dinos living with humans

www.creationists.org...

I knew something like this would be brought to light. This explains and offers a small amount of evidence towards the fact that human are much older than we are giving them credit for.

www.talkorigins.org...

I find it odd that this has not been given much credibility outside of the creationist website. I have not seen this in any scientific journals, or any other place on the internet.

If this isn't falsified, then it's possible that necessary studies on the rock have not yet been completed. Who is to say that the image is a dinosaur, and not a crocodile-man creature, like a legendary creature for the tribe, or perhaps a tribal god?

I'm sorry, but this stone provides no real standing to topple the theory of evolution (which creationists seem much more adament to do rather than prove that the universe was created all at once in 7 days some 6000 or so years ago).

It is false.

A guy came forward not too long ago and said he made these, people are now standing trial in Peru over it due to the fact creating false historical items is illegal there.

However, it is rumoured that some stones exist in Spain and were taken over during the 1600's... yet, nobody has came forward with them so until then it is likely they are fakes.

You have someone facing prison time and still claiming he made them.

What did you find most convincing from that page, or what do you think was the strongest arguement? I'd be interested to know.

The Ica Stones are fakes. Most tellingly, apparently, (besides that the scratches are fresh) is that the depiction of the dinosaurs changes with the popular perception of dinosaurs.

Eye witness accounts by many people of creatures that are exactly like dinosaurs in appearance

There is no description of a creature exactly like a dinosaur, indeed, dinosaurs were so variable that there is no such thing that is 'exactly like a dinosaur' anyway. Lots of theropds had feathers, for example. And 'nessie' is described as a plesiosaur by some people, but pelsiosaurs don't have a series of humps, for example. And 'dragons' in western and eastern depictions simply don't look like dinosaurs at all. Mokele Mbembe is described as looking like any number of things also.

Some of the best information along these lines come from evolutionists in their book titled "A Living Dinosaur?".

And notice that the books is available for sale from 'dr' dino, Kent Hovind (who is not a doctor and is extremely uneducated in the realm of science).

Art work and various ancient artifacts depicting live dinosaurs by themselves, or interacting with humans

Ancient artworks also present jackal headed gods and mermaids, but that hardly means that they are real. Ancient artwork presents lots of strange looking animals. The representations of dinosaurs are nothing more than strange looking animals, often just overgrown lizards. And, again, lots of theropods have feathers, including some of the more viscious ones. If man was going to depict any of them, it'd be these incredibly dangerous and numerous feathered raptorial dinosaurs.

Fossilized footprints of humans and dinosaurs together.

There is no where where this occurs. In one case, in Glen Rose texas I think, creationists actually altered animal tracks to make them look more human like.

The problem for evolutionists is that if this is true, it would deal a major blow to evolutionism theory

No, it wouldn't. It would have nothing to do with the theory that organisms evolve via a mechanism of natural selection acting upon mutations.

www.genesispark.com...


There are other factors other than the stone......i could see that it might be false, but if a human living hundreds of thousands of years ago know what this creature looked like without seeing it? Peoples imaginations have developed through melenia of experiences.

Fishmaster, the stone was made by a guy recently - not thousands of years ago though, so there is no problem of them being seen.

The Mayan's made no record nor did the Inca's and so on and so fourth of these creatures, yet they did of many others so it is highly unlikely that they never lived along side them.

[Granted a few of the Gods do reflect these creatures, but only two or three.]

why is it so hard to imagine that a huminiod type creature(like distant cousin of neanderthal man) may have exisisted along side of the dinos???
i mean yes there has never been any evidence found and maybe it never happened but i wouldnt be a bit supprised if someday we found evidence...
i know this will seem strange but........what if scientist got t-rex's arms wrong, what if there on the side and not in front.....look at thaose little things they kinda look like bat arms ....so what if he had wings....now wouldnt he look alot like what some believe to be a dragon looks like????

Actually, I think you'll find humans do live alongside dinosaurs. I saw several in my garden just this morning. Looking for worms. Till the neighbour's cat came along and they all flew off.

Well, they're what dinos now look like after 65 million years of evolution, anyway

www.genesispark.com...

That page has come up a number of times here
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Anyway, it presents some nice examples.

These, and most stuff from there, are just big monsters and animals. They don't even really resemble dinosaurs.


The ones like this certainly do look like sauropods (tho I haven't heard of one with a head quite like this one). But then again, whats a suaropod shape but a bulbous body, and then a long neck and long tail? I don't think its immpossible for peopel to have imagined such creatures, especially considering some of the other wild things that have been imagined.

Also, and this is still being debated, sauropods might not have raised their heads like that, or in the other depictions, wherein they fight by wrapping their necks, etc), they might not have been able to and rather kept them held out nearly horizontally.


This one is the most intersting, in my opinion. It figured nicely in Adrien Mayors "The First Fossil Hunters". The idea there is that, just as now, in teh past fossils weathered out of rocks and fascinated people. The monsters and giants of myths and legends stem from these fossils. Like the griffin, which, like the protoceratops, comes from central asia, is sometimes associated with gold deposits, and has a beak, but four legs with claws and a long tail. As far as wings, the expansion of the crest might accound for this. Indeed, the fossils found in the gobi are bleach white and look new.

The page also cites the ica stones, which are fakes, so who knows what other ones are fake or not. It also cites somethings that are clearly not dinosaurs.



And others that are simply fantasy creatures


Unless we are to beleive that this is a news report of a town struck by maraugind flying firebreathing dragons.

Originally posted by plague
why is it so hard to imagine that a huminiod type creature(like distant cousin of neanderthal man) may have exisisted along side of the dinos???

Because the evidence seems to show that it never happened.

i mean yes there has never been any evidence found and maybe it never happened but i wouldnt be a bit supprised if someday we found evidence...

There's no reason to beleive it if there is no evidence for it. Its possible that science is mistaken, sure. Might be evidence out there for it.

now wouldnt he look alot like what some believe to be a dragon looks like????

No. Dragons in eruope are flying monsters with big wings. In the east they are more snake like. Indeed, even in europe, they are often depicted as snakes, I think in beowulf the dragon is a 'glow worm'. If Tyrannosaurs had big leathery wings, they'd look more like some dragons, sure, but they don't.
Why is it more reasonable to think that there were dragons and dinosaurs and the like running around with man, but not that, say, dragons are just stories about giant lizards, since man is known to co-exist with big lizzards.

Descendants of dinosaurs and ancient humans do co-exist. The dino descendants are birds and the results of several mutations (evolution) of our ancients are...well, us.
Are we the final iteration of the human species? Probably not because if you look around...we ain't all Issac Asimov's or Carl Sagans or Matrin Bubers or Father Damions or Albert Onerocks or Jacob Bronowskis or Beethovens or any other super achievers. Most humans, for better or worse, are like most of us.
There are even a bunch of us that don't know why humans and dinosaurs didn't co-exist. There are actually people who believe that some super-being physically built the world and everything in it. It doesn't seem to matter that the world supposedly built by that supposed super-being isen't the same world known to those who built and rebuilt and changed and rechanged the story.
I met a guy who firmly believes that the world is about 6700 years old and that a guy named Adam and a woman named Eve were the first humans. This person was not a six year old, which might be unserstandable, but an adult. Obviously not a very well informed adult but an adult nevertheless.
Just imagine!
skep

Originally posted by skep

Are we the final iteration of the human species? Probably not because if you look around...we ain't all Issac Asimov's or Carl Sagans or Matrin Bubers or Father Damions or Albert Onerocks or Jacob Bronowskis or Beethovens or any other super achievers.

Skep,
No doubt you are right in that we are not the final iteration, but you are wrong in your reasoning.

Although it may appear otherwise, evolution is not on any progressive track from lesser to greater. What this means is that we today could easily end up being the most intelligent creatures evolution will ever develop.

Most evolutionary change occurs in response to changes in what is required for superior survival in a particular environment. The development of some new kind of lung that can extract oxygen from carbon dioxide for example, would be a next step in evolution. Such an organ would be superior in a large number of ways and the possesor of such a lung would not necessarily have to be brainier (or as brainy) as we are to supplant us as the top of the food chain here on Earth.

Of course, this kind of lung is extremely unlikely. But I'm only using it as an example. Remember, the survival of our ancestors, and their consequent development into our species, depended entirely on their developing the ability to walk upright, not exactly a mental faculty.

So thinking of evolution as a linked chain from lesser to superior or from dumb animals to smart humans is incorrect. A small physical difference is sometimes enough to set an entire species down the road to "number one," as it were, leaving the rest of us behind in the dust, regardless of whether we are smarter or not.

Harte

It's called projection...or maybe just misunderstanding. My comment merely suggested that our species is most likely continuing to develope. Actually Nieanderthal had a larger cerebral henisphere than we do and his brain cc count was greater as well. Since I know this I am not of the misconception that we will continue to get smarter automatically. Rather than hope for a lung that extracts necessary oxygen from gasses poison to us how about we developt a process to take potable water from rocks or trees or grass since we appear to be poluting our potable water at an alarming rate.
Our species may be developed enough to make a good job at killing the planet we need for survival. Maybe a major advancement might be the reccognition by average people that we need to take better care of our third rock because the others ain't a gonna support us.
Finally, it might be more productive to understanding each other to test our assumptions about what others thing by directly asking them rather than guess and guess wrong. Just a thought. I am open to almost any subject except esoteric subjects about which most of us can't hold a very lengthly discussion.
skep

Originally posted by skep
It's called projection...or maybe just misunderstanding. My comment merely suggested that our species is most likely continuing to develope. Actually Nieanderthal had a larger cerebral henisphere than we do and his brain cc count was greater as well. Since I know this I am not of the misconception that we will continue to get smarter automatically.

Skep,
I quoted the portion of your post that led me to believe that you were of a mind that the fact that we are not all geniuses is indicative that we are continuing to evolve. If you read what I quoted, I'm sure you can see why I thought this. Sorry if I was wrong. Obviously, the fact that "...we ain't all Issac Asimov's or Carl Sagans or Matrin Bubers or Father Damions or Albert Onerocks or Jacob Bronowskis or Beethovens or any other super achievers... " does not in the least indicate that we have more evolving to do, so I wonder why you would use that as an example, given that it is not what you think.

The truth is, I was not trying to correct you per se. I was only trying to make a point that needs to be made more often. Many people think of evolution in the erroneous way that I described, and the more often this error is pointed out, the better off everyone is, IMO.

Originally posted by skepRather than hope for a lung that extracts necessary oxygen from gasses poison to us how about we developt a process to take potable water from rocks or trees or grass since we appear to be poluting our potable water at an alarming rate.

Parisitism is a much more colorful and interesting example of adaptation than my boring old carbon dioxide-processing lung!

Originally posted by skepOur species may be developed enough to make a good job at killing the planet we need for survival. Maybe a major advancement might be the reccognition by average people that we need to take better care of our third rock because the others ain't a gonna support us.

I think that probably there have been lots of animals that have suffered extinction due to their effect on their own ecological niches. You are right that we face a similar fate given current trends. And the difference is, we know better. But "killing the Earth" is a rather homocentric viewpoint. The Earth doesn't care what we do to it. We cannot "kill the Earth," we can only damage our ecological niche to a point beyond our capability to repair it. In the end, what we are doing to ourselves may well be the best thing for the Earth.

Originally posted by skepFinally, it might be more productive to understanding each other to test our assumptions about what others thing by directly asking them rather than guess and guess wrong. Just a thought. I am open to almost any subject except esoteric subjects about which most of us can't hold a very lengthly discussion.
skep

I had not realized that I was guessing. Again, I apologize.

Harte