It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 46
<< 43  44  45    47  48 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 05:32 PM

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by SG-17

I got an education, but i never allowed myself to be brainwashed by Darwinism, i don't call that education at all. Its ashame you think secularism is the answer though when in reality its taught to us because of a hidden agenda to turn everyone into atheistic morons and lose as many souls to satan as possible.
edit on 31-8-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)
You were certainly brainwashed by something. You have to be delusional, a moron, or have an ulterior motive to profess literal belief in 4000 year old re-translation of Sumerian myths, aka the Bible.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 06:29 PM
reply to post by SG-17

That's where you have made a fatal mistake. It's not a sumerian myth at all. I'd suggest watching "Zeitgeist refuted final cut" which basically disproves any resurrection and a virgin birth accounts before Jesus. The bible is pure history that actually happened. I find it funny how you can believe the corrupted history in your school books yet be so quick to dismiss the bible. And i wasn't brainwashed by anything... i literally only believed in the bible about a few months ago (im now 20 years old), So its not like i was raised as a Christian or anything.
edit on 31-8-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 06:45 PM
Aaaaaaaaanyway,there is no credible evidence anywhere that leads us to the conclusion that dinosaurs (in the Classical sense as suggested in the OP, not withstanding the Avian clade) and man coexisted...nothing in the Bible leads us there (or anywhere, for that matter) and certainly nothing that would stand up to the scrutiny of peer review.
I wonder why these claims are not subjected to peer review? Perhaps because then they would be shown to be fabrications/misinterpretations and leave the shills with nothing to sway their gullible audiences.
Ms 20 year old obviously doesn't understand the Scientific Method and appears to be delusionally paranoid.
That's fine, she's allowed to and in entitled to her opinion, just as we all are. That, however doesn't discount the fact that these opinions can be challenged ( as we should expect them to be). However, under scrutiny, it seems plain to me that the evidence-based approach is a much more useful tool for unravelling the Truth than anything faith-based.

If dinosaurs and Homo sapiens sapiens (or any species of Homo) had indeed coexisted there would be evidence and Scientists (Palaeontologists) would be all over it like a rash. It would be a career-making discovery, but alas, there is nothing there.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:01 PM
reply to post by RevelationGeneration

I don't know why you keep claiming this is my argument, but its not and that's not essentially what i said at all.

Your post, which I quoted, is pretty clear -- because the Bible doesn't explicitly state that evolution was God's mechanism for "creating" man, evolution doesn't exist.

There are many reasons why evolution cannot successfully be merged with the accounts of the bible and ive already stated many of those already. For one we were created in God's image. Secondly God made us from the dirt and then breathed the breath of life into man, which doesn't sound like evolution was involved at all if you have any common sense. Thirdly God isn't a God of gaps, he created all beings in there full form, and then gave them life. I could continue to go on as to why evolution doesn't fit to be apart of genesis but i'd be wasting me time, since your not even a christian but merely a guy here to argue with me so you can try and trick other christians into accepting evolution and genesis. There are also numerous verses which totally contradict any type of evolutionary process ever taking place.

You can keep spouting this over and over again, but as long as you're willing to state that parts of the Bible should be taken literally and others should be taken figuratively, then it's simply a matter of your opinion that evolution must not exist. Unless, of course, you can show us some kind of rubric handed down from God himself about which passages should be taken literally and which should be taken figuratively. Got one? Didn't think so.

No im not the only one, any bible scholar or theologian will tell you this.

Yes, and they'll often disagree about which are meant to be taken literally… or not as literally… or figuratively… or however you want to split hairs over whether something is factual or not. It's one of the things that's always amusing when debating Christians in these forums -- if you get more than one of them in the same thread, they can rarely agree on anything tenet of faith other than Christianity is the "true" religion.

Please do because so far you have been unable to achieve that even once.

Again, your reading comprehension skills seem to be lacking. In the posts of yours that I quoted, you went from "Genesis to literal" to "Well… except for Genesis 2… that's not *as* literal." One doesn't need to be a genius to smell the distinct aroma of male bovine fecal matter and backsliding.

The bible of course, i'd have to pick that any day over 33rd degree freemasonry and the secular brain-washing religion of evolution that's full of hidden agendas to destroy man kind.

All you're doing is picking an even older form of brainwashing. It's amusing that you're equating evolution with brainwashing. I can go see objective evidence for evolution whenever I want, independent of a book that tells me it must be true. You claim that the Bible is the ineffable word of God, and you know this because the Bible tells you so.

As for the saying the bible is not valid because its a product of man, well that's really a poor argument to use on your part and does not discredit the claims of the bible.

Men can, and do, distort retellings of events to suit their needs. To claim that something that has been translated and recompiled as many times as the Bible hasn't been tampered with in the complete absence of objective corroborating evidence is ludicrous.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:03 PM

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by SG-17

That's where you have made a fatal mistake. It's not a sumerian myth at all. I'd suggest watching "Zeitgeist refuted final cut" which basically disproves any resurrection and a virgin birth accounts before Jesus. The bible is pure history that actually happened. I find it funny how you can believe the corrupted history in your school books yet be so quick to dismiss the bible. And i wasn't brainwashed by anything... i literally only believed in the bible about a few months ago (im now 20 years old), So its not like i was raised as a Christian or anything.
edit on 31-8-2011 by RevelationGeneration because: (no reason given)
Wait... you recently converted to Christianity? You might want to call poison control and have them check your house for chemicals. While you're at it get a brainscan too.

posted on Aug, 31 2011 @ 07:07 PM
reply to post by RevelationGeneration

He's referring to the bulk of Genesis, particularly the creation myth and the global flood. Both are cribbed directly from the Enûma Eliš. In hindsight, I guess when you plagiarized that post from Answers in Genesis, you were just following in the footsteps of the creators of your religion. Good job!

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 05:07 AM

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by noonebutme

They were more in touch with the world around them then you or i could ever be.

And how do you know that? In some respects, sure - maybe they were but in many they were not. You don't know me, who I am or anything about me. Perhaps you're not in touch with the world, but I am.

posted on Sep, 1 2011 @ 01:43 PM
reply to post by nyk537

"Creationist Scientist", these two things strike me as mutually exclusive. Creationists, have a small bank of minor circumstantial evidence to back up claims that would not exist if not for the bible. Scientists on the other hand, don't assume, they document the data and interpret the results as best they can. Explain to me how the earth can be 6000 years old and yet you yourself acknowledge that 'some' of the dinosaur species were around with humans. Does that not mean that the earth their ancestors were from was the same far older earth? I'm not averse to the idea of some species surviving, ie. Alligators/Crocs/Sharks etc. But I can't believe that anyone in their right mind believes that there is a God that created all this, gave you a brain, then said "if you use your head, you'll burn in hell" (paraphrasing of course). Theres really no point in arguing the data, when the fundamental reasoning behind the question is flawed.

Nothing against you personally, to each his own, but seriously...

(Minor Course language FYI)
edit on 1-9-2011 by JunoJive because: Grammatical Correction

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 12:29 PM
reply to post by nyk537

Amazing discovery i find this extremely fascinating. facts change constantly and i think the fact that dinosaurs and humans did not coexist will change very soon.

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 07:05 PM
Regarding the bible, it would be more honest were kids taught the four stories Genesis 1 - 11 is based on. They don't come from the Israelite's history they existed long before those people evolved and belong to another culture. Interestingly the serpent Ningishzida was a friend to Adapa and tried to help him in his search for immortality.

Genesis is based on: Adapa and the South Wind, Athahasis, The Epic of Gilgamesh and the Enuma Elish. Also God did not sit down and write the bible and especially Genesis 1 - 11, it was Hezekiah and Ezra, ordered to do so when the Israedlites were carted off to Babylon for not paying their taxes for the second time.

The bible and religion is somewhat haphazardly perched on top of ancient pagan beliefs metaphorically and literally and is developing a terminal wobble.

Although I have difficulty thinking that man existed alongside dinosaurs, there are odd artifacts that can't be explained. Also today we are starting out with space travel how do we know that we actually evolved on this planet? Our ancestors could have arrived from who knows where and settled here, we really know nothing, except there were a number of different species here. Part of our lack of knowledge is having had a religious priesthood that murdered anyone in the past who did not concur with the official religious view. That certainly stunted our outlook and investigation. It also, if the destruction of the Inca Empire is anything to go by, shows that the priesthood and its agents would stop at nothing to destroy artifacts and evidence of our earlier history.

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 07:30 PM
You may find these vids interesting also.

Dr. Carl Baugh and Dr. Dennis Swift gives many pieces of evidence for creation and intelligent design.

Creation in the 21st Century - Dinosaurs in the Desert (1 of 3) (Man living with Dinosaur)

edit on 2-9-2011 by SeekerLou because: (no reason given)

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 07:42 PM
Just as we live with bears and other animals today im sure they did the same back then.

posted on Sep, 2 2011 @ 07:45 PM
Mmmhmmm, because Dr Carl Baugh is a Young Earth Creationist who doesn't know his top from his tail.

He's been deceitful in the past.

posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 06:22 PM

Originally posted by Hydroman
I suppose dinosaurs were on the ark?

NO, they were not on the ark that's why they are not here. Early man would have been able to kill a dinosaur if he had to they would have had a plan to survive. Just like a dinosaur could also kill a man.

You have early written history about a flood. BUT you have nothing at ALL written about something hitting this earth and causing an ice age. Early man would have been quite capable of writing this but he wrote NOTHING on this subject. It was modern man who came up with the theory of an ice age and something hit this earth and the dinos went bye, bye.

Flavius Josephus a great historian wrote that he saw the ark during his lifetime the early AD's. Much was taken off the ark for artifacts, money back then. The boat is still intact till this day. But that is a whole different subject.

posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 06:45 PM
reply to post by Katie

BUT you have nothing at ALL written about something hitting this earth and causing an ice age.

It would have been quite hard for humans to write about something that occurred millions of years before they even existed. The earliest known hominid only dates back 7 million years and the dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago. I'm sorry if I missed the day in history class where it was discussed that all early humans could time travel, but could you please explain to me how humans were going to write about an event that occurred 65 million years before language was developed?

posted on Sep, 3 2011 @ 11:31 PM
It's all a conspiracy, obviously. By that evil satanic cabal of atheist scientists.

That's ALL they have.

edit on 3-9-2011 by aorAki because: bu became by: beware that demon drink ( and fat fingers and low light and lack of typing skill)

edit on 3-9-2011 by aorAki because: b became B: oh noes

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:26 AM
The so called "evidence" you use to support these outlandish claims are uncited and lack peer review, they are not in anyway a reflection of the scientific process, thus they cannot be used to explain a scientific phenomenon. Until the claims are verified via empirical evidence and survive scrutiny from the scientific community, they are firmly in the realm of pseudoscience, move along guys, if you're buying into this you're buying into someone's words with no proof, which we wouldn't like to do on a website like ATS, right?

Oh, and a spiral shaped rock carving doesn't prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, sorry.

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 02:48 AM

Let's begin by gaining a basic understanding of the knowledge ancient peoples had about dinosaurs. There are examples from history from peoples from all corners of the world in which intimate knowledge of dinosaurs can be found. Keep in mind the only reason that this is strange is because according to evolutionary assumptions, the existence of dinosaurs was supposed to be unknown until the nineteenth century.

Has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. Besides that point, bones have been excavated as far back as recorded history goes. The greeks prized the bones of dinosaurs. Granted they were misinterpretted. Femurs from saurapods were believed to belong to giants, cerapods exposed in profiles of rocks are considered to be interpretted as the mythological griffon. Its in the writings we have from greek historians.

The fact that there are artifacts that date back much longer than that is immediately a major hurdle for evolutionary thinking.

not really

The tomb in question belongs to Richard Bell (no relation), a bishop at Carlisle (AD 1410-1496). The tomb is inlaid with brass and shows the bishop himself as well as some other religious imagery. The section of note though is roughly 9 1/2 feet long and runs around the edge.

The images come from worn out brass carvings. The author even concedes that most are unidentifiable due to condition. IMO they look a lot like single hump camels or girraffes, considering the era we are talking about with the crusades prior, its is more plausible that these were designed off of descriptions (not actual visual experience or model to follow off) that came back from the "holy land" than dinosaurs running around. Remember we are talking about a very zealous era in christianity. They would not hide documentation at this point for some evolution conspiracy. There would be documentation on large animals of that size.

The next example I would like to show you is another example that brings into question when certain animals were said to exist by evolutionary scholars. The object in question is known most commonly as a "Devil's Corkscrew". These are spiral tunnels in the Earth that range from around six to seven feet. When they were first discovered, scientists thought they were the result of a giant root. Here is an example of one:

Yet no dates are given of any geological studies done to determine the age of the rock housing these casts.

It wasn't until the 1920's that scientists found these out for what they really were...palaeocaster beaver holes! Now, according to evolutionary timelines this animal went extinct about 30 million years ago.

Ok so an Indian tribe had a story of giant beavers, doesn't mean this species was not extinct. There is no geological dating provided that has proven these tubes are younger than the extinction date.

Nothing provided points to "dinosaurs" live with people. The earth is 4.6 billion years old. "What we consider "dinosaurs" died out 65 million years ago. Evolution doesn't say so. Geology and Paleontology saids so. Everything povided is just conjecture that ignores scientific and historical evidence.

Also of note: The T-rex piece is usual but not completely unheard of in paleontology. In this case the body fossilized rather quickly leaving small segements fossilized before they fully decomposed. during the fossilzation process certain chemicals were allowed to remain keeping the elasticity and structure of some of the tissues. There should be some actual scholarly essays written up on the subject by now.

posted on Sep, 4 2011 @ 03:58 AM
In every discussion like this I have seen, it is the same thing. These posts could have been from 2002 or even 1996,etc

Basically: Anyone who believes in God is a moron, delusional, brainwashed...and any argument is not noticed and stepped aside.

The guys who quote the Bible (basically look for quotes and copy and paste) know absolutely nothing about the text and are only trying to discredit instead of actually learning anything.

Really it is just a waste of time.

Just to state a few facts: Jesus Christ was real (majority of scholars - that is people who use their brains, not like Christians) a basic level how do you explain Roman History and its adaptation of the Christian faith if Christ never existed...really who is being absurd?

Was Christ who He says he was, some believed then and some didn't....some say He performed miracles and some say they were tricks...humans haven't changed since those its a matter of faith.

The "Bible" as many of you so loosely quote is truely an amazing text and it is an excellent guideline on how to live a good life. If our society would live by the rules of God we all know we would be better off...example is the decay of this society we currently live in...without morality humans turn almost animal like in thinking.

Anyway, there will always be the bashers who will never learn a thing, and the Bible thumpers who try to defend themselves...

The discussion is a waste of time as it has turned into a mud throwing contest and we don't know the history of 6,000 or 60,000 or 6 million years ago...there are many possibilities that both God and science have in common, but we are only making our best guess.

Lets not get too absurd

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:07 AM
Are people totally unaware of current dinosaurs living with us now?

For example the Lake Champlain monster:

Or the modern African dinosaur Mokele-mbembe

Not to mention a number of others.

new topics

top topics

<< 43  44  45    47  48 >>

log in