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.

 

Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

page: 22
132
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Your opening thread has some great evidence to support your theory. Such as the brass with engraved dinosaurs on it, that's a new one to me.
I was also unaware of the discrepancies in the isotope test conducted from the NZ volcanic rocks, it leaves me second-guessing the science I have so much faith in.
I am also very impressed that your post doesn't try to claim anything completely ridiculous (like christianity/judaism), it's only the replies that begin to claim you believe in such nonsense when all you actually done is post evidence that mainstream science may be mistaken.

I, for one, am a firm believer that our Earth's true history has been purposely distorted so as to keep us hidden from certain truths that would free the people from those in 'power'. Now, thanks to you, I can start to look into the dinosaur-man-coexisting theory with a new light.

thankyou.




posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by myselfaswell
This is off topic in a sense, however in response to your post, Australia is actually moving in a generally northerly direction at about 7cm per year.


Wow, so if we use the 6000 year Bible timeline Australia has moved 42000cm or 420 metres. Hardly the thousands of kilometres required to comply with what we know about continental shift.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


He never mentions religious faith. He just presented some evidence, that's all.
And aren't you a 'member' of ATS? Yet you blindly believe everything the 'mainstream' scientific community presents as 'fact'?

Mmmmm? Deny ignorance: That mean anything to you?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:15 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.


just to clarify, you think the earth has rotated around the sun only 6000 times??



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by manontrial
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


He never mentions religious faith. He just presented some evidence, that's all.
And aren't you a 'member' of ATS? Yet you blindly believe everything the 'mainstream' scientific community presents as 'fact'?

Mmmmm? Deny ignorance: That mean anything to you?



It seems to me that 'deny ignorance' mantra is thrown around without regard at anyone who has a different viewpoint. Different people have different opinions, and the reason for this is not always ignorance. Also, if you read some of the follow up replies to questions that were presented you will see the OPs religious point of view come into context.

And he is right, scientific evidence will always trump faith in a rational argument, that is the whole point of science; to provide a standard way of understanding things without relying on emotion, faith, or personal bias. So maybe someone could toss that 'deny ignorance' comment right back your way.
edit on 17-8-2011 by Akasirus because: Typo



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
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?


But, there's nothing wrong with a Christian spiritual mysticism that embraces evolutionary theory either (see my questions for atheists in my sig).

It need not be an either/or proposition, except for Biblical literalists, who actually set up the Bible to be rejected by modern man, if any part of it cannot be accepted at it's literal face value - and what a tragedy that would be, when the Bible contains an entirely acceptable frame of reference, and heritage, for the transgenerational communication, of the great Wisdom of the Ages..!


edit on 17-8-2011 by NewAgeMan because: typo



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Did people in here even consider the possibility that evolution and creation can co-exist? First, the entities are created. Then they are allowed to evolve. That is actually what happened. Well, some were transported to our planet from another planet. Then they underwent evolution to adjust to our planet.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:27 AM
link   
reply to post by manontrial
 


Yes it does actually. So I'm going to deny some right now.

Read it.
article

The good part:



Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists.


This is an article about the flawed understanding of decay and how it works. She goes on to state that the dating is not the problem, their understanding of decay is. She also gives good reason as to why no one else found anything like her findings before. She also voiced her opinion about accusations of lies and creationists twisting what she's said to suit their needs. Great aticle.
edit on 17-8-2011 by Thestargateisreal because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


i believe the earth is older than we think but dinosaurs weren't around as far back as they are saying that they lived. i do agree with what you say about dinos and people living at the same time. i remember reading an article about a fossil of a dinosaur foot print with what appeared to be a fossilized human foot inside of it if i do recall. could be mistaken.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by gimme_some_truth


Science is Science.... Anything else is not. Sorry.



you're asking for truth
but you're so closed off.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


Here argue with this guy cause he is light years ahead of Darwin.

youtu.be...

If you're listening to this, you are the resistance. -widusty

edit on 17-8-2011 by widusty because: Typo.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by manontrial
reply to post by humphreysjim
 


He never mentions religious faith. He just presented some evidence, that's all.
And aren't you a 'member' of ATS? Yet you blindly believe everything the 'mainstream' scientific community presents as 'fact'?

Mmmmm? Deny ignorance: That mean anything to you?


Denying ignorance should not be paired with tossing common sense out the window, that just bolsters ignorance and negates the effort taken to defeat it in the first place.

To answer a couple of recent posters, yes, some creatures alive now are considered "living dinosaurs". Crocodiles have been around for 55 million years, but as things go, they have changed and are not exactly like the fossilized crocodiles. Neither are today's turtles much like the ones that appeared 215 million years ago. Heck, the size isn't even the same. Our current largest turtle is the Leatherback, who's shell was roughly 6 and a half feet, versus the Archelon ischyros from the Late Cretaceous era who's shell was 15 feet.

This is a good brief breakdown of what evolved from their prehistoric counterparts and lived on to become what we consider "living dinosaurs":
www.helium.com...

Honestly, I think half the freaking problem with people debating this is the lack of understanding in that these modern creatures aren't the exact same ones from past epochs. They have evolved, like it or not. This needs to be recognized and understood. Those that thumb their nose at evolution and ignore these animals in favor of their theories are utter brain-dead fools.
edit on 8/17/2011 by Nyiah because: Sentance came out garbled



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by Akasirus
 


And for God's sake there's nothing wrong with a reasoned faith or with the gnosis it generates. Sheesh! Can we not still seek and find, knock, and have the door opened to us, without leaving our rational faculties behind?!

Is not the very root of Logos - logic? And was Jesus not a supreme logician?

How did we all get so lost, and divergent over these things, when the truth is that ancient and sacred science gave birth to science itself as the quest to know the truth about the world and of our own true nature and our place, even in the grand scheme of things?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:37 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


Ok so by the information you have given , your saying the earth isnt around 65 million years or older ?
then how the hell do you explain the moon then ?



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by manontrial
Your opening thread has some great evidence to support your theory. Such as the brass with engraved dinosaurs on it, that's a new one to me.
I was also unaware of the discrepancies in the isotope test conducted from the NZ volcanic rocks, it leaves me second-guessing the science I have so much faith in.
I don't believe you had much 'faith' in science to begin with if a bunch of random claims by a creationist who seemingly refuses to post any credible links (I've CTRL-F'd the entire thread after reading the first 5 pages looking for links and all I've found is 1 link to a friends blog, 1 link to a creationist book and 1 admittance that there won't be any other links forthcoming because none of them are non-biased) is enough for you to second-guess all of science.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:49 AM
link   
We may have even been here before they were. science can date some artifacts, with a degree of accuracy, based on accepted standards. And even those dates often come with a huge margin of error. We may never know for certain, considering no one from that time is still alive to bear witness to it. (barring time travel, etc.) It would seem to me that the most highly evolved species in the world would also be among the oldest. To have survived from one age to the next, under every imaginable circumstance, even in extremely hostile locations, is a testament to the resilience of mankind. That kind of evolution doesn't happen overnight. Dinosaurs were certainly intimidating and dangerous. But I wouldn't call them evolved. If we did coexist, There's no doubt we would have hunted them, Maybe even contributed in a small way to their eventual downfall. An older more evolved species however, would have seen the fires in the sky. The flood waters rising. The earth cracking beneath him. And he would have run to shelter before the SHTF. And so it has been IMO.

In the overall scheme though, it doesnt really matter if we were here together, here first or here long before.
What matters is that we are here now. Tell that to a dinosaur next time you see one. S&F


S&F



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
Deep sigh. It so very sad to see so many people from modern cultures (where we have a decent education system and access to information) being so very very ignorant on how science works. It's like watching a movie of the spanish inquisition for freaks sake......

This laptop and my ability to communicate over ATS is only possible because of science and scientific methodology, investigation, analysis, understanding, development etc etc. And yet when those some disciplines are applied to anything that treads on the toes of the religious then "Science is Wrong". A sign of full blown ignorance if you ask me.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:55 AM
link   
Awesome read dude I want to believe it so badly


S+F for the commitment



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 04:04 AM
link   
It always amazes me that creationists still exist. By that I mean people who use the bible as their reference point for understanding life and history. The other day I watched an amazing documentary by BBC called life. Never before did I see the evolutionary process of species so straight in my face. All I could think is, my goodness why are there still creationists left?

TS I have one serious question for you and I hope you can be honest with me. Is your post a honest and true attempt at questioning our history or merely an attempt at defending the bible?

on topic: I am not denying the possibility set forth in this topic. But I don't see how it would debunk evolution or the evolutionary process of species, if that were your attempt.



posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 04:05 AM
link   
it was an interesting theory...with interesting stories for evidence but unfortunately no references to sources.

and once i saw that the OP was a creationist and his comment saying that dinosaurs were on the ARK i just facepalmed in disbelief.


so every kind of animal here today...and every dinosaur were on a boat...which would have to be many times bigger than the titanic...built by one man and his family...only for god to decide that dinosaurs are not actually necessary and were made extinct afterwards anyway?

my mind is open as far as believing that some of our historical dates and methods of testing may be wrong...but this thread is religous lunacy.



new topics

top topics



 
132
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join