Jump to content


Photo

Did Humans Co-exist With Dinosaurs?


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#141 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 30 September 2008 - 02:49 AM

Heres some human fossils dating back to the dinosaurs.I read the explanations in talkorigins and found them to be incredibily inacurrate.I examined the pictures very closely with a magnifying glass and determined them to be definately encased in solid rock with no evidence of entrusive burial.

www.bible.ca/tracks/malachite-man.htm - 11k -

Heres a link that cites some more.

www.genesispark.org/genpark/skeleton/skeleton.htm - 8k

The fragmentary remains used as evidence for evolution would fill up a coffin,while the human remains and artifacts found in the precambrian on up,would fill up a dump truck.

#142 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 06 October 2008 - 08:23 PM

Hi Scot,

The rock around Pontotoc appears to be mostly Cretaceous, so it would generate a lot of excitement worldwide if there were trilobites in that rock. Thousand of scientists would decent on the area if it was true. There is a crab in that area that could be easily confused with trilobites. It is called a Dakoticancridae crab and is relatively common in the Cretaceous and found throughout Mississippi. However, a good look at the eyes or the legs would allow you to see it is not a trilobite body plan.

Here is a picture and an article about this fossil crab. There are more pictures in the article.
http://dpc.uba.uva.n...ol67/nr04/art02
Posted Image

Could this be what you saw?

The eye of a trilobite is fascinating. I believe it is unique in that the lens is made of a quartz crystal (calcite) and it does not decay during fossilization. After several hundred million years, the multi-faceted crystal lenses can remain intact and still focus light.

http://findarticles....109/ai_65913175

I look forward to your fossil pictures.
Hope that helps,
James

View Post


It's been a while, but Ive been trying to find out what that disk shaped fossil was, It wasnt a crab. Do you know those stacked cylinder shaped fossils you usually find in driveways? Well thats what it looked like, except it was just one piece of the stack. It was about a foot and a half wide, and only about 3 inches thick.

I'm also interested in trilobites, because they seem to be some of the most advanced crustacian like creatures I have ever seen. Most of the large cambrian creatures we find are fascinating because they are more advanced than any of our so called modern animals. When I see a dinosaur skeleton, I see it as being more advanced than any of our boring not so advanced animals of today.

That prehistoric crab you've shown, it too is more beautiful and looks more advanced than any of our living crabs. I just haven't ever seen any solid evidence to even consider most of the fossils we find lesser evolved than our modern mammals when they clearly contain features that are more advanced.

Yes I would have to say that in todays world, the animals we have are sparse, we barley even have any animals left on planet earth. Yes, today in America, the only animals we have are boring not so advanced deer, squirrels, chipmunks, rabbits, cayotes, and bobcats. That's not very impressive to say the least. Even these animals are few and far between. Well, maybe not deer and squirrels...lol.

#143 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 06 October 2008 - 09:31 PM

This does'nt relate directly to humans and dinosaurs,but it does help to illustrate the point.

"The oldest land plants now known are from the early cambrian...Approximately 60 cambrian spore-genera are now on record...Represent 6 different groups of vascular plants...(EVOLUTION,v.13,6/59,p.264)

According to talkorigins no such thing exist,it seems the cambrian explosion is more of an explosion than we are led to beleive.

Enjoy.

#144 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • syracuse

Posted 22 October 2008 - 05:46 PM

It's been a while, but Ive been trying to find out what that disk shaped fossil was, It wasnt a crab.  Do you know those stacked cylinder shaped fossils you usually find in driveways?  Well thats what it looked like, except it was just one piece of the stack.  It was about a foot and a half wide, and only about 3 inches thick.

I'm also interested in trilobites, because they seem to be some of the most advanced crustacian like creatures I have ever seen. Most of the large cambrian creatures we find are fascinating because they are more advanced than any of our so called modern animals.  When I see a dinosaur skeleton, I see it as being more advanced than any of our boring not so advanced animals of today.

That prehistoric crab you've shown, it too is more beautiful and looks more advanced than any of our living crabs.  I just haven't ever seen any solid evidence to even consider most of the fossils we find lesser evolved than our modern mammals when they clearly contain features that are more advanced.

Yes I would have to say that in todays world, the animals we have are sparse, we barley even have any animals left on planet earth.  Yes, today in America, the only animals we have are boring not so advanced deer, squirrels, chipmunks, rabbits, cayotes, and bobcats.  That's not very impressive to say the least. Even these animals are few and far between. Well, maybe not deer and squirrels...lol.

View Post



Hi Scott,
Would love to see a picture of these fossils you found. Not sure yet of the animal. Crinoids produce disc shaped, stacked fossils but are relatively small.

Posted Image

The only animal I can think of that would be disc shaped and a foot and a half wide, would be a very very large nautiloid. There are a lot of mud stones that sometimes look like fossils, but I would need to see it.

Posted Image

If you were really lucky your find would be the vertebrae of a large animal, but I would need to see a photo. There were a few large vertebrate fossils in your part of the world (and of course, the early whale fossils are famous).

I really would be thrilled if you found an out of place fossil. I have never seen one or met anyone that has ever seen one. And I know quite a few amateur fossil hunters and a few professional paleontologists.

James

#145 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 23 October 2008 - 03:13 PM

Hi Scott,
Would love to see a picture of these fossils you found. Not sure yet of the animal. Crinoids produce disc shaped, stacked fossils but are relatively small.

Posted Image

The only animal I can think of that would be disc shaped and a foot and a half wide, would be a very very large nautiloid. There are a lot of mud stones that sometimes look like fossils, but I would need to see it.

Posted Image

If you were really lucky your find would be the vertebrae of a large animal, but I would need to see a photo.  There were a few large vertebrate fossils in your part of the world (and of course, the early whale fossils are famous).

I really would be thrilled if you found an out of place fossil. I have never seen one or met anyone that has ever seen one. And I know quite a few amateur fossil hunters and a few professional paleontologists.

James

View Post


I don't think the disk shaped fossil was out of place. The last time I saw the fossil was a few years ago, but I think the man who found it told me it was an extremely large, but rare nautiloid. I found smaller nautilioids all over the place, you could not take one step without seeing at least 10 fossils. The whole area was covered with thousands of marine fossil shells. The only thing I know for certain about the disk shaped fossil was that it was found at the very top of the fossil site.

The area in which we found all the fossils were exposed by road work, they are now mostly covered with grass. I am quite confident that if I went back out there with a shovel that I could dig 1 foot and at least get 4 or 5 fossils from that one spot. Yes the area is that loaded with fossils. Mississippi is just blessed with an abundance of marine fossils. The only land dwelling vertebrae fossils that have been found were on the mississippi river shore line, and those fossils probably washed down for miles.

My father found the leg bones of a mastadon on the river, but I don't think they were ever native to Mississippi.

#146 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 07 December 2008 - 01:12 PM

More human and dinosaur tracks discovered and described in a russian journal.

"Human Footprints Found On Dinosaurs' Plateau" "...Turkmenian plateau contains more than three thousand footprints! ...But the most mysterious fact is that among the footprints of dinosaurs, footprints of bare human feet were found!" (Translated from Russian) Komsomolskaya Pravda, 1/ 31/1995

 

Dr. Kurban Amanniyazov, (Led Three Expeditions To Investate) "...If we speak about the human footprint, it was made by a human-like animal. Incredibly, this footprint is on the same plateau where there are dinosaur tracks." Science In The USSR, "Old Friends Dinosaurs" T 986 No.1 p. 101-107.

#147 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 29 December 2008 - 12:44 PM

We'd still need more evidence then some pots and small figurines, which may be based upon imagination or exaggeration of existing animals.

View Post


Atheists use FAR less evidence than that to create piltdown man and lucy :mellow:

I guess if you have a pigs tooth, you can create just about anything...

#148 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 29 December 2008 - 04:41 PM

Atheists use FAR less evidence than that to create piltdown man and lucy  :lol:

I guess if you have a pigs tooth, you can create just about anything...

View Post


Guess who now owns that pigs tooth, and is the main reason most evolutionists hate him? Carl Baugh. He even has the papers that authenticate it. He has to keep it in a safe because some who like to destroy that evidence and claim none of that ever happened. :mellow:

#149 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 29 December 2008 - 04:52 PM

The amazing evolutionists logic takes this:
Posted Image


and creates this:
Posted Image

And this:

Posted Image

Who's the creationists?????

#150 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 30 December 2008 - 04:04 AM

Guess who now owns that pigs tooth, and is the main reason most evolutionists hate him? Carl Baugh. He even has the papers that authenticate it. He has to keep it in a safe because some who like to destroy that evidence and claim none of that ever happened. :rolleyes:

View Post



Dr. Carl Baugh crackes me up because he's so deadpan in his delivery (akin to that of Bob Newheart). I can't get his program here, so I don't get that information anymore.

#151 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 30 December 2008 - 04:45 AM

Sorry guys, but when the pokes and jabs go a little over the line I have to get rid of them to keep the peace. Please remember that. I don't mind it every so often. But when it's posted and then reposted and added to and carried on. I have to delete.

Remember, civil debates.

Added: You can continue thread, I was just explaining why I had to get rid of 2 posts here.

#152 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 01 January 2009 - 09:48 PM

Heres an update on Ed Conrads' carobiferous human skull cap.

The author has examined through microscopes more than 30 thin sections cut from “rocks” that Mr. Ed Conrad discovered and sent to the author. Without exception, they are all found to be fossils, including the subject “calvarium fossil”. The object is a Carboniferous human calvarium fossil for the following reasons:
(1) its computed-tomography images bear close resemlance to those of a calvarium; (2) it contains fossilized osteocytes, Haversian canals, osteons, red blood cells and various blood vessels in the specimens and thin sections ; (3) it contains remains of neurons and neuroglial cells that exist only in the central nervous system; (4) No other animal has an organ or body part that matches its inner/outer shape and size; (5) Its inner cavity has a capacity of at least 1,025 cc.; (6) It was found between coal veins near Mahanoy, Pennsylvania, where geological structure has been dated to be around 300 million years old. Some of the fossil’s blood vessels have turned into coal, suggesting it once existed in a coal region. In addition to the subject fossil, there are at least two other pieces of evidence for human existence in the Carboniferous age.

1. Is it a fossil?
Yes. Its computed-tomography images (Video 4) don’t look like any rock. No rocks or plants contain all at the same time the remains of neurons, neuroglial cells, bone cells, red blood cells, Haversian canals, osteons and blood vessels mentioned in Results C and D. They are found in randomly-chosen, freshly-cut thin sections, not from re-worked/contaminated tissues. Their colors are not artificially stained.
2. Is it a calvarium fossil?
Yes. Its computed-tomography images bear close resemblance to those of a calvarium on the organ level (Video 4). On the cell level, it contains remains of osteocytes, neurons, and glial cells as listed in Results C and D. Those remains point to a calvarium fossil that once contained brain tissue. No other animal organs or body parts have inner/outer sizes and shapes similar to this fossil’s shapes and sizes (Fig. 1).
3. Is it a human calvarium fossil?
Yes. Its cranial capacity of at least 1,025 cc is surpassed only by cetaceans, walrus, elephants, and/or dinosaurs (ref. 4). However, those four kinds of animal have no crania/organs that match the subject fossil in cranial shape and size. As each order of animal has a different shaped skull (ref. 5), the subject calvarium fossil can be identified as a human calvarium fossil by forensic experts on human skulls. One such expert is Mr. Wilton Krogman. He has physically examined the calvarium fossil. His broad smile in the photo (Fig. 1) says that he confirmed it was a human calvarium fossil.

The calvarium fossil matches humans’ cranial size, cranial capacity and cranial shape in the following ways:

3-1 Cranial size (outer dimensions):
Neanderthal: 24.1cm (length) x 14.6 cm (width) x 17.8 cm (height) (ref. 6)
Subject fossil: 21.6 cm (length) x 16.6 cm (width) x 12.7 cm (height)
3-2 Cranial capacity:
Neanderthal: 1,750 cc (ref. 7)
Modern Human: 1,350-1,400 cc (ref. 8)
Java man: 940 cc (Homo Erectus, Trinil 2, Pithecanthropus I, ref. 9)
Subject fossil: at least 1,025 cc (by Spheroid Formula)
By the Lee Pearson Formula, the subject fossil has a
cranial capacity of 1,665 cc. The vast difference
between 1,665 cc and 1,025 cc may be due to the
following factors:
A. The Lee Pearson Formula uses the skull cap’s outer dimensions, while the Spheroid Formula uses its inner dimensions. In this case, the calvarium’s inner width is only 60% of its outer width, because the fossil retains brain remains in its inner cavity (See the bottom view of the fossil in Fig. 1). As a result, the Lee Pearson Formula produces the result of 1,665 c.c. while the Spheroid Formula produces the result of only 1,025 c.c;


http://fossilhandle.blogspot.com/




Enjoy.

#153 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 02 January 2009 - 03:00 AM

Interesting stuff on that blog. It never ceases to amaze me what you can find from other sources, when the information is not being filtered to protect a certain belief.

#154 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 02 January 2009 - 09:39 PM

Sometimes creationists cling to any scrap of 'evidence', no matter how unlikely or absurd it may be.

View Post


Sometimes creationists cling to any scrap of 'evidence', no matter how unlikely or absurd it may be?

Let’s dig a little deeper into this twisting of verbiage to see where it leads us… Shall we..

Who took a pigs tooth and fabricated this?: Posted Image

><> ><> ><>

Who took this: Posted Image

And created this: Posted Image

And this: Posted Image


Talk about a patchwork of fabrications!!!
And a great imagination.....

#155 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 02 January 2009 - 09:47 PM

And how could you possibly get this: Posted Image



From this: Posted Image

If you'll notice, the actual skeletal find are the small fragments of darker material….
Everything else is fabrication from imagination...

And this: Posted Image





Clinging to scraps of evidence is an evolutionist stock and trade, and a Darwinian parlor trick nearly as old as Darwin himself. And to take fragments, and bits, and fill in the gaps with plaster (Talk about god of the gaps). That you don’t feel embarrassed about it, or can make bold (yet absurd) claims on such flimsy evidence (and with a straight face), then brazenly accuse creationists of doing the same (in a sad attempt to hide your falsifications) is hypocritical at best, and infantile at heart.

#156 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 02 January 2009 - 11:30 PM

Face it Dude, everything they falsely accuse creationists of doing, they themselves do on a massive scale. Deny evidence, employ blind faith, quote out-of-context, - everything!

I've taken the pattern and started applying it. Usually the false accusation is handy in the mind when they just got done doing the thing. I know what blind faith is - I just employed it. Hey! I'll accuse a creationist of employing it! People believe any silly slander about them.

Scope around a bit & see if this pattern isn't widespread.

#157 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 03 January 2009 - 11:36 AM

Here are the jaws of A. aferensis and A. robustus.The ramus element is aligned with Gorillas and Orangutans

Posted Image

Heres the shoulder blade of A. aferensis compared to Humans,Chimps,And Gorrilas.

Top row Left to Right; A. aferensis and Gorilla.
Bottom row Left to Right;Human and Chimp.

Posted Image

In this paticular feature A. aferensis is also aligned with Gorillas.It's also important to note that more than 20 years ago Dr. Oxnards' conclusion was that the Australopithicines are more different than Humans than Chimps are,ofcourse he was ignored.



Enjoy.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users