Living Dinosaur

page: 4
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   





www.genesispark.com...

So you are seriously telling me that those pictures above aren’t carved into the side of caves or rocks. The site even says they are apart of some national park thingy at natural bridge.if you cant see that they are carved maybe you should get your eyes checked. And yea i am still in school, but they point i was trying t make was that early humans(like lucy) were denied of true authenticity by many religions. So according to some people that would be a hoax.


[edit on 23-2-2006 by spaceman16]

[edit on 23-2-2006 by spaceman16]




posted on Feb, 23 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   
Yes, some people om religion do deny our evolution from early man. They also don't understand evolution all that well either. That link in my other post however, for the upteenth time, is not a carving and or drawing of anything. My eye's are quiet fine tyvm.

I also took the liberty to check out a few more pic's on that site. Well, one isn't even a dino carcass as they claim it is. I'm sure the oldbie's on this site will recognize the pic right away.



The case for loch ness monster ... He doesn't exist. They've been going over that itty bitty lake for decade's now. Not one trace of any giant sea monster there. Some so called evidence's for him were nothing more then hoax's and other's were found to be something more mundane and very explainable. Scientist's would LOVE to have a living dinosaur specimen to study! Too bad most went extinct 65ish mil years ago. I noticed the site also list's off some living fossil's too. Alot of what I've seen on that site though is nothing more then trying to claim that some hoax's weren't hoax's. Trying to still pass it off as the real deal. Talk about gullible.

My advice to you kiddo... Stay in school and PAY ATTENTION. Best bet would STAY OFFLINE. Your obviously not getting much of an education going to those site's and if you dare bring any of this to your science teacher he'd most likely flunk you in a heartbeat. I know I would.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   
You know what, your right, well at least part right. Maybe dinos and humans didn’t walk the earth tighter. I honestly can’t tell you because I wasn’t around. Science proves that Humans and dinos didn’t walk around riding each others backs, etc, etc. BUT! Science in all its great glory may not have found all the earliest human remains. At a time science thought that the Australopithecus africanus was the earliest “humans” but not until 1973 did science know better. Donald C. Johanson and a small team of scientists discovered the Australopithecus afarensis or Lucy. So what makes everyone so comfortable saying that Lucy was the earliest known hominid. Science is always making new discoveries. And to be truthful you are right for the time being based on the current knowledge. Dinos and humans didn’t walk the earth together 60 million years ago. But maybe some dinosaurs survived… This site (although you could easily say they are all doctored photos) has a few accounts of “living dinosaurs”

genesismission.4t.com...

And sure you could say that science hasn’t acknowledged it so it’s not real, but you know science didn’t really acknowledge the giant squid, or the sea lions, or many marine animals, until after they were photographed and documented. Many animals thought to be extinct still survived, science declared them dead, all of them. Yet they survived, so why couldn’t dinosaurs survive? And please don’t play the old nothing can survive 60 million years and no on knows about it, because they are still many remote locations on this planet, such as angel falls, devils canyon, and many parts of the Amazon. Plus plants and bacteria have survived, so why couldn’t dinos?



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 12:54 PM
link   


Maybe dinos and humans didn’t walk the earth tighter.


Obviously not. Unfortunatly we find dino fossils where human's have settled. Now how can that be?




But maybe some dinosaurs survived…


Some did survive. They're called living fossil's. Do a quick google search on it someday.




This site (although you could easily say they are all doctored photos) has a few accounts of “living dinosaurs”


All of those 'accounts' and 'picture's' have already been disproven. I believe there's even a few thread's laying around here on good 'ol ATS about this. Researching something doesn't hurt you, but being a complete gullible ignorant child without learning does.

And no, scientist's don't generally go around jumping up and down saying "Like OMGZ! Leperchauns exist!" Instead, they require proof before a claim is generally excepted as a fact. No, they don't just take a hoaxed photo as proof either. They investigate the claim and all the evidence for the claim in order to determine it's validity. Really wouldn't hurt if you did the same. So far you just look like an ignorant little 12 year old boy, probably failing in science class. I know I'd fail you.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaceman16
So according to some people that would be a hoax.

A hoax is where you lie about something. Lucy, at worst, is an error. The carvings on those rock walls you link to, are interesting, but meaningless. Are they recent or ancient? How do you know? Also, please explain why, if they are ancient, the people that made them couldn't have dreamt up such animals?
I mean, egyptian artwork has men with lion and jackal heads, there are bulls with human heads, crowns, lion feet, and bird wings in monuments from assyria, and there are cenotaurs in greek mythology. Why beleive that any of them are real? Would it really be so hard for people to make the representations in those pictures without having seen living dinosaurs?


Best bet would STAY OFFLINE. Your obviously not getting much of an education going to those site's and if you dare bring any of this to your science teacher he'd most likely flunk you in a heartbeat. I know I would.

??
Spaceman16, uhm, yeah, don't listen to this guy. If you find something that is interesting online or in real life, think about it, consider it, and look at it from different angles. Don't reject it, one way or the other, just because of fear. Hell, if I was in high school and someone brought up this stuff in a science class, I'd probably think, well that was an interesting class. And if I was a science teacher, I'd prefer that students asked questions, rather than didn't out of 'fear'.



[edited out photos that were left in in error -nygdan]

[edit on 27-2-2006 by Nygdan]



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
Ok ok produkt, enough of the bashing of different opinions.

The fossils of dinosaurs and Lucy had their ages determined by carbon dating right?

-This quote is from scientist Dr. Wakefield.


Radiocarbon analysis of specimens obtained from mummified seals in southern Victoria Land has yielded ages ranging from 615 to 4,600 years. However, Antarctica sea water has significantly lower carbon-14 activity than that accepted as the world standard. Therefore, radiocarbon dating of marine organisms yields apparent ages that are older than true ages, but by an unknown and possibly variable amount. Therefore, the several radiocarbon ages determined for the mummified seal carcasses cannot be accepted as correct. For example, the apparent radiocarbon age of the Lake Bonney seal known to have been dead no more than a few weeks was determined to be 615 +/- 100 years. A seal freshly killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1,300 years.


-This is from scientist Doctor Shogul.


For object over 4,000 years old the method becomes very unreliable for the following reason: Objects older then 4,000 years run into a problem in that there are few if any known artifacts to be used as the standard. Libby the discoverer of the C14 dating method was very disappointed with this problem. He understood that archaeological artifacts were readily available. After all this is what the archeologist guessed in their published books.


There was also a controversial incident at Oak Ridge National Library in which the bone of a stegosaurous was measured using radiometric and carbon dating. The results were that the bone was only a few thousand years old. Meh? But I thought that dinosaurs went extinct millions and millions and millions of yearz ago.

The truth is, Produkt, that carbon dating and radiometric dating are only slightly accurate for organisms that have been deceased for thousands of years old, not millions of years old. No professional scientist would rely on carbon dating to prove his evidence. So why do most scientists use carbon dating for dinosaur bones and fossils? The reason is that carbon dating is the only source of information to date these creatures. There is no other way to date them, nor is there a standard to compare them to. In other words, I wouldn't bet my money that dinosaurs are really millions of years old. In fact, I don't think anything is really millions of years old. Except for God, but I'll ask Him how old He is when I'm at the pearly gates.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Allow me to correct a misunderstanding here...


Originally posted by TheBlueSoldier
The fossils of dinosaurs and Lucy had their ages determined by carbon dating right?

No.

Fossils occur when bone material has been replaced by stone. You can't carbon date stone because there's no carbon in it.

Carbon dating is only good to 50,000 years ago. Lucy was dated by other methods.

Dinos are dated by still other methods.

The methods of dating are really interesting, but the criticisms you posted are several decades old (I think one of them is around half a century old... dates from 1960 or so.) Those issues were addressed and corrected in carbon dating, by the way.

Sadly, sites that criticize various radiometric dating methods don't actually keep up with what they are currently doing. Dates are sometimes rechecked, particularly if they're suspect in some way.

Wikipedia has an interesting section on dating methods that you might like to check out -- it'll help you spot when folks are using quotes that are half a century old and who haven't kept up on the current state of the art.



posted on Feb, 24 2006 @ 11:18 PM
link   
Hmm...

I'm sorry that I was off about the part that dinosaurs were the ones that were carbon dated. I did sum more googling and found out that the dinosaurs themselves are not carbon dated, but the earth around it is carbon dated to determine the age of the bones. If this is the case, then my points are valid. If this is not the case for all fossils, then I've just made a fool of myself.


Are there any other ways to determine the age of dinos?



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheBlueSoldier
Hmm...

I'm sorry that I was off about the part that dinosaurs were the ones that were carbon dated. I did sum more googling and found out that the dinosaurs themselves are not carbon dated, but the earth around it is carbon dated to determine the age of the bones.

No, that is not correct. Carbon Dating is only useful up to a certain age, dinosaurs, and the sediments that their fossils are found in, are far far beyond that age.


Are there any other ways to determine the age of dinos?

Relative dating is what the system was originally built upon, this invovles an understanding of the rock layers and often makes use of biostratigraphy.
Radiometric methods give more absolute dates. Carbon isn't used for dinosaurs, but there are other elements that are used in radiometric dating to get access to those ages. Of course, lets allways keep in mind that science doesn't deal in 'proofs', and that just as there are problems with some radiometric dating methods, there is an awareness of these problems and controls and calibrations for them.

The intersting thing is, the relative dates are confirmed and in agreement with the radiometric dates, and its not like there is one radiometric method, there are numerous ones. So all these different methods of relative dating, the are independantly confirmed by the multiple radiometric methods. This is good support that both methods are rather accurate.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 11:46 AM
link   
This site has a witness of the creature on video. I can’t tell if they’re real or not because the sites are in Korean. I’ve tried translating them but it’s almost impossible. These are the only two sites I could find with the photos. Maybe someone who knows Korean could translate it.

www.dinooption.com...

Another site has foot prints that look fresh.

www.cicap.org...

It’s in Spanish. Here’s the translation.

translate.google.com...://www.cicap.org/enciclop/at100294.htm&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dwww.cicap.org... 94.htm%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   
And another thing, produkt, why do you assume that because people are still in school they are less intelligent that you. And why does that make their opinions wrong?

[edit on 27-2-2006 by spaceman16]



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 07:47 PM
link   
that picture on the korean website looks too good to be true.



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Howdy! That creature Your talking about is an Elephant., sorry. You ought to checkin on Lorren Colman's cryptomundo site , often! You can get all kinds of living dinosaur info there daily!! Good luck!!

Ruff



posted on Feb, 27 2006 @ 09:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by spaceman16
And another thing, produkt, why do you assume that because people are still in school they are less intelligent that you. And why does that make their opinions wrong?

[edit on 27-2-2006 by spaceman16]


Meh, I was kindly asked to stop chewing your arse, so I must. Those in school still have alot to learn. You can form all the opinion's you want about life and the universe, but until you've actually learned all the fact's, your opinions will forever remain opinion's, that's all. If you think your opinion is right, research it. Find out what else is being said and what evidence actually exist's out there. Don't just sit there and peddle it as truth and continue to do so without researching a damn thing.



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by RUFFREADY
Howdy! That creature Your talking about is an Elephant., sorry. You ought to checkin on Lorren Colman's cryptomundo site , often! You can get all kinds of living dinosaur info there daily!! Good luck!!

Ruff


An elephant? really?This is the first record i've read that states the animal being an elephant. Interesting none the less. Is the spelling of the person's name in the web site you mentioned correct? because i googled and dogpiled it and nothing came up.

[edit on 28-2-2006 by spaceman16]



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Sorry about that spaceman16 its spelled Loren Coleman just google the name
cryptomundo

I got a hunch the creature is what a lot of researchers are saying "a Giant Python" swimming around. Did you ever see that photo of the Giant python taken by a helicopter (it was on Arthur C. Clarks "mysterious World" you can google that to) The snake was Hugh!! I believe around 50 feet and when the copter came in for a closer look , it reared up so as to strike at it!!

ruff



posted on Feb, 28 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   


here is some photos






posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Interesting comparison. But how close are the photo of the elephants compared to the distance of the “monster” Because it seems there is a dramatic difference between the two and if that’s so then how big is the “monster elephant” And the photo of the monster doesn’t have the same spinal arch as the elephants. If you look at the elephant you’ll notice that its spinal arch curves linearly back into the water, but in the monster photo its curves exponentially (that’s if you put the photos on a grid) If you could provide a source for the photos of the elephants that would be great.



posted on Mar, 1 2006 @ 07:57 AM
link   


Thats not a sauropod foot-print. Thats more like what a person would think a sauropod foot-print would look like.

This is a sauropod track:




And the photo of the monster doesn’t have the same spinal arch as the elephants

Thats some good attention to detail.
However, notice that in the 'swimming elephant hypothesis', its the head of the partially submerged elephant that is forming the 'body' of the dinosaur.
Also, sauropods used to be thought of as living in large bodies of water, the idea was that they were so massive that they'd spend time in water to support their bulk. However, this is not how they seem to have behaved. So, interestingly, again we have descriptions of this 'dinosaur' that 'match' older, popular considerations of what a dinosaur is like, rather than what we actually think they were like.

This is similar to the Ica Stones, which, apparently, became more detailed and more 'accurate' as time went on and the public in general had a greater understanding of the animals. If they were representations of an observed animal, this wouldn't be happening.
So sauropods in african jungles and swamps and lakes? Not likely. We'd expect to see sauropods in, say, the great plains of the US and the like.





 
1
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join