Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

I can see that you don't really know what a spirit is, or what spiritual death is, but you think that god is talking about a "spiritual death" in the garden when Adam and Eve fall? Why think that if you don't really know what that means? You know that we all physically die and what that means, doesn't it make more sense to think it's talking about a physical death since we know that's real?

Because I don't particularly care to discuss the particulars of theology here, I don't know what a "spirit" is?

No sir, I know precisely what I believe, and why, and I also know that this thread isn't the place for a theology lesson.

I suppose it would be possible that it talks of a physical death, and that still wouldn't indicate that death never existed before that. It would only indicate that they feared death, same as people do now. Why would any one fear something that didn't exist?

But no, I don't think that physical death is what it means. I've already said, twice now, what I think it means. To accommodate you, I'll give you the answer you seek, so as to cut it short, and say flat out that if that's what it means, the entire thing is illogical. That is true, as far as it goes, and it appears to be the answer you're after, so I reckon we're done with this particular line of inquiry.

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Hydroman

 

He didn't tell them if they ate of the tree they would live forever. God simply told them NOT to eat from it. The devil (as a serpent) told them that if they ate then they would be equals with God. It was a trick to ruin the immortality and perfect world that God had created.

Get your facts straight before you mock an entire religion.

I believe that he's stressing the word "die" in the sentence "He knows that when you eat of it, you surely will not die, but will be as gods". There's more than one way to read that construction, however. It could be read to imply that previously, there was no death, and that death was threatened as a result of eating it, or it could be read to mean that previously, death was the norm, but after eating it, that person would not be further subject to death.

The means or type of death is not specified, since death is not the main point of the passage. It's a peripheral issue, mentioned in passing. In any event, the question of death, either physical or spiritual, is fairly far afield from the original question of whether man walked with dinosaurs, or even the question it devolved into, of creationism vs. evolution. Both of those, however loosely, are concerned with life, not death. It's edging towards a discussion of whether or not religion itself, and christianity in particular, is a valid belief based upon an assault on particular passages of a particular book, and I'm not willing to take it that far afield in this thread. That would more properly belong in a thread in a religion forum.

How in the hell did such a silly topic get 40 pages of discussion???

How did someone starting a thread about the flinstones get so many flags??

Geeze.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by orkson

Open your mind, and google "Erich von Daniken" & "dinosaurs". It's fascinating.

finally n open mind that means nonpartisan view '' THANKS

creation AND evolution BOTH are correct first we were created and then we evolved and there are levels of evolution a person or race that has lived in high altutide for a long time will in a sence evolve to be better adapted to that elevation but on the other hand what do you call a caterpillar when it morphs into a butterfly or a tadpole when it turns into a frog well they evlove into almost something entirely different then what they began there lives I would personaly call that evolution !!!

reply to post by nenothtu


thats exactly what it means i described it earlyer death DID NOT exist before Adam and Eve eat from the tree only after they eat did death exist it didnt mean they would die right away it meant thay they would in fact DIE PERIOD !!! because they eat from the tree

reply to post by lovenotwar


I couldn't say for sure - I wasn't there at the time, and so have to rely on what's written, and that doesn't specify unambiguously.

If you WERE there at the time, then I suppose you'd know better than I.

If death didn't exist prior to that, why did the threat of it have any effect at all? How did they know what it was, if it didn't exist to be known? I'm relying on your eyewitness testimony here, since evidently my logic is breaking down some where.

reply to post by Lynda101



Well first off while in translating Chinese to English we come up with the word dragon. It is not the same thing at all. Look at pictures of a Chinese “Dragon” and compare it to a European “Dragon” they are in no way the same critter. It is like comparing a snake to a lizard. Furthermore there are no fossilized records of any critter that looks like either the Chinese or European dragons. So saying the dragon tales are all results of dinosaur encounters is silly. They share a few similarities like scales but that is about it. Chinese dragons are depicted as long snake like things with short stubby legs, and rarely with wings. While a European dragon is a big muscular thing with large powerful legs and always with wings. Some have been reported to breathe fire while other spit lightning etc. Some have scales while others have fur or even feathers. I see no way that they could be accounts of the same creature, and no way they really existed in the forms described if they were many creatures, as we have not found a single fossil that looks anything like any form of dragon from legends.

Dragons are nothing more than a society putting their fears into a physical form. Societies all over the world have stories of Vampires, yet they never agree on what they are or how the look. They all have werewolves, and once again their descriptions of looks and attributes vary. And the list goes on: Ghosts, Goblins, Vampires, werewolves, dragons, fairies, Unicorn, Pegasus, mermaids, centaur, Minotaur, etc. etc. etc. these are all depicted in multiple civilizations but vary slightly in their form, and function in each area. So there are many counts of people all over the world inventing similar types of mythical beasts that when we translate the name the locals have for it to English they get lumped together with other similar beasts. It in no way makes them all real does it? Or do you believe in all of these mythical beasts as well? As we have not found any fossilized remains of any of these either.

Originally posted by CalledOUT
You missed the fact that I pointed out the greek gods were a localized artwork, and many other cultures have their own art work of their gods or imaginations. The commonality of the artwork and stories across the globe proves that all the cultures saw the same thing, not just guessing.

Well thats where your argument completely explodes in on itself.

"all cultures saw the same thing" is actually impossible, because (although it isnt well known amongs the public) the various types of dinosaurs were themselves localised.
T.Rex, for example, ONLY in North Western North America, and Asia. Nowhere else.
Apatosaurus (Brontosaurus) again ONLY in North America.
Various other dinos are ONLY found in South America,
Others are ONLY found in Australia.

It is *impossible* for you to claim all cultures around the world all saw the same dinosaurs.

Its actually quite the opposite - if people lived with dinosaurs, each of the civilisations around the world would draw their own local dinosaurs they they saw. It would be, in your terms, "localised artwork".

Or to put it another way, the very evidence you claim backs you up, is evidence that you are wrong.

Own goal!!!!

reply to post by Lynda101


Exactly! I have always thought that perhaps stories of dragons could have actually been tales of the last remaining dinosaurs. Maybe not the big nasty ones but perhaps the medium-sized sheep stealing kind! With knights of olde riding out to rid the land of the poor beasties.

In fact I find it hard to think men and dinosaurs didn't share some history thousands of years back. Sadly, the more modern and advanced we think we are, the further we get from entertaining such magical and absolutely possible ideas!

reply to post by MegaplateausFlight


As an European, I'm really astonished by the place that religion and credos have in the American's intellectual background.
In Nazi Germany, Goebells used to say "when I hear the word "culture", I draw my gun"
In America, when someone says "dinosaur", quite everybody draws either "evolutionism" or "creationism"
Then, people jump to extremist conclusions :
Some will say that dinosaurs have 6000 years, which is obviously wrong
Some will give the argument that the steps of evolution forbid the co-existence of dinosaurs and men, which is not certain.

For the sake of the discussion, here is the link to the "200 Million years Fossil Eel"

A NEW species of eel found in the gloom of an undersea cave is a "living fossil" astonishingly similar to the first eels that swam about 200 million years ago, biologists reported today. The strange find was made last year in a 35m deep fringing-reef cave off an island in the Western Pacific state of Palau, they said in the British journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B. The small brown fish has very few of the anatomical characteristics of modern eels, a vast range whose 819 species are grouped into 19 families. In contrast, it has many hallmarks of primitive eels which lived in the early Mesozoic era, back when dinosaurs ruled the Earth.

The term "living fossil" was coined by Charles Darwin in his book On the Origin of Species. It is used to describe species that have survived for millions of years, exploiting niches that are so stable that there is little pressure on them to evolve.

reply to post by orkson

Some will give the argument that the steps of evolution forbid the co-existence of dinosaurs and men, which is not certain.

It has nothing to do with evolution. There's just a lack of objective evidence for it based on what we'd expect to find if they co-existed e.g. unfossilized dinosaur remains.

Originally posted by alfa1
"all cultures saw the same thing" is actually impossible, because (although it isnt well known amongs the public) the various types of dinosaurs were themselves localised.
It is *impossible* for you to claim all cultures around the world all saw the same dinosaurs.
Its actually quite the opposite - if people lived with dinosaurs, each of the civilisations around the world would draw their own local dinosaurs they they saw. It would be, in your terms, "localised artwork".

You are correct, I meant that they drew actual "dinosaurs" that we know now looked exactly how they portrayed it. But you are right, there were many different types drawn around the world, with the commonality being: "this species should have died 65 million years ago", which isn't true. There has actually been instances where we have learned a new thing from the drawings about the dinosaur from the artwork that we did not know before.

Originally posted by iterationzero
It has nothing to do with evolution. There's just a lack of objective evidence for it based on what we'd expect to find if they co-existed e.g. unfossilized dinosaur remains.

They have found unfossilized dinosaur remains, the funny thing is that they still believe it's 65 million years old... HA!

www.smithsonianmag.com...

reply to post by CalledOUT

They have found unfossilized dinosaur remains, the funny thing is that they still believe it's 65 million years old... HA!

Not necessarily:

Newer research, published in PloS One (30 July 2008), has challenged the claims that the material found is the soft tissue of Tyrannosaurus. Thomas Kaye of the University of Washington and his co-authors contend that what was really inside the tyrannosaur bone was slimy biofilm created by bacteria that coated the voids once occupied by blood vessels and cells. The researchers assumed that what previously had been identified as remnants of blood cells, because of the presence of iron, were actually framboids, microscopic mineral spheres bearing iron. They found similar spheres in a variety of other fossils from various periods, including an ammonite. In the ammonite they found the spheres in a place where the iron they contain could not have had any relationship to the presence of blood. The successful extraction of ancient DNA from dinosaur fossils has been reported on two separate occasions, but, upon further inspection and peer review, neither of these reports could be confirmed. A more recent study (October 2010) published in PloS One contradicts the conclusion of Kaye and supports Schweitzer's original conclusion[13].

en.wikipedia.org...

I dont have proof of this or anything but when I was in the seventh grade I did a project on such a subject. My father is was an archeologist and paleontologist and was on a dig in south america at one time. He showed me video of a Patagosaurus fossil and 1 1/2 feet under that fossil was Humanoid skeleton. I tried my best to prove that the human fossil was older however I could not. My father and his team thought that a flood might have occured in the area yet no evidence was found. I have tried to find the video but it has become lost with time.That video alone could have altered how long most of think human or humanoid like beings have existed. Great find though op s&f

Originally posted by DJW001

Not necessarily:

Newer research, published in PloS One (30 July 2008), has challenged the claims that the material found is the soft tissue of Tyrannosaurus.

Well since things have been show to fossilize in a few years or less, it's pretty amazing that there was still bacteria living from the soft tissue. And they still are not even 100% sure it was not dinosaurs blood, they just said they think it's bacteria.

www.angelfire.com...

And furthermore, the final quote says, "A more recent study (October 2010) published in PloS One contradicts the conclusion of Kaye and supports Schweitzer's original conclusion" in your link.

Finally, they They "found similar spheres in a variety of other fossils from various periods". If they could prove it was bacteria, they should have a match outside of other dinosaur bones. All this proves is that more live tissue was found in other bones! niiiiicccceee!

Originally posted by Stovokor
How in the hell did such a silly topic get 40 pages of discussion???

How did someone starting a thread about the flinstones get so many flags??

Geeze.

I hear you, And sadly my IQ must be getting lower because I have added. I think truly people believe this crap because as a result of not being amazed at the true world they need something else.