Man and dinosaurs, when did we first know about them?

Irish_Tom · 19 Sep 2013 at 21:49

Why does GD always bring out the crazies?

Glaucus · 19 Sep 2013 at 21:50

Irish_Tom said:
Why does GD always bring out the crazies?

Its not, they're in SC as well.

MikeTimbers · 19 Sep 2013 at 22:04

I have a picture on my wall of floating rocks - Avatar, natch - and apparently in a couple of thousand years this will be "evidence" that gravity didn't exist in 2013!

Seriously, you heard it here first!

d_brennen · 19 Sep 2013 at 23:06

[FnG]magnolia;24972873 said:
I love kedge. He appears in these threads, throws about his 'interesting' views, riles everybody up, takes it too far and gets himself suspended. Every single time.

\^m^/

It get's even better when he brings his alt out to play

Castiel · 19 Sep 2013 at 23:08

Nitefly said:
Well, this is kinda awkward.... because I'm god. And there are.

But you're god with a lower case g...so it's probably a different Heaven.

Nitefly · 19 Sep 2013 at 23:10

Castiel said:
But you're god with a lower case g...so it's probably a different Heaven.

Clearly the wrong one though if it doesn't have dinosaurs.

Castiel · 19 Sep 2013 at 23:17

Nitefly said:
Clearly the wrong one though if it doesn't have dinosaurs.

Well, here is conclusive evidence that there are dinosaurs in Heaven....a photo of Jesus wearing his 'All Dinosaurs Go To Heaven' T-Shirt....

So that's settled that one...

[FnG]magnolia · 20 Sep 2013 at 07:55

d_brennen said:
It get's even better when he brings his alt out to play

I would listen to this story.

kedge · 20 Sep 2013 at 08:45

d_brennen said:
Please cite your evidence that all dating techniques are flawed.

By those that are in opposition to your worldview, i have shown where some paleontoligists have dated dinosaur bones to be less than 40 thousand years old using the accelerator mass spectrometry which is an advanced and more accurate dating method or carbon dating method. In fact many who are in opposition to your worldview have shown why dating methods are not reliable, besides, carbon dating techniques can only really date up to 50 thousand years so the millions of years is assumed.

d_brennen said:
and that the world is really only a few thousand years old. Please, if you would be so humble.

I never said the earth is a few thousand years old, nobody knows exactly how old the earth is.

kedge · 20 Sep 2013 at 08:48

Sliver said:
peer reviewed scientific journals.

Evolutionists telling us what they want you to believe, bias much?

[FnG]magnolia · 20 Sep 2013 at 08:59

[FnG]magnolia;24972873 said:
I love kedge. He appears in these threads, throws about his 'interesting' views, riles everybody up, takes it too far and gets himself suspended. Every single time.

\^m^/

kedge said:
By those that are in opposition to your worldview, i have shown where some paleontoligists have dated dinosaur bones to be less than 40 thousand years old using the accelerator mass spectrometry which is an advanced and more accurate dating method or carbon dating method. In fact many who are in opposition to your worldview have shown why dating methods are not reliable, besides, carbon dating techniques can only really date up to 50 thousand years so the millions of years is assumed.

I never said the earth is a few thousand years old, nobody knows exactly how old the earth is.

kedge said:
Evolutionists telling us what they want you to believe, bias much?

SexyGreyFox · 20 Sep 2013 at 09:19

kedge said:
By those that are in opposition to your worldview, i have shown where some paleontoligists have dated dinosaur bones to be less than 40 thousand years old using the accelerator mass spectrometry which is an advanced and more accurate dating method or carbon dating method. In fact many who are in opposition to your worldview have shown why dating methods are not reliable, besides, carbon dating techniques can only really date up to 50 thousand years so the millions of years is assumed.

However this is where Geologists come into the picture because when fossils/bones are found they can have an excellent estimate of how old the the Earth is where they came from.

d_brennen · 20 Sep 2013 at 09:42

kedge said:
By those that are in opposition to your worldview, i have shown where some paleontoligists have dated dinosaur bones to be less than 40 thousand years old using the accelerator mass spectrometry which is an advanced and more accurate dating method or carbon dating method. In fact many who are in opposition to your worldview have shown why dating methods are not reliable, besides, carbon dating techniques can only really date up to 50 thousand years so the millions of years is assumed.

Dr. Thomas Seiler I presume? Here is your man playing to a full house about his C-14 adventures with dinosaur bones

Since when did we have dinosaur BONES to play with? Carbon 14 dating on dinosaur fossils?

aardvark · 20 Sep 2013 at 10:05

kedge said:
All in your opinion you have zero proof that rocks are indeed millions of years old, all known dating methods spit out erroneous dates, there are no known exact absolute dates, much is based on evolutionary assumptions.

you couldn't be more wrong - you are just being thick.

B@Th*nG · 20 Sep 2013 at 10:14

kedge said:
Evolutionists telling us what they want you to believe, bias much?

look, i know this is a very difficult decision, but maybe you need to re-assess this life choice? why don't you do some reading which is more down the current world viewpoint instead of TRYING to find things to the contrary? you might find that the argument is so reasoned and well substantiated that it's difficult to argue with and you might be happier because of it

B@

d_brennen · 20 Sep 2013 at 10:18

No B@, science needs contradiction. It's a self leveller. Where creation theory believers fall down is using under qualified scientists doing bad science in non-recognised institutions and published in questionable "journals", Creationist funded websites and YouTube nutters.

Must. Try. Harder.

manic_man · 20 Sep 2013 at 10:46

What's interesting about almost any theory is that, if you spend enough time, you can gather evidence to make a case for it.

The trick when deciding whether to believe a theory or not is to learn how to recognise the quality of evidence that something is built upon.

This applies here.

Efour · 20 Sep 2013 at 11:34

Kedge if you say this to argue and debate this stuff for fun then fair enough.

If you truly believe this stuff then you are in a very, very small minority and whilst that doesn't make you "wrong" per-se it doesn't make you right.

I've never seen a carbon atom or isotope, how do i know they exist? Someone told me afterall ... You seem to accept some science as fact but dismiss others, whats the point? Its all lies right?

You have a very tiny limited pool of data to draw from if you are trying to disprove the past 100 years of scientific advancement.

I think faith and science should just be kept apart, after all one is created by man and the other is science.

B@Th*nG · 20 Sep 2013 at 12:21

d_brennen said:
No B@, science needs contradiction. It's a self leveller. Where creation theory believers fall down is using under qualified scientists doing bad science in non-recognised institutions and published in questionable "journals", Creationist funded websites and YouTube nutters.

Must. Try. Harder.

science needs reasoned argument, and this is not it

B@

jmc007 · 20 Sep 2013 at 12:30

There is irrefutable credible evidence of the Incas knowledge of dinosaurs on burial stones, textiles and death masks. Do some research; It is obvious.