indeed thrive for far longer can not be ruled out.

#24 Al650

Al650

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 10 September 2007 - 10:34 AM

Do you mean to tell me that you do indeed really believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted in Malaysia in 1184 A.D.?

View Post



Sure, read this:


http://nwcreation.ne...nosdragons.html




God bless,
Al

#25 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 11 September 2007 - 09:41 PM

First off I believe in evolution over creationism.

There are written accounts of what are supposed to be dinosaurs as well.  this link leads to some information available online:  Supposed writings about dinosaurs

Yes it is a creationism site but that does not mean that all the information presented there is invalid and could actually lead to further research.

Now let us assume for the sake of argument that the visual and written records do indeed reflect that dinosaurs, at least pockets of them, existed alongside men.  That alone does not indicate a young earth or preclude an old one.  No proof has been forthcoming that dinosaurs are a mere 6000 years old.  Yes there are tracks of dinosaurs supposedly alongside human tracks but there are remains of dinosaurs in those same areas that are in strata far below remains of humans.

Without definitive proof that dinosaurs are only 6000 years old, the possibility that dinosaurs species did indeed thrive for far longer can not be ruled out.

View Post


If you believe evolution over creation, then you are not agnostic to the issue of creation vs evolution.

Agnostic: A word first used by Professor Huxley, to indicate one who believes nothing which cannot be demonstrated by the senses.

#26 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 13 September 2007 - 12:42 PM

If you believe evolution over creation, then you are not agnostic to the issue of creation vs evolution.

Agnostic: A word first used by Professor Huxley, to indicate one who believes nothing which cannot be demonstrated by the senses.

View Post


That's not exactly what the term means according to Huxley. The following was found on Dictionary.com and includes a quote from Huxley himself:

1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known." Coined by T.H. Huxley from Gk. agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" + gnostos "(to be) known" (see gnostic). Sometimes said to be a reference to Paul's mention of the altar to "the Unknown God," but according to Huxley it was coined with ref. to the early Church movement known as Gnosticism (see Gnostic).

    "I ... invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic,' ... antithetic to the 'Gnostic' of Church history who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant." [T.H. Huxley, "Science and Christian Tradition," 1889]


To put it in layman's terms: A single person or group of people can't know everything. It is what I believe and in no way indicates that I can't believe Evolution over Creationism.

#27 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 14 September 2007 - 04:04 PM

Do you mean to tell me that you do indeed really believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted in Malaysia in 1184 A.D.?

View Post



Why not Epp?

Does it go against your belief...so it can't be true?

Now I'm pretty sure you wern't taught this in school.

#28 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 18 September 2007 - 11:06 AM

Great Link Trilobyte.

to any of the evolutionism people who don't believe that the pictures in the orginal post clearly show a dinosaur..... "I laugh in your general direction"

#29 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 September 2007 - 12:16 AM

Sometimes creationists cling to any scrap of 'evidence', no matter how unlikely or absurd it may be.
The temple where this was found was built in 1186 A.D. we are speaking about Malaysia, a country with a history, written records, etc. We are speaking about 800 years ago. Needless to say, no one ever provided any written record or evidence that a dinosaur, other than birds, was living in Malaysia 800 years ago.
It is curious that the carving appears so suspiciously clean, compared to other carvings near it. The reason? The creationist who found it says that a "famous photographer" cleaned it in order to take the photograph. How likely is that a famous photographer does that, if he is a professional?
Well, to sum up: it's likely a hoax. If it isn't, creationists should not have much of a problem digging up some evidence for dinosaurs in the zone. A non-fossilized bone, carbon-dated, appearing to be 800 y.o. would suffice, and delight the scientific community with plenty of research avenues.

View Post


Just like with lucy:
Attached File  Lucy_bones.jpg   10.45KB   104 downloads

Attached File  lucy_musuem.jpg   23.31KB   83 downloads

Just add hands and feet, when no hands or feet bone were found. And poof, you have a transitional fossil.

#30 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 19 September 2007 - 12:19 AM

That's not exactly what the term means according to Huxley.  The following was found on Dictionary.com and includes a quote from Huxley himself:

1870, "one who professes that the existence of a First Cause and the essential nature of things are not and cannot be known." Coined by T.H. Huxley from Gk. agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" + gnostos "(to be) known" (see gnostic). Sometimes said to be a reference to Paul's mention of the altar to "the Unknown God," but according to Huxley it was coined with ref. to the early Church movement known as Gnosticism (see Gnostic).

    "I ... invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of 'agnostic,' ... antithetic to the 'Gnostic' of Church history who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant." [T.H. Huxley, "Science and Christian Tradition," 1889]


To put it in layman's terms: A single person or group of people can't know everything. It is what I believe and in no way indicates that I can't believe Evolution over Creationism.

View Post


Should I change my world view to agnostic because I believe creation over evolution? Or does it only apply when evolution is believed over creation?

#31 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 20 September 2007 - 12:01 PM

creationists should not have much of a problem digging up some evidence for dinosaurs in the zone. A non-fossilized bone, carbon-dated, appearing to be 800 y.o. would suffice,



Carbon dating only works with the assumption that the earth is really really old. If you start with the assumption that the earth is not really really old, (and the radioactive carbon hasn't reached equilibrium yet), then you get dates that are MUCH younger.

#32 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 20 September 2007 - 04:12 PM

Carbon dating only works with the assumption that the earth is really really old.  If you start with the assumption that the earth is not really really old, (and the radioactive carbon hasn't reached equilibrium yet), then you get dates that are MUCH younger.

View Post



There are a lot of graphs out there like the one shown below. I would be interested to hear how creation theory accounts for such results. Does one deny that these results exist? Or does one argue that it is just a mere coincidence that these different aging techniques agree? C14, varves, tree rings, and coral growth rings are all in decent agreement out to 35,000 years or so.

Posted Image



I have heard the argument that someone used the technique once and got a bad date - therefore the data can be ignored.. But it seems that such an argument is like saying I used a clock once and it gave a bad time so I can conclude clocks don't work.

There are data like shown in the graph found in many labs. How does one account for these data?

#33 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 22 September 2007 - 08:33 AM

There is a theory that pre-flood there was a canopy that surrounded the earth.
This canopy blocked most of the cosmic radiation much the same way the ozone layer sheilds us from ultraviolet radiation.

With the cosmic radiation blocked the nitrogen in our upper atmosphere would not have produced as much carbon 14.

This would have made anything pre-flood apear as extremely old when dated.
After the flood the amounts of carbon 14 would have began to rise producing ages like your graph showed.

#34 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 22 September 2007 - 09:46 AM

There is a theory that pre-flood there was a canopy that surrounded the earth. 
This canopy blocked most of the cosmic radiation much the same way the ozone layer sheilds us from ultraviolet radiation.

With the  cosmic radiation blocked the nitrogen in our upper atmosphere would not have produced as much carbon 14.

This would have made anything pre-flood apear as extremely old when dated. 
After the flood  the amounts of carbon 14 would have began to rise producing ages like your graph showed.

View Post



Thanks Trilobyte. However, I may not have posed my question well. I understand that any given dating technique might have problems - especially if used incorrectly or the assumptions are wrong. My question is...

Why do these different techniques usually give the same answers in the hands the experts?

If each technique gave bad dates, then it would seem likely that they would give very different dates. The fact that most researchers get the same dates seems like a very unlikely coincidence. Why would tree rings give the same dates as C14. Why would lake varves give the same dates as c14. Why would coral growth layers give the same dates as c14? Seems like a very strange coincidence if each one is simply producing bad dates.

It was these kinds of results that first convinced the scientific community that c14 can be trusted when done correctly, but I assume that young earth creationists have their own view of why these different techniques agree?


Posted Image

#35 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 30 September 2007 - 05:43 AM

Why do these different techniques usually give the same answers in the hands the experts?

Different techniques typically don't produce the same results...unless you allow for the biased fudge factors.

#36 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 01 October 2007 - 06:50 PM

Why do these different techniques usually give the same answers in the hands the experts?

Different techniques typically don't produce the same results...unless you allow for the biased fudge factors.

View Post


I am sorry that you feel all these hundreds of scientists using these tools are dishonest. How many studies would I need to show you lined up like this before you would be convinced? (lined up without any fudge factors).

Is there any point at which you would be convinced by the data?

Would ten studies that lined up like this be convincing if you could see there were no fudge factors? Or is it a matter of principle that all data shows such allignment must be rejected?

Posted Image

#37 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 01 October 2007 - 07:19 PM

I am sorry that you feel all these hundreds of scientists using these tools are dishonest. How many studies would I need to show you lined up like this before you would be convinced? (lined up without any fudge factors).

Is there any point at which you would be convinced by the data?

Would ten studies that lined up like this be convincing if you could see there were no fudge factors?  Or is it a matter of principle that all data shows such allignment must be rejected?

Posted Image

View Post


We could add stalagtite data and ice core data. We could then look at historic volcanic explosions and show that these show up in the ice core data at the expected time.

We could also show that the dating of wood from coffins in the Egyptian empires with known dates also line up. (some of these results can be found in data that led to the 1960 Nobel Prize).

But I guess all this doesn't matter if no amount of data from reputable sources will convince you.

#38 pwnagepanda

pwnagepanda

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 65 posts
  • Age: 16
  • Judaism non-orthodox
  • Agnostic
  • Piedmont, California

Posted 01 October 2007 - 07:30 PM

We could add stalagtite data and ice core data. We could then look at historic volcanic explosions and show that these show up in the ice core data at the expected time.

We could also show that the dating of wood from coffins in the Egyptian empires with known dates also line up. (some of these results can be found in data that led to the 1960 Nobel Prize).

But I guess all this doesn't matter if no amount of data from reputable sources will convince you.

View Post

data is overrated. lol

#39 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 04 October 2007 - 03:38 AM

Do you mean to tell me that you do indeed really believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted in Malaysia in 1184 A.D.?

View Post


Just like you would believe that Lucy has fully formed human hands and feet, even though neither hands or foot bones were formed.

#40 Countic16

Countic16

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 58 posts
  • Age: 26
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 24 October 2007 - 04:58 AM

Sometimes creationists cling to any scrap of 'evidence', no matter how unlikely or absurd it may be.
The temple where this was found was built in 1186 A.D. we are speaking about Malaysia, a country with a history, written records, etc. We are speaking about 800 years ago. Needless to say, no one ever provided any written record or evidence that a dinosaur, other than birds, was living in Malaysia 800 years ago.
It is curious that the carving appears so suspiciously clean, compared to other carvings near it. The reason? The creationist who found it says that a "famous photographer" cleaned it in order to take the photograph. How likely is that a famous photographer does that, if he is a professional?
Well, to sum up: it's likely a hoax. If it isn't, creationists should not have much of a problem digging up some evidence for dinosaurs in the zone. A non-fossilized bone, carbon-dated, appearing to be 800 y.o. would suffice, and delight the scientific community with plenty of research avenues.

View Post


You know, such strong skepticism on your part would leave you to believe absolutely nothing at all if you held that same standard to old earth beliefs. How is that toy any different than an artist from thousands of years ago? Well...for starters our children and businesses are exposed to current renditions of such images. When was the last time a 2,000 year old dead man was able to go to a local store and purchase a rendition of the animal he drew, or see it on TV to copy it? The only way the ancients could have created such accurate images is to have witnessed those creatures in first person, or to have dug up accurate skeleton corpses themselves. I think the ancients were a little more focused on war and survival at their times than to be digging up huge excavation sites. Please, there is no need to continue fooling yourself.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users