Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

Originally posted by stonespiral
I like the evidence you posted, but I don't think I agree with the Earth being younger than we're led to believe. If anything I think it may be much older than we're led to believe. Probably by accident, or that the materials and methods aren't available to show that it's much older.

That being said I wouldn't be surprised to find older and older human remains, assuming those remains still exist. I also wouldn't be surprised to find human and dinosaur remains from the same time and relatively near one another.

The future is an exciting place to dream!

I highly doubt that will happen. To carnivores humans would have made a tasty snack, and bones would have either been pulverized during the chewing process for larger carnivores or digested leaving nothing behind. Smaller carnivores like velociraptors would have torn everything apart including the bones and scavangers would've eaten the rest.

Then there's the fact that a giant asteroid slammed into earth and was large enough to leave a tail sticking 6 miles up into the air out of the ground. The ejecta blaste dout 2000 miles into space and what came down set fires everywhere, blacked out the sun and caused most major lifeforms to die out except for the smaller creatures. Yeah that asteroid knocks a huge dent into the humans running with dinosaurs theory, and the fact that they would have EATEN us.

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by alfa1

 

I'm not lying at all.

Here only defense on those bones is that the area is 65 million years old. Based on what? A faulty dating method!

She provides no reasoning for why the bones contain soft-tissue, she simply swipes it away by claiming the entire area is a certain age! The bone has also never been allowed to be dated for Carbon 14 to this day.

I wonder why?

Wonder no more
Thanks to the invention of the google machine, I was able to solve this (apologies if it was spoken later on, I stopped at the topish of page 3 with no addressing this)

An interesting new paper is just out today in PLoS ONE. You recall the announcement a few years back that soft tissue that resembled organic tissue had been isolated from a Tyrannosaurus femur. This started off a huge controversy in the field (and beyond)--researchers disagreeing with each other whether the structures seen were indeed blood cells and vessels; creationists crowing about how this finding represented "proof" that the earth was indeed young and dinosaurs had existed just a few thousand years ago; and of course, talk of cloning and DNA analysis. On the side of "soft tissue = dino blood" were findings that reported identification of the iron-containing protein heme (potentially from the red blood cells) and morphology of cells and vessels similar to that seen in modern-day ostriches and emu. However, the new paper by Kaye et al. provides an alternative explanation: that the structures aren't actual vessels and cells, but are instead iron-rich bacterial biofilms.

So...its not soft tissue...its bacteria then.

Alas, our cave brothers didn't live like the flintstones after all

Source

Do you think Google replaced God?

Incidently, this is the issue with people of faith...the second a curiousity comes up, instead of waiting for science to explore it, they immediately start claiming and demanding rediculous things in the name of their religion...Seriously, you creationists need to get past it...the bible is a book of spiritual exploration, not a science book...I don't use a history book to find good recipes...use the book for the area its meant to be and let the other subjects be used for other books.

And tear out genesis and a few other books while your at it that attempts to explain the earth through the eyes of a near caveman.

reply to post by MegaplateausFlight


You're seriously bringing up Hovind? Not even creationists agree with Hovind. He doesn't even have a legitimate education. He has three degrees in "Christian education" from unaccredited institutions. It also doesn't help his case that he is currently serving a 10 year prison sentence for fraud.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by nyk537

 

S&F!

I really appreciate you confronting this conundrum and providing information backing up the high probability that dinosaurs and humans were alive at the same time.

I briefly touched upon this idea in another thread recently and, of course, someone was immediately there to make jokes. When will these close minded people learn that humiliating someone for their ideas only causes themselves to look foolish?

Good for you, Op. Stick to your guns!

Yes, well sadly on page 2, adults started showing up, giving actual sources and showing the misrepresentation that is going on.

There is no conundrum..just misrepresentaitons, and denial. Deny what?

3 races roamed the earth...
humanoids (slaves) dinosauroids (food) and reptoids (leaders)

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.

reply to post by TupacShakur


Stop acting like evolution is scientific fact when it's not, it's an assumption. I go on for hours explaining to you how it's inaccurate

I can see you never read the bible, the bible nowhere states the earth was created 6000 years ago, it doesn't state anywhere how old the earth is. It's a common mistake people make because of the God created earth in 6 days and 1000 years = 1 God day, this all purely symbolic

Just because you believe in a group of scientist that supports evolution doesn't make it fact. There many scientist that don't support evolution and believe it should be swept under rug due to it's in-accuracies

The bible illogical? You believe the most illogical belief of the big bang theory and that life combusted out of nothing and evolved into humans? When SCIENCE proves that it's IMPOSSIBLE to combust non-living molecules into life.

The bible is actually scientifically accurate, show me where it fails at that?

reply to post by jyze420


I'm going to forgo asking for proof on this one, but I do have one question. What is the difference between a dinosauroid and a reptoid? I ask because dinosaurs were reptiles.

reply to post by Stovokor

ok what i want you 2 do is explain to me how you know the earth is millions old.. circular reasoning is how they teach it in school ..they tell u that they know how old the fossils are because what layer the sediment and they know how old the sediment is cause the fossil that are found .. so please open my eyes if you know so much.. i 2 was a non believer till Kent Holvent i hope that ur own digging 4 the truth will help us both

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by jyze420

 

I'm going to forgo asking for proof on this one, but I do have one question. What is the difference between a dinosauroid and a reptoid? I ask because dinosaurs were reptiles.

I thought that many were thought to be just bigarsed birds..may have even possibly had feathers...

-imagines a T-Rex covered in big yellow feathers and chuckles-
Sure, not as horror movie scary, but still, birds can do damage...even giant big bird looking things.


Add:

The realization that dinosaurs are closely related to birds raised the obvious possibility of feathered dinosaurs. Fossils of Archaeopteryx include well-preserved feathers, but it was not until the early 1990s that clearly non-avialan dinosaur fossils were discovered with preserved feathers. Since then, more than twenty genera of dinosaurs, mostly theropods, have been discovered to have been feathered. Most fossils are from the Yixian formation in China. The fossil feathers of one specimen, Shuvuuia deserti, have tested positive for beta-keratin, the main protein in bird feathers, in immunological tests.[1]

From the wiki.
So, some may have been big feathered friends then..but perhaps not all.

reply to post by samaka

Stop acting like evolution is scientific fact when it's not, it's an assumption.

Scientific fact: Domesticated dogs were bred from wolves. [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ea3866569cff.jpg[/atsimg] [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ba3d2dfcfc9c.jpg[/atsimg] [atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d006880750b4.jpg[/atsimg]

I go on for hours explaining to you how it's inaccurate

Please do.

The bible illogical? You believe the most illogical belief of the big bang theory and that life combusted out of nothing and evolved into humans?

Yes,I believe in the Big Bang Theory of the creation of the universe, and no I don't believe that life combusted out of "nothing", because life formed from chemicals that were present on the early earth. So really, life formed from "something".

When SCIENCE proves that it's IMPOSSIBLE to combust non-living molecules into life.

Maybe you missed this?: Scientists create cell
Were you in a church service when this was announced?: Scientists create RNA

reply to post by gimme_some_truth

Creationist scientist. Very nice oxy-moron you got there.

Maybe you meant "young earth creationist - scientist?" Because how I see it, there seems to be a heck of a lot of scientists who believe/believed in a creator...

The Short List of Christian/Believer Scientists...

reply to post by samaka


As of right now there are far more evolutionary biologists named Steve that support evolution than all the "scientists" that don't support evolution. Most the people who don't support evolution either aren't in fields related to evolution, have questionable credentials, or both. On the other hand almost every biologist for the past 150 years has supported evolution and this is due to the fact that no peer-reviewed experiment has been performed that throws the modern evolutionary synthesis into question. As for the emergence of life I suggest looking into the Miller-Urey spark flask experiment and the follow-up done by Jeffrey Bada in 2008.

reply to post by SaturnFX


There were avian dinosaurs and modern birds did evolve from dinosaurs. However, paleontologists have identified over 1000 non-avian dinosaurs with the majority of these being terrestrial archosaurian reptiles.

Interesting but I figured I would post this.

Baby mammoth found frozen in russia

Originally posted by samaka
Stop acting like evolution is scientific fact when it's not, it's an assumption. I go on for hours explaining to you how it's inaccurate

Actually it's a theory involving thousands of bits of data and information that was discovered using science. Sure there are inaccuracies in anything, but as a whole the theory has not been put to rest as incorrect.

Originally posted by samaka
Just because you believe in a group of scientist that supports evolution doesn't make it fact. There many scientist that don't support evolution and believe it should be swept under rug due to it's in-accuracies

I believe the support is with the science and the overall theory, not with the scientists. There are some that don't support it, but they've never been able to put together compelling evidence to refute findings thus far.

Originally posted by samaka
The bible illogical? You believe the most illogical belief of the big bang theory and that life combusted out of nothing and evolved into humans? When SCIENCE proves that it's IMPOSSIBLE to combust non-living molecules into life.

The bible is actually scientifically accurate, show me where it fails at that?

Actually, the conditions on Earth created the right combination to allow basic life to start. The big bang was one part of a chain of events. I'm not sure how science proves it's impossible to combust non-living molecules to life. I think you'll have to explain that one to me.

The bible on the other hand demands faith and IS scientifically accurate. Faith allows you to believe two of every creature on the planet got into an ark while the entire world flooded. Scientifically speaking there are so many problems with that...well, let's just say I've showed you where it failed. I could certainly go on, but I don't think that's needed if you sit back for a bit and really think about it.

reply to post by MegaplateausFlight


The age of the Earth is not determined from fossils and the like. First radiometric dating is performed on rocks. This will then give us a lower limit to the Earth's age. So far the oldest rocks we have found are about 4.3 billion years old. Following this dating is performed on meteorites. We know that these meteors would have formed at about the same time as the Earth give or take a few million years. So far every meteorite we have performed dating on has given us a date of around 4.54 billion years.

reply to post by MegaplateausFlight


You don't even need to look at life or sediments or carbon dating to know how long the earth has been around for. All you need to do is look up (admittedly through several billions worth of telescope as well ).

The simply processes of planetary formation take millions and millions of years, dust and gas doesn't just clump together over night, followed by a quick early morning ecological and temperate stabilisation allowing the conditions for life to develop and live... all in time for some scrambled eggs at brunch.

Carbon dating, creationism and evolution make absolutely NO difference to the facts of how planetary bodies form.

There will be discrepancies and anomalies in any tests no matter what they are when there is enough of a data set, that's life, nothings perfect, so even assuming all carbon dating is wrong (not 100% accurate would be true but I don't believe it's anywhere near as off as you state!), but that doesn't change the fact of life and what it takes for it to get here.

Unless of course you are stating god just made earth over night and left the rest of the universe to form over billions of years as he got board and we're obviously so special!

What I also find funny is, if it was true that man was alive at the same time as dinosaurs(6,000 years ago) how the hell did we manage to fight against them? Seriously, use resources at hand? You mean sticks and stones? I know someone mentioned this before but ... how big was a T-rex exactly? It would take a tank, or more take one of them down ...

reply to post by nyk537


for all those disbelievers try reading forbidden archaeology by micheal cremo.