Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

Originally posted by lestweforget
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

And how do you know precisely how many thousand years old these artifacts truly are? One would have to have a strong scientific faith to believe carbon dating is accurate over 2000 years if at all.

Because i'm a mainstream scientist, but one with an open mind. Oh i believe in Jesus, you can still be scientific and still have faith, but carbon dating is a solid technique. I'm more of the type to believe that God created the earth and life and man through evolution, because God for all intents and purposes is a scientist. He would have to be in order to be able to even create life at all, matching all those DNA sequences together, getting just the right number of chromosomes for each species etc.

reply to post by MegaplateausFlight


Again, a simple geology 101 class would make you understand this. Rocks are folded, melted, turned upside down, inverted and layered. Which is why a geologist can look at one cliff and see 20 different things happening and why.
There certainly can be two different rocks melted together, of completely different ages. Happens all the times.
Mines make their money off it, because it is veins of copper, gold, and silver that are formed at different times that they drill.

reply to post by lestweforget


He wouldn't be using carbon dating. Carbon dating is only accurate up to 6,000 years. He would probably be using uranium-thorium dating for something 15,000 years old.

Hi NYK537,
Well thanks for the interesting topic. I like the people that think out of the box. O yes.. you do get your knocks and silly replies... But never mind each to them selves i say. I put it like they are in a bird cage looking out threw an open door... Its all safe inside with what you know... But its a big scary world outside the cage lol And nobody wants to follow up study a thread. They are quicker enuf just to bag it straight up. Too bad i feel sorry for them. Keep the good ideas and theories coming ! Thanks.

Religion or science, just two different kinds of belief systems.

You must have faith to believe in either one of them.

Unless you are some kind of modern day daVinci whose done thousands of experiments himself, with stacks of notebooks outlining his proofs, you probably just take some guy's word for it that the scientific theories are all correct.

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by lestweforget
reply to post by lonewolf19792000

 

And how do you know precisely how many thousand years old these artifacts truly are? One would have to have a strong scientific faith to believe carbon dating is accurate over 2000 years if at all.

Because i'm a mainstream scientist, but one with an open mind. Oh i believe in Jesus, you can still be scientific and still have faith, but carbon dating is a solid technique. I'm more of the type to believe that God created the earth and life and man through evolution, because God for all intents and purposes is a scientist. He would have to be in order to be able to even create life at all, matching all those DNA sequences together, getting just the right number of chromosomes for each species etc.

You call yourself a scientist and even one with an open mind, yet your following words completely contradict yourself. Your thinking is a mess. Straighen up, get smart. Maybe read a thing or two about carbon dating aswell because obviously you know little of it.

Originally posted by TheComte
Religion or science, just two different kinds of belief systems.

You must have faith to believe in either one of them.

Unless you are some kind of modern day daVinci whose done thousands of experiments himself, with stacks of notebooks outlining his proofs, you probably just take some guy's word for it that the scientific theories are all correct.

There's no room for belief in science. That's the whole point of it. Knowledge. Mkay ? Get it ?

Gravity dosn't really care if you believe in it or not, it dosn't care about you or your life, and wether you believe it or not won't change the fact that it's there.

Just because scientists theorise does not make them believe. Obviously any normal person knows that a theory is just that, a theory, open to changes. Gee i wonder why no real scientists join our very intelligent discussions here on ATS. :rolleyes

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Are you so absoluately sure about the digestive process of the dinosaur to make these claims? Whose to say an ancestor of an owl didnt regurgitate undigestiables and then been preserved, why dont we fine crushed bits of fozzilized humans?

Originally posted by Hydroman
I suppose dinosaurs were on the ark?

Well, we know that many dinosaurs came from eggs.
I suppose you could put a lot of eggs on the Ark.
Don't you?

You can believe in science, and in the Bible. I don't see a conflict. God can make anything aged.

Originally posted by Mallik

Originally posted by TheComte
Religion or science, just two different kinds of belief systems.

You must have faith to believe in either one of them.

Unless you are some kind of modern day daVinci whose done thousands of experiments himself, with stacks of notebooks outlining his proofs, you probably just take some guy's word for it that the scientific theories are all correct.

There's no room for belief in science. That's the whole point of it. Knowledge. Mkay ? Get it ?

Just because scientists theorise does not make them believe. Obviously any normal person knows that a theory is just that, a theory, open to changes. Gee i wonder why no real scientists join our very intelligent discussions here on ATS. :rolleyes

Maybe because they would have schills like you disrespecting them? /rollseyes

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


So where do Australian Aborigines fit into this equation, given their history dates back over 50,000 years? It is well documented that Australia had dinosaur fossils but it doesnt seem documented at all in aboriginal culture that they coexisted with dinosaurs. Their culture does however confirm the existence of space relatives.

I dont disagree that they coexisted in some place, somewhere on this planet, but I disagree about the timeline you have given from your creationist perspective.

Have a read of Robert Morning Sky's Terra Papers, this should give you another perspective.

reply to post by Griffo


i think it is sad that u had to edit Kent Holvent why r u afraid to let the him say his peace before pushing ur idea on us :0

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000

Originally posted by Mallik

Originally posted by TheComte
Religion or science, just two different kinds of belief systems.

You must have faith to believe in either one of them.

Unless you are some kind of modern day daVinci whose done thousands of experiments himself, with stacks of notebooks outlining his proofs, you probably just take some guy's word for it that the scientific theories are all correct.

There's no room for belief in science. That's the whole point of it. Knowledge. Mkay ? Get it ?

Just because scientists theorise does not make them believe. Obviously any normal person knows that a theory is just that, a theory, open to changes. Gee i wonder why no real scientists join our very intelligent discussions here on ATS. :rolleyes

Maybe because they would have schills like you disrespecting them? /rollseyes

Oh now we're really draggin this up to hardcore intellect level i see. Nice comeback. Respect is something you earn and you just lost the last i had for you. GG

reply to post by TheComte


Except science does not take faith. That's the great thing about the scientific method. If you've ever read a scientific paper you will notice that in the middle of it there is a long Methods section. This section is included so other scientists can then replicate the experiment exactly as it was originally performed and verify the results. With religion all you have is a book written at best centuries ago and you have to take it at face value. With science you have a countless number of people working not only on their own hypotheses, but verifying the results of their colleagues and if someone screws up they will be called out on it. Unless of course you are suggesting there is a science wide conspiracy that you become a member of during grad school. In which case feel free to post in a long dead thread that I posted.

The Science "Conspiracy"

no one ever said that we are seperated by any number of evolutionary years the bones just turned out to be really old only the worst of the worst scientists who believe in god press that way of thinking people genralliz to much

reply to post by Xcalibur254


i had different beliefs before Holvent , but i do have an open mind , not completely in bondage . n i can say that he opened my mind ..so if u can open further please do =)

reply to post by Mallik


You completely missed the point. There is plenty of room for belief in science. You believe Newton's calculations about gravity, yet you likely never did them yourself. What if gravity is a 'push' and not a 'pull?'

You take NASA's word for it that they have proved Einstein's relativity, yet you could never do the experiment yourself to find out if it is true.

See what I'm getting at? McFly?

reply to post by Xcalibur254


If you do the proofs yourself, then yes, it doesn't take faith. But how many people do that? Not many.

Just like if a religious person sees God, then they don't need faith anymore either.

reply to post by LightAssassin


You would have an easier time proving that humans co-existed with dinosaurs than you would proving scientology. Human structures or ships get conquered by nature within 150 years. Trees can tear buildings apart in a matter of years leaving little evidence they were ever there, and if theres a crack to be had anywhere, roots will find a way into it. The few ancient structures in the world that survive to this day are structures like the great pyramid at giza, or the megalithic seven temples in india. The pyramids survived because there were no trees or roots that could rip the structures down. After sites like tenochtitlan in central and south america were abandoned it only took 100 years roughly for the jungle to swallow them back up and only a fly over from an air plane rediscovered them, they had become legends and myths. When humans stop repairing and tending to structures they don't tend to last very long in most cases.

reply to post by MegaplateausFlight


My mind is open. Hovind is just a raving lunatic who no one in their right mind supports. That's all there is to it. He's not a scientist. He has no grasp of evolution, cosmogenesis, or science in general.

Originally posted by novastrike81
reply to post by jeramie

 

Lets take a look at a few of these scriptures and see what the general consensus is in regards to the Bible's "scientific" nature.

Hydrology - Hydrologic Balance

Job 28:24-26
24for he views the ends of the earth
and sees everything under the heavens.
25 When he established the force of the wind
and measured out the waters,
26 when he made a decree for the rain
and a path for the thunderstorm

Bible - 0, Science - 1

Geology - Shape of the Earth
(hint: it's not a circle)

Isaiah 40:22
22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Bible - 0, Science - 2

Astronomy - Earth's orbit around the Sun[hint: the Earth revolves around the Sun, not the other way around

)

1 Corinthians 15:41
41There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one star differeth from another star in glory.

What the hell is a splendor, or glory in regards to an orbit? Failed again.

Bible - 0, Science - 3

Meteorology - Circulation of the Atmosphere(a.k.a. Jet Stream)

6The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.

The Jet Stream flows from West to East; not South to North or spinning in a circle in the middle of nowhere and going back to the beginning. Fail.

Bible - 0, Science - 4

Biology Psychotherapy

Proverbs 16:24
24Pleasant words are as an honeycomb, sweet to the soul, and health to the bones.

The only thing right about this is that is a biological study. Other than that, how is saying pleasant words to someone evidence of the biology behind psychotherapy?

Bible - 0, Science - 5

Physics Atomic Disintegration

II Peter 3:10
10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

Atoms don't "disintegrate". Matter can not be created nor destroyed. However, atoms can lose their particles and turn into something else. Like Hydrogen into Deuteron. More science fail from the Bible.

Bible - 0, Science - 6

There is no scientific accuracies in the bible. Please stop posting articles that say there is.

You know, I usually don't go to the trouble...it's just not worth the effort. But when I see bad hermeneutics, I just go nuts. I know you are apparently responding to someone higher up in this huge thread that used these particular passages possibly out of context themselves, but here is as best I can, coming in after the fact trying and reconcile what I'm seeing from both sides of the coin.

First the Job quote...and that's exactly what it is in context, Job speaking, Job being quoted. LOTS of people are quoted in the Bible and what they said was recorded accurately. Was all of what they said true? Not necessarily. Was it true that they said it? Yes. With that said, I'm not even sure where someone would be going with that particular quote and it's relationship to water balance, in either direction?

The Isaiah 40:22 quote. Ok, this will require us to do actually some word study...nah, just kidding. I did it already. The root word in the original language, Hebrew, carries the principle idea of to "properly move in a circle" or a circuit. We use the term orbit now days...again, didn't bother to track down how they'd used this verse, but it's not regarding the SHAPE of the earth, but it's path, as far as I can tell. An example of how human thinking "leaked" into the translation. To the bulk of the early translators, a "circle" of the earth made more sense (read flat earth science) that did the "circuit" of the earth.

The 1 Corinthians 15:41 quote. Wow. Where did we get a geocentric cosmology out of that? I mean really. Paul is describing a common VISUAL representation of something that I believe a lot of us think is pretty amazing, the appearance of various heavenly bodies that we can observe and using it as an ILLUSTRATION of varying degrees of glory of the resurrected man...

Albert Barnes regarding this passage:

The sun has one degree of splendor, and the moon another, and so also the stars. They differ from each other in magnitude, in brightness, in beauty...The argument is, since we see so great differences in fact in the works of God, why should we doubt that he is able to make the human body different from what it is now, and to endow it with immortal and eternal perfection?

Ok, the next one took a second to find, but it's Ecclesiastes 1:6. And once again it requires a bit of original language word study. Here is the verse in context:

Ecc 1:5 The sun also rises, and the sun goes down, And hastens to the place where it arose. Ecc 1:6 [The wind] goes toward the south, And turns around to the north; The wind whirls about continually, And comes again on its circuit.

If you note I bracketed "the wind" in verse 6. Why? John Gill explains in his commentary of Ecclesiastes:

The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north,.... The word "wind" is not in this clause in the original text, but is taken from the next, and so may be rendered, "it goeth towards the south", &c. that is, the sun (x) before mentioned, which as to its diurnal and nocturnal course in the daytime goes towards the south, and in the night towards the north; and as to its annual course before the winter solstice it goes to the south, and before the summer solstice to the north, as interpreters observe.

So really all this passage says about the wind is that it whirls about continually and comes again on it's circuit. Someone again was thinking they'd "fix" the verse, and by doing so actually introduced a meaning that wasn't in the original Text. Hmmm...darn people always trying to second guess God and messing it up...don't get me started on the KJV translators "fixing" "great sea creatures/monsters" to read "great whales" in Genesis 1:21....grrrr.

The Proverbs passage, Proverbs 16:24. Again, not sure how they used this as a reference to science, and especially psychotherapy...since I consider psychotherapy akin to phrenology...just sayin...

And finally the II Peter 3:10 quote, and again a word study. The Greek word used in the passage translated "elements" didn't have quite the same meaning then as we hold today. The word carries primarily the idea of something orderly in arrangement, "elemental things" would probably be a clearer translation. Again, I have no idea how it was referenced in the links, but it definitely isn't referring to "atomic" elements, but the orderly arrangement of things that we are familiar with, Peter was implying that the vary fabric and nature of our reality would one day be torn apart and dissolved.

I know this doesn't defend the Bible as scientific, but I think to some degree it removes the misinterpretation of some of the passages as being "unscientific", and at least puts them in proper context, i.e. good hermeneutics results in good interpretations.