New Evidence to suggest Dinosaurs may still be around!

reply to post by HBogart

Maybe you should look at my speculative thread about Dinosaurs. It's one interesting possibility.

Are 'Aliens' Dinosaurs & Survivors of an Earthly Cataclysm Returning Home?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/65b41613b436.jpg[/atsimg]

Yeah, Dinosaurs are still there:

Lizard:



Coelacanth:

reply to post by elevenaugust

That is a fish and a reptile. Neither are Dinosaurs.

Originally posted by TechUnique
Turning 19 yesterday I had a bit of an identity crisis and was scared of getting old. For some reason I went into a tangent and ended up thinking about dinosaurs and then on to whether or not they might still be about today. So I scrolled through Google and found the following. Please feel free to contribute any other evidence you know of or stumble across!

Spread out amongst the dense jungles of Cambodia hide the remains of an ancient and grand civilization. Once inhabited by a people known as the Khmer, today millions of tourists visit the temples at Angkor to get a glimpse of the majesty of this once proud city.

The Khmer began to develop as a unique culture in Cambodia around 2000 years ago.

I finally located the glyph I was searching for near the exit to the complex. Before me, enclosed in a round circle, was a clear depiction of what could only be a stegosaurus.

Source

Could this be evidence for the argument that dinosaurs have at least been around in recent years?

Possibly.

This kid is having a identity crisis at 19? lol! You hav'nt even had you first legal alcoholic beverage yet.


But yeah bro, I think the possibility is there that dinos still exist.

reply to post by geo1066



liten to what he says bout age. its just a number. i didnt have an "idenity crisis at all when i was 19 i knew who i was and where i was going and im on that same path today. bumps in the road are just that. and you keep on going. as for dinos still being around. there dead man and we use there dead world as fossil fule to run are cars. the olny thing thats alive thats from that ear of the earth are crocs and great white sharks.

Easiest reason why it isn't a stegosaurus

All stegosaur related fossils have been found in North America. Plenty of other dinosaur fossils have been found in SE Asia, just none resembling a stegosaurus.

You should research Mokele-Mbembe. The local tribes deep in the Congo, speak of, and revere a creature which fits the description of a Brontosaurus. I read a book a few years back about an expedition to find the 'dinosaur'. It was an interesting read. They actually made a movie about it. The movie was kinda corny but as a kid it was pretty cool

Originally posted by elevenaugust
Yeah, Dinosaurs are still there:

Lizard:

Coelacanth:

No lizards and fish are not dinosaurs. ..
As I said before there are no non-avian dinosaurs living today, and there has not been for a very long time.
You want a "living dinosaur" you need to look at avian dinosaurs.

The only avian dinosaurs still around are better know as birds.

Why this is so hard to understand is beyond me.


..

The Coelacanth is obviously not a living dinosaur, it's a living fossil. Thought to have gone the way of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago, the species was rediscovered again in 1935. Now why would it be so difficult to think that if a fish could do it, a great lizard couldn't? That's only one example of a living fossil. I think one of the latest is a feathery leaf tree discovered in Australia. It was thought to have disappeared over a hundred million years ago, but I'd need to verify that. And what's with the soft tissues being reported in 65 million yr old dinosaur bones such as B Rex? Maybe they're not so old after all.

Originally posted by painterdude
what's with the soft tissues being reported in 65 million yr old dinosaur bones such as B Rex? Maybe they're not so old after all.

The soft tissue is fossilized.
Obviously it is rare because the tissue needs to not decompose or be taken by scavengers, but it happens.

reply to post by LikeDuhObviously


Fossilized means it's now made of rock. How can you pull and stretch a rock? Believe me it's not fossilized, and evolutionists are scrambling to find an answer for this one.

reply to post by painterdude


Article please.
I will answer you as soon as you show me where you got this information.
It could be tough I never heard this one before.

reply to post by LikeDuhObviously


Well I've never posted a link here before...but no time like now to try. If it doesn't work just do a search on B Rex www.cbsnews.com...

reply to post by LadyGreenEyes

You are perfectly free to believe what you want.

But there is a lot of evidence both in lore and in modern research that we have coexisted with ET races at various times on this planet. The most commonly-known invader race were the "reptilians." They apparently posed as gods at various times. There are many stories about them. We could dismiss these stories, I suppose, if it weren't for the modern sightings of them that have been reported. Grays and various near-human types are more commonly reported than reptilians, but many types have been reported.

All I'm saying is that an ancient off-world race would at least have the cultural continuity to recall prehistoric times on earth with enough accuracy to carve a very good likeness of a stegosaurus on one of their temples. And if they had actually done the original genetic engineering on dinosaurs, that would give them even better access to the data.

reply to post by painterdude


John Horner is the man !
But .. evolutionists are not scrambling ..

www.sciencemag.org...

I'm not surprised you hadn't heard about this one. The evolutionists have a way of keeping things quiet when the facts don't line up with their theories.

reply to post by painterdude


I replied .. up there --^

wtf you talking about Horner is obviously a "evolutionist" he says so in the video you linked .. and he is on CBS 60 minutes .. he is doing a pretty #ty job keeping the "truth" hidden.

reply to post by LikeDuhObviously


In the 60 minute video I didn't hear any explanations of how it could be that flesh could remain soft after 70 or 80 million years of fossilization processes. Wouldn't you have to admit, the whole idea sounds pretty incredible? Also, I didn't join the site you provided to satisfy the proposition that evolutionists aren't scrambling for an answer. I'm familiar with a few of the explanations. Could you summarize what was proposed in your link? Is he proposing a recent bacterial or fungus growth. Did he mention anything about the carbon 14 still present in the tissue?

reply to post by painterdude


60 minutes is TV show, not a peer reviewed journal. They took everything cool from the story and put it on TV. See Dino-chickens. .. what would be the mother beeping coolest thing EVER !

Wouldn't you have to admit, the whole idea sounds pretty incredible?

YES ! Not just YES ! but hell yes ! I would have never thought it could happen before we discovered is was possible in 2005 !
What does not surprise me me learn new wicked awesome # all the time . Thats why we do science!

We do not even need to know why or how it happens we KNOW IT happens.
The bones were dated multiple ways all saying 65-68 Ma.

You would have to discredit every thing we know about geology and radiometric dating before you can claim the bones are not 68 Ma.

Notice I quit explaining things ? That is because I am not going to waste my time arguing with a creationist who has not spent 20 minutes to read the 7-10 peer reviewed papers on the subject he is claiming is unexplainable .

When I say "subject" I am talking about the exact #ing bones in your rock solid evidence (pun intended) in the 60 minute show ..

A excerpt from the source article:

A more mundane explanation for the carving found at Angkor is of course that the Khmer unearthed the fossilized remains of a stegosaurus 800 years ago and it was these fossils that prompted the carving. Unfortunately we will probably never know what the real motivation was for showcasing this fascinating monster.

The more "mundane explanation" is probably correct.

If future archeologists discover OUR depictions of Dinosaurs will they also have the same thought.... that dinosaurs lived in the 21st century alongside mankind?

Now... if you can show me a prehistoric campsite that shows evidence of early humans feasting on a Brontosaurus, that would be a little more convincing....

And BTW - Dinosaurs are still around... they're called birds....