The debate "Were dinosaurs real" was started by
September 29, 2018, 11:39 pm.
By the way, SavG_Tron is disagreeing with this statement.
103 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 26 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Brynn posted 3 arguments, Nemiroff posted 6 arguments, TheExistentialist posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Jakellutis posted 5 arguments, Nemiroff posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
Nemiroff, Brynn, gordon040111, ototoxic, TalkativePeaches, serinahannah, shagwl_hammed, TJ, csmithwick, TheExistentialist, byniched, ricky123, Coriander, tenyiyi, goodlo, Kanwal, Hardikgreat, jrardin12, emily, JDAWG9693, zeka, Juju, wilsoergel76, WiseWords, Alexandra, benshapirofan and 77 visitors agree.
SavG_Tron, YEET, Jakellutis, nativeRepublican and 22 visitors disagree.
your welcome. I also remembered carbon dating as the name of the process and thought it was carbon all the way until this topic came up. I don't know why high schools think they need to simply already simple things like Columbus always knew the world was round or other elements date older things.
Nemiroff, firstly I'd like to thank you for posting that article, I've spent this time searching for conflicting data to support my argument and have come up short. Apparently my statement was nothing more than a regurgitation of my high school teacher, so I apologise profusely for saying that you were in the wrong and I gladly concede the point.
this doesn't require forgiveness as it wasnt a mistake. also I think you are wrong on carbon dating having any usefulness on million year old dinosaur bones.
please, provide a citation for c-14 dating effectiveness on dino bones. this article seems to refute that.
I can understand and forgive the simplification as a lot of people don't have a scientific background but carbon dating is still incredibly useful to quickly and effectively date relics such as dinosaur bones to settle disputes as to which era it came from, once they do that and can verify it is in fact a dinosaur bone then they delve into more accurate forms of dating. As for the survivor aspect, the fault lands on me, I didn't define terms or parameters, I meant reptilian species such as a nanotyranasaurous which is thought to have survived but no tangible evidence has been found. But still its an hypothesis that floats within the community.
in many of my posts I try to simplify concepts. existentialist gave some beautifully detailed posts on this topic, but I'm afraid they often go over the heads of many readers.
my post that started with "25,000 atoms per chunk" was all simplified terms and made up numbers. also I said the c-14 dating is useless for dinosaur bones because they are *WAY* older then 50k. like millions of years. and c-14 is useless for that.
and there are survivors from the dinosaurs, we call them birds.
I'm sorry nemiroff, I've seen a couple of your posts and in some of them you do bring up valid points and I respect that, however, you are flat out wrong about the C-14 aspect. Radioactivity is all to do with half life, just because C-14 has a half life of around 5000 years (exactly 5730) does not mean its useless in artifacts 50000 years old. Yes, it's true that it's not highly accurate but it is baseline, we are constantly trying to become more and more accurate in every aspect of science, only recently we held a summit in order to change the definition of the kilogram to be more precise. But I think the most important aspect we need to focus on is this... Of course dinosaurs were real, in this day and age how is that still up for dispute? That being said thier is one discussion about dinosaurs that palaeontologists argue over and that is is it possible that a few nano species survived the KT extinction event for any length of time?
We don't date "dinosaur bones" directly, ever. It's impossible. We can do "amino acid" dating for bones between 30-50k years old and we can do Uranium–thorium dating for bones up to about 500k years old (accuracy rate is +/- 5% at the upper limit of the test). No dinosaur fossil has ever been found that can be Uranium–thorium dated thus they're all over 500k years old and no human bone has been found that cannot be Uranium–thorium dated and thus they're all younger than 500k years old. Generally we date the igneous rock above and below fossils in order to get a "range" of dates. So we can say that something came from the Jurassic period, the triassic, the cretaceous, the cambrian, etc... with a high degree of certainty. There are a number of ways that we can date the rock besides Carbon dating including Archaeomagnetic dating, Argon dating, Uranium, Potassium, Lead, Luminescence dating, "molecular clock dating" (for living species), fission track dating, etc... Each of these dating methods have overlap in their accuracy range providing the ability to cross check date ranges.
The degree of certainty by which we can date rock actually makes it very simple to disprove the notion of dinosaurs and humans living in separate ages. You can either find a dinosaur fossil that can be dated using amino acid or Uranium–thorium dating (meaning the sample was alive less than 500k years ago), or all you have to do is find Human fossils at a layer associated with the existence of Dinosaurs. I.e. find a human fossil in the jurassic, triassic, etc... The latter is actually independent of the accuracy of dating methods since you're simply establishing whether or not they lived in the same geological time and not how long ago that time was. If you can do either of these seemingly simple tasks, you will have disproved the notion that dinosaurs and humans didn't live together, if you happen to accomplish the latter you'll also have disproved evolution incidentally. This however, has never been done. Not even signs of human activity have been found in rock layers associated with dinosaurs, no arrow heads, no pottery, no stone tools, no obsidian tools, no bone tools, etc...
like when it was about 25,000 atoms per chunk, it wasn't perfectly even. some had 27,800, others had 23500. it's still about the same.
but when it keeps decaying and should have an average of 500 atoms per chunk. it would range from 750 to 300, which is pretty much double the age difference.
and when it's supposed to have very few (like 20) chunks might range from 100 to 2. giving astronomically bigger variation then the actual measure. like "a month give or take a decade"
so when it's too few, you can still measure, but it will be a useless number.
never zero. but so little you wont be able to get an accurate reading. the margin of error (+/-2 million years) would be bigger then the actual reading.
kinda like saying "it was 2 months ago, give or take a 3 years". pretty useless.
Of all the dinosaur bones, none have C-14?
I'm sure they've tried, but with dinosaurs being well over 50,000 years old, there is no carbon left to date with.
Well then why not carbon date dinosaur bones? radiometric dating them seems to exclude the possibility of relatively young dinosaurs existing.
carbon dating is only good for 50,000 years. other isotopes are used for older items. but what conditions are you referring to? radiation rates are pretty consistent as far as I know. forces like erosion, or other things dont really affect it.
The most common method, radiocarbon dating measures the amount of C-14 in objects. It doesn't account for the conditions, it just compares it to the common standard.
Dating methods are not accurate? How?
Dating methods are not accurate. Earth could be millions of years old, but it's clear that humans lived with Dragons because it's documented. They were not called dinosaurs.
I'm assuming that Jake believes the earth is under 6000 years old. so he isnt claiming people existed millions of years ago with the dinosaur/dragons, but that the dinosaurs/dragons lived less then 6000 years ago with the people.
what do you make of radioactive dating?
Jake it's called dating? They dated the bones of the dinosaurs to find that they're older than bones of human ancestors? They're also in older layers of rocks? How is this made up?
No, ancient humans lived with giant lizards and called them Dragons. Paleontologists discovered the remains of Dragons and called them dinosaurs and assumed that they lived before humans, so dinosaurs are a modern pseudoscientific invention.
There are Bones of dinosaurs