Humans might have lived alongside dinosaurs

This just adds a bit of food for thought about possible dinosaurs or other cryptid creatures living with us today.

As most of you know, humans allegedly came after dinosaurs. Sounds obvious as we would probably have been eaten if we were around at the same time right? Well, apparent cave drawings (you gota love these cave drawings!) show otherwise:

A closer investigation of ancient cave drawings, relics and art shows there is a problem with the dinosaur impact theory.

If all of these dinosaurs actually died out 65 million years ago and humans appeared on the fossil record millions of years later, there should be no evidence supporting the theory that dinosaurs and man co-existed at an earlier stage in human history

Therefore we must ask ourselves why we are today able to find ancient depictions of humans and dinosaurs living together only some thousand years ago?

FULL STORY HERE - WITH CAVE DRAWING PICTURES

It's a decent read and thought it would add more ideas into the mix of possibilities that some types of dinosaurs are still around today in lakes, on land etc.

Nice find, Ive always found it impossible that all of the dinosaurs could have died, and I do believe that we once did walk amongst them, who knows, we could do again. If the dinosaurs did survive and did live along us, that probably brigns up alot of theories for the cryptids and of course 'the reptilians ' we are so familiar with.

You really don't believe in this absolute bunk pseudo-science, do you?

This post isn't serious, right?

Those shapes could be anything, in fact the first one looks most like a python, with some wear patches for the aptasaurus's "feet."

You know what the dead giveaway is? There was no such creature as a brontosaurus. That was a Victorian mistake of putting the head of one dinosaur with another.

The fossil record is clear, we did not "walk with the dinosaurs."

I feel dirty even answering this thread, but somebody has to say something before it gets even more implausible.

reply to post by MajorMalfunction


Now, if they could date these petroglyphs to the age of the dinosaurs, they might have something.

Otherwise...better go wash your hands.

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
You really don't believe in this absolute bunk pseudo-science, do you?

This post isn't serious, right?

Those shapes could be anything, in fact the first one looks most like a python, with some wear patches for the aptasaurus's "feet."

You know what the dead giveaway is? There was no such creature as a brontosaurus. That was a Victorian mistake of putting the head of one dinosaur with another.

The fossil record is clear, we did not "walk with the dinosaurs."

I feel dirty even answering this thread, but somebody has to say something before it gets even more implausible.

I don't believe it there, but as a forum I felt it was worth a post. Real or not, I find many things fascinating even on an entertainment level.

I don't believe we walked with dinosaurs and I agree with you entirely they could be anything. Something called erosion! LOL don't take the post or me serious. Cave drawings, rock formations, faces in clouds, shapes on Mars, are all interpretations. One person says something, another says something else. Unfortunately there's never a definitive answer, hence why those shapes on Mars threads go on for pages and pages. I'm not a believer by the way.

I like finding interesting topics and sharing them with people. It's all food for thought and leads to interesting conversations. The amount of crappy threads that have been started up, only to develop into something great when somebody comes in with knowledge has been endless.

Also can I add I agree with you about dinosaurs being made in museums wrongly. We have no definitive shape for what these creatures should appear and trust me, many have been 'skeletonised' wrongly!

You can always hope for that to happen. Just food for thought that's all. Chill Winston! Don't feel dirty, take a wash.

I had to go shower.

I have a gut feeling about the petroglyphs in that article -- especially the "brontosaurus." It looks fake. The edges are too clean. And it shows just a little bit of something that could be a rock, with no frame of reference of any other petroglyphs, real or faked. I was under the impression from my modest knowledge of this form of art, that they were done in sites considered "sacred" or special in some way, so that there would be a buildup of petroglyphs over time, not just a single one.

As far as the second one, there's no telling what that's supposed to be. It also looks faked in some way, and its frame of reference on the "rock" it's on is even worse than the first.

Furthermore, there is no petroglyph expert named Frances Barnes. I looked. The only reference to him I can find at all is from a very similar but even more out-there article on Apologetics Press.

OK, I feel better. I haven't had a good debunking fit in ages, thanks for that.

Originally posted by MajorMalfunction
You know what the dead giveaway is? There was no such creature as a brontosaurus. That was a Victorian mistake of putting the head of one dinosaur with another.

Actually, what they did, because they had no head, was to take a head from a known relative and place it there. This was for display purposes only, not because of any scientific reason. The animal which was known as Brontosaurus is a distinct animal, so it did exist. However, modern paleontology classifies it as an Apatosaurus excelsus, which is a species of Apatosaur.

reply to post by MajorMalfunction

I tend to agree with you. Except there are odd exceptions. The world-wide legend of The Dragon for instance, is an odd one. Where did it originate? And why?

I've recently discovered the footprints of several humans embedded in limestone in an old abandoned quarry near where I live (I've got the paleos working on it as we speak), and sure - the rock is probably around 4-6 million years old - but it's still pretty impressive. How do we know for sure some dinosaurs didn't survive for another 60 million years or so - or perhaps humans have been around a bit longer than we imagine perhaps?

Who can say for sure? Just because the fossil records haven't turned up - yet?

Also, if I told you I'd actually seen a dinosaur, would you call me crazy? I have. And yep - it amazed me too!!

The world is full of mysteries...

Jimbo

Yeah, im guessing cave drawings prove it. So around what year did we co-exist with dragons and the weird serpent/man gods? Well, guess must of been around the same time, 5-6,000 years goes by so easily. Just happy the our planet is in the center of the universe and my science book has all the answers...cough.

Yes, it is very possible humans have lived through the age of dinosaurs.

Natives, (aboriginals) for example.

Human footprints+dinosauers have been debunked

A few individuals continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in pre-Tertiary rocks from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups.

Well there you go case solved

Originally posted by TheoOne
Yes, it is very possible humans have lived through the age of dinosaurs.
Natives, (aboriginals) for example.

Please, please go read a real book somewhere with paper pages and a cover and type that doesn't move around. Find out when the dinosaurs lived, and when they died, and how we grew up from the little furry mutant lizards that were left behind. No, no, I'm afraid that even those horrible aborigines haven't been around nearly long enough to have chased, or been chased by, real-live dinosaurs.

This phenomenon is widespread and it has not been debunked. Dinosaurs and man coexisted and our dating timelines are all wrong. It's just another little fact that supports the Biblical account of creation.

reply to post by Nohup


It's all right if you don't believe me. You don't have to.

What a funny picture there you have, by the way. Thanks for the laughs.

[edit on 30-10-2007 by TheoOne]

Originally posted by SevenThunders
This phenomenon is widespread and it has not been debunked. Dinosaurs and man coexisted and our dating timelines are all wrong. It's just another little fact that supports the Biblical account of creation.

I was waiting for that post, really really sad, shall you prove that the timelines are all wrong, or are you just going to push your "facts" without backing them up? *sigh* I'm going to vote for the latter

reply to post by LogicalPhilosophy



Nah more likely he will pull out episodes of the flintstones and prove it that way. I really don't understand why people have such a hard time figuring out that we never lived with the dinosaurs, and that there aren't any running around that we don't know about. To be honest I have no problem considering that a Bigfoot or another exceptionally rare creature possibly exists, just dinosaurs I just can't see it.

Well, lets suppose "humans" were around at the same time as dinosaurs. What humans? What did they look like? Did they look like us, then regressed for a few million years, then went back to what we look like today? Or were dinosaurs, humans and mega fauna, like mammoths and ground sloths all around at the same time?

Don't you think humans would have had to come up with some pretty sophisticated weaponry to hunt or avoid being eaten?

Why have no human remains been found in any fossil dung or inside any dino skeletal remains?

Wouldn't we have found some spears or projectiles along with the skeletons of the dinosaurs that were taken down or at least consumed by humans?

I think we need more than misinterpreted dinosaur forefoot prints (thought to be human tracks) to prove humans and dinosaurs lived side by side.

Originally posted by LogicalPhilosophy


I was waiting for that post, really really sad, shall you prove that the timelines are all wrong, or are you just going to push your "facts" without backing them up? *sigh* I'm going to vote for the latter

You mean it's really really sad that someone actually believes in something and doesn't buy into the status quo propaganda delivered by government controled education? Or is the problem that someone would dare to take the Bible seriously? When I start with my faith in the Bible I start from the fact that there are hundreds of fulfilled Biblical prophecies such as the rebirth of Israel and a coming world government and then I work backwards from there.

For example, the flood. Flood stories appear in virtually every society throughout the entire world and yet 'science' desperately tries to refute it. The stories are based on a real historical cataclysm and that cataclysm explains a lot of the erroneous dating and even the so called strata that science uses as an excuse for unbelief.

One good place to start with out of place artifacts is this site:
www.s8int.com...

I'd also recommend some of the books by Jonathan Gray and Brad Steiger. There are hundreds if not thousands of examples of ooparts that challenge conventional thinking. However, as is common to human nature, facts that don't fit the current thinking are always suppressed.

all the flood stories are different

only one has Noah and thats clearly based on an earlier one from Mesopotamia

this is a known fact

not the stuff you're claiming, you're on the wrong board 7

this is cryptozoology not religion, are you having problems discussing anything without showing everyone how little faith you have in your own beliefs that you can't pass a single comment without referencing an outdated book from an outdated middle eastern cult religion thats been debunked more times than Dubyas ability at public speaking?

there are no Dinosaurs in the Bible. the official church line is still that fossils were created by satan to fool the unfaithful into temptation and heretical beliefs

I personally believe as a muslim that the flood of noah was in the black sea and that the entire world didnt get flooded. That is just impropable. I havent read too much about the flood in the qu'ran though.

And yes we have lived and still do live with Dinosaurs. Birds. Infact i wouldnt be suprized if some of our ancestors met those giant meat eating birds of south america. Another problem i have with this is that these are always the big dinosaurs. I have never heared of a drawing with say a velociraptor. All i see is the generic "large beast" Most dinosaurs werent large beast. They fulfilled the same role as mammals do today and what are most mammals? Rather small arent they? The same would be for these classical dinosaurs.