Are human remains ever found with dinosaurs?

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Guess I should have Googled it first.

AV, in a nutshell.

 

[Kylie]

Does it describe general relativity?

Only if the Earth was moving at the speed of light.

 

[dad]

Okay, here's some help:

From the abstract: https://www.nap.edu/read/624/chapter/16 - (don't worry though, the whole thing is there for you to read...)

"About 26 dating techniques can be applied to dating deposits and deformation of late Cenozoic age (past few million years). These techniques can be grouped as numerical, relative dating, and correlation. Numerical techniques are best, but datable materials are often lacking, and in these cases age estimation must be made using relative-dating or correlation techniques. Relative-dating techniques are nearly always applicable but are not precise and require calibration. Correlation techniques are locally useful and depend on recognition of an event whose age is known, such as a volcanic eruption or a paleomagnetic reversal."​

The whole publication is there if you cared to have a look. I can't say I'm confident you'll be honest about it, but I hold hope that you'll at least read it and take the time to understand it, even if it is quite a read. There are a number of graphs derived from observed data points throughout this dissertation that should at least give you some visual representation of the correlating overlaps of some of the studies undertaken. this writeup goes to great lengths to explain the data and cover off the connected points, many that are relevant to our discussion. It deals with seismic & plate tectonics (geologic studies mainly, with a number of crossover dating methods & techniques with other independent scientific fields of inquiry and how they correlate remarkably well nonetheless). I'd like to make this our talking point for now, let me know if you have problems with it and be specific, we can all talk it over with you...

Not ONE in there that does not sit on the premise that nature and laws were the same (so we could have had radioactive decay for example).

In other words, all belief based, and not knowledge based.

 

[dad]

Science does know. I have explained how science knows. Others have also explained.

I have explained that they may not explain using the unproven same state past as the basis for what they think they know.

Unfortunately, you know so little about science that you don't realise that your ideas contradict reality.

Reality is not confined or defined by the present nature, unless you are defining the present.

Anything you say about the laws in the past can't be tested, so it is a losing proposition.

 

[Kylie]

I have explained that they may not explain using the unproven same state past as the basis for what they think they know.

And yet you have constantly FAILED to explain why they aren't allowed to.

Reality is not confined or defined by the present nature, unless you are defining the present.

If there is some evidence to support your claims, then post it. I';ve asked you countless times in the past and you've never stepped up with any evidence. All you've ever done is say, "Prove I'm wrong then."

Anything you say about the laws in the past can't be tested, so it is a losing proposition.

And the same applies to you then!

 

[dad]

And yet you have constantly FAILED to explain why they aren't allowed to.

Precisely because, as the quote you cited says, it is unproven. You cannot use a belief that has no basis in fact as the chief cornerstone of supposedly scientific claims.

If there is some evidence to support your claims, then post it. I';ve asked you countless times in the past and you've never stepped up with any evidence. All you've ever done is say, "Prove I'm wrong then."

My claim is that science doesn't know the nature, forces, and laws of the future or far past. The support for that claim is in the fact that no one anywhere ever proved that they were right, or even gave a smidgen of direct evidence, or even indirect evidence for the state you chose to believe in.

And the same applies to you then!

Only as far as science goes, and as we can see, that isn't very far!

 

[Kylie]

Precisely because, as the quote you cited says, it is unproven.

If it's unproven, how do you it isn't true? You demand that I act as though I can't say anything for certain, and yet you make certain claims all the time. Why the double standard?

You cannot use a belief that has no basis in fact as the chief cornerstone of supposedly scientific claims.

But there is a basis - IT WORKS.

My claim is that science doesn't know the nature, forces, and laws of the future or far past. The support for that claim is in the fact that no one anywhere ever proved that they were right, or even gave a smidgen of direct evidence, or even indirect evidence for the state you chose to believe in.

That's very poor logic.

You can't prove there isn't an elephant in your kitchen.

Only as far as science goes, and as we can see, that isn't very far!

Yeah, but your point of view is myopic (to use one of AV's favorite words).

 

[dad]

If it's unproven, how do you it isn't true?

No one knows from science either way. All that matters is that it is unknown.

You demand that I act as though I can't say anything for certain, and yet you make certain claims all the time. Why the double standard?

Certainty only resides outside of science!

But there is a basis - IT WORKS.

False. The present state only works in the present.

Yeah, but your point of view is myopic (to use one of AV's favorite words).

No, it is factual and reasoned and broad minded. It is KNOWN what science uses to look at evidence and make models of the past. It would bt myopic to ignore it.

 

[Kylie]

No one knows from science either way. All that matters is that it is unknown.
Certainty only resides outside of science!


False. The present state only works in the present.

No, it is factual and reasoned and broad minded. It is KNOWN what science uses to look at evidence and make models of the past. It would bt myopic to ignore it.

You know, it's getting really boring refuting the same tired old arguments that you bring up. You have no knowledge of how science actually works, no desire to learn and no desire to do anything other than spout your position over and over again.

Tell me, why are you in a place meant for discussions when you have no desire to discuss anything?

 

[dad]

You know, it's getting really boring refuting the same tired old arguments that you bring up.

The real issue is having to admit you are defeated totally, I know that can be somewhat painful...but needed.

You have no knowledge of how science actually works, no desire to learn and no desire to do anything other than spout your position over and over again.

My, would you be waxing nasty? I know exactly the limits of science and why it is limited. One must know this or one might become some blind cheerleader of darkness.

Tell me, why are you in a place meant for discussions when you have no desire to discuss anything?

Start with the topic. I explained why no human remains are expected to be found with dinos. That is because most animals and men likely could not fossilize in the former nature.

Now if you want to claim it was the same nature..prove it. Or if you claim we could have fossilized show why other than that. Otherwise you are defeated. Learn from it. Move on. Grow. Find truth. Be happy.

 

[Kylie]

The real issue is having to admit you are defeated totally, I know that can be somewhat painful...but needed.

I could play chess with a pigeon every day. How many games should I play with the pigeon before I decide that since he's never going to learn how to play the game, I'm just wasting my time trying to play with a pigeon?

My, would you be waxing nasty? I know exactly the limits of science and why it is limited. One must know this or one might become some blind cheerleader of darkness.

No, you don't know the limits of darkness. I have explained to you many times why your claims are wrong, as have others, and yet you refuse to listen. Either you are incapable of learning or you don't want to learn.

Start with the topic. I explained why no human remains are expected to be found with dinos. That is because most animals and men likely could not fossilize in the former nature.

And yet we have plenty of animal fossils from them.

Why don't you create a timeline showing exactly when each type of animal became able to fossilise? And why don't you explain what caused some animals to be unable to fossilise, and explain what mechanism there was that changed to let them fossilise after a certain point in time?

Now if you want to claim it was the same nature..prove it.

I have, you just deny it because you apparently can't face the idea of adjusting your point of view. So you hold on to your poor scientific understanding, refusing anything that will force you to re-evaluate your position.

Or if you claim we could have fossilized show why other than that.

If humans were alive back then, we would have fossilised just as readily as any other species.

Otherwise you are defeated. Learn from it. Move on. Grow. Find truth. Be happy.

Claim victory all you want. Doesn't mean you have produced a winning argument. It's like that pigeon who proudly claims he's never been beaten. We all know it's because he's never been able to actually play.

 

[dad]

No, you don't know the limits of darkness. I have explained to you many times why your claims are wrong, as have others, and yet you refuse to listen. Either you are incapable of learning or you don't want to learn.

You have preached a belief in a certain nature in the past that has NO evidence no proof and is contrary to reason and Scripture. You have sought to impose this unfounded belief onto various evidences and have been exposed, defeated and overruled in totality.

And yet we have plenty of animal fossils from them.

Speaking of getting tired repeating things, try and get this will you this time?

I said most animals and man probably could not leave fossil remains. We were likely returning to dust real fast. I can't think of one tomb or grave from before the flood come to think of it! Some animals could fossilize. For whatever reasons.

Now if you want to whine because we do not know the details of the former laws and forces and how they determined life processes, fine. But remember that science doesn't know that and doesn't even so much know that nature was not the same!!!!!!!!!!! I am one up on them.

Why don't you create a timeline showing exactly when each type of animal became able to fossilise? And why don't you explain what caused some animals to be unable to fossilise, and explain what mechanism there was that changed to let them fossilise after a certain point in time?

Why not use what we have?? If the poor dead critter fossilized it was one of the creatures that could fossilize in the former nature! Let's work with science here where possible. Do't be an extremist.

I have, you just deny it because you apparently can't face the idea of adjusting your point of view. So you hold on to your poor scientific understanding, refusing anything that will force you to re-evaluate your position.

If you had anything other than poor science to convince someone, and did not reject the Scripture for no reason, you might be able to convince someone of something.

If humans were alive back then, we would have fossilised just as readily as any other species.

Finally a claim! Let's see the evidence for this claim? Based on what? Why? I think many posters will see right away that the only possible reason you claim this is unfounded blind faith is a same state past. Because we NOW would fossilize. Give it up.

 

[Kylie]

You have preached a belief in a certain nature in the past that has NO evidence no proof and is contrary to reason and Scripture. You have sought to impose this unfounded belief onto various evidences and have been exposed, defeated and overruled in totality.

Such grandiose words, shame they don't mean anything. It's like a pigeon strutting around after knocking the chess pieces over. Learn to play the game before you try to claim you've won, dad.

Speaking of getting tired repeating things, try and get this will you this time?

I said most animals and man probably could not leave fossil remains. We were likely returning to dust real fast. I can't think of one tomb or grave from before the flood come to think of it! Some animals could fossilize. For whatever reasons.

Now if you want to whine because we do not know the details of the former laws and forces and how they determined life processes, fine. But remember that science doesn't know that and doesn't even so much know that nature was not the same!!!!!!!!!!! I am one up on them.

So, the thing you want me to try and get is filled with words such as, "Likely", "Whatever." So you want me to understand something that you speak of as a guess? You'll have to do better than that. Your position has ZERO support.

Why not use what we have?? If the poor dead critter fossilized it was one of the creatures that could fossilize in the former nature! Let's work with science here where possible. Do't be an extremist.

And yet you can't tell me why some creatures could fossilise while others could not. What qualities did they have that allowed them to fossilise? What changed? You have nothing except ideas which you never go into detail about. The problem is that if you ever did go into detail, then your arguments would collapse even faster than they do already.

If you had anything other than poor science to convince someone, and did not reject the Scripture for no reason, you might be able to convince someone of something.

It's very amusing when you say I am using poor science.

I reject the Scripture because it does not fit with what we see in reality.

Finally a claim! Let's see the evidence for this claim? Based on what? Why? I think many posters will see right away that the only possible reason you claim this is unfounded blind faith is a same state past. Because we NOW would fossilize. Give it up.

Based on the fact that we understand how fossilisation happens, and there is no known mechanism which would prevent it from happening to humans.

If you disagree, then describe such a mechanism IN DETAIL or drop it.

 

[Kylie]

Only if you want to face facts and discuss things realistically.



The former state is gone now. Science understands only this present one. All that matters is whether there was a different state or not. If there was present state rules are OUT. If there was you could prove it...you can't. Believe whatever you like. It ain't science.

Poor and blind, and deaf and dumb.
You see what you want. Don't abuse the word reality.


In other words you know how fossilization now would happen...and you assume it was the same then. Gong.

Maybe one day you will surprise me and actually present some evidence.

 

[dad]

That's not an explanation. Since you can't even say that it was DEFINITELY that way, all you could say is that it was likely (and yet provided no evidence to support your claim), you have explained absolutely nothing.

People are used to science pretending they know it all, so when faced with honesty, they are disoriented. Here is the thing, science absolutely is in the total dark about the nature in the future and past. I am only in a fog, but that fog is not so thick as to not know some things, and be able to deduce directions, avoid dangers, etc.

Already have proved it.

One way to rise up from ignominious defeat is to stop pretending that you have some secret knowledge that we never see. Your posts attempting to prove your claimed laws in the past have been comically devoid of substance and predictably faith based godless nonsense with no basis.

But what does it say about you when you demand proof from others yet provide none for your own claims? Why don't you prove what you are saying is true?

Easy to do. I am saying science does not know the state in the future or far past. The proof is seeing the posts from people trying to show they do know, and failing miserably, totally, deeply, and constantly.

As for what the bible indicates the past and future are like, that is proof enough for me. For those that despise that truth, well, they are left with the dead end of science, and can never progress or know.

 

[Kylie]

People are used to science pretending they know it all, so when faced with honesty, they are disoriented. Here is the thing, science absolutely is in the total dark about the nature in the future and past. I am only in a fog, but that fog is not so thick as to not know some things, and be able to deduce directions, avoid dangers, etc.


One way to rise up from ignominious defeat is to stop pretending that you have some secret knowledge that we never see. Your posts attempting to prove your claimed laws in the past have been comically devoid of substance and predictably faith based godless nonsense with no basis.

Easy to do. I am saying science does not know the state in the future or far past. The proof is seeing the posts from people trying to show they do know, and failing miserably, totally, deeply, and constantly.

As for what the bible indicates the past and future are like, that is proof enough for me. For those that despise that truth, well, they are left with the dead end of science, and can never progress or know.

Once again, you have posted nothing more than, "Science sucks!" and "I've won!" You have still not provided a shred of evidence to support your claims. Until you do so, I don't see any reason to discuss things further with you.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Not ONE in there that does not sit on the premise that nature and laws were the same (so we could have had radioactive decay for example).

In other words, all belief based, and not knowledge based.

We know that the deposition rate for the ice cores that show 680,000 layers of year long seasonal change cycles of recorded atmospheric compositions, are consistent up to and including the last 6,000 years. Each layer shows an oscillating layer of trapped elements that show atomic weights consistent with 6 months of sunlight bombardment and 6 months without sun. These layers have recorded (trapped) volcanic ash from volcanoes where we have historic records of their eruptions, and they correlate. Measuring atomic weight of molecules in these layers has nothing to do with radiometric dating.

Likewise, we have volcanic rock with radiometric measurements that correlate their dates to the layers of ice that show that volcano's trapped ash. We can continue to correlate these eruptions to ice layers, lake varves, and even dendrochronologic dates (i.e. tree rings), so just in that pile we have 3 completely independent dating techniques that match each other (only one of which requires radioactive decay), and all show a consistent timeline continuously for as far back as we can measure them. So far, about 14,000 years for dendrochronology, 680,000 years for ice cores and billions of years for radiometric dating. We can also see stars and galaxies billions of light years radiating at the same consistent rate as does our sun right here and right now.

There you go, 5 reasons to accept that we had the same state past and no reasons whatsoever to think it was different.

If ice core layers were different and were only 6,000 years old, then ice cores would show it because the polar regions are without sun for half a year, then are bombarded with sunlight for the other half. This is the only way that the atomic weight of these frozen layers are caused. otherwise the earth would have to be orbiting the sun so close that we would be a molten ball, or conversely orbiting so fast in the goldilocks zone as to escape the sun's gravity... or everything on the earth would be thrown off into space from sheer centrifugal force - water, animals, loose rock, dirt & mud, etc. or perhaps you think the earth had some kind of speed wobble where the polar caps were exposed several minutes at a time, while the ice layers were somehow laid down gently in all that at some super-duper accelerated beyond reason rate? No, we don't observe this.

If tree rings grew at different rates but still showed they had seasonal oscillations, then trees would have to have an exactly perfect increased growth rate while also experiencing a similar to yearly seasonal change in exactly corresponding rate to match the later & slower growth rate we observe. It's impossible from everything we know about growing trees and the impact of seasons on them. so No, we don't observe this.

If radiometric rates were different, then the rate at which daughter elements would have to have come about in a 6,000 to 10,000 year old earth, would mean the rock it were trapped in would have been molten, yet the type of rock and radioactive decay daughter material found in them would be an impossible find, it just couldn't happen! so No, we don't observe this.

If Stars and Galaxies billions of light years away from us were from a different state past, then they wouldn't be fusing atoms at the same constant rate our sun is doing right now. The recorded spectra from these stars would be vastly different, if in fact it were even possible! For your different state past @dad, these stars may very well have to be so unstable as to not be able to form at all! so No, we don't observe this.

It should also be noted that for any one of the above conditions that could show a different state past, each of the other conditions required for your different state past, would be impossible. so No, we don't observe this.

There you go @dad, another 5 reasons to discard your different state past nonsense. 10 reasons that disprove @dad's different state past!

 

[Colter]

I read this at:

Are Dinosaurs in the Bible? Behemoth Dinosaur Creation Evolution

Granted, a young earth creationist site, but I am not wondering about the site, or its bias, I am wondering about a supposed fact that I read there, so please just answer that question.

Are humans ever found in the same geological column as dinosaurs, and if so, how is that explained?

No! The Hebrew writers of Genesis created the creation story. Humans never lived with the dinosaurs.

 

[Colter]

Well God made a world where Nature tends to go wild to. If there are human remains at the time of dinosaurs I have yet to see any.

Rock is in layers I can show pictures of it. It's how sediment settles over time and lava also of course. Then plates in the Earth push it around.

Over time these layers build up and they help mark time periods.

God made the Earth but I'm not so sure God has had a hand in everything.

Indeed, Christ Michael created the earth, when it reached a stage wherein it could sustain life, the primitive life forms were planted and evolved into life as we know it today.

 

[gladiatrix]

Once again, you have posted nothing more than, "Science sucks!" and "I've won!" You have still not provided a shred of evidence to support your claims. Until you do so, I don't see any reason to discuss things further with you.

You are dealing with someone who thinks failing the ninth grade grade 3 times = 27 years of education (LINK to post on another board):

Thanks. I spent years being educated. Failed grade 9 three times, so I figure that is like 27 years education..ha

But hey, glad you consider that I fit the verse I cited.

When one fails a grade in any school I'm aware of, one only repeats that grade so the real number of "years" would be 9 (nine years, 1 per grade) + 2 more years (2nd and 3rd repeats of ninth grade) = 11 years of "education" (don't see any evidence that even that "sunk in" given what can only be described as bizarre claims, many made in the past on ChristianForums, some of which are documented HERE).