Ombre wrote:I was more directing to the point that there is no real solid proof thats how long it has been since the dinosaurs went extinct. You can carbon date all the fossils you want, but the results should not be claimed as 100% proof that said object is billions or millions of years old.
Ombre wrote:What others regard as fact holds no importance for me. It does however show that they are not thinking in a scientific manner. A theory is a possibility and should be treated as such.
I don't see how you can say they are not thinking scientifically when you are shunning scientific evidence. You are arguing logic with evidence. You are attacking how they label it, not the actual content that is being labeled. You're missing the point there. They are not suggesting it as undying proof; it is merely supported by
overwhelming direct scientific evidence that can be replicated infinitely to produce the same result. If you're suggesting that evidence is not to be taken as seriously as it suggests, and that you are going to push it out of your mindset, that's your own personal problem. There isn't documented, replicable scientific evidence to suggest the contrary, so how can you claim the current evidence is somehow inaccurate enough to warrant you bringing it up in the first place? To be honest, you're just starting an argument you don't have evidence for. It appears it was merely done for the sake of arguing. When you have innumerable documented cases of studies and scientific evidence shoved in your face, and are merely turning your head and saying "Nu uh," you have no place suggesting people who believe it are wrong. To answer your earlier question, "And it's a proven fact that they would have had to survive for 60 million odd years?:" No. Obviously you can't prove that factually unless you have documentation from the time period. That's a given. That's not even worth bringing up. However, to suggest that the scientific evidence is not indicative of the relative time period is just ignorant. The time period suggested is accurate. Minor fluctuations are irrelevant, the core idea is sound, and backed by the irrefutable evidence I have previously described. Believe what you want, but don't try to suggest others are grossly inaccurate when you have no unbiased, reputable evidence to suggest so. It's a waste of everyone's time to argue over something so trivial. Evidence is there. Yes, it would have had to survive for several generations, and the area it is contained in is not suitable for sustaining such generations of a large creature. It hasn't just been there 50 years or whatever. Generations would have to survive there, and that is simply not possible. Let's assume that your willingness to completely ignore scientific evidence is worthwhile. Let's go from this basis: We know dinosaurs have been mostly extinct for at least 100 to 200 thousand years, the time of early humans, which means its species would have to have survived at least longer than that, all while going unnoticed to inhabitants around there for thousands of years, until modern times when documented cases began to surface. So tell me, if it is living in the similar ecosystem, how did it sustain a species for hundreds of thousands of years without an overwhelming population of its own species? Why would every other dinosaur have gone extinct, but such a large number of this one lived? That really doesn't make any scientific sense, now does it? There would be nothing special about this species that enabled it to survive an overwhelmingly catastrophic event such as a mass-extinction.
tl;dr: It's dumb to say scientific evidence is not indicative of facts. Don't argue over something so pointless when you're just being ignorant of said scientific evidence. You're starting problems with people for believing something incredibly well founded. Try telling me the sun is blue, we just see it as white/yellow because our eyes are made of goo or some shit. Can I directly prove you are wrong? No, but scientific evidence suggests you are. We can't be correct about anything, using your broken logic. Everything is theoretical, using such a ridiculous assumption. It's just pointless to even post something like that.
That all being said. I'm not going to dignify an argument with another post like this. All that needs to be said has been said. Provide reputable, unbiased scientific evidence to suggest dinosaurs have not been extinct long enough for the Loch Ness Monster to require generations of its species to survive in its environment or I don't care.
![[x]](http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/3713/fearck7.jpg){kind=link}
![[x]](http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/8220/rb6vzo3.jpg){kind=link}
![[x]](http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/7088/bustawolfrb3.jpg){kind=link}