Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

reply to post by bluemooone2


Man track 2 ft. long. Mighty big fellow?? Maybe yeti??

Fossils and carbon dateing controversey aside, what about the speed of light as a measurement for the vast distances and age of the universe. EX. Milkyway galaxy 150 light years across with other galaxies hundreds of million of light years away. Just asking? Interesting that genesis describes the same chronology of events that science has concluded, only difference is a literal verses a symbolic time scale. To me not not a conflict. Also, genesis begins with "We created man in our image" before it says and God created man in his image"so, if you take it literally, several gods created man at a previous time before Adam and Eve were created. Then where did the son's of Adam find wives. Further down in the generations it says "and in those days the sons of god came down , saw the daughters of man ,saw that they were fair, and took unto them wives, all of which they choose, and the offspring were men who were excedeingly wise". I already know you answer to the last one which is related to the fall of man, but literally is says the sons of god came down, not the sons of satan. Literal or symbolic, Can't have it both ways;

Physicist John Webb has postulated that the fine structure of the universe has changed over time, and radioactive decay may not be constant. If true, it would lead me to believe that radio-carbon dating is completely bogus. I don't presume to know why "they" would perpetrate this lie on such a massive scale, but concede the possibility.

Are the laws of nature changing with time? --John Webb

This theory (superstring) also postulates that while the speed of light may be the ultimate speed-limit, the speed of light itself may vary throughout the universe. So again, if true, this would invalidate using the speed of light to determine the age or size of the universe.

Originally posted by Gastrok

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

 

creationist scientists

Isn't that an oxymoron?

Wow. Really? What do they teach in school now days...once again, no...the short list of scientists who believe or have believed in a creator...

Any of these names sound familiar, Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Francis Collins, Freeman Dyson --- Freeman FREAKING Dyson!!! I tell ya, people make me crazy!!!!...do I need go on? Come on people, think a little before you post something silly.

Originally posted by YoureTheCrazyOne
Physicist John Webb has postulated that the fine structure of the universe has changed over time...

John Webb has had this idea for quite some time, and up to date (since 1999) nobody else in the entire world has been able to replicate his results. One study, found that his results were non-existant.
wiki

But even so, even if his results were correct, young earth creationists still need to shrink the age of the universe by a difference of 750000 times. The supposed alteration in the fine structure constant, by Webbs own argument, is only about 1 part in a million.
That argument wont help you.

Originally posted by YoureTheCrazyOne
...and radioactive decay may not be constant.

Did this one several pages back.
The results by Jenkins and Fischbach et al are similarly not replicated by anyone else, and even if they were, the results they claim are similarly tiny.
That wont magically make the universe 750000 times older either.
Thats also no help to you.

Hey guys,

I've got shocking evidence the thread starter is actually right!

Here:

reply to post by Jonas86


Crocodiles aren't Dinosaurs.
There is plenty of information freely available that will show you this.

Damnit, here's one.

reply to post by aorAki


I believe the user was joking around.
Second line.

reply to post by aorAki


Why aren't crocodiles dinosaurs? Are all the animals that lived 65 millions years ago dinosaurs?

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Fisherr

 

My point exactly. This is written from a Creationist viewpoint (which I am) not an evolutionary one. I'm trying to make the case (among others) that evolutionary timelines are wrong, and that the Earth is much younger than we have been led to believe.

There are other test results out there that mirror the ones I have showcased. It is not an isolated incident.

There is no case here. You have offered 0 evidence that humans coexisted with dinosaurs. A stone with dinosaurs...ok...so what? I will entertain the possibility that a type of hominin may have lived with dinosaurs, but there is no reason to believe they coexisted, and that in the same way that cave art reflected the beauty that these old world ancestors witnessed, they may have created such art on stone types. Does it mean they coexisted? No.

There is no creationist case here, once again. Since the OP loves following dating methods, then surely you agree with the findings and dating methods which have DETERMINED that dinosaurs and hominins NEVER coexisted. Hey, if you can find some type of basic dating method like oh let's say stratigraphy, which uses soil layers to determine ages of fossils, which proves that humans( are you referring to H. sapiens??) are found at the same layer(Lived in the same time period) as the type of dinosaurs you just mentioned, then I will become a believer.

What's amazing to me is that you believe in the same dating methods which, if you've actually looked at scholarly peer reviewed research, completely contradicts your own supposedly derived theories.

I can offer, if you'd like, at least 30 artifacts which have been discovered in Polynesia alone, which indicate hominin presence far before 6000 years. Hell the artwork is a lot better than what you posted. There are settlements below water today which predate SUMER(~4KYA), the oldest known human civilization, by thousands of years.

The creationist argument doesn't hold any water. I'm sorry.

First off I just want to say I am big on science. Ever since I was young. Most of the shows I watch are The Science. Channel, Discovery Channel, etc. I especially love watching episodes on string theory and quantum science.

The one thing that bothers me is carbon dating. It bothers me because they use it as science fact when in reality it is science theory. How can they ever prove it unless someone was around 100,000 years ago to actually prove it; otherwise it is just theory with possible unknown variables and maybe unknown constants, or maybe a past event that mutated matter at one point.

All I am saying is that there are just as many reasons not to believe that carbon dating is efficient as there ate reasons to believe there are.
And for the record I do believe dinosaur and man coexisted. Too many people can't get away from what they were always told in school. Change is hard. I know. But let's all forget what we were told and have an open mind to findings and facts.

With the findings, let's put the pieces together in what may make sense. Of course for any finding or proof that is found you are going to have someone or agency to debunk it. If someone has an agenda to fulfill, they will always have some story or 'proof' that it isn't so.

Noah

Originally posted by quadagent

Originally posted by Gastrok

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

 

creationist scientists

Isn't that an oxymoron?

Wow. Really? What do they teach in school now days...once again, no...the short list of scientists who believe or have believed in a creator...

Any of these names sound familiar, Francis Bacon, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Descartes, Blaise Pascal, Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur, Lord Kelvin, Francis Collins, Freeman Dyson --- Freeman FREAKING Dyson!!! I tell ya, people make me crazy!!!!...do I need go on? Come on people, think a little before you post something silly.

Your schools apparently haven't been educating you properly either bro. Isaac Newton was never known to be a creationist. People think he devoted his life to science and mathematics, but he was first and foremost a biblical scholar, that is true. BUT he was not a creationist, actually he wrote some papers about the utterly horrible levels of corruption in the Catholic Church at the time, regarding their attempts to hide and manipulate history in order to re-attain their power, which you so conveniently failed to mention. He did in fact write on the more mystical parts of the book, but he was in no way a fan of the Church or what they --taught-, this word is particularly important. Of course he never told anyone, and all of his papers on religious corruption were published after he passed away- due to his own personal request.

My point is it's not about the scientists. It is about their (AND YOUR) ability to continuously question the reality you live in, to think for yourself, and use reason and logic in your understanding. This was the definition of a Man of Science during the Enlightenment Era. The term "Dark Ages" was given by the free-thinkers of the Enlightenment. Do you know why? Because during that time, man did not govern with reason/logic, but by prejudice and superstition. Most of those men believed in creationism because there was simply no evidence to support evolution during their time (Darwin came about in the 19th century, and his work wasn't popularized until a bit longer), so I don't know why half of them are even mentioned.

Originally posted by noah1111
Too many people can't get away from what they were always told in school. Change is hard. I know. But let's all forget what we were told and have an open mind to findings and facts.

Can the same be said for every belief system? What are the findings and what are the facts?

reply to post by Ewok_Boba

I don't know why half of them are even mentioned?

Because they believed in a creator?
Was I in fact responding to you in the first place? I was noting that genuine, brilliant men and women, considered bona fide scientists down through the ages could in fact believe also in a creator...and that it was clearly not an oxymoron...but hey, if you feel the need...


Isaac Newton

Newton saw God as the master creator whose existence could not be denied in the face of the grandeur of all creation.

reply to post by Hydroman

Yes, Eggs and baby dinosaurs.

reply to post by Qwenn


All things tend towards entropy.

Originally posted by noah1111
The one thing that bothers me is carbon dating. It bothers me because they use it as science fact when in reality it is science theory. How can they ever prove it unless someone was around 100,000 years ago to actually prove it...

First off, carbon dating doesnt go back to 100,000 years ago. It has an upper limit of only a few thousand years. This is good, because it can then be TESTED against things of known age, such as known to correspond with known historical events. Anything in history you might have heard of. The victims at the Vesuvius eruption at Pompeii, ancient Egyptian mummies, and so forth.
Tested, and verified.
You dont have to "assume" that it works. You can check.

Originally posted by noah1111
With the findings, let's put the pieces together in what may make sense.

Thats what science does.
But its not being done in this forum.
A note to the casual reader or lurker - you may not have noticed by now, so let me bring it to your attention - that creationists dont actually debate any specific point. The creationist style is "hit and run", to throw an assertion out in the open, see it stomped on by facts and data, and then never supply a return rebuttal supported by different supporting data.
As an example, the OP stopped trying to defend the beaver argument as early as page 2, and more recently (a few pages back) has announced his intention to run away and find something completely new to throw into the fray.
And thats why I dont expect any comeback from the argument about carbon dating I list above.
There isnt any.
Debating creationism is an oxymoron, its much more like "whack a mole".
Abandoning an argument, running away, and popping up somewhere else with something new.

reply to post by gncnew


Maybe the beavers of today make smaller corkscrew formations and the natives understood this, thinking it the work of a "giant, God-like Beaver" or a king of beavers.

Very tenuous evidence to support a bias towards a certain literalist, fundamentalist Biblical conception.

As a Christian believer, this type of argument between these two poles, with science on one side and the Bible on the other, is painful.

Originally posted by GJPinks
reply to post by Qwenn

 

All things tend towards entropy.

The whole march of cosmic evolution states otherwise. To the contrary, the predominent tendency is towards complexification, and the cosmogenesis of increasing consciousness and impressioned experience in a hierarchy of phylos leading to man as the highest expression of this tendency.

reply to post by Ewok_Boba


The dark ages were actually the centuries that the masses were not allowed to read or hear the "actual word of God" meaning to read or heard the Bible. The only thing permitted was what the priests preached. They would take a little of the Bible and mix it with Church Doctrine. What the Priests or Pope said was the only "truth" allowed.

reply to post by noah1111

First off I just want to say I am big on science. Ever since I was young. Most of the shows I watch are The Science. Channel, Discovery Channel, etc. I especially love watching episodes on string theory and quantum science.

If you're really interested in science, you need to go well past what you're seeing on TV to get any kind of an in-depth understanding. Those channels and a vast majority of the shows they present are really no different from the presentation of popular science in journalism -- the conclusions are often given weight that doesn't appear in the actual research findings and the scientific basis of the research presented is dumbed down to an alarming degree sometimes. I'd view that kind of programming with the same skepticism as something I see on YouTube until I can look at the source material for myself.

The one thing that bothers me is carbon dating. It bothers me because they use it as science fact when in reality it is science theory. How can they ever prove it unless someone was around 100,000 years ago to actually prove it; otherwise it is just theory with possible unknown variables and maybe unknown constants, or maybe a past event that mutated matter at one point.

This is exactly why dates aren't determined using radiocarbon dating without the aid of calibration curves. Those calibration curves are generated by measuring specimens that can be dated independently of radiocarbon methods. The current calibration curves don't extend past 50 or 60kyBP for the exact reason that you mention -- the level of radioisotopic carbon in the atmosphere hasn't been constant. Hence the use of calibration curves to get accurate dating.

All I am saying is that there are just as many reasons not to believe that carbon dating is efficient as there ate reasons to believe there are.

No, there really aren't any reasons to believe that radiocarbon dating is in error, as long as you understand the limitations of the test method.

And for the record I do believe dinosaur and man coexisted. Too many people can't get away from what they were always told in school. Change is hard. I know. But let's all forget what we were told and have an open mind to findings and facts.

Except the facts in evidence don't objectively support the conclusion.

With the findings, let's put the pieces together in what may make sense. Of course for any finding or proof that is found you are going to have someone or agency to debunk it. If someone has an agenda to fulfill, they will always have some story or 'proof' that it isn't so.

Proving that man coexisted with dinosaurs would be the kind of thing that would immortalize a scientist in the annals of history. If there were any kind of credible evidence to support the notion, scientists would be trampling each other to death to get their names attached to it. That credible evidence just doesn't exist.