Science Says Dinosaur Era Had 5x Carbon

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

=================================================================

 

 

Wow, you're getting into Classic Territory with this in TOTO:

 

 

If what you state is what you believe then why do attempt to present some poor artwork as absolute proof?

 

 

 

It is worth considering “Chariots of gods” which offers art of extraterrestrials to promote the idea that life originated from such influence.

 

I question coherency and relevancy?  Is this suppose to be some kind of Parallel or Analogy to the Dinosaur motifs that I provided?  You know (hopefully, but I'm hesitant), you're missing half the equation, right?  To be a Relevant and Coherent Analogy........ you kinda need Actual Alien(s) to Match up with the Drawings

 

Be careful of watching too many Discovery Channel Documentaries...except for Comedy Relief, as the basis for your "science" acumen

 

 

So there is proof that life originated by extraterrestrials, do you accept that?

 

 

As of yet there has been no hard “physical” evidence of human and dinosaur interaction.

 

Except the Evidence I just Provided.  But of Course, the "Hard Physical Evidence" you mean Time Machine evidence, right?  And, Obviously, when "Hard Evidence" is provided it withers away under the relentless Equivocation Parade that's waiting in the Bull Pen

 

 

you know a human flying on an archeopteryx

 

You mean like a Microscopic Human?? ..... since, "Archeopteryx could grow to about 0.5 m (1 ft 8 in) in length."  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx 

 

 

panspermia theories.

 

"Meteorite experiment deals blow to bugs from space theory" http://phys.org/news141539594.html

 

Or yours is (just now....as a result of the Trainwreck above) the "Directed" Panspermia variety....where life was brought here by Aliens on a Space Ship, eh?  No UnBridled Conjured Speculation for you.

 

 

Just because I find your “style” amusing when you believe you’ve exhausted all possibilities...

*It is possible that fossils were found and drawings rendered based on them.

*It is possible that they were an exaggeration of known lizards and such.

*It is known that some of the art, ICA stones for example, are considered hoaxes and even some creationists believe so.

*One sees through biased eyes, as clearly some of the depictions are ambiguous at best.

*They could be composites drawings and considering the level of talent...

 

 

WoW

 

 

Why, the link is self explanatory...do you have a degree in Physics or Geology?

 

Well on most sites, just posting a "Link" is considered Intellectually Dishonest and Lazy and will get you banned right quick.  Mostly due to the fact that the one's offending, have no understanding of the subject and can't speak to the material.

 

So they just go by whatever somebody tells them to believe, without the slightest scrutiny, and then adopt it into their "a priori" adherence to Fairytale World View that they adopted using the self same technique....and then attempt to peddle to the unsuspecting and unaware that invariably leads to Outer Darkness and the Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth for all involved.

 

 

So otherwise you go to a creationist site and pull info and I go to a legitimate science site and pull info.

 

I knew you couldn't post a reply without @ least 1 Logical Fallacy, in this case: The "No True Scotsman" Fallacy:  https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

 

And from just a cursory reading of a few of my posts, most of my sources are:  Nature, Scientific American, New Scientist, Astrophysics Journal, Science, adsabs harvard.edu, Astronomy, Physics Bulletin, Molec. Biol. Evol, et al).   Are you saying these are CREATIONIST Publications?? 

 

 

he is involved with science as opposed to simply trying to prove or disprove something.

 

So you're saying "science" isn't concerned about "proving" or "disproving" anything, eh?

 

Tell you what, petition the Scientific Establishment and have them replace the SCIENTIFIC METHOD then!!  Actually, no need for that..... they already replaced it some years ago with "Peer Review".  So you're good!...No Worries

[Sevenseas]

Sevenseas - Probably as accurate as the weather reports up here in VT! Is that a meteorolisaur?...and no tie!

 

 

prob passed on the tie due to the 110 degrees  

[Tolken]

Sevenseas - prob passed on the tie due to the 110 degrees

 

I think I would need to pass on more than just the tie....not used to that up here in the north!

[Tolken]

Enoch2021 - There are only 4 possible "rational" conclusions that can be drawn based on the above "evidence" (I have Thousands more):

 

Only 4...do you have a source for that or is it simply by your subjective prerogative? And thousands more of what? ...hopefully of some rational conclusions. So you could only come up with 3 rational conclusions (actually two)...yet I would assert my list is quite as “rational” as yours. At best the only “evidence” (oh, here we go into your overuse of equivocation) is quite debatable.

 

1.  Humans Lived with Dinos.

 

Rational though with scant support.

 

2.  Multiple Cultures Conjured these from their imaginations and constructed pottery, architectural designs, paintings/drawings @ various times and different Geographical Separated Locations that Miraculously just so happen to fit Modern Paleontology's exact descriptions of these Creatures. (Including Skin Color/Designs)

3.  ALL Ancient Cultures had Paleontologists that: dug up bones, reconstructed them to exacting details including appropriate flesh anatomy, skin color, and design.  Then made Pottery, Architectural Motifs and Drawings depicting them exactly then reburied the Bones."

 

Could you point me to your support/source stating that flesh anatomy, skin color, and design are completely understood by paleontologists?  

 

4.  All said Ancient Cultures "Guessed".

 

Rational conclusions cease..... do you deny that exaggerated and fantastical creatures were portrayed in art/statues across many cultures, and often based on actual living creatures?

 

Except the Evidence I just Provided.  But of Course, the "Hard Physical Evidence" you mean Time Machine evidence, right?  And, Obviously, when "Hard Evidence" is provided it withers away under the relentless Equivocation Parade that's waiting in the Bull Pen

 

Except the evidence that you provided, as noted, is hardly conclusive and remains ambiguous and debatable. Yes, a time machine would help...and perhaps hard physical evidence from other than simply ambiguous human art. You were the one who talked about two or more related concepts to form coherence or something, so where are the other lines of evidence?

 

Well on most sites, just posting a "Link" is considered Intellectually Dishonest and Lazy...

 

As is your wont to have little regard for context consider that the link was informational as to radiometric dating not based on a specific point of argument but on dating methods in general.  There is nothing intellectually dishonest or lazy about posting such a link.  It would be, perhaps, if a more specific or narrowed point was raised, however that was not the case. I appreciate that you then continue on and on, but understand it is quite meaningless as to the discussion.

 

I knew you couldn't post a reply without @ least 1 Logical Fallacy, in this case: The "No True Scotsman" Fallacy:

 

When in doubt posit a fallacy...as I’ve noted to you on other threads your attempts fail. So, if you join a scientific organization that requires you to take an oath regarding a mandated  bias / presupposition / entrenched view then how would you term the organization? Actually, the "No True Scotsman" applies to certain organizations not to my contention.........

 

Nature, Scientific American, New Scientist, Astrophysics Journal, Science, adsabs harvard.edu, Astronomy, Physics Bulletin, Molec. Biol. Evol, et al)

 

So from this array of reading material please point me to the articles/source that assert that radiometric dating is false, that ancient art is proof of dinosaurs, that superposition and correlation are unreliable so that fossil/rock dating is purely circular? 

 

So you're saying "science" isn't concerned about "proving" or "disproving" anything, eh?

 

If you read more carefully...but yes, in a YEC way. Creation science, somewhat of an oxymoron, seeks to prove only a young earth, and/or only seek to attempt to disprove any science that posits otherwise, sorry “secular” science. So what I was saying was that scientists follow a method that leads in a direction, as opposed to following a direction and making sure the answers fit that direction...see the difference?

 

I may or may not continue this but if I do is it possible for you to limit your innocuous fluff? When you go off on your attempt to belittle it makes it very difficult to find any “meat” in your position.

[Sevenseas]

Sevenseas - prob passed on the tie due to the 110 degrees

 

I think I would need to pass on more than just the tie....not used to that up here in the north!

 

 

I'm father north than you...and we are having our second Nor'easter in less than one week!

 

The Atlantic is a stormy sea!

[Enoch2021]

 

 

 

 

==================================================================

 

I'm done playing these childish games with you.  From many instances over multiple threads your reply's on multiple topics have quite aptly shown IN TOTO: Complete Obtuseness to simple concepts and Willful Ignorance.

 

But Jesus Loves You more than you can Fathom....for the very hairs on your Head are all Numbered.  

 

Humble yourself before HIM and HE will Lift You UP.

 

Hope you find the TRUTH

 

Good Day

[Tolken]

Enoch2021 - I'm done playing these childish games with you.  From many instances over multiple threads your reply's on multiple topics have quite aptly shown IN TOTO: Complete Obtuseness to simple concepts and Willful Ignorance.

 

I guess LookingForAnswers was correct...so if one disagrees, you simply attack the person.  Obtuseness and willful ignorance, and that is your evidence...ad hominems are always quite persuasive.

 

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html

[jerryR34]

I came across this article on Yahoo.  It fits exactly what I've been saying and what we could've expect before the flood when there was a canopy of water.  The earth would've been going through a greenhouse period.  Now science confirms that the carbon levels were higher, throwing off their testing.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/dinosaur-era-had-5-times-todays-co2-212124284.html

The Vapor Canopy Hypothesis Holds No Water

By Paul Farrar

In this short and, I hope, simple note I will discuss the physical implications of the often proposed "vapor canopy" explanation for the source of water for Noah's Flood as recorded in "Genesis".

Noah's Flood is alleged to have covered the mountains of the earth to a depth of 15 cubits (about 8m). To have covered Mt. Everest it would have required a depth of water of about 9km above sea level. If the flood was only required to cover the mountains in Urartu (Ararat), where Noah's boat is said to have settled, about 5km of water would be needed.

The "vapor canopy hypothesis" states that before the flood, the water existed in the atmosphere as water vapor. The flood occurred when this vapor condensed and fell as rain, flooding the earth. The flood subsided later, various explanations being given for where all that water went.

First, let us look at atmospheric pressure. For the earth's atmosphere, the pressure is almost exactly hydrostatic, since it is held to the earth by gravity and velocities are too low to significantly change the pressure. In plain language this means that the air pressure at any point is equal to the weight of the air in a unit area column above that point. At sea level, air pressure in US engineering units is about 14.5 pounds/sq inch because a column of air one inch square extending to the top of the atmosphere weighs (Guess what!?) 14.5 pounds. On top of Mt. Everest, the pressure is lower because the lowest and densest 9km of the atmosphere is below that point.

Now the "vapor canopy" would form a part of the atmosphere, being a body of gas (water vapor) gravitationally held to the earth. It would in fact be most of the pre-flood atmosphere. There would have to be enough vapor to form 9km of liquid, when condensed, and, therefore the vapor would weigh as much as 9km of water. The pressure at the earth's surface, where Noah and family lived, would be equal to one atmosphere PLUS the weight of a 9km column of water of unit area. This is equivalent to the pressure 9km deep in the ocean. What is this pressure? Well, each 10m of water is roughly equivalent to one atmosphere, so the pressure would be 900 atmospheres. The atmosphere would also have a composition of about 900 parts water vapor to one part of what we call air today.

How could an atmosphere almost 100% water vapor not condense? The temperature would have to be raised to the point where the partial pressure of water equals 900 atmospheres, i.e. the boiling point at that pressure. So we find Noah et al. living in a 13,000psi boiler. Is this credible?

[gray wolf]

Me and several others have presented tons of actual physical proof of man and dinosaurs co-existing. Just because someone says "250 million years ago" I just don't accept it. They have no physical proof of that. It's just an unproven theory. But them figuring out the world had 5 times more carbon at one point goes along with my theory that the world was like a greenhouse at one point before the flood, allowing for animals and humans to live much longer and growing to massive heights. The bible says there were giants in those days and Job speaks of the Behemoth, described perfectly as a dinosaur and of no other animal living today. What other animal is SO incredibly massive it's described in such a way, drinks up the river and has a tail so long it's described as a cedar? Only one comes to mind...a Brontosaur?

This evidence fits with the theories Creation scientists have about how the world would've looked before the flood.

I would like to see your tons of evidence. Richard Dawkins wrote that if it could be proven that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, it would blow evolution out of the water. I've seen Enoch's pictures already

[Enoch2021]

 

Me and several others have presented tons of actual physical proof of man and dinosaurs co-existing. Just because someone says "250 million years ago" I just don't accept it. They have no physical proof of that. It's just an unproven theory. But them figuring out the world had 5 times more carbon at one point goes along with my theory that the world was like a greenhouse at one point before the flood, allowing for animals and humans to live much longer and growing to massive heights. The bible says there were giants in those days and Job speaks of the Behemoth, described perfectly as a dinosaur and of no other animal living today. What other animal is SO incredibly massive it's described in such a way, drinks up the river and has a tail so long it's described as a cedar? Only one comes to mind...a Brontosaur?

This evidence fits with the theories Creation scientists have about how the world would've looked before the flood.

I would like to see your tons of evidence. Richard Dawkins wrote that if it could be proven that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, it would blow evolution out of the water. I've seen Enoch's pictures already

 

 

 

So what's the Threshold of Proof lol........ a Triceratops Thigh ??  Or a Velaciraptor on your back porch?? 

 

 

it would blow evolution out of the water.

 

A Simple Cell and the critical thinking skills of a Ground Squirrel does that all by itself.

 

Richard Dawkins, eh?  Ask him for a Beneficial Mutation......Special Note:  Don't hold your breath.