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: 37
132
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by CalledOUT

Originally posted by Threadfall
reply to post by CalledOUT
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.


What is the catch phrase of this site?




posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by CalledOUT
 


I could say the same thing about evolutionists!

You can, but I also can say that there's a green elephant in the trunk of my car. Both are wrong.


Funny how you guys always claim evolutionists are soooo smart and to think anything else is uneducated...

And, yet, all of the information is freely available. All you have to do is take the time to actually read it. I don't think proponents of evolution are any smarter than anyone else -- they're just not willfully ignorant.


but you still belief in a less scientific theory than creationists.

You have an interesting notion there -- that a theory with over a century and a half of objective evidence to support it is somehow inherently less scientific than something that can't even be properly called a theory which has no objective evidence supporting it.


But hey, once they can show how life came from nothing,

Another example of how some time spent reading the material before you try and refute it would help -- the theory of evolution isn't concerned with the origin of life, only what life does once it's already here.


how something came from nothing,

Can you explain the rationale for making the claim that amino acids, and their chemical precursors, are "nothing"? But, again, this is outside the realm of the theory of evolution for the reason described above.


and a dating instrument that actually works with things that the age is known for...

Dating methods work fine when used properly. If you do radiocarbon testing on specimens that are older than the calibration curves used for radiocarbon dating or specimens that are contaminated with dead carbon sources, you can expect to get garbage results.


then you'll have something more than a fantasy.

The objective evidence for evolution is overwhelming, if for no other reason than we can observe it happening right now. Tough to call something that's objectively observable a "fantasy" with any credibility.


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.

Even if evolution were somehow falsified, it still wouldn't prove creationism -- that's not how science works. You have to provide positive objective evidence for your claims. Given that creationism relies on a creator, feel free to try and provide objective evidence for one to support your "theory" of creationism. But you haven't even stated what your "theory" of creationism is, just that evolution is wrong.


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.

Pick one. Let's see if we can summarize it in a non-ridiculous way.


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.

All you're doing here is lashing out at some kind of perceived elitism that simply doesn't exist. People who don't understand what the theory of evolution actually says, not people who disagree with it but people that clearly don't understand it, could easily find the information if they wanted to take some time to do so. No one is claiming to be smarter than you, just not willfully ignorant.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Threadfall
 


There ARE limitless accounts of man and dinosaur living together from every corner of the earth running through virtually every ancient peoples.

A quick search would provide much of this information to you, as I have stated several times...I only gave two quick examples to get discussion going and instigate further research.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   
The fact that a so called expert would bother coming on a blog site where people could argue Santa was an alien shows just how desperate this person and how laughed at by the real scientific world this person would be.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 07:05 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 



There ARE limitless accounts of man and dinosaur living together from every corner of the earth running through virtually every ancient peoples.

A quick search would provide much of this information to you, as I have stated several times...I only gave two quick examples to get discussion going and instigate further research.


There are accounts of creatures called "dragons" which are generally conceived as being reptilian in nature. None of the stories involving dragons suggests that they were widespread or even contemporary. They are usually conceived as having lived "once upon a time." The tale of St. George and the dragon was not written down by a contemporary of the saint, but by a much later hagiographer. Chinese beliefs about dragons make it clear that they are not material in nature. They circulate through the elements and are capable of changing into human form when desired. Traveler's tales of gryphons and sea monsters often contain elements that suggest that the locals were ribbing the tourists, or startled imaginations turned waves into serpents.

It is not inconceivable that some woolly mammoths managed to eke out an existence in Siberia well into historical times, as the environment there would have been suitable for their adaptations and they would have had few natural predators. (In fact it is surprising that no hapless 18th century adventurer recounts having shot a "furry elephant" while exploring the region!) Given that the Earth has undergone so many environmental changes over the aeons, causing dinosaurs' ecological niches to disappear, and the dearth of contemporaneous accounts, it is virtually certain that human beings and dinosaurs have never crossed paths.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Threadfall
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.

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

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



Bravo! It's refreshing when common sense shines.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 07:14 AM
link   
I just have one thing to say. It might have been said before, so pardon me if it has.

There are many rampant stories about mythical creatures in our mythology and lore. Dragons. Sea serpents. Large gigantic beasts. What if these were true, in a sense. Dinosaurs could clearly be mistaken from dragons or other such mythical beasts.

The "loch ness monster" is often show in cartoons and fiction as a Pliosaur. Indeed, if one only looks at the neck of this creature, with the rest of it's body underwater, it is frighteningly easy to mistake it for a sea serpent with it's long neck.

Winged reptiles such as the Pterodactylus, commonly known as Pterodactyl, with leathery wings sounds similar to Wyverns of folklore, and with some distortion, perhaps even dragons.

With such possibilities, it might also be possible to have a reason as to why Dinosaurs do not exist now. Often portrayed as evil, they may all have bee slayed or driven off and if they could not adapt, they would have perished.

Admittedly more research should have been done on the locations of the legends and myths and the locations of where the fossils have been found, in which can either prove or disprove my above idea. Feel free to disagree though.

-Zhao_0770



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by nyk537
 



There ARE limitless accounts of man and dinosaur living together from every corner of the earth running through virtually every ancient peoples.

A quick search would provide much of this information to you, as I have stated several times...I only gave two quick examples to get discussion going and instigate further research.


There are accounts of creatures called "dragons" which are generally conceived as being reptilian in nature. None of the stories involving dragons suggests that they were widespread or even contemporary. They are usually conceived as having lived "once upon a time." The tale of St. George and the dragon was not written down by a contemporary of the saint, but by a much later hagiographer. Chinese beliefs about dragons make it clear that they are not material in nature. They circulate through the elements and are capable of changing into human form when desired. Traveler's tales of gryphons and sea monsters often contain elements that suggest that the locals were ribbing the tourists, or startled imaginations turned waves into serpents.

It is not inconceivable that some woolly mammoths managed to eke out an existence in Siberia well into historical times, as the environment there would have been suitable for their adaptations and they would have had few natural predators. (In fact it is surprising that no hapless 18th century adventurer recounts having shot a "furry elephant" while exploring the region!) Given that the Earth has undergone so many environmental changes over the aeons, causing dinosaurs' ecological niches to disappear, and the dearth of contemporaneous accounts, it is virtually certain that human beings and dinosaurs have never crossed paths.



Here we go again. Can you people please understand that a mammoth was NOT a dinosaur and DID live well into the time of humanity. NO ONE argues aginst the fact that Mammoth and man were around at the same time. Mammoths were NOT dinosaurs
edit on 19-8-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Hydroman
 


I am not sure that what God does needs to be completely understood by us. I don't even remember God promising eternal life for any of his creations (after the fall that is) so I don't see any issues here.



check out John 3:16 "for God so loved the world that he sent his only son, that who so ever believes in him will have eternal live." that is from my memory.
This is quoted from the bible "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal" www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3%3A16&version... -
He does promise eternal more than once. I can find the rest if you like.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 07:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by SusyQ30

Originally posted by nyk537[/i


check out John 3:16 "for God so loved the world that he sent his only son, that who so ever believes in him will have eternal live." that is from my memory.
This is quoted from the bible "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal" www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3%3A16&version... -
He does promise eternal more than once. I can find the rest if you like.



No thanks



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 



Here we go again. Can you people please understand that a mammoth was NOT a dinosaur and DID live well into the time of humanity. NO ONE argues aginst the fact that Mammoth and man were around at the same time. Mammoths were NOT dinosaurs


Did I say that a woolly mammoth was a dinosaur? My point was that supposedly extinct animals might exist in an environment suitable to their adaptations, ie; if their ecological niche continues to exist. This is why sometimes one might find a supposedly extinct species of fish, like the coelocanth, but never gigantic herbivorous brontosaurs in Antarctica! Dinosaurs no longer exist because even those that survived the K-T extinction would no longer have a place in the ecological system!

Please read and understand a post before replying... your heat makes it sound like you believe that dragons aren't mythical. Incidentally, you do understand the difference between humans and mammoths co-existing in pre-historic times, and mammoths surviving into historical times?



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by steveknows
 



Here we go again. Can you people please understand that a mammoth was NOT a dinosaur and DID live well into the time of humanity. NO ONE argues aginst the fact that Mammoth and man were around at the same time. Mammoths were NOT dinosaurs


Did I say that a woolly mammoth was a dinosaur? My point was that supposedly extinct animals might exist in an environment suitable to their adaptations, ie; if their ecological niche continues to exist. This is why sometimes one might find a supposedly extinct species of fish, like the coelocanth, but never gigantic herbivorous brontosaurs in Antarctica! Dinosaurs no longer exist because even those that survived the K-T extinction would no longer have a place in the ecological system!

Please read and understand a post before replying... your heat makes it sound like you believe that dragons aren't mythical. Incidentally, you do understand the difference between humans and mammoths co-existing in pre-historic times, and mammoths surviving into historical times?



But even if they do not have a place in the ecological system directly after the K-T extinction, it does not mean that they can not adapt. Growing smaller in size, depending on the available food sources. Their survival is also a possible explanation as to where our mythical creatures come from. Not the work of fiction, just distorted stories of creatures that existed in their time.

Exaggeration is common in such stories. Who doesn't want to brag after all? Emphasizing the size of such a creature that you slayed, escape from is natural. Additionally such distortions occur when you're in the heat of battle or running away. You might not have the time or luxury to notice details and your mind fills up with it's own version of the creature.

- zhao_0770



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 07:48 AM
link   
At first I thought this entire argument was ridiculous, after reading through it, I'm still unconvinced people and dinosaurs existed together on any meaningful level. I do acknowledge science has been just as guilty as religious fanatics in shaping results to suit their purpose, but in today's world, the ability to research things so extensively makes it harder to fool those who can think for themselves.

"God" I'm sure isn't hindered by time and therefore I'm sure looks at 4 thousand and 4 billion years as two meaningless human perceptions. So the motivation to prove this idea lies in wanting to validate your religious beliefs through cherry picked science.

That said, is it possible that "God" created the rules of the universe and everything in it, thus allowing for the "Big Bang" or whatever else may have started it all? Isn't this more likely that something from nothing or buying stories from a book written by agenda driven people just a few thousand years ago? Or for that matter trusting every word from "Science" as absolute despite a history of claiming things like the world is "flat" and the sun revolves around the "earth" not too long ago and a myriad of other stances just as politically driven.

I suggest there is a "God" and that few here understand what that truly means. I suggest that requiring proof for every little thing and ignoring common sense and critical thinking is equally ignorant.

"God" exists in some fashion. There are rules of the universe. There are exceptions to all rules. "God" probably intervenes on occasion but doesn't bend or break his own rules in every facet of your little lives because it would defeat the entire purpose.

This outlook works for me, someone who respects science and spirituality but has learned that neither can be trusted completely... nor should be.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by 0770zhao
 



But even if they do not have a place in the ecological system directly after the K-T extinction, it does not mean that they can not adapt. Growing smaller in size, depending on the available food sources.


Correct. The current thinking is that the survivors evolved into birds. The discovery of fossilized dinosaur bones was sufficient to inspire our ancestors with ideas of gigantic creatures.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001

Correct. The current thinking is that the survivors evolved into birds. The discovery of fossilized dinosaur bones was sufficient to inspire our ancestors with ideas of gigantic creatures.


Perhaps. Or perhaps some had really survived, inspiring such tales? Extinction is not absolute after all. The fish that was found deep under the ocean, the coelacanth is proof. It does not need alot to inspire such myths. One would be sufficient, inspiring countless of such tales. Spin offs and retelling is a good method in which such tales can spread.

Killing a giant "beast" never seen before is a good story. One which certainly be popular in ancient times.

But, there always is the other side of the story, which is yous, where their mere remains is enough to inspire such tales.

Unless we manage to go back in time to check, I think this shall remain our personal opinions though.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by SusyQ30
 


I was speaking in the context of eternal life on earth. I guess I should have been more clear.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by steveknows
 


I never said I thought they were conspiring against humanity to lie and mislead them.

I said they were wrong.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Threadfall
 


There ARE limitless accounts of man and dinosaur living together from every corner of the earth running through virtually every ancient peoples.


There are NO accounts of men and dinosaurs living together from any corner of the Earth. Unless you're arguing that birds are dinosaurs


There ARE stories of various mythical creatures which some may interpret as being descriptions of living dinosaurs, but they cannot prove that to be the case since very clearly other, equally, or more valid, interpretations exist.

Likewise, there are no depictions of recognisable dinosaurs from any corner of the Earth either. Again, there are drawing etc which some may interpret as dinosaurs, but they do not resemble any known reconstruction, rather, at best, they look like a young child's imaged version of what a dinosaur might look like.

And as I keep asking, why dinosaurs specifically? Why not cynodonts? Or chalicotheres?



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 08:51 AM
link   
Humans and dinosaurs still coexist to this very day.



They are called birds, avian dinosaurs. Non-avian dinosaurs like the T-Rex went extinct 65 million years ago.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25

Originally posted by dadgad
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?


Creationist still exist because science has yet to find any hard evidence, in fossils or by eye witness to support evolution. And the claim that the earth is billions of years old has many big holes. When two scientist can do the exact same procedure and come up with dates that are thousads or hundreds of thousands of years apart how can we except any result as fact? Why is it so hard to believe in God and so easy to believe in a system that is yet to be proven? Either way your acting on faith.


When dealing with billions of years a couple of thousands years in difference really means nothing and certainly doesn't prove the bible to be right.



new topics

top topics



 
132
<< 34  35  36    38  39  40 >>

log in

join