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.


Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

page: 28
<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:24 PM
Food for thought -
the bible also says unicorns existed (Job 39)

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:28 PM

Originally posted by therealdemoboy
You're really reaching now, my friend. The depictions in question were made before the first fossils were uncovered. Movies, etc. came after the bones were dug up and put together and put on display. Are you saying that prehistoric peoples from all over the world, and 15th century Europe had dug them up, decided what they looked like, and then forgot to pass the information along for the next 3 hundred years?
We draw dinosaurs too. We weren't there and we can do it. Why couldn't they?

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:32 PM
reply to post by bigwig22

I believe its pretty possible that dinosaurs existed much later than we think because of the tests they made with recent rocks and the results were like crap! (its 50years and it tells us 270k to 3.5millions years old..) so all we think we know could be very wrong.

Which tests made with recent rocks? Do you mean radiocarbon dating? If so, those results are likely invalid because radiocarbon dating is based on the presence of carbon and rock doesn't typically contain carbon. Do you have a link to a published paper on this particular study? Also, if the dating methods tell us 270ky old or 3.5My old, why would you assume that the right answer is 50 years? Just trying to understand where your information is coming from.

Don't count on our "trustable" scientific community to go and correct their mistakes.. its better for them to hide them and make us believe they are always right.

Quite the opposite, actually. People always remember the explanatory part of scientific theories but then seem to forget the other half -- their predictive power. If a scientific theory, in the modern sense, were built on a faulty foundation, the predictions stemming from that theory would be shown to be false. Further, scientific theories are constantly being improved and modified to incorporate new data as it becomes available. Science is, ultimately, self-correcting.

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:34 PM
reply to post by nfflhome

"real scientists" like the ones that said the earth is flat. After they figured out that wasnt right then we were at the center of the universe and then.....

"Real scientists" knew the Earth was round back around 500BCE, before the Church squashed that concept as being heretical.

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:44 PM
If a God put every creature on this Earth as examples of his/her perfect works, how could anything at all ever evolve into something better than it was originally ? If man was created in Gods image, that only implies that man is the superior race to everything else, hence we would be pretty much the same now as we were then, if however we did evolve from monkeys, then logically God was a monkey. So if Dinosaurs were created on Earth billions of years before Man then died out, leaving room for man to evolve, then Man was not Gods first choice, merely an afterthought, or second choice. I have no problem in believing that the Earth was seeded with every available creature at the beginning of time, some died out, others survived, end of story.

Leaving God with a few spare moments to eat a bananna and wonder what people in the far flung future would make of it all, before having a nap in his favourite tree and dreaming of banannas !

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:45 PM

Originally posted by malcr
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.

Religion without science is blind
And science without religion is lame.
Let us walk together, with eyes wide open into the light of truth.

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 01:54 PM

Originally posted by Lucius Driftwood
reply to post by Kryties

That's one WHOPPING big ark - unless you are saying it's like the Doctor Who T.A.R.D.I.S. - bigger on the inside than on the out. Certainly nothing like the dimensions as described in the Bible.

That is making the assumption that every animal was fully matured and fully grown. Why make that assumtpion?

Had to pipe in - that was one of the funniest things said here yet, and there have been a load of doozys. I still want the OP to address the various types of testing described in the middle of the thread...for all the push for scientific knowledge (or not) it seems the OP answers more faith based q's than scientific.

Edit to add: From novastrike81:

You would use Uranium-238, Uranium-235, and Potassium-40. Since those elements don't exist within bones, they test the rocks that fuse with the bones that create the fossil itself. Scientists also use this same type of method to date the Earth.

Also alfa1 has posted many many comments on radiocarbon dating. Can we discuss the science above again?

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

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:17 PM

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
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?

There is certainly nothing wrong with that, however this was not a philosophical question, nor was it a religious debate. It was a topic that the author presented with a basis in science.

My problem isn't with discussing or arguing religion. It's with arguing religion as your trump card when your scientific facade wears thin.

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:21 PM
I love posts like this. It directly attacks what people "know".
The truth is you only know what you were told. No living person knows whether or not humans and dinosaurs existed together. our history is rife with lies and half truths. There is no reason this isn't one of them. I am not say I believe this or disbelieve it. I am merely saying that to deny the possibility is at best foolish. Don't believe everything you read. Textbooks are not truth books...

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:31 PM
reply to post by Akasirus

Fair enough, and I agree.

I just wanted to make it clear that the two things, at core, are not mutually exclusive, or needn't be.

In my view, American Christendom is about as helpful to the cause of increasing our understanding and awareness of ourselves and the world around us as is the secular atheism held by most Europians.

Science, as it's concieved today in terms of the scientific method, also has it's limitations, wherein every new "truth" generates an infinite bifurcation of hypothesis - that some work well in manipulating matter, or in predicting the effects from causes, doesn't mean that we are any closer to understanding the truth in terms of our true nature, and the very purpose and meaning of life.

Enter consciousness, within a quantum physical framework, and the deeper issues and metaphysical implications becomes the new pursuit of science within a new scientific paradigm and in that regard both science and religion are now on intersecting, not divergent paths.

Literalist fundamentalist conservative American Christendom however, in rejecting evolutionary theory, represents a step back, for all involved, and doesn't even serve the cause of God as presented through the person of Jesus, imho.

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:33 PM
Why can't we discuss the issue of dinosaurs and humans coexisting here? This thread is not about Christianity versus science.

I've got some more information I'm going to get up later tonight so hopefully that will spark some new discussion on the actual topic.

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 02:49 PM
reply to post by FortAnthem

Actually most dinosaurs were quite small....Think Chicken sized.....Unless you imagine that they ate every single species of small dinosaur as food....Yet left things like turtles, and snakes and cows, and lizards, etc. to live on......

...Damn..unless dino's were the tastiest freakin things on the planet I find that hard to believe!

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:18 PM
reply to post by nyk537

Given the degree to which you yourself took this thread off-topic, away from a discussion of the evidence for and against humans and dinosaurs existing at the same time and into purely theological discussion, crying foul about it going off-topic seems disingenuous.

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:19 PM
reply to post by bhornbuckle75

I already said that, but it got conveniently ignored but those who think the only creatures before modern times were apatosaurs and triceratops and t-rexs .....

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:23 PM
There was also a SANDALED footprint found that was dated around 250million yrs ago. It was probably a biped from another planet..

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:30 PM

Originally posted by FreeWorldOrder
There was also a SANDALED footprint found that was dated around 250million yrs ago. It was probably a biped from another planet..

More likely than a human. Or even a Cynodont*

Though the most likely explanation is a fanciful interpretation of a bit of rock

* why does everyone go on about silly dinosaurs and ignore cynodonts? It's not fair! Cynodonts were much better than dinosaurs. Just not quite so big.

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:31 PM

Originally posted by nyk537
I've got some more information I'm going to get up later tonight so hopefully that will spark some new discussion on the actual topic.

I dont doubt that you can find more stuff to post on this topic. The creationism industry has written quite a lot over the years.
If you do choose to post something, know that without exception, EVERY creationist argument has already been deal with at length on various other places on the internet, and it would be appreciated if you already knew what the scientific arguments against them were.
And even better if you could put forward some kind of original view on why those scientific arguments dont work.

Otherwise, as we have done for 28 pages now, we're just going over the same old stuff that you can find elsewhere on the net. For years now. So far I've seen nothing in this thread that hasnt been around since the 1990's.

edit on 17-8-2011 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:53 PM

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by gimme_some_truth

creationist scientists

Isn't that an oxymoron?

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 03:57 PM
reply to post by Mallik

science and religion are two different things. Both might be looking for a way to explaine pur existence but with two different methods. Science by method of that which can be seen and measure,wct. I'm also sure most scientists wouldn't condone radical ideas like blowing yourself up for some cause or other extreme ideology.

posted on Aug, 17 2011 @ 04:03 PM

Originally posted by nyk537
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.

Two pictures and one of those pictures is a brass engraving from the 15th century tomb of a Catholic priest?

Loosely tying Native Americans knowing Beavers were alive (note to self: beavers still exist today!) into what some scientists think a 30,000 year old beaver did?

Evidence is a bit over stating it eh?

top topics

<< 25  26  27    29  30  31 >>

log in