Man and dinosaur coexisting

[Butterfly99]

Yea, I think you are quoting the wrong person....

I think you are intending to quote Isaiah55:6 (username). He's the one that started this thread. He's the one that said evolution is a myth. He's the one claiming dinosaurs and man coexisted. He's the one claiming the Earth is young.

I never claimed any of those things.

Oh yeah, you're right. I'm sorry about that!!!!!! Writing this from my iPad & multitasking, lol.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

You see what your saying there? You identify the Cretaceous strata by the animal you find in it and then identify the age of the animal by the strata it's in. This is circular reasoning.
"How do you know the fossils are old?"
Because it was in old rock!
"But how do you know the rock is old?"
Because it had old fossils!

Radiometric dating.

I'm assuming you reject radiometric dating based on some uninformed Internet blog or something. Regardless of your opinion (or the opinions of the blogosphere), radiometric dating is based on sound science and well-understood. I don't have much patience for those that think freedom of speech allows them to spout misinformation and opinions as facts.

No circular reasoning required.

It's not the same thing because we don't have the fossils of any of these like we do the dinosaurs. With dinosaurs we have fossils and ancient depictions to go with each other. I don't know of any historians or philosophers that speak of these other mythological creatures like we do dragons. For example, Apollonius tyana Greek philosopher writes " dragons of enormous size and variety in northern India, the hillside was full of them and no mountain ridge was without one."

Sure would be cool if it was true, eh? One troubling thing about that quote is that he is obviously already exaggerating because no animal would have a "hillside full of them and no mountain ridge was without them". That is hyperbolic rhetoric which casts doubt on the validity of the claim.

I've never heard this view so I can't comment.

I'm not sure it is a view and its completely unsupported by geology or palaeontology. But it is theoretically possible. It would be super cool if it was true. And it wouldn't refute evolution or geology.

There is no evidence that anyone before the 1800 had the ability to put the fossils together to see what they would have looked like.

Sometimes it doesn't take much to figure it out:

 

[joshua 1 9]

I wanted to post about all the evidence that supports man and dinosaur coexisting. It's my view that man and dinosaur lived together before and after the great flood. But eventually died off because of climate change do to the great flood and being hunted by man.

The dinosaurs required a different climate. Man and the dinosaurs could not have lived at the same time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The dinosaurs required a different climate. Man and the dinosaurs could not have lived at the same time.

Yes, it is cooler now, but all that means is that some of the ancient species of dinosaurs would be concentrated in the tropical regions. And you may not realize it but dinosaurs left descendants behind. Think about it during your next Thanksgiving dinner, or perhaps even your Christmas dinner.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Yes, it is cooler now, but all that means is that some of the ancient species of dinosaurs would be concentrated in the tropical regions. And you may not realize it but dinosaurs left descendants behind. Think about it during your next Thanksgiving dinner, or perhaps even your Christmas dinner.

This is an old joke, that a scientist was working on dating samples of dinosaurs bones and they got contaminated with the turkey sandwich that he was eating for lunch.

 

[Armoured]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ica_stones

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is an old joke, that a scientist was working on dating samples of dinosaurs bones and they got contaminated with the turkey sandwich that he was eating for lunch.

It is not really a joke. Birds are the descendants of dinosaurs. So cladistically they are still dinosaurs.

 

[JacksBratt]

The dinosaurs required a different climate. Man and the dinosaurs could not have lived at the same time.

You are correct, in my opinion, that dinosaurs required a different climate. I believe a better description would be better atmospheric conditions.

Bubbles from solid amber suggests that the atmosphere was much higher in atmospheric pressure as well as oxygen levels. This allowed very large lizards to function with their high demand for O2.

I believe that, after the flood, atmospheric conditions changed to our present conditions and that the giant dino's could not survive the change.

I truly believe that it is foolish of us to believe that the conditions of the climate and atmosphere on this planet are the same today as they were thousands of years ago.

Here is a picture from a non - creation site that shows the data from the analysis of 300 air bubbles trapped in different samples of amber. From articles that I have read, it is quite possible that not only O2 levels and barometric pressure changes but temperature and even the speed of light may be changing, even today. It is foolish to not accept that things have not always been as they are today or will be in the future.

 

[joshua 1 9]

You are correct, in my opinion, that dinosaurs required a different climate. I believe a better description would be better atmospheric conditions.

Bubbles from solid amber suggests that the atmosphere was much higher in atmospheric pressure as well as oxygen levels. This allowed very large lizards to function with their high demand for O2.

I believe that, after the flood, atmospheric conditions changed to our present conditions and that the giant dino's could not survive the change.

I truly believe that it is foolish of us to believe that the conditions of the climate and atmosphere on this planet are the same today as they were thousands of years ago.

Here is a picture from a non - creation site that shows the data from the analysis of 300 air bubbles trapped in different samples of amber. From articles that I have read, it is quite possible that not only O2 levels and barometric pressure changes but temperature and even the speed of light may be changing, even today. It is foolish to not accept that things have not always been as they are today or will be in the future.

They also talk about the humidity level was above 70% and it was a lot warmer. Each era has a climate that is well suited to what prospers during that era. For example before the dinosaurs ever came along there was an era that was ideal for the Coccolith, this is what formed the thick chake layers when they died. (at an estimated 60,000,000,000 per square metres)

 

[joshua 1 9]

It is not really a joke. Birds are the descendants of dinosaurs. So cladistically they are still dinosaurs.

That may be true somewhere but in general the dinosaurs are extinct. They got caught up in a cosmic battle between Satan and God. This was the reason for the breakup of Pangea. The rocky mountains are filled with dinosaur bones all he way from Arizona to Utah and all the way up to Wyoming.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That may be true somewhere but in general the dinosaurs are extinct. They got caught up in a cosmic battle between Satan and God. This was the reason for the breakup of Pangea. The rocky mountains are filled with dinosaur bones all he way from Arizona to Utah and all the way up to Wyoming.

Now that is some post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning right there.

 

[JacksBratt]

I think you've either misunderstood my position or you quoted the wrong person.

Yea, Jack Bratt is highly misinformed or trolling. I had a pretty lengthy discussion with him about the flat Earth and explained to him why it is not flat.



I think you've misunderstood my position on soft tissue in dinosaurs. Read my post #6.

Ah...... I'm right here and can hear you guys.

I am only "misinformed" on things that go against your dogmatic views. If I post documents or pictures or any other evidence that contradict the hive mind, either myself or the source are always attacked, and then written off as a hoax.

Again, I do not believe in the flat earth but I offer those that do their respect for the questions they are asking.

Yes, you explained to my "why it is not flat" while others are explaining to me "why it is flat" . I give both of you the respect of having your personal view, despite what I believe.

Why is it that people here are always "I'm believe "X" and if you don't your a tard."

 

[Isaiah55:6]

Radiometric dating.

I'm assuming you reject radiometric dating based on some uninformed Internet blog or something. Regardless of your opinion (or the opinions of the blogosphere), radiometric dating is based on sound science and well-understood. I don't have much patience for those that think freedom of speech allows them to spout misinformation and opinions as facts.

Radiometric dating just like much of the evidence that supports evolution has too many assumptions.
Assumption 1. The rate of decay has always been the same.
Assumption 2. Elements have not been affected by outside forces.
Assumption 3. No daughter element existed at the beginning.
Also another problem. different radiometric methods often drastically disagree with one another. Some rocks in Hawaii that were known to only be around 200 years old rendered a date of 160 million to 3 billion when dated. ( Funkhouser and Naughton, page 4601)

Sure would be cool if it was true, eh? One troubling thing about that quote is that he is obviously already exaggerating because no animal would have a "hillside full of them and no mountain ridge was without them". That is hyperbolic rhetoric which casts doubt on the validity of the claim.

how do you know he was exaggerating?
And even if he was exaggerating the numbers, that doesn't mean he was exaggerating the fact he saw many dragons.

I'm not sure it is a view and its completely unsupported by geology or palaeontology. But it is theoretically possible. It would be super cool if it was true. And it wouldn't refute evolution or geology.

it wouldn't surprise me if somewhere in the world dinosaurs were still alive. They would have to be much smaller because of the climate. The brontosaurus wouldn't even be able to breath today.

Sometimes it doesn't take much to figure it out:

You have a good point here. However there are many depictions of dinosaurs from the ancient world of dinosaurs with dermal spines. And it wasn't discovered that dinosaurs had these until 1969.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Ah...... I'm right here and can hear you guys.

I am only "misinformed" on things that go against your dogmatic views. If I post documents or pictures or any other evidence that contradict the hive mind, either myself or the source are always attacked, and then written off as a hoax.

Again, I do not believe in the flat earth but I offer those that do their respect for the questions they are asking.

Yes, you explained to my "why it is not flat" while others are explaining to me "why it is flat" . I give both of you the respect of having your personal view, despite what I believe.

Why is it that people here are always "I'm believe "X" and if you don't your a tard."

Opinions do not constitute facts and hand-waving does not constitute evidence.

I can be polite and respectful of someone but at the end of the day, they are still wrong about a given topic. Sure, I can respect their personal view, but I can also politely explain to them why their "personal view" does not align with reality in any way, shape or form.

You seem to think that everyone's opinions are equally valid.

Sometimes people are clearly wrong and giving them a microphone to spout their misinformed opinion is incredibly frustrating to see. The internet is filled with microphone-wielding, blog-writing misinformed folks who think they are championing some sort of hidden truth which "experts" haven't thought of but, in reality, are just spouting nonsense.

 

[Isaiah55:6]

The dinosaurs required a different climate. Man and the dinosaurs could not have lived at the same time.

I agree. However the young earth view believes that the climate was once able to support both before the great flood. And as a result of the flood, the climate dramatically changed and a big number of the dinosaurs were not able to survive in the new world.

 

[Isaiah55:6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ica_stones

Yes some of the stones were are fakes. But you can't throw the baby out with the bath water. Just because there are some fakes doesn't mean the whole collection is fake. The stories of alleged forgery fail to deal with the the vast number of stones that have been collected. The quarry that the alleged hoaxers was far to small to have yielded the massive amount of rocks necessary. Such an enormous quantity of stones would have required an excavation site the size of an open pit mine. Also when the forged stones were submitted to microscopic analysis they were easily distinguished from the authentic stones.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Radiometric dating just like much of the evidence that supports evolution has too many assumptions.
Assumption 1. The rate of decay has always been the same.

I've talked about this before but unfortunately can't find the thread. There is no indication that the radioactive decay rates have changed. If they had changed noticeably, there would be indications of that in nature. And, even if they drifted a little over a 14 billion year timescale, there is no way you can fudge the numbers enough to result in a 6000 year old Earth. The decay rates would have had to be many thousands of times faster and the heat alone would have melted the Earth.

Assumption 2. Elements have not been affected by outside forces.

You need to look up what an isochron diagram is. Every time a geologist dates a rock, he must ensure that is has not been contaminated or affected by outside forces. You need to explain why different parts of the sample can all lie along the same isochron when plotted.

Assumption 3. No daughter element existed at the beginning.

This is false. The equation for an isochron is:

D = D0 + N(t) (eλt − 1)

Where D0 is the amount of original daughter element. The original amount of daughter element is worked into the equation and necessary.


You have been misinformed by some internet blog. It is unfortunate. But it is more unfortunate that you probably aren't actually looking for information no the subject, but rather only looking for more information to support your misinformed view of radiometric dating.

Also another problem. different radiometric methods often drastically disagree with one another. Some rocks in Hawaii that were known to only be around 200 years old rendered a date of 160 million to 3 billion when dated. ( Funkhouser and Naughton, page 4601)

You need to look up the word xenolith. Dating a xenolith will give a different age than the surrounding lava.

From the paper you cited:

"the xenoliths represent either (1) accidental materials broken from pre-existing rocks deep in the crust and transported to the surface of the earth by upwelling magma or (2) cognate inclusions crystallized at depth in the magma" -Funkhouser and Naughton (1968), pg 4601.

This is an interesting anomalous result. It was discovered to be an anomaly because it was different than the rest. It was debated briefly and explained. This happened in the 1960s. You're 50 years too late to the debate. Today, K-Ar dating is rarely used since Ar40/Ar39 is preferable.

how do you know he was exaggerating?
And even if he was exaggerating the numbers, that doesn't mean he was exaggerating the fact he saw many dragons.

As I said, it would be cool if it was true. This one, hyperbolic quote doesn't convince me though.

it wouldn't surprise me if somewhere in the world dinosaurs were still alive. They would have to be much smaller because of the climate.

Your intuition is correct. They are today known as birds.

You have a good point here. However there are many depictions of dinosaurs from the ancient world of dinosaurs with dermal spines. And it wasn't discovered that dinosaurs had these until 1969.

Stegosaurus was one of the first dinosaurs officially discovered by modern scientists in 1876.

Who knows what other dinosaur bones were discovered by ancients and left undocumented. It is not implausible that they discovered dinosaur bones with dermal spines long ago.

 

[lasthero]

You are correct, in my opinion, that dinosaurs required a different climate. I believe a better description would be better atmospheric conditions.

Bubbles from solid amber suggests that the atmosphere was much higher in atmospheric pressure as well as oxygen levels. This allowed very large lizards to function with their high demand for O2.

I believe that, after the flood, atmospheric conditions changed to our present conditions and that the giant dino's could not survive the change.

Many dinosaurs weren't that big, though. In fact, most dinosaurs weren't any bigger than an elephant. The largest animal that ever lived is the blue whale, and it has absolutely no problem breathing in the current atmosphere.

Here is a picture from a non - creation site that shows the data from the analysis of 300 air bubbles trapped in different samples of amber. From articles that I have read, it is quite possible that not only O2 levels and barometric pressure changes but temperature and even the speed of light may be changing, even today. It is foolish to not accept that things have not always been as they are today or will be in the future.

It would be foolish to believe such a thing, which is why scientists don't believ that things have NEVER changed. They know the atmosphere's been different in the past.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That may be true somewhere but in general the dinosaurs are extinct. They got caught up in a cosmic battle between Satan and God. This was the reason for the breakup of Pangea. The rocky mountains are filled with dinosaur bones all he way from Arizona to Utah and all the way up to Wyoming.

Don't be silly. It was mainly the result of an asteroid strike. And it occurred over a hundred million years after the breakup of Pangaea. You really need to check your facts first.

 

[farout]

This is not going to be very in depth. (Father of two little boys)

The myth of evolution has been used to promote the belief that man and dinosaur lived millions of years apart. It's my opinion that the bible clearly teaches that we both lived together. (Job 40:15-24) and (Job 41:1-34). And the evidence we find today very strongly supports that the bible is correct as usual. It's important to remember that the first dinosaur fossil wasn't even discovered until the 1800's. And if that's the case then why does pretty much every culture in the world have legends of great dragons? I wanted to post about all the evidence that supports man and dinosaur coexisting. It's my view that man and dinosaur lived together before and after the great flood. But eventually died off because of climate change do to the great flood and being hunted by man.

Ancient evidence:
Remember what I said before, that the first dinosaur fossil wasn't discovered until the 1800's. So then why are there so many ancient carvings and art depicting what are clear images of dinosaurs hundreds to thousands of years before the first fossil discovery? Even some including man riding on the backs of dinosaurs.

I don't have the time to talk about each one of these pictures but I assure you every one of these is from before the first fossil was discovered.

Soft tissue:
Following the most rigorous tests and checking of data, many evolutionists now admit the existence of such dinosaur soft tissue and organic material in not just one or two specimens, but well over thirty. They now have to explain how extremely delicate structures could have been preserved over incredibly vast time periods.
It is not just dinosaur soft tissue, either, but the presence of detectable proteins such as collagen, hemoglobin, osteocalcin, actin, and tubulin that they must account for. These are complex molecules that continually tend to break down to simpler ones.

Would love to here people views. Again sorry this isn't nearly as in depth as I would have wished. Got two children under 5 and a wife at work.

Very good post! I winder if you have ever heard of the Institute For Creation Research? They have a magazine Acts & Facts. Have you ever heard of Dr. Morris? I have a strong interest in Creationism, not to show contempt for those who believe in Evolution, but to be willing to share information is they are willing to look for themselves. I won't debate, but will dialogue is it's peaceful and respectful.

Just as a added question have you read or heard about the Creation Museum in Kentucky?