It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Did Man and Dinosaures co-exist?

page: 1
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 03:06 AM
Do not be too quick to answer.

Its a major difference between long age evolution and young earth creation.

I ask it here because of all the circumstantial evidence that says they did. This comes in the form of legends, myths, artwork.

Here is one example

If they did not do you explain stuff like that?

There are other sites with more artwork. Feel free to add them.

The art by itself is pretty strong...but the cultures it comes from usually has a legend or two , to go with it.

posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 05:26 AM

Originally posted by jake1997
If they did not do you explain stuff like that?

The same way modern humans estimate what they looked like.. they also found fossils.. this no doubt fuelled many dragon mythologies.. and there are also animals that exist today that may look like dinosaurs to some [crocs for example].
Many of those pictures also bare a resemblence to other animals as well.. jugons [sp], seals, eels, snakes, cavies, elephants, hippoes, komono dragons, salamandas and especially scorpians [the long 'tail' and necks].

This example interests me though:

The notsoclose unaltered version of this picture doesn't look like anything.. but if I wanted I could draw a kangaroo over the top. It has been interprited to fit as have many of the others.

..a tortoise.

Given this compelling evidence.. human evolution must now be reviewed:

[edit on 20-7-2005 by riley]

posted on Jul, 20 2005 @ 07:39 AM
...or maybe some dinosaurs managed to survive what killed them, and cave man encountered the creatures that survived....just a theory though.

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 02:58 PM

Originally posted by jake1997
If they did not do you explain stuff like that?

There really isn't much to explain.

This doesn't look like anything, and certainly you wouldn't need to have seen a dinosaur in order to come up with it.

The 'reconstruction' that is associated with this is completely interpretive and looks far more like its supposed to be two bison or bulls or elephants or whatever head to head than a T-rex and a T-rex sized elephant or whatever.

These things look like giant birds with their hooked beaks and skin projections more so than actual dinosaurs. Also, the author is claiming that they are a Corythosaurs, what Corythosaurs have ever been found in sumatra? The arguement is that the drawings are 'accurate' enough to be the result of eye-witness, but there are no corthyosaur fossils on sumatra. Also when was this particular item made?

This is a big fish. The author suggests it 'appears to be a mososaur'. It does not.

This is clearly a crocodile, looks similar to a gavial.

The page also cites the Ica stones and other admited frauds in their 'evidences'. The other "evidences" are really nothing more than fantastical looking creatures and monsters, some of which resemble dinosaurs.

The most surprising one is this one, imo

Adrien Mayor, in her book the First Fossil Hunters, cites this item, and indeed its the cover of the hardcover edition. its supposed to show a hero attacking a monster that is emerging out of a rock, associated with a myth of the same theme.

In color, which the authors have for some reason chose not to use, the thing is clearly a white skull, and it even hase black holes in it that are somewhat analagous to the holes and openings that are normally in skulls. What Mayor hypothesises is that ancient man, on occasion, came across fossils that were weathering out of the rocks. And that these fossils inspired many of the mythical creatures that inhabit legends and tales from those times. They'd find the gigantic and very human like shoulder blade and thigh bones of mega-elephants, and think that they were from the Titans that used to inhabit the earth. Indeed, locations that are now known to be highly fossiliferous are strongly associated with being the actual earthly localities of these gods, monsters, etc.
This sort of thing might actually be an explanation of the biblical nephilim and the idea that 'there were giants in those days".
The legend of the griffin, as a four-pawed animals with wings and a beak that inhabits the ground and protects gold and diamonds, appears to have first come out of what's now the asian steppes and deserts, which, indeed, are the localities in which one finds the 'fresh' looking (but rock hard fossils) of ceratopsids, with their egg clutches, four paws, sharp curved beaks, and large crested projections. The formations that have the fossils are also associated with washed out gold deposits.

So there's really no reason to assume that, because it looks like a 'dinosaur' (where are the raptors? the dino-birds, the ankylosaurs, etc etc?) that that means that the people that made it ever saw dinosaurs (excluding of course the ones that are admited frauds which did see dinosaurs, in musuems and artbooks) anymore than it means that there were flying fire-breathing dragons, unicorns, griffins, or the greek gods or anything.

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 07:33 PM
Thanks for taking the time to give your take on those items.

Please do not stop with the items you have addressed thus far Riley, and Nigdan.

Please continue.

posted on Jul, 21 2005 @ 08:47 PM

The ones like this are the only ones that I find to be really interesting. But even they look too be the results of imagination and the like. THe egyptians certainly had lots of weird animals in their arts, I don't see why we should beleive that Horus or the spyhinx was real.

This might've been convincing if I didn't know that the komodo dragon and other monitor lizards didn't used to have a wider range than they do today (being limited to the aptly yclept 'Kommodo Island"). The Kommodo dragon is a relatively long necked 'lizzard' that is at home on land and in water, although it has paws rather than flippers and does not have a neck that long.

However, I don't see why the natives wouldn't be able to imagine something like the above given any experience with kommodo dragons. I also don't think that its interesting that they seemed to have shown the skeletal system and digestive tract of the animal pictured, there's no reason why they wouldn't be familiar with that. Also, is that a person in its belly? Perhaps more than 'proof' of the co-existence of man and dinosaur (excepting of course that the plesiosaur isn't a dinosaur and is infact more closely related to.....kommodo dragons (but not as much as say mosasaurs are)), the really interesting thing might be that this is an example of a religious and cultural archetype, an Aboriginal version of Jonah in the belly of the Whale.

This is pretty neat but I think that ultimately these kinds of things are well explained by ancient man comming into contact with relatively articulated fossils of these organisms, and figuring out that there used to be some really weird monstrosities out there.

Anther big problem for viewing these things as depictions based on eye-witness accounts, is that we simply have other evidence that precludes these organisms being alive beyond the cretacesous or having co-existed with man. Its similar to the arguement against dragons. True, there are stories about dragons all over the world. But there is no phyiscal evidence that they existed, no fossils, no pelts, no skeletons, no corpses or anything, and for a world wide distribution, you need a really large population. Indeed, not too many animals have an actual worldwide distribution. Rodents, some birds, lots of fish of course, and I suppose dogs and Humans, have acheived it, and its required huge numbers (short of animals domesticated by man and brought with him). I mean, its beleivable that say, theres something like the sasquatch in the pacific northwest, there's stories, sightings, and its moderately reasonable to say that we've just been unlucky to have not found any carcases or fossils. But it stretches beleivability to say that the organism is on every continent and every culture has had contact with it, even in 'relatively' recent times (ie ancient times), and yet all that remains are drawings and stories.

This is just compltely ridiculous.

The most remarkable thing about the animal is the clear head crest and the dual piece of skin from the crest. Five digits were clearly visible for each foot, of the proper length and with the first shorter and offset from the rest as is proper for the Scaphognathus.. There is a hint of a wing claw on the far wing where it curves forward. The membraned wings are in front of the legs, on the vertebrae, matching the fossil

It probably has 'accurate' femurs because its made up of parts of actual animals.

external image
is what an actual skeleton of a scaphognathus looks like. I don't know where they got the bit about the crest, and the drawing looks more like it has two horns. It doesn't resemble the drawing in anyway. Its almost certainly a hoax from the 1600s, such hoaxes were common and there was lots of interest in them.

posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 08:08 AM

Originally posted by Nygdan

This is pretty neat but I think that ultimately these kinds of things are well explained by ancient man comming into contact with relatively articulated fossils of these organisms, and figuring out that there used to be some really weird monstrosities out there.

But it's not an ancient painting... it's modern. The colors tell you that. And the artist most certainly did know what a pleisiosaur looked like.

And this 'reinterpreted' rock art. Notice that the 'feet' are a different color than the body and so is the 'neck/head.' That particular image was recarved three times... the first is the old and faded image that's about the same color as the rock, the second is the head and the third is the feet.

That bird-thingy is very very recent. it's the same color as the letter 'e' in that graffiti. In fact, it could be argued that the person who took the photo was the vandal who chipped that image on the stone.

[edit on 22-7-2005 by Indellkoffer]

posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 08:46 AM
Hey guys first post in this section of ats but i have had a huge interest in this field for a while. I think actually the best parts of evidence for this section hasn't even been said. Anyone care to explain the dino footprints with human one right in the middle of em? These are fossilized by the way which means that the human foot would of been placed a lil later inside the dinosaur print and then the fossilization proccess took over. I will look for a link for some pics but i havent seen any so it may be a bit but feel free to comment till then.

posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Canada_EH
Anyone care to explain the dino footprints with human one right in the middle of em?

There are no dino footprints with human tracks in them.

These are fossilized by the way which means that the human foot would of been placed a lil later inside the dinosaur print and then the fossilization proccess took over.

The logic is sound, but the track isn't a man-track. Ichnologists have looked over these sorts of cliams, and man-dinosaur tracks are allways misidentifications of animal tracks (often rather basic misidentifications), or, in the case of some of the paluxy tracks, outright fraud.

But please try to find the particular ones you are thinking of so we can all take a look at them.

posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 11:13 AM
I belive that at one point in time man DID walk with dinosuars as I belive we still are. I'm not saying it's Dinotopia here but, some things survived whatever happend. Look at the icyosuar (armor plate fish thing). Of course the icyosuar isn't a great example caus well you would be swimming with them, but yeah.

I guess the main reason why it hasn't really happend is that there is an awful long time between what happend to the dinosuars. A hell of a lot died, and the only ones that survived are very rare. I doubt there is any "lost world" but I think someday we may find more living dinosuars.

posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:13 PM
What happened to the dinos? The died off 200 million years ago, not 200 years ago. The lack of documentation (written word) proves that dinos did not exist along with man. Loch ness is a myth. All those painting and artwork are myths. Imagination and creation of the human mind. These artworks are not circumstantial proof unoless you tend to believe movies are evidence of aliens.

posted on Jul, 22 2005 @ 09:29 PM
yes, mankind does exist with dinosaurs. To prove that all I need to do is introduce you to my boss. Flesh eating reptilians? Hey, meet my ex wife. I can even show you giant leeches that bleed you enough to not kill you, but barely keep you alive. I even named them. Crystal Rose, Eric Ray and Elizabeth marie. They are my children.

OK, on a more serious note. Dinosaurs died out 63 million years ago. The fossil record proves that. Homo Sapien (us) came along about 100 thousand years ago, give or take 500 thousand years

Did we ever exist with the dinosaurs? To be honest that question is still being debated. The bone structure of birds is very similer to that of the dinosaurs. There are those who are honestly arguing that dinosaurs evolved into birds.

Nothing is trying to eat me right now so i'm happy, as long as I keep that in context. Then again my dating situation is not a part of this conversation.

Did we exist with dinosaurs, do we exist with dinosaurs? Its still very much being debated by academia.


posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 05:05 PM
Thanks for fielding those for me, guys.
Much appreciated

posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 06:22 PM
humans and dinosuars

posted on Jul, 23 2005 @ 07:55 PM
What about the Julsrud Artifacts? (Acambaro)
I believe this has been referenced in other threads, but I couldn't locate the specific post(s), or if they linked this site.

In 1945 Waldemar Julsrud, a German immigrant and knowledgeable archeologist, discovered clay figurines buried at the foot of El Toro Mountain on the outskirts of Acambaro, Guanajuato, Mexico. Eventually over 33,000 ceramic figurines were found near El Toro as well as Chivo Mountain on the other side of town. Similar artifacts found in the area are identified with the Pre-classical Chupicuaro Culture (800 BC to 200 AD).

The authenticity of Julsrud find was challenged because the huge collection included dinosaurs. Many archeologists believe dinosaurs have been extinct for the past 65 million years and man knowledge of them has been limited to the past 200 years. If this is true, man could not possibly have seen and modeled them 2,500 years ago.

posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 01:38 AM
and what about the ica stones...many of the stones show dinosaurs and humans together.

posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 04:47 AM
I heard of the discovery from Mexico and Ive seen some of the Ica stones.

I only wanted to see how people would explain these things away. I was not offering them as proof because anything that does not match up to current accepted beliefs is 'false'.

There is much that does not match up however...and some can be found in the lost civilizations forum

posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Frosty
What happened to the dinos? The died off 200 million years ago,

65 mya.

and what about the ica stones...many of the stones show dinosaurs and humans together.

We actually addressed the ica stone hoax upthread. They were hoaxes, people even admited to making them and selling them to credulous tourists and 'researchers'.

posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 01:47 PM
Uh, 65million years ago.... Wait, christians think the Earth is 6,000 years old.

Ok, well, when.... wait, god never made dinosaurs, and christians believe that they were either placed by god to test the faith or placed by satan for whatever reason.

But if you are talking to a smart person, NO!!!!! No dinosaurs and humans together. Do you really think us flesh bags would have lived if you had Raptors, T-Rex, Spinosaur, Acrocarnothus, and other carnivores living with us?

posted on Jul, 25 2005 @ 02:32 PM
where is the proof that dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago?

top topics

<<   2  3  4 >>

log in