Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

reply to post by CalledOUT

They have found unfossilized dinosaur remains, the funny thing is that they still believe it's 65 million years old... HA!

I'm assuming you read enough of the article you linked to see the following:

Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”

Now why would she say something like that? The first six minutes of this video should give you a pretty clear picture why:
You should do a little more research on your sources to make sure they're really saying what you think they're saying.

Originally posted by iterationzero

I'm assuming you read enough of the article you linked to see the following:

“They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”

Now why would she say something like that? You should do a little more research on your sources to make sure they're really saying what you think they're saying.

So what I posted didn't say, "A tiny blob of stretchy brown matter, soft tissue from inside the leg bone, suggests the specimen had not completely decomposed" ??

Or it didn't say, "The biologist, Gayle Callis, happened to take the slides to a veterinary conference, where she set up the ancient samples for others to look at. One of the vets went up to Callis and said, “Do you know you have red blood cells in that bone?” ????
(so who would know a cell better, a bone collector? or a biologist?)

Did I misread, "Further discoveries in the past year have shown that the discovery of soft tissue in B. rex wasn’t just a fluke. Schweitzer and Wittmeyer have now found probable blood vessels, bone-building cells and connective tissue in another T. rex, in a theropod from Argentina and in a 300,000-year-old woolly mammoth fossil."

And oh yeah, you forgot the next couple sentences to your post, I'm guessing by their nature on purpose. Typical. So here they are if yo ureally did just not read them, "By definition, there is a lot that scientists don’t know, because the whole point of science is to explore the unknown. By being clear that scientists haven’t explained everything, Schweitzer leaves room for other explanations. “I think that we’re always wise to leave certain doors open,” she says.

so what was your point again? O yeah, the latest peer reviewed study proves it is tissue again.
www.plosone.org...

reply to post by nyk537


They did coexist but man was not of the flesh body then.

reply to post by CalledOUT

And, yet, nothing in any of the sources you provide indicate that it's any less than 65Myo. Or, as Dr. Schweizer said:

“They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”

Originally posted by iterationzero
And, yet, nothing in any of the sources you provide indicate that it's any less than 65Myo. Or, as Dr. Schweizer said:

“They twist your words and they manipulate your data.”

Except the fact that it's SOFT TISSUE FROM A DINOSAUR.

She's upset because she helped critical thinkers disprove her long held belief of evolution and dinosaurs becoming extinct 65 millions years ago and probably didn't want to. So they automatically say, "wow! Soft tissue thats 65 million yrs old because that's when we think dinosaurs became extinct!" yeah right... No wonder all your evolutionist try to say in error, "this isn't flesh!!" because then they have to argue against something they have never been able to beat: commonsense.

A lack of critical thinking from what the person at the front of the room said is NOT a sign of intelligence. It's what we call indoctrination

reply to post by CalledOUT

Except the fact that it's SOFT TISSUE FROM A DINOSAUR.

Are you under the impression that this is the first time that "soft tissue" has been found in permineralized structures within a fossil?

She's upset because she helped critical thinkers disprove her long held belief of evolution and dinosaurs becoming extinct 65 millions years ago and probably didn't want to. So they automatically say, "wow! Soft tissue thats 65 million yrs old because that's when we think dinosaurs became extinct!" yeah right... No wonder all your evolutionist try to say in error, "this isn't flesh!!" because then they have to argue against something they have never been able to beat: commonsense.

She's upset because it's obvious to anyone that has actually read her published research and understands the science behind it that nothing here contradicts the ability for organic structures to be preserved in a 65Myo fossil. Or older, given that preserved structures were reported in 440Myo structure not long before Schweizer reported her findings.

A lack of critical thinking from what the person at the front of the room said is NOT a sign of intelligence. It's what we call indoctrination.

A lack of basic understanding of the scientific principles you're trying to embrace is NOT a sign of intelligence. It's what we call willfully embracing ignorance.

Originally posted by nyk537
He didn't tell them if they ate of the tree they would live forever. God simply told them NOT to eat from it. The devil (as a serpent) told them that if they ate then they would be equals with God. It was a trick to ruin the immortality and perfect world that God had created.

Get your facts straight before you mock an entire religion.

Wait a second friend. I'm not the one with my facts confused. I am talking about the Tree of Life, not the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. God told them not to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The Tree of Life was fair game. God kicked them out of the garden so they wouldn't eat from the Tree of Life and live forever. Remember now? Do you see now that I wasn't mocking your religion? Why was the Tree of Life there for them to eat from if they already were immortal? It would just be a regular tree then with no purpose.

It is so strange to me that almost every time I speak to a chrisitan about the Tree of Life, they confuse it with the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil and I, an atheist, have to correct them. Please go back and re-read the story and see why god kicked them out of the garden, then you can answer the question properly.

In case you don't feel like reading the account, god did not kick them out of the garden for disobeying him. He kicked them out so they could not eat from the Tree of Life and live forever.

Originally posted by nenothtu
No sir, I know precisely what I believe, and why, and I also know that this thread isn't the place for a theology lesson.

That doesn't mean you are correct.

Originally posted by nenothtu
I suppose it would be possible that it talks of a physical death, and that still wouldn't indicate that death never existed before that. It would only indicate that they feared death, same as people do now. Why would any one fear something that didn't exist?

My point was that the bible says sin is what brought death to the world. But if they were already capable of death before sin, then the bible is wrong.

Originally posted by nenothtu
I believe that he's stressing the word "die" in the sentence "He knows that when you eat of it, you surely will not die, but will be as gods". There's more than one way to read that construction, however. It could be read to imply that previously, there was no death, and that death was threatened as a result of eating it, or it could be read to mean that previously, death was the norm, but after eating it, that person would not be further subject to death.

One more time in case any body else missed it: I was talking about the Tree of Life, not the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

Originally posted by coachkinsey
They did coexist but man was not of the flesh body then.

Care to elaborate?

reply to post by nyk537

Hmmmm... You've looked into this really hard and you seem to have some good points, but your information is very biased. Yes most of this things you point out could be true that doesn't necessarily mean they are. They are still very rough theories. For one, yes dinosaurs lived among humans. They still do in fact. It's called the shark, turtle, and most insects. But the scale that you are considering is hard to believe. Just because it is said that the discovery of dinosaurs wasn't until whatever year doesn't mean there was no knowledge of them, just no know or written knowledge, explaining why there could be dinosaurs on the casket. As far as the beaver tunnels go... Thats the same thing as a modern day beaver so why does it have to be prehistoric? Native Americans know what a beaver does therefore they don't have to unearth the fossils because it was made by not a modern day beaver but neither a prehistoric one. That's why evolution makes sense. Things were constantly changing and evolving so that's why some things add up and some don't. I think you make good points but like you stated your a creationist so you want to find the "facts" that support your claim. Unfortunately they aren't strong enough to sway me from my beliefs and religion thats rest solely on science. Great work though! It's wonderful to see people thinking out side the box, that's what our world relies on to get ahead!

Is there some good reason's as to why so many ancient civilizations seem to have knowledge of Dinosaurs? Even if accounts of their interactions with dinosaurs are exaggerated, just the fact that so many peoples drew them is incredible. Any alternative suggestions as to how they were able to draw these animals?

Originally posted by maudlin
Is there some good reason's as to why so many ancient civilizations seem to have knowledge of Dinosaurs? Even if accounts of their interactions with dinosaurs are exaggerated, just the fact that so many peoples drew them is incredible. Any alternative suggestions as to how they were able to draw these animals?

Why do we have "knowledge" of dinosaurs? Do you suggest that ancient people could not have come to the same conclusion as we have, buy using bones and fossils?

Their is one more thought I want to add to this.....
An argument with a christian friend of mine


Assume the bibles time-line is somewhat correct....

order mind you not time.....
(day equals ten thousand years and ten thousand years can equal a day)

What this does is this....

Dinosaurs existing with humans is just the tip of the ice berg.....

Have any of you considered the following?

Very basic here means one thing...

We are wrong about oil formation and diamond formation!

Those of this faith need to consider this.... if earth is only 6g's old this means that the alternative theory of the earth producing oil itself is correct.....

This means we can replicate this process and create new oil supplies.....

Same with diamonds......


This also adds to the other point....

What if time is not constant.... we have what less then eighty years of observation per unit... not one of the whole length....

The biblical verse could point not the present sun worshiping version of Christianity, but to flex time.... it may have flowed differently back then.... remember the main thing that got me on using as a myth text is that a single part of the book may have been right...

Discovery- snakes lost their legs...

* Snakes lost their legs by growing them more slowly or for a shorter period of time until the legs eventually disappeared.
* Legs on snakes likely disturbed some form of movement, such as burrowing, rendering the legs useless.
* It's now believed that snakes either evolved from a lizard that burrowed on land or swam in the ocean.

Listen I am the furthest thing here from christian because I cant stand the hypocrisy...

This being ATS one must not use one own preset understandings exclusively... this means some treatment must give the bible a look over... I however refuse to take the edited bs as sole example of surviving truth....

My GF says I need to tie these together a little better....

Well here it is.... if humans and dinosaurs walked together on the earth, a lot of other explanations might be wrong....

The basis of the argument is that the timeline is very wrong.... very wrong.... with the timeline being very off... the rest makes it plausible.... humans and dinosaurs.....

do not forget that tonight on ATS live this thread will be covered....

and a video I found...

reply to post by ripcontrol

As far as the account in the bible on the days of creation, many believers say that the bible is inspired by god himself. That Moses wrote genesis as god told him the history of creation. Do people believe that this god could not communicate his message clearly so we would not be confused about what he meant? When he said "day" that he meant one rotation of the earth, or thousands of rotations of the earth? Why would he use the term, "there was night and day, the first day of creation" if he was talking about thousands of years and not one single day instead?

You might say, "Well, it wasn't god's fault for the confusion, it was man's because he isn't perfect." Fine then. You should then apply this to the entire bible and understand that much, much more of it could be incorrect.

Originally posted by Hydroman

Originally posted by maudlin
Is there some good reason's as to why so many ancient civilizations seem to have knowledge of Dinosaurs? Even if accounts of their interactions with dinosaurs are exaggerated, just the fact that so many peoples drew them is incredible. Any alternative suggestions as to how they were able to draw these animals?

Why do we have "knowledge" of dinosaurs? Do you suggest that ancient people could not have come to the same conclusion as we have, buy using bones and fossils?

Well, right, this is one possible explanation. Obviously once we "discovered" dinosaurs we've had artistic fun with them as well. So, that would make sense. ... so long as there is some sort of evidence to suggest that all these difference civilizations actually delved in fossil finding- or at least a few did and then shared that knowledge. Is there evidence of this that anyone knows of?

Originally posted by iterationzero

Are you under the impression that this is the first time that "soft tissue" has been found in permineralized structures within a fossil?

No, I mentioned this in an earlier post. It shows that many other dinosaurs around the world did not become extinct until recent times. You really think this would not have been fossilized or decayed in 65 million years???

A lack of basic understanding of the scientific principles you're trying to embrace is NOT a sign of intelligence. It's what we call willfully embracing ignorance.

I do not have to embrace something that does not add up. if you say 2 + 2 = 10, and have it peer reviewed and passed down to younger generations to learn and regurgitate, I think I'm allowed to call B.S. without actually being unintelligent, as much as that pains you. Anyways, you can have the last word, I'm done! Peace

reply to post by Hydroman


I hope the mods consider this part of the conversation...

In the vein that dinosaurs walked the earth with men... and an irish saint was a dragon slayer... added in editing...

I approach in this fashion I do not speak the language the scrolls where wrote in.... allowing not only for editing and mis-translating.....

No I believe like part of tonight's ATS live will show is this... Massive editing by those in power to maintain that power...

May I further add one thing to this... we all have our precepts.... we color all encounters to fit our way preconceived of the universe....

our ancestors we ASSUME thought similar to us... right...so I cant by that time was the same way viewed as we view it...

Sir I agree with you ... someone is lying and editing has taken place... is this your view or am I speaking out of turn...

reply to post by nyk537


Great post - interesting topic (true or not, that's what this place is about) S&F!

[2nd line - placekeeper]

reply to post by nyk537


I just wanted to tell you that I have read the genesis account of creation and like you believe that life is cetainly not millions of years old, I do wish to discuss how old the actual planet itself is, as the bible itself does not mention that God created it on the first day as the planet itself was already here..God in fact created light on the first day, which is clearly evidenced in Genesis chapter one verse 2 to 5...the King James version reads like this... vs.2 And the earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved upon the the face of the waters.... vs. 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light...vs 4 And God saw the light, that it was good ; and God devided the light from the darkness...vs 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day

As anyone can clearly see the bible says that the earth without life is much older then the Earth with life..life itself inculding dinosaurs is certainly not millions of yrs old.. and to stay on topic with this I will add...YES dinosaurs and people once lived together

My point is that for all we know the earth itself is alot older then we think, I however do not beleive it is a billion years old or anything ridiculous like that but I do not beleive in a 6000 yr old earth...however I absolutely believe in the bible and God and Jesus who is called the Christ...I adhere to the belief in the blood of Christ for redemption, without whom there is no life...

I look forward to reading your posts on this subject...

to everyone else...say what you will, but I am a man with his own mind