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.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Could Man Have Co-Existed With The Thunder Lizards

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 02:10 AM
Check this site out and let me know what you think.

And no I'm not what you would call a very religious person, but some of the arguments brought up are just as valid as the theory of evolution.

This is one of many sites googled, it was just the first one that had what I was looking for.
[Edited on 23-3-2004 by JON]

[Edited on 23-3-2004 by JON]

posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 09:24 AM
No. No hominid coexisted with the dinosaurs.

What the site doesn't tell you is that he's being very dishonest:

Malachite Man: more recently, creationist Don Patton has claimed that the discovery of a number of malachite-encrusted skeletons between 1990 and 1996 is evidence that humans existed long before they were supposed to. It turned out that some of the photos of Malachite Man on his website were identical to photos that were published of the Moab Man skeletons in the February 1975 issue of Desert Magazine. (For more information, visit The Life and Death of Malachite Man, by Glen Kuban.)

There is as yet no published material on these skeletons, but the fact that they were found in the same copper mine as the Moab Man skeletons suggests that they are also recent.

The "Moab man"/"Malachite man" are fairly recent burials; Indians killed in a cave-in while digging for azurite in that cave.

Moab Man: two green-stained partial skeletons were found in 1971 near Moab in Utah. Creationists have claimed that they were found in a Mesozoic (over 65 million years old) rock formation, but testimony from the anthropologist who helped excavate them shows that they were in loose sand, and partly decayed and not at all fossilized.

One of the problems creationists have is that they don't know the difference between a fossil and a non-fossil (the other is that they fake evidence.) A fossil means the bone has been turned into rock. Not covered with rock (concretion) but has become rock.

They tend to misidentify old bones as fossils (they aren't) and concretions as fossils (they aren't. Concretions can form in as little as 10 years.)

More "anomalous fossils" (and frauds) can be found here:

new topics

log in