Jump to content


Photo

Did Humans Co-exist With Dinosaurs?


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#41 Black Cat

Black Cat

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • The Hague

Posted 24 October 2007 - 05:42 AM

Think not of the people who watch TV and buy toys, but think of the people creating the monsters. Do they create them from real existing monsters, or do they use their imagination ?
Why can an artist that lived 2000 years ago not have similar imagination ?

#42 Al650

Al650

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 24 October 2007 - 01:57 PM

Yes, imagination. No. There are other depictions of what are clearly dinosaurs.

70 million year old T-Rex bone with soft tissue? I'm guessing it's not that old, by a lot less.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/




God bless,
Al

#43 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 24 October 2007 - 02:47 PM

Think not of the people who watch TV and buy toys, but think of the people creating the monsters. Do they create them from real existing monsters, or do they use their imagination ?
Why can an artist that lived 2000 years ago not have similar imagination ?

View Post



Plus those monsters aren't reproduced all over the place.

Pennywise is only on Stephan King toys/comics/movies/books/etc.

We have lot of really old drawing of dinosaurs that all look similiar.

Besides what are the chances of me drawing a comic monster
Say a huge Turtle with a bird head
And then 1000 years in the future they happen to dig up fossils of millions of years ago and find that very same monster?

#44 Black Cat

Black Cat

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • The Hague

Posted 25 October 2007 - 12:47 AM

There are also a lof of drawings of people with the head of a dog. There are a lot of drawings of orcs. There are a lot of drawings of leprechauns.

About the fossils and how they look, it is regularly said here the fossils are formed to the image already in our minds.

#45 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 25 October 2007 - 04:46 AM

There are also a lof of drawings of people with the head of a dog. There are a lot of drawings of orcs. There are a lot of drawings of leprechauns.

About the fossils and how they look, it is regularly said here the fossils are formed to the image already in our minds.

View Post


And there are claims of gill slits that we once had during the gestation period, but no fish we evolved from. Imagination or fantasy?

Science being what it is, how hard would it be to take a human fetus at that exact stage that died. And examine those so called gill slits? It will never happen because that part of evolution is based on faith. Besides, it would be absolute evidence of what evolutionists claim. And an absolute of this nature would be required for evolution to make another step in becoming actual truth. Problem is, the gill slit idea was a fraud to begin with. So to go as far as to prove positively one way or the other would be just another blow. Or would you like to explain why this claim is still made but never really looked into?

#46 Black Cat

Black Cat

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • The Hague

Posted 25 October 2007 - 05:26 AM

I though this topic was about humans co-existing with dinosaurs.
Gill slits are off-topic I would say.

The point is that an image that could be looked as describing a dinosaur might be a product of imagination, or a representation of an existing animal,
After all do we really know what dinosaurs looked like ?

#47 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 161 posts
  • Age: 28
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maryland, Home of the Merry

Posted 25 October 2007 - 09:51 AM

There are also a lof of drawings of people with the head of a dog. There are a lot of drawings of orcs. There are a lot of drawings of leprechauns.


all of those are from a MUCH later time frame, and all of those remained very localized until folklore really took off... After the printing press, they spread like wildfire.

Very different scenerio then anceint people drawing the same dinosaurs.


About the fossils and how they look, it is regularly said here the fossils are formed to the image already in our minds.

View Post


I don't understand what you're saying?

#48 Black Cat

Black Cat

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 66 posts
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • The Hague

Posted 25 October 2007 - 09:55 AM

all of those are from a MUCH later time frame, and all of those remained very localized until folklore really took off... After the printing press, they spread like wildfire.

Very different scenerio then anceint people drawing the same dinosaurs. 

Well guide me to all ancient dinosaur drawings that you know. <_<

#49 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 25 October 2007 - 02:40 PM

I though this topic was about humans co-existing with dinosaurs.
Gill slits are off-topic I would say.

The point is that an image that could be looked as describing a dinosaur might be a product of imagination, or a representation of an existing animal,
After all do we really know what dinosaurs looked like ?

View Post


Well maybe if I start another thread the question will get answered. But you are right it would derail this one.

#50 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 14 November 2007 - 10:15 AM

Dinosaurs existing at the same time as man does not indicate a young earth. Dinosaurs could simply have remained in existence far longer than expected or previously discovered. Todays reports of Nessie, Champ and Mokolo-Mbembe, appear to be dinosaurs that still exist on this earth at this time. Does this mean that the first reports in the 1800's indicate the earth is only that old? No. So just because a species can still exist now and can be found among mankind is no indication they did not first come into being long long ago. As an example the crocodile is pretty much unchanged (except for size I believe) from when they came into existence with the dinosaurs.

#51 Al650

Al650

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 14 November 2007 - 11:09 PM

There are recent reports of dinosaur like creatures but I do not believe the dates of their origin as being millions of years. And the Catholic Encyclopedia contains a report of St. George clearly killing a dinosaur. It is only wishful thinking to consider dinosaurs as millions of years old. And wishful thinking to believe they survived into the present from that long ago.



God bless,
Al

#52 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 16 November 2007 - 10:57 AM

There are recent reports of dinosaur like creatures but I do not believe the dates of their origin as being millions of years. And the Catholic Encyclopedia contains a report of St. George clearly killing a dinosaur. It is only wishful thinking to consider dinosaurs as millions of years old. And wishful thinking to believe they survived into the present from that long ago.
God bless,
Al

View Post



Again just because St George killed what may have been a dinosaur doesn't mean they are a young species. Also believing that they couldn't be millions of years old doesn't mean they are not.

#53 Al650

Al650

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 16 November 2007 - 12:31 PM

There are depictions of what are clearly dinosaurs which were made by humans.

The only question you need to ask is whether you'll consider this evidence. Also, tiny insects, perfectly formed, with wings and legs, supposedly millions of years old, have been found in amber. The example I saw looked perfectly modern.

It is my belief that the attempt to change a person's beliefs about himself and other humans and the world he lives in is the real purpose of the theory of evolution, not any science that might be associated with it.


God bless,
Al

#54 digitalartist

digitalartist

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New York, NY

Posted 16 November 2007 - 01:06 PM

There are depictions of what are clearly dinosaurs which were made by humans.

The only question you need to ask is whether you'll consider this evidence. Also, tiny insects, perfectly formed, with wings and legs, supposedly millions of years old, have been found in amber. The example I saw looked perfectly modern.

It is my belief that the attempt to change a person's beliefs about himself and other humans and the world he lives in is the real purpose of the theory of evolution, not any science that might be associated with it.
God bless,
Al

View Post



I'm not saying that the depictions are inaccurate, just that you can't assume that because humans and dinosaurs co-existed that it automatically indicates dinosaurs to be a young species

#55 Al650

Al650

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 153 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • Michigan

Posted 16 November 2007 - 05:30 PM

I "can't assume"? Why not? Those who believe in evolution have to assume abiogenesis occurred also.

The current time period is simply one where evolution is getting a big push, that doesn't mean it's a good theory. Evidence exists that humans lived with dinosaurs within the last 2,500 years, but it appears the primary problem with that is not that it appears true but that it might get more people believing in God.



God bless,
Al

#56 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

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

Posted 17 November 2007 - 09:42 AM

Evidence exists that humans lived with dinosaurs within the last 2,500 years, but it appears the primary problem with that is not that it appears true but that it might get more people believing in God.
God bless,
Al

View Post


If you feel this is true, and want to show the world, then go get a rock hammer and start looking for fossils that show an overlap. No one has ever found a modern mammal with a dinosaur in the same layer. If you go to Kansas for example, you will find modern animals in the top layers and begin to find extinct mammals in lower layers. If you keep going down, you will find the modern mammals are gone, but if you keep going down you will find dinosaurs. There are 43 million fossils at the Smithsonian. No modern mammal has ever been found in the same layer as a dinosaur. In many cases, we can see what dinosaurs had for their last meal before they died, but it never includes the bones of a modern mammal. No need to restrict yourself to humans and dinosaurs, just find a modern mammal and a dinosaur together.

So why not go out with a rock hammer and prove this wrong? If you don't trust the scientific establishment, call the Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis. I am sure they would be thrilled to authenticate such a find. There are millions of fossils out there. I really encourage your effort. Go for it!

#57 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 19 November 2007 - 01:14 AM

If you feel this is true, and want to show the world, then go get a rock hammer and start looking for fossils that show an overlap. No one has ever found a modern mammal with a dinosaur in the same layer. If you go to Kansas for example, you will find modern animals in the top layers and begin to find extinct mammals in lower layers. If you keep going down, you will find the modern mammals are gone, but if you keep going down you will find dinosaurs. There are 43 million fossils at the Smithsonian. No modern mammal has ever been found in the same layer as a dinosaur. In many cases, we can see what dinosaurs had for their last meal before they died, but it never includes the bones of a modern mammal. No need to restrict yourself to humans and dinosaurs, just find a modern mammal and a dinosaur together.

So why not go out with a rock hammer and prove this wrong? If you don't trust the scientific establishment, call the Discovery Institute or Answers in Genesis. I am sure they would be thrilled to authenticate such a find. There are millions of fossils out there. I really encourage your effort. Go for it!

View Post


And allow it to be treated as this evidence was?
Posted Image
No thanks.

#58 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

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

Posted 19 November 2007 - 08:35 AM

And allow it to be treated as this evidence was?
Posted Image
No thanks.

View Post


At the very least, you need to begin by convincing creationists - which has not been done with these footprints (as noted in the link below). If you cannot convince even your own creationist community, how would you expect to survive in the academic community?

Maybe I should ask you. What would it take to convince YOU that such evidence was NOT convincing. Do you accept such 'evidence' without scientific scrutiny?

You should note, that I am asking for a much weaker form of evidence than showing humans with dinosaurs. I am asking for evidence that any modern mammal has ever been found with a dinosaur. Those soft mammals would have been pretty tasty creatures, so surely you can find some evidence of a T-Rex chasing or eating a mammal somewhere on the planet. Dinosaurs and modern mammals are found all over the planet. However, the dinosaur fossils are always found at deeper layers.

http://www.biblicalc...ues/bcs106.html

Five years later, the Films for Christ Association, who produced the film "Footprints in Stone", withdrew it from circulation, after an on-site meeting at Paluxy. Six months after this, in January 1986, an ICR Impact article by John Morris concluded that it was improper for creationists to continue to use the Paluxy data as evidence against evolution. Some excerpts from this article follow.

"Due to an unknown cause, certain of the prints once labelled human are taking on a completely different character. The prints in the trail which I have called the "Taylor Trail", consisting of numerous readily visible elongated impressions in a left-right sequence, have changed into what appear to be tridactyl (three-toed) prints, evidently of some unidentified dinosaur."

"In view of these developments, none of the four trails at the Taylor site can today be regarded as unquestionably of human origin. The Taylor Trail appears, obviously, dinosaurian, as do two prints thought to be in the Turnage Trail. The Giant Trail has what appears to be dinosaur prints leading toward it, and some of the Ryals tracks seem to be developing claw features, also."

"The various controversial prints labelled as human by Carl Baugh in recent years are of uncertain origin, and at best are not comparable in quality to prints at the sites discussed above, thereby providing no support for the original position."


#59 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 19 November 2007 - 09:20 AM

Would you accept the following as evidence that dinosaurs and humans once lived together? Ica Stones

On the surface, this looks very compelling. But there is something very wrong with this evidence. I'll leave it to you to figure out what that is.

#60 jamesf

jamesf

    Member

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

Posted 19 November 2007 - 09:25 AM

Would you accept the following as evidence that dinosaurs and humans once lived together?  Ica Stones

On the surface, this looks very compelling.  But there is something very wrong with this evidence.  I'll leave it to you to figure out what that is.

View Post


Ok, I am posting 4 minutes after your post. I did a google search and here is what I got. Why did they seem compelling?

http://skepdic.com/icastones.html
The cave where the stones were allegedly discovered has never been identified, much less examined by scientists. Skeptics consider the stones to be a pathetic hoax, created for a gullible tourist trade. Nevertheless, three groups in particular have endeavored to support the authenticity of the stones: (a) those who believe that extraterrestrials are an intimate part of Earth's "real" history; (:) fundamentalist creationists who drool at the thought of any possible error made by anthropologists, archaeologists, evolutionary biologists, etc.; and © the mytho-historians who claim that ancient myths are accurate historical records to be understood literally.

The Ica stone craze began in 1996 with Dr. Javier Cabrera Darquea, a Peruvian physician who allegedly abandoned a career in medicine in Lima to open up the Museo de Piedras Grabadas (Engraved Stones Museum) in Ica. There he displays his collection of several thousand stones. Dr. Cabrera claims that a farmer found the stones in a cave. The farmer was arrested for selling the stones to tourists. He told the police that he didn't really find them in a cave, but that he made them himself. Other modern Ica artists, however, continue to carve stones and sell forgeries of the farmer's forgeries.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users