Started By
Message
re: 66-million-year-old deathbed linked to dinosaur-killing meteor
Posted on 4/1/19 at 11:56 am to Kentucker
Posted on 4/1/19 at 11:56 am to Kentucker
Well, tbf, lack of human artifacts at a given site =/= humans weren't around at the time of dinosaurs, just means they weren't in that spot. Cant really 100% prove a negative
Also, the thing I find interesting about the idea of Earth being only 6,000 years old according to some people's interpretation of the Bible is that, in 2 Peter it is written "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." And since God is the one who gave Moses the account of Genesis, was it 7 of our days? What is 7 days to God? Is 6,000 years really an accurate number according to biblical accounts?
Also, was the Behemoth a dinosaur? What about the Leviathan (see Job for discussion of what these looked like if youre interested)? If they were dinosaurs as many believe, how were ancient peoples aware of dinosaurs if they were long extinct and buried?
I have no idea if people were here with dinosaurs. If one is going off of biblical accounts, these creatures aren't necessarily dinosaurs.
Just food for thought. I don't think you can 100% prove or disprove man being around at the time of dinosaurs. Nor does dating of the earth really prove or disprove the Bible
Also, the thing I find interesting about the idea of Earth being only 6,000 years old according to some people's interpretation of the Bible is that, in 2 Peter it is written "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day." And since God is the one who gave Moses the account of Genesis, was it 7 of our days? What is 7 days to God? Is 6,000 years really an accurate number according to biblical accounts?
Also, was the Behemoth a dinosaur? What about the Leviathan (see Job for discussion of what these looked like if youre interested)? If they were dinosaurs as many believe, how were ancient peoples aware of dinosaurs if they were long extinct and buried?
I have no idea if people were here with dinosaurs. If one is going off of biblical accounts, these creatures aren't necessarily dinosaurs.
Just food for thought. I don't think you can 100% prove or disprove man being around at the time of dinosaurs. Nor does dating of the earth really prove or disprove the Bible
This post was edited on 4/1/19 at 11:59 am
2
Posted on 4/1/19 at 12:29 pm to thatguy45
quote:
Just food for thought. I don't think you can 100% prove or disprove man being around at the time of dinosaurs. Nor does dating of the earth really prove or disprove the Bible
Nothing that depends on supposition is ever going to 100% prove or disprove anything. Dating is based on supposed levels of carbon, or whatever is being used to compare, at the time of comparison.
Posted on 4/1/19 at 12:42 pm to Vecchio Cane
quote:
supposition
Hooked our first YEC-tard, guys! Please keep posting!
Posted on 4/1/19 at 12:47 pm to FutureMikeVIII
quote:
Hooked our first YEC-tard, guys! Please keep posting
You're just too clever
Posted on 4/1/19 at 5:11 pm to Kentucker
quote:
The discovery will grow in importance as the site is excavated and its contents are analyzed
My friend ! Always the voice of reason and clarity !
Posted on 4/1/19 at 6:21 pm to thatguy45
quote:
Just food for thought. I don't think you can 100% prove or disprove man being around at the time of dinosaurs.
Well, science is about observable evidence. There is zero evidence showing that humans evolved concurrent with dinosaurs. Overwhelming evidence shows that the first human-like primates originated only 7 million years ago.
quote:
Nor does dating of the earth really prove or disprove the Bible.
Science is not interested in proving or disproving the Bible. As long as religion stays in its lane, that is.
Posted on 4/1/19 at 6:58 pm to ExtraSpecial
Second law of thermodynamics.
Posted on 4/1/19 at 7:48 pm to Kentucker
quote:
Proves beyond doubt that dinosaurs were extant at the time of the impact.
I believe those two dinosaurs (triceratops and hadrosaur) would be the first non-avian dinosaurs ever discovered in the KT boundary.
So, they weren't completely extinct, but there is a strong possibility that dinosaur populations had also previously been devastated by extreme volcanic activity on the Indian sub-continent (possibly extinct across much of the planet), and that the Chicxulub event was the kill shot.
This post was edited on 4/1/19 at 7:50 pm
Posted on 4/1/19 at 10:00 pm to Evolved Simian
The Chicxulub event killed 75% of all life on earth. It was one of the worst extinction catastrophes ever. It didn’t need any help in wiping out most of the major fauna of that time.
LINK
LINK
Posted on 4/1/19 at 10:46 pm to Kentucker
quote:
There is zero evidence showing that humans evolved concurrent with dinosaurs
Well, that depends on how you interpret ancient depictions of creatures and how much you trust dating results. The drawings/sculptures could just be random drawings from imagination of fantastical beasts, or they could be drawings of dinosaurs prior to the uncovering and piecing together of remains.
I do find the dinosaur argument to be a strange hill to choose to die on (though some do it anyway)
quote:
Overwhelming evidence shows that the first human-like primates originated only 7 million years ago.
I have a hard time buying into the entire theory of evolution because of what they say some species evolved into, its kinda goofy
quote:
Science is not interested in proving or disproving the Bible. As long as religion stays in its lane, that is.
Im sure you know as well as I do that those lanes overlap on several different things depending on religious beliefs. Cant really keep one out of the other, if you could there wouldn't be arguments between those in the religious community and the agnostic/atheist communities. Such is the nature of people, as all are prone to biases.
Oh well, don't wanna argue with you over science/religion. I try to examine things from both rather than shun one or the other as I consider science and religion to both be important.
This post was edited on 4/2/19 at 12:26 am
Posted on 4/2/19 at 10:17 am to thatguy45
quote:
I try to examine things from both rather than shun one or the other as I consider science and religion to both be important.
I keep them separate because I regard science as nature and religion as a human construct. Science exists without humans and is discoverable by any intelligent species.
Posted on 4/2/19 at 10:20 am to Kentucker
quote:
The Chicxulub event killed 75% of all life on earth. It was one of the worst extinction catastrophes ever. It didn’t need any help in wiping out most of the major fauna of that time.
Except that your article from interestingengineering.com is very likely incorrect in assigning all Cretaceous dinosaur extinction to the Chicxulub event, as many of those species were already extinct. People have jumped on that impact as a single event that wiped out all the dinosaurs, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. With over a hundred years of excavations at sites all over the world, there is only a single site, containing exactly two species of dinosaur at the K-T boundary.
I know how you guys love to discount science on this board, but mass dinosaur extinction was not a single event process. Most of them were already gone.
This post was edited on 4/2/19 at 10:27 am
Posted on 4/2/19 at 10:48 am to Evolved Simian
Just wanted to chime in and say that I love these kind of scientific discussions. They're fascinating and informative. I know a thing or two about chemistry, I wish I knew more biology, and I'm highly religious. We do exist
Posted on 4/2/19 at 11:48 am to Kentucker
quote:
Science exists without humans and is discoverable by any intelligent species.
I am curious as to if you think other intelligent life exists in the universe, at least compared to our level if not greater.
If so are you basing it on chance due to the size of the universe and likelihood of a similar replication of the processes that happened on earth, or something else?
Posted on 4/2/19 at 1:11 pm to thatguy45
quote:
I am curious as to if you think other intelligent life exists in the universe, at least compared to our level if not greater.
First consider that the observable Universe contains 2 trillion galaxies and each of those has hundreds of billions of stars and each of those stars has planets. Estimates for our Milky Way galaxy, for example, are that about 1 trillion planets exist here. Of that trillion, about 33 billion are thought to be earthlike.
Now that's just the observable Universe. Alan Guth's Inflation Theory, the reigning theory about the orgin of spacetime, indicates that the entire Universe is 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times bigger than the observable Universe.
Second, from our own example, earth life, we know that life arises. We know that ours is one set of conditions under which life can originate and sustain itself for billions of years. There may be other conditions under which life can spontaneously begin.
We also know that life is an extremely complex chain reaction, one that hasn't stopped for 4.5 billion years. So, a conclusion can be made that life will readily arise and become more complex under the right conditions.
Another conclusion is that because there are so many stars and planets in the entire Universe, the idea that it (intelligent life, too) arose/will arise only once is absurd. For a better understanding of how life is a chemical chain reaction, please watch the excellent presentation below by Eric Smith of the Santa Fe Institute.
Inevitable Life?
This post was edited on 4/2/19 at 2:37 pm
Posted on 4/2/19 at 7:23 pm to Kentucker
Interesting presentation. Since they cant find an area on Earth where life is essentially coming from inanimate material, I wonder if this would be a result of nature having passed the creation stage on Earth. Based on that, could you find it in our solar system, or is it too late a stage for that in our "corner" of the universe?
He also briefly mentioned a quote by someone discussing how, if we were to "rewind the tape" of creation of life, we wouldn't get the same thing. I'd like to see the numbers on the likelihood of a replication of the processes leading to life here, occurring somewhere else in this very large universe
He also briefly mentioned a quote by someone discussing how, if we were to "rewind the tape" of creation of life, we wouldn't get the same thing. I'd like to see the numbers on the likelihood of a replication of the processes leading to life here, occurring somewhere else in this very large universe
This post was edited on 4/2/19 at 7:35 pm
Posted on 4/3/19 at 4:09 pm to thatguy45
quote:
Since they cant find an area on Earth where life is essentially coming from inanimate material, I wonder if this would be a result of nature having passed the creation stage on Earth.
Did life start on earth more than once? There's no current evidence that it did. From all indications, the tree of life that includes us is the only one that began as long ago as 4.1 billion BCE.
Why would that be? Many people think it's because the branches of the extant tree of life prevent others from "taking root." Others, including me, think there may be only one formula for life. Wherever it arises it will be similar in its basic construction to everywhere else it originates. Furthermore, this formula may be exclusive to the set of conditions which gave rise to our own tree of life.
quote:
Based on that, could you find it in our solar system, or is it too late a stage for that in our "corner" of the universe?
Because all the bodies in our solar system originated at the same time and from the same materials, it's logical to think that life has begun on more than just earth. Mars, Europa, Enceledus and Ganymede have had or currently have liquid water in amounts that could support microscopic life, at least.
quote:
He also briefly mentioned a quote by someone discussing how, if we were to "rewind the tape" of creation of life, we wouldn't get the same thing.
Right. The chances of humans, or even mammals, arising twice are virtually nil. Evolution is not a program. Rather, it's chance mutations that produce organisms without any plan or purpose.
quote:
I'd like to see the numbers on the likelihood of a replication of the processes leading to life here, occurring somewhere else in this very large universe.
So would we all. The best we can do is to consider the Drake Equation.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News