Did man and dinosaur co-exist?

[Harsh86_Patel]

In amounts so small that a RC dating is impossible. It might change some views about fossilization but hardly about dating.

RBC's and other soft tissues cannot survive for millions of years naturally.Unless ofcourse they have been frozen but finding RBC's in dino bones is very interesting and raises a lot of questions.

[Rlyeh]

i rather believe that humans devolved into other things as it would comply atleast with the second law of thermodynamics.

That doesn't make sense. Thermodynamics addressess heat and energy.

[Rlyeh]

Carbon dating fossils begins about 4:25

Edited September 22, 2012 by Rlyeh

[Harsh86_Patel]

That doesn't make sense. Thermodynamics addressess heat and energy.

Law of increasing entropy seems to stand against formation of complex polymers or biological molecules by chance and spontaneously without a guiding biochemical process.

[questionmark]

RBC's and other soft tissues cannot survive for millions of years naturally.Unless ofcourse they have been frozen but finding RBC's in dino bones is very interesting and raises a lot of questions.

Evidently it did, so cannot might be the wrong statement. In fact, according to the opinion previous to this find it was claimed that RBC and soft tissue cannot last 1000 years unless chemically treated. in fact, according to the general medical opinion blood cells don't last more than a few days before decomposing into its organic components and not more than a few months before decomposing into its chemical components. But as you see, that is the general rule, confirmed by the occasional exception.

Another smoke screen.

Law of increasing entropy seems to stand against formation of complex polymers or biological molecules by chance and spontaneously without a guiding biochemical process.

you better explain that one, if you can you might win a Nobel.

[Rlyeh]

Law of increasing entropy seems to stand against formation of complex polymers or biological molecules by chance and spontaneously without a guiding biochemical process.

How many scientists claim molecules form by "chance" and without a chemical process?

Entropy increases in an isolated system, earth isn't such a system.

[Harsh86_Patel]

How many scientists claim molecules form by "chance" and without a chemical process?

Entropy increases in an isolated system, earth isn't such a system.

Take the universe as a closed system then.Now you would talk about entropy can decrease in a localised manner isn't it?(mind you we are talking about natural processes).

Truth of the matter is that if you ask any chemist he will tell you that large chain biomolecules are not favoured to form naturally and spontaneously and tend to break up and disintegrate.

[Rlyeh]

Take the universe as a closed system then.Now you would talk about entropy can decrease in a localised manner isn't it?(mind you we are talking about natural processes).

So by your argument stars shouldn't be forming either...

The universe hasn't reached equilibrium.

Truth of the matter is that if you ask any chemist he will tell you that large chain biomolecules are not favoured to form naturally and spontaneously and tend to break up and disintegrate.

Will he tell me they form without any known chemical process just like magic?

And what does "not favoured to form naturally" mean? Are they being formed artificially then?

Edited September 22, 2012 by Rlyeh

[Harsh86_Patel]

So by your argument stars shouldn't be forming either...

The universe hasn't reached equilibrium.

Will he tell me they form without any known chemical process just like magic?

And what does "not favoured to form naturally" mean? Are they being formed artificially then?

So how where did matter and energy come from?since you want to talk about stars,you can try pondering on this question.

No the chemist would probably be honest and tell you that we don't know.

By naturally i mean without guidance from a biochemical cycle.Or without the help of Catalyses(more specifically protein catalysis in case of biological systems).

[Rlyeh]

So how where did matter and energy come from?since you want to talk about stars,you can try pondering on this question.

Were you speaking of entropy, or are you just going to continue to change the topic everytime your claim gets countered?

It's amazing how fast creationists run back to "why does the universe exist" when their real points get countered.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Rlyeh

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I'd use a Utahraptor, way cooler then any of y'all's picks.

Only person I can think of who'd be able to joust on a Utahraptor is Peter Dinkleage....

[Aus Der Box Skeptisch]

I skipped a crap load of pages so if this was Said I apologize. What is considered dinosaur. It seems an umbrella term for animals from long ago. Might I suggest looking at birds... raptors are a good example... well so is the Chinese silky chicken LOL. Also crocodiles. Snakes. They are all in their own way family to dinosaurs. So I guess my answer would be simply yes. And we are still coexisting.

Edited September 22, 2012 by Aus Der Box Skeptisch

[Hasina]

Only person I can think of who'd be able to joust on a Utahraptor is Peter Dinkleage....

Average Utah's size was 23ft long with a minimum height of about 6ft. I could do it! And their possible weight was comparable to a grizzly. ;D

[Oniomancer]

As someone pointed out let us not turn this into a evolution vs logic and science debate.

Lets talk about the results that were got when these dino fossils were carbon dated,is the process of carbon dating easily susceptible to contamination and hence fallible and not completely reliable or dinosaurs did co-exixt with man.

Yes, let's. You realize of course this is being used to back a young earth claim, which runs counter to your friend cremo's ancient mankind vedic creationism. They can't both be right., and that's giving them enormous leeway to assume even one of them is.

Interesting that they claim to have unmineralized dino bone in their hot little hands but are making all the fuss over the dates only. No peer reviewed presentation of any aspect of their find. the date or the condition, which would be fairly important in itself. No independent verification. And farming out all their work to an outside lab too. That doesn't sound very professional. If I read right, somebody else actually found the specimens to begin with, so they're riding on someone else's coattails all the way. They talk about the lab's contamination protocols but what about their own? I won't even get into the calibration side of things, which you seem to think is so cut and dried.

Speaking of the bone, isn't it funny that practically no sooner does one make the news showing such a thing to be possible then they come out and say "that's nothing. we've got three of them." I for one will be waiting on those all-important reproducible results...but not too closely.

[Oniomancer]

RBC's and other soft tissues cannot survive for millions of years naturally.Unless ofcourse they have been frozen but finding RBC's in dino bones is very interesting and raises a lot of questions.

If they can survive frozen, there's no reason why a similar process such as polymerization as in amber couldn't have the same effect. (which it in fact does as demonstrated by extant preserved specimens) Remove oxygen and exposure to strong energy sources and there's no oxidation and little or no induced molecular breakdown.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

Average Utah's size was 23ft long with a minimum height of about 6ft. I could do it! And their possible weight was comparable to a grizzly. ;D

*evasive answer* I was talking about the coolness factor of riding a Utahraptor */evasive answer*

well you learn something new every day, I thought all the -raptors where tiny.

[Idano]

Yeah but we could keep the dishwasher outside and only bring the trunk in when we need it! And I wanted to be Abramelrock please please

[Arbitran]

No, humans and dinosaurs have never seen one another, unless you count birds of course (which everyone should). But anyway, non-avian dinosaurs went extinct approximately 65 million years ago; and given that modern humans have been around for less than 200,000 years, it is entirely obvious that they never met. Well, except in fiction of course...

[Harte]

Law of increasing entropy seems to stand against formation of complex polymers or biological molecules by chance and spontaneously without a guiding biochemical process.

It seems that way because you yourself don't understand entropy, which always increases only in closed systems.

The Earth is hardly a closed system.

Also, over a decade ago it was found that some self-assembling microstructures actually represent an increase in entropy over what you might consider a more random state which they occupy prior to self-assembly.

Harte

[Hasina]

*evasive answer* I was talking about the coolness factor of riding a Utahraptor */evasive answer*

well you learn something new every day, I thought all the -raptors where tiny.

He'd get a bonus to his Intimidate checks because how big his raptor looked compared to him.

And I was a huge dinosaur fan when I was a young girl, I still keep up to date in all the new findings.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

No, absolutely no possibility of man co-existing with dinosaurs. These type of threads are very instructive in showing the nature of the battle against obscurantism, religion and primitivism. We see here evolution at work. There are people who are of the past, tied to a dogma that blinds them to reality of universe. And there are people who have evolved in their minds. Perhaps there will, in time, even be physical differences betwen the old reactionaries and new people. There is a battle here between light and darkness, and the light of reason will win. The religious obscurantism and rigid dogma of the Abrahamic religions have no place in the modern world.

пока

[Harsh86_Patel]

Were you speaking of entropy, or are you just going to continue to change the topic everytime your claim gets countered?

It's amazing how fast creationists run back to "why does the universe exist" when their real points get countered.

I already anticipated your counter about entropy decreasing locally (i.e formation of stars), but my friend have you seen a star form on it's own? You have seen many destroyed stars.It's not about countering you and proving some big point but i am searching for the answers and so should you.The rabbit hole goes really deep.Check the quote under my DP.

[Harsh86_Patel]

This same argument could be used by creationists asking why coal still has small amounts of carbon 14 in it. Carbon 14 in fossils and coal "may indicate possible contamination by small amounts of bacteria, underground sources of radiation causing the ¹⁴N(n,p) ¹⁴C reaction, direct uranium decay (although reported measured ratios of ¹⁴C/U in uranium-bearing ores would imply roughly 1 uranium atom for every two carbon atoms in order to cause the ¹⁴C/¹²C ratio, measured to be on the order of 10⁻¹⁵), or other unknown secondary sources of carbon-14 production. Presence of carbon-14 in the isotopic signature of a sample of carbonaceous material possibly indicates its contamination by biogenic sources or the decay of radioactive material in surrounding geologic strata."

You can't carbon date dinosaurs, as the half-life of carbon 14 is only 5,730 years. Of course it would be inaccurate, as dinosaurs died off 65 million years ago.

The laws of matter and thermodynamics state that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Hence my query regarding Potassium Argon dating of geological layers.

Dinosaur bones if they are 65 million years old shouldn't have any carbon hency the title of this topic.

[Harsh86_Patel]

It seems that way because you yourself don't understand entropy, which always increases only in closed systems.

The Earth is hardly a closed system.

Also, over a decade ago it was found that some self-assembling microstructures actually represent an increase in entropy over what you might consider a more random state which they occupy prior to self-assembly.

Harte

Didn't i just say consider the universe as a closed system but guess all of you skipped that part and are trying to point out the same thing.My previous statement was in context to Abiogenesis and formation of long bio molecules in the absence of a biochemical system.

[Harsh86_Patel]

Yes, let's. You realize of course this is being used to back a young earth claim, which runs counter to your friend cremo's ancient mankind vedic creationism. They can't both be right., and that's giving them enormous leeway to assume even one of them is.

Interesting that they claim to have unmineralized dino bone in their hot little hands but are making all the fuss over the dates only. No peer reviewed presentation of any aspect of their find. the date or the condition, which would be fairly important in itself. No independent verification. And farming out all their work to an outside lab too. That doesn't sound very professional. If I read right, somebody else actually found the specimens to begin with, so they're riding on someone else's coattails all the way. They talk about the lab's contamination protocols but what about their own? I won't even get into the calibration side of things, which you seem to think is so cut and dried.

Speaking of the bone, isn't it funny that practically no sooner does one make the news showing such a thing to be possible then they come out and say "that's nothing. we've got three of them." I for one will be waiting on those all-important reproducible results...but not too closely.

You assume on both counts that i ascribe to everything a person or institution has to say because i refer to them,the world could be very old and Men and so called jurrasic dinosaurs may have co-existed.I am keeping my options open and trying to think with a open mind. Edited September 24, 2012 by Harsh86_Patel