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.


age of dinosaurs

page: 1

log in


posted on Aug, 17 2004 @ 07:45 PM
i was surfing around and came across an interesting article so i thought i would share it with all of you. its about the theory (that has been covered here in various forms from time to time) that dinosaurs coexsisted with humans. it brings up some interesting topics such as the geological column and some petroglyphs that indians have drawn. here's a link:


posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 02:31 AM
Very one-sided view.

There are others methods for dating fossiles like measuring amount of different radioactive isotopes.
Most common is Carbon-14 dating.

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 03:00 AM
The writer... hasn't studied geology and is talking out of his hat when he talks about geologic columns and so forth.

As to the evidence, I also study petroglyphs (and as an anthropologist am a tiny bit more informed about what they are.) Here's a nice page about the tour and what's actually in the canyon:

(in fact, two days ago I was out at Inscription Canyon, taking photos of the petroglyphs there for a research project that I'm doing on image processing and petroglyphs and pictographs... Inscription Canyon's about 30 miles on the other side of the dry lake from Maturango. A very deadly place if you don't know how to do research out there)

Is that thing a dinosaur? No. And an unqualified "no" at that. These are things seen in dream visions

Here's an example of the images at Painted Rock before they were vandalized (this is another site I'm quite familiar with and have visited twice for my research. LOVE this place!) There's no dinosaurs here and there's no demons, though there is an image of what appears to be a shaman transforming into Swordfish (one of their deities/helpers) and a number of designs that indicate datura is being used to induce the dreams.

They are also pictures of the shaman's helpers and the shapes that the shamans transform into in the DreamSpace (to make up a term that might be understandable.)

The writer of the page apparently hasn't done much reading on the petroglyphs themselves, for they skip over the significance of these symbols (they were made by shamans (I'm glossing over a lot of things here; they weren't exactly shamans, but that's close enough) and issues like the patina of the rocks and the lichen types and coverings.

Now -- while the writer of that page might not know what the symbols are, there IS a lot of anthropological research on them and "dinosaur" isn't in any of the answers (the research comes from the tribes themselves; not from our interpretation... and yes, the Indians DO know what dinosaurs are since they go to school like the rest of us and study ancient biology.)

I'm trying not to do a lecture on this stuff here. It's fascinating, but I don't think I can conveniently digest down 600 pages of articles and original research and archival research libraries.

If dinosaurs existed with humans, we'd find as good evidence for this as we do for humans and mammoths and humans and cave bears and humans and ancient horses.

The Ica/Inca Stones are known frauds. The drawings of "dinosaurs" change as our own concept of how they look changes. The "brontosaurus" of "Alley Oop" cartoons has been replaced by a sleeker creature with no hump on its back... and if they'd actually SEEN dinos, they'd have gotten it right in the first place.

[edit on 18-8-2004 by Byrd]

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 11:12 AM

Originally posted by spangbr
i was surfing around and came across an interesting article so i thought i would share it with all of you.

the page:
There isn’t any place where you can actually see the entire geologic column, except in a textbook

Absolutely, completely, totally, and utterly incorrect. Thats so incredibly wrong that who ever wrote it is either completely ignorant and hasn't even bothered to do a minimum of research on the topic or horribly dishonest. Probably a little of both.

Although the rapid formation of rock layers is an obvious fact, it makes evolutionists uncomfortable because it isn’t compatible with a neat uniformitarian explanation.

Wrong. Rock layers can form quickly, slowly, and very slowly. Floods deposit large amounts of sediment as do avalanches. Even normal rivers deposit lots of sediment. Still waters deposit sediments very slowly. Again, either ignorance or dishonesty is at work here.

If you make the assumption, as evolutionists do, that the kinds of critters buried in a sedimentary rock layer determine when that rock layer was formed, then you would assume that the Mojave Desert flood and Ohio River flood happened at different times because the Mojave Desert flood contained lizards and coyotes not found in the Ohio River flood.

Geologists and paleontologists don't make stupid assumptions like that. Paleo-ecological papers have to incorporate data from multiple sites. They don't say 'look, lizards, must be from the dinosaur ages'. And most of the groundwork in correlating rocks of different ages was done by geologists who were around before evolution and were very much like creationists.

The dating and correlation of the geologic column is based on the assumption that all the wildlife living all over the world is the same at any given time

I think that this author has been consistenly wrong enough to say that they are infact a liar.

If radioisotope dating indicated the rock was less than 65 million years old, or more than 250 million year old, the evolutionist would flatly reject the radioisotope date.

No they wouldn't. Does the author infact have such a sample? Apparently not.

on a section about so called descriptions of living dinosaurs:
In our (May, 2002) feature article, Dinotopia, we went into great detail about the historic description of griffins and the similarity to the horned dinosaur skeletons actually found in the region where griffins were supposed to have lived. In that essay we also mentioned historic reports of neades, which match the description of “prehistoric” elephants, whose bones were found in that area.

Protoceratops is the usual culprit in this case. Adrienne Mayor ( i belive that is the name) proposed that when ancient peoples foudn fossils they assumed that they were recently dead organisms and incorporated them into their myths. The fossils in the central asian region where these are found are actual bleach white, so they really look recent. Of course they are rock. In the case of the griffin, protoceratops is a skeleton with four legs and a hooked beak and possibly the 'crest' was thought to be the wings. An actual -living- creature like this isn't going to be confused with a flying winged beaked lion monster. Th fossils are of course found in the ground and often associated with washed out gold deposits, and the griffin is supposed to live in the ground and hoard gold. A living protoceratops wouldn't be doing either.

Just because there are myths of monsters does not mean that people saw living dinosaurs.

We haven’t seen any of these stones, so all we know is what we read about them in books or on the Internet. We can’t attest to their validity.

The only sources they have for these stones are creationist apologetics sites. And it is known that stones like these are made fraudulently. Without some sort of evidence attesting to their authenticity, they are pretty pointless. see this page for more information on these stones. Apparently they aren't inca stones but rather ica stones. Such wonderful research here also eh?

The Ica/Inca Stones are known frauds. The drawings of "dinosaurs" change as our own concept of how they look changes. The "brontosaurus" of "Alley Oop" cartoons has been replaced by a sleeker creature with no hump on its back... and if they'd actually SEEN dinos, they'd have gotten it right in the first place.

I guess its only a matter of time before ica stones depicting feathered dinosaurs start popping up.

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 03:39 PM
See any of the Jurassic Park movies to see what life would have been like as a human with dinos, hehe...and then imagine it without modern equipment or weapons....

Given our body size, we'd have likely ended up extinct...brains or no brains....


posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 04:33 PM

Originally posted by Gazrok
Given our body size, we'd have likely ended up extinct...brains or no brains....

Yeah, even with pistols and rifles it would be hard to defend against them, smaller ones like Deinonychus and Velociraptor were very propable pretty fast so they could easily make fast surprise attacks.
Against bigger ones... anything "smaller than bazookas" would be useless.

With stones and sticks humans couldn't have been able to defend themself even against vegetarians, crushing human unintentionally would be as easy for them as is crushing of cochroach for us. And some of "smaller" vegetarians were real "organic tanks".

Neither there wouldn't have been even change for mammals to evolve anything bigger than mouse.

posted on Aug, 18 2004 @ 04:50 PM
Not trying to start anything here, but what do you guys think about the rumored 'Loch Ness' creatures reported throughout the globe? (such as the Hudson Bay). Someone has even started a 'Nessie cam' :

top topics


log in