CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Man and Dinosours have always lived together.
The evolutionism myth is used to promote the erroneous belief that humans and dinosaurs lived millions of years apart from each other. Children and adults are indoctrinated with this 'belief' starting from early childhood with books that teach it. It's reinforced in the public school system, the media and the entertainment industry. Recent examples include the highly misleading TV documentary called Walking with Dinosaurs that aired on the Discovery Channel, and the History Channel's The Quest for Dinosaurs program.
However if you're talking the bulk of movie dinosaurs, then no. Regrettably (?) they are and have been extinct for tens of millions of years. It's especially a shame we can't resurrect them through cloning, but DNA is just not durable enough.
Well, some people consider alligators, tortoises, and the like dinosaurs. But not the kind of dinosaurs you so desperately want to have been alive while there were humans.
there are loads of reptiles and birds etc that were around during the time of the dinosaurs, so in essence, they are dinosaurs. and in a way so are we because we're related. something had to exist before we exist
I believe that you don't understand exactly what a dinosaur was. A dinosaur was a specific type of reptile with specific traits. Crocodiles are reptiles and so are turtles, but you wouldn't say that a turtle is a crocodile, would you? Birds were not around during the time of the dinosaurs either. I'm aware of the theory that some dinosaurs evolved into birds, but that means that they WERE dinosaurs, not that they are. They aren't dinosaurs anymore than us humans are small rodent-like animals that hung out in trees. No, we are not dinosaurs at all. Our evolutionary lines split long before the first true dinosaur or mammal lived. I would recommend you educate yourself on these things before you comment. I suggest that because you seemed to put a modicum of thought into your "argument" and maybe you'll learn something.
Well it depends on how technical you want to get. Technically they are here with is in a different dimension. If you believe in the very probable existence of parallel universes that is.
History channel had a good peice on Mokele-mbembe which natives have seen in the congo the area is the size of Arkansas. They have recovered footprints but because it lives mostly underwater it is hard to find.
History channel had a good peice on Mokele-mbembe which natives have seen in the congo the area is the size of Arkansas. They have recovered footprints but because it lives mostly underwater it is hard to find.
Do you just believe everything you read without thinking? A creature the size of Arkansas would occupy about 1/14th of the entire Congo. The footprints would be over ten miles across. There wouldn't be enough food in the local food chain to support it, and it would collapse in on itself because skeletons have size limits due to the structural integrity of calcium carbonate.
If you even looked into what you are saying this dinosaur is small and the natives have say they have seen it. The Congo is so remote and so dense with vegetation that there would be plenty of food.
well you see, there's this conversation about the birds and the bees that someone should have with you that explains why there would need to be more than one of them....
for instance, mankind evolved from apes. We are, however, two distinct species of primates, just as lizards and dinosaurs are distinct categories of reptiles.
Also, nobody seems to notice that the debate states that the two "always" lived together. First, the universe is several billion years old, dinosaurs arose about 160 million years ago, and mankind arose around 3 million years ago. So, even if modern lizards and birds are to be considered dinosaurs, there is an interval of several billion years where neither exists, and a gap of around 160 million years where dinosaurs existed, not humans.
No matter how you interpret "dinosaurs"- as including current species or not- they did not always exist with humans.
The word dinosaur was not even created until about 1840 prior to that they where referred to as Behemoths, Dragons and Tannins. Dinosaurs are not millions of years old. How do you explain soft tissue in a TRex that was found in Montana still with hemoglobin and flexible bones? Scientist are baffled because there is no way that it could last for 65 millions years as the great lie is continued to be told.
What about Marco Polo in 1290 ad when he went to china and wrote in his journal which is still in existence today he talked about dragons 10 paces long and how the Emperor was training them to cary his chariot
Or what about ancient Egyptian drawings of dinosaurs of Brontosaurus? Or how about the Inca stones which they carved onto rocks and places next to them when they died? There are literally thousands of drawings and written documents of only in the past 800 years where they describe killing the dragons and behemoths that live among us. In the book of JOB he describes a Behemoth Job 40:15-24
About discovery in Montana there have been several dinosaurs that have stayed preserved. I find it funny what this one Scientist quote:"Finding these tissues in dinosaurs changes the way we think about fossilization, because our theories of how fossils are preserved don't allow for this [soft-tissue preservation]," Schweitzer said.
Oh really all the way up to now this was in 2005 better go back to the drawing board and wrap their brainwashed heads around this one. It's because they never lived millions and millions of years ago. God created them on the fifth day with man. Only about 6 thousand years ago. If Dinosaurs existed millions of years ago then how is there so much evidence by ancient civilization that point otherwise?
I have left enough evidence of Man and Dinosaur have always lived together and so I will rest on this. I know some of you are saying thank you. But i understand how this is hard for some people to digest and some of you with very angry responses and it is because of this passage that is true and hits every human on the planet to the core and on this subject as well why it angers a lot of you.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
I wish the best for all of you i like all of you for and against, good debating on this.
Yes my classmates is a homo erectus.He goes to school in a flinstones car,and on bring your pet day he bought his pet dinosaur rex.His pet almost ate the entire class!
I have referenced inca stones and Paluxoy riverbead. But there are literally thousands of ancient drawings of dinos all over the world on pottery, ceptors, clay models dated back 1,000 BC. millions of years ago I dont think so.
Utube quick video of ancient picuters of dinos man has
There are no fossils of the dinosaurs you are thinking of dated younger than tens of millions of years old. The drawings must therefore be due to human imagination.
That is so laughable so I guess they were able to exactly draw and figure out what they look like do to pure imagination? Are you listening to yourself? They must have had esp or something to have perfectly drawn a triceratops and a brontosaurs or maybe aliens came down and told them what to draw. And yes they have pulled hundreds of fossils from central Peru which is in the area of these stones. Here's a link to show you that. http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/dinosaur-footprints-fossils-found-in-central-peru_100153132.html
maybe they got there inspiration from comic books, school books, and magazines as they admitted to in 1975 - "Las hizo Basilio Uchuya." Mundial, No. 6, January 17
P.S. - your link says the fossils date back around about 120 million years which doesn't refute what aveskde said, it supports it.
it's not absurd i just used this one because is pretty good. The Inca stones are a real thing and are reference in over 1,000 archaeological journals as a real thing.
You know I find it quite funny that I extensively refuted this last time you said it in another debate, and you had no response. But here you are repeating the same nonsense as if nothing happened.
Repeating the same thing over and over again, does not make it true no matter how badly you wish it were.
I ask the same question because the response is so stupid like one of them stated it must of been their imagination. I like to hit the point of the other theory i may sound repetitive because it drives a point that makes people get out of what they think their comfort zone is or what they think they know. Then I pop up and show credible things that must have an obvious answer but it rocks peoples world when they are confronted with something that makes them think otherwise.
So you intentionally show discredited information? Even several prominent creationist organizations now admit that the paluxy tracks are probably not even human, and yet you continue to present it as valid evidence knowing this? Resorting to dishonesty is not a good sign.
I want to reiterate the stones found Inca stones are their burial Stones many of the stones where found next to the bones in the graves of the Incas at the time of excavation. Over 11,000 stones kinda hard for that to be a hoax, doubters. Here's a video kinda long but he was there doing it and shows the actual dig and the stones next to the bones. He goes on and shows many others with more actual evidence that this is true.
Here's more proof. Try to say this guy is not telling truth your fooling yourself.
Living species leave a footprint that is indicative of their existence even if we never capture a live specimen. For example, we don't expect bigfoot to be real because a fossil record leading up to him doesn't seem to exist. Likewise, the fossils of dinosaurs that you are thinking about end at around the time of their extinction, around 60 million years ago. If dinosaurs still lived, we should expect to find their bones.
We can go all day about the hypocrisies of dating. Have you seen the so called dated 75 to 100 million old rock that they found a iron tool in the middle of it? That is there you can't deny it. If i take heat and pressure I can make a rock really quick and put it up against radio isotope if i never told you where the rock came from the test would come back millions of years . There volcanoes that make entire islands with rock using the same technique and they date the same. Just show me something Else that you can prove. Oldest tree or oldest living reef the great Barrier reef only said to be about 4,800 years old. If the earth in it's present form is millions of years old why not an older reef or an older tree? Bottom line you still don't have an answer for the Inca stones. I have been to the La Brea tar pits in LA there is a huge pit of bones the pit starts at the surface and goes down hundreds of feet. Looking at those bones in the pit only several feet from the surface and they are supposed to be millions of years old? I don't think so. Also the radio isotopes of dating don't actually date the bones they date the rock around it and even that test can be fooled i can go and add the elements and make a rock and the test would come back and say that rock is millions of years old. We did the radio isotope test in college and it's very flawed. Look for yourself on how they date bones. They don't I can tell you for certain the bones I looked at La Brae tar pits in LA where not millions of years old. That's another way they GUESS the age is by how deep they are another flawed way to date. So check the facts you are taking the secular view without even digging deeper to find the truth. Bottom line if you don't believe in creation then it's only logical that a non-believer would say that something took millions of years to make it's easier to discredit and make those assumptions when you don't believe that God created the galaxies. So either God created you or evolution Big Bang it rained for millions of years on rock and created a biological soup which from that humans came from.
We can go all day about the hypocrisies of dating.
It is a science, and the independent methods agree with each other.
Have you seen the so called dated 75 to 100 million old rock that they found a iron tool in the middle of it? That is there you can't deny it. If i take heat and pressure I can make a rock really quick and put it up against radio isotope if i never told you where the rock came from the test would come back millions of years . There volcanoes that make entire islands with rock using the same technique and they date the same.
Oldest tree or oldest living reef the great Barrier reef only said to be about 4,800 years old. If the earth in it's present form is millions of years old why not an older reef or an older tree?
Trees don't live for millions of years, at best you get clonal colonies which last tens of thousands of years.
Bottom line you still don't have an answer for the Inca stones.
I believe I gave you one: no dinosaur fossils date younger than around 60 million years. Therefore the Inca stones don't matter. Fossils (or lack of) are higher priority than drawings and etchings.
I have been to the La Brea tar pits in LA there is a huge pit of bones the pit starts at the surface and goes down hundreds of feet. Looking at those bones in the pit only several feet from the surface and they are supposed to be millions of years old? I don't think so.
They are tens of thousands of years old, some of them are.
Also the radio isotopes of dating don't actually date the bones they date the rock around it and even that test can be fooled i can go and add the elements and make a rock and the test would come back and say that rock is millions of years old. We did the radio isotope test in college and it's very flawed.
All tests have specific criteria, error rates and shortcomings. Since we are dealing with research that is documented, and checked by experts, the people who date these things are careful not to use the wrong type of dating method, or use it on the wrong type of source material.
Your statement makes about as much sense as saying "Also water tests can be fooled I can add calcium carbonate to a sample and trick the person measuring it into thinking that the water pool it came from has harder water than there really is."
That's another way they GUESS the age is by how deep they are another flawed way to date.
It's not a guess, column dating works based on inference and index fossils.
So check the facts you are taking the secular view without even digging deeper to find the truth.
Don't project your faults onto me. You have no idea what my qualifications or experiences are.
Bottom line if you don't believe in creation then it's only logical that a non-believer would say that something took millions of years to make it's easier to discredit and make those assumptions when you don't believe that God created the galaxies.
This is basic science denialism on your part. You need to deny scientific methodology because you have a stubborn emotional belief in creationism.
So either God created you or evolution Big Bang it rained for millions of years on rock and created a biological soup which from that humans came from.
More denialism. The universe is way more sophisticated than you are willing to accept.
actually no I used to a non believer and when I see things that don't make sense that can't be possible if the earth is millions of years old. Yes I believe in creation based there is multiple scientific evidence to support it. Another is the pressure from which oil is in the crust, if earth was millions of years old pressure would be greater than what it is today. Both theories know this, one can't explain it creationism can based on belief. Inca stones I told you your basing the millions of years theory by which I just explained to you is flawed they don't actually date the bones put the dating thing aside because that's where you and I disagree. For arguments sake at least you could then acknowledge and hold on to millions of years ago on Dino's and then say that maybe they still lived when the Inca where around. Otherwise you ignore the basic of how else would they know how to carve exact replicas of what we know to be our old fossil Dino you are like many that hold on and are stubborn to come to a conclusion even when such a fact hits you squarely you can't honestly answer it. The lie of the Dinosaur is a brainwashed fascist teaching that in-doctrines incredible fallacies. Like wiki and other links you have supplied are the part of those. And yes I believe the Universe is extremely complicated so complicated that it couldn't have happened by just a shear chance. Even the angle and pitch and degrees away from the Sun if we where even a few degrees off on angle and distance we would not exist the balance is perfect for life. But you know by your accounts was just a Big Bang and we got lucky somehow for all of that to fall into place yeah lucky us. Ultimately Big Bang earth cooled it rained for millions of years and because of the rain mixing together with all the the elements created a biological soup that we crawled out of. WOW OK that nice to know I have in common with a rock as my ancestor. That in a nutshell is the evolutionist theory how can you prove that we came from a rock?
actually no I used to a non believer and when I see things that don't make sense that can't be possible if the earth is millions of years old. Yes I believe in creation based there is multiple scientific evidence to support it.
You weren't a nonbeliever, you were uninterested in your faith or not a strong believer and your present mindset identifies that with nonbeliever.
Second, there is no scientific evidence for creationism. Creationism is remarkable for being a belief system that has no margin of agreement with reality, but exists solely on self-delusion of its followers and sophistry of its promoters.
Another is the pressure from which oil is in the crust, if earth was millions of years old pressure would be greater than what it is today. Both theories know this, one can't explain it creationism can based on belief.
It should be alarming to you that every creationist claim can be debunked this easily, that they are all debunked on database websites like this.
Inca stones I told you your basing the millions of years theory by which I just explained to you is flawed they don't actually date the bones put the dating thing aside because that's where you and I disagree.
Do you even know what a fossil is? A fossil is basically rock or mineral.
For arguments sake at least you could then acknowledge and hold on to millions of years ago on Dino's and then say that maybe they still lived when the Inca where around. Otherwise you ignore the basic of how else would they know how to carve exact replicas of what we know to be our old fossil Dino you are like many that hold on and are stubborn to come to a conclusion even when such a fact hits you squarely you can't honestly answer it.
I've explained this several times already. Animals leave behind fossils as indicators of their existence. There are no recent dinosaur fossils, we've NEVER found any that are dated to less than about 60 million years old. Therefore, whatever the Incans drew, it could not have been based on live dinosaurs. It's perfectly reasonable to suggest that they drew these things artistically, from their imaginations. It's even possible that they saw large bones buried in the earth and drew something inspired from it.
The lie of the Dinosaur is a brainwashed fascist teaching that in-doctrines incredible fallacies. Like wiki and other links you have supplied are the part of those.
Denialism. Flat-earthers think that NASA brainwashes us to believe in a round earth.
And yes I believe the Universe is extremely complicated so complicated that it couldn't have happened by just a shear chance.
You have no concept of how the universe works. You need a proper science education so that you aren't being corrected all the time.
Even the angle and pitch and degrees away from the Sun if we where even a few degrees off on angle and distance we would not exist the balance is perfect for life. But you know by your accounts was just a Big Bang and we got lucky somehow for all of that to fall into place yeah lucky us.
For example this. The Earth could exist happily within around a hundred thousand miles of where it is now. Earth-like "middle heat" planets aren't even so rare, see Gliese 581 d.
Then your notion of the Big Bang is absurd. It's an established fact with much known, but all you "know" is that we just got here. Try studying it.
Ultimately Big Bang earth cooled it rained for millions of years and because of the rain mixing together with all the the elements created a biological soup that we crawled out of. WOW OK that nice to know I have in common with a rock as my ancestor. That in a nutshell is the evolutionist theory how can you prove that we came from a rock?
No not really, Flat earthers I don't know what your refering to if people read the bible they would have figured out a long time ago that the universe and planets are round. Uni-verse one word.
Flat Earthers are True Christians who believe their bible to be inerrant, even on matters of cosmology. They believe every part of the bible, the parts that suggest creationism, a young earth, that the universe orbits a stationary earth, and finally that the earth is a flat disk.
Just like you deny science about dinosaurs, they deny images of the earth from space as hoaxes designed to disrespect the authority of god's word.
Why don't you read the flat earth society forums? I'm sure they'll explain to you how the bible is a flat earth book.
You seem to be striving very desperately for the faintest glimpse of hope in absurd mysteries; of which are specific incidents proving nothing.
-
Science is the refined practice of quantitative data interpreited into trends. Those trends are built as more data is collected. Any "discovery" not quantified statistically and evaluated to respective trends is null. To make claims as extreme as "God did it, see look!" at such a premature state of scientific investigation only furthers the validation of my claim of the process of your approach to this matter.
no not really. I think theirs a lot to science that is misleading. Actually there has been more misleading about secular science. Ever heard of Nebraska man what about the fake ape man that they said Science has proved and Time magazine put on the cover. Or even the 1912 ape man. All said that according to your quantitative data only all to be a hoax. I'm no desperate I'm actually having fun with it because it's amazing how rattled you and other people get when you see things that are curious and can't be explained. A lot the evidence I offer is actually makes people have to answer a question and it hits deep to your core which I think scares some people that maybe. Not so absurd if you give it some thought.
What evidence is their of the other? They still haven't proved otherwise.
no not really. I think theirs a lot to science that is misleading. Actually there has been more misleading about secular science. Ever heard of Nebraska man what about the fake ape man that they said Science has proved and Time magazine put on the cover. Or even the 1912 ape man. All said that according to your quantitative data only all to be a hoax.
Do you know why you're so ignorant? You only read creationist literature which is entirely based on forgeries. Try learning how science works, and research your claims using actual scientists and not hucksters.
I'm no desperate I'm actually having fun with it because it's amazing how rattled you and other people get when you see things that are curious and can't be explained. A lot the evidence I offer is actually makes people have to answer a question and it hits deep to your core which I think scares some people that maybe. Not so absurd if you give it some thought.
You're so desperate to believe in mythology that you only read websites for Christians, because to read science journals would undermine your religion.
once again they don't date the actual bones they date is using the rock around it. Which even then the rocks aren't that old the Idaho Clay doll in Idaho that they found in a rock supposed to be 320 million years old. The hand tool found in London Texas Scientist dated the rock with Isotopes thought to be 75-100 million years old only to find a hand tool in it so the whole dating thing something has got to be wrong. But when their wrong on discoveries like this they don't even think about discredit of their techniques used.These are only a few out of hundreds of discoveries like this. This would mean that they would have to re-write everything if they even gave credit to it. Follow the tax money there not going to buck that Juggernaut. Also do you know how many times they have re dated something because from 100 millions years to 1 million years a lot. Well gee thanks how is it they where off by 100 million years? It's because the dating is BS.
once again they don't date the actual bones they date is using the rock around it.
This is incorrect. You don't seem to have any clue what you're talking about. Strangely enough carbon dating, requires that there actually be some carbon in what they are dating. since all life-forms on earth are carbon-based lifeforms their remains (yes, their bones) contain trace amounts of carbon which they can age using known half-life of carbon isotopes. Fossils that have been completely replaced by minerals cannot be dated using this technique and so other techniques are used. Dirt as far as modern science knows is ageless. Dirt my comprise a layer of a specific period in time, but the dirt itself pre-exists that period.
The only thing the dirt around a fossil tells us is in what epoch the creature lived based on other fossils found in the same geologic layer.
What have you talked to Scientist on both sides of carbon dating? you would have two great arguments on both sides on why it is inaccurate or accurate.
... if you're talking about the same "scientists" who deny global warming, I'm going to go ahead and assume they are full of crap.
The thing is, the many many many scientists who say carbon dating works, have nothing to gain by saying such. The very very very few scientists who say it does not have a lot to gain in that this silly religion necessitates in many cases that the Earth is only X years old.
See, religion uses stupid people for power, and gotta maintain that power somehow... sometimes that means maintaining the stupid-ness... anyway, it is the only reason there is anyone denying the science - they deny it for religious reasons. That's not much of a scientific method.
You go ahead and choose to trust the "scientists" with an obvious agenda, I'll believe the ones who just want to figure stuff out.
Carbon dating is incredibly accurate, very simple so there is almost no room for mistake, and yes, it works on bones.
So incredibly accurate, once again are you a Scientist? Quite the contrary is not accurate. Even by secular views carbon dating is only good for maybe 60,000 years at best.
When you type in carbon dating and if it's accurate over 71,000 hits on carbon dating not being accurate so if it was so exact and NO ROOM for mistakes as you say then there would be no question. Here is a link to a non Christian case NY times it talks about why carbon is so hard to predict and we don't know carbon levels of the past. I figured coming from NY times is enough liberal paper you can trust. Do some research first with a link I studied it and they don't use carbon dating when dating Dino bones. So unless you are talking about something that is not more than 60,000 years old.
I think you're grasping at straws to maintain your idea of dinos and humans frolicking in Eden.
"some estimates based on carbon may have erred by thousands of years." - is from the article.
I put the important parts in italics.
the article is about being off by thousands of years... not tens of millions. And only some of the estimates were off, we have millions of dinosaur bones that all dating methods say are from tens of millions of years ago.
The point of the article is not humans and dinosaurs living together, you just read that in because that's what you want it to be. The article is actually about various more accurate ways of dating outside of carbon, it's not about carbon dating not working.
And some of the writers for the NY Times are "liberal", it's not the liberal demon Faux would have you believe - like "The Nation" would be a genuinely liberal press. NY Times is pretty balanced.
And Browne does happen to have a very strong religious background, son of a Quaker and a hardcore Catholic. However, it does not seem to influence his reporting one way or another.
Actually, because of Hiesenbergs uncertainty theory, carbon dating has a margin of error of about a thousand years. But when your dealing with MYA, its not significant. Its like fussing that your calculations of distance to the moon is off by .2 mm. Still, carbon dating is NOT entirely accurate in the ranges of a few thousand years.
... you seem to have missed the point. Jt is insisting that because of this thousand years or so that carbon dating is occasionally off by, that it proves the Bible is correct, that the earth was created 6000 years ago, and that dinos and humans frolicked about Eden with leaves over their junk.
If its so accurate why do they carbon date a leg at 1 million years then the other leg of the animal at 30 million years and date the another animal part 3 different times with 3 different results. There is no proof in carbon dating the results never come out right and are completely innacurate do a little studying on it and you'll see.. Or watch Dr.Kent Hovind he'll explain if for you
You know, I was gonna ask you for a source and then I read the part in bold above. Kent Hovind is not nor has he ever been a doctor. He's a pastor, who finds evolution as a challenge to his faith. He's been known to fabricate things.
I think the fabrication you should be focused on is the deception that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, it's hard to prove that dinos lived that long ago when they are finding soft tissue and red blood cells in the bone and marrow. Or that stalagmites take millions of years for the earth to make. When they only take a few decades to grow in enormous lengths. It's easier for humans to look at something and have man make a theory about it so that it takes away from us realizing that God created it.
I think the fabrication you should be focused on is the deception that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago, it's hard to prove that dinos lived that long ago when they are finding soft tissue and red blood cells in the bone and marrow.
They have not found red blood cells in dinosaur fossils yet, what they have found are remnants of blood vessels and medullary bone. This is a long cry from proving that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.
Or that stalagmites take millions of years for the earth to make.
Depending on the size, they can form in only a couple thousand years. Some known formations are millions of years old, such as the ones in Antiparos Cave.
It's easier for humans to look at something and have man make a theory about it so that it takes away from us realizing that God created it.
I disagree. I think it's much easier to say "God did it!" than to explore a phenomena scientifically.
Hovind is a con artist, and has no idea what he is talking about.
999/1000 scientists are convinced carbon dating is accurate within 1-3 thousand years, and you site the 1 foaming at the mouth zealot. Conversations like this are what has pushed me from indifference about Christianity, to a deep conviction that it is a force of absolute evil in the world.
Please provide some evidence that they have actually recovered 3 million year old human bones. I have done a lot of research on this and i have never heard of that.
Once again just another Ape. Ardi was rejected as human by most scientist. Just another Ape. Not human. Discovery channel stop playing it. Anything by Time magazine how can you ever trust then since the fake ape man hoax of 1912. And Nat Geo as well.
But according to Darwin's theory of natural selection, it states that Natural selection is the nonrandom process by which biologic traits become more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution. It states that human evolve from monkey where monkey fossil is found at enocene period, 55million years ago, the monkey are evolve from other species which means DNA of humans always lived together with dinosours
Heck no there hasnt been enough evidence to even back up this theory. And using the texas example as evidence will weaken the opinion that agrees with this ridiculous theory. The so called human foot print at texas with a dinosoaurs foot print is actually another dinosoars footprint not human.
Without me having to type all of this in I'm adding a video that perfectly explains the evidence of the Inca stones and also Dino blood found and exhumed the reference of the Scientist and report is there so if you think this is a hoax you can look at the article yourself. Proof Dino lived with us. Millions of years ago. LMAO It's funny how in there they mentioned the Evol Docs only wanted to take the ones they new where copies, but even then they were copied from the originals.
simply explained the Incas and data clips to back article
If you bothered to read the sources of your absurd claims you'd know that dinosaur blood has never been recovered. The research instead showed a means of softening fossilised tissues and that fossilised red-cells existed, not blood.
I meant to say examined the blood bad choice of words on my part. Claims aren't so absurd if your argument for how the Inca new what to draw are based on their imagination only. That sounds absurd to me if that is your only theory. The argument of that there where no bones around and the ones that where are millions of years old explains this still doesn't make sense.
There wasn't blood. There were fossilised cells, and that's a big difference.
I use all the available evidence to draw a picture. The evidence is a lack of modern dinosaur fossils, and the established fact that cultures draw mythological exagerrated creatures all the time. Putting these together it's the best explanation that they invented the drawings not from witnessing a live specimen.
You seem to not understand dating. While animal species exist, rarely but reliably they will deposit fossils during their species lifespan. There were many species of dinosaur, spanning hundreds of millions of years. We have dated their fossils reliably and have a timeline. Now, if dinosaurs still live, over the last 65 million years there should have been deposited fossils by them. However all the fossils we find date much older than that, meaning that it's implausible that modern dinosaurs existed. This is like a species footprint. Modern dinosaurs have none.
Just more young creation garbage. Cite science when you think it says something they like and disregard it the other 99.9% of the time.
Only a young creationist would try to take an article by scientists (who believe the specimens to be 68 million years old) that shows the similarity of t-rex to ostrich and provides additional support FOR evolution and use it to claim man and dinosaurs lived together.
"They twist your words and they manipulate your data." - Mary Higby Schweitzer (lead scientist on the study and a christian)
Heres a link a Scientist who was there. Also wanted to note if you scroll half way down they found tools in limestone that they thought to be millions of years old. The theory and scientific data of the metal also adds to the scientific study that the atmosphere was different back then a vapor barrier that compressed air much like a hypo Barack chamber they can tell this by natual science and also by the metal. They have discovered many artifacts from people in rock they say are millions of years old. Also the Idaho clay doll found they drilled into a rock in Idaho US they believed to be 320 million years old and they found in the middle of it a clay doll. I guess Barbie had ancestor 320 millions ago. Also note the giant human femur bone found an proven to be a giant human femur bone people live long and big back then not being exposed to harmful rays and also living on a planet with twice the oxygen.
Most of your sources are out of context snippets from scientific journals that became distorted to fit a young earth creationist agenda. Radiometric dating is a proven technology and if you took the time to learn about from proper science textbooks you would see that it provides very accurate measurements when used correctly. Reading only the parts where scientists were determining the proper methodology to avoid error gives a wrong perspective.
I have and the dating is badly flawed you just chose to ignore, and the snippets i have used have come from NAT GEO and other non Christian findings. So your answer to the ancient drawings and Marco Polo and everything else related to a perfect dinosaur was just there imagination? How did they perfectly draw a Triceratops and Brontosaurus not to mention many others. If it was their imagination I would agree with you only if that now in the 21st century we didn't have exact matches of the Dinosaurs bones and perfect full models of what they were drawing in caves all over the world from 500 to 5000 years. That's pretty hard to dispute that fact. I never said that they discovered fresh red blood cells show me in any of my post i said that. They discovered Hemoglobin in the bone tissue and it was red and visible and that the bones still were somewhat flexible. They said it goes against everything they know about fossilization and this should not be visible after so called 65 million years.
Marco Polo referring to Dragons back then that's what dinosaurs where called or behemoths. Heres another interesting article from Nat Geo I think this is non Christian enough for you. Read this and see what the Scientist. It has rocked their whole theory they still don't have an answer for this. The TRex bones where still flexible and there was still soft tissue in the bones and still hemoglobin. How could that last 70 Millions years? Because there not 70 million years old or even close.
Since your "evidence" (which wouldn't have necessarily been evidence for your argument and was already shown false by the time you posted it) is wrong, have you changed your position?
Not enough evidence just look at my last post I have put up cave carving sand man made dinosuars out of stone from all over the world from time periods of 500 tp 5000 years ago.
Heres's some more finding soft tissue in dinosaur there have been many found with soft tissue and still visible hemoglobin. Ever hear about the Montana TREx they found bones where still flexible. HMMM! how could that be? Anyway here is another article about the horrible flawed mess of dating and it is only still just a theory not proven fact by any means. Good article to read you will note was still fresh red blood cells. Which don't preserve for millions of years.
Ah this is disappointing to say the least. But on topic for a moment, and believe me it will only be a moment because to give such a notion a second more than a moment of my time would be inconceivable; if you mean by man the earliest genus of homo, which is what I take your meaning to be, then there is absolutely no proof of any such thing, the earliest known genus of homo to be discovered is dated at roughly 4,000,000 years old, the latest of what we know as the dinosaurs is well over 60,000,000 years old. That isn't a conspiracy, its fact, its truth.
If on the other hand you mean any primate then you get a little closer but as far as anything vaguely resembling a homo-sapiens co-existing with the dinosaurs, we can be as sure as we can be without further proof that it never happened - which isn't to say it absolutely never did - just that to the best of our knowledge we think it didn't. That, my friend, is truth in its purest form.
this is ridiculuous. First off, evolution IS NOT a myth. Its as real as gravity, and if you think that gravity is a lie too, get to a mental hospital. Second, evolution DOES NOT have ANYTHING to do with when man and dinosaurs lived. it deals with how animals come to be. Third, Dinosaurs died 65 MILLION YEARS AGO! Homo Sapiens did not come around until maybe 2 million years ago, though the genus homo did arrive by 10 million years ago. Fourth, carbon dating, which determines age, is used on things that were LIVING AT SOME POINT, because the exchange of carbon and the regulation of levels of C14 in life are the premise of carbon dating. Finally, even the question is flawed, because it says "always", and I dont see any dinosaurs around today!
There has not been one single proof of any human bones or remains that the Scientific community has said this is it that have dated back more than 5,000 years. The latest attempt failed with Ardi after rushing to judgment and hopefully finding their grail of evolution but only short after with studies from the Scientific community agreed only to be not human just an ape.
There has not been one single proof of any human bones or remains that the Scientific community has said this is it that have dated back more than 5,000 years.
This is complete and utter nonsense.
We have discovered mud-brick villages that date back at least to 7,000 BCE, in Iraq.
And we know of some cultures that date back at least to 9,000 BCE, such as the Clovis culture, complete with stone tools and flint-napped spear points.
oh well excuse me for my misspelling. First off gravity and evolution are two separate things. God made gravity so we wouldn't float off. God made animals and animals can adapt. Like a salt or freshwater Alligator same species but an Alligator will never turn into anything else. Do you know they have still not have any evidence or bones of ape-man that have not been a hoax. And all of the prior ape skulls and skeletons that Science has posted out there to be the missing link have all been scams, So unless they are able to provide something that is not a hoax than evolution is a theory. Gravity is not a theory because we can prove it. It exist! Big difference! You don't' see dinosaurs today what about whales, alligators, snakes? How do they know we arrived 10 million years ago? If you believe in Big Bang? What is your answer for the Inca Burial stones and how they where able to carve Dinosaurs on exactly? Think about evolution for a minute. big bang rained for millions of years then from the biological soup that was made from all of the rain and minerals life formed. We started in water as a fish then as a frog like creature then to an ape and then to a man. I'm sorry that is impossible to prove or even believable. But if you told me that our God who loves us created us in his own image and that he would give us dominion over the world and animals we where created. To me that is much more believable and possible.
God made gravity so we wouldn't float off. God made animals and animals can adapt.
Please refrain from bare assertions like these.
Like a salt or freshwater Alligator same species but an Alligator will never turn into anything else.
This statement is erroneous. Organisms change shape, behaviour, colour, breeding cycles, virtually anything you can imagine has changed and will change, due to environmental pressures and mutation, with the only limitation that new features must use existing traits inherited from previous generations.
Birds from dinosaurs, mammals from primitive fish, it's all happened.
Do you know they have still not have any evidence or bones of ape-man that have not been a hoax. And all of the prior ape skulls and skeletons that Science has posted out there to be the missing link have all been scams,
So unless they are able to provide something that is not a hoax than evolution is a theory. Gravity is not a theory because we can prove it. It exist! Big difference!
It doesn't work that way. Theory is the final state for scientific models. Facts are what support a theory. Everyday language is different from scientific language. This is basic stuff that should be obvious to you.
You don't' see dinosaurs today what about whales, alligators, snakes? How do they know we arrived 10 million years ago?
If you believe in Big Bang? What is your answer for the Inca Burial stones and how they where able to carve Dinosaurs on exactly?
The two are not connected. Also, mythological creatures resembling certain dinosaurs have been drawn for millennia, what's your point? The hard evidence says that dinosaurs are extinct and have been for tens of millions of years.
Think about evolution for a minute. big bang rained for millions of years then from the biological soup that was made from all of the rain and minerals life formed. We started in water as a fish then as a frog like creature then to an ape and then to a man. I'm sorry that is impossible to prove or even believable.
Sure, when you're ignorant as dirt on a subject it's impossible to believe, and silly mythological genies like "god" fill your mind.
I have done the research everyone of those on the link you sent me are assumptions DNA does not match bones are of different species. That whole link you sent me is a theory based. I even looked further it is even heavily debated among Scientist.
Yet many so called intelligent people believe that the universe came about by pure chance. This of course has to include the galaxies, solar systems, suns, planets and the micro world of atoms, protons, electrons, quarks etc. Then we also have to consider the dimensions, 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on, plus all the natural laws, anti matter, dark matter and the code that make up the fabric of the physical realm. Now the human mind cannot even conceive of the scale of the universe, never mind thinking at such wonderful design came about by luck. To believe that all this plus much more, came about without a God/designer/programer is absolutely pathetic. This belief is worse than a fable or farytale, it is the most extreme form of ignorance possible.
I have done the research everyone of those on the link you sent me are assumptions DNA does not match bones are of different species. That whole link you sent me is a theory based. I even looked further it is even heavily debated among Scientist.
Reading answers in genesis, or watching Kent Hovind is not a form of research. Research means you went to the library and pulled out a college-level textbook on biology and read through the chapters on evolution and specifically human evolution.
You seem to think that reading creationist websites will educate you on the subject and so you can forgo any actual scientific training. This is wrong. You don't even understand what it means when scientists debate each other, what they are debating, and how it applies to the entire picture that is the theory of common descent.
Yet many so called intelligent people believe that the universe came about by pure chance.
Hold on for a moment. I think you're reading things quickly without fully understanding what is said. Let me explain something to you, and you need to read it fully.
The question of existence, how the universe got here, is a very deep subject. You just have no idea how difficult it is for most people to read the latest research and understand what it all means. You CANNOT just read simplified explanations of current theory and expect to understand it and be able to criticise it. Do you realise that what you are mocking in your statement, no doubt of which you learned from reading propaganda which used your inability to accept it as a basis to cause your scoffing, comes from almost a century of work in quantum mechanics and cosmological topology? Do you realise that the basis of it comes from very critical research involving mathematical models of our universe that something like 99% of the population cannot understand? You just mocked something that you know nothing about. That is very arrogant.
This of course has to include the galaxies, solar systems, suns, planets and the micro world of atoms, protons, electrons, quarks etc. Then we also have to consider the dimensions, 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on, plus all the natural laws, anti matter, dark matter and the code that make up the fabric of the physical realm.
The big bang deals with most of that. What "banged" is covered by various hypotheses. In other words, we know how the galaxies and stars and solar systems and matter got here, it was not random but came about during the very early years of the universe, as it changed into a cooler state. Specifically, atoms formed at the very early point, stars much later from those atoms. What made up the big bang is thought, in certain hypotheses, to have arrived from a quantum fluctuation, which is possible if the universe is flat topologically.
Now the human mind cannot even conceive of the scale of the universe, never mind thinking at such wonderful design came about by luck.
You just answered your own objection. Your mind cannot conceive of the scale of the universe, and so must attribute it to design.
To believe that all this plus much more, came about without a God/designer/programer is absolutely pathetic.
Primitive man once thought that gods existed in the lakes, in the skies, and so on, to explain the weather. If you confronted them about it, they would look at you with pity that you could not accept that god makes the rain come down, that god makes the trees sway, that god brings the light in the sky.
Your mind is not properly developed to understand physics and cosmology. It takes years of study and intelligence, what you don't understand is that your objections don't reflect reality but rather you own ignorance of the subject. Just like the men who thought god made the light come at noon, you think god made the universe, when that isn't the case.
This belief is worse than a fable or farytale, it is the most extreme form of ignorance possible.
I will now answer questions and provide counters in no particular order.
Big bang lasted for fractions of a second. Inca Burial stones-hoax. They know we arrived 10 mya through radioactive dating. God does not exist. We DID NOT start off in the water as fish. If you've read up a bit,you'd actually have a fairly good idea of how evolution actually occured. And theyve have lots of skeletons of creatures which represented an earlier stage in primate development.
And gravity cannot be definitely proven any more than evolution. Because to definitively prove something, one must show that under all circumstances, it is true, by a method of arriving at solutions through rigurous logical steps. All we know is that gravity seems to work. We've only been able to test gravity, for all you know, it could fail randomly, because we cannot rigurously prove it. It is accepted as FACT because based on all experiments and data available, its true. This is the science definition of fact, a theory which experiments and checks regularly show to be true.
They have done experiments, and they have checked. Evolution is a FACT.
Inca Burial stones are not a Hoax if you would have done any valid and decent research you would have noted that it has been logged by Time magazine, us dept of paleontology, Nova, plus hundreds of scientist that have excavated the graves and documented all it. It is a mystery for most that can't explain it, if you don't believe in creation then I can see how that must be hard for those people to wrap their heads around this one. just to mention a few. People like yourself hate hardcore evidence such as this because it makes you have to think with actual reason of how this can be.
Dude they don't have anything of any ape like humans that prove that we came from them. What they have are monkeys and apes with different DNA and they have made the assumption that we came from them but there is noway they have proved this. I even ask you to give me one piece of your data to back this up Good luck in that one you won't find it. that they have said many times before and all a hoax. Ever hear of Nebraska Man or how about Java Man that Scientist said was the proof they even put it on the front cover of National Geo and Time. Nope all to be found a hoax. You know what evolution is? A lie. If you tell a lie the bigger it is the better it it will be received. Almost like the Holocaust just in our recent past but the further we get away from that more and more people believe that never happened it's kinda similar to that. Satan likes to per sway mankind and get people away from the truth. And yes gravity can been proven as fact I don't know how you are even debating that one. They know this because of they can measure the pressure of atmosphere and pull by the rotation of the earth by it's gravitational pull.
The world is to keep you in blinded by the truth. Here is one that you may not know. The FED sounds like it's government. No actually it's not. It is a privately held corporation that controls all of our money and has nothing to do with our government. They like the sound of the FED because if they called it what it really is a private bank that answers to nobody and controls all of everything with money people would freak! It's all about looking through to the truth. The world wants to keep you, us in a fog.
Dude they don't have anything of any ape like humans that prove that we came from them. What they have are monkeys and apes with different DNA and they have made the assumption that we came from them but there is noway they have proved this. I even ask you to give me one piece of your data to back this up Good luck in that one you won't find it.
Ever hear of Nebraska Man or how about Java Man that Scientist said was the proof they even put it on the front cover of National Geo and Time. Nope all to be found a hoax.
I know it's easier for you to chant the same propaganda over and over instead of reading the proper science.
I understand, to justify your belief system, that all words of the bible have to be true. If one word of the bible is not right, then doubt can be placed on all of it. So in your mind dinosaurs had to live with man. I do not really care what fantasies you like to entertain. Mankind has had many different religions and all say they are the truth. Also, the only thing I think that is awesome about intelligent design is, you are not allowed to say it was a god that did the designing. You also have to admit the possibility that it could have been space aliens. One day, through education/knowledge, mankind will crush all religions. I just hope there will not be any super-intelligent sea otters that will want to crush our skulls like clams on their tummies.
Read some and look at some of my last comments. I'm having fun on here if even one person opens their mind and looks at empirical evidence in ancient history to Marco Polo, Job, dinosaur drawings in caves all over the world you have to honestly say how can that be? The big lie tells us that the first dinosaur bone was found 1787. So if that's so then how are there literally thousand of references of Dragons or Behemoths mentioned and drawn out all over the world. Here is the cave drawings in Arizona and other places that are artifacts 500 to 5000 years old. Unless they had an incredible imagination i don't know how they where able to make such perfect dinosaurs of what we have today in that of Fossils. I don't have to justify anything it's pretty obvious even to a non beleiver when i show them these things most people are never aware. I hope you open your eyes to this and see the lie the world is telling us.
Well no if we are talking about the dinosaurs that lived 65 million years ago but alligators and crocodiles are considered to be evolved dinosaurs so if by dinosaur you mean any type then in a sense as long as humanity has lived we have always lived with dinosaurs but dinosaurs 65 million years ago (last of the dinosaurs) never lived with us then or before that.
This whole debate is predicated on misunderstanding. Evolutionarily, mammals had just develped the mammalian heart at this time, it took the extinction of the dinosaurs to 'open the earth up' for mammalian dominance, at which time the diversity of larger mammals like apes became possible.