Evidence for the Co-Existence of Humans and Dinosaurs

originally posted by: yorkshirelad

originally posted by: buddha
Great post.
I have belied this for a long time.
dragons from England to Japan!
how can they have not been real.

and the old maps had sea monsters in some places.
look at the old maps. they are Not whales.

humans LOVE to kill.
that's why we don't have dragons and unicorns.
look at the tiger! we have almost killed them all.
we still may.

And there are maps that show the earth supported by 4 giant elephants standing on the back of a giant tortoise after all how else does a flat earth support itself.

Jesus H! I just came here for 10 minutes during the half time world cup break and denial of science and sheer unadulterated ignorance is in full flow in this thread. Literally thousands of years of human knowledge rolled back in the ignorant internet age of the 21st century.

For all you folks having orgasms over the thought of an image being true but modern science being wrong try these :

The minotaur, Greece, half man half bull.
The Hydra, greece, a nine headed serpent.
The unicorn, a horse with a single horn.
The werewolf, human by day wolf by night.
The mermaid, half fish half human.

Come on these are all embedded in similar texts to the dragons, so they must all be true and science is wrong.

Who says they were not here? Do you have proof they were in fact not?

originally posted by: Gemwolf
While my mind is wide open to the idea of strange and wonderful creatures living secretly in jungles, in the oceans and rivers and even close to humans, I'm having a hard time calling them dinosaurs. Sure, there might still be dinosaurs of the reptile kind that survived throughout the ages. Not outside the realms of reality... But dinosaurs living side-by-side with humans ala Jurassic Park - not likely. It is up for debate though.

The biggest issue I have is using "ancient art" as proof of anything. Anyone with more than two brain cells they can rub together knows you don't believe everything you see on the Internet presented as "proof"...

The same goes for ancient art and artifacts. You don't always know the context, purpose or history of an item or image. If we were to take ancient art as proof of anything, then we'll have to consider other manuscripts as well.

Like the Codex Gigas with a real depiction of the devil...

Or that gazelles and lions played chess in ancient Egypt as per the so-called "Satirical Papyrus".

Perhaps someone's mother-in-law from the Voynich manuscript?

Perhaps my favorite of them all - the Smithfield Decretals:
Showing a time when brave knights defended the kingdom against giant snails...

And homicidal giant rabbits were a real problem...

Perhaps in 400 years' time someone will make a thread on ATS using images from Codex Seraphinus as evidence that little umbrella people existed?

And so on, I'm sure the point has been made.

We just don't know the background of the images used as "evidence". Perhaps the person was a terrible artist? Anyone with a 5 y.o. child can tell you it's often a challenge to identify the subject of the latest crayon art work. Is it a chicken? Is it a dog being frisky with a hedgehog? Or did the child see a monstrous creature with his sixth sense?
Ask someone with no artistic capabilities to draw a lion. Quite entertaining and easily mistaken for a tyrannosaurus rex. Not to forget that back in the day certain mind altering substances were not as regulated and used regularly. Perhaps a the artist drew/carved when they were a bit "out of it"?
And I think it is safe to say that imagination is not a modern invention...

So, to point to an image that's 3,000 years old that looks like a stegosaurus if you tilt your head and squint and call it evidence...
It would be fantastic if 40,000 years ago there existed a Flinstonesque society, but if you've watched Jurassic Park - fiction, yes, but still a hypothetical scenario - you'll understand that if dinosaurs and humans lived together, it would've been unlikely that humans ended up at the top of the food chain.
(Then there's the "fact" that not all those dinosaurs existed the same ages, i.e. Ankylosaurus and Tyrannosaurus lived in the Cretaceous Period, Stegosaurus in the late Jurassic, Protoceratops in the early Cretaceous and Brachiosaurus in the Oxfordian to Tithonian. Yeah, that's right Steven Spielberg, most of your Jurassic Park dinos didn't even exist in the Jurassic era!)

That being said, there is a lot that can be said about dragons, the fact that they occur worldwide in (supposed) mythology, in various forms and in various societies throughout history. If they existed (or still do?

) my personal opinion would be that they are not related to dinosaurs. (Reminds me of a thread I made over a decade ago about Da Vinci's Dragons. Sadly some of those images are lost - and apparently nowhere to be found anymore...)

Fascinating topic to ponder, but I wouldn't use the word evidence.

All of your examples of counter are fail. They are caricatures used in medieval times to describe life. Has nothing to do with anything. The paintings and sculptures were made for actual reasons and historic documentation, especially the ones in the caves.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Awesome.
Can you show me the rate of c14 has been in constant throughout history, not the rate of decay but the rate it has been in supply, scientific evidence please
You say common sense is science, sorry, science is repetable observable and testable.
Many things in the natural world defy common sense, hence some very strange theories
You sound like you know what you are talking about but you clearly don't

But I digress, prove c14 has been in a steady state with scientific evidence, simple
Outside evidence and common sense won't cut it, you rely on faith and show your hypocrisy

a reply to: Gemwolf

The giant snails and rabbits are a very legitimate political analogy from that time
Beyond your education obviously, thats sad
The meaning is lost to you
All you have done is shown your ignorance

originally posted by: yorkshirelad
Come on folks.....Im pretty sure people beyond a couple of hundred years ago had no concept of Earth ages in the hundreds of millions of years. Let's face it the bible has an Earth age of 6500 years and there are western educated people who believe this tody here on ATS.....OMG!

There are also people who believe in flat earth, telepathy, and a lot of things.

And the Bible doesn't say the Earth is 6500 years old...
"OMG! Yorkshire actually BELIEVED something that was UNTRUE! OMG! A human being who isn't perfect, OMG!"

That's you. That's what you sound like trying to make a point.

Oh I forgot to add in a very articulate and intelligent sounding "DUH!" at the end...


You act as if nobidy here considered this. You found one possibility out of many, congratulations.

So, how is this a rejection of modern science? Modern science doesn't have your dogmatic beliefs that "There can never be dinos after 65mya". That's a doctrine. That's not science. You are the one adhering to a cult like belief when the truth is that science is revised CONSTANTLY.

Everyone here is merely asking "what if?"

And you are saying "Noooo!! Stop asking questions!! You guys I already KNOW the answer! No need to go do your own research, just, STOP meddling around and searching for clues dammit! THIS is how science is done: You just believe what I say, and shut your trap! Science is a never changing thing! Once a fact is established, THAT IT. You don't go tinkering around with it! That's not SCIENCE! Challenging your assumptions??? What the heck IS that bullcrap? Rule number one in science is Never challenge your assumptions!"

I think we know who the real enemy to science is, it's the one speaking in absolutes...

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Gemwolf

The giant snails and rabbits are a very legitimate political analogy from that time
Beyond your education obviously, thats sad
The meaning is lost to you
All you have done is shown your ignorance

I think he meant if someone found them and didn't understand the idioms or parlance of the time and could Misunderstand them. I am quite confident that Gemwolf fully understood the political commentary. He merely did not transfer that understanding to his hypothetical future archeologist in the year "several thousand".

However, it is not a guarantee that they would not understand it in the future. They may understand our own times better than we do now, in some ways. Just as, in some ways, we understand the medieval era better than most people alive then. And in some ways we are clueless.

a reply to: cooperton

Thanks for this thread I greatly appreciate refreshing content.

I have my doubts dinosaurs (as we know them) and early humans coexisted. With that said, I am open to the idea of early humans seeing the fossils of dinosaurs and making the assumption they were contemporary creatures. I am open to the idea of humans being humans far longer than we accept today (180k-200k years). In that time, who knows what animals they ran into.

Most of the human history Swiss Cheese and Earth history for matter, is more holes than cheese. Makes life interesting.

a reply to: 3n19m470

Valid point....

I'm about half way capable of accepting a few dinosaurs could have lived until early man found them. But they wouldn't have survived much longer than the wooly mammoth did.

Giants need giant amounts of food.

originally posted by: AndyFromMichigan
I've heard theories that dragon myths come from ancient people encountering dinosaur bones, but that really doesn't seem plausible at all. We never find entire dinosaur skeletons just lying around. They need to be painstakingly excavated and re-assembled, and even then there's a ton of guesswork involved in figuring out what the dinosaur looked like. Does anybody seriously think that ancient Anglo-Saxon or Siberian tribesmen conducted the careful paleontological work required to assemble dinosaur bones to the point where it actually looks like something more than a few random bone fragments?

They didn't need to find a whole skeleton, just enough to get their imagination going.

Finding a head of one of the toothy dinosaurs, and a few other bones would give them the whole "Giant", and "Cross between bird and lizard". The teeth would make it lizard like. The hollow bones would suggest a bird. (These people would have hunted, killed, and gutted enough animal corpses in their lifetimes to know only birds have hollow bones.)

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Astrocyte

Awesome.
Can you show me the rate of c14 has been in constant throughout history, not the rate of decay but the rate it has been in supply, scientific evidence please
You say common sense is science, sorry, science is repetable observable and testable.
Many things in the natural world defy common sense, hence some very strange theories
You sound like you know what you are talking about but you clearly don't

But I digress, prove c14 has been in a steady state with scientific evidence, simple
Outside evidence and common sense won't cut it, you rely on faith and show your hypocrisy

He did seem to completely misunderstand that point. It bears upon the many things tested with C14 to date.

However with dinosaurs the issue is different altogether. The reason no one has dated them until now because they are supposed to be millions of years old. Carbon 14 is only good to measure things up to 60,000 years. After millions of years, all C14 should be decayed and give no reading at all. The same goes for claims of soft tissue like collagen. After millions of years it should not be there.

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Astrocyte

Awesome.
Can you show me the rate of c14 has been in constant throughout history, not the rate of decay but the rate it has been in supply, scientific evidence please
You say common sense is science, sorry, science is repetable observable and testable.
Many things in the natural world defy common sense, hence some very strange theories
You sound like you know what you are talking about but you clearly don't

But I digress, prove c14 has been in a steady state with scientific evidence, simple
Outside evidence and common sense won't cut it, you rely on faith and show your hypocrisy

He did seem to completely misunderstand that point. It bears upon the many things tested with C14 to date.

However with dinosaurs the issue is different altogether. The reason no one has dated them until now because they are supposed to be millions of years old. Carbon 14 is only good to measure things up to 60,000 years. After millions of years, all C14 should be decayed and give no reading at all. The same goes for claims of soft tissue like collagen. After millions of years it should not be there.

I guess my issue was the scientific evidence that was claimed was common sense, unfortunately when it comes to the natural world, many things do not operate the way they should

As for c14, collagen, yes there are a few questions that certainly operate beyond reason I agree
I have read reports of living snails c14 dated at thousands of years old

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: toms54

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Astrocyte

Awesome.
Can you show me the rate of c14 has been in constant throughout history, not the rate of decay but the rate it has been in supply, scientific evidence please
You say common sense is science, sorry, science is repetable observable and testable.
Many things in the natural world defy common sense, hence some very strange theories
You sound like you know what you are talking about but you clearly don't

But I digress, prove c14 has been in a steady state with scientific evidence, simple
Outside evidence and common sense won't cut it, you rely on faith and show your hypocrisy

He did seem to completely misunderstand that point. It bears upon the many things tested with C14 to date.

However with dinosaurs the issue is different altogether. The reason no one has dated them until now because they are supposed to be millions of years old. Carbon 14 is only good to measure things up to 60,000 years. After millions of years, all C14 should be decayed and give no reading at all. The same goes for claims of soft tissue like collagen. After millions of years it should not be there.

I guess my issue was the scientific evidence that was claimed was common sense, unfortunately when it comes to the natural world, many things do not operate the way they should

As for c14, collagen, yes there are a few questions that certainly operate beyond reason I agree
I have read reports of living snails c14 dated at thousands of years old

I just googled "living snails c14 dated at thousands of years old." Very interesting. They say the snails themselves weren't tested, only their shells. The snail lived a pool formed from a limestone sinkhole. The water contained calcium carbonate that the snails used to build their shells. This "old" carbon from the limestone in the water is what gave the shell a 2000 year old reading.

Now I wonder if something like that could happen to a dinosaur bone. It would have to be in contact with limestone and fossilized only recently. Maybe a fossil can remineralize in the right setting to give false results.

originally posted by: Butterfinger

I'm not tryting to debunk you guys, Im just of a different opinion.

I was trying to be sarcastic.

This was a good example that people see what they want to see. In this cast they see a dino, so of course dinos walked among man...

Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence.

There.....I said it.

a reply to: CaptainBeno

Want to buy a unicorn horn?

a reply to: Phage

Mmmm Gullible I may be. Stupid I ain't.

I know lightning exists, but I've never seen someone struck

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: CaptainBeno

Want to buy a unicorn horn?

Are you cheaper the e bay?

a reply to: Phage

Yes, be happy if that unicorn is a rhinoceros and you are offering it at a reasonable price
Unless you think the only unicorns are supposed to be horses

Bit silly of me to be arrogant and smarmy, I do apologise

I think the very simple fact is this - and it's often overlooked:

If man and dinosaur were separated by 65 million years, as current evolutionary theory suggests, they should never have entered into our consciousness until we encountered them in the fossil record in the 19th Century. The existence of references to such creatures in antiquity - even accounting for significant exaggeration - thus presents itself as compelling evidence that the current paradigm is in error.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Yes, be happy if that unicorn is a rhinoceros and you are offering it at a reasonable price

Sorry, no. I don't deal in contraband.