If human bones were found with dinosaur tracks, how would you determine if they existed with the dinosaurs?

Question

This was a question from a high school science text book. The answer they gave was claimed to be scientific, but was actually propaganda for evolution and was improper scientific methodology. They claimed that since the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, long before man appeared, these human bones could not have existed with the dinosaurs. You cannot prove a fact using a theory, you must use facts. What if the human bones were co-existent with the dinosaurs. This method would overlook this possability. An amazing discovery would go unrecognized. So how should a true scientist approach this discovery.

Answer 1

In This situation: chances are that the particular human in fact discovered the tracks after they were fossilized.

The best evidence that the two creatures did not co-exist would be that the Human bones would not be fossilized. If the human was the same age as the fossilized tacks: the human bones would also be fossilized. Because the Human bones would not be fossilized, they could not have existed at the same time as the dinosaur.

edit: Many of the above noted Carbon Dating. Carbon dating would be impossible on the footprint. The most that you could do is radiometric dating, which would not determine the age of the print, but, rather the age of the rock that the print was found in. Carbon dating could be used on the bones, but not the print, so, one could date the bones and then note that because the bones are not even a million years old, they could not have undergone fossilization, while the print had.

Answer 2

Carbon dating is only useful for artefacts less than 50,000 years old. Other methods are used to date older stuff. Dinosaur tracks are usually dated by dating the layers above and below the tracks. Volcanic tuff can be dated with accuracy using potassium/argon dating among other methods. If a layer above the tracks dates at 120million years and a layer below dates at 130million years, you know the tracks have to be between those dates.

Modern humans are, at most, 250,000 years old. There were hominids before that dating back to the separation from the line that produced chimpanzees about 7 million years ago.

If hominid bones were found in an undisturbed layer with dinosaur tracks then a major rethink would have to occur. This has, however, never happened. The dinosaurs were extinct sixty million years before the hominids appeared.

The human tracks allegedly found with dinosaur tracks on the Paluxy River are fakes. Most creationists accept that but there are a few nutters who don't.

Answer 3

It's not a theory that dinosaurs were extinct 65 million years ago, it's a fact. And the above folks are correct regarding carbon dating of the bones. Or do you think carbon dating is just a theory as well?

I'm not sure how you equate the extinction of dinosaurs with evolution "propoganda."

Answer 4

fact: the age of the dinosaur bone is older than 65 million years.
fact: the age of the human (humanoid) bone is younger than 17 million years.

this can be proven by simply age dating both bones. there are two types of age determinations: relative age and radiometric dating. geologists in the late 18th and early 19th century studied rock layers and the fossils in them to determine relative age. in the 20th century, enough information had accumulated about the rate of radioactive decay that the age of rocks and fossils in number of years could be determined through radiometric age dating.

conclusion: since the dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago, long before man appeared, these human bones could not have existed with the dinosaurs.

the textbook isn't un-scientific. however, it does not discuss details.

additionally, this questions is not related to evolution, it is merely an analytical question in which you use logic to solve.

incidentally, previous responders are incorrect about using carbon dating to age date the dinosaur bone, and possibly not the human bone: the best-known absolute dating technique is carbon-14 dating, which archaeologists prefer to use. However, the half-life of carbon-14 is only 5730 years, so the method cannot be used for materials older than about 70,000 years. radiometric dating involves the use of isotope series, such as rubidium/strontium, thorium/lead, potassium/argon, argon/argon, or uranium/lead, all of which have very long half-lives, ranging from 0.7 to 48.6 billion years.

Answer 5

Thanks, tentofield, you save me the trouble. For the umpteenth time, people - carbon dating is NOT used for dating fossils. Most fossils are aged between several hundred thousand, to several hundred million, years old. This is way, way beyond the reach of carbon dating, which is more of an archaeologist's tool.

For more info, please read the information provided via the link below.

For the questioner - man and dinosaurs weren't even within a sniff of coexisting. Just deal with it.

Answer 6

The timeline of events is not a theory but a well documented fact based on evidence as seen in the geological record, different strata of the earth contain different fossils and can be accurately dated.

Answer 7

Carbon date the bones and take the general known date that specific dino lived and compare the two.

Answer 8

Carbon dating would conclude the answer firstly. second, when things are dug up they are done so in layers. IE, the lowest layer of dirt would be the oldest.

Answer 9

you test the carbon dating of the fossils or bones.