Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Dinosaurs live with man?
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 31 of 373 (662787)
05-18-2012 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by ScottyDouglas
05-18-2012 4:55 PM


Marco Polo : Travels of Marco Polo book 2
"Leaving the city of Yachi, and traveling ten days in a westerly direction, you reach the province of Karazan, which is also the name of the chief city....Here are seen huge serpents, ten paces in length (about 30 feet), and ten spans (about 8 feet) girt of the body. At the fore part, near the head, they have two short legs, having three claws like those of a tiger, with eyes larger than a forepenny loaf (pane da quattro denari) and very glaring."
The jaws are wide enough to swallow a man, the teeth are large and sharp, and their whole appearance is so formidable, that neither man, nor any kind of animal can approach them without terror. Others are met with of a smaller size, being eight, six, or 5 paces long; and the following method is used for taking them. In the day-time, by reason of great heat, they lurk in caverns, from whence, at night, they issue to seek their food, and whatever beast they meet with and can lay hold of, whether tiger, wolf, or any other, they devour;"
Sounds like a crocodile to me. It would seem to me that you would describe a dinosaur by its height, not its length. The very fact that Polo describes its length strongly suggests a crocodile, or an animal unlike a dinosaur.
Look at it from a different direction. Birds are modern dinosaurs. How would you describe the ostrich? By its length or by its height?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by ScottyDouglas, posted 05-18-2012 4:55 PM ScottyDouglas has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 51 of 373 (663553)
05-25-2012 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Artemis Entreri
05-24-2012 6:22 PM


Re: maybe
I guess its possible.
I think we still have some, they are called Crocodilians.
It would have been more accurate to say "they are called birds", but that is neither here nor there.
You do bring up a bigger point. It is indeed possible that some (non-avian) dinosaurs made it into the modern age. We may stumble upon a few surviving species on a remote island, for example. There is nothing in the theory of evolution that requires dinosaurs to be extinct. Nothing. In fact, I find it kind of strange that we don't see any dinosaurs today. Even the ancient monotreme is still represented by 2 species: the platypus and the echidna.
What we are arguing against is the implication that radiometric dating is not accurate. Obviously, creationists are not arguing that there may be some isolated island that still houses a few species which is why they are not seen in the fossil record for the past 65 million years. What they are trying to argue is that the Earth is 6-10,000 years old, therefore man and the dinosaurs found in the fossil record roamed the Earth together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Artemis Entreri, posted 05-24-2012 6:22 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Artemis Entreri, posted 05-25-2012 12:35 PM Taq has replied
 Message 58 by arachnophilia, posted 05-29-2012 8:52 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 54 of 373 (663566)
05-25-2012 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Artemis Entreri
05-25-2012 12:35 PM


Re: maybe
Does the Tuatara of New Zealand qualify?
Nope. You are actually getting further away, if I am reading the phylogeny correctly:
Diapsida
Crocodiles are more closely related to dinosaurs than tuataras (i.e. Sphenodons) are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Artemis Entreri, posted 05-25-2012 12:35 PM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(3)
Message 65 of 373 (664245)
05-30-2012 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by foreveryoung
05-30-2012 2:47 AM


While I don't agree with scotty in the least, you are falsely accusing him citing a hoax as evidence.
No we aren't. Scotty was pushing the claim that these stones were carved by ancient Peruvians, and that they were real depictions of dinosaurs that lived at the same time as these Peruvians. This is untrue.
it was science's inability to correctly date the stones that scotty used as evidence. He was saying that if science cannot correctly date artifacts, why should we believe they can correctly date dinosaur bones?
The problem is that the stones were pulled from a "mystery cave" by their discoverer. For archaeological finds you need to use carbon dating on the organic materia in and around the stones in order to date them properly.
quote:
Why don't scientists simply date the stones and settle the matter? Stones without organic material trapped in them can only be dated by dating the organic material in the strata in which they are found. Since Cabrera's stones come from some mystery cave which has never been identified, much less excavated, there is no way to date them.
Ica Stones - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
It's a matter of not having the proper geologic context of the stones that prevents them from being dated, primarily because they are a hoax. This would not be the case for real dinosaur bone finds where scientists will date the rocks above and below the fossil to determine the age of the fossil.
So the question to you is why we always find dinosaur bones below rocks that date to 65 million years old? Why this correlation? If radiometric dating is so wildly inaccurate how are we able to get such a strong correlation between species and radioisotopes in rocks?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by foreveryoung, posted 05-30-2012 2:47 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 289 of 373 (698500)
05-07-2013 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by Faith
05-07-2013 2:27 PM


Re: Density of a quackademic skull
Who said they were in "the same place?"
Dinosaur fossils are found on every continent, so how could they not be in the same place? It's like saying that birds and humans are never found in the same place.
Fossilization has to do with how the creature was buried more than anything else. If it got buried rapidly and deep then it would be likely to fossilize, shallow burial wouldn't accomplish that.
How is it that dinosaurs were never buried in the same deposits as modern mammals such as rhinos or deer? Why is it that dinosaurs were all buried under igneous rocks that date to 65 million years or older using radiometric dating methodologies? How does that work?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Faith, posted 05-07-2013 2:27 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by Faith, posted 05-07-2013 9:21 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 350 of 373 (698926)
05-10-2013 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Faith
05-07-2013 9:21 PM


Re: Density of a quackademic skull
Sharing a continent is not necessarily hanging out together.
You seemed to have missed the meat of my post:
quote:
How is it that dinosaurs were never buried in the same deposits as modern mammals such as rhinos or deer? Why is it that dinosaurs were all buried under igneous rocks that date to 65 million years or older using radiometric dating methodologies? How does that work?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Faith, posted 05-07-2013 9:21 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024