It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

New Evidence to suggest Dinosaurs may still be around!

page: 4
9
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 20 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
That dinosaurs walked with man and are still alive in some deep jungles is more verifiable than most believe. Christian scientist Kent Hovind has expounded exhaustively on the topic. Here's a lecture on the Dino topic for those who have time.

Things were a lot larger thousands of years ago due to different atmospheric pressure and the presence of vast amounts of water in the atmosphere. The oxygen was much more rich which accounted for larger trees, reptiles (dino's) and humans. Of course after the flood when all of that water came down simultaneously, things changed drastically. But Hovind even shows similar tablets from the middle ages and even sooner of people riding and battling Long Necks!!



Please bear with the 90s style intro, the information is seriously valuable and worth the length of the video.




posted on May, 21 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs

So science can turn reptiles into birds and at the same time claim a belief in God is delusional ? Just check'in.

No. That would be retarded.
What modern science is telling you is birds (aves) are dinosaurs. ..
Phylogenetically Aves (birds) are under Dinosauria, Dinosauria is under Reptilia so yes they are reptiles.
They obviously cannot out grow this .. that would be silly.

edit on 21-5-2011 by LikeDuhObviously because: be nicer .. i guess



This is why we laugh at the question "If humans evolved from apes why are there still apes" .. You are a Ape .. always have been even under the old Linnaean classification.

The newer version is better: "If humans evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys "
Guess why ? ...
..
.
Your a #ing monkey, mate.
edit on 21-5-2011 by LikeDuhObviously because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-5-2011 by LikeDuhObviously because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by easy530
Things were a lot larger thousands of years ago due to different atmospheric pressure and the presence of vast amounts of water in the atmosphere.


Is that why Jesus and everyone else 2000 years ago were much smaller than we are today?


There probably was a few dinosaurs kicking around when man started to dominate. Obviously we would of had to kill them off so that we could be on top of the food chain.

In fact, there's lots of ancient civilizations that had symbolism and stories about dragons: Sumerian, Chinese, Norse, etc. Knights who slayed dragons became kings.

I bet there still are some dinos still surviving somewhere uninhabited by human civilization, like deep in African jungles. There's more than enough stories of them.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 12:38 AM
link   
The crocodile and shark are little changed from the time of the dinosaur,
Same for the Komodo Dragon.

So in a way they are still around from that time, good odds on some
of the crustaceans too.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 01:01 AM
link   
reply to post by LikeDuhObviously
 


Well you know what ? I've been called so many things in my time, I really thought I'd been called everything.
Then here you come along to blow that confidence right out of the water." Monkey mate"
can I use that one sometime ? I was aware of the primate analogy creationists over use. I got passed that one without ever using it myself. I must say, this reptiles and birds thing you have goin. It's going to take some training.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 



Training is such a ugly word, let us use "Learning" instead.

Old System of Classification (Linnaean):

Reptilia includes all
land-dwelling vertebrates which lay eggs with shells except for birds
(Aves) and mammals (Mammalia).


New System (cladistic/phylogenetic):

Reptilia includes the most recent common ancestor of turtles, crocodiles, snakes, lizards, and tuataras, plus all of that ancestor's descendants. Dinosauria is a subset of this (and Aves a subset of Dinosauria -- hence Aves is part of Reptilia, too).


dml.cmnh.org...

Here you go this will get you started.
en.wikipedia.org...

You're welcome.

Yes, all those people in the "Answer sites" are wrong they are using the old Linnaean classification.
And yes some schools still use it, yes it is stupid, yes people working in the field have mostly moved on.

edit on 21-5-2011 by LikeDuhObviously because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-5-2011 by LikeDuhObviously because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
Good lord!


I'm so pleased this thread has turned in to a sensible reasoned debate about lots of credible data.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   
reply to post by LikeDuhObviously
 


Thank you Like. Good to make your aquaintance. Here's a question. Triceratops ? Real ? If so, was it a reptile ?
Up front I feel that trying to fit Cera into the reptile family, is akin to the Rhino belonging there also. Then there's
Stegasaurus to me is akin to the turtle and some others that I can't find a name for, that seem like giant horny toads. Still reptiles.

Pimander
Well it's about Dinos stud. Everybody respects a Dino even if there all dead.

edit on 21-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
www.cryptozoology.com...

"The Dragon of the Ishtar Gate may be one of Cryptozoology's strangest, yet best-documented, ancient crypids. This two and a half millennium old depiction is so unusual that many treat it as a chimera, an impossible combination of animals that could never have existed in nature. But the people of ancient Babylon knew and accepted the 'dragon' as real, as real as the bulls and lions that also share the walls."

similar incident; old, old stone carving of what seems to be a dino or dino-like creature
Lord only knows what's back in the hills and jungles and swamps in this world.



posted on May, 21 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Here you go OP. Some highly credible sightings. Dosn't the Stegasauras in your pic seem to be encircled by a snake?



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 

Triceratops is a Reptile and a Rhinoceros is a Mammal..
Are you even trying or are you going looking at pictures trying to find animals that look alike ?
Only one of those two is a Dinosaur ... Mammals are not dinosaurs.
Even Creationist understand this much, no ? Triceratops is a Dinosaur so obviously is a Reptile.
This is not a difficault concept .

Rhinoceros are closer to horses then birds .... obviously ..

Dinosaurs are not all dead. We have still have avian dinosaurs.
And they are still obviously are Reptiles. It would take some serious magic to ever stop them from being Reptiles.

You don't "outgrow" your ancestry. Think about how stupid of an idea it is even . ..

SPOILER ALERT :
Close your eyes Creationist Archaeopteryx is one hell of a unarguable transitional fossil .






Archaeopteryx .. yeah it is a laughable idea that Birds, and Reptiles (#ing Dinosaurs) are Closely related ..


en.wikipedia.org...
Laughable I tell you ..


And of course we all know you are completely ignore .. we have shown everything I said to be true with DNA ...
edit on 22-5-2011 by LikeDuhObviously because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-5-2011 by LikeDuhObviously because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
You obviously never even looked at the page I linked.
I beg of you (and anyone questioning me ITT) to take the time to look at this cladogram and at least read the following 3 groups.


yellow group (sauropsids) is monophyletic,
blue group (traditional reptiles) is paraphyletic
red group (warm-blooded animals) is polyphyletic.

monophyletic
en.wikipedia.org...

paraphyletic
en.wikipedia.org...

Polyphyly
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   
reply to post by LikeDuhObviously
 

I understand the charts. But I don't understand it as proof I guess.
I think you have me all wrong maybe. I'm just wondering, say, if the Rhino- saurus only existed at the time that Cera did ? Would it also end up being classified as a dinosaur ? Please forgive my ineptitudes in my questioning of the empirical science here. I know they more than likely exist, even if I don't realise what they are exactly.

Triceratops doesn't seem to be a reptile to me. I hope that doesn't offend you ? If it does then I apologise. As far as the charts or anything like the nature of. I would better believe what you tell me in a knowledgable way.
Oh, I think I understand.

We're beyond the creationist vs. evolution thing a few posts back ok. That's not at all what I'm driving at.
Scratch that. I'm simply asking someone who obviously is educated enough to answer. IMO.


edit on 22-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)


Are my compliments to you not being taken seriously here ? Because if their not I can stop.:

edit on 22-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 04:25 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


If what your asking is Triceratops a reptile ?
Yes Obviously ... Triceratops are obviously a Dinosaur, right ?

You cannot be a Dinosaur without being a Reptile ...

I am watching hockey atm. (Canadian ldo)
If you ask me a question or something you want expained I will get to if in a few hours.

Surely you understand Triceratops is a dinosaur ?




maybe I am missing your point all together
How does Triceratops not fit under Reptilia ?

edit:
I think I understand now.

There is about 1/2 a period left of my game. I will explain how we know what species are Dinosaurs, including Triceratops . ( I will use Triceratops as the example)
edit on 22-5-2011 by LikeDuhObviously because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-5-2011 by LikeDuhObviously because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 05:57 PM
link   
First off get this is the definition of "Dinosaur"
en.wikipedia.org...

Cliff notes :
-Ornithischia and Saurischia equals Dinosaur.

We define Ornithischia

S: (n) Ornithischia, order Ornithischia (extinct terrestrial reptiles having bird-like pelvises: armored dinosaurs (thyreophorans); boneheaded and horned dinosaurs (marginocephalians); duck-billed dinosaurs (euronithopods))

We define Saurischia
S: (n) Saurischia, order Saurischia (extinct terrestrial reptiles: theropods (carnivorous); sauropods (herbivorous))

Both get there names from their pelvises.
Ornithischia = "bird hipped"
Saurischia = "lizard hipped"

Side note: Actual birds are .. Saurischia

As I said we would use Triceratops as an example.
So we will be looking at Ornithischia.

Since we already are already talking about pelvises we will use them in our example.

Of course the species closer together have more in common then say a Triceratop and Pisanosaurus,who is bipedal. But they all have being ornithischia in common.





Three examples of Ornithischia pelvises.
(Ordered: Edmontosaurus, Triceratops, Parasaurolophus.






I think this clearly shows that all of Ornithischia including Triceratops are closely related.
So as I said above to remove Triceratops will remove all you of Ornithischia


If we read the link I first posted there in no way we can deny Ornithischia as Dinosaurs.
In turn there is no way we can strip Triceratops of its Dinosaurhood.

You have already referenced Dinosaurs as reptiles, so I don't see why I need to try to argue it farther.

Oh yeah quit hating on Triceratops, yo.
This # don't change if it is Triceratops or Torosaurus
(yes I was ignoring this part of your post and have been speaking of the genus)

see:
Triceratops Horridus
Triceratops Prorsus

But I know what your thinking Triceratops of our childhood was the # ... I agree, bro.
Triceratops4L

NOTE: I seemed to use a old cladogram . This does not change anything I said.
Here for more details :onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
edit on 22-5-2011 by LikeDuhObviously because: (no reason given)

edit on 22-5-2011 by LikeDuhObviously because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
Here you go OP. Some highly credible sightings. Dosn't the Stegasauras in your pic seem to be encircled by a snake?

I missed this post. .
Just because I think it is funny. (and true)
Even if a Pterosaur landed center field of the Super Bowl next year, this would not be evidence of living dinosaurs (Besides Birds obv.)..

Pterosaurs were not dinosaurs.
Remember we were talking about pelvises in this thread ? Well I never mentioned what Ornithischia and Saurischia have in common that make them Dinosaurs.


They are both reptiles with a unique upright stance (Yes like BIRDS!), something Pterosaurs did not share. So they obviously cannot be Dinosaurs.


Here is a picture of a real "flying dinosaur". Please send a copy to the writer of that blog to clear up any further confusion. Thanks



Its name Atlapetes latinuchus yariguierum.
edit on 22-5-2011 by LikeDuhObviously because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by LikeDuhObviously
 


Oh my God Like, I took one look at this picture.




The first thing to come into my head was " Holy shhhhh....it! No wonder this guy thinks I'm either playing with him or I'm just an idiot. I swear on my skin like I just have never seen a Tri top that up close before ? I'm both astonished and embarassed. Let this be a testament to how far apart an education can put people..I only had to see the picture and that is clearly a dinosaur/reptile. I apologise and see now you had every right to think the way you were thinking. I promise to study the links you've provided in depth. Also to write 100 times. When some one provides a link , don't skim. Study.

I see now the problem. Brain fart my bad.

My wife is hitting me and saying you forgot to say thank you. So I'm just really blow'in it right now.


Thank you Like for all the extra hair I cost you. I know you must have been pulling on it. For your time and patience as well. Thank you much.

edit on 22-5-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by TechUnique
So I scrolled through Google and found the following.


Do more googling.
Once you get past the nutters saying its a stegosaur, the real answer is to be found.
Go on, you can do it.

Edit - a like everything, this has been discussed before on ATS.
Read the old threads and the real answer is there as well.

Edit2 - I dont like the thread title. This is not "NEW", this image having circulated the internet for many years now.

edit on 3-5-2011 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-5-2011 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)


Yeah it's a rhino or hippo.
Definately right for that area.
It does not look like a stegosaurus to me at all.



posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


I don't know if you are being serious in your last post. But I never thought you were playing with me or stupid.
It has to do with interests. Trust me I fully understand when someone says things like "Birds are Dinosaurs" it can sound insane. But its not and it really is easy to see. I would be convinced 100% without any genetic proof (what we have BTW).

Everyone seems to think it is a new idea, Dinosaurs being an intermediate stage between Reptiles and Birds.
Huxley actually put the idea out there after the Origin of Species was published

Skipping ahead to modern day science.

We have tested T-Rex DNA against Alligator (Dinosaurs and Crocodiles are decedents of Archosaurs) and Birds.
Birds are the closer match to Dinosaurs.
www.sciencemag.org...

Obviously this means Birds are decedents of Dinosaurs and in fact are Dinosaurs.

I am shocked no one has flamed my lose usage of a horrible word Reptile ITT.

I will wait and see if anyone catches me on it.



posted on May, 23 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   
reply to post by LikeDuhObviously
 


Well if I swear on my skin about something. I'm serious. I didn't mean to sound like you made me feel like an idiot either. That just isn't the case. I just see where my questions did merit your scrutiny. As far as I'm concerned. I unintentionally made myself look facetious. So don't be confused anymore by my kidding, It was also inappropriate in hind sight. I come away from this with a better understanding of evolution. So I gain, as that is very rare. Let me say this in all sincerety. You're the man.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join