Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

I apologize, but I have not yet read through all of the responses- only the first page, but the topic is very interesting to me. I understand that much of the evidence for the argument of human/dinosaur co-existance comes from images of dinosaurs from the ancient world (carbon-14 & isotope argument aside). While co-existance is a possible explanation for these ancient depictions, why do some people automatically assume that it is a result of actual human and dinosaur interaction? Isn't it more likely that our ancestors were depicting what they thought dinosaurs and dragons might look like from bones they unearthed-much like we do today? Our ancenstors were explorers and creative individuals, and it is very likely that they came across large bones, and possibly whole skeletons. It is very likely that they were inspired by these finds as we still are today.

Great topic though, and I will start working my way through the rest of the pages!

If dinosaurs COEXISTED with men, we would read about it in the text books and school books, it would have become mainstream knowledge.

Obviously, the chain of evidence and proof must be more flaky than the evidence chain for evolution, it doesnt manage it to replace established Science and findings.

Or do you think there is an AGENDA that a scientific assumption/belief could not be CHANGED once it is established *beyond any doubt* that the former assumption was errorneous. In other words: What reason should science have to hide that what is the truth?

The occasional and odd find "which doesn't fit in" does sadly NOT qualify for a complete rewriting of science if the overwhelming majority of other evidence tends into the other direction. (There always a remote chance of errors/fakes etc...)

On a side-note, what retarded science is this now that we split research into TWO OBVIOUSLY BIASED fields like "evolution science" and "creationism science". Those are totally made up words!

True science doesnt go into the field with a bias and doesnt split the research into two camps...then its not fricking science but a perversion of science. The scientists goal is not to prove "Evolution" or "Creationism"...but find the neutral fact REGARDLESS what people believe. What abstruse word is "Evolution Scientist" anyway? Such a word and science branch does not exist.

reply to post by flexy123


Well said flexy...

One of the biggest logical hurdles for this theory isn't about the crappy evidence...it's that one of the cornerstones of this paradigm necessitates that there is some global cabal of super smart scientists (nearly all scientists in fact) that are actively attempting to deceive the vast majority of humanity for??????????????drum roll please......eh, some reason or another...THAT part...that why...why would scientists lie...how could so many scientists from every nation, some separated from others by generations conspire together to dupe the world (and succeed) that dinosaurs are millions of years old? THAT is never addressed.

This theory has more holes than bonnie and clydes corpses.

Originally posted by TheAncientsKnew
Isn't it more likely that our ancestors were depicting what they thought dinosaurs and dragons might look like from bones they unearthed-much like we do today? Our ancenstors were explorers and creative individuals, and it is very likely that they came across large bones, and possibly whole skeletons. It is very likely that they were inspired by these finds as we still are today.

Great topic though, and I will start working my way through the rest of the pages!

Then where are the skeletons that would have been kept as possible gods to them? And how would you explain the stories of many encounters with living giant dinosaurs/dragons? And honestly, why would they give a crap in a hunting gathering society? They would care more about protecting the flock against these beasts like their stories say. And why so many real life stories of these creatures in so many cultures around the world? I know story telling is still alive and well, but exact? and not fables like stories of the greek gods or something like that. Nice theory, but doesn't add up.

Originally posted by Threadfall
reply to post by flexy123

 

Well said flexy...
super smart scientists (nearly all scientists in fact) that are actively attempting to deceive the vast majority of humanity for??????????????drum roll please......eh, some reason or another...THAT part...that why...why would scientists lie...how could so many scientists from every nation, some separated from others by generations conspire together to dupe the world (and succeed) that dinosaurs are millions of years old? THAT is never addressed.

edit on 18-8-2011 by Threadfall because: word smart

edit on 18-8-2011 by Threadfall because: (no reason given)

Well the world has shrunk since 1859 when evolutions was founded by darwin (as in communication wise). It was based on REALLY crappy evidence, and has not gotten any better, just more technical so the reader can feel smart. This faulty long winded logic (if they ever summarized it they'd see how ridiculous it is so they could never do that) is past down generation to generation indoctrinating scientists to accept certain things as "facts" that are not, and then cram a square peg into a round hole to make that theory work, because a scholarly book said it was true... It's a lot like seminary school, they pump them in, fill them full of long winded useless knowledge mixed with some truth and all they are is great debaters and can't think out of their indoctrinated box. It's not that they are lying, it's that there's pretty much no option to tell the truth if it goes against the the all powerful guess of... evolution.

I have a friend named Tremaine, he believes dinosaurs werent even real. He thinks we planted them there so theyd have something to teach in schools. seriously, google served him a big pile of justice though. haha.

Originally posted by CalledOUT
It's not that they are lying, it's that there's pretty much no option to tell the truth if it goes against the the all powerful guess of... evolution.

That's not how Science works.

reply to post by CalledOUT


You sir may accept any information you are spoon fed and inclined to believe, but scientists are interested in verifiable phenomena. Science is not perfect, nor are scientists. But then again nothing is. I think that if you, and people like you, take some time for introspection someone might realize you're the guys perpetuating a myth that developed in your curious and wonderful six year old minds and now your adult psyche can't admit it is a damn fantasy. You and people like you either want to reaffirm your belief in contemporary dinosaurs or a literal interpretation of the Bible.

Here's an athiest viewpoint put to music...








You so called christians aren't the cure... you're the problem...

Originally posted by CalledOUT
Then where are the skeletons that would have been kept as possible gods to them? And how would you explain the stories of many encounters with living giant dinosaurs/dragons? And honestly, why would they give a crap in a hunting gathering society? They would care more about protecting the flock against these beasts like their stories say. And why so many real life stories of these creatures in so many cultures around the world? I know story telling is still alive and well, but exact? and not fables like stories of the greek gods or something like that. Nice theory, but doesn't add up.

Why would they worship bones as Gods? Aren't Gods immortal? And since you say they would keep these bones, where are the bones of the dragons/dinosaurs that they defeated in combat as the stories told? As for the stories, there are lots of stories of aliens, fairies, Bigfoot etc., so I'm assuming you also believe all these to be true as well?

reply to post by nyk537


i defiantly do not want to miss what time Saturday ? i will b happy that u can remove the veil from a lot of those that have been sheepeopled into believing the untruths .

Originally posted by iterationzero

Your argument is a variation on the intelligent design tenet of "irreducible complexity". The eye is actually one of the most researched organs because it's homologous across such an enormous number of species. Here's just one of the myriad resources for understanding how the eye could have formed progressively: Evolution of the eye.

I'm not familiar with the term "irreducible complexity", but it seems a bad concept - I've never seen a system, of any complexity, that couldn't be reduced to constituent parts. The intelligent design label has always amused me, although I've never studied up on their contentions. I would think that ANY "design" would imply an intelligence behind it, otherwise it wouldn't be a design, it would be a random happenstance. The term has always just seemed redundant to me. To be honest, I haven't studied up on it because I've always had the impression that they were trying to pull a fast one, do an end run and bypass science, and hiding that maneuver behind a fancy technical sounding name.

Anyhow, thanks for the link. I read it and the first two provided by aorAki - I'll have to hold off on his link about trilobite eyes until later, but it looks interesting. From what I know, trilobites had some novel eyes not precisely paralleled anywhere else - even among some other trilobites.

The links provided gave a fascinating speculation for a possible development of eyes, but I remain unconvinced, mostly because of the lack of supporting evidence for the speculations. I note that at least your link attempted to address that by saying:

Note that this optical layout has not been found, nor is it expected to be found. Fossilization rarely preserves soft tissues, and even if it did, the new humour would almost certainly close as the remains desiccated, or as sediment overburden forced the layers together, making the fossilized eye resemble the previous layout.

Which says to me "take it on faith, since there's not likely to ever be any supporting evidence" - disturbingly close to the religious stance on some matters. I say "disturbingly" because science and religion are two entirely different areas - no overlap, or at least there shouldn't be. I notice a lot of folks on both sides hoping to force an overlap, in order for "their" side to eclipse the other and prevail, but in reality the two are entirely different areas of human endeavor, addressing entirely different realms. I don't see them as mutually exclusive, on that account.

I personally try to avoid addressing questions in the provenance of science by using religion, and vice versa. For example, I'm currently engaged in recreating a carboniferous era rain forest of around 300 million years ago (a task which it appears may take forever!). I don't do the research for that by cracking open a Bible, a Qur'an, or the Popl Vuh or Bhagvad Gita, That would be as futile as searching for evidence for the transmigration of souls in the fossil record.

I just find it amazing that people somehow think that one side is in some sort of danger from the other, as if they operated in the same realm. I reckon that from my perspective, if a god gets bent out of shape over some bit of science, then, being a deity, he can handle it a lot better than I - so I'll leave that to him. So far, I've seen no science anywhere that is a threat to a deity, and I've not seen any religion that's a threat to science, The gods seem to be OK with folks poking around and asking questions, and the universe seems to be OK with any one having faith in anything they like.

Now, the adherents of either camp, they're a slightly different matter. They sure do seem to have a knack for pissing one another off. In the end, though, that's all they're really doing. Neither a god nor a godless universe is going to be injured either way.

Originally posted by aorAki

Ignorance of Glossopteris is NOT an excuse.

Glossopteris is a relative newcomer (end of Carboniferous/beginning of Permian). Check out Archaeopteris, the previous record holder, or Wattieza, the new record holder.

Originally posted by CalledOUT

The sun burns 4 billion kilograms of mass a second, so about 34.5 trillions kg a day. This seems like it'd be very hard to replace mass and fuel from space at that rate of burn off.
blogs.howstuffworks.com...

It won't replace it all. It will eventually run out of fuel, the balance will be lost between the inward pull of gravity and the outward push of emergent energy, the sun will bounce and swell in a series of contractions and expansions, swelling to a red giant and eating all of the inner planets, including the Earth, then blowing off it's outer shell in a final blaze of glory, ending it's life as a vanishingly small white dwarf.

It will take about 5 billion more years for that to happen. "Burning fuel" in the sense of the nuclear reactions going on inside the sun doesn't work the same, or produce the same by products, as burning a few billion kilograms of coal or wood. It's a whole 'nuther ballgame.

Originally posted by nenothtu
I say "disturbingly" because science and religion are two entirely different areas - no overlap, or at least there shouldn't be.

Stephen Jay Gould called them " non-overlapping Magisteria."

Also, his book: The Structure of Evolutionary Theory is a must read. Not an easy read at all (as is " Bully for Brontosaurus", but essential if one wishes to attempt to understand the topic.

reply to post by nenothtu


Cheers, I just had one example that was definitely older than what was proposed, but there are many.



(I have a Glossopteris specimen in my lab collection).

reply to post by aorAki


I've read a lot of Gould's stuff, but it's been a long time ago, about 20 years or so, when I was studying such things. His notion of "punctuated equilibrium" is probably what stuck with me the best, along with some of his writing on the Burgess Shale fauna. It was that writing that introduced me to the Burgess Shale.

At that time, abiogenesis seemed to be concentrating on crystals and certain clays, and their potential to form support structures for the assembly of certain amino acids, which was involved in the then current speculation on the origins of life by random accident.

I'm not sure what the state of the art is these days. Back then the Miller-Urey experiment was already old, and it seemed to have gotten stuck at that point, with no further evidence beyond that, just loads of speculation on where to potentially look for evidence.

ETA: I read the link, and Gould makes it a lot clearer than I did. Perhaps a few minor differences between what I think and what he does in the matter, but the same general basic idea. I found it odd, and somewhat unbalanced, that the only dissenting viewpoints they present in that article are from a secular perspective. I would have thought that they could have found ample opposition to the notion from several pseudoreligious sources.

reply to post by CalledOUT

WHAT!?!?!?!? Has this been Peer reviewed!?!? You can't use history and common sense to prove anything!! You need 25 degrees and a government stipend if you want to get an ear! And the holy grail of science.... CARBON DATING says that they are 65 million years old!!! Let me through 10 links to PEER REVIEWED journals that say I'm correct and this is ingnorant, hate filled, B. S. Did I mention I'm smart!?!?! I come from a house of learned doctors! flame:

So, because you don't have any real response to the evidence presented that refutes your claims, you're going to engage in a combination of ad hominem and strawman attacks on proponents of evolution. Classy.

Originally posted by nyk537
You may forget that evolution is also just a theory...

Once again we see a creationist deliberatley misleading his audience by using a word with one meaning in the wrong context.


An argument so bad, that once again even the creationist site AnswersInGenesis will not use...

Arguments that should be avoided (because further research is still needed, new research has invalided aspects of it, or biblical implications may discount it)
1. Evolution is just a theory. (“Theory” has a stronger meaning in scientific fields than in general usage; it is better to say that evolution is just a hypothesis or one model to explain the untestable past.)

AIG

Its tough when even other creationists wont stand by your bogus arguments, isnt it?

Originally posted by Threadfall
reply to post by CalledOUT

 

I think that if you, and people like you, take some time for introspection someone might realize you're the guys perpetuating a myth that developed in your curious and wonderful six year old minds and now your adult psyche can't admit it is a damn fantasy.

I could say the same thing about evolutionists! Funny how you guys always claim evolutionists are soooo smart and to think anything else is uneducated... but you still belief in a less scientific theory than creationists. But hey, once they can show how life came from nothing, how something came from nothing, and a dating instrument that actually works with things that the age is known for... then you'll have something more than a fantasy. So far all they do is prove a creation by there lack of evidence and constant re-guessing so they can keep their useless fantasy alive. Like I said earlier, you could never summarize any of their recent theories, because if you did, it would sound so ridiculous, you probably couldn't believe it. So you hold on to the latest super long winded theory till somebody takes a long time to figure out what they are saying, reveal to the common folk such as yourself why it'd be easier doing a study to prove santa clause is coming to town. it gets annoying... especially when all you do in every post is claim how smart you are for believing it and how silly it is to believe anything else.