Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

Your theory is based on assumptions, conjecture and personal belief not in facts. Evolution is a scientific fact. That said I think humans as we are today might be much older, and there is a chance that Dinosaurs in some remote areas did not die out. But if you claim that dinosaurs existed a mere 2 million years ago or less that negates most creationists beliefs so you are purposing that both the creationists and scientists are wrong and you by observation and speculation are correct?

reply to post by OG_SWAGGA_KING


My God the ignorance just doesn't end. Hovind is a complete fraud. Both sides of the argument agree on this fact. Even the United States justice system agrees with this. The only ones who don't accept this are those who have been completely blinded by their own biases.

reply to post by nyk537


A nice magical story, but sadly that's all it will ever be.


70 million years ago, it was humans that were intelligent it was raptors of the type. They could use sticks and stones. Even make little shelters using wood. Sadly any trace of the primitive meat eating culture was wiped away 65 million years ago, with barely bones as remains.

I don't think people fully realize the amount of evidence that proves just how old the world is. Literally layers of cities.. up to 15 or more, built one atop of the other, older ruins, is a hint just how old even the civilized world is.

But if ancient man and dinosaurs lived together (and it probably would not have been in harmony), there would be a LOT more proof. Cave paintings depicting dinos for one. Not one random piece of art. You would see a rather lot of proof they lived at the same time. It's sort of like the alien with Egyptians theory. Supposedly something THAT grand and amazing happened to them.. and yet it wasn't depicted in any hieroglyphs. A random blotch on the floor in a hidden tunnel wouldn't be the only recorded history of their interactions with an alien race. Likewise, if humans lived alongside (and inside) dinosaurs, there would be further proof.

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
My God the ignorance just doesn't end. Hovind is a complete fraud. Both sides of the argument agree on this fact. Even the United States justice system agrees with this.

Given the number of times the Paluxy river man/dino footprints have been mentioned in this thread, the above point bears repeating.

Kent Hovind is about the only person in the entire world still pushing these footprints as evidence.
Most creationist organisations have deserted that argument.
Kent Hovind is in jail for multiple counts of fraud.

reply to post by geobro


Ah, so now we're bringing in Velikovsky on top of Hovind and Cremo. Once again we have another "researcher" whose work is full of holes and whose methodology is fatally flawed. Pretty much all of Velikovsky's claims have been invalidated in the intervening years. Plate tectonics alone destroyed most of his argument.

I am hoping after 26 pages someone must have mentioned authors Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson who wrote the book, Forbidden Archaeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race, or Cremo's website or his lectures and/or the Californian Gold mines discoveries or the documentary hosted by Charlton Heston, The Mysterious Origins of Man?





www.mcremo.com...

www.amazon.com...



PS: Apologies if already mentioned but just got home and don't have the time to read this thread today but am looking forward to reading it tomorrow..

It really amazes me how so many people ingnore completely the evidence posted up for discussion. everyone just focuses on dinosaurs and people coexisting and scoff at it.

yeah ignore the substance fo the topic that makes you look smart.

I do not agree that dinosaurs existed side by side with man during there full fledged existence. I think there were some that existed with man. Not as may as the ones that used to exist. In the bible there are some references to beasts in teh ocean that sound like dinosaurs but you do not really know for sure.

I like how so many people dust off the bible and other "religious" texts as garbage and fairtales. yet i remember watching not too far back a whole series on people who believe religious texts talked about aliens and backed up their existence.. although they were called gods or divine beings.. they were in reality aliens. It just shows that people will embrace anything that will support their claim even if they crap on it 99% of the time.

evolution and creationism run into many problems in their hypothesis. Creationism, although has an explanation for LIFE, but it cannot really prove it... as the only one who can prove it is GOD. The only thing we do know is that we were created in his image.. people usually think of a big bearded man with a white robe sitting in the clouds all divine and all knowing. yeah literal people would think that way. Image can be other things. I have been said to be the spitting image of my grandfather although i don't look like him but those who knew him see his mannerisms, customs and interests in me. i never met the man as he died before me. They are able to see his "IMAGE" in me... i am his descendant. Gods image is that of creating, humans like to create and invent. Many people who make stuff consider those things their children.. It makes sense but unless God makes his presence know people do not believe. I really do not think he can do that according to his word, we have to accept by faith. Why would he not reveal himself, well he really doensn't have to. It's like a little toddler asking me to reveal how much money i have.. i dont' have to do it really.. and why should I? he is just a toddler.. he would view us as such too as kids. This is where people have problems with the whole GOD THING they do not want anyone bigger and smarter than them it is an ego thing.


Evolution... well it makes sense, quite a bit of sense. Evolution cannot really explain how life came about. Their best attempts still ask you to have a lot of faith because we cannot prove it just yet. which is basically what creationism does when it comes to the explanation of life. except this theory is easier to accept since it gives man more power and does not affect mans ego.

evolution has yet to explain to me why primates were the only species to be exposed to stimulus to prompt it to become intelligent, and why have no other species taken that step in their evolution. why are there no feline, canine, or any other humaniod of any other species. There are reptilians apparently?? yes? no?

Another thing about evolution, why do primates still exist in their current form?? if their current form is outdated why do they still exist?? if it evolved for the better, into humans, why is it still around. further more if primates continue to exist why do the links in between become extinct?? why how come? it is not very consistent to be quite honest. why do some transitions survive and others don't. also why did primates stop evolving into humans?? why don't we see more chimps transitioning to humans??

it just makes no sense and it asks me to have a lot of faith..

The OP questions the timeline and the testing used for the timeline, yet no one really engages that. I do not beleive the earth is 6000yrs old. Where do people even get that figure from??


The evidence the op does post is old news but no one really engages it. why?? is his evidence wrong??
is that dating erroneous? if it is why is it still used?? is it because it wrecks teh established theory??

why is it that both evolution and creationsim both ask for the use of faith but creationism is crapped on more ?

Originally posted by yaluk
why is it that both evolution and creationsim both ask for the use of faith but creationism is crapped on more ?

A very good question indeed.

Evolution is as much about faith as Creationism is. Creation just gets a bad rap because it isn't the commonly accepted theory.

Originally posted by yaluk
Another thing about evolution, why do primates still exist in their current form?? if their current form is outdated why do they still exist?? if it evolved for the better, into humans, why is it still around. further more if primates continue to exist why do the links in between become extinct?? why how come? it is not very consistent to be quite honest. why do some transitions survive and others don't. also why did primates stop evolving into humans?? why don't we see more chimps transitioning to humans??

There is an old saying "evolution is so simple almost anyone can misunderstand it"
Back in the 1990's I became convinced that there is not a single person in the entire world who actually knows what evolution really is, and the evidence for it, and yet still disagrees with it.

Your statement above why do primates still exist in their current form?? is simply not true.
Humans, chimps, gorillas, all have a common ancestor, that was neither human, gorilla or chimp.
ALL of the species I just mentioned have evolved from that, since then.

Chimps have NEVER transitioned into humans, there is no reason why they would do so now.

reply to post by Stovokor


Ha! I guess you haven't seen the many cavemen drawings of dinosaurs that are all over documentaries and textbooks. Besides... millions of years? How do you know that?

Well done, nice thread S+F.

If you don't believe Dinosaurs and Humans ever shared the planet together..... I have news for you, 2011.

Not all Dinosaurs are extinct.

Originally posted by nyk537
I'm going to post a couple of videos here that highlight some of the things I've talked about, and also go into greater detail on things I haven't. The first is from a documentary called "Dragons or Dinosaurs" from a book of the same name written by Darek Issacs. I urge you to watch it before commented on it please.

I'll try to be gentle, but it's very obvious that his degree is in Theology and that he has had almost no science education. To anyone who's worked with dinosaurs (I have) he sounds like a poorly educated peasant farmer from India trying to explain the physics of the Large Hadron Collider. There are too many misconceptions, misinterpretations, and outright misrepresntations to go into detail.

I can't recommend it, even as offering good counter-support to the science. It's sort of on par with "Answers in Genesis" (which most Creationists now avoid citing.)

The second is only the first part of a documentary called Forbidden History: Dinosaurs and the Bible. I'm only going to put up the first part, but again I urge you to watch the whole thing.

The first part was more than enough, thank you.

Here's some items that the films ignore:
* they assume the continents always had the shape they have today (ignoring the rock columns, which they dismiss completely and the "groups of the same type of fossil" which are found in that rock layer.. on different continents.)
* they ignore the evidence of different fossils in different strata. For instance, while science CAN explain the presence of therapod footprints in the Paluxy formation, the appearance of protohadrosaurs in the Woodbine formation (above them) and the shark teeth above them in the Eagle Ford shale (here in Dallas) and the ammonites in the thick layer of Austin Chalk over that, Creationists can't explain why more primitive dinosaurs appear in different layers and how the geology shown in this link was formed. (right here)
* geology and rocks are ALWAYS dismissed by Creationists, in spite of the fact that if you drive through the road cuts you can clearly see there are layers of different rocks and you get scenarios that can only be explained by the land being above the water for a long period of time and then submerged as shallow sea, then deep sea, then shallow sea, then river deltas... etc. Nor can they explain why beds are tilted or the sharp break (seen behind the post office area on I 30 between Arlington and Dallas) which shows the beds dropping over 10 feet when a massive earthquake hit).
* I have a long rant about how anti-evolutionists don't bother to look at rocks -- but the summary is "they don't know that rocks form in big beds that cover hundreds and thousands of miles and they don't want to learn anything about geology because once they try to explain the rocks, things get uncomfortable and they retreat to the 'devil put them down to test our faith' position."
* the fossils found in Israel and so forth are fish and ammonites. www.travelnet.co.il... The earliest human fossils (Neanderthals) aren't found in association with any dinosaur bones. There aren't any dinosaur bones in the area where the Bible was written. Apatosaurus, for example, is found only in North America: www.enchantedlearning.com...
* consequently, none of the dinosaurs identified as "being in the Bible" were anywhere near that area.
* dinosaurs did not exist as single things strolling around the landscape, and landscape covered by herds of Apatosauruses (the most commonly cited example) would be an ecological disaster that would be hard to miss.
* there weren't fifteen or twenty different kinds of dinosaurs -- there were over 300 very different types.
* we have mummies and graves from Egypt and Babylon that are well dated (and up to 6,000 years old.) None of those animals/people/fibers/etc have turned to rock (unlike the vertebra I'm working on. It's rock, not bone. You can come to the lab and confirm it for yourself.)
* none of the human remains appear in the same rocks as dinosaur remains.
* there are no "fresh" dinosaur skeletons or bones.
* no dinosaur remains preserved in ice along with mammoths (and I know this one because the lab has now finished with Alamosaurus, and I'm going to be working on the material from Alaska.
* no modern plants are found with dinosaur fossils. (I did find plant material with some of the vertebra I was working on, but it wasn't anything we have around today.)
* there is no UN-fossilized dinosaur poop. We've got scat from Ice Age and prehistoric creatures which isn't fossilized (paleofeces). Titanosaurs (brontosaurus, etc) and the other large dinosaurs left a lot of it around -- so much that even some of that got fossilized (coprolites).

There's so much more that they misrepresent and ignore. I'm not going to go into a multipage discourse -- that's the highlights, though.

It's a shame you can't come to the lab and check out all the great dinosaur stuff here and learn where it came from and how it was found!

I have no doubt that they lived togeather, I don't have any proof or need any proof, because wrong or right, it is not an issue anymore, just a point of interest. The Evolution myth and the religeon straightjacket keep old beliefs in place because they don't want to be challenged and undermined, they tell us it is a certain way and weare supposed to accept it without question, they have something to loose by being wrong, so they will never admit it, even if they know for sure. Common sense tells you that things are not the way we have been led to believe, they explain away history and we are supposed to swallow it.

reply to post by nyk537

Evolution is as much about faith as Creationism is. Creation just gets a bad rap because it isn't the commonly accepted theory.

Evolution has in excess of a century and a half of scientific evidence supporting it, hence the widespread acceptance of the theory. Creationism gets a bad rap because it has no science supporting it and yet it still gets touted as some kind of scientific truth. If believers in creationism stuck to claiming that it was a simple matter of faith, I doubt anyone would bat an eyelash. And it's not as though there aren't scads of scientists working in fields related to modern evolutionary synthesis who have managed to reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific fact.

If they did coexist, I'm betting it was during the passing of the torch, when the planet grew larger, increasing it's gravitational pull, making it much harder for large beasts not buoyed by water to survive.

For the Dinosaurs' hearts to be able to pump blood to their extremities, and to move or run without breaking their legs, the earth would have needed to have been a smaller planet with less gravitational pull, which gives merit to the expando planet hypothesis...which also explains how the continents appear to be able to "fit" like puzzle pieces resting on a round balloon. Let the air out of the balloon called Earth, and the pieces fit.

There're articles on ATS about it:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by yaluk

Another thing about evolution, why do primates still exist in their current form?? if their current form is outdated why do they still exist?? if it evolved for the better, into humans, why is it still around. further more if primates continue to exist why do the links in between become extinct?? why how come? it is not very consistent to be quite honest. why do some transitions survive and others don't. also why did primates stop evolving into humans?? why don't we see more chimps transitioning to humans??

it just makes no sense and it asks me to have a lot of faith..

It makes sense only when you understand it

Evolution does not mean, for example, that all members of species A evolve into species B and then species C.

What happens, is that a group of species A evolve into species B. Usually because the specific environment in which they are living changes. But other other members of the same species live elsewhere and are unaffected. The remainder of species A may become extinct. Or they may survive. If they survive then they may remain unchanged and live alongside specie B. But some may later evolve into species C. There may be members of species A, B and C all living at the same time. Later some members of species C evolve into D.

Species D is not directly related to species B. But both share a common ancestor in species A.

It's actually much more complicated than that, but hopefully you get the idea.

As another analogy, suppose 2 groups of humans fly to 2 different planets. Both planets have different gravity and atmosphere to Earth. Over many hundreds of generations, humans on both planets evolve to be able to better live under the different gravity and atmosphere and their physical shapes change. Over longer time, their changes become so great that one group is no longer able to reproduce with the other. On the planet with low gravity, the humans develop light bones and wings and can fly. On the one with high gravity they become very strong, stubby, dwarves.

Meanwhile, back on Earth, all the other humans are completely unchanged.

One species has become three.

You know, I never actually thought about the light years argument... nor have I ever heard it.... I guess some day, when I meet my maker, I have some more questions to ask.

I believe creation, but I have questioned quite a few things.... some things don't make sense, and thats why we investigate

Originally posted by nyk537
Creation just gets a bad rap because it isn't the commonly accepted theory.

Aside from the lack of evidence, there is NO commonly accepted theory of creation.
Thats one of its more laughable points - that even creationists themselves cant agree on even the basic fundamentals of what on earth it is that they think creationism even is.

Even here in this thread you see it.
The age of the earth is the biblical 6000 years.
To others, it is about 10000-12000 years.
The OP, in the opening post, cites 30,890 and 23,170 years as evidence.
To others, it is billions of years, but God did it.

The biblical flood. Did it happen?
Some say yes, as the bible describes.
Some say yes, but just in the middle east.
Some say no.
...
and so on.

Without exception, EVERY aspect of creationism can be refuted by referring to other creationists who have some wildly completely totally different ideas about what it might be.

Thats not a "theory", its just a joke.

The problem isn't evolution or creation, the problem is that HUMANS are older than given credit.

Let me first digress, this simulation we're in is older than we imagine and it can be reset and adjusted almost at will.

Moving forward, this Earth is also very old. We haven't accepted that there were advanced civilizations before us. This Earth has peaked and descended many times and will continue too.

For all we know, there may have been advanced people BEFORE the dinosaurs. They may have been so advanced they were basically immortal and used the dinosaurs as a reservation. Or the dinosaurs may have been created by them and left to run rampant for a bit as the advanced humans went exploring other planets. Upon return they released a virus to wipe the dinosaurs out?

Evolution and creation are flawed...