Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Hydroman

 

Absolutely. Along with every other kind of animal.

And if estimates are correct, the flood happened about 4000 years ago. This all-knowing god put dinosaurs on the ark to help them survive the flood, only for EVERY SINGLE one of them to go extinct a few years later? Good plan.

It could be worse, you could think that dinosaurs were demons, like one christian lady I know.

Still doesn't bring it into the 6000 year timeline.

I too believe that we have our dating methods a tad mixed up, but I certainly don't believe an invisible God willed them into existance. Aliens perhaps (yes, I'm serious), but not an invisible magical man.

How does this explain fossilised dinosaur bones? Unless, of course, you are suggesting that fossilisation takes much less time than previously thought....

Originally posted by nyk537
It wasn't until the 1920's that scientists found these out for what they really were...palaeocaster beaver holes! Now, according to evolutionary timelines this animal went extinct about 30 million years ago. This is where we find a problem. American Indians knew specifically what these corkscrews were and what made them. In fact, the Lakota Indians even had a name for them - Ca'pa el ti - which translates to "beaver lodges". The only way the Indians could have known this would be to excavate these tunnels, find the remains, and correctly peice together and identify them for what they were. Considering the American Indians strong belief in not disturbing the bones of the dead, the only reasonable conclusion to make is that these people saw this animal alive!

An interesting story that I thought I'll look up some references on, since you didnt provide any yourself.
The best seems to be Fossil legends of the first Americans By Adrienne Mayor where it is clearly stated the Lakota decided they were caused by the beavers, by using the fossil remains of those beavers.

fossilised paleocaster beaver skeletons were frequently found at the bottom of the structures... Observing the very same fossil evidence, the Lakotas had recognised the burrows of ancient beavers...

The assertion you make the only reasonable conclusion, is clearly somewthing that you jst made up off the top of your head. Not a shred of evidence provided to back it up, whereas the "Lakotas saw the beaver fossils" is certainly backed up by evidence.

I'm calling foul on that one.

reply to post by Stovokor


And what is your reason? Because some textbooks written by scientists with an agenda told you so? The radiometric dating system is obviously flawed, and there are countless examples of recorded history detailing dinosaurs long before they were discovered.

How do you explain those things? What reason leads you to believe them?

reply to post by Kryties


I am suggesting that, because our methods of dating bones and fossils is flawed and produces inaccurate results. It has been shown and reproduced many times.

Originally posted by Hydroman
I suppose dinosaurs were on the ark?

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Hydroman

 

Absolutely. Along with every other kind of animal.

That's one WHOPPING big ark - unless you are saying it's like the Doctor Who T.A.R.D.I.S. - bigger on the inside than on the out.

Certainly nothing like the dimensions as described in the Bible.

Originally posted by nyk537


And what is your reason? Because some textbooks written by scientists with an agenda told you so?

What would that agenda be again?

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Kryties

 

dating bones and fossils is flawed

The dating might be flawed, but the process of fossilisation takes a LOOOOONG time.

Originally posted by nyk537
The radiometric dating system is obviously flawed, and there are countless examples of recorded history detailing dinosaurs long before they were discovered.

There are also examples of dealings with bigfoot and alien abductions. Do you believe them?

Originally posted by nyk537
Another item I would like to bring up is one that I'm sure many of you are already familiar with. In May, 2006, Helen Fields wrote an article about a bone for Smithsonian Magazine titled, "Dinosaur Shocker." This article talks about a Tyrannosaurus Rex bone that was found in the Hell Creek formation in Montana. This bone has been studied by Creation scientist, as well as evolutionary paleontologist Mary Scheitzer and the renowned paleontologist Jack Horner.

What a shock indeed! This dinosaur, which evolutionary science tells us has been dead for 68 million years, had not finished decomposing!

Again, you didnt provide a link, but I found the article here

Once again you're misrepresenting the story. Both Mary Scheitzer and Jack Horner do NOT think the young earth creationists are right.

Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally:

Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.” This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”

And you've done the same.
Lying for god is NOT acceptable.

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by Hydroman
I suppose dinosaurs were on the ark?

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Hydroman

 

Absolutely. Along with every other kind of animal.

That's one WHOPPING big ark - unless you are saying it's like the Doctor Who T.A.R.D.I.S. - bigger on the inside than on the out.

Certainly nothing like the dimensions as described in the Bible.

There's a perfectly logical explanation for why the dinosaurs went extinct:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0a69806baaaf.jpg[/atsimg]

Honestly, if they existed while man was alive, they were probably hunted into extinction becuase of the obvious threat they would post to man's safety. I sure as hell wouldn't want a giant flesh eating lizard in my backyard and would get together with my neighbors to hunt them into extinction to protect myself and my family. The big leaf eaters were probably also dangerous because they could squash the kids and were similarly eliminated.

reply to post by nyk537


I have a fossil pic for you to ponder over!





This is a fascinating image that does give some credence towards your theory!





Oh yer !!....The image is of what looks like a human foot print overlayed by a "Possible" dinasaur foot/pad print!

Source!

reply to post by nyk537



Ok, so I do not believe in what the Bible says......but I thought that it was common knowledge that we still have "dinosaurs" living with us today! Crocs, gators, numerous underwater species and even some mammals.

But the C-14 dating results of the dino's in Montana spits in the face of accepted modern scientific "fact". This tells me that either the dating process is flawed or there is a conspiracy within the entire scientific community to supress this information.

Now which one is it?

reply to post by alfa1


I'm not lying at all.

Here only defense on those bones is that the area is 65 million years old. Based on what? A faulty dating method!

She provides no reasoning for why the bones contain soft-tissue, she simply swipes it away by claiming the entire area is a certain age! The bone has also never been allowed to be dated for Carbon 14 to this day.

I wonder why?

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

 

Why is that funny?

Why is it any easier to accept the results of tests that are obviously inaccurate? What gives evolutionary scientists any more credibility that creationist scientists?

Creationist scientist. Very nice oxy-moron you got there.

Why is it funny? Why is it easier to accept? Because it is science and not a fairy tale.

Because evolution is based in Science and not based on a 2000 year old political propaganda piece?

But hey, Maybe I am biased.I have turned to being agnostic at best. Atheist at worst.

I just try to use science....

I mean, yeah, there are lots of old statues and carvings of things that look like dinosaurs,but you have to keep in mind that these people believed in sea monsters. They believed that their crops depended on the mood of the Gods....

You know? For all you know they could be drawing their idea of what they think is responsible for making it rain or something....You know?

Science man.... Science is why I found it funny that some people believe the earth is only 6,000 years old.

People alone have been around for how many hundred thousand years? How old is the oldest fossil we have? Much older than 6,000....

Are you suggesting that all fossils that are older than 6,000 just magically appeared?

I hope not. Because I might laugh again




Yeah, I'll stick with Scientific fact over religious fairy tale,any day.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
This tells me that either the dating process is flawed or there is a conspiracy within the entire scientific community to supress this information.

Now which one is it?

It's both!

Evolutionary science has ingrained itself into modern life. Do you honestly think they would want information that disproves what they have built their lives around to be common knowledge? These kinds of results are buried and dismissed without every really discussing them.

There are also countless examples of bones that are never allowed to be tested for Carbon 14. Why do you think that is? If they are sure they are right then why prevent the tests?

reply to post by gimme_some_truth


But what you call "science" is based on phony test results and countless other things that can NOT be proved. It's no more a fairly tale than creationism in regards to this particular discussion.

I'll also ask you this...how do you know that those fossils are over 6,000 years old? Because of the radiometric dating system that proves faulty every time it's tested?

What kind of science is that?

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Essan

 

I am saying that the earth is not as old as we have been told and that, yes, there were still some dinosaurs on earth living with humans.

Some dinosaurs? Not all of them? Not all the millions of species that existed before and after the dinosaurs? Just a few?

This is one of the problems if you claim a young earth and no evolution - just how do you fit so many highly adapted species into the same ecological niches? And why are so very very very few of them still around today? Why did they all suddenly disappear? To be left only as fossils?

What of the trees? Was Britain covered in giant tree palms when the Romans landed?

Why are stromatolites now found in so few places? When not that long ago (if Earth is young) they were the most dominant lifeform on Earth? And did they fill the atmosphere with deadly oxygen before or after woolly mammoths arrived on the scene?

Did the amphicyonidae hunt gorgonopsias? And why are trilobites not found in the seas today?

I could go on. But the argument of a young earth necessitates a very simplistic view of prehistory - when you realise just what a vast range of life is known to have existed then frankly we'd need a thousand Earths to fit it all on. Several of which would require different atmospheric compostion to today as well (the Carboniferous insect life could not exist with todays oxygen levels, for example).


Of course, it could all be a conspiracy, but to what end?


btw the issue with the T-Rex soft tissue is typical Creationist misinformation. Yes, they found soft tissue. But what was unusual is that normally such tissue has decomposed before it ever comes close to becoming fossilised. However in this (and a few other) cases, fossilisation appears to have occurred unusually quickly, meaning that some traces of soft material were also preserved.
are on

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

 

But what you call "science" is based on phony test results and countless other things that can NOT be proved. It's no more a fairly tale than creationism in regards to this particular discussion.

What I call science is based on far more sound test results and research that what you call creationism.

Science is Science.... Anything else is not. Sorry.

Science says they did not co-exist. The ultimate BS artist that is religion says they did.... I try not to trust those greedy pedophile losers who only want your money.


good day.

Firstly thank you for posting this.
Many years back, before I got on the internet, I always used to hang out at the library.
It's been so long, I cannot remember the title of the book, but it was in the reference section (NOT Sci-Fi).
I read about some tribe (I think they were the bushman) who told of some years back they found a large animal, and how they described it, it sounded like they were talking about a Alosaurus. Anyway, they hunted the animal, and brought chunks of meat back to their village. People got sick from the meat of this strange animal, and they decided from that point not to eat the meat of the long-neck animal.

I also want to add in regards to Nessie of Loch Ness. She definately appears to be one of those underwater dinosaurs that have paddle-like fins (diamond shape). I think it is highly possible that something like that can still exist today. Could it be the peat content in the water helping conceal it and/or live longer and healthier? And eventhough folks have taken high-tech radar equipment there, they still had great difficulty really seeing anything. No one can say here that underwater caverns do not exist, so is it possible a huge cavern-like environment can provide a primary home for such creatures? yes.

Just as the OP showed a picture of dinosaurs engraved on a tomb, there are also drawings on caves that show paintings of what appears to be horses and large elk -- those same animals we see today.