Did Ancient Humans Coexisted with Dinosaurs?

a reply to: coomba98

You do understand that when no difference is found other than size there is no way to know that it's the distinct animal right?

It's a contrived conclusion that Megalodon is different than great white.

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

'The main contention was that the structure and growth patterns of Megalodon teeth and Great White Shark teeth are vastly different. They began to notice that the teeth of the Great White Shark are much more similar to another large, extinct shark, Isurus hastalis, commonly known as the Broad-Toothed Mako. The obvious difference being the lack of serrations in Isurus, but the serrations are also vastly different between Megalodon and Great White Teeth.

If you lay a Great White tooth of similar tooth position and growth stage of the Broad-Toothed Mako the two are almost an exact match. Well, except for the lack of serrations in Isurus. In cases where the serrations have been worn away on fossil Great White teeth, the teeth of the two species are nearly impossible to tell apart.'

Source: www.megalodonswag.com...

...

Mic drop!

Coomba98

a reply to: Raggedyman

Does this count?

geology.com...

When you back fundamentalist into a corner they run away with their tails between their legs, and the Masters reign supreme.

Mwahahaha.

Master Coomba

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: peter vlar

Let me see if I understand you

I have not seen any evidence of a geological time scale, none, not in the real world or text books
So, now you want me to prove what there is no evidence for is wrong

That's like saying I have an invisible glass of water, prove I don't have an invisible glass of water

Now, if you have evidence, post it up and finish the argument

I don't believe in Gravity, it doesn't exist, I see no evidence for gravity

If you believe there is zero evidence of the efficacy of rgenfeologic time scale, then it should be quite simple for you to explain why specific aspects of the theories supporting supporting fundamental basics in geology are definitively incorrect. No even made it easy dor tou and Facebook you a specific example to demonstrate your own scientific mind at work. The law of Superposition. Tell me why it is wrong and why the evidence evidence that is not valid. Base your answer on the actual science and not your usual tripe retort to a poster you dislike. This is finally you're shor to show big men outta like me just how much better you understand the science by breaking it down and showing the errors just like when we show our work to other members of our own fields fields. It should ne a simple task for you as you have pointed out many times the scientific inadequacies of members like myself, noinden and phantom and on and on.

I gave you a very simple and commonly taught aspect of geological formations thst a any 101 level Geo or Anthro student would learnin about. Google scholar has all of the open source reviewed literature available and someone as keen as you who doesn't fall for scientific trickery should have no problems at all showing what the specific errors are.

But you wouldn't do that. You rambled on about the age of geologic theories asnif that has any bearing on the topic at hand. (It doesnt). And then toss in your normal straw man routine with the invisible glass analogy. So let's be clear, I'm not talking about what people have posted on here and I've learned my lesson with you. Anytime I post information with proper citations to support it, you stomp and Rand about how you're not going to read a word of it so no... I won't be wasting my time with that. As you point out, the science of geology is over 200 years old. So the amount of data supporting it online is quite prolific. So let's skip the straw men and as hominem attacks and get to it...

Based on Raffedymans exhaustive research, what is wrong with the Law of Superposition? Can you tell anyone or will you continue to balk?

WWII planes found beneath 6000 years of theoretical ice layers,

Human tracks in the same strata as dinosaur tracks,

Dinosaurs being carbon dated to 4,000-40,000 years,

The abundance of ancient dinosaur depictions and descriptions,

You really have to be stubborn to not consider the possibility that our conventional idea of origins is incorrect. You will notice the biased people by their complete disconsideration of the evidence at hand. They will make excuses for their obsolete material-reductionist doctrine and try to bring others to believe their meaningless theory of mutant evolution.

Empirical evidence of dinosaurs living in recent history
ancient dinosaur depictions

originally posted by: cooperton
WWII planes found beneath 6000 years of theoretical ice layers,

Not even close to true and are there any citations aside from anti science YEC/Biblical literalist sites that purport this as truth? Is there a legitimate scientific source that supports this assertion? Never mind, I'll take care of tgatdormyou...

See, the planes in question landed near the coast of Greenland where snow accumulation is upwards of 2m per year (over 6 ft for my fellow Americans). Additionally, they landed at the edge of a glacier and have actually moved more than 2 Km since landing. If you're not following along yet, ice core samples are never taken from a moving glacier BECAUSE of known issuesike this. Ice cores are taken only from stable areas like ice caps. Never a moving glacier. Do you have an iota of evidence that even suggests, let alone explicitly states, that the depth these planes are found at is dated to 6 Ka? For anyone else that wants to know the answer... no.... nonsuxh xores or tears have ever been done to support this assertion.

Human tracks in the same strata as dinosaur tracks,

Are you referring to Paluxy? I have to ask because I find it really ironic that your closing statement referring to stubbornness and bias in the face of information at hand, is really ironic when looking at the absolute lack of detailed information in this post and the blatant generalized statements as if they have any weight or meaning.

So if you're referring to Paluxy and insisting that HSS and dinosaur tracks... what kind of dinosaurs were they? Inkean, were talking about, in your own words

complete disconsideration of the evidence at hand

So if you could please regale us with the evidence that you apparently seem to be far more aware of than any actual Peontologist or Anthropologist, that would
Be great!
For reference purposes-

Dinosaurs being carbon dated to 4,000-40,000 years,

You mean when good, Christian liars broke all bounds of ethical decency and blatantly misrepresented samples? Some of which were illegally obtained? Yeah... that sounds like solid science!!!!

The abundance of ancient dinosaur depictions and descriptions,

Except that what your personal biases want to interpret as dinosaurs dojt actually look like any dinosaurs that ever lived without a lot of stretching the imagination.

You really have to be stubborn to not consider the possibility that our conventional idea of origins is incorrect.

The ironic thing is that the anthropologists, paleontologists etc... are constantly looking at these puzzles from unconventional viewpoints. Otherwise science and the knowledge gleaned from those studies would stagnate and fail to progress. Yet it doesn't. Interesting how that works.

You will notice the biased people by their complete disconsideration of the evidence at hand.

It's true,'you do appear in threadsmlike this and ignore the evidence with frightening regularity with an odd fixation on accepting that you could be wrong. Is it being wrong that bothers you? Or fear of learning something new?

They will make excuses for their obsolete material-reductionist doctrine and try to bring others to believe their meaningless theory of mutant evolution.

Nice way to end with the straw man instead of opening with it. You still haven't provided anything resembling evidence to support your claims. Don't worry, nobody actually expects you to

Empirical evidence of dinosaurs living in recent history
ancient dinosaur depictions


Seriously? These "citations are jokes. What parts actually support your argument? Have you never written a paper, cited and footnoted your work so people can try to make sense of the nonsensical?

originally posted by: cooperton
WWII planes found beneath 6000 years of theoretical ice layers,

Human tracks in the same strata as dinosaur tracks,

Dinosaurs being carbon dated to 4,000-40,000 years,

The abundance of ancient dinosaur depictions and descriptions,

You really have to be stubborn to not consider the possibility that our conventional idea of origins is incorrect. You will notice the biased people by their complete disconsideration of the evidence at hand. They will make excuses for their obsolete material-reductionist doctrine and try to bring others to believe their meaningless theory of mutant evolution.

Empirical evidence of dinosaurs living in recent history
ancient dinosaur depictions

This was my favorite "dinosaurs living with men" photo from your "source"

originally posted by: ColoradoJens

That's funny. Glad we can have a sense of humor.

originally posted by: peter vlar

It's true,'you do appear in threadsmlike this and ignore the evidence with frightening regularity with an odd fixation on accepting that you could be wrong. Is it being wrong that bothers you? Or fear of learning something new?

Nice way to end with the straw man instead of opening with it. You still haven't provided anything resembling evidence to support your claims. Don't worry, nobody actually expects you to

What parts actually support your argument? Have you never written a paper, cited and footnoted your work so people can try to make sense of the nonsensical?

I just don't understand why you're so zealous about defending your belief that you are a mutated ape. Any scientist should be excited when empirical evidence arises that challenges their dogma. But like a bug living underneath a rock you scurry for more darkness when exposed to the light.

The carbon dating of the dinosaur fossils was bogus. There is no carbon in the fossils to date, except in the protective coating to preserve the fossils. The dumb creationists that dishonestly "borrowed" them from the museum to test them didn't account for that. It's called contamination and that's why we let the experts do the science instead of preachers and apologists.

I just don't understand why you're so zealous about defending your belief that you are a mutated ape.

They are defending science, not beliefs. You guys are the ones constantly trying to convince people of young earth creationism and keep trying to project your religion as fact, when it's just a faith based belief. We just call out your BS.

Carl was right; it's becoming a demon-haunted world.

originally posted by: Barcs
The carbon dating of the dinosaur fossils was bogus. There is no carbon in the fossils to date, except in the protective coating to preserve the fossils. The dumb creationists that dishonestly "borrowed" them from the museum to test them didn't account for that. It's called contamination and that's why we let the experts do the science instead of preachers and apologists.

the presence of soft tissue in dinosaur bones should speak for itself. I can empathize with your situation because I once had tunnel vision towards the whole mutant ape theory and defended it vehemently. It just doesn't match with quantum physics, the historical record, and, if you were to suspend your bias momentarily, the fossil record.

They are defending science, not beliefs.

It's not empirically evident, it is reliant on the observation of adaptation with the extrapolation that this can culminate into the diversity of life we see today. Yet these very same adaptation mechanisms require such complexity that it could not have come from random chance. Epigenetic mechanisms are present even in the most simple prokaryotes.

You guys are the ones constantly trying to convince people of young earth creationism and keep trying to project your religion as fact, when it's just a faith based belief. We just call out your BS.

Honestly address the empirical evidence. From your other posts I realize we are not too dissimilar, it really is a shame this matter->consciousness or consciousness->matter debate has to be such a divisive issue. My main concern is that the matter-forming-> consciousness argument (Evolution) leads to a philosophical dead end. Even if it were true there is no purpose in caring about its validity because it implies we are meaningless anyway - further compelling us to be apathetic towards everything, althewhile rendering us lethargic to a further search for a more comprehensive answer regarding our existence in this flesh.

a reply to: ancienthistorian
No. If humans existed at the same time as Dino's then there would have been no humans around today. If your thinking Cavemen, Neanderthals and such having to go out and deal with dinos, who were more massive and even the ones the same size were faster and yes smarter then cave humans were in them stone ages. Or at least from a pure suvirval of the fittest standpoint.

That is what we would call a quick case of death. A pack of velociraptors would likely pull apart a squad of infantryman apart, even today armed with machine guns and bazookas if they were to suddenly meet by accident in the woods somewhere, it would be quite a confrontation. What chance do you think, little hairy meat creatures who would likely die of a cold from one night exposed to the elements have, in a raptor eat raptor world? Most especially when they seem to barely make it in dogy eat dogy world?

Slim to none, ie zero. You know that humans and dinos did not coexist by the simple fact that humans are here. Because if we were to exist at the same time that would not be so. Now mammoths and giant cats like the sabertooth are one thing, that whole world some hundreds of millions of years ago, was a completely nother thing. The two do not coexist at all, they do not even fit in the same mold or picture, just like after humans are gone the next stage will not coexist with this one, etc etc.

So the mystery of this whole dragon thing is not so mysterious, just people letting there imaginations get the better of them, Should you not be glad to live in such a time to have such a great commodity granted to you? If humans were to life even remotely close to that dinotime, you would not have the commodity to even question or entertain such a silly question.

Now as to why are humans here and dinos so totally gone, I suppose that may be considered a mystery. Or at least much more a mystery then the whole Fred Flintstone thing. But not really, just a bizarre set of happenstance.

originally posted by: cooperton
WWII planes found beneath 6000 years of theoretical ice layers,

Human tracks in the same strata as dinosaur tracks,

Dinosaurs being carbon dated to 4,000-40,000 years,

The abundance of ancient dinosaur depictions and descriptions,

You really have to be stubborn to not consider the possibility that our conventional idea of origins is incorrect. You will notice the biased people by their complete disconsideration of the evidence at hand. They will make excuses for their obsolete material-reductionist doctrine and try to bring others to believe their meaningless theory of mutant evolution.

Empirical evidence of dinosaurs living in recent history
ancient dinosaur depictions

. Everything is possible but the probability weighs on the side of overwhelming evidence you would need a lot more evidence to even theorize that these creatures lived along side Humana.

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: cooperton
WWII planes found beneath 6000 years of theoretical ice layers,

Human tracks in the same strata as dinosaur tracks,

Dinosaurs being carbon dated to 4,000-40,000 years,

The abundance of ancient dinosaur depictions and descriptions,

You really have to be stubborn to not consider the possibility that our conventional idea of origins is incorrect. You will notice the biased people by their complete disconsideration of the evidence at hand. They will make excuses for their obsolete material-reductionist doctrine and try to bring others to believe their meaningless theory of mutant evolution.

Empirical evidence of dinosaurs living in recent history
ancient dinosaur depictions

. Everything is possible but the probability weighs on the side of overwhelming evidence you would need a lot more evidence to even theorize that these creatures lived along side Humana. I am not on my computer I will post numbers when I get back. This is simple statistical mathematics

edit on 23-9-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-9-2017 by Phantom423 because: (no reason given)

Another possibility is that aliens abducted a few dinosaurs long ago. Journeyed through space for a really long time, finished their study of them, and then brought them back millions of years later. Just a few of them.


Or maybe we don't understand time and space perfectly yet. Maybe the occasional pocket opens up between very different times and/or dimensions and creatures sometimes step through? Dragons could be a real species living in a parallel dimension, that sometimes arrives here in small numbers? Not enough to form a breeding pool, unfortunately.


I agree, however, that it is quite unlikely for big dinosaurs to have actually survived, in a continual line, generation after generation, into the present (or near past.) They're too big, and food for predators just doesn't exist in the abundances that it once did. They would surely starve. Big crocodiles only survive because their food needs are small compared to their size (being cold blooded, and spending most of their life sitting perfectly still as they wait for prey to come along.)

Three days kayaking the Blackwood and I return to
Still
No empirical evidence for the geological time scale

Not surprised at all

Next....

a reply to: Akragon

So are you saying showing me a picture of a 200 year old artists rendition of what they think might have happened is scientific evidence supporting the geological time scale
Well then I am amused

Yes Ak, that counts, well done.

Is that the school bell, best get back to,class now

a reply to: Raggedyman

what the hell are you talking about?

So are you saying showing me a picture of a 200 year old artists rendition of what they think might have happened is scientific evidence supporting the geological time scale
Well then I am amused

Well... im sure everyone else is amused with your silly rambling

Three days kayaking the Blackwood and I return to
Still
No empirical evidence for the geological time scale

Not surprised at all

See the problem is, just as i've told you many times before...

You're using words you don't actually understand...

words like... Science, and Geology

Geological knowledge isn't 200 years old as you've been insinuating... Its just that little has changed

Rocks don't change... we know generally where substances are found... they're made of the stuff of the universe.. which is chemistry....

another word you don't understand

a reply to: ancienthistorian

If thy didn't co-exist, then who drew them on the cave walls??