Did humans coexist with Dinosaurs? any evidence suggesting, maybe?

reply to post by woodwytch


I'm not being rude, but it would be much better to study the entire field of paeleontology, not just niches that seem to agree with your theories. I can tell you now, according to every single piece of evidence ever dug out of the ground, dinosaurs and humans didn't live on the Earth together. We missed each other by 65m years, give or take a bit. The evidence isn't just the lack of dinosaur fossils and human fossils, but the almost complete chain of fossils that demonstrate where we came from - so if there was a human fossil with a dinosaur fossil in the same stratum, the human couldn't have been related to us, as we evolved millions of years later. It would be cool to think of cavemen running around beating seven shades of poop out of dinosaurs (though more likely becoming seven shades of poop), but it just didn't happen. We'd have found a lot of evidence by now if that was the case, not just in fossils, but in our DNA, our evolution, and the evolution of our prey and predators.

And the world is 4.5bn years old, roughly. The universe is about 14bn years old, even more roughly.

You might as well call up one of those "reformed" second hand car salesmen and give them your credit card number.

If ever, a human being, made of soft flesh were to co-exist with dinosaurs, I'm afraid, they will not last long. I mean what does a soft flesh doing in a heavily armored and violent world of the dinosaurs? Unless you invented a tank, you'll be safe.

just hypothetically speaking, we may not have been the same humans now, as we could have been then. what happened to the imagination of some folks?
just to put together a possible quick list of how we might look. i could envision maybe us being

6 feet tall or more
sharper canines
maybe stronger and or more advanced jaw mucles for eating, and hunting
stronger bones
very heightened senses
denser muscles
faster contracting muscles for speed when hunting
more durable skin
sharper, and stronger finger and toe nails
immunity to many diseases or poisions
etc...

i could make a hypothetical superhuman with no problems, and not have it be some yellow sun sucking flying man, although that would be cool, but within the realms of the smallest of imaginations out there, and have a human being that could probably do his thing.

in all honesty they probably would have to have been a very small population world wide, if humans did exist with dinos, or they were in a more herbivore, or less dino populated area. but then again, im thinking along the lines of families of superhumans, with an uncanny survival instinct above all else. not to say they would live in a raptors nest or something, but they might not have necessarily have had to be living with herbivores, or in isolation only around a few dinos.


it is very much not far fetched to say a group of physically enhanced humans, with a master like skill in surviving, be able to duke it out on the huge planet earth with some dinosaurs.

i think its more of the fact that it is outside of the comfort zone to know that we did coexist with dinos, rather than it really be that impossible. i think its more of a show of how pathetic we see ourselves, more so than it really being impossible, and its amazing how upset some get if you even mention such a thing. as if its blasphemy to speak of such a thing. ha ha

i think the fact that we think so little of ourselves is one of the main reasons the world is the way it is now, and people are the way they are. i hear it all the time. people in such shock and awe at a muscular sprinter, or a ufc fighter. what? its just a physically fit person. is it that amazing to you? thats kinda pathetic. now a man who could melt steel with his eyes might make me go oooo, and aaaah.

no one takes into account that we live on a huge huge planet, and that era has been so far gone that anything showing we lived with dinos is probably far buried deep somewhere, or gone. especially if we were not the dominant species, which obviously it seems that we were not, or we would probably be finding more bones of us. who knows what we will find in the future though. paleontology is not that old of a profession, and the technology and resources to do the type of searching we want to do is definitely not that old at all. its not like we have been doing this type of research, with the level of technology we have now, for over a century.

im not upset either way, and others shouldnt be either. dont take yourself so serious. it was just a question i posed, to bring facts and theories to the table, and maybe just open up some peoples imaginations a bit. i feel like society is losing that curious and imaginative side to them, and are just stuck with their 5th grade teachings, and refuse to go any further.

i guess its only natural. i just find all sciences amazing, because they are constantly bringing us more information, and showing us that those fantasies you use to live out in the privacy of your own room as a kid, might be able to become a reality one day, or now.

on a side note. what i mentioned above is really annoying to me. i hate to be watching something on the history channel, or discovery channel, and have someone come in and want to watch something else because its to "serious".

thats so silly. it mainly seems to come from females. shocking, but point being, why would you rather dumb yourself down, than watch something concerning your reality, health, or history. but then again, sometimes we do need to watch a little will and grace.

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by woodwytch

 

I'm not being rude, but it would be much better to study the entire field of paeleontology, not just niches that seem to agree with your theories. I can tell you now, according to every single piece of evidence ever dug out of the ground, dinosaurs and humans didn't live on the Earth together. We missed each other by 65m years, give or take a bit. The evidence isn't just the lack of dinosaur fossils and human fossils, but the almost complete chain of fossils that demonstrate where we came from - so if there was a human fossil with a dinosaur fossil in the same stratum, the human couldn't have been related to us, as we evolved millions of years later. It would be cool to think of cavemen running around beating seven shades of poop out of dinosaurs (though more likely becoming seven shades of poop), but it just didn't happen. We'd have found a lot of evidence by now if that was the case, not just in fossils, but in our DNA, our evolution, and the evolution of our prey and predators.

And the world is 4.5bn years old, roughly. The universe is about 14bn years old, even more roughly.

`

This is the exact mind set that keeps the truth from the world. "Our minds are made up, so don't confuse us with the facts". Or as one
evo scientist said. "If the facts don't fit the theory, then so much for the facts". ( or ignore the facts)!

This has probably already been mentioned but...

Dragons and reptilian creatures are a really big part of mythology in many cultures across the Globe. Maybe there was once a fire behind that smoke. Maybe the dragons were dinosaurs?

Hi Guys,
Just to clear up a misunderstanding that a couple of posters seem to be a little confused by (concerning the image of the human/dinosaur footprint overlay), in one of my earlier posts ...

The reason it looks a little chiselled/off/fishy/rounded toes etc. etc. etc. (as a few of you mentioned), is because it is actually superimposed /highlighted on the original, to be seen more clearly. If you had checked-out the link I provided then you would have seen this is clearly mentioned and a picture of the original/untouched version is provided for comparrison.

I really don't want to sound high-rate about this and I think it's great that we can discuss and debate subjects from a variety of diverse points of view ... but it's a little bit annoying when the people who shout the loudest whilst dismissing any opinion that is not strictly orthodox/differs from their own, as 'fake' or 'total rubbish' ... tend not to take time to absorb ALL the details given.

Now I'm not expecting this other image to change your opinion ... and that's absolutely fine (each to their own and all that)! But guy's, how can you expect to do a proper job of slapping someone down when you've missed-out half the details I offered up (like a sacrificial lamb), just waiting for you to rip it to shreds ... that's just bad manners ... call yourselves debunkers ? BTW, this is meant tongue in cheek so don't go getting flustered (life is just too damn short)!

Woody

Originally posted by amitheone
reply to post by jimmy1200

 

Did humans coexists with dinosaurs? You have to consider many factors before ever considering this.

Look at how dinosaurs look. Look at their overall appearance. Look at their teeth, their claws, their size, and etc.

With all these features, they are designed to be vicious and violent. Look at their body armor and sharp tails. They won't have any of these features if they are living in a peaceful environment. The dinosaurs physical appearance are made for battle and defense against hostile dinosaurs. They are made to attack and devour their prey. If they are the prey, their body armor and sharp tails are for them to defend themselves successfully.

If ever, a human being, made of soft flesh were to co-exist with dinosaurs, I'm afraid, they will not last long. I mean what does a soft flesh doing in a heavily armored and violent world of the dinosaurs? Unless you invented a tank, you'll be safe.

Humans and dinosaurs lived in a totally different world.

I guess, if humans were to be found with the dinosaurs, the dinosaurs number will have to be very small in order for men to survive. Perhaps, some of them survived during their calamity and during their transitional period mingled among men until they were extinct. Because food sources will be so scarce, those carnivorous dinosaurs will not survive in the new world.

Those that managed to survive are those omnivorous, plant eating dinos until such time they were extinct as well.

I guess humans didn't live at the same time as 20' crocs and swim in the sea, with 20' white sharks! Just relying on your logic.
When evidence of man is found in the same strata with dinos; it is
ignored. It doesn't fit the theory. So it is considered contamination.
The same thing is true when modern mammal fossils are found in the same bone yards, with dinos. That is the only reason they are not found together. Because the evidence doesn't fit. So it is ignored.
Another fact you never hear Evo scientist talking about. Is giant equivalents of modern animals every where. Why were animals 3 to 4 times bigger in a previous age?
Another fact. Why are their huge bone yards, found on every continent?
No such are forming today. Not even the millions of American Buffalo. Left
strung over the west, left fossils?
Another. Coal and Oil both come from compressed, non-decomposed bio matter. Coal fields almost always are full of imprints of forest! Many times the trees are still upright.
Another.. Why have so many unfossilized dino bones been found. Often just lying on the ground? Often with soft tissue still evident inside the bones?



[edit on 31-3-2008 by Howie47]

reply to post by Howie47


To use a rather colourful English coloquialism, that is complete and utter bollocks of the highest calibre.

My mind is open to anything. Show me strong evidence that God exists, and I'll believe it. Show me evidence that Nessie is real, and I'll believe it. I can show you all kinds of evidence that pokes massive holes in your arguments, and you'll shrug it off with some ridiculous quote from some guy who represents only himself, or some other logical absurdity.

As it is, there is absolutely ZERO evidence that humans co-existed with dinosaurs. But then that won't make a jot of difference to your beliefs, as they're not based on evidence, but on a warm fuzzy feeling that you use as an emotional (and, judging by this thread, intellectual) crutch. You've made your mind up, my mind is never made up. I accept any evidence that stands up to examination, and my mind changes when new evidence is uncovered. It's called "learning", and it's the very same process that has allowed you, everyone you love, and everything you hold dear, to exist in this world. But please, shun learning. That'll work out just fine.

reply to post by dave420


Every time a new, (living fossil) is discovered. It changes nothing about
the current paradigm of dinosaurs and mankind being separated by millions of years. If a living dino is discovered. That won't change anything. Contradicting evidence is label, (anomalies) and ignored. Living fossils, are labeled, successful species, that survived.
The evolution paragrim is so set in stone, (dogma). That no evidence can change the mind set.
The believers of evolution are comfortable with their belief system. They are not comfortable with belief in a Creator. So they minimize the Creators
impact on their lives; by proclaiming, "we all just evolved, so God should be happy with our minimal attention".
If you are depressed by this message. Please do not try and destroy the
messenger.

reply to post by dave420

Hi dave420,
I've noticed in your posts, that you try to present yourself as a guy in the 'know' about these matters ...

For example in a reply to me you wrote;
[I'm not being rude, but it would be better to study the entire field of palaeontology ...] *note this is the correct spelling*

So please understand that I'm not being rude either when I say that it would be a good idea to at least learn how to spell the name of the field you claim to be an expert in ... otherwise it tends to take away your credibility.

That said, after pointing out my utter stupidity in the field that you must have studied in it's entirety, I bow to your superior knowledge sir and ask you to answer to the best of your ability ...

When did 'humans' (not humanids), first walk the Earth ?

Woody

I've rarely seen a thread on ATS containing as much ignorance as this one. And that's really saying something.

Originally posted by kegs
I've rarely seen a thread on ATS containing as much ignorance as this one. And that's really saying something.

Who is (ignoring) the facts of dino human coexistence; is what this thread is chiefly all about.
Is their proof that men and dino's lived at the same time. Yes.
Does it really make any difference to the evolution, uniformatarian,
paradigm, one way or the other. Not really. (Pop)ular Evolution, doesn't
like the idea. However:
Darwinist have proven they can adapt and evolve their theory to
include any facts.
But yes. You are correct. There is a whole lot of ignoring going on.

To be honest I personaly am not certain, but it is plausable. Proffesor Charles Hapgood of Keene State College did a lot of theory work on just this topic. His research was mostly based in meso america. He found little staues of dino looking creatures and began hypothosising the idea. Look him up on Google.

reply to post by woodwytch


Oh noes!!!11!! I mis-spelled something! That means my entire argument is bunk!

Come on, seriously. I'm not saying I'm an expert, just that you have decided to ignore reams of evidence that says humans and dinosaurs never lived with each other. If you still feel the need to run around saying it's so, go for it. To heck with the evidence!

reply to post by dave420

Hi dave420,
Ok, I appologize for being flippant and picking you up on a spelling error ... that was very petty of me and I am sorry.

Now let me try to explain my thoughts to you a little better on the thread topic. So you see where I'm coming from (hopefully).

Firstly, let me assure you that I am not ignoring the evidence already available to us. In fact I find archaeology and palaeontology fascinating subjects. I think I already mentioned (not sure it may have been somewhere else), that I studied 'Natural Earth Sciences' at University (about 10yrs ago ... mature student) ... Geology/Cosmology were my favorite subjects.

However, I readily admit that I am not a natural academic and I'm not an expert in either of these subjects ... but it does mean that I have a good understanding of what's going on here ... I'm not just some hippy-dippy airhead who floats around in 'cloud cuckooland' looking for pretty, patterned rocks (fossils) or twinkly stars in the sky (supernova) !

Well maybe on Tuesdays and occasional Thursdays.

Now the point I want to make is ... during those 10yrs since I studied there have been hundreds (maybe thousands) of new discoveries and developments which have helped to substantiate things that we didn't know or even suspect when I was studying ... because the evidence wasn't available a decade ago !

So, just because we don't currently have any 100% evidence on the fossil records at this precise moment in time ... doesn't mean there never will be.

I don't want to fight or flame with you about this 'dave', life's too damn short. But no-one should ever be closed to anything in this field (however fantastical it might sound on the surface), because all scientific fields ... and all scientists involved in them, have to be ready to adapt and change there long cherished theorum at the drop of a hat. Because nature is like that ... as my signature says 'when you think you know it all, there's always something new to learn'.

In conclusion (IMHO), there is no reason to suspect that genuine fossils showing dino/human of the same age will never be found in the future. The truth is we simply can't say (either of us) ... there may not be a 'high' probability ... but there is certainly probabilty, that there was an overlap for a short period of time ... and that piece of evidence to substantiate that could be discovered tomorrow or ten years from now maybe.

NEVER SAY NEVER WHERE SCIENCE IS CONCERNED !!!

Woody (with a white flag in my hand).

Some very good proof of coexistence of men and Dinos, is the ICA stones.

One of the great enigmas of planet Earth revolves around a collection of approximately 15,000 pre-Columbian artifacts, the ancient carved glyph rock library known as the Ica Stones.

Explanation here



The article answers the history and skeptics criticms of these artifacts.

Google Video Link

Several other videos also.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by Howie47]

[edit on 8-4-2008 by Howie47]

reply to post by Howie47


Well, I'll have to speak about what i know from here. The sauropods did NOT have long frlexible necks. Their necks were long, and move in a general up and down sort of way, this was discovered when scientists actually examined the necks instead of just assembling them how they wanted to, basically. Think about like with iguanodon, how lon it took to discover it was a primarily bipedal critter, with pointed thum instead of a horn on it's snout.
I know these are apparently proven to not be fakes, but it looks a awful like some of the designs made by people before wereally began to study dinosaur remains and their probable musculature based on evidence left on their bones and well preserved fossils. Also, most of these show popular dinosaur images, sauropods with graceful necks, the triceratops, pteradactyl, stegosaur, ect. we never see any of the odder ones, or that weren't on Jurassic Park.

[edit on 8-4-2008 by RuneSpider]

reply to post by RuneSpider


There were some incredibly odd dinosaurs out there, and some that were small, and even some that were more reptillian than anything. All of the descriptions rarely match dinosaur descriptions. The wyrms were described as anywhere from dragons with no limbs, to dragons with wings and no other limbs, to dragons with wings and forelimbs. the last describes a pterodactyl, only the last sounds like a type of peterodactyl. Western dragons are generally portrayed as being critters with SIX limbs, from feet, hund feet, and wings. No known creature outside of the bug kingdom has those features. Eastern dragons were flying critters with no wings, being mostly snakelike inshape, with some smaller limbs underneath.
While it's possible to interpet the leviathon and Behemoth as dinosaurs in the Bible, that only applies to the massive dinosaurs, not the smaller ones like the compies or raptors.

reply to post by RuneSpider


Leaving out a massive amount of dinosaurs that were actually much more likely to have survived than the larger ones, especially in a part of the world known for it's poor agriculture, something needed to support massive lifeforms.
What is liely to me, is that ancient man probably found dinosaur bones while they were quarrying, or even on the surface, since that's how a good number of fossils were orignially found.
Keep in mind that in China they burned dinosaur bones as dragon bones, and used the cracks that appeared to juge the future.
There is also evidence to suggest that the greeks and their contemporaries found fossils, and may be a partial source for some of the mythical creatures that expounded. They may have found mostly intact fossils, or taken their best impression on how the bones should ahve whent together.

reply to post by RuneSpider


You mean like this

Iquanodon:
Incorrectly drawn around 1825

Incorrectly drawn around 1895
www.bible.ca...
Correctly drawn today
www.bible.ca...
Correctly sculpted by ancient peoples