Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

Originally posted by Fisherr
The idea of man and dinosaurs living together sounds crazy only if you've been brainwashed into thinking the earth is billions of years old. If the world is as young as the bible says it is (about six thousand years old), then man living with dinosaurs makes perfect sense.

I remember this site.. www.genesispark.com...

Bollocks: If all the animals who ever lived and died died within the last 6,000 years Then why aren't we fairly tripping over fairly "young" (not completly mineralized) fossils at depths relating to 6,000 years of sediment? AND absolutely none any deeper.? If what you quoted is accurate you have merely produced a few anomaly's. Perhaps conditions at that one spot led to the preservation of dna. They did not find"meat" hanging off the bones like last nights chicken dinner in the trash.
Comedy...

reply to post by nyk537


S&F!

I really appreciate you confronting this conundrum and providing information backing up the high probability that dinosaurs and humans were alive at the same time.

I briefly touched upon this idea in another thread recently and, of course, someone was immediately there to make jokes. When will these close minded people learn that humiliating someone for their ideas only causes themselves to look foolish?

Good for you, Op. Stick to your guns!

reply to post by nyk537


Is there any proof for the facts you mention or are they the usual "facts" creationists spew out that are misunderstandings at best or lies at worst?

Originally posted by nyk537
And what makes the "agenda" of an evolutionary scientist any more credible than the "agenda" of a creationist scientist?

Basically evolutionary scientists do their work based on observation and testing and are peer-reviewed whereas the creationist scientists do their work based on 'the bible', a work of fiction, which is an abominable starting point.

Why I asked you to contact the Radiocarbon Laboratory is because you seem to have a very limited and warped understanding of dating methods and they would/might be able to help you understand the processes better. Nothing like going straight to the horse's mouth.

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Hydroman

 

I'm sure they will.

The only difference is that when ancient people were drawing and telling stories of dinosaurs...they supposedly hadn't been discovered yet.

We have knowledge of dinosaurs now that they supposedly didn't. Unless of course they actually saw them.

They also described mermaids, unicorns, pegasi, dwarfs, kobolds, faeries and whatnot quite vividly. I take it they saw those too then?

reply to post by nyk537

I want to start with a story that was originally published in Creation Magazine in September of 2003.

Sounds like a factually accurate, scientifically fair magazine to me.

his should seem odd considering the tomb itself was sealed and decorated over four centuries before such creatures were ever unearthed and identified! Here is a picture of the engraving in question:

So we have an engraving of a four legged animal with a long tail, and the head of the animal, the most important part which would give us more detail and a clear idea of what we're looking at, is completely obscured by the flash of a camera.

An engraving of a four legged animal is pretty much the most distant thing from proof that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. That is a massive assumption to make, there are so many other animals that have four legs and a long tail that humans did coexist with. A crouching tiger/lion/cat/leopard, a hyena, a komodo dragon, I could go on and on. Concluding that a crudely engraved image of a four legged animal is not only a dinosaur, but that it's proof of humans actually living with dinosaurs less than 1,000 years ago is just about the craziest, most illogical assumption that I've ever seen made.

Why is that the only record of dinosaurs from that time? Don't you think massive creatures that are taller than the all humans, weighing several thousands of pounds would get a little more historical attention than a simple etching in a wall in the basement of some tomb? Wouldn't that be catalogued in every historical record of the time? Where is all of the documentation of the biggest creatures on earth living with man?

Or were dinosaurs just a normal thing back then, like you see a deer or the occasional mountain lion in the road in some places nowadays, but back in that time bumping into a 12ft tall, 14,000lb animal eating some grass or charging through the forest and brutally attacking and eating another animal was commonplace?

The next example I would like to show you is another example that brings into question when certain animals were said to exist by evolutionary scholars.

The dinosaurs went extinct buddy, a big meteorite slammed into the Yucutan Peninsula millions of years ago, and that's what caused them to go extinct. If that never happened, sure there would be dinosaurs roaming this area, but the difference is would be man would never have evolved because the mammals wouldn't have a chance to take over.

But no, some etching in the wall debunks all of the fossil records that show a mass extinction of hundreds of different species worldwide, and proves that dinosaurs actually survived and continued to live for millions of years, until there were just a few of them left at the time of mankinds arrival, and we happened to only catch the last remaining dinosaurs in time to etch an image into the wall before they faded out of existence. :shk:

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. [color=limegreen]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!

Another huge assumption. There is some old American Indian name for some weird creatures, and you conclude that rather than them digging up the remains and discovering this for themselves like modern archaeologists, they witnessed living, prehistoric creatures which were thought to be extinct.

Then, apparently just like our mystical dinosaur from above, the paleocaster had just a few hundred left in numbers, and they too became extinct no more than a couple thousand of years ago. It's much more logical to think that they went extinct when the fossil record shows they went extinct, rather than assuming since some Indians have an extremely basic knowldege over some beaver-creatures, creationism actually happened instead of evolution.

It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T-rex bone - the first observaion of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle, and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils.


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

OMG! One weird fossil that contradicts the thousands of other fossils that all say the dinosaurs lived around one time! Proof that the thousands of other fossils are actually false, and God just put them there to confuse us after he created the dinosaurs 5,000 years ago!

Because, you know, back then humans definitely would have been technologically/biologically capable of defending themselves from dinosaurs, but they also wouldn't record anything about these epic creatures in history other than a single etching of some four legged creature on a wall, and an American Indian campfire story about beavers.
:bnghd:

In 2005, excavation teams from the same area in Montana unearthed fossils from a triceratops and a hadrosaur. Based on the findings of the T-rex bone, the teams were compelled to determine if these bones also still contained any remains that had not yet fossilized. Wouldn't you know it, they did! The next move to make was to test these bones for Carbon 14, which would place them less than 100,000 years old. For this test, the industry-recognized Accelerated Mass Spectrometer was was used to test for Carbon 14. Even more, the Geochron Laboratories and the University of Georgie Isotope Center were on hand to examine the results independently. You may not be surprised to learn that both bones yielded positive results for Carbon 14!

According to multiple tests, the triceratops registered an average of 30,890 years old, while the hadrosaur tested to an average of 23,170 years old!

Another fossil that contradicts the thousands of other ones, proof at last!

Just so I'm clear, you believe that these fossils are proof of creationism, and you believe that dinosaurs and man were created at about the same time, right? If that is the case, can you please explain to us evolutionary simpletons exactly why all of the other fossils say that dinosaurs lived at another time, and there is almost nothing in the fossil record other than three fossils that show any species of dinosaurs continuing to live after the Yucutan Peninsula meteorite incident?

In fact I could go on and on for hours, showing you proof that creatonism is false, from geological and astronomical evidence, for example there being fewer craters on Earth than on the Moon even though the Earth is much bigger, having more mass and attracting more meteorite strikes than the Moon, which means that the process of weathering that occurs due to our atmosphere over a process of millions of years erodes them or covers them up, but then that will branch off into 5 pages of off-topic discussion.

The problem with this method for dating the earth is that [color=limegreen]nobody was alive millions or billions of years ago to verify that the rock really did form when we assume it did.

Yep, and nobody was alive to witness when our Sun formed, nobody was alive to witness meteorite impacts on the moon, and nobody was alive to witness God say "let there be light", but the thing is science has evidence backing it, creationism has a book of illogical and clearly unrealistic fairy-tales.

I'll take the word of the evolutionary scientists that you seem to have enjoyed discrediting any day over some dude standing in front a podium telling me that some guy lived in a fish for three days, and all animals lived together at one point because a book that contradicts dozens of other religious books says so.

Originally posted by masterp
Is there any proof for the facts you mention or are they the usual "facts" creationists spew out that are misunderstandings at best or lies at worst?

I never get involved in these threads as they demonstrate the worst of the worst when it comes to vile brain-washed responses. I always find it interesting though when the majority of members on ATS believe in aliens and supernatural events but flee like crazy when anything challenges the multi-billion year slow evolution of man. That seems oddly hypocritical to me.

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Hydroman

 

To make sure that evolution stands as they see it. They have built their careers on evolution, why would they openly embrace something that proves everything they believed in is wrong?

Because if it was so they would be all over it like a rash trying to be the first published authour of a ground-breaking discovery. however, no evidence has been found that would substantiate this, apart from the wishful tthinking of creationists.

reply to post by nyk537

Your now talking about science, so in this matter, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

reply to post by nyk537
i 2 believe that we walked the earth with the dinosaurs . i do not think that the earth is millions of year old !!! i can hardly wait till i get my thread started . if u r a nonbeliever then get a hold of Kent Holvent Creationn Seminars Series i will try to find the links to his web site ..but in these Seminars you will see how the dinosaurs walked beside us and that our world is not as old as they have been lying to us .

reply to post by nyk537

First of all, not to sound like a troll, but seriously - I generally ignore the scientific viewpoint of anyone who doesn't know the difference between 'accept' and 'except'.
Second, your facts are all over the place wrong. Make up your mind. If you're promoting creationist psuedo-science, then you can't believe anything lived 30,000 - 60,000 years ago if the earth was only formed 6,000 years ago.

well, if you want to split heairs, the ceolocanth makes your point technically true, but I think you are really struggling with the idea that dinosaur fossils shoot the idea that the earth is 8,000 years old, which is the age many bible scholars agree on (maybe 6,000 or whatever, but you get the point)

if you are speaking of homo sapien sapien exisiting during the mesozoic era, you are just wrong, plain and simple

if you are speaking of real "iconic" dinosaurs living in the last 8,000 years, you need more proof than poor artwork which could represent anything

reply to post by nyk537

Absolutely. Along with every other kind of animal.

:shk: It's much worse than I thought.

Are you telling me that you not only believe that humans and dinosaurs lived together, but every species of animal on the planet was put on a boat that some old dude built?

How could he even get those animals? Some of them can only live in certain environments, how did Noah account for that? How did he collect two of every species of the millions of species of animals? That is a task that would take thousands of years to accompllish, he couldn't have been that old.

Did he just run into the woods after talking to God with a big butterfly net, catch two of every animal, including the ferocious predators that could effortlessly kill a human, and bring them to his boat and chain them down? Did he catch some dinosaurs as well?

What did he feed the animals? Animals eat other animals, right, so did he also bring along many more animals to feed the animals that he chose to let survive? How big would his boat have to be to fit millions of species of animals? What about the animals that lived on other continents, or species of animals that only live on islands, did Noah do a world tour where he went island/continent hopping and collected two of every species?

I'm sorry if I'm going off-topic, but really dude the things you are endorsing here in this thread are so unrealistic. Do you take the Bible literally, word-for-word? Is that where you get your understanding of the universe and the earth from, some inaccurate book?

Creationism, Noah's Ark, the guy who lived in a fish, people being created from a pile of dirt and a bone and inbreeding humanity into existence from a magical garden, talking snakes, a land of clouds and people with wings, it's not science dude, that book does not reflect reality and trying to twist the timline of Earth that has been determined by many scientific methods because it doesn't fit your view that you developed from a book just isn't going to work.

I applaud nyk537 for posting a topic that gets some great discussion flowing. My only issue seems to be with the small sentence in the original post "I've come to this conclusion through much research and personal reflection."

The problem I have is that once evidence was found...ie. it supports my theory...then it becomes "fact or evidence" in the plus column. Previously accumulated evidence by hundreds of thousands world researchers becomes some fantasy conspiracy for the minus column.

Finally, "personal reflection" is too variable for me and goes hand-in-hand with "I had a fantasy".

That one sentence was the "here's how I got to the end result" and for me, as I mentioned above, there was a mix of supportive-only evidence and essentially a dream sequence of how it all fit together. It just doesn't sell me that there's anything solid underneath the fancy light show.

reply to post by nyk537


So do sea monsters exist because people drew pictures of them on old maps? In your one picture it is clearly a cat carved on the left, maybe the one on the right is another but a little out of proportion (you can only see half of them anyway due to light).

Using hiroglyphs in a tomb as evidence of real creatures is rediculous... because many of the engraving are MYTHICAL creatures... that have to do with MYTHS in their cultures...

spiral beaver holes a stretch... im far to jaded by creationist evidence because its usually forgerys that those "creationists" justify lying because it spreads the gospel.

Im glad you have the courage to talk about your delusions through. thats always a good start. Although it usually means that your willign to justify your beliefs against all evidence that goes against young earth... like all of geology.....

Just promise me you wont kill yourself when you find out the bible is filled with lies and fairy tales.

I like the evidence you posted, but I don't think I agree with the Earth being younger than we're led to believe. If anything I think it may be much older than we're led to believe. Probably by accident, or that the materials and methods aren't available to show that it's much older.

That being said I wouldn't be surprised to find older and older human remains, assuming those remains still exist. I also wouldn't be surprised to find human and dinosaur remains from the same time and relatively near one another.

The future is an exciting place to dream!

reply to post by Sirrurg


LOL well obviously those arent real to him... because its a selective memory.

Why would he remember things that go against his beliefs? or even research things that make his claims look foolish? Its obvious what we have here... the last witherd gasp of a religous ideology.

Until we find the fossils of a chewed up human inside of a petrified dino-turd ill continue believing the original theory.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by Stovokor
The two species that are separated by 65 million years of evolution.

I think some ATS'ers have lost their minds.

You can have your opinions and beliefs, but you can't have your own facts.

Now show me a fossilized stegosaurus with a saddle then I might start to believe In the looney.

Message to everyone: This is what NOT to do. See, what this person did is read the title, and then decide to not only comment without reading the thread, which is possible sometimes but not in this case, but to basically claim that the OP has lost their mind. Really? Wow.

There was excellent evidence presented in the thread. Then the pictures get attacked. Why not figure out how to disprove the claim that carbon dating is flawed, which is the truth. Everyone just accepts carbon dating as fact, when it is extremely flawed...like in the original post, over 3 million years in some cases.

There is plenty of more evidence than was presented in this thread, and I encourage everyone who is interested to check it out. My personal view is that if dinosaurs did in fact co-exist with humans, it would obviously have had to been before writing was invented, or we would have texts describing them.

Humans however have been around many thousands of years before writing developed, so they may have drawn the first pictures of dinosaurs. This would lend credence to the human and dinosaur prints found beside one another in Texas, if they are in fact footprints.

So if early man did co-exist with dinosaurs, my guess would be that there were only a handful of populations left after the extinction of the majority. If this is true, why then they did not increase in number is open to speculation. Could early man have hunted them? I am almost positive they would have if they would have been able to kill them. Were they too big though? Who knows.

Maybe disease started to spread and wipe out the remaining dinos. If they really were still around, everything is open to speculation at this point. The only way to learn more would be for mainstream scientists to look into this topic. Even if the evidence were strong enough, most scientists have based their work on work already accepted as fact, so they are not going to go retest what they already believe. However, there are some scientists who would take up the challenge, but they are few and far between.

I applaud you for the thread OP, although I really feel that you could have included a bit more of the evidence. In my opinion you probably could have gone with the carbon dating angle, having the dinosaur hypothesis be a sub-topic. Either way, it is a good point to bring up.