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: 38
132
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Paschar0
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.

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.

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


Great post! I would agree with all of this. Science can never explain origins, which means there in ZERO foundations for the rest of evolution theory. But I would also argue that it's far more likely dinosaurs are STILL with us today, but much more hidden. "Dinosaur" is a very recent term, from the looks of paintings and stories of old, they were as common as buffalo or any other large predator. The variety of paintings that were not localized SCREAMS that they both existed together very recently. I bet this probably isn't even a debate in older civilizations like China and Africa.




posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by CalledOUT
 


For the last time, evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life, that's hypotheses like abiogenesis and panspermia. Evolution attempts to, and successfully, explains the diversity of life.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 09:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Xcal; you and alfa1 have the patience of...saints? Thank you for the continued information put forth in a non-confrontational way. I really mean this - thanks. I have learned some things I did not know before. Question - you mentioned the "creationist scientist" that is now going to be a guest on ATS. I know it is off subject, but what do think about having him on (creedo?) and thank you again.

Edit to add: THANK YOU iterationzero.
CJ
edit on 19-8-2011 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Fisherr
 


That's complete nonsense. I'd love to see you go up against a Velociraptor or T-Rex with nothing but a wooden spear. My money's on the dinosaur.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 10:15 AM
link   
reply to post by CalledOUT
 


Science can never explain origins,

There’s a big difference between “science can never explain origins” and “science hasn’t explained origins yet”. Imagine how many things people thought would never be known, even within our lifetime, that have since been determined.


which means there in ZERO foundations for the rest of evolution theory.

As I, and several others, have pointed out in this thread: the theory of evolution isn’t concerned with the origins of life. It is only concerned with biodiversity, what life does once it is already present. For you to keep repeating that the theory of evolution’s lack of evidence for the origin of life somehow weakens the theory of evolution runs counter to the motto of this site -- you're not denying ignorance, you’re willfully embracing it.


But I would also argue that it's far more likely dinosaurs are STILL with us today, but much more hidden.

They are, and they’re not even hidden -- they're called avian dinosaurs or, more commonly, birds.


"Dinosaur" is a very recent term, from the looks of paintings and stories of old, they were as common as buffalo or any other large predator. The variety of paintings that were not localized SCREAMS that they both existed together very recently. I bet this probably isn't even a debate in older civilizations like China and Africa.

So everything for which there are paintings must exist or have existed, side by side with man?



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by iterationzero
the theory of evolution isn’t concerned with the origins of life. It is only concerned with biodiversity, what life does once it is already present.

So everything for which there are paintings must exist or have existed, side by side with man?


Evolution has to be concerned with origins, because it has to answer: What did we originally Evolve from? If you want to make it a possible theory that is, otherwise still fairy tales. me saying that someday I'm going to PROVE that a hippo can morph into a rock could be considered 'science' since I don't need a solid theory on how this can possibly be except that rocks sticking out of water look like a hippo sticking out of water.

Not everything, but things that we have proof existed i would say yes. Especially in so many cultures around the world. Like the greek gods, they were localized in art, and did spread out a bit, but we do not find the stories and art work around the world across cultures.
edit on 8/19/2011 by CalledOUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


As much as I believe Cremo is a complete fraud he is a good get for the site. His work is well known in the alternative history field and covers a lot even if it is based on faulty research. I do hope someone calls him out on the problems with his theory on-air, but all in all I think it will be an enjoyable show for most.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by CalledOUT
 


No it doesn't. Evolution and abiogenesis rely on completely different mechanisms. Evolution relies on genetic mutation whereas abiogenesis relies on the bonding of amino acids to form proteins. These two different areas of science and one is not needed to explain the other. What you're saying right now would be like saying if we didn't know how cows reproduced we wouldn't be able to explain human digestion.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by CalledOUT

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.


Well I have to say I completely disagree with almost every assumption you make in this response. Please know that I have presented these points as retorical questions for reflection, but please feel free to respond if you like.

-First of all, how do you know that ancient man would have worshiped these bones as "gods"? Do we worship dinosaurs as gods today?- no. Maybe they feared these creatures, therefore left the bones in the ground, or maybe the bones were viewed as a bad omen and avoided?

-Also, it is impossible to say whether or not any of these ancient stories about encounters with giant living creatures are fact. Today we also write stories that are fiction about our past. We also have stories that mix factual places with fictional events (such as Kansas in The Wizard of Oz). Oral traditions and artistic expression are not proof of factuality.

-In addition, how do you know what these hunting and gathering societies were concerned with? I believe it is unreasonable to assume that ancient peoples did not have sophisticated cultural identities, as we do. To say: "They would care more about protecting the flock against these beasts like their stories say." is an assumption to say the very least, and bad logic! Yes, ancient man may have spent most of their time hunting and gathering, etc., but this does not mean that it consumed everything about their cultural identities. You can say that most of us today spend a majority of our time at work, but for most of us, our work does not define who we are and what we care about. It leaves out equally important aspects of our lives such as family values, religious affiliation, patriotism, etc.

- Your statement: "And why so many real life stories of these creatures in so many cultures around the world?" How do you know that these stories are REAL. Proof please?

- And just as a way of good measure, what do you truly know about the ancient Greeks and their gods to confidently say: "and not fables like stories of the greek gods or something like that." The pantheon of Greek gods were very real to many ancient Greeks, just as Jesus is very real to creationists. How can you say that there is not some measure of truth behind their belief system?

Now please, if I haven't seemed to harsh (and I hope it does not come off that way) let me know how the idea that I stated in my first post does not add up.....
How is it unreasonable that humans may have seen outlines of dinosaur bones on the side of an eroding cliff face, or picked up large teeth here or there, and NOT possibly "imagined" what they looked like?

I respect you decision to believe in the possibility that we are not being told the truth about our past, however it is reasonable to remain open-minded about all possibilities, no?


Thanks!

edit on 19-8-2011 by TheAncientsKnew because: added emoticons


edit on 19-8-2011 by TheAncientsKnew because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-8-2011 by TheAncientsKnew because: rephrased wording



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


I appreciate your take. Thanks again and please, if possible, participate in the upcoming discussion. You are succinct and easy to understand.

CJ
edit on 19-8-2011 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 12:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by kindred
reply to post by Fisherr
 


That's complete nonsense. I'd love to see you go up against a Velociraptor or T-Rex with nothing but a wooden spear. My money's on the dinosaur.


I think I could take it.


Seriously, primitive folks with primitive weapons have gone up against all sorts of mean, nasty, hairy critters, and prevailed. That's why WE are still here. Don't short change your ancestors. THEY are the very foundation for YOU, and the meanest weapon humanity has ever possessed is right between our ears.

Everything else , all of our implements modern and primitive, are outgrowths of that.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
This has been a great thread so far. Lots of good information in here.

Now, let's assume that giant lizards (dinosaurs) did live with man and were in the Garden of Eden. Before the fall, death supposedly did not exist. Supposedly all creatures were vegetarians. Why did the T-Rex and other dinosaurs have sharp, tearing claws and teeth for eating plants? Why did the great white shark have rows and rows of razor sharp teeth for eating plants? Why do spiders, snakes, and wasps have venom? Why do spiders have the ability to build trap made of web? For trapping plants?

To get back on topic, why are there no human remains found with dinosaur remains?



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by CalledOUT
 


Evolution has to be concerned with origins,

Only in the minds of creationists who find that they can’t refute the theory of evolution without fallaciously conflating it with the hypothesis of abiogenesis.


because it has to answer: What did we originally Evolve from?

Ultimately? Some single-celled organism, commonly referred to as the LUCA. I’ll try to make this simple, since you like to rail against any explanation that shows any degree of complexity: abiogenesis is the hypothesis that covers going from chemicals to the first life form(s), evolution is the scientific theory that covers biodiversity.


If you want to make it a possible theory that is, otherwise still fairy tales.

Which is the natural conclusion of your straw man argument that a theory of the origin of life is a necessary part of the theory of evolution.


me saying that someday I'm going to PROVE that a hippo can morph into a rock could be considered 'science' since I don't need a solid theory on how this can possibly be except that rocks sticking out of water look like a hippo sticking out of water.

You really seem to have a thing for rocks. Seriously though, feel free to frame this as an actual testable hypothesis.


Not everything, but things that we have proof existed i would say yes. Especially in so many cultures around the world. Like the greek gods, they were localized in art, and did spread out a bit, but we do not find the stories and art work around the world across cultures.

But your only proof of dinosaurs coexisting with humans is artwork with representations of creatures that you claim are dinosaurs. My only proof of the existence of the Egyptian gods is artwork with representations of them. So I’ll let you know how my barbecue with Bast and Horus goes this weekend, since they obviously exist.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by nenothtu
That's complete nonsense. I'd love to see you go up against a Velociraptor or T-Rex with nothing but a wooden spear. My money's on the dinosaur.

To be fair, it wouldn't be a one on one fight. I'm sure it would be many humans with spears. It wouldn't have been like today where everything is convenient for us. If we want to eat, we go to the grocery store and buy food, or go to a nice, relaxing restaurant. Back then it would have been a fight for survival every day. Men would be laying down their lives for the their families every day. They would probably build traps to trap them in, such as a pit covered with branches, etc. They could have done this against any animal threat, not just dinosaurs. Not that I believe man and dinosaur existed together.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by CalledOUT

Evolution has to be concerned with origins, because it has to answer: What did we originally Evolve from?


The word "evolution" means "change" By definition it is not concerned with origin, but rather with change. No matter which side of the fence you stand on, "life" did not, and could not, have "evolved" from non-life. "Origin" or "genesis" is NOT "change", it is a beginning. Since there is nothingness before a beginning, there is nothing to be "changed".

Life originated - no matter your viewpoint, it had a beginning, and before it began, it could not have changed, as it was not there to change.

Evolution does not concern itself with origin. That's a whole different question.



Not everything, but things that we have proof existed i would say yes. Especially in so many cultures around the world. Like the greek gods, they were localized in art, and did spread out a bit, but we do not find the stories and art work around the world across cultures.
edit on 8/19/2011 by CalledOUT because: (no reason given)


That's an interesting statement. Since you maintain that art works prove the coexistence of people and dinosaurs, and you freely admit here that Greek gods existed in artwork, doesn't it naturally follow that you also believe the Greek gods were actual, real gods?

A potential corollary is that, since the Christian God is spirit, which no man has ever seen the face of and lived to tell about it, and therefore cannot exist in art work, doesn't that mean you believe He is not real, since there are no possible pictures of Him?



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman
This has been a great thread so far. Lots of good information in here.

Now, let's assume that giant lizards (dinosaurs) did live with man and were in the Garden of Eden. Before the fall, death supposedly did not exist. Supposedly all creatures were vegetarians. Why did the T-Rex and other dinosaurs have sharp, tearing claws and teeth for eating plants? Why did the great white shark have rows and rows of razor sharp teeth for eating plants? Why do spiders, snakes, and wasps have venom? Why do spiders have the ability to build trap made of web? For trapping plants?

To get back on topic, why are there no human remains found with dinosaur remains?


Faulty logic, based upon a misapplication of legends, and even at that reading things into them that are not written there. The Bible does not aver that "there was no death" before the fall, nor that all creatures were vegetarians. As a matter of fact, the legend is that a snake caused the fall, meaning that it had to be pre-existent to that fall. Have you ever seen a vegetarian snake?



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by nenothtu
That's complete nonsense. I'd love to see you go up against a Velociraptor or T-Rex with nothing but a wooden spear. My money's on the dinosaur.

To be fair, it wouldn't be a one on one fight. I'm sure it would be many humans with spears. It wouldn't have been like today where everything is convenient for us. If we want to eat, we go to the grocery store and buy food, or go to a nice, relaxing restaurant. Back then it would have been a fight for survival every day. Men would be laying down their lives for the their families every day. They would probably build traps to trap them in, such as a pit covered with branches, etc. They could have done this against any animal threat, not just dinosaurs. Not that I believe man and dinosaur existed together.


That quote wasn't originally mine, but I like your response, so I'll let it slide.


Personally, I'm a lazy sort, so rather than digging pit traps, I prefer to drive my dinosaurs over cliffs...





edit on 2011/8/19 by nenothtu because: Fixed tags. Glitch in my personal matrix.



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


Yes, because the overwhelming evidence in the fields of biology, palaeontology, geology, cosmology, chemistry, astrophysics, geophysics and biology is wrong and the thousands, if not millions of scientists over the ages are mistaken, right?



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by 0770zhao
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
i so totally agree ;P i have always collected old dictionaries an in them they have the word dragon depicted that they were still around .i m on way to work but will get some out n write word 4 word what is written !!



posted on Aug, 19 2011 @ 01:55 PM
link   
hahaha - using "The Flintstones" as evidence that Dinosaurs and Humans co existed is laughable and excruciating.

Almost as bad as the show "Ancient Aliens" claiming that ancient humans only wrote/painted about what they saw, not what they imagined.



new topics

top topics



 
132
<< 35  36  37    39  40  41 >>

log in

join