Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Did Humans and Dinosaurs Coexist? Yes!

page: 47
131
<< 44  45  46    48 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


Hi nyk537:

I absolutely agree with you. I read Max Igan's book - part one - where he discusses OOPA's. Out of Place Artifacts. He tells of a man in South America that had found hundreds of smooth stones with carvings on them in caves. The carvings clearly show humans and dinosaurs - even humans riding dinosaurs. Now the story goes that the man was told to tell people that he had created the carvings but it was all hushed up rather quickly by some officials and the stones disappeared. I will try to go find that information and bring it back here. I just had to jump in and say - oh yes there is proof!

Peace.

Edit - to add - Max Igan - book is titled Earth's Forbidden Secrets and he has a web site "The Crow House Project". The stones are called "Ica Stones". Please check out his book. It has a wealth of information to support your theory.
edit on 5-9-2011 by Ghostcat because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Ghostcat
 


The stones didn't disappear, they're now a hot tourist item in Peru. You have dozens if not hundreds of people now making them and selling them on the street. The only aspect of them that supported their credibility was the patina, but Uschuya was even able to demonstrate how he created that.



posted on Sep, 5 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Xcalibur254
 


Really? Wow that blows my post. Thanks and peace.
second line




posted on Sep, 6 2011 @ 03:45 PM
link   
The brass inset in stone is no proof at all. Just because theres no documentation of dinosaur bones by learned people until 100 years ago does not mean that humans have never stumbled accross these relics of dinosaurs for thousands of years. Humans have been ploughing fields, excavating quaries and digging wells since the early days of our existance, its not unreasonable to assume that we may have unearthed dinosaur fossils many many times.

"Considering the American Indians strong belief in not disturbing the bones of the dead, the only reasonable conclusion to make is that these people saw this animal alive! "
This is not a reasonable conclusion, this is a vague supposition. This is quoted from Wikipedia:
"Most scholars writing at the end of the 19th century estimated the pre-Columbian population at about 10 million; by the end of the 20th century the scholarly consensus had shifted to about 50 million, with some arguing for 100 million or more."
Whichever number you choose from the above, thats a hell of a lot of people. Take the same number of Christans and see how many of them abide to the 10 commandments, the most basic ideals of human nature bestowed on them by God. Is it so unreasonable that over thousands of years humans living in America may have bent, broken, disregarded or simply did not possess the beliefs you suggest may have dettered them from exploring what may be at the bottom of a spiraling hole?
Or maybe they saw something similar elsewhere made by a similar animal and put two and two together...Afterall, even today we identify things by relating them to other things we have seen before, its what we do.

As for the Smithsonian article, heres another excerpt from it.
"
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.”
"
Nothing in this article argues that dinosaurs existed alongside humans, in fact Schweitzer is adament that her research only asks more questions of nature and is annoyed by people jumping to conclussions and using her research to support their cause unjustifiably. She openly admits that there are thing we still do not understand about dating and decay.

Your final argument about the inconsistancies and irregularities of scientific dating procedures renders your point about the dating of dinosaur bones irrelevent. On one hand you use science as proof of fact that the dinosaur bones were of an age usefull to your argument, on the other hand you discount the same aging techniques as pointless and unreliable.

I've found that in this article you are grasping at straws. There is no evidence here, just a clouding of the subject.
I've noticed that you did not referrence religion in your article but given your stance I'm kind of assuming your a Creationist. Tell me if I'm wrong. I have no less respect for Creationist that I do for a member of any religion or a member of none. I'm not predudiciously attacking your article here, I want that to be clear.
This article attemps to prove something by sullying the opposition. I've read many such attemps by Creationists to damage the integrity of Scientific professionals rather than provide evidence that the beliefs of Creationism are accurate.
Either way thanks for writing this, I enjoyed reading it and researching what you wrote.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 01:44 AM
link   
Why would TPTB lie about this?

They are power hungery, the most control you have have over people is knowledge and truth. They are called the Illuminati because they are iluminated, what about we don't know.

Another theory i have is that when old races talk/draw pictures of Dragons they are really drawing Dinosaurs but wer are being lied too.



posted on Sep, 8 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by SpaceTruckin
Another theory i have is that when old races talk/draw pictures of Dragons they are really drawing Dinosaurs but wer are being lied too.


I agree that the myth of dragons may originate from dinosaurs. In fact I think this is highly likely. But read my post above, I have every reason to assume that humans came across the bones and fossils of dinosaurs many many times before they were written about and studied in detail by learned people. We know what dinosaurs may have looked like based on the structure of their skeletons and our experience of how muscle and skin fit on top. People have experienced this for thousands of years.
And just because they call them dragons rather than dinosaurs does not mean we have been lied to, just that they now have a different name.
edit on 8/9/2011 by Fretless because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


i hope so
would have loved to have a pet t-rex



posted on Sep, 11 2011 @ 12:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Fretless
 



Schweitzer is adament that her research only asks more questions of nature and is annoyed by people jumping to conclussions and using her research to support their cause unjustifiably. She openly admits that there are thing we still do not understand about dating and decay.


Don't people do this constantly to the Bible? To scholarly articles? To text books? To pretty much anything already published on and offline?

Once you take one piece of a fact out of context you can use it to prove almost anything or support almost anything, either for or against what the actual source was actually referring to...

We don't know about dating and decay... it's all speculative... theoretical... estimation... guesses...

I personally believe of a "hybrid theory" of Christian based Creation beliefs and Evolution based Scientific theoretics.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Hey interesting stuff, i definitely think we are being taught the wrong history of dinosaurs, whether it be that they went extinct long after the timeframe that is commonly accepted or perhaps some are still alive in the deep parts of the ocean that we have yet to explore.

Use of dinosaurs could also explain how huge monolithic structures and the Pyramids were built when man was supposedly still using primitive hand tools.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 07:53 AM
link   
reply to post by Theybehidingsomething
 



Use of dinosaurs could also explain how huge monolithic structures and the Pyramids were built when man was supposedly still using primitive hand tools.


As seen on "The Flintstones."



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:09 AM
link   
reply to post by DJW001
 

Bet you didn't know it was a documentary and not just a cheap rip-off of The Honeymooners!



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 09:56 PM
link   
There are flood deposits thousands of feet thick in Florida and nobody can find a single dinosaur bone ANYWHERE in the state despite it's many caves and sinkholes.
If dinosaurs existed at the time of the flood surely they would have been on the ark but they are nowhere to be seen are they?

the grandson of the Dinosaur Valley Human Footprints maker admitted they were a hoax
What about all other "evidence" of them coexisting as well?



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by nyk537
 


Damn nyk this sounds like a lot of fun. I had a great time the last time I listened in and this subject sounds tasty indeed. I'll be listening in. Maybe try a call this time. Tell Semper a cop joke or two.


DJ



As seen on "The Flintstones."


Good one.
edit on 14-10-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Nogard2012
There are flood deposits thousands of feet thick in Florida and nobody can find a single dinosaur bone ANYWHERE in the state despite it's many caves and sinkholes.
If dinosaurs existed at the time of the flood surely they would have been on the ark but they are nowhere to be seen are they?

the grandson of the Dinosaur Valley Human Footprints maker admitted they were a hoax
What about all other "evidence" of them coexisting as well?


Thats an easy one they weren't on the ARK. So they are nowhere to be seen.

Look back a little further wasn't that a serpent in the garden that spoke to Eve, we would use the word dinosaur. Lets see the serpent was cursed and changed to a snake. Also if you check out that history around that time you will find other beasts that could talk, the creator destroyed them.

So some dinosaurs could speak, WOW you guys are learning something.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   


So some dinosaurs could speak, WOW you guys are learning something.

That's nothing Dino could act as well!



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 11:04 AM
link   
Dinosaurs and other creatures in artifacts and drawings, do not prove man walked with dinosaurs. That is a very easy debunk and has already been done, even just based on the fact that we can't both survive with the same atmospheric conditions. What it does show, however, is that ancient man had advanced knowledge and might have been doing genetic experimentation. We're only aware of some 10,000 years our of history out of an entire 200,000+ years. Do you think they couldn't have had a technology boom earlier in our history and could have researched dinosaurs and other fossil they found? It would be really cool if they found a fossil museum from 30,000 years ago.

The great flood was the end of the last ice age, obviously, reported by many ancient cultures. That was long after the dinosaurs. Evolution isn't some holy grail, it's a proven science. If it's wrong, then god or whoever set up the planet intentionally tried to deceive the people on it.
edit on 15-10-2011 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 10:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Katie
 



Also if you check out that history around that time you will find other beasts that could talk


Ahh, I remember the reason why I don't really come on ATS that much any more

Believing in the story of Noah and the ark is just so full of holes that it would be akin to believing in reptillians. It's just so moronic that it baffles me how people can still believe it.

How did the ark fit all of the animals in the world on there? At the latest estimates, there are 8.7 million species in the world. I know that it says 7 of some animals in the bible, but let's just say 2 of every animal. That equates to 19.4 million animals that Noah would have had to have rounded up to put on the boat. And all of them on a boat smaller than the titanic. If you still think that is plausible, then do everyone a favour and do not procreate.

That's even before considering the fact that all of the animals on the boat would have been part of the food chain and would have to have eaten one another to survive (or starve if they were herbivores - you know, because there wouldn't be any plants on the boat - unless they were termites, then they would have eaten through the boat, but theists forget to add that part in)

And do you know how easily animals become extinct these days? As in, if you remove an animal only a small distance from it's natural habitat it has a greater chance of dying. Especially if the animal has become greatly adapted to its surroundings, like the desert mouse. How would a polar bear travel all the way to the Middle East and back without stopping anywhere in between or die from heat exhaustion on the way?

Oh, and "god works in mysterious ways" etc. is not an answer, it is pure and utter laziness



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
I've made an error and it's too late to edit my previous post.

Where I said that the total was 19.4 million animals, that should be 17.4 million. My maths skills aren't as good as they used to be



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Essan
 


I am saying that the earth is not as old as we have been told and that, yes, there were still some dinosaurs on earth living with humans.


Riddle me this...Why cant the earth be as old as we have been told, AND we coexisted with a few as well? Why does it have to be your Christian Jebus perspective only?

Why cant you blend some reality into your rediculous fantasy that the earth is only 6,000 years old... I am a Geologist and we know for a fact that 6,000 years old earth is lunacy....

Good luck with your thread....I cant argue with personal opinions.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by nyk537
reply to post by Kryties
 


I am suggesting that, because our methods of dating bones and fossils is flawed and produces inaccurate results. It has been shown and reproduced many times.


Ths statement is baseless in reality. Our method of dating is +-50,000 years, so 1 million years ago +-50,000 is still 1million years ago....there is no fact in your argument that our dating os hundreds of millions of years off.





new topics

top topics



 
131
<< 44  45  46    48 >>

log in

join