Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * - 4 votes

Did man and dinosaur co-exist?


  • Please log in to reply
477 replies to this topic

#91    HawkLord

HawkLord

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 338 posts
  • Joined:16 May 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Adelaide. South Australia

  • I reserve the right to change my mind when better and more accurate info becomes available.

Posted 19 September 2012 - 05:04 PM

The most obvious and logical answer to the stats in that pdf in the OP is... dun dun dahh "Contaminated Samples". Although not every dinosaur will fossilize immediately upon death, no dino fossil has been found above the k2 boundary and no human fossils beneath it (unless they were delibrately buried that deep). So in no way known did man ever coexist with dinosaurs.

The rocks in my head fill the holes in yours.

It is easy to spout the wisdom of others when you have none of your own.

Insult me all you like but remember that i have a sword.

#92    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 20 September 2012 - 02:02 PM

View PostHawkLord, on 19 September 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

The most obvious and logical answer to the stats in that pdf in the OP is... dun dun dahh "Contaminated Samples". Although not every dinosaur will fossilize immediately upon death, no dino fossil has been found above the k2 boundary and no human fossils beneath it (unless they were delibrately buried that deep). So in no way known did man ever coexist with dinosaurs.
Can you be sure that they were deliberately buried that deep?Fossilization can be a very fast process under the right circumstances unlike previously believed.


#93    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,618 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 20 September 2012 - 02:47 PM

View PostHawkLord, on 19 September 2012 - 05:04 PM, said:

The most obvious and logical answer to the stats in that pdf in the OP is... dun dun dahh "Contaminated Samples". Although not every dinosaur will fossilize immediately upon death, no dino fossil has been found above the k2 boundary and no human fossils beneath it (unless they were delibrately buried that deep). So in no way known did man ever coexist with dinosaurs.

The most obvious and logical answer is: any sample older than 65,000 years old will give bullpoop results when analyzed by for carbon isotopes.

What most people don't understand is that we are not really talking about carbon here, we are talking about nitrogen bombarded by cosmic rays that create an unstable isotope known as C14. This Isotope has a half time life of about 5500 years. After about 65,000 years there is about 0.09090 of the original C14 left, and given that the natural occurrence  of C14  is not much higher than 0.1 per trillion there is not much radiocarbon left to measure anything with after that time, in fact, there can be none at all. In any case it would be less than what would give an accurate reading within the normal margin of error.

The reason why this works is that the chemical properties of the carbon isotope is exactly the same as stable carbons (C12 and C13), thereby any living organism will accumulate, with the natural carbon, also some decaying isotopes. But let me put this in perspective: a normal human body with a weight of 80 Kg will have no more than 14 Kg of carbon, from which no more than 0.00000000000144 Kg will be C14 (for those who don't understand metric that would be 0.000000000050794505207424 ounces). Every 5,500 years that amount will be halved and disappear mostly traceless as nitrogen happens to be a gas.

So, why can't we date fossils with radiocarbon? Because, as a rule, hardly anything fossilized still has any of its original biological components, they are either permineralized, that means: just like a cave forms stalactites the gas containing cavities will be filled up by hardening minerals. Or they are simple forms of cast and molds, where nothing except the the hardened minerals are left.

What ever C14 is there has generally nothing to do with the original organism, and be it only because of the growth speed of permineraliztion (it could take up to 1000 years for a cubic centimeter).

While there might have been some C14 that was measured with some dino tusk (or whatever) but that was more likely to be there because somebody spit on it to clean it.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#94    poetofsheba

poetofsheba

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 28 posts
  • Joined:17 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Denmark

  • Non est ad astra mollis e terris via

Posted 20 September 2012 - 07:24 PM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 20 September 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

Can you be sure that they were deliberately buried that deep?

yes - it's basic archaeology. The layers with dinosaur fossils would have been covered over time and later burials would have had to cut through the existing layers. It would be very obvious during an excavation that it's from a later period. Like this:

Posted Image

Lets say the dino  fossils are in the subsoil layer, then a later burial would look like the iron age ditch - it's as deep down as the subsoil but it's still (obviously) a later period. When it comes to dinosaur and human remains there's just more layers in between - if they co existed they would have been found in the same layer not separate layers.

As someone who's done excavations (though mainly Viking age/medieval and later) I can say that if the excavation is done right and sections (profiles) are made of the ditches there can't be any doubt what so ever that it's separate periods.
It's called stratigraphy - and is a method of getting a relative dating.

Absolute dating: methods such as Radiocarbon and potassium-argon dating - which gives us a specific date or time-range (of course these methods have a certain inaccuracy but they can provide a lot of us full information)
Relative dating: methods such as typology and stratigraphy - which means placing certain items or events in the order that they occurred. It tells us which of a series of items or events are oldest in relation to each other.

We don't get an absolute date by using stratigraphy but we can say which items or events are oldest. In this case dinos are below the human finds meaning they are oldest.
short explanation of stratigraphy: http://en.wikipedia....on_(archeology)

It makes the inaccurate absolute datings irrelevant as it doesn't mater if the finds are 1.000.000 or 1000 years old - the relative datings tells us that dinos are older than humans, no matter which absolute dating we get.

So no I don't believe they coexisted.

"The true genius shudders at incompleteness - and usually prefers silence to saying something which is not everything it should be." ~ Edgar Allan Poe
"The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones." ~ William Shakespeare
"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." ~ Socrates (as stated by Plato)

www.poetofsheba.com

#95    orangepeaceful79

orangepeaceful79

    Poltergeist

  • Closed
  • 2,461 posts
  • Joined:05 Jan 2012

Posted 22 September 2012 - 05:04 AM

View Postpoetofsheba, on 20 September 2012 - 07:24 PM, said:

yes - it's basic archaeology. The layers with dinosaur fossils would have been covered over time and later burials would have had to cut through the existing layers. It would be very obvious during an excavation that it's from a later period. Like this:

Posted Image

Lets say the dino  fossils are in the subsoil layer, then a later burial would look like the iron age ditch - it's as deep down as the subsoil but it's still (obviously) a later period. When it comes to dinosaur and human remains there's just more layers in between - if they co existed they would have been found in the same layer not separate layers.

As someone who's done excavations (though mainly Viking age/medieval and later) I can say that if the excavation is done right and sections (profiles) are made of the ditches there can't be any doubt what so ever that it's separate periods.
It's called stratigraphy - and is a method of getting a relative dating.

Absolute dating: methods such as Radiocarbon and potassium-argon dating - which gives us a specific date or time-range (of course these methods have a certain inaccuracy but they can provide a lot of us full information)
Relative dating: methods such as typology and stratigraphy - which means placing certain items or events in the order that they occurred. It tells us which of a series of items or events are oldest in relation to each other.

We don't get an absolute date by using stratigraphy but we can say which items or events are oldest. In this case dinos are below the human finds meaning they are oldest.
short explanation of stratigraphy: http://en.wikipedia....on_(archeology)

It makes the inaccurate absolute datings irrelevant as it doesn't mater if the finds are 1.000.000 or 1000 years old - the relative datings tells us that dinos are older than humans, no matter which absolute dating we get.

So no I don't believe they coexisted.

Nice post.  Thanks for the actual real-life information and experience that you bring to the party.  Nothing better to combat inane questions with!  :tu:


#96    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 22 September 2012 - 08:11 AM

View Postquestionmark, on 20 September 2012 - 02:47 PM, said:

The most obvious and logical answer is: any sample older than 65,000 years old will give bullpoop results when analyzed by for carbon isotopes.

What most people don't understand is that we are not really talking about carbon here, we are talking about nitrogen bombarded by cosmic rays that create an unstable isotope known as C14. This Isotope has a half time life of about 5500 years. After about 65,000 years there is about 0.09090 of the original C14 left, and given that the natural occurrence  of C14  is not much higher than 0.1 per trillion there is not much radiocarbon left to measure anything with after that time, in fact, there can be none at all. In any case it would be less than what would give an accurate reading within the normal margin of error.

The reason why this works is that the chemical properties of the carbon isotope is exactly the same as stable carbons (C12 and C13), thereby any living organism will accumulate, with the natural carbon, also some decaying isotopes. But let me put this in perspective: a normal human body with a weight of 80 Kg will have no more than 14 Kg of carbon, from which no more than 0.00000000000144 Kg will be C14 (for those who don't understand metric that would be 0.000000000050794505207424 ounces). Every 5,500 years that amount will be halved and disappear mostly traceless as nitrogen happens to be a gas.

So, why can't we date fossils with radiocarbon? Because, as a rule, hardly anything fossilized still has any of its original biological components, they are either permineralized, that means: just like a cave forms stalactites the gas containing cavities will be filled up by hardening minerals. Or they are simple forms of cast and molds, where nothing except the the hardened minerals are left.

What ever C14 is there has generally nothing to do with the original organism, and be it only because of the growth speed of permineraliztion (it could take up to 1000 years for a cubic centimeter).

While there might have been some C14 that was measured with some dino tusk (or whatever) but that was more likely to be there because somebody spit on it to clean it.
Also you should highlight that 1)the C14 to regular C ratio has not yet stabilised in our atmosphere (that is urprising as it should have in 30000 years since we had an atmosphere) 2)to account for this a correction factor was introduced in C14 dating but the correction factor is again based on modern rate increments in C14 concentrations and have been assumed to be constant.


#97    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,618 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 22 September 2012 - 08:13 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 22 September 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

Also you should highlight that 1)the C14 to regular C ratio has not yet stabilised in our atmosphere (that is urprising as it should have in 30000 years since we had an atmosphere) 2)to account for this a correction factor was introduced in C14 dating but the correction factor is again based on modern rate increments in C14 concentrations and have been assumed to be constant.

Where there are correctives as the cause is well known and cyclic. That is just another smoke screen certain evolution detractors are blowing.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#98    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 22 September 2012 - 08:14 AM

Also about the RBC discovered with DIno bones.
http://www.smithsoni...e/dinosaur.html


#99    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 22 September 2012 - 08:16 AM

Also it also interesting to look into how the whole concept of different geological layers and their suspected dates came into existence.Seach for 'Geological Column'.I was surprised that so much was based on assumptions.


#100    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,618 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 22 September 2012 - 08:16 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 22 September 2012 - 08:14 AM, said:

Also about the RBC discovered with DIno bones.
http://www.smithsoni...e/dinosaur.html

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

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me

#101    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 22 September 2012 - 08:23 AM

View Postquestionmark, on 22 September 2012 - 08:16 AM, said:

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.


#102    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,168 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 22 September 2012 - 08:27 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 15 September 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

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.


#103    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,168 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 22 September 2012 - 08:29 AM

Carbon dating fossils begins about 4:25



Edited by Rlyeh, 22 September 2012 - 08:43 AM.


#104    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 22 September 2012 - 08:30 AM

View PostRlyeh, on 22 September 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

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.


#105    questionmark

questionmark

    Cinicus Magnus

  • Member
  • 35,618 posts
  • Joined:26 Jun 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Greece and Des Moines, IA

  • In a flat world there is an explanation to everything.

Posted 22 September 2012 - 08:32 AM

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 22 September 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

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.

View PostHarsh86_Patel, on 22 September 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

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.

A skeptic is a well informed believer and a pessimist a well informed optimist
The most dangerous views of the world are from those who have never seen it. ~ Alexander v. Humboldt
If you want to bulls**t me please do it so that it takes me more than a minute to find out

about me




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users