Did Ancient Humans Coexisted with Dinosaurs?

originally posted by: noonebutme
a reply to: Noinden

Heheh, well, one could always argue X is possible is there's no evidence to disprove it. Can't disprove a negative

Yeah but thats the problem
You have to prove a theory, prove the theory then

I havnt made a statement about the earths age, just asked for proof of a statement that has been made

Your argument is baseless, I have nothing to prove as I have made no statement, just asked a question

originally posted by: noonebutme
a reply to: ancienthistorian

Sure, why not? Seems like a logical, rational, educated assumption backed up by all the scientific data in the world.

The world, of course, being only 6000 years old, hollow and also simultaneously flat...

Well if you believe that, where is the evidence

Hey guys. Did we ever get an answer to: Did ancient humans "coexisted" with dinosaurs?

I figured the curious use of the past-tense of coexist surely must have had some bearing on the discussion. Clearly with such a well-formed, persuasive original post, that could not have been a simple mistake. No way.

a reply to: Raggedyman

You did not understand what you quoted. You cited what you thought was a refutation of what I said, missing the bit of information "Radioactive decay (and thus the half lives there of) are first order".

By their very definition Radioactive reactions are first order. They can't be Zero order, they have demonstrably shown to not be Second order. Thus the thing you cited back at me (with no attribution) says that it is a constant. The exception would be sticking something in the LHC (or similar) or a super nova. Neither of which is an option for fossils (we'd not be here).

You don't understand Kinetics.
You do not understand Chemistry.
You don't under stand Genetics
You certainly do not understand paleontology, as is repeatedly evidenced in these threads.

Thus I have demonstrated through science, that for the purposes of radioactive dating, you may use various half lives as constants.

You have lost.

a reply to: noonebutme

However there is evidence of what happend to the surviving dinosaurs (from the extinction event). They evolved. To Birds.

Birds are not dinosaurs, anymore than Homo sapiens are the mammals that scurried around under the feet of dinosaurs.

Its common sense and critical thinking. Only a creationist, especially YEC would assume evolution stalled

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: noonebutme

However there is evidence of what happend to the surviving dinosaurs (from the extinction event). They evolved. To Birds.

Birds are not dinosaurs, anymore than Homo sapiens are the mammals that scurried around under the feet of dinosaurs.

Its common sense and critical thinking. Only a creationist, especially YEC would assume evolution stalled

First off, you gotta know I'm on your side here. But per the recent changes in evolutionary nomenclature, birds are indeed dinosaurs. They are avian-dinosaurs. I know this is gonna blow your mind, but they're also reptiles. I know... I know....

a reply to: Raggedyman

it is never taken on faith. If it earns the name "theory" in the scientific sense. It has been peer reviewed, and tested, retested, and attempted to be broken.

Quite simply, you don't understand science, or are trolling.

You accused me of pushing my faith. Yet I've not pushed my Gaelic Reconstructionist polytheism in the thread. Thus you are demonstrably wrong.

As you obviously would not be spite posting here, post some proof we co-existed with dinosaurs.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

You did not understand what you quoted. You cited what you thought was a refutation of what I said, missing the bit of information "Radioactive decay (and thus the half lives there of) are first order".

By their very definition Radioactive reactions are first order. They can't be Zero order, they have demonstrably shown to not be Second order. Thus the thing you cited back at me (with no attribution) says that it is a constant. The exception would be sticking something in the LHC (or similar) or a super nova. Neither of which is an option for fossils (we'd not be here).

You don't understand Kinetics.
You do not understand Chemistry.
You don't under stand Genetics
You certainly do not understand paleontology, as is repeatedly evidenced in these threads.

Thus I have demonstrated through science, that for the purposes of radioactive dating, you may use various half lives as constants.

You have lost.

Can you prove the constant to increase
Can you prove that the constant to decay

I am not interested in superficial arguments or being led by fools arguments

My question still stands

Can you prove the constant to increase
Can you prove that the constant to decay

a reply to: Dudemo5

Not in the sense that the OP was implying however. It is clear they were meaning something quite different. I'd also point out there is debate over what you typed.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

it is never taken on faith. If it earns the name "theory" in the scientific sense. It has been peer reviewed, and tested, retested, and attempted to be broken.

Quite simply, you don't understand science, or are trolling.

You accused me of pushing my faith. Yet I've not pushed my Gaelic Reconstructionist polytheism in the thread. Thus you are demonstrably wrong.

As you obviously would not be spite posting here, post some proof we co-existed with dinosaurs.

Can you prove the constant to initial radioactive increase
Can you prove that the constant to radioactive decay

I am not interested in superficial arguments or being led by fools arguments

My question still stands

Can you prove the constant to increase
Can you prove that the constant to decay

Leave the religion and lies out, lets talk the scientific evidence

You are running away from the arguments fundamentals with all talk about religion.

Quite simply, you don't understand the principles of science
maybe go study science one day and get back to me

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Dudemo5

Not in the sense that the OP was implying however. It is clear they were meaning something quite different. I'd also point out there is debate over what you typed.

There's always debate.

Birds are currently in the clade dinosauria.

Cladistically speaking, they are dinosaurs.

As far as what the OP meant, I think we established pages ago that his entire argument was baseless.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Here we are .... again.

I have posted the proof. IF I post a scientific paper, you will whine you can not access it. If I post anything else you shall ingore it.

I have done this very topic innumerable times before, with you. Oh and Eleven wants his nick name back still!

Here have some calculus



One more time for you. I know you did not get a very good education.

(a) We have performed radioactive decay experiments for a long time, and no change has been observed.
(b) Radioactive dating agrees with different isotopes as well as other dating method. Carbon dating, for instance, can determine the ages of trees noted in historical documents.
(c)We have no evidence to suggest radioactive decay is not constant, as our understanding of physics suggests it should be, and anyone wishing to challenge this needs to present evidence for it.

Point (c) is important.... nuclear reactors would melt down if this were not so!

So, as in this part of the Universe and most likely the rest (baring supernovae, black holes etc).... these are constants.

Translation. We've measure it, remeasured it, and had many others do the same. I've done labs as an undergrad, I've taught labs as a postgrad. We do not get a different answer.

a reply to: Dudemo5

We did. But when a YEC starts attacking evolution. I am going to refute that

a reply to: Dudemo5

We did. Page 1 (2 and every page there after) we got the NO. In the context with the OP, they did not.

Then the creationists waded in

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Raggedyman

Do you have evidence that decay rates of isotopes can change?

No why would I
Do you have evidence, scientific, that it is all constant?

Yes I do. The fact that it has never been observed to change, even by scientists in a lab trying to make it change and that numerous other dating methods produce the same results. There is no reason to assume it can change without evidence of such. It's like asking how you know the dinosaurs didn't go extinct by the earth suddenly changing it's gravitational pull and all of them floating up into space. We know that can't happen for similar reasons. It's provable. You can keep denying it, but it doesn't help your cause until you CAN prove something... ANYTHING.

a reply to: ancienthistorian

Add in the many cases of dinosaurs being depicted on various ancient objects, structures, etc. For example, at Angkor Wat, there is a carving of a stegosaurus on a pillar. Nothing else looks like one of those.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: Raggedyman

Do you have evidence that decay rates of isotopes can change?

No why would I
Do you have evidence, scientific, that it is all constant?

Yes I do. The fact that it has never been observed to change, even by scientists in a lab trying to make it change and that numerous other dating methods produce the same results. There is no reason to assume it can change without evidence of such. It's like asking how you know the dinosaurs didn't go extinct by the earth suddenly changing it's gravitational pull and all of them floating up into space. We know that can't happen for similar reasons. It's provable. You can keep denying it, but it doesn't help your cause until you CAN prove something... ANYTHING.

Thats an obvious lie
Because you dont know the rate of radioactive increase 5000 + years ago was constant. Assumption is not science


you dont know the rate of radioactive decay has been constant 5000 years ago, never mind millions of years. Assumption is not science
Dont be absurd

You said "There is no reason to assume it cant change? " Assumption, you are taking it by faith it doesnt change and thats not science

You have shown your own ilogic and fallacy towards science by your own words

and again, I dont have to prove anything, I havnt made any statements based on science as being factualk.

I asked the question, there is no scientific burden on me.
Its asinine to suggest that there is

Poor Noindy, he like you cant understand the question, is it above you?

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

For example, at Angkor Wat, there is a carving of a stegosaurus on a pillar.

No, there isn't. Stegosaurus didn't have horns and they had a rather small head, tiny in fact. It looks nothing like a stegosaur. The "plates" seem to be somewhat behind the creature. Decorations.
guiddoo.s3.amazonaws.com...
www.enchantedlearning.com...
alisonincambodia.files.wordpress.com...

originally posted by: Noinden


(a) We have performed radioactive decay experiments for a long time, and no change has been observed.
(b) Radioactive dating agrees with different isotopes as well as other dating method. Carbon dating, for instance, can determine the ages of trees noted in historical documents.
(c)We have no evidence to suggest radioactive decay is not constant, as our understanding of physics suggests it should be, and anyone wishing to challenge this needs to present evidence for it.

a How long exactly
b based on the first statement, unanswered, circular reasoning much
c no evidence is not evidence
Asinine seems to be appropriate as assumption is not a scientific method
Dont call your faith a science

Please go to school and study science, come back when you have and we can chat

a reply to: Phage

So can you tell me, without any qualms, stegosaurases never evolved horns, ever, never ever, really.