Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

if they found dinosaur bones with tool marks on them, and flint tools lying around at the same site that would be convincing evidence, or human bones with dinosaur teeth lodged in them, something like that.

and like a previous poster said, theres no reason that some dinosaurs didnt survive the extinction. there is even some evidence that mammoths were still alive in small groups as late as 4000 years ago. so that artwork depicting what appears to be dinosaurs could be possible without drastically altering the time line of earths history. although im fairly sure that the bulk of them, (especially the one depicting a man riding a triceratops swinging a club lol) are fakes.

finally the bible never even claims that the earth is 6000 years old in the first place, so its not like its essential to Christianity.

......I came back to see if the OP has posted a link to his sources that state that the Schweitzer T-Rex bone was not allowed to have Carbon-14 testing on it. Still nothing.....

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Hydroman

 

Absolutely. Along with every other kind of animal.

So Noah went to New Zealand and got the Kiwi, just to return it to New Zealand, or the Tuatara, or the Moa, or the Tui, or the Huia, or the Kokako etc, which aren't found elsewhere?

How did the freshwater creatures cope?

I'm not sure why you would want to use radiocarbon dating on dinosaur fossils unless you wanted to 'prove' your agenda.

There is no geological record of 'the great flood', just wishful thinking.

No, dinosaurs and humans did not coexist. I think you are being less than charitable to the people who came before us , and their observational skills.

You WOULD think that if this supposed coexistence occurred they would have at least got the physiology (the way the animals carry themselves) correct.

This one topic I completely have forgotten about... dinosaurs. As you can see, I have blindly accepted what scientist have told us about dinosaurs.

This is absolutely AMAZING! Based on what I've been into lately, I totally believe this. Then the question pops up... If we co-existed with dinosaurs... then where did we really come from?

Originally posted by novastrike81
C-14 has a half life of 5,370 years so it's only accurate for fossils up to 70,000 years.

That's my point. If C-14 is found on a dinosaur fossil that is said to be at least 65 million years old...then it throws the entire theory of evolution into a tailspin.

If scientists were wrong about that, then why should we not questions everything they have told us about these dates and the age of the earth?

Originally posted by aorAki
You WOULD think that if this supposed coexistence occurred they would have at least got the physiology (the way the animals carry themselves) correct.

But they DID!

Ancient peoples drew and carved dinosaurs that look amazingly like the ones we know today. How could they have gotten the shape of their heads and muscles right if they had not seen them. Especially considering that a large portion of the heads were made up of cartilage and muscle...things that you can't see from looking at a fossil.

Originally posted by nyk537


I'll also ask you this...how do you know that those fossils are over 6,000 years old? Because of the radiometric dating system that proves faulty every time it's tested?

Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory

Go on, put your money where your mouth is and give your 'proposal' to these guys and see what they say. I am certain you will come up with some sort of excuse for not contacting them and if you say you have I will follow this up with them also.

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by bluemooone2
There is definitely some evidence for this.Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Maybe

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5ea2765b380b.jpg[/atsimg]
www.creation-vs-evolution.us...

Either that's a giant foot, or it's a small dinosaur...

Or some kind of Emu or Ostrich.

reply to post by aorAki


Contact them for what?

I'd direct you to take a look at this book...Mythology of Modern Dating Methods which contains quotes and experiments from leading secular scientists that detail the problems of the current dating methods.

There is plenty of reliable, non-religious information out there that backs me up on this. If, that is, you are willing to open your mind and challenge your thinking.

reply to post by Hydroman


I would post them, but since the majority of those articles are form sites you would simply dismiss, I don't see a point.

See if you can find me anything that says they did test it though.

I'd love to see the results.

reply to post by nyk537


Post em'! It doesn't matter what a person thinks. We would like to see what you have up your sleeve to say.

reply to post by Kryties


Not at all...and you are really missing the point.

The dating methods for any system are grossly OVER-estimating the age of everything that is tested. The fact that C-14 is even present at all blows the evolutionary timeline out of the water.

What's more, if we continue the argument that the dating is unreliable and over-exaggerated, then we it's easy to assume that the dinosaur bones are much younger than what the test shows.

Either way, the evolutionary timeline doesn't apply to dinosaur bones containing C-14.

Originally posted by aorAki
\

Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory

Go on, put your money where your mouth is and give your 'proposal' to these guys and see what they say. I am certain you will come up with some sort of excuse for not contacting them and if you say you have I will follow this up with them also.

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by aorAki

 

Contact them for what?

I thought as much.

That book you linked to smacks of a Creationist agenda and isn't worth the paper it's printed on....where are the Scientific peer reviews (not Creationist reviews)?

Originally posted by nyk537
The dating methods for any system are grossly OVER-estimating the age of everything that is tested. The fact that C-14 is even present at all blows the evolutionary timeline out of the water.

Is there any possibility of contamination?

reply to post by aorAki


Thought as much about what? I'm asking you seriously what you want me to contact them for?

And that particular book is full of secular scientists...not creationist scientist. And what makes the "agenda" of an evolutionary scientist any more credible than the "agenda" of a creationist scientist?

reply to post by nyk537


I would also encourage you to read the following article on C-14 dating. C-14 Dating

While it is from a creationist website...the science cannot be argued. It is after all...science.

Originally posted by nyk537

Originally posted by novastrike81
C-14 has a half life of 5,370 years so it's only accurate for fossils up to 70,000 years.

That's my point. If C-14 is found on a dinosaur fossil that is said to be at least 65 million years old...then it throws the entire theory of evolution into a tailspin.

If scientists were wrong about that, then why should we not questions everything they have told us about these dates and the age of the earth?

You wouldn't carbon date a dinosaur bone because of the half life issue. No scientist would ever do that because it would always come back with a false reading.

You would use Uranium-238, Uranium-235, and Potassium-40. Since those elements don't exist within bones, they test the rocks that fuse with the bones that create the fossil itself. Scientists also use this same type of method to date the Earth.

Source

There are numerous theories where is claimed humans themselves are around much longer then ms-science tells us. So I certainly do not disagree, nor immediately agree.

Thanks.

As I haven't go through this entire thread I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, but I highly suggest you read it. It provides the number of ways that the solar system's, and by extent Earth's, age was determined and why it is an accurate number. It also addresses your criticisms of dating methods used.

Talk Origins - The Age of the Earth

Originally posted by nyk537
And that particular book is full of secular scientists...not creationist scientist. And what makes the "agenda" of an evolutionary scientist any more credible than the "agenda" of a creationist scientist?

Could you explain again the "agenda" of an evolutionary scientist?