Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

Thank you.

Wooly Mammoths weren't dinosaurs. They were mega fauna and humans and mega fauna were around at the same time. humans hunted all mega fauna to extinction plus climate change helped end their run as well.

Have you seen any lately? Probably not...So, I say they are extinct just like the others. Evidently they ran side by side with humans, why not the others too..

reply to post by Hydroman



Genesis 6:4

King James Version (KJV)

4There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

reply to post by steveknows


Regardless of how you word it a Theory is a belief. Yes generally all theories come about by observations of actual facts. Then people come up with how they explain the process of what they observed without being able to prove anything, which is why it is considerred a theory. How widely accepted or how widely believed does not change the FACT that anything that is a theory cannot be proven absolutely. Ignoring a lot of evidence though to discount it completely because of personal beliefs is flawed though.

There may be lot of curcumstantial evidence to establish theories combined with personal beliefs on how that evidence comes together.

The same as religion, there may be a lot of circumstantial evidence of certain areas of religion but no actual proof. Many people interpret such circumstantial evidence in ways to justify their own religions.

Absolutely no difference really on each side and it is extreme arrogance on both sides to completely ignore the possibilities of each side.

Since when did the bible ever teach people to be irrational and stupid I always thought it was meant to be inciteful and mind expanding?

reply to post by TheLastStand


to what or whom, do you refer? see this is the problem i have with almost every debate found on this site, be it political or religious. people are so firmly trenched in their own theories, they have no room at ALL, to entertain any variation, no matter how minute. the end result is to call anyone that disagrees with them "stupid." if the person was truly "stupid," they woud not only lack the skills to use a computer, but converse on the level required to have a debate in printed form. i wish people would stop exaggerating what they believe to be the negatives of their fellow debaters. it just muddies everything up with unnecessary bitterness and defensive stances that aren't allowing even logical examples, to pass thru.

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.

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

At least you admit that this is written from a biased perspective mostly based on faith and not science.

There's really no reason to attempt a debate. I think Santa Claus is real and you can't convince me otherwise no matter what kind of scientific evidence you have that it was my dad who ate the cookies I left out for him

Originally posted by seeker1977
reply to post by steveknows

 

Regardless of how you word it a Theory is a belief.

No, a theory is:

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena

Your laymens term of theory is considered a belief which is just speculative with unsupported data. That is not the scientific meaning of a theory.

No matter how you word it; a scientific theory describes a specific phenomena; which is usually followed by evidence that either supports or does not support the prediction or model attached to the theory in question.

Originally posted by Hawking

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.

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

At least you admit that this is written from a biased perspective mostly based on faith and not science.

There's really no reason to attempt a debate. I think Santa Claus is real and you can't convince me otherwise no matter what kind of scientific evidence you have that it was my dad who ate the cookies I left out for him

i have an example of science from an ancient text, that predated modern history. in fact, i have several. here's an unique one from the book of enoch:
try this one on for size

what could he be talking about? no really, WHAT could he be talking about? don't close your eyes or ears, LISTEN. now i'm not saying that enoch himself was a scientist, but enoch was with someone who was certainly more advanced scientifically, than he was, and he witnessed something modern science only recently found

Google Video Link

never discount our ancestors.

Originally posted by Cosmicdjinn
Have you seen any lately? Probably not...So, I say they are extinct just like the others. Evidently they ran side by side with humans, why not the others too..

Becuase there's cave paintings off mamoths and excavated prehistoric sites of camps area which used mamoth bones and calved mamoth ivory pieces and the most important thing is that there's mamoth bones and frozen mammoth carcass with spear tips imbeded. Dinosaur bones aren't actually bone they're rock because cilica has seeped in and replaced the tissue the bone dissapeard millions of years ago. There's no cave painting of dinosars and there's no dinosaur bones being excavated at prehistoric camp sites as part of the human built structures. And theres no carved pieces or statuets done in dinosaur bone by prehistoric people

Nice thread OP. I find it disturbing that so many insults have been thrown around. It's really sad that some people can't have a civil conversation even though they disagree on something. If you have stated your 'facts' and someone disagrees then oh well life goes on. No reason to mock someone for thinking differently.

the world is not what it seems.

nor is it what mainstream thought believes it to be.



it never has been.



the proof of this is everywhere.

bits and pieces, scattered throughout the globe.

pieces considered by so many of this planet to be absurd, ridiculous, and against the common grain of thought.

pieces such as the op of this thread.



to see the truths of this planet is to see these pieces and place them together.

do that, and know the planet does not align to the common grain of thought.



as it never has.

It is hard to reply to evidence such as you post. The reason is that you are considering one issue in isolation from other interrelated issues.

On the one hand you reject the orthodox scientific dating scheme. On the other hand you believe that most of the strata were laid down in a great flood which occurred within the span of recorded history.

I too was in the same position some years back. I spent years trying to sort out the evidence, even writing to prominent creation scientists that I perceived were honest, asking questions.

In the end, I realised that there was evidence that was *independent* of there having been a flood which demonstrated that the strata were not all laid down during a great flood. This came in the form of daily layers in coral. It is possible to count the number of such layers per year. Throughout the geological column corals record an increasing number of days in the year as you go back in time, all the way up to about 400 days a year.

This is in fact a change that we measure today very precisely and is in fact responsible for our introduction of leap seconds. It is also understood very well physically in terms of tidal friction, moments of inertia and so on and can be modeled accurately. In fact, the models can even account for speeding up and slowing down of the rates of change due to the shifting of the continents due to continental shift which we measure accurately today with GPS.

Note that this later modelling and measurement evidence only helps to confirm the primary evidence. However, even without it one can be absolutely certain that the strata were not laid down in the single year of the flood. After all, a single year cannot have had 365, 370, 380, 385, 390 and 400 days. They are of necessity different years. Moreover the agreement of these differing numbers of days agrees well with the established dates of the geologic column going back about 400 million years.

Note carefully that the evidence does *not* depend on any kind of radiometric dating whatsoever. The 400 million years can be accounted entirely through a perfectly well understood physical mechanism which is directly and precisely measurable today, namely the slowing of the rotation of the earth.

The same evidence is also independently confirmed through a similar but subtly different mechanism in bivalve molluscs.

Once I realised that these pieces of evidence were *independent* of a global flood and independent of radiometric methods of dating, in full agreement with secular timescales, able to be independently confirmed and modeled according to simple physics, etc., I had to accept that the world was at least 400 million years old, or at least of that order.

Once I could see that the geologic column is not a fiction I had to accept that the world is likely as old as it is measured to be (around 4.55 billion years at the time I looked at it).

I should point out that despite being very uncomfortable with this conclusion it did not shake my faith. I am still a fervent, practicising Christian. In fact it is possible that by resolving this issue in my own mind I have had more time to focus on the important central doctrines of the gospel, namely that it is not by being good or obeying rules that we are saved but by a free gift of God's grace in his Son, Jesus Christ who died for our sins on the cross, reconciling us with God and being raised from the dead to the right hand of God in glory, also indicating the destiny of all who accept this free gift of grace and who accept Jesus Christ as their savior and Lord.

I also came to accept after some time that evolution does occur to some degree in some groups of animals. However, I have spoken publicly on the fact that I see major shortcomings in the theory as a whole. I admit that evolution is the best naturalistic theory we have to explain the diversity of life on earth. However after much study I found many serious difficulties. I don't throw the whole theory out as there is clear evidence that evolution occurs at some level, as many creationists also accept. However I do not accept that there is unequivocal evidence for undirected evolution being responsible for the diversity of life on earth, nor do I accept that there is unequivocal evidence for universal common descent.

Moreover, in some very important areas I find science to be completely short of answers. Those include the origin of life itself, the origin of the physical universe and an explanation for consciousness. It is with delight that I find that it is precisely these areas that God claims to have been responsible.

I certainly hold all my scientific "knowledge" in probation. It is subject to change all the time as I come to understand it better. If someone could show me that the world and the universe were only 6,000 years old in a convincing scientific way, I would accept that. However, at the present time I cannot even conceive of a model which would overcome the many objections that would be raised.

Now getting back to your original question regarding dinosaurs. Much of the evidence you have presented has been totally debunked in other places. Some more honest creation scientists have in fact accepted or even been involved in this debunking. Unfortunately the same old evidence gets recycled ad infinitum.

Rather than respond in detail to your many claims, can I recommend that you broaden your set of resources to include material which contradicts the position you take. It is essential to avoid antichristian material which has been constructed by atheists who intend to destroy your faith. Concentrate on material which is written in a humble and honest manner. It does exist. Look for information which presents the facts only and which demonstrates an understanding of how intertwined all these issues are.

The other thing to be careful of is what constitutes evidence. Ancient drawings of dinosaurs are as ambiguous as ancient drawings of extraterrestrials. They are open to interpretation and without an uncontested written record describing what is in the drawings they could be anything from imaginations to dreams to something that looks similar but which is more mundane.

Unfortunately, occurrences of dinosaur footprints coincident with human footprints are not even ambiguous. They have been studied in detail and are conclusively shown to be other than what is claimed. There is no evidence of human coexistence with dinosaurs.

We'd find everywhere dinosaur bones with human spears in them or damage inflicted by humans. There are many other ways in which we could gauge the interaction between the two species. It's not found anywhere. They are not even found in the same strata, so impossible to find an interaction.

There is really extensive evidence that dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago and that humans did not coexist with them. This is not even a little bit in dispute in scientific communities. It's really not subject to interpretation. And this evidence has little to do with radiometric dating.

Again, it is not my intention to try and shake your faith. I hope that it becomes stronger and more resilient. Too many have lost their faith altogether as they've struggled with this issue. One thing that I do is read the Bible for doctrinal understanding. I fully accept the doctrine of the first man Adam and his wife Eve who sinned. This is crucial to our understanding of our faith. But I do not know who this Adam and Eve were or when they lived. Nor do I try to identify them.

That issue does not change my understanding of my faith or my acceptance of the gospel in any way. I live precisely as someone who fully accepts every word of Genesis as literally true as the Bible makes clear we are to do.

But I nevertheless leave room for the fact that I am limited in knowledge and understanding and cannot know precisely in a scientific sense how God created the world and when. It is quite possible that my scientific knowledge is not even up to it even if it were explained in the Bible.

I also leave room for the Bible to be interpreted in the context of the kind of literature that it is. The early part of Genesis is a peculiar style of literature which I don't claim to understand in depth. There are many curious features in the first couple of chapters, such as the few different words that are used and the strange formulaic kind of writing. And you have to admit that it is interesting that Genesis records people as having lived nearly a thousand years and yet never has evidence emerged of skeletons of thousand year old people. I simply take this to mean that the details that we are not meant to know are deliberately obscured from us.

What is very clear is that from the time of Abraham onwards, there is a very clear and accurate historical record. I have recently been studying the writings of the early Christians, some of who knew the apostles. No historical event in history is so well-attested as the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and the subsequent spread of His gospel to the nations by the apostles.

What the Bible tells us about it is all we need to know to come to a knowledge of the truth in Jesus Christ. I don't doubt any of it. But I certainly do not accept that there is room for humans and dinosaurs to have coexisted. I don't pretend to reconcile this with a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. As much as I believe that account is literally true, I also accept that the account is stylized to convey the important facts which are essential to our faith, not to provide a historical account of how those events took place.

And by the way, I do not condemn people who take a strict literal interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2, so long as they are honest that they do no know how science is to be reconciled with this truth. But I also consider it a massive distraction from the far more important issue of the death and resurrection of Christ which is most certainly not written about in a stylized way. It is clearly intended as an accurate historical record and I do not know of any evidence which challenges it, only people who do not believe it.

I wonder at times whether the Creation Science vs Consensus Science issue is the "strong delusion" written of in the book of Revelation which is sent to deceive us, which would deceive even the elect if that were possible. It certainly is a massive distraction.

Originally posted by novastrike81

Originally posted by seeker1977
reply to post by steveknows

 

Regardless of how you word it a Theory is a belief.

No, a theory is:

a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena

Your laymens term of theory is considered a belief which is just speculative with unsupported data. That is not the scientific meaning of a theory.

No matter how you word it; a scientific theory describes a specific phenomena; which is usually followed by evidence that either supports or does not support the prediction or model attached to the theory in question. [/quo


That just says what I said. And you are wrong, something that is known is not a belief it's a fact. And why not use laymens terms? There's not exactly a well informed think tank going on here. There's a" believe what I believe and don't dare ask me for evidence or I'll accuse you of being a freak" mentality happeneing here. It wreaks of the typical religious damn you to hell for not believing blindly in what the bible has to say. In fact some of these fantasy statements are so rediculous that it's most obvoius that some education systems in the world have been failing alot of students.for alot of years.

edit on 17-8-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)

Originally posted by bluemooone2
There is definitely some evidence for this.Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Maybe

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5ea2765b380b.jpg[/atsimg]
www.creation-vs-evolution.us...

That's a mighty ginormous foot at 22 inches, my friend. Shaq's 7 foot 1 and wears a size 21, if I recall, which puts his foot length somewhere around 15 or 16 inches. Granted, the largest shoe size on record belonged to the largest person on record, 8 foot 11 inch Robert Wadlow's 37AA , which was 18½ inches. Either the foot print above was from a literal giant, or it is fake. Seeing as how there is a great lack of proof for the former beyond mythology, my vote is for the latter.

As for how people would have come to observe dinosaur fossils and incorporate them into their mythology and visual depictions, this is a good link to sum it up:
humanexperience.stanford.edu...

Mayor was asked to share her thoughts on Dracorex, named Dracorex hogwartsia in honor of children’s author J.K. Rowling. “The shape of the dinosaur’s skull, with its long muzzle, bizarre knobs and horns, surprised the scientists,” she said. “But the skull looks strangely familiar to anyone who has studied dragons! Dracorex has a remarkable resemblance to the dragons of ancient China and medieval Europe.”

Even in Chinese lore, dinosaur bones were called "dragon bones". To them, the fossils were their mythological creatures, even though we know better now.
I distinctly remember a History Channel special about this very subject several years ago, but I cannot for the life of me remember the name, and my Google-Fu is failing me. If anyone can find this and link it, please do! I think it would help to shed some more light on how ancients viewed these fossil remains.

If any ancient person had taken the time to simply study the fossils and visualize various creatures like we do in the modern era, I'm certain they could have come up with something that resembles what we visualize similarly now. However, the carved stone examples presented earlier in the thread look suspiciously 'new' to me for the era they are supposedly from.

Originally posted by gazzachel
reply to post by nyk537

 

for all those disbelievers try reading forbidden archaeology by micheal cremo.

I won't go much into cremo's work, however, his hypothesis's are not of a young earth, rather, it is of antique civilizations..aka, a billion years ago there was some sort of advanced civilization, same with 500m years ago, etc..over and over.

The claim here (by some) is that we live on a very young earth...so, cremo is sort of at the opposite end of the spectrum..and of course his stuff is open towards critique and criticism by his peers.

reply to post by Fisherr


I'm curious where the bible goes as far as to give a specific age for the planet?

I remember vividly as a kid walking down the Brazos at Glen Rose, TX and seeing the famous tracks of the dinosaur and human footprints alongside each other.

I tend to believe what I see. If the evidence is clearly there then that's just how it is.

Why are the ape'eists banging on the creationists as if we all believe every word of the bible is true, obviously n ot all creationists believe every word of the bible.

Oh and giving us evidence that a canine(wolf) has giving birth to another canine(modern dog breeding) is not evidence at all that an ape can turn into a man if you throw a few million years at it. It takes faith to believe in evolution in its entirety, whether the ape'eists are too arrogant to admit it or not. Yes we can observe biological adaptations first hand, but can we observe an ape turning into a man? NO, you need alot of fatih to believe that.

I see some having a go at some creationists that believe Eve was formed from clay and a rib as if thats a bit far fetched, and then they go on to believe that humans came from an accretion disk around the sun, bahahah, talk about indoctrinated by faith in science.

Anyway laughs at the ape'eists aside, and back on topic, here is another carving from Angkor Wat that I didnt see previously in this thread.

reply to post by Haxsaw


My friend, that is not a stegosaurus. That is clearly a rhino or maybe a boar. The decorative shapes above the backbone, either just decorative, or leaves representing foliage. But clearly not a freaking dinosaur.

To those who think we couldn't have wake up & open your mind we still do today