Did Ancient Humans Coexisted with Dinosaurs?

a reply to: intrptr

Peter answered for me. Dinosaurs are a different species of reptile.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Its not a problem. There is no evidence to suggest that the majority saw the earth was flat (or actually gave a monkeys cuss about it). Modern Flat earthers are a different species to talk about from that fallacy you brought up.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: intrptr

Peter answered for me. Dinosaurs are a different species of reptile.

Okay, how come crocodiles didn't go extinct or change ?

Edit: Same with fifty foot long Great White Sharks and Porpoises?

a reply to: Phantom423

They all ignore what about 65 million years of evolution would do to the dinosaur anyway. They'd not look like what we call dinosaurs. This can be demonstrated by looking at the mammals of 65 million years ago, and those we have today. A human is not apparent then, so why should a raptor be apparent now?

One of the evidences shown is a badly eroded stone which MIGHT show a dinosaur on it. If that is the case evolution stopped on the poor sods, and their existence is very suspect. The world changed as did the creatures.

a reply to: peter vlar

What I mean to say is species of animals today are the same as back when, larger then and longer lived then due to earths richer oxygen and cleaner (unpolluted ) environment.

a reply to: intrptr

Ahh but they did change. www.thoughtco.com...

The Crododile is pretty good at fitting a niche. But how many 10 ton monsters do you see today?

Sharks? Seen a Megladon recently? No seriosuly the great white is nothing compared to that sucker! They changed too. But again, they fill a niche.

The dinosaurs, they evolved. Their niche changed, again 65 million years is a good long time to evolve. Look at what a few million have done for Hominids?

I love it when folks that dont know a hill o beans about the topic chime in with just a no.
There are ancient cave paintings that show what apparently are dinosaurs. The way we picture them today.
Can someone explain that ? I cant.
Imagination ? Could anyone here imagine what a brontosaurus looked like without ever have seen them in pictures ?
It could be possible , but highly unlikely.
We havent found remains of early man along with a dinosaur ? How much of the world has archeologists uncovered ? All of it ?
Hades , they cant agree on where man started. Not even modern man .
Some folks keep such a closed mind , nothing new can get in .

a reply to: Gothmog

The brontosaurus is not a real dinosaur neighbour

www.npr.org...

Nice try and thanks for playing.

Oh and yes they can agree where man started. Africa. Homo Sapiens came demonstrably from Africa.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: Phantom423

Dinosaurs may be distant relatives genetically, but reptiles and birds today are not dinosaurs. That's analogous to hominids and humans - they're related, but not the same.

Agreed , having adapted to a plethora of different environments over the Eons changes them drastically.

I didn't mention birds, but since you did, if a fossil has feathers, its a bird.

Many birds today have feathers but don't fly.

Flightl ess Birds

So I assume you mean they have a common ancestry - which is true. It took about 65M years for dinosaurs to mutate into birds. There's a distinct difference even though birds and dinosaurs have a common ancestry.

I saw that some websites claim that birds ARE dinosaurs without explaining the evolutionary process which sends the wrong message in my opinion.

originally posted by: Gothmog
I love it when folks that dont know a hill o beans about the topic chime in with just a no.
There are ancient cave paintings that show what apparently are dinosaurs. The way we picture them today.
Can someone explain that ? I cant.
Imagination ? Could anyone here imagine what a brontosaurus looked like without ever have seen them in pictures ?
It could be possible , but highly unlikely.
We havent found remains of early man along with a dinosaur ? How much of the world has archeologists uncovered ? All of it ?
Hades , they cant agree on where man started. Not even modern man .
Some folks keep such a closed mind , nothing new can get in .

And the point is................?

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Gothmog

The brontosaurus is not a real dinosaur neighbour

www.npr.org...

Nice try and thanks for playing.

Oh and yes they can agree where man started. Africa. Homo Sapiens came demonstrably from Africa.

You dont keep up much with archeology , do you ? It shows.
But you do keep up with NPR .
Go read up on archeology and dont take NPR's (or any other similar org's ) word on it as final
Yes it is Game Over . While you are hunting information , find some tokens and come back to play .

More of this crap... Tiamat is a gryphon, half eagle and half lion. Not a lizard with feathers. You can see the lion forepaws and head and the feathered wings and rear avian legs. Lion is symbolic of dominance over land, eagle is symbolic of dominance over skies. Tiamat was a personification of world chaos and wasnt always depicted the same way.

a reply to: eisegesis
The same symbol exists in ancient Egypt, where it's far more clearly depicting lions:

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: Gothmog
I love it when folks that dont know a hill o beans about the topic chime in with just a no.
There are ancient cave paintings that show what apparently are dinosaurs. The way we picture them today.
Can someone explain that ? I cant.
Imagination ? Could anyone here imagine what a brontosaurus looked like without ever have seen them in pictures ?
It could be possible , but highly unlikely.
We havent found remains of early man along with a dinosaur ? How much of the world has archeologists uncovered ? All of it ?
Hades , they cant agree on where man started. Not even modern man .
Some folks keep such a closed mind , nothing new can get in .

And the point is................?

This^^^^
What a prime example of my last words on the post.

It is more likely that ancient scholars and writers of myth had seen or heard tales of dinosaur bones being dug up and that influenced their writing. I have yet to see evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived side-by-side. In fact, the latest dinosaurs lived 65 million years ago while the first humans appeared 5-7 million years ago.

a reply to: Gothmog

Actually I keep up with Archeology quite a lot. The return to species is not certain

It remains, you have no proof outside of the flintsones, and bad creationist media, that we lived with dinosaurs.

Prove me wrong.

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TheLotLizard

Funny thing, you just did the "world was thought to be flat fallacy". That has been shown to not be the case multiple times.

Funny thing is it seems you cannot read... I said "UNTIL proof was shown"... it wasn't until Aristotle that it was proposed the earth was round.

UNTIL proof is shown and every square yard of dirt is excavated you cannot say for certain that there were no dinosaurs that existed alongside humans or even do still exist today in parts of the world.

a reply to: TheLotLizard

No it was not recorded until Aristotle. You confuse the two things Its pretty clear Sailors knew that.

Again you used a fallacious argument to try and justify something.

I say again. There was at least 65 million years of evolution to get in the way of your fantasy. I say at least, as some rather early dinosaurs are supposed to be depicted. Quite simply. There was more than enough time, for anything dinosaur like to have changed. Unless we are talking immortal Dinosaurs that is IS that what you are suggesting?

So yeah, nah. Not a chance.

I lean to it being more likely large birds like the Moa. en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Gothmog

And what does archaeology have to do with dinosaurs? They are studied and excavated by paleontologists,
Not archaeologists. Archaeologists have a very specific field of study and that is limited to sites with artifacts made by human hands so they're only studying the last several thousand years. Human remains are studied by anthropologists and paleoanthropologists study ancient human remains from the Pleistocene and back so AMH and EMH, Neanderthal, Denisovans, H. Erectus, H. Habilis, H. Antecesor, the multitude of Australipithecines, Ardipithecus Ramidus, Sahlantgripus Tchadensis, Orrorin Tugensis and similar organisms.

So perhaps, before going after someone else for "not keeping up" with a field, perhaps it would behoove you to know which disciplines study what. Otherwise, it only reflects on you as opposed to them ine you think you just flamed.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Gothmog

And what does archaeology have to do with dinosaurs? They are studied and excavated by paleontologists,
Not archaeologists. Archaeologists have a very specific field of study and that is limited to sites with artifacts made by human hands so they're only studying the last several thousand years. Human remains are studied by anthropologists and paleoanthropologists study ancient human remains from the Pleistocene and back so AMH and EMH, Neanderthal, Denisovans, H. Erectus, H. Habilis, H. Antecesor, the multitude of Australipithecines, Ardipithecus Ramidus, Sahlantgripus Tchadensis, Orrorin Tugensis and similar organisms.

So perhaps, before going after someone else for "not keeping up" with a field, perhaps it would behoove you to know which disciplines study what. Otherwise, it only reflects on you as opposed to them ine you think you just flamed.

Ok , and what is the OP about ???
Hmmm
Evidently another issue with reading comprehension ?

a reply to: Noinden

If you actually we're a "scientist" you would have infinitely less biased about what hasnt been confirmed. Not having evidence does NOT mean something didn't happen. Until people have dug up every square inch of the earth in geological survey you cannot say with 100% certainty what did or did not exist.

I won't presume to change your wording though. I'll let that ignorance stand for itself and simply attempt to refute it.