What if man lived with the Dinosaurs?

What if creationism is right, and a scientist suddenly discovered the REALLY missing link? Could science accept the discovery of a modern human skeleton carbon dated to the time of dinosaurs or would it's discovery be hidden?

We're discovering new dinosaurs all the time - even at this late date - so it's still possible that a human could be discovered. How would this change the way we view the world?

Is there really any way to prove or disprove evolution?

I'd rather a archeologist find a fossilised dinosaur with a human ( e.g. homosapien ancestor ) inside its ribcage as diffinitive proof. I myself don't take carbon dating too seriously from what i've read over the years it seems at times to give strange readings. I see evolution in the wider context every animal has a space in the tree of life and over time these animals adapt and grow to be the best in that area of expertise. I do however have my own view on evolution although i cant prove what i believe but i think it sits well with my way of thinking and it's this, Evolution is slow, painstakingly slow but every now and then something happens and evolution goes into overdrive and in this overdrive mutations occur that A: Either render that species to extinction B: Improves that species dominance C: creates a true sentient being. As i said thats my view and i don't put it forward as being true it is however my personal view. As for What if creationism is right, I'm slightly unsure what your actually saying the creationism i'm aware of is the faith type of belief and i think in that light most religeous people would just say that the seed of life is God's creation so their religeon would carry on as usual.

so it's still possible that a human could be discovered.

Yes it is - We found new and older human parts of skeletons almost every 10th year or so. They are growing older for every new discovery.

How would this change the way we view the world?

Well a few books turns outdated, but the public view is still the same amongs them that don´t give a crap.

Is there really any way to prove or disprove evolution?

Yes science is only assumptions that is everyday challenged out from new facts and discoverys. A special standard goes through all science but some times there are real scientists that actually breaks out from the pyramid and challenge the whole standard for the scientific explaind reality we know of. Take the string-theory as an example. This theory is not recognized by the norm we are living in today. But give it 10-20 years more and this will be accepted and standardize as Newtons law of gravitation. Today you don´t need to reach space with NASA help. Today private individuals can reach space with their own flights.

There is no end of the possibilitys, but what we make for ourselves.

Regards:
Necros

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
What if creationism is right, and a scientist suddenly discovered the REALLY missing link?

Erm... I'm afraid you've misunderstood several concepts here.

Creationism simply says that a deity of choice (usually but not exclusively Christian) started life on earth (some groups say the deity was an alien.)

Young Earth Creationists insist that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. They argue on whether there were two creations mentioned in the Bible (where the dinos existed, got wiped out, and man came into being) or one creation (where the dinos get wiped out in the flood.)

The missing link is a rather outdated concept but one used by the press as a quick "sound bite." So there's all kinds of "missing link" fossils. We don't have a complete chain of evidence of skeletons and bodies (just as if you researched your own geneaology, you would find that you can't locate the graves of most of your ancestors born before about 1400 AD. This doesn't mean that those ancestors were nonexistant.)

Could science accept the discovery of a modern human skeleton carbon dated to the time of dinosaurs or would it's discovery be hidden?

One of the mistakes that most websites make when discussing this is that carbon dating is only used in a VERY small number of cases. The object must be:
* bone/body parts and not rock (dino bones have been changed to rock)
* older than 1,000 years
* younger than 50,000 years

So we can carbon date SOME of the mammoths frozen in the arctic tundras and all of the animals at the La Brea tar pits (plus the one woman whose body was found there) since they're all Late Pleistocene era:
www.sjgs.com...

However, we can't date remains of Jefferson's ground sloth:
www.beringia.com...

With only two exceptions (that I can think of) all dinosaur tissue has long since turned into stone (had the original material replaced by minerals) -- so there's nothing organic to check. In the two cases where there was organic material, the dating was done by several techniques (checked and crosschecked by different methods and different labs.)

We're discovering new dinosaurs all the time - even at this late date - so it's still possible that a human could be discovered. How would this change the way we view the world?

We're discovering humans AND dinosaurs all the time. But not in the same rock layers. And there's no evidence any of the dinos (beyond crocs and tortoises) survived the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction.

There are some mammals at that age (65 million years ago) that were the lineage that all species of mammals (including humans) evolve from, but there were no humans or human ancestors from that time. The oldest thing you would recognize as human lived about 6 million years ago.

Is there really any way to prove or disprove evolution?

Yes, there is. We have long sequences of fossils that show gradual change from one species into another.

The trouble is, the biblical literalists will accept microevolution (species can change) but they don't think that animals can over millions of years evolve into a more complex species (because they don't believe in millions of years) and they absolutly throw fits at the notion that humans might have something other than homo sapiens in their ancestry (in other words, they find it impossible to believe that we evolved from homo erectus and australopithecus (etc, etc) -- and think that we've misidentified Neanderthals (just deformed homo sapiens according to them, in spite of the real (fairly significant) skeletal differences) and other humans. And many of them think that the Australopithecenes and early hominids (homo erectus) are demonic half breeds.)

[edit on 9-6-2005 by Byrd]

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
What if creationism is right, and a scientist suddenly discovered the REALLY missing link? Could science accept the discovery of a modern human skeleton carbon dated to the time of dinosaurs or would it's discovery be hidden?

We're discovering new dinosaurs all the time - even at this late date - so it's still possible that a human could be discovered. How would this change the way we view the world?

Is there really any way to prove or disprove evolution?

\

I'm confused, bc I thought humans were always aroung the time of dinasours. I thought thats were got the name cavemen? I could be wrong. But humans have always existed on earth since the time it was created.

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
What if creationism is right, and a scientist suddenly discovered the REALLY missing link? Could science accept the discovery of a modern human skeleton carbon dated to the time of dinosaurs or would it's discovery be hidden?

IMO, true science would do nothing BUT accept that if that's what the evidence showed. To do otherwise is not science.

The amount of predatory dinos that seemed to have existed would have made it virtually impossible for a population homonids to take hold and survive. In other words we would be clever Troodons discussing science vs. creationism rather than clever monkeys.

Well taking in consideration how hard creationist has been trying to link humans with dinosaurs at the same time in history, I would not be surprise of some of their "ideas" become the norm and taken as truth.

I find this quote so funny that I had to post it.

"The Lord is just amazing," says Creation Scientist, Dr. Jonathan Edwards. "Whenever Atheist scientists make a new find, they think it will hack away at our Christian beliefs. They must get pretty peeved at how sneaky our Lord is, because whenever they unearth something, it only provides more support for the historical accuracy of the Holy Bible And these flying dinosaurs they keep finding are no exception!"

Now this is from a site that is not really a reliable one but is funny.

Dr. Edwards explains that it would have been impossible for Noah's sons to travel to the four corners of the earth to areas that were previously inaccessible on foot. "Noah and his sons had to collect two of every single creature on the face of the planet," he says. "We're talking about a big haul here. At first we just attributed it to what Creation Scientists call, the Holy Finger Snapping Theory.

Now don't get me wrong is people out there that will truly believe things like this.

www.landoverbaptist.org...





[edit on 9-6-2005 by marg6043]

Originally posted by alias101
I'm confused, bc I thought humans were always aroung the time of dinasours.

Nope.

I thought thats were got the name cavemen?

No, it's because the Moustrain and other early discoveries were people who lived in caves and under big ledges.

I could be wrong. But humans have always existed on earth since the time it was created.

No, they haven't.

Originally posted by parrhesia

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
What if creationism is right, and a scientist suddenly discovered the REALLY missing link? Could science accept the discovery of a modern human skeleton carbon dated to the time of dinosaurs or would it's discovery be hidden?

IMO, true science would do nothing BUT accept that if that's what the evidence showed. To do otherwise is not science.

I have to disagree with that.
There have been a number of instances throughout time, where science fact has been denied and hidden. Only to be brought to light when too many sources replicate the discovery.

Quick example, the bodies of science, were for centuries convinced that the earth was flat. The scientific mids of the time, all scoffed at evidence disproving that theory. Only once the knowledge had spread too far did the scientific community finally agree.
Other examples,
The earth is the center of the universe.
Everything orbits the Earth.
etc etc etc ad nauseum

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
I have to disagree with that.
There have been a number of instances throughout time, where science fact has been denied and hidden. Only to be brought to light when too many sources replicate the discovery.

Quick example, the bodies of science, were for centuries convinced that the earth was flat. The scientific mids of the time, all scoffed at evidence disproving that theory. Only once the knowledge had spread too far did the scientific community finally agree.
Other examples,
The earth is the center of the universe.
Everything orbits the Earth.
etc etc etc ad nauseum

IMO, you know what that's called? When you deny evidence that's contrary to what you believe? BAD science.

Real, good science isn't going to be hindered by beliefs. What is the point of searching for knowledge if you're going to disregard evidence because it doesn't coincide with what you already believe?

marg says:

Now don't get me wrong is people out there that will truly believe things like this. www.landoverbaptist.org...

That is one of the best web-sites I've ever seen (and I'm one of those pesky born-agains)! I laughed myself sick.

Too true,
Bit that does not negate that this has been a common practice in the past and may still be going on today. Remember, all the various conspiracy theories floating arounf such as Area 51, Cloning humans (already being done), secret manned flights to mars, vehicles that do 90 MPG, etc
Would the goverment and science withold information if it negates current belifs or theorums. I believe that they would not hesitate.

From the website posted by Marg:

"I would have loved to have been around to see Cain and Abel rolling around in the grass outside the Garden of Eden playing with the pet raptors their father, Adam, gave them for their birthdays," says Pastor Deacon Fred. "What a glorious time that must have been!"

I see Cain inherited his murderous tendencies from his dad. I guess Adam approved of child abuse.

This web site made me ROFL!!

As I said earlier there is no end of the possibilitys, but what we make for ourselves.

I begin to think alot of things, still there is alot of questions to be answered on my subjects of interest. But I believe I have frighten all people or something because they seem to avoid me like the plague. Still I know I cant be some one that I`m not. You can only try to get answers and nothing I think can answer what you can see or experience with your own eyes better then with your own eyes.

To be honest - I believe that humans have excisted for a very long time - even longer then our own history books makes valid. Or I begin to think so. I may be an idiot cuckoo but I still know that I can´t dismiss what I think I have seen on one singel photograph. *lol* But I can see that more people then I have seen or experienced extraordinar experiances E.E.E so that doesn`t leave me alone on this forum and that makes me happy. I am not complete F.U.B.A.R which I try to convince myself that is. *lmao*

Best Regards:
Necros

[edit on 9-6-2005 by Necros]

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
What if creationism is right, and a scientist suddenly discovered the REALLY missing link? Could science accept the discovery of a modern human skeleton carbon dated to the time of dinosaurs or would it's discovery be hidden?

We're discovering new dinosaurs all the time - even at this late date - so it's still possible that a human could be discovered. How would this change the way we view the world?

Is there really any way to prove or disprove evolution?

Ugh. Who's creationism? Christians think they have a monopoly on creation mythology, but they don't.

Regardless, if a human skeleton were discovered to be much older than previoulsy thought, it would get published. Scientists don't work under the authority of some central figure that monitors everything they do and manages the evolution conspiracy. Tthe competition to publish new discoveries is so intense that they occasionally publish bunk as well in a hurry to publish first (cold fusion anyone?).

That's why a single discovery wouldn't be enough to change the general consensus. Several skeletons would have to be found that all dated to much older than thought possible before it would be widely accepted, or other dating techniques would have to confirm the age of the given skeleton.

If we found a dinosaur? ...front page news on every newspaper baby! The idea of a scientific conspiracy on a subject so widely studied as paleantology is unfathomable.

Can evolution be proven or disproven? It depends on your standards of evidence. If you reject evolution due to the lack of evidence, you must also reject creationism on that basis - unless of course you're not interested in actual "proofs", but rather just in confirming what you've already accepted by faith.

All the basic principles of evolution have been directly observed starting from abiogenesis. The remaining gaps are growing smaller every day. We'll never be able to reproduce the experiment starting from base chemicals and working up toward man, but do we really need that level of granularity?

[edit on 9-6-2005 by spamandham]

Great post!

But I would like them to actually create life somewhere before I believe it sprang from a bunch of chemicals. The theory that seeds of life are floating around the universe and land in various places and evolve into things like what we have on Earth is something I could believe.

Didn't they do an experiment where they tried to create very basic life in the lab from chemicals, and it failed?

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
Didn't they do an experiment where they tried to create very basic life in the lab from chemicals, and it failed?

It was successful, actually, and done in 1953 (and repeated since then):
www.pbs.org...

www.pbs.org...

Nobody's created a living organism (or even body parts) from chemical soup because actually there's a whole gob of laws and ethics (and review boards) standing in the way of trying this.

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
Didn't they do an experiment where they tried to create very basic life in the lab from chemicals, and it failed?

It was successful, actually, and done in 1953 (and repeated since then):
www.pbs.org...

www.pbs.org...

Nobody's created a living organism (or even body parts) from chemical soup because actually there's a whole gob of laws and ethics (and review boards) standing in the way of trying this.

excellent post Byrd..like so many of your posts..u get my above

DOH...i cant vote for..

[edit on 10-6-2005 by Heratix]

Originally posted by AWingAndASigh
What if creationism is right, and a scientist suddenly discovered the REALLY missing link?

The missing link has already long since been discovered. Indeed, the links between the missing link and the things around it have been discovered to.

Could science accept the discovery of a modern human skeleton carbon dated to the time of dinosaurs

Carbon dating can't go back that far

or would it's discovery be hidden?

Lets say that a discovery of man and dinosaur bones together was made, in such a way that there was no doubt that they had coexisted.
Why would scientists cover this up?

If anything, the scientists have and interest to make it public.

so it's still possible that a human could be discovered.

I suppose its possible

How would this change the way we view the world?

Scientifically, it would mean that man and dinosaurs co-existed, and that our understanding of the evidence might've been wrong, but not that Creationism is right, creationism is a beleif system, a system of faith, not a science. For the general public tho, such a discovery would mean more attention to faith over science.

Is there really any way to prove or disprove evolution?

Of course. Evolution is a theory, and there are lots of ways it could be disproven, indeed, thats what scientists try to do, disprove it. A scientific experiment is an attempt to disprove a hypothesis. For the 150ish years that natural selection has been around, its withstood some really grueling tests at disproving.

alias101
But humans have always existed on earth since the time it was created.

The opposite is what the evidence suggests. There were men that were around in pre-historic times, but that doesn't mean 65 million years ago when the last dinos died out.
Check out this page for information on fossilized humans and pre-humans.

www.landoverbaptist.org...

Landover baptist is generally recognized as a parody of creationism and the more 'loony' aspects of some christian groups. A big complaint about Landover baptist is that, well, its not really all that crazy compared to what some people actually do beleive, and is thus almost not recognizable as a parody.

kenshiro
The scientific mids of the time, all scoffed at evidence disproving that theory.

This is before there were modern scientists tho, with an actual scientific methodology and mode of investigation. True enough, people, even today, can irrationally and unscientifically reject accurate information, but technically science itself doesn't reject it.

Only once the knowledge had spread too far did the scientific community finally agree.

There was no scientific community in those days.

The earth is the center of the universe.

Truly, here we can see that people who were the scientists of their day rejected the heliocentric model of Gallileo, and that they did this out of 'preference' for the so called 'ptolomeic' geocentric model. Of course, there was also a good deal of religious influence on this matter too.

Bit that does not negate that this has been a common practice in the past and may still be going on today

I think what we need to do is actually point out the instances where it happens today. Any of us could look at Gallileo's studies and the studies of the geocentrists and reach our own conclusions and see that gallileo was correct, and that they were wrong for unscientificalyl rejecting his ideas. Of course, in the end it was the scientists who finally accepted his ideas anyway. Similarly, what instances today are the same? I don't doubt that there are cases like it either, but evolution certianly isn't one of them. Perhaps M-Brane Theory and String Theory are examples of it.

WingAndASigh

But I would like them to actually create life somewhere before I believe it sprang from a bunch of chemicals. The theory that seeds of life are floating around the universe and land in various places and evolve into things like what we have on Earth is something I could believe.

Just a question. Why is it acceptable that there is life in the universe in general, but not quite beleivable that it can originate on earth? Wouldn't it be easier for chemicals to become life on earth than throughout space?

Didn't they do an experiment where they tried to create very basic life in the lab from chemicals, and it failed?

yes and no. Miller-Urey, which is possibly what you are thinking of, did an experiment wherein they wanted to simulate the hypothesized conditions of the early earth. They didn't know exactly what the conditions of the pre-biotic earth were, and weren't specifically trying to create life. Their experiment resulted in the formation of basic to life amino-acids being formed out of raw chemicals. Its difficult to say that thats a failure. Prior to that, everyone said 'you can't get amino acids just from chemicals'. On the other hand, there weren't any bacteria that were spontaneously generated. Did they get their intial conditions wrong? Were they completely wrong and the earth was very different from what they hypothesized? Or were they just lacking a few other chemicals, or processes, or a catlyst, or anything, that could've resulted in life?

Nobody's created a living organism (or even body parts) from chemical soup

I would like to state, however, that SUNY Stonybrook's labs were able to take non-living chemicals, and assemble, from scratch, a virus. Some would say that a virus isn't alive, and that this isn't particularly impressive, and perhaps they are right. And of course this is different from an actual abiogenesis experiement.

In any abiogenesis experiement, what is happening is that the researchers are studying organic chemistry and the possible initial conditions on the earth, and trying to hypothesize, which of those conditions and combinations can result in life? They'll 'work backwards' from a number of knowns and try to re-run the experiment. Suscess or failure is only pertinent to that particular hypothesis. One might, conceivably, successfulyl create life, but under conditions that are unreasonable for the early earth.

And, similarly, what if one successfully creates life under conditions that are quite reasonable for a copy of the early earth? Any experiment is tightly controled and precisely thought out and preplanned. Surely many will charge that the experiment is merely an example of intelligent design, rather than abiogenesis, becuase it would've required forethought and design for the reseachers invovled to have thought of it (the implication being that nature couldn't've done that, at least not without an intelligent designer).

So 'success' is quite relative.