Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

page: 1
130
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+84 more 
posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:36 AM
link   
 

Big News Everyone



Because of the great discussion on this thread, our own JohnnyAnonymous has booked a special guest for this Saturdays episode of ATS LIVE!

None other than Michael Cremo of "Forbidden Archaeology" will be on the show to discuss dinosaurs and humans and many other topics of interest to this discussion.

Forbidden Archeology
Michael Cremo

Please make sure to tune in this Saturday and listen to the discussion. Barring any setbacks I'll be calling in to the show to ask some of the questions we've talked about in this thread. You don't want to miss it!


 


Alright...let me start of by providing to you my main point with this thread. Humans and dinosaurs did live together on this earth...plain and simple. I've come to this conclusion through much research and personal reflection. I have come to except that modern science is not simply wrong about this fact...but actively covering it up and feeding the lie to protect their holy grail..aka...evolution. I'm going to go through and give you a few examples of some cases where ancient peoples had excellent evidence of "prehistoric" creatures in their lives...as well as some evidence to show how modern science is trying to cover up this fact.

Let's begin by gaining a basic understanding of the knowledge ancient peoples had about dinosaurs. There are examples from history from peoples from all corners of the world in which intimate knowledge of dinosaurs can be found. Keep in mind the only reason that this is strange is because according to evolutionary assumptions, the existence of dinosaurs was supposed to be unknown until the nineteenth century. The fact that there are artifacts that date back much longer than that is immediately a major hurdle for evolutionary thinking.

I want to start with a story that was originally published in Creation Magazine in September of 2003. The article tells the story of a man name Phillip Bell who went on an expedition to the UK. Bell ended up at the Carlisle Cathedral to view an engraving on a tomb that is kept underneath a rug in the church. The tomb in question belongs to Richard Bell (no relation), a bishop at Carlisle (AD 1410-1496). The tomb is inlaid with brass and shows the bishop himself as well as some other religious imagery. The section of note though is roughly 9 1/2 feet long and runs around the edge. Here is what Bell had to say:

To the casual visitor, a look at this large brass set in stone would reveal nothing out of the ordinary. But, on closer inspection, one can see engravings of creatures that any twenty-first century child would instantly recognize as dinosaurs!



This should seem odd considering the tomb itself was sealed and decorated over four centuries before such creatures were ever unearthed and identified! Here is a picture of the engraving in question:



The next example I would like to show you is another example that brings into question when certain animals were said to exist by evolutionary scholars. The object in question is known most commonly as a "Devil's Corkscrew". These are spiral tunnels in the Earth that range from around six to seven feet. When they were first discovered, scientists thought they were the result of a giant root. Here is an example of one:



It wasn't until the 1920's that scientists found these out for what they really were...palaeocaster beaver holes! Now, according to evolutionary timelines this animal went extinct about 30 million years ago. This is where we find a problem. American Indians knew specifically what these corkscrews were and what made them. In fact, the Lakota Indians even had a name for them - Ca'pa el ti - which translates to "beaver lodges". The only way the Indians could have known this would be to excavate these tunnels, find the remains, and correctly peice together and identify them for what they were. Considering the American Indians strong belief in not disturbing the bones of the dead, the only reasonable conclusion to make is that these people saw this animal alive!

Another item I would like to bring up is one that I'm sure many of you are already familiar with. In May, 2006, Helen Fields wrote an article about a bone for Smithsonian Magazine titled, "Dinosaur Shocker." This article talks about a Tyrannosaurus Rex bone that was found in the Hell Creek formation in Montana. This bone has been studied by Creation scientist, as well as evolutionary paleontologist Mary Scheitzer and the renowned paleontologist Jack Horner. Here is the important quote from this article:

It was big news indeed last year when Schweitzer announced she had discovered blood vessels and structures that looked like whole cells inside that T-rex bone - the first observaion of its kind. The finding amazed colleagues, who had never imagined that even a trace of still-soft dinosaur tissue could survive. After all, as any textbook will tell you, when an animal dies, soft tissues such as blood vessels, muscle, and skin decay and disappear over time, while hard tissues like bone may gradually acquire minerals from the environment and become fossils.



What a shock indeed! This dinosaur, which evolutionary science tells us has been dead for 68 million years, had not finished decomposing!

In 2005, excavation teams from the same area in Montana unearthed fossils from a triceratops and a hadrosaur. Based on the findings of the T-rex bone, the teams were compelled to determine if these bones also still contained any remains that had not yet fossilized. Wouldn't you know it, they did! The next move to make was to test these bones for Carbon 14, which would place them less than 100,000 years old. For this test, the industry-recognized Accelerated Mass Spectrometer was was used to test for Carbon 14. Even more, the Geochron Laboratories and the University of Georgie Isotope Center were on hand to examine the results independently. You may not be surprised to learn that both bones yielded positive results for Carbon 14!

According to multiple tests, the triceratops registered an average of 30,890 years old, while the hadrosaur tested to an average of 23,170 years old!

This is the type of evidence that no evolutionists wants to see or discuss, and I find it to be absolute proof that dinosaurs are much younger than we have been told.

My final point will illustrate another reason that we have been misled. It is my opinion that the methods used to date the earth and the fossils within it is terribly off balance.

The accepted method for dating the earth is radioisotope or radiometric testing. Using these methods the age of the earth has currently been placed at around 4.5 billion years. To better understand how this is done, I'll give you an excerpt explaining the method.

Radiometric dating is based on the fact that radioactive isotopes decay to form isotopes of different elements. The starting isotope is called the parent and the ending is called the daughter. The time it takes for one half of the parent atoms to decay to the daughter atoms is called the half-life. If certain things are known, it is possible to calculate the amount of time since the parent isotope began to decay.



Know, the things you must know prior to testing a rock are the following assumptions.

1.) The rate of decay is known and has been constant since the rock formed.

2.) There has been no loss or gain of the parent or daughter isotopes from the rock.

3.) The amounts of parent and daughter isotopes present when the rock formed are known.

The problem with this method for dating the earth is that nobody was alive millions or billions of years ago to verify that the rock really did form when we assume it did. The only way to verify this test is to date rocks of a known age - to basically test the test. This is the kind of testing that evolutionary scientists to not do. And why would they when the results being given match up to what they want?

Fortunately there are those out there who are willing to test the test. Because of the recent known volcanic eruptions, the dating method is possible to test accurately. One of these testing sites was Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand. At this volcano, eleven samples were collected from eruptions that took place in 1949, 1954 and 1975. These samples were dated by Geochron Laboratories of Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Even though the oldest of these samples are just over sixty-years old, the lab tests provided ages that ranged from 270,000 years to 3.5 million years old! That is a HUGE discrepancy! This type of testing is not an isolated incident by any means and goes to show how inaccurate the testing methods that scientists use really are.

I've created this thread to showcase a few examples of what I have found. I must encourage you, however, to dig deeper for yourselves and find the truth. The truth about dinosaurs and humans is out there for the taking, you just have to be willing to go get it.

I will be perfectly happy to entertain any questions that you may have or to discuss this further. Please don't be afraid to comment.
edit on 16-8-2011 by nyk537 because: (no reason given)
edit on 18/8/11 by masqua because: Additional note by author request




posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:49 AM
link   
People believe what they want to believe. I'm not saying you're wrong or they're wrong....somebody is

Can't wait to read some of the replies


+74 more 
posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:53 AM
link   
The two species that are separated by 65 million years of evolution.

I think some ATS'ers have lost their minds.

You can have your opinions and beliefs, but you can't have your own facts.

Now show me a fossilized stegosaurus with a saddle then I might start to believe In the looney.


+73 more 
posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Stovokor
 


Did you read the thread at all or just the title before deciding to comment? I have some evidence listed if you would like to discuss them specifically.

I'm guessing you don't though.


+1 more 
posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:56 AM
link   
The idea of man and dinosaurs living together sounds crazy only if you've been brainwashed into thinking the earth is billions of years old. If the world is as young as the bible says it is (about six thousand years old), then man living with dinosaurs makes perfect sense.

I remember this site.. www.genesispark.com...


+108 more 
posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fisherr
The idea of man and dinosaurs living together sounds crazy only if you've been brainwashed into thinking the earth is billions of years old. If the world is as young as the bible says it is (about six thousand years old), then man living with dinosaurs makes perfect sense.

I remember this site.. www.genesispark.com...


The bible IS NOT a scientific document..


+1 more 
posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Fisherr
 


My point exactly. This is written from a Creationist viewpoint (which I am) not an evolutionary one. I'm trying to make the case (among others) that evolutionary timelines are wrong, and that the Earth is much younger than we have been led to believe.

There are other test results out there that mirror the ones I have showcased. It is not an isolated incident.


+40 more 
posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
According to Fred Flintstone...you are correct.

People and dinosaurs did coexist and actually worked together in peace and harmony. The dinosaurs baby sat our kids, worked as alarm clocks and garbage disposals and even as excavators in the slate mines!

If it's on TV, it must be true....right?


Great post. Thanks.




edit on 16-8-2011 by jude11 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Op, i hate to say the blatant obvious to you, but if humans did not read their research from a text book that was produced by just a handful of companies out of Texas;it did not happen!

I for one agree with your hypothesis



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


Do you believe some form of creation and some form of evolution can exist? I am skeptical of a lot of things and the site posted by the other user I'm skeptical of. Since you never know those pictures can be faked, edited, or torn of context.


+15 more 
posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by jude11
 


I guess you're trying to funny here...but I didn't draw any connections to what is on television at all. Honestly I don't appreciate the attitude as if you are dismissing me and my points as crazy. If you want to discuss the evidence I have put forth, by all means go ahead.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
So are you saying that humans have been around on Earth for 200 million years? Or that there were tens of thousands of species of dinosaurs roaming Earth just a few hundred years ago?

(or maybe both?)


+26 more 
posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Fisherr
 


My point exactly. This is written from a Creationist viewpoint (which I am) not an evolutionary one. I'm trying to make the case (among others) that evolutionary timelines are wrong, and that the Earth is much younger than we have been led to believe.



Well,if you go by a Creationist timeline no wonder you think humans and dinosaurs coexisted.

They think the whole world is what,6,000 years old?


+20 more 
posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:02 AM
link   
I suppose dinosaurs were on the ark?



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Essan
 


I am saying that the earth is not as old as we have been told and that, yes, there were still some dinosaurs on earth living with humans.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by jude11
 


I guess you're trying to funny here...but I didn't draw any connections to what is on television at all. Honestly I don't appreciate the attitude as if you are dismissing me and my points as crazy. If you want to discuss the evidence I have put forth, by all means go ahead.


Relax dude...

Just a little levity and no dismissal of your theory.


I'm a Flintstone fan and it came to mind...that's it.



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by gimme_some_truth
 


Why is that funny?

Why is it any easier to accept the results of tests that are obviously inaccurate? What gives evolutionary scientists any more credibility that creationist scientists?



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


So, exactly how old do you estimate the Earth to be?



posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 


Absolutely. Along with every other kind of animal.


+29 more 
posted on Aug, 16 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Essan
 


I am saying that the earth is not as old as we have been told and that, yes, there were still some dinosaurs on earth living with humans.


"the way to see by faith is to shut one eye to reason"

Ben Franklin





top topics
 
130
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join