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.

 

What was before the dinosaurs??

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 16 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Some folks think evolution, but evolution has gaps in transitional stages. Not that evolution can't happen, but evolution just doesn't seem to explain all the fossils here.

I was thinking actually about the ancient flying machines and then I read it later in the thread. There is much to learn about the universe we live in, seek the truth about life. I wouldn't dump all my faith in evolution as "the" explanation for everything. Don't let the truth be hidden in plain view.

Troy




posted on May, 18 2005 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by blobby
i dont think we are 1st high tech civilisation on this planet casue theres some weird radiatiated cities in India being dug up...

For one thing, since it's the nature of radioactive elements to decay into more stable elements over time (This is the whole premise behind the technique of Radio-Carbon Dating), it merely means that our planet was much more radioactive in its early eras. Doesn't it seem possible that, since those ancient Indians didn't know about radioactives, that they may have simply built their city too close to a natural source of radioactives without knowing it?


Originally posted by blobby
other things why we might not be seeing evidence of past civilisations is maybe its at bottom of Oceans as pole shifts and land masses move and reshape planet, under the ice caps maybe who knows, just cause its not been found to public knowledge...

Good point...After all, we really don't even have our entire planet thoroughly explored yet. There may yet be something out there that hasn't been found yet. However, we can't assume that there still is anything to these theories because we have no facts. Even a theory must have some facts to begin with, otherwise all we have is speculation instead of theories.


Originally posted by Arcanum919
Have we actually ever found anything more than a fragment of DNA, I would think that if we were to see signs of anything like cloning or the like one would have to have a substanial if not complete sample.

Finding a complete sample has been virtually impossible, because DNA sample degrade very quickly...There's more than a few mummies & other preserved corpses that are only a few thousand years old & most of that DNA sampling is degraded too much to be of any use. Think about how diffucult it would be to find Dinosaur DNA since that's been "out of circulation" for over 30 million years!


Originally posted by Arcanum919
The problem with an idea like this is the size of the average dinosaurs brain, while some of them were a moderate size a great many of them were extremely small. The other problem is that descendants of dinosaurs are still around today and it would be odd for all of that higher brain function to have just dissapeared along the evolutionary ladder.

I remember reading an article is Omni magazine a few decades ago that touched on this very idea...Because of the relative smallness of dinosaur brains, it would have taken the past 65 million years for any species of dinosaur to evolve brains large enough to build any kind of civilization. It might have happened if it weren't for the mass extinctions & they have lived to evolve up to the present day...This is just a theory though.


Originally posted by Logical_Psycho
...but there are poems [The Mahabharata and The Ramayana] and scripts written in Indian religion about an ancient war which occured on Earth between 'Gods' that involved weapons of unimaginable chaos.

Yes, I've seen something on this myself, although its been quite a few years since I ran across it...However, it does seem to indicate the precense of aliens during that time. However, there's a lot of difference between the time of that poem & the dinosaurs; Why include a reference like this when it involves such a discrepnency in time?


[edit on 18-5-2005 by MidnightDStroyer]



posted on May, 18 2005 @ 06:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
How do we know there aren't any "pre-dino civilizations"? Easy... civilizations leave traces and the more sophisticated they are, the more traces they leave (mines, garbage dumps, unusual ceramics, lots and lots of indestructable artifacts... no, not the "out of place artifacts" (most of which are artificially hyped to be something else) but you'd have things like obviously manufactured metal showing up amid dinosaur bones or computer chips and things like that.)


Byrd
Is it not fair to say that we haven't found any traces of ancient civilisations yet? Why does it have to be the same tech as we have now? Could it not be civilisations which were more advanced spiritually, or more knowledgeable rather than technologically.
just because we have no proof yet, doesn't mean that none will be found, there are many unexplored places on Earth.
An example....there are no traces of the civilisation that built the Sphinx 12,000 years ago, yet the fact is that it was built by some civilisation around that time. Just because there is no trace, doesn't mean that it built itself!

There are also lots of ancient ruins which cannot be dated or explained.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 01:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

blobby
dont think we are 1st high tech civilisation on this planet casue theres some weird radiatiated cities in India being dug up

No there aren't. Certainly not 'weirdly irradiated'. There's radiation all over the world, naturally, not becuase of some ancient nuke war.


Actually I've been over this in other threads with nuke believers. There is a good chance that Mojeno-Daro (spelling?) is irradiated, since it is very close to an Indian defense lab which works with radiological materials, as well as being withing somelike like 50km of a nuclear testing range.
It was really nothing special though.



posted on May, 28 2005 @ 10:44 PM
link   
OK, come on now Nygdan, I'm not saying your ideas (below) are neccessarily wrong, but you don't offer ANY contrary evidence or point to links that back up your statements. You just contradict the poster. Please be more rigorous.



Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by Baphomet79
Just curious, what evidence do you have against the Flood.

The lack of a global flood layer, and a structure to the geologic column and fossil record that can't be created by a flood, along with the immposiblity of that much water arriving and then leaving.


Leaving the 3 major world religions out of it

No religions, no Flood.


I thought it was all but scientific fact.

The global flood from the bible? Noah's flood?

No, definitly not.


blobby
dont think we are 1st high tech civilisation on this planet casue theres some weird radiatiated cities in India being dug up

No there aren't. Certainly not 'weirdly irradiated'. There's radiation all over the world, naturally, not becuase of some ancient nuke war.


or info thats just should not be there in that century like the star maps of the doggan tribe

The story about the dogon's knowing about sirius and its companion is a falsehood. THey had no idea about it. Some researchers that came upon them interpreted modern knowledge into their primitive art. They did not know about it.


maybe its at bottom of Oceans

Been checked, no contintal crust, no vast civilizations. How'd they get to the bottom of the oceans anyway?

as pole shifts and land masses move and reshape planet,

The crust of the planet is not loose and does not rotate around the planet, thus switching the poles. The magnetic properties of the poles, however, do switch. This has nothing to do with the movement of the crust.

just cause its not been found to public knowledge anyway doesnt mean it might be there waiting to be found

The converse applies also.

there deff some interesting road like and buildings on parts of sea floor that need furthur investigateing.

The bimini 'road' is beach rock. There are examples of it in other parts of the world, the currents wear the pattern in the rocks over time.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 12:08 AM
link   
How about there just having been a civilization on say Mars that came to the Earth either to escape a cataclysm or to purposely seed it. They would at the point they could get here have the technology not to leave traces, especially if they wanted to.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 12:40 AM
link   
Dinosaurs were merely creatures that evolved over millions of year to suit the conditions that Earth suported at the time.

This is what I don't understand from people who believe in a creator. If he only had 6 days...how do the dinosaurs fit in ?

And why create dinosaurs only to abolish them and replace them with other species? Did God just change his mind ?



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 01:40 AM
link   
Why would the dinosaurs interfere with creationism? Maybe there was some larger purpose for the dinosaurs in preparing the earth millions of years later for humans if it was only to create fossil fuels. Maybe it was so there would be fossils around to make people like you question whether or not there was a creator. Maybe its for some reason we can't yet comprehend. Why would you preclude a creator just because they in your mind seem pointless? To do so suggests that you believe yourself to have all possible knowledge on the subject and thats not a position I'm willing to take. I'm just saying that if God has literally eternity to get things the way he wants them why would he rush?



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by jukyu
Why would the dinosaurs interfere with creationism? Maybe there was some larger purpose for the dinosaurs in preparing the earth millions of years later for humans if it was only to create fossil fuels. Maybe it was so there would be fossils around to make people like you question whether or not there was a creator. Maybe its for some reason we can't yet comprehend. Why would you preclude a creator just because they in your mind seem pointless? To do so suggests that you believe yourself to have all possible knowledge on the subject and thats not a position I'm willing to take. I'm just saying that if God has literally eternity to get things the way he wants them why would he rush?


The evidence for evolution is simply stunning.

Evolution=Fact

Speciation (Evolution) HAS been observed in viruses and insects. Given a massive amount of time this proccess clearly can apply to all life.

A belief in a supernatural god who amuses itself providing conumdrums such as the above can never be proved or disproved, however I find the idea of a God who spends it's time providing clues FOR evolution in order to challenge the faith of humans who should somehow realize that god put these items there to test thier faith, humorous at best.

[edit on 29-5-2005 by opensecret1150]



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 04:49 AM
link   
well blooby interesting thought,but there is'nt any evidence well there could and and the goverments are covering it up


and no one can say this is'nt true even a expert can't say it is;nt true because they cannot prove it,and if there was anything befor dinosaurs what would it be? if this world is like 5 million years old (correct me if i am wrong)
what would it be? flintstones





posted on May, 29 2005 @ 09:29 AM
link   
In the whole dinosaurs being placed here to cause the evolution debate I was trying to be comical or I didn't know what I was doing since it was 3am at the time I believe lol. But still, natural selection and evolution within species is something that has been observed, yes. Anything beyond that is still quite in the range of theory. That being said, I still see no conflict. God creates the Universe and the laws that govern it knowing that everything will come together just the right way to bring us to where we are today. Why is it hard to believe that evolution wouldn't just be a tool in that process? I mean, how is it that through random mutation and genetic diversity that something as incredible as an eye occurs?

BTW, sorry didn't mean to hijack the thread from its original train of thought. But, I agree with the others that a pre-dinosaur civilization originating on earth is highly unlikely but I did have a thought. What if a civilization did become advanced on the Earth to a high level. It seems the more advanced we get the more converned we become with the environment. What if that civilization became so advanced they were able to completely fix any strip mining, other harmful things they had done to the Earth and replaced it with some sort of biodegradable technology that would have disappeared after say, 100,000 years. Just the only way I see it happening without jumping to something like a huge continent shift. Maybe I've just been watching too much star gate lol.

[edit on 29-5-2005 by jukyu]



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 09:37 AM
link   
What was before the dinosaurs??

Slimey bottom dwelling scum-suckers lurked in the primordial ooze.
They can still be found today across the world and are known as "Politicians"



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 12:33 PM
link   
Open secret: You say that Nygdan contradicted a poster without evidence, then you posted a series of his quotes which contained sound arguments regarding the lack of evidence for a flood. For his position, this is evidence. The reason is that there is rarely physical evidence of a negative. You can have a picture of somebody killing somebody and prove their guilt, but it's a lot harder to get a photo of somebody -not- killing somebody for his defense. So to prove a negative it is often necessary to argue the lack of evidence and lack of logical support for the affirmative. Nygdan did this pretty well with his mention of flood layers. He also points out that beyond belief in religions, there is no reason to believe in a global flood.
If Nygdan's points are not answered by a creationist who can demonstrate either that there IS evidence of some sort for the flood, or that there would not necessarily be evidence of the type Nygdan suggests, then the issue is basically settled and the creationists have lost.

Out of curiousity, what would we have to post to meet your definition of evidence Opensecret?

About the flood layers:
If there were a global flood, there would presumably be a layer of soil around the world which had quite clearly been innundated. I'm no geologist, but I assume that layer would contain interesting things such as sediment deposits, extremely large fossil deposits with a bit of aquatic life mixed among land animals, etc. There would also presumably be a layer in the icecaps (assuming that they didn't do substantial melting at some point since the flood) which showed MASSIVE growth in a short time.



posted on May, 29 2005 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I have to agree with Byrd on this one. The first life-forms on Earth were blobs of jelly floating on the sea which developed into
amphibians->Reptiles->mammals and dinosaurs and stuff. Although there may have been a civilisation on Mars....................................



posted on May, 30 2005 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by cosmokatt7
Interesting thought.... but why would they have created these creatures..?

Just because (hypothetically) they could...?

They were able to retract DNA from fossiles of dinosaurs, because they came before the hight-tech civilization too!

Back in those days, it was called Jirrusac Pirk!



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 12:37 AM
link   
I agree that evolution and creation could coexist, and there possible to be no conflict. But, the thing is, evolution is totally impossible to exist without creation in the beginning. This is where a pure evolutionist will allways fail when he says "evolution is all." I could possibly disprove evolution, but creation cannot be disproven, because you will allways come back to something like "what created it in the first place." Without some conscious creating force to begin with I seriously doubt pond scum would have ever developed into intellegence. I'd say the odds of that sort of thing happening are pretty close to zero, or some number with a lot of zeros in it. My two cents.

Now, did evolution happen here? I question it, at least in the sense of many popular evolutionary beliefs. With all the evidence I'm not sure.

Troy

[edit on 31-5-2005 by cybertroy]

[edit on 31-5-2005 by cybertroy]



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
Open secret: You say that Nygdan contradicted a poster without evidence, then you posted a series of his quotes which contained sound arguments regarding the lack of evidence for a flood. For his position, this is evidence. The reason is that there is rarely physical evidence of a negative. You can have a picture of somebody killing somebody and prove their guilt, but it's a lot harder to get a photo of somebody -not- killing somebody for his defense. So to prove a negative it is often necessary to argue the lack of evidence and lack of logical support for the affirmative. Nygdan did this pretty well with his mention of flood layers. He also points out that beyond belief in religions, there is no reason to believe in a global flood.


You are incorrect. Nygdan has posted a series of statements such as "The lack of a global flood layer, and a structure to the geologic column and fossil record that can't be created by a flood, along with the immposiblity of that much water arriving and then leaving." While you may believe this to be true, and I am not arguing that it is not, I would like to know where this information comes from. To meet my definintion of evidence, I would need to see the source of the information, that is all.

For instance



HERE

is a link to a page with multiple references which makes many of Nygdan's points.

and

HERE

is a link to a wikpedia page about prehistoric floods with a link in the page to flood myths.

[edit on 31-5-2005 by opensecret1150]



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 12:58 PM
link   

cybertroy
I could possibly disprove evolution, but creation cannot be disproven, because you will allways come back to something like "what created it in the first place."

This is the problem tho, nothing can disprove that god created everything, because science can't answer 'why is there something instead of nothing'. Thats a metaphysical question. No matter how detailed and how far back in history science can go, wether its down to quarks and strings or the 'big bang', there's allways the question of 'why that?'. Its similar to the 'god of the gaps' arguement, that whatever science doesn't understand, well god must be responsible for that part.



posted on May, 31 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   
There is alot of evidence proving and disproving the flood which wipped out everyone and everything. You also have to realize that who documented this occurence were residence in and around the Black Sea when, after thousands of years, a small wall broke between the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea completely devostating this area....THIS WAS THE WORLD TO THESE PEOPLE. And that is how they would have described it.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 12:06 AM
link   
If I am to believe the evidence, I have seen pictures of underwater pyramids. It's not unbelievable to me that something could have come before the dinosaurs, maybe or maybe not here on earth, but elsewhere as well. The story of this planet is only one story in this universe.

This universe has plenty to reveal.

Troy







 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join