Amazing Evidence: The Human Specie is Hundreds of Millions of Years Old!

page: 3
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 5 2011 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pythein

Originally posted by DesertedIsland
from the first links i just dont understand how we have found so many bones of dinosaurs but none of a human, just a couple of heads
edit on 5/6/11 by DesertedIsland because: spelling


Because most dinosaur fossils that we have found are due to the mass extinction of the dinosaurs, and of skeletons that no available carrion eater was capable of breaking apart and taking away with them. Our earliest human ancestors most likely went off into the woods to die (or similar, depending upon environment), or their bodies were exposed to the environment, human burials are only about 60,000 years old, and then it was most likely an adaptation of fixed settlements and having to deal with large predators. By burying our dead we were better able to prevent large predators, such as bears, wolves and cats, from being attracted to the easy food that out domesticated animals would have provided, or perhaps as likely, because once we were settled or confined to smaller roaming grounds, we didn't like coming across the bodies of our relatives all pulled apart and scavenged like that. So we hid them away and preformed ceremonies to prevent their disturbance, that eventually became ritual. But the main reason that the there are very few complete skeletons is because the bodies would have been seperated by scavengers and taken back to burrows. Think of how effectively Ted Bundy was able to avoid detection, even though he left most of his victims lying out on sheltered inclines next to major roads. The animals did the disposal work for him.


Nothing you posted explains why there wouldn't be human fossils with dinosaur fossils.

You claim the skeletton would have been taken apart by predators because of its size...but we found TONS of small dinosaur fossils, so your claim is nonsense.

You also claim it's likely humans "went into the woods to die"...based on what evidence??? And how would that prevent fossilization?


And finally, you even claim most dinosaur fossils are from the time of the great mass extinction...which also isn't true.

Simply put, there's NO EVIDENCE that humans roamed the earth with dinosaurs (unless you consider a crocodile a dinosaur).




posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 01:14 AM
link   
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Maybe theres hardly no evidence because of our fragile bodies? Maybe our bones lacked something at that time, and were quickly decomposed by rodents?



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 01:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by DesertedIsland
reply to post by MrXYZ
 


Maybe theres hardly no evidence because of our fragile bodies? Maybe our bones lacked something at that time, and were quickly decomposed by rodents?


So what's the evidence to back up what you're saying? And why was it only the case for humans and not every other species on the planet??



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Bob Sholtz
 


It is rejected because it is not possible based on empirical data. It is quite simple to understand, it is definitely most likely that the dating system becomes ineffective depending on the artifact's age. Look at the achievements of scientific enlightenment, then ask yourself what is most likely, humans living with dinosaurs, or human physiology being derived from past animals over long periods of time?

Evolution is a very easy to understand concept, and it correlates perfectly with the age of the earth and how long it takes for evolution to occur. I would consider humans living with dinosaurs a little more far'fetched....



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 03:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Nothing you posted explains why there wouldn't be human fossils with dinosaur fossils.


I don't understand your point.


Originally posted by MrXYZ
You claim the skeletton would have been taken apart by predators because of its size...but we found TONS of small dinosaur fossils, so your claim is nonsense.


You are right, my theory only applies to the larger dinosaurs, and it was a sweeping generalisation, I do not know the actual number of fossils, per species, and by size off the top of my head. But, size and predators, and the presence of suitable carrion scavengers, are all proven factors in determining preservation of remains, and therefore how intact those remains are when fossilised. Many of the fossils that have been preserved have been so because the remains were out of reach of creatures that would have broken up the body and spread the bones over a larger area, and possibly taken them underground to burrows. Deaths that have occured in silt following flood or after a volcanic activity has depositied large amounts of ash...that kind of thing. I should have been clearer, but the short-cut of referring to 'extinction events' seemed reasonable, but clearly it was not. I apologise for the confusion.


Originally posted by MrXYZ
You also claim it's likely humans "went into the woods to die"...based on what evidence??? And how would that prevent fossilization?


In terms of your first point, based on behaviouralism. Nomadic peoples, those that are still extant today, as well as those that were documented over the course of colonalism and exploration of 'new' worlds, consistently demonstrate the practice of individuals leaving the group to die. Whether it is an active walking or off, or a like the Inuit, they are left behind when the tribe moves on, but either way, it is a recognised 'rite' of death, anthropologically. Other animals do it too.

On your second point, I wasn't claiming that this would prevent fossilisation, I was trying to explain why complete remains of hominids and other mammals are seldom found, and that this is most likely due to the body being consumed by carrion eaters and other scavengers, and the bones spread over a wider area and possibly taken underground to burrows. Combined with the lack of any fixed settlements for early hominids, we wouldn't know where to start, if you know what I mean? Many of the best examples that we have in the human fossil record, like those from the dinosaurs, are because of sudden death, cave collapses, land slides, flooding...


Originally posted by MrXYZ
And finally, you even claim most dinosaur fossils are from the time of the great mass extinction...which also isn't true.


I apologise, I was being general, dinosaurs are not my forte or specifically in my area of interest, I simply assumed that we would have the best record from the cretaceous period, although not from where the conflageration and destruction would have been worst, but the later die off, once all the plant eaters had died and been consumed, the smaller predatory dinosaurs would have been the last to go probably, leaving only the small mammals...again i was theorising, I am sorry if that has clouded the issue.


Originally posted by MrXYZ
Simply put, there's NO EVIDENCE that humans roamed the earth with dinosaurs (unless you consider a crocodile a dinosaur).


I agree, but then I didn't say that there was, did I?

I believe I tried to answer specific questions related to discovery and behaviouralism, I don't know enough about aging techniques to argue that position, I was leaving that to others. Perhaps you could explain it, how we can be so sure that dinosaurs and humans never co-existed? I don't believe that they did, but clearly there is some confusion, I am sure that you could allieviate that, given your obvious conviction.
edit on 6-6-2011 by Pythein because: missing words



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 09:12 AM
link   
There is another interpretation of finding human and dino footprints next to each other. It may not be that man lived during the age of dinosaurs. It may be that some dinosaurs survived into the age of men.

There are so many reports of beasts that seem VERY dinosaur like in humanities history that it has to be considered.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
HOW WERE THE FOOTPRINTS/BONES DATED: ANSWER!

There is no scientific method to date millions/tens of millions years old footprints or bones. In order to accomplish this, we need the help of hazard.

For example, the skull was buried beneath ash and volcanic debris ~280 millions years ago, therefore preserved. The same volcanic debris resulted after a great eruption, preserved two cities in the 1st century AD: Pompeii and Herculaneum. Of course, everyone died, but the cities were almost perfectly preserved. In Herculaneum, even wooden furniture survived (along with glass, wall paintings and human bones).
By discovering when that eruption took place, the geologists and volcanologists working together, were able to date the human skull.

The human footprints were buried beneath the same type of volcanic material, becoming perfectly preserved.

Humans were not billions back then, we were few in numbers and scarce on vast distances.
So 'faith' must meet a series of fortunate events, in order to preserve human bones or footprints for millions of years:
1. One or multiple humans (or at least foot prints) must be close enough to an erupting volcano in order to be killed & covered by its ejected debris, but far enough not to be burned by burning ponce rocks.
(Example: The Pompeii city was firstly destroyed by a rain of flaming rocks, and only later covered by ash. Therefore, nothing fragile was preserved. But Herculaneum was speared by the fire shower and only hit by the ash, therefore perfectly preserved).

2. The covered bones/tracks must remain buried until discovered, not to be disturbed, not to take contact with air.

3. Someone must FIND them (imagine how hard this is, almost impossible). Even if bones would be able to 'survive' for millions of years, how could one date them? Unless there is a geologist able to see how long ago they were buried (by counting back in time the layers of dirt and ash covering them).

4. And finally, those able to correctly date the bones/tracks must publicly acknowledge their age. But how could they? If they accept these findings, then their evolutionary theories are all wrong (and they are)!



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by gekados
 





There is no scientific method to date millions/tens of millions years old footprints or bones. In order to accomplish this, we need the help of hazard.


What a bunch of hogwash you just posted


Ever heard of radiometric dating? If not, you got some reading to do


Also, before you repeat the old "outside influences like air skew results" answer...radiometric decay isn't influenced by outside influences like the air, or water.
edit on 6-6-2011 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Either man is far, far more ancient than we know. Or there are processes, geologically, in effect with which we are either ignorant, or do not include in our logic. Otherwise, how does a foot get petrified, still lodged in a boot, out in Ozona, TX? Or what about Stuckie, the weenie dog that was petrified inside a petrified tree trunk?
edit on 4-6-2011 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)


paleo.cc...

"The Limestone Cowboy"
Seems like it’s never been established that the leg in question was ever proven to be human, much less fossilized.

www.accessnorthgeorgia.com...
refers to poor Stuckie as a “mummified coon hound” and looking at the pictures, I’d say mummified too.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by DesertedIsland
what really interests me is the shoe sole imprint. Time traveling anyone?



An amateur geologist discovered a fossilized imprint of a shoe complete with thread marks and broken heel in Fisher Canyon, Pershing County, Nevada.


Link to site


Glen J. Kuban covers that one too, along with some of the other tracks and prints
paleo.cc...
Nevada Shoe Print?
paleo.cc...

2006 (email communication). Dr. Yancey is a professor in the department of geology and geophysics at Texas A & M University. He agrees that the object is likely a fractured concretion, and adds that the banding probably represents silica, with any porosity within in the bands due to incomplete replacement (Yancey, 2006). This might explain the supposed "stitching" features.



posted on Jun, 6 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

So what's the evidence to back up what you're saying? And why was it only the case for humans and not every other species on the planet??



im not claiming anything, just brainstorming



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Pauligirl
 


No doubt you can find a "debunking" of any and all anomalous events.



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 01:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ

What a bunch of hogwash you just posted


Ever heard of radiometric dating? If not, you got some reading to do


Also, before you repeat the old "outside influences like air skew results" answer...radiometric decay isn't influenced by outside influences like the air, or water.


That has been completely lost as a source of reliable testing. Looks like you got some reading up to do.


Laboratories around the globe have confirmed that the rate of radioactive decay—once thought to be a constant and a bedrock of science—is no longer a constant. Something being emitted from the sun is interacting with matter in strange and unknown ways with the startling potential to dramatically change the nature of the very Earth itself.

Exactly what has scientists so on edge is the fact that the natural rate of decay of atomic particles has always been predictable.


www.projectworldawareness.com...


news.stanford.edu...

io9.com...



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Carbon dating only works on organic material to about 70k years, but Radiometric dating can go back billions of years. When you combine radiometric dating with working through the layers of rock we can get very close to the age of the rocks and what is in the rocks. This is how we expanded the earth’s age from 50 million years old to 4 billion in just this last century.

To have foot prints in a rock would be very hard to date in any case, and to have a unique set of them next to dino prints would be a little too convenient to say the least….



posted on Jun, 7 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Carbon dating only works on organic material to about 70k years, but Radiometric dating can go back billions of years. When you combine radiometric dating with working through the layers of rock we can get very close to the age of the rocks and what is in the rocks. This is how we expanded the earth’s age from 50 million years old to 4 billion in just this last century.

To have foot prints in a rock would be very hard to date in any case, and to have a unique set of them next to dino prints would be a little too convenient to say the least….


If i were tracking a herd of beasts, you might find my footprints "alongside" theirs.



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by Xtrozero

If i were tracking a herd of beasts, you might find my footprints "alongside" theirs.


I understand your point, but I truly don’t think man or mammals in general would have been the “hunters” in dino times. When you also look at mammals in general they were about the size of rats, well except for man I guess.

Once again too unique and convenient…



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 12:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


I had mentioned this earlier...but i don't believe humans lived in "dino times". I believe that some dinos lived into "human times", though.

Few enough that they could remain in the wild and only occasionally cross paths with humans. Like The Beast from Disney, humans would round up a posse and chase down the monsters.

Perhaps this is the source of the tales of dragons? There are many, many, many reports of pterosaurs, including the Amerind "Thunderbird". The sizes reported preclude the Frigate Bird, so we are left with anomolies still.

I am not saying it is true, only possible. With all the reports of what can only be dino type beasts from around the globe, past and present, we have to consider the possibility. Because we know humans are experts at hunting small populations of animals into extinction.
edit on 8-6-2011 by bigfatfurrytexan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 06:50 AM
link   
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan
 


This is all I want from people...to accept that something MAY be possible, not reject the subject from the beginning, because they think they know better.

When a so called 'conspiracy' is born, there are always very intelligent people supporting it. It is unwise to call everything a 'hoax' or 'fake' before studying what they have to say.

Each documented opinion is welcomed. This is how the technological progress is achieved.

Peace to all!



posted on Jun, 8 2011 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by gekados

This is all I want from people...to accept that something MAY be possible, not reject the subject from the beginning, because they think they know better.

Peace to all!


The problem that I have with most of all this is these events are singular with no other connections to them. What I mean is we have foot prints that may or may not be real, but nothing else to support the claims that humans walked with dinosaurs. One question to ask is "are the other tracks actually dinosaurs"? We had some very large, but now extinct, birds in the past that lived in early human times, so maybe we need to identify the other non-human tracks.

If we want to place man 150 million or more years ago then that would mean we have not evolved much for the last 150 plus million years, and it would be ignorant to think that. It would be ignorant to think we have not evolved drastically in the last 500,000 years too, much less 100s of millions of years.

So what we need is for this to progress past the first step to determine what is true and what is not, and if we find we have just one step and nothing more than it is hard to say anything at all. That second step is big though in figuring out how man could have lived in a time where mammals in general were not evolved past very small creatures.



posted on Jun, 9 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 


The evolutionary theory is nothing more than a theory...and not even a solid one. It has some major flows & I'm sure it will not stand for much longer.

Giving the fact that a new theory surfaced, which states that humans are not meat eaters by nature, we could have easily survived (before big animals appeared) with a pure vegetarian diet.





new topics
top topics
 
24
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join