It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Coexistance of man and dinosaurs

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by phantompatriot
well there were incan paintings that showed them with dinosaurs

Those are not incan, they're the "ica" stones. I've made that minor mistake myself. Anyway, the stones are fraud, apparently most of the people in teh village were making them, and at least one guy confessed to having done so. Also, the stones apparently would 'change' with time, as socieities understanding of dinosaurs changed, so did the 'new' stones that would turn up.


oblivion
how many dinosaur skeletons, and I mean complete ones, have been found and pieced together in the whole world?

"perhaps a half dozen"
www.isgs.uiuc.edu...

it seems like most of the stuff we "know" about prehistoric animals is just assumed

I can understand a criticism like that when its based on at least a weakly supportde hypothesis or even an unreasonable one, such as coloration or some aspects of behabiour. But it woudl be a much bigger assumption to assume, without reason, that dinosaurs didn't live in big populations and didn't live reasonably short lifespans. To have them existing in hundreds over millions of years is pretty unreasonable. I'd think that they'd've gone extinct by mere accidental death if they were in such low numbers. Also, the occurance of teh fossils yeilds a chronological order, not the mishmash of happhazard deaths that one would expect from these super long lived and low population imaginings. Also, dinosaurs, at least some of them, exhibit something like growth rings in their bones, so the long time spans you are talking about are ruled out.




posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dr Love
Personally I don't think that co-existence was possible, though I do think that dinosaurs were made extinct because certain beings wanted to inhabit this planet.

Peace


Thats a interesting theory. I personally think during the 300 million years dinosaurs ruled earth there was a high chance some advanced aliens stopped by at one time or another. It would have been a amazing world to study at the time. A entire planet size zoo filled with endless types of amazing animals.

A part of me wishes that if something like that did happen Aliens might have been able to predict a asteroid strike and save some of those amazing animals before it happened. Perhaps saving dinosaur DNA or even moving some to a teraformed world thus not interfering with earths evolution but still saving these lifeforms.



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Here's a link for anyone interested.

I recall a book that I read in a book several years ago about the discovery of shoeprints, complete with the stitching and all, visible in the sedimentary rock where a set of dinosaur footprints were found.

I forgot the book the name of the book.

Maybe someone on here has got an idea of what I'm talking about.

EDIT: Here's another link: www.youdebate.com...



[edit on 15/2/05 by Intelearthling]



posted on Feb, 15 2005 @ 11:31 PM
link   
The Pauluxy tracks are admited frauds no? Unless you are thinking of the 'footprint with a trilobite fossil', which isn't so much a foot print as a roughly oval shape.

Below is a short page that deals with the paluxy prints
www.talkorigins.org...

Here is another that I am less familiar with, apparently its the 'burdik print' from glen rose, pictured below.
www.talkorigins.org...



posted on Feb, 16 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   
I still think its somehow possible. In paleontology class, my professor was explaining how the accepted theory is that the yucatan peninsula is perhaps where an asteroid or comet impacted with earth circa 65 million years ago. Lets say that happened. according to him (sometimes i fall asleep so i may have heard wrong
, 95% of the earth's creatures were wiped out by this catastrophe. Thats the end of dinosaurs according to science.
But what i dont understand is, how could an entire kingdom of creatures be obliterated at once and only 5% live??? Rather i think they died out more slowly than accepted and perhaps, there may have been a few roaming around thousands of years ago, although there is no fossil record to support this. Coelcanths lived before dinosaurs and are still alive today though
and the ginkgo tree was thought to be extinct as well i believe and theres one on my block now.
There is a swamp the size of florida in zaire that has yet to be explored by "civilized man." the pygmies claim to see a huge lizard and turtles as big as man. ya never know. I know the egyptians talked about flying lizards that only inhabited the oasises that were as big as men.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 09:07 AM
link   
There are several problems with the theory. Dinosaurs would have evolved in to vastly different species as they evolved at a speed similair to us Mammals. If dinosaurs survived the great extinction they most likely would reconquer the world or at least several islands and or continents. Most dinosaur species werent huge.

Thats all i can think of atm.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I am actually of the belief that Man and Dinosaur did indeed exist together.
Think about it, the Coelacanth was thought to have been extinct millions of years ago but are now being found alive today. The Aquarium Tokyo has one on display.
There was a Discovery Channel story last year that stated there may have been wooly mammoths alive as recently as 100 years ago. They had become dwarfed but were genetically the same as the ones that our ancestors hunted.
There are also too many legends as well as pictographs dipicting dinosaurs, so if man had not been around during the time of the dinosaurs, how did the draw them so well? Yes, our ancestors may have found bones (fossils) but, first they would have to have been digging, then put the bones together (correctly). Why then would they make cave drawings depicting themselves as hunting these beasts.
My thoughts would be that if early man had just found bones, they would be more inclined to have worshiped them.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 09:35 AM
link   
Euh giant reptiles doesnt mean dinosaurs. If dinosaurs still existed now in this world dominated by mammals they would be like mammals during the age of dinosaurs small but still out there. Okay birds are dinosaurs but not the classic dinosaur.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Son of the lost maji
95% of the earth's creatures were wiped out by this catastrophe. Thats the end of dinosaurs according to science.
But what i dont understand is, how could an entire kingdom of creatures be obliterated at once and only 5% live???

Let's try that one again, shall we?
95% of the species on Earth were wiped out. But not everything alive was a dinosaur. There were lots of little mammals (some of which preyed on dinos). And you're right; they didn't all drop dead at once. But at 200 million years in the past, it's kind of hard to tell if they all died within a 2 year period or a 2 thousand year period.

Fish did better... and they weren't dinos, either.


I know the egyptians talked about flying lizards that only inhabited the oasises that were as big as men.

Not ancient Egyptians. That's a more modern legend.

And no, there's no evidence that humans and dinos were contemporaries. There's a lot of faked evidence -- and the petroglyphs (I study petroglyphs) of "dinosaurs" are misinterpreted (though some are modern fakes where a person within the last 100 years has defaced the original with markings.)



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Though the dinosaur dino off 65 million years ago was not as bad as the "Great Dying" 250 million years ago. I have to agree with Byrd.

I think if we look closer at some of the cold blooded animals that lived along side dinosaurs we can find a interesting thing. Lets look at Turtles,Crocodiles,Frogs,Salamanders for example.

All live along side the dinosaurs and since they were cold blooded you would think they would be the first to die off in the aftermath of a large asteroid strike. Even more so then the dinosaurs since its looking likely many were infact warm blooded.

But these animals all had a intereting ability in that they can go into a form of suspended animation during the winter. Were I live we have harsh winters yet frogs,salamanders and turtles manage to survive just fine. Alligators have also been shown to do pretty much the same thing though perhaps not as well as frogs and salamanders.

IMO that would be very handy in a nuclear winter caused by a asteroid strike and thats why these animals outlived the dinosaurs.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Actually its starting to look like they all were warm blooded. My evidence? They evolved at the same speed as mammals. They outcompeted the mammals and as clearly shown today warmblooded creatures win from coldblooded creatures.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by tomcat ha
Actually its starting to look like they all were warm blooded. My evidence? They evolved at the same speed as mammals. They outcompeted the mammals and as clearly shown today warmblooded creatures win from coldblooded creatures.


I thought it was still alittle iffy about the Giant Sauropods, since if they were warm blooded they would have to eat like 24 hours a day to just stay alive.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I'm not so sure it's all that far-fetched, though it was likely a small number of dino species if so...

After all, look at the alligator or crocodile...virtually unchanged over all these millions of years...

How about the coelocanth? (sp?) Discovered back in the 70's, also thought to have been extinct around the time of the dinos, yet we found a live specimen!

I think it's a bit premature to close the book altogether on the idea...



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   
We should never close the book completely on anything.

I personally believe in the standard timeline, that is dinosaurs dying off millions of years ago, way before humans.

However, just because of the tons of data that exist to support that, new data could always be found.

Being scientifically minded doesn't mean being close minded.

If evidence came out that all we know about gravity was wrong, I would have to go with it. Same with dinosaurs.

Until some hard evidence shows up, not just loosely interpreted pictographs, humans and dinos never coexisted.



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 02:04 PM
link   
Given the newly discover older human bones

www.newscientist.com...

It might not surprise me if humanoids have met a very FEW remnants of the dino-age that managed to get extinct at a later time....

I am pretty confident we dig up even older human bones. If you follow the theory that the earliest "real" humans must have migrated from the eastern parts of South Africa ((monkeys and intermediate forms date back much further , I think we might dig up some bones at least 210.000 years old..



[edit on 17-2-2005 by Countermeasures]



posted on Feb, 17 2005 @ 02:38 PM
link   
I already started a thread on the news article.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Just waiting to get it approved.
I agree though, 30 years or so ago, Homo Sapiens were thought to be only about 75000 yrs old now they have nearly tripled that.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   
Have you seen a warmblooded animal now which is still like it was millions of years ago? Unless dinosaurs were cold blooded they might have survived till now. Thus the only dinosaurs we will ever see are birds.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   
The human history has so many holes in it that anyone that belives all that crap they put in the books is a damn fool. The problem is western scientist based bullsh... upon bullsh.... and what we have now is a big pile of bull that doesnt make any sense. And scientists that based their whole life on it cant just admit to themselves that its bull, becouse they would be spitting into their own bowl.

We will never know the whole truth, we can only put evidence we got together, but as the evidence mounts, so does the number of possible explanations. What a waste of time!



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:08 AM
link   


But what i dont understand is, how could an entire kingdom of creatures be obliterated at once and only 5% live??? Rather i think they died out more slowly than accepted and perhaps, there may have been a few roaming around thousands of years ago, although there is no fossil record to support this. Coelcanths lived before dinosaurs and are still alive today though


Of course no one really knows what exactly happened to the dinosaurs. However, what is observed currently and what can be observed archeologically is the persistence of 'newer better faster' animals to automatically obliterate less efficient models through competition for limited resources (food, habitat). It's the old adage, mutate, migrate, or die. It's likely that the emergence of a new type of animal, mammals, found and exploited a niche that dinosaurs could not defend against. The mammals were more efficient creatures, eating, reproducing, and surviving better than the dinosaurs. It's hard to imagine rats competing with dinosaurs, but when you figure that 30 - 50% of England's human population was destroyed by plague-carrying rats in the 13th century, you can see the possibilities.

The ceolcanths are examples of animals that did not find themselves in a competitive environment, thus their design is basically eternal as long as factors do not change. It's possible that in remote areas of the world there are more living fossils, like the swamp you mentioned in Zaire.



posted on Feb, 18 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I havent seen an dinosaur competing with mammals. I believe that the Dinosaurs got extinct by: basalt lava reptions( remmants are in Inida) and 2 hits by meteorits. One in yucatan and one somewhere else i forgot where exactly but i think India.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join