It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by ladyteeny
considering there is growing evidence to say that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, this is something i've wondered before too. also considering humans are very adept at destruction, and have already run a good few species into non-existence, i'd say this is a legitimate question. one day they might find dinosaur fossils alongside human fossils and they'll still try and tell us that the dinosaurs were here a long time before humans.
Originally posted by Koreanphood
Have you seen the picture of the Dinosaur at the Cambodian temple? Take a look. It's kind of weird considering everything I was taught in school about how dinosaurs did not exist during the times of Homo-sapiens. The picture was carved by Homo-sapiens in Cambodia.
And to answer you question, I'm sure they probably ate Dinosaurs and vice versa.
Despite finding no evidence of humans mingling with dinosaurs, creationists still continue to pump out one stupid lie after another and promote what they believed to be evidence to support their claims which includes showing off a collection of blatant distorted photos taken of centuries old drawings, carvings, and paintings depicting modern animals and mythical monsters creationists mistook as dinosaurs on purpose only because they're shaped like them, never mind the details inside that clearly shows to us they're not.
One of the images creationists claim to depict a dinosaur only because of its shape comes from the ruins of an ancient Buddhist Temple near Angkor Wat called Ta Prohm located in Angkor, Cambodia. According to cryptomundo.com, it is concluded to be an Indian rhinoceros since the carving has real big horns jutting from its head and faint markings of folding rhino skin. But creationists, such as these staunchest ones from s8int.com for instance, still insists it's a Stegosaurus since, to them, the animal in the image below (center)…
Did the creationists ever mention the fact that the creature in the image has a short, skinny, droopy mammalian tail and legs at an even height unlike the real Stegosaurus that has a thick reptilian tail and long hind legs and short front legs? Did they mention that the creature bore a big, round, neckless head with a beakless mouth and have what appears to be faint lines on its body that's an indicative of sheets of folding rhinoceros skin? Not to mention the fact that the so-called plates perfectly match the embellishments surrounding the animal images and are not being fully triangular, kite-shaped, and arranged in a zig-zag, double row pattern?
Nope. Apparently not.
Originally posted by Lysergic
Considering how homo-sapiens were non-existent during the time of dinosaurs I'd have to say;
Originally posted by badvok123
Here you go, conclusive proof humans ate dinosaurs.
Originally posted by stumason