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: 42
132
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 05:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by CalledOUT

if people lived with dinosaurs, each of the civilisations around the world would draw their own local dinosaurs they they saw. It would be, in your terms, "localised artwork".


You are correct, I meant that they drew actual "dinosaurs" that we know now looked exactly how they portrayed it. But you are right, there were many different types drawn around the world, with the commonality being: "this species should have died 65 million years ago", which isn't true. There has actually been instances where we have learned a new thing from the drawings about the dinosaur from the artwork that we did not know before.



Well, you've just gone and done 180 degree change on your story.
For the last couple of posts your whole argument has been that the paintings are NOT localised, like localised pictures of local Gods, and I quote you...
The variety of paintings that were not localized SCREAMS that they both existed together

...and yet now you argue that they have no commonality at all except general drawings of things that are extinct.

Yet in the very next sentence you argue that the drawings are very detailed and specific.


So I ask you to state clearly, for the record, what your argument actually is.
* Either the local drawings are local and specific to that region, in which drawings will not be of foreign dinos nor general in nature, and your argument that they are unlike local God drawings is bogus, and your statement, "The variety of paintings that were not localized SCREAMS that they both existed together" is also untrue.
or
* The drawings are, as you state above "NOT localised", and in your words, the commonality being: "this species should have died 65 million years ago" being of no specific locality at all, and your agreement that people would only draw local dinosaurs make you a hypocrite.

Which is it?

edit on 20-8-2011 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by ripcontrol
Sir I agree with you ... someone is lying and editing has taken place... is this your view or am I speaking out of turn...
I think that it is very possible that editing has taken place. I also think that those who wrote the ancient writings may have witnessed events that they couldn't explain and so attributed the events to the acts of a god. Or, it is possible that stories were told, and were embellished and added to over time. Lastly, it is also possible that the stories are 100% accurate. Who knows?



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 07:44 PM
link   
Let me go back a post or two of yours…

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!

No, they didn't find unfossilized dinosaur remains. This is a pretty basic scientific fallacy stemming from a lack of understanding of the science behind fossilization. I notice that the Smithsonian article you linked never once uses the word "unfossilized". Neither does Schweitzer's published work. So you probably got this interpretation straight from a creationist website either authored by Wieland or one that draws on him. Rather than read the research and try to understand it, Wieland based his interpretation of Schweizer's work on popularized articles. These weren't unfossilized remains -- the preserved organic structures were found in permineralized regions within a fossil. It's why they had to demineralize the specimens before they could see the structures that had been preserved by the process of fossilization. Preservation of organic structures and cell fragments is a well-studied phenomenon in fossils.

Next...

reply to post by CalledOUT
 

More examples of you reading what you want to see into the article with no thought of cross referencing the claims with the original research. And you call this critically thinking?


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" ??

Which you immediately interpret as meaning the fossil must be too young for that material to have decomposed. After all, it couldn't possibly mean that those structures were preserved because of the fossilization process, could it? Nah, of course not.


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?)

Apparently a veterinarian, given that it wasn't Callis that initially identified them as red blood cells. And what was found when further analysis was performed? Was it red blood cells? Nope, it was heme -- fragments of hemoglobin i.e. the decomposition products of red blood cells. In fact, the only mention of red blood cells in the original research are those observed in an ostrich specimen treated in the same way as the fossil.


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."

See above -- fossilization can act to preserve organic structures under the right conditions. Schweitzer even points out the commonalities between fossils where soft tissue has been preserved in one of her earlier papers: rapid burial in sandstone (i.e. less time for soft tissue to decompose), relatively deep burial (i.e. protected from water/oxidation), and the soft tissue was found in unbroken bones (i.e. buried in a sealed environment). So, no, the presence of these materials still doesn't call into question the dating of these fossils.


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.

I didn't realize that I needed to include a full transcript of the article, as she was making her stance on misrepresentations of her work by young Earth creationists pretty clear in the quote I provided. Do you think by "certain doors", she means ones that are inherently non-scientific, or does your "common sense" tell you that "certain" is equivalent to "every"?

Seriously, feel free to take the earlier suggestion to read the original research for yourself and see what conclusions can be drawn from the data presented. It may not be as exciting or sensational as the popularized accounts found elsewhere, but it'll be much more edifying.

Next...

reply to post by CalledOUT
 


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.

Normally, I'd agree. But, given that you obviously still haven't read the original published research that you're basing your misinterpretations on, you don't even seem to be willing to learn enough about the topic to understand whether or not it adds up. You started with a conclusion -- that the Earth can't possibly be billions, or even millions, of years old -- and your interpretation of the data is driven by that conclusion. Science works in the other direction. And, again, I didn't say you were unintelligent, just that you're being willfully ignorant. There's a difference.


Anyways, you can have the last word, I'm done! Peace

Thanks. Hopefully I used the last word well.



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 08:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 


when God told them not to eat from the tree of knowledge and said they would surely die...he was talking of a spiritual death..their physical body would have died anyway without the tree of life to keep them alive..
The devil told them they would become Gods knowing good n evil and in a way he was right(the best lie is always filled with some truth)...but he was wrong in the fact that we would not be equal to God which is what I'm sure we thought when Adam n Eve bit from the fruit...think about it...why would we bite the fruit unless we thought we would be equal to or greater then God?? In the bible God forbids the worship of other gods because he is a jealous God...we are like him in his image and likeness...we did not want to worship anyone instead we want to be worshipped...much the same as we don't like being told what to do, we would rather tell others what to do...I do think that is the main reason why most of us do not follow God in the way he commands us to and why alot of people refuse to believe in him...but that's just me



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

edit on 21-8-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 20 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hydroman

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



I think he's saying that our far off ancesters were fury little mammals that lived in the ground during dinosaur times. I don't know what he means by the" flesh though". They were fury lttle mammals and all mammals today come from them. I've noticed some people placing the mammoth in the dinosaur basket however the mammoth evolved from the mammals who were able to dominate the once the dinosaur died out. Also what's often missed is the fact that the mammoth is a mammal as where dinosaurs were reptiles.
edit on 20-8-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by MegaplateausFlight
reply to post by orkson
 





Open your mind, and google "Erich von Daniken" & "dinosaurs". It's fascinating.


finally n open mind that means nonpartisan view '
' THANKS
edit on 20-8-2011 by MegaplateausFlight because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-8-2011 by MegaplateausFlight because: (no reason given)


Erich von Daniken was a tool. Have you read his book Bermuda Triangle? He goes on about all the unsloved mysteries and raves on about aliens and the such. Another book came out called Bermuda Triangle exposed or solved or something like that and proved that the "Mysteries" weren't mysteries at all and and that there was always wreckage and evidence left behind and that Erich von Daniken would have known this when researching for his book because you couldn't miss it. He just chose to ignore it.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Xcalibur254
reply to post by nenothtu
 


It's a genus of eel. Although I can't find anything regarding a recent discovery in Australia however. The latest discovery of a species from that area is 1925.


There has been many sealife discoverd from the period of the dinosaur. There was another fish discoverd alive and well in Australia off the coast of Tasmania from the time of the dinosaur. But this would make sense if the dinosaurs were killed off because of a meteorite or comet strike on land which is generally accepted as the cause.
edit on 21-8-2011 by steveknows because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


I'd direct you to take a look at this book...Mythology of Modern Dating Methods which contains quotes and experiments from leading secular scientists that detail the problems of the current dating methods.

I read every post previous to your above statement, and it's been more than obvious that you don't know diddly about "radiometric dating". You have been asked several times to post links supporting your claim that data based on such dating methods was false. I was looking forward to seeing your evidence. What do you do? You post a freaking link to a damn paperback for sale on amazon.com. You don't reckon the title suggests that it may be a little biased, do ya? And yet you have the gall to claim that textbooks are written by scientists with an agenda!

To top it all off, your arguement falls flat on it's face unless one believes that there is a conspiracy among scientists to keep thier discoveries secret. I don't! Scientists look forward to publishing their discoveries! Hell, that's the only real reward they get. I'll bet the author of the book you linked to only wrote it for the money!

You don't happen to have a bad case of "confirmation bias", do ya?

I did learn quite a bit reading through this thread though, but it certainly wasn't from you, or your supporters. I will continue to put my trust in science, and not amatuer theories.

I've already read more than enough to form my conclusion, so I'm done.

My answer to the question:

Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist?

It's not very likely, unless you are talking about birds!

See ya,
Milt

edit on 21-8-2011 by BenReclused because: Spelling



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 12:17 AM
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?



Close. dinosaur actually means teribble lizard.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Fisherr
 


My point exactly. This is written from a Creationist viewpoint (which I am) not an evolutionary one. I'm trying to make the case (among others) that evolutionary timelines are wrong, and that the Earth is much younger than we have been led to believe.

There are other test results out there that mirror the ones I have showcased. It is not an isolated incident.


I don't see why these ideas have to be mutually exclusive...?!

I believe that the earth IS billions of years old AND that dinosaurs and humans may have roamed the earth, simultaneously(!)
edit on 8/21/2011 by SquirrelNutz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stephen3267
when God told them not to eat from the tree of knowledge and said they would surely die...he was talking of a spiritual death..their physical body would have died anyway without the tree of life to keep them alive..
Ok, so let's make sure we got this straight: Had they not sinned, they would have physically died anyways? So sin did NOT bring physical death to the world, right? All animals on the planet would have physically died anyways? Even though Adam, Eve, and the serpent ALL thought he was talking about a physical death, god was actually talking about spiritual death. When Paul says, "Death entered the world through sin," he was talking about spiritual death, right? Could you show me where god and Paul were clearly talking about spiritual death, and then explain exactly what spiritual death means and then explain what a spirit is? In my understanding of spirits, I did not know they could die.

I want to go over this again, because it is so strange to me. Adam and Eve were created mortal NOT immortal? Before they sinned, Adam and Eve had living physical bodies, and living spirits (whatever that means). When they sinned, their spirits died? So, they had living physical bodies, but dead spirits at that point? What does that even mean? And this is for sure what god meant when he said they would die? He didn't mean their bodies would die, but their spirits would die as soon as they touched the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? I mean, when they touched it, did Adam and Eve think, "Ah man, my spirit just died"?

Again, you believe that sickness, disease, pestilence, etc. already existed, and sin did NOT bring that into our world. The only thing sin did was cause spiritual death? Many times I have heard christians say that the reason we have sickness, diseases, etc. is because of the fall of man in the garden. But, apparently man already had those things because god was talking about spirit, not flesh? Why did god create things that were meant to physically die, if he wanted communion with them in the garden? I mean, Adam and Eve didn't even know they were naked, or what their parts were for before they sinned, so they may have never procreated. So, once they died I suppose god would have had to create another set to have communion with in the garden?

Now, if I told you, "If you eat 10 cookies from the cookie jar before you eat your dinner, you will die." Would you think I was talking about a spiritual death (whatever that means)?

One more question on this topic, if a person is "spiritually dead" and their physical body dies, does that mean they just cease to exist as no part of them is living?
edit on 21-8-2011 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   
i agree people may have lived with dinos but idk



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Hydroman
 


Here's my opinion if you want it... When Adam and Eve did eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they were thrown out of the garden with an angel set guard on the tree of life. The presumption would be that if they ate from the tree of life they wouldn't die- or it would prolong death, etc... But, I think this is a physical death- not a "spiritual death" The Bible talks about people being spiritually dead, and compares them to trees that no longer produce fruit, but there's no indication it's talking about people's actual spirits ceasing to exist. Moreover, the idea the Bible creates about Hell is that it's a place of separation from God. And, additionally, the spirits of the living and dead will be present on judgement day as well. The body and the spirit are two separate things, but the spirit exists beyond the body regardless of your spiritual health. It's an eternal thing. I think it could potentially be destroyed- as there are some references to even Lucifer being ultimately destroyed after everything is over. As far as the fall of man, I think the implication IS that after the fall man received mortality and many of the woes that go along with it. It doesn't ever specifically say that no one died before that, or that Adam and Eve were the only ones there. But, certainly it also doesn't reference anyone dying until after that. In addition it does list the new things that will happen- such as having to work to grow crops. And plants having thorns, etc... Increased pain in child birth (which suggests there was some pain and some births prior to this- which is interesting) Also, enmity between the snake and the woman and between her offspring and its offspring (which is, again, a very interesting passage) But, these are all physical things. So, it would also make sense that the death they speak of is physical as well. However, with the knowledge of good and evil, and the propensity to sin, it did also bring on a divide between God and man. But, that didn't mean that Adam's soul died. To the contrary there's every indication that he maintained Hebrew law and passed his knowledge of God to future generations. The need for salvation and the plan for its introduction was also put in to place at this time, and Adam would have known that and been the first dude waiting for the messiah. But, I don't see how any of this relates to dinosaurs.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1



For the last couple of posts your whole argument has been that the paintings are NOT localised, like localised pictures of local Gods.


They are not. There are many types of dinosaurs, none of the drawings were made up like a greek god or something to that effect. Actual bones prove that they drew a real dinosaur. They don't have to be the all triceratops, but they do all have to be actual dinosaurs to prove my point. And they are



So I ask you to state clearly, for the record, what your argument actually is.
* Either the local drawings are local and specific to that region, in which drawings will not be of foreign dinos nor general in nature, and your argument that they are unlike local God drawings is bogus, and your statement, "


We have no bones of greek gods, or proof of their existence, we do with dinosaurs. If you still do not understand my argument, sorry. I'm done. peace
edit on 8/21/2011 by CalledOUT because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by CalledOUT
 


We have no bones of greek gods, or proof of their existence, we do with dinosaurs. If you still do not understand my argument, sorry. I'm done. peace

Why would you assume that the Greek gods died? And we have plenty of proof of their existence and contact with ancient Greeks -- there are myriad paintings depicting them and Homer wrote extensively about them in the Iliad and the Odyssey.
edit on 21/8/2011 by iterationzero because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by maudlin
Here's my opinion if you want it... When Adam and Eve did eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil they were thrown out of the garden with an angel set guard on the tree of life. The presumption would be that if they ate from the tree of life they wouldn't die- or it would prolong death, etc... But, I think this is a physical death- not a "spiritual death"

So far we agree that this is what the story says.


Originally posted by maudlin
The Bible talks about people being spiritually dead, and compares them to trees that no longer produce fruit,
Where does it talk about them being spiritually dead? I've been trying to find it with no luck.


Originally posted by maudlin
And, additionally, the spirits of the living and dead will be present on judgement day as well.
No, I think the bible says that they will be in their body, as it says mentions that some will be called up from the sea. I could be wrong though.


Originally posted by maudlin
The body and the spirit are two separate things,
I know what a body is, what's a spirit and what's its purpose?


Originally posted by maudlin
As far as the fall of man, I think the implication IS that after the fall man received mortality and many of the woes that go along with it.
Now, are you saying that man was immortal before the fall? If so, what was the purpose of the Tree of Life, because we know what it does. If they were immortal, it would not have benefited them at all. So, what was the reason god created it?


Originally posted by maudlin
... Increased pain in child birth (which suggests there was some pain and some births prior to this- which is interesting)
Yes, very interesting. It suggests that perhaps birth had been given after all before the fall. Knowing that it takes 9 months for a child to be born, this tells me that they could have existed in the garden a very long time before the fall, but it is very vague on that. Thank you for pointing that out.


Originally posted by maudlin
But, these are all physical things. So, it would also make sense that the death they speak of is physical as well.
I am confused. Are you saying that the death that god was talking about was physical, or spiritual? We know they didn't die physically the very day that ate fruit as god had said, so do you say that they died spiritually that day? Again, was god really that vague? "You will die, you just will not know it, because it's a spiritual death I'm talking about." ? Or, do you suggest that when god said, "You will die the very day you eat the fruit" that he was speaking metaphorically of spiritual death? That doesn't make any sense to me. It is a threat that he uses, imo, that they will die physically if they touch the fruit.


Originally posted by maudlin
But, I don't see how any of this relates to dinosaurs.
Me either, but this it is a very interesting subject.
edit on 21-8-2011 by Hydroman because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Waikato Radiocarbon lab


Welcome to radiocarbon WEB-info. Radiocarbon dating is the technique upon which chronologies of the late Pleistocene and Holocene have been built. This resource is designed to provide online information concerning the radiocarbon dating method. We hope it will be of occasional use to radiocarbon users and interested students alike.


did dinosaurs and humans live at the same time?


No.


Accuracy of Fossils and the Dating Method


Our understanding of the shape and pattern of the history of life depends on the accuracy of fossils and dating methods. Some critics, particularly religious fundamentalists, argue that neither fossils nor dating can be trusted, and that their interpretations are better. Other critics, perhaps more familiar with the data, question certain aspects of the quality of the fossil record and of its dating. These skeptics do not provide scientific evidence for their views. Current understanding of the history of life is probably close to the truth because it is based on repeated and careful testing and consideration of data.


This is my position.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 07:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by CalledOUT
There has actually been instances where we have learned a new thing from the drawings about the dinosaur from the artwork that we did not know before.
edit on 8/20/2011 by CalledOUT because: (no reason given)


I work in a paleontology lab. Can you point to things which state "we have learned a new thing from the drawings" that we didn't know before?

I have never heard this claim before.



posted on Aug, 21 2011 @ 09:59 PM
link   
when Adam and Eve were thrown out of the garden they died spiritualy from God this means that they had lost thier connection from GOD thats what spiritualy dead means



new topics

top topics



 
132
<< 39  40  41    43  44  45 >>

log in

join