Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No I don't accept it's accurate, or rather I don't accept main stream scientific interpretation of the data of radiometric dating measurements.Men and dinosaurs are implicitly addressed in the question. Radiometric dating methods are one of the techniques that support some of the evidence that men and living dinosaurs have never coexisted.
So, do you accept the accuracy of radiometric dating methods?
I disagree.Except that radiometric dating is the method by which we date dino's and humans as living 65 million years apart.
I disagree.
You can disagree all you like.
But you're simply going to miss the fact that radiometric dating is the method by which rocks are dated.
Yes i agree with that bit, but it still isn't a book with dino's and men in it.
I still don't understand why you think you will find such a book. Such a notion goes against everything we know about the history of the Earth. If there was such a book it certainly wouldn't be 'academic'.
I'm not sure we will either but you never know![]()
We never will, because dinosaurs didn't live at the same time as man did.
That's not what this academic magazine-book says (almost):
"Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of microstructures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience";
Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex | Science
You obviously don't understand what that actually means if you think that means that humans and dinosaurs lived together.
Yes i agree with that bit, but it still isn't a book with dino's and men in it.
I didn't say that but according to the Bible we did.
I'm sure you can find a few works of fiction.
Perhaps a book about The Flinstones?
Dinotopia is a good one.
That's not what this academic magazine-book says (almost):
"Soft tissues are preserved within hindlimb elements of Tyrannosaurus rex (Museum of the Rockies specimen 1125). Removal of the mineral phase reveals transparent, flexible, hollow blood vessels containing small round microstructures that can be expressed from the vessels into solution. Some regions of the demineralized bone matrix are highly fibrous, and the matrix possesses elasticity and resilience. Three populations of microstructures have cell-like morphology. Thus, some dinosaurian soft tissues may retain some of their original flexibility, elasticity, and resilience";
Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex | Science
Now your both being silly.
Now your both being silly.