Jump to content


Photo

Did Humans Co-exist With Dinosaurs?


  • Please log in to reply
156 replies to this topic

#1 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 08 September 2007 - 06:23 AM

One of the questions that frustrates evolutionist is....Did humans co-exist with dinosaurs?

A little while ago this sandstone carving was discovered at an ancient Buddhist temple.

Posted Image

Posted Image

#2 4jacks

4jacks

    Member

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

Posted 08 September 2007 - 10:02 AM

Very Nice Photo.

do you have a link or anything, I'd like to read more about that find.


Ohh I found this
http://www.bible.ca/...ks-cambodia.htm

Lots of good pictures there!
Very good find.

#3 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 08 September 2007 - 11:52 AM

Very Nice Photo.

do you have a link or anything, I'd like to read more about that find.
Ohh I found this
http://www.bible.ca/...ks-cambodia.htm

Lots of good pictures there!
Very good find.

View Post



I don't know if I can do better than what you presented.

#4 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 08 September 2007 - 11:54 AM

This is a must visit site:

click here

It kinda squashes the idea that humans and dino lived seperatly.

#5 lordfaunswater

lordfaunswater

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Liverpool

Posted 08 September 2007 - 01:56 PM

This is a must visit site:

click here

It kinda squashes the idea that humans and dino lived seperatly.

View Post



Not really, thats not evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. You can't just pick through myth and legend, and other people's cultures, (and perhaps context), and use them for the irrational belief that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.


How can we distinguish between one ancient drawing of a dragon and another?


Even if some fragmented populations of dinosaurs did exist along side humans - afterall crocodiles are still around - it's still not going to do anything to harm evolutionary theory. In fact its part of evolution to understand that bottleneck populations can escape catastrophe, and continue breeding.

http://en.wikipedia....utionary_theory

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

That stegosaurus looks more like a sumatran Rhino or another large ungulate to me. Those "plates" on its back are arguably also present outside its "cartouche" and they follow it in a circle. If you look carefully,there's a "plate" under the Stegosaurus's head and one under its belly, which suffice to say, isnt consistent with stegosaurus biology. The last plate on its tail curls upwards at an unnatural angle, and its larger then the others, which also isnt like a stegosaurus. They could be purely decorative. Theres a small horn-like indentation on the animals head too.

There are also similar triangular background pieces in the water buffalo's cartouche, and some of the others.

#6 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 08 September 2007 - 07:39 PM

LF,
There is more evidence presented in my link than you have to offer for evolutionISM

#7 Al650

Al650

    Member

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

Posted 08 September 2007 - 09:07 PM

This is solid evidence. Any other assumption is just that. Dragons are mentioned and depicted by various peoples, the word "dinosaur" being of relatively recent vintage. The Ica Stones were investigated by a reputable researcher and he judged them genuine. It is clear to me that the time scales are wrong.

Evolution is an idea perpetuated by a group that primarily wants to remove God from creation. It has only been around in its present form for a relatively short time. Intelligent Design is far more sensible and avoids the myriad assumptions of a worldview that must ignore the anomalies, whether it's rock strata that are not in the correct order, ancient artifacts and anomolous dates. Further evidence is the relatively recent invasion of evolutionists on Christian forums that insist we believe in evolution, evidence to the contrary.

Note: I do not need AiG, ICR or any other such organization to do research. I am not a member of nor do I support the "Religious Right." I have no political party affiliation.

Here's a link Creationists might find interesting. http://www.bibleland...=article&sid=44



God bless,
Al

#8 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 09 September 2007 - 02:14 AM

This is solid evidence. Any other assumption is just that. Dragons are mentioned and depicted by various peoples, the word "dinosaur" being of relatively recent vintage. The Ica Stones were investigated by a reputable researcher and he judged them genuine. It is clear to me that the time scales are wrong.

Evolution is an idea perpetuated by a group that primarily wants to remove God from creation. It has only been around in its present form for a relatively short time. Intelligent Design is far more sensible and avoids the myriad assumptions of a worldview that must ignore the anomalies, whether it's rock strata that are not in the correct order, ancient artifacts and anomolous dates. Further evidence is the relatively recent invasion of evolutionists on Christian forums that insist we believe in evolution, evidence to the contrary.

Note: I do not need AiG, ICR or any other such organization to do research. I am not a member of nor do I support the "Religious Right." I have no political party affiliation.

Here's a link Creationists might find interesting. http://www.bibleland...=article&sid=44
God bless,
Al

View Post


I found it interesting too, that page shows a reference to the Paluxy tracks which are also mentioned on one of Ikester's sites here: Creation Wiki

#9 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 09 September 2007 - 04:31 AM

Not really, thats not evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. You can't just pick through myth and legend, and other people's cultures, (and perhaps context), and use them for the irrational belief that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. 
How can we distinguish between one ancient drawing of a dragon and another?
Even if some fragmented populations of dinosaurs did exist along side humans - afterall crocodiles are still around - it's still not going to do anything to harm evolutionary theory. In fact its part of evolution to understand that bottleneck populations can escape catastrophe, and continue breeding.

http://en.wikipedia....utionary_theory

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

That stegosaurus looks more like a sumatran Rhino or another large ungulate to me. Those "plates" on its back are arguably also present outside its "cartouche"  and they follow it in a circle. If you look carefully,there's a "plate" under the Stegosaurus's head and one under its belly, which suffice to say, isnt consistent with stegosaurus biology. The last plate on its tail curls upwards at an unnatural angle, and its larger then the others, which also isnt like a stegosaurus. They could be purely decorative. Theres a small horn-like indentation on the animals head too.

There are also similar triangular background pieces in the water buffalo's cartouche, and some of the others.

View Post


Yeah, that's right. Only evidence found by evolutionists, accepted by evolutionists, and examined by evolutionists is acceptable evidence. When you creationist ever going to learn? :angry:

#10 lordfaunswater

lordfaunswater

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Liverpool

Posted 09 September 2007 - 05:30 AM

Yeah, that's right. Only evidence found by evolutionists, accepted by evolutionists, and examined by evolutionists is acceptable evidence. When you creationist ever going to learn? :angry:

View Post



Not true, but we need more evidence then a "dinosaur" or a "dragon" which are easily inspired by lizards to provide evidence for this:

Posted Image


You've not addressed the issue that even if some populations of Dinosaurs did survive it still doesnt suggest that such animals were created by god a few thousand years ago...

#11 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 09 September 2007 - 05:55 AM

That stegosaurus looks more like a sumatran Rhino or another large ungulate to me. Those "plates" on its back are arguably also present outside its "cartouche"  and they follow it in a circle. If you look carefully,there's a "plate" under the Stegosaurus's head and one under its belly, which suffice to say, isnt consistent with stegosaurus biology. The last plate on its tail curls upwards at an unnatural angle, and its larger then the others, which also isnt like a stegosaurus. They could be purely decorative. Theres a small horn-like indentation on the animals head too.

There are also similar triangular background pieces in the water buffalo's cartouche, and some of the others.

View Post


I think they say it is stegosaurus...like. No one claims it is actually a stegosaurus. The term stegosaurus is used because it's the closest thing we have to compare it with.

#12 trilobyte

trilobyte

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 508 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Philly

Posted 09 September 2007 - 05:58 AM

I have to laugh at lordfaunswater as he presents a fragmented fossil and assumes it is a transitional between a fish and a reptile....then he presents post like the ones above claiming there is no evidence of dino and man living together.

#13 lordfaunswater

lordfaunswater

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Liverpool

Posted 09 September 2007 - 06:59 AM

I have to laugh at lordfaunswater as he presents a fragmented fossil and assumes it is a transitional between a fish and a reptile....then he presents post like the ones above claiming there is no evidence of dino and man living together.

View Post



But such a fossil shows features of fish and features of tetrapods (not reptiles by the way), so its not an assumption to say "this is a transition between fish and tetrapods".
A small figurine (which is very much open to interpretation and could quite easily be an extension of imagination) isnt evidence to suggest that human's and dinosaurs lived together, sorry but its not.

#14 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 September 2007 - 07:35 AM

You've not addressed the issue that even if some populations of Dinosaurs did survive it still doesnt suggest that such animals were created by god a few thousand years ago...


If all life was created by Jesus Christ, and it was, then we would expect to find human dipictions of dinosaurs, and written testimony about them. Both exist, and that is difficult to deny.

You don't expect to find any evidence of dino's and man living together, and to suggest that a few of them somehow lasted 65 million years with no other evidence of them in between is totally absurd.

T-Rex fossils with observable blood cells and tissue are also evidence that Dino's lived not too long in the distant past.

Terry

#15 lordfaunswater

lordfaunswater

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Liverpool

Posted 09 September 2007 - 08:01 AM

If all life was created by Jesus Christ, and it was, then we would expect to find human dipictions of dinosaurs, and written testimony about them.  Both exist, and that is difficult to deny.

You don't expect to find any evidence of dino's and man living together, and to suggest that a few of them somehow lasted 65 million years with no other evidence of them in between is totally absurd.

T-Rex fossils with observable blood cells and tissue are also evidence that Dino's lived not too long in the distant past. 

Terry

View Post


There's no evidence in between because dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago!

If you are happy with the only evidence being abstract drawings and figurines, thats entirely your choice.

Posted Image

Can we say that was inspired by a real animal?

Theres nothing to say in geology that Observable blood cells and tissue can't be preserved, but that such occurances are extremely rare. It doesn't change the fact that the animal lived millions of years ago. If your right, every single fossil dinosaur should show the same "freshness" - and they dont.

#16 Guest_Epp_*

Guest_Epp_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 September 2007 - 09:31 AM

One of the questions that frustrates evolutionist is....Did humans co-exist with dinosaurs?

A little while ago this sandstone carving was discovered at an ancient Buddhist temple.

Posted Image

Posted Image

View Post


Sometimes creationists cling to any scrap of 'evidence', no matter how unlikely or absurd it may be.
The temple where this was found was built in 1186 A.D. we are speaking about Malaysia, a country with a history, written records, etc. We are speaking about 800 years ago. Needless to say, no one ever provided any written record or evidence that a dinosaur, other than birds, was living in Malaysia 800 years ago.
It is curious that the carving appears so suspiciously clean, compared to other carvings near it. The reason? The creationist who found it says that a "famous photographer" cleaned it in order to take the photograph. How likely is that a famous photographer does that, if he is a professional?
Well, to sum up: it's likely a hoax. If it isn't, creationists should not have much of a problem digging up some evidence for dinosaurs in the zone. A non-fossilized bone, carbon-dated, appearing to be 800 y.o. would suffice, and delight the scientific community with plenty of research avenues.

#17 Al650

Al650

    Member

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

Posted 09 September 2007 - 11:33 AM

Call it a hoax if you want. This and other evidence, clearly indicates that man and dinosaurs lived together. The book I posted a link to also backs that up. Evolution is a worldview where new "scientists" are taught by the old to look at the evidence in one way only. Any anomolies must be ignored. This worldview must be supported with copious funds since removing God from daily life is the goal.

Transitional fossils. What nonsense. I remember the recent stir over the fossil of a fish whose fins, it was claimed, were turning into hands. I immediately thought of the common seal that walks on land using its flippers.




God bless,
Al

#18 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 September 2007 - 11:42 AM

There's no evidence in between because dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago!

If you are happy with the only evidence being abstract drawings and figurines, thats entirely your choice.


Well, you have to come up with a better explanation than luck imagination to explain the petroglyhps
You claim they died out 65 million years ago, but the observable blood cells testify otherwise.


Can we say that was inspired by a real animal?


There is no animal wondering aroung today that matches the bohemoth described in the Bible.

You can't have it both ways... You say there is no reason that dinos living contempory with man does not damage the theoly of evolution, and then you say that there are none found in a supposed 65 million year span because they died out 65 million years ago.

You have to do better than lucky imagination to explain the indian petroglyphs

Link to page with ptroglyph info.



Theres nothing to say in geology that Observable blood cells and tissue can't be preserved, but that such occurances are extremely rare. It doesn't change the fact that the animal lived millions of years ago. If your right, every single fossil dinosaur should show the same "freshness" - and they dont.


Geology has nothing to do with it.....

Chemistry however does.... There's nothing to suggest that observable blood cells, and fibrous tissue should remain intact for 65 million years. There is reason to believe that they should have totally broken down, and its called amino-acid racemization.

Those bones are principally at max 200k years old.

You act like its no big deal, but if you read the responses from the early find 10 years ago by Dr. Schweizer, and other analyzing the substances, they fought tooth and nail to deny what they ultimately had to admit when they discovered the relatively fresh tissues a couple of years ago.

There is no reasonable evolutionary explanation for it, and its a serious contradiction to what you accept by Faith.

Terry

#19 lordfaunswater

lordfaunswater

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 228 posts
  • Age: 19
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Liverpool

Posted 09 September 2007 - 01:28 PM

  Call it a hoax if you want. This and other evidence, clearly indicates that man and dinosaurs lived together. The book I posted a link to also backs that up. Evolution is a worldview where new "scientists" are taught by the old to look at the evidence in one way only. Any anomolies must be ignored. This worldview must be supported with copious funds since removing God from daily life is the goal.

Transitional fossils. What nonsense. I remember the recent stir over the fossil of a fish whose fins, it was claimed, were turning into hands. I immediately thought of the common seal that walks on land using its flippers.


Wrong wrong and wrong.

They dont clearly indicate for several reasons.

One, that they are taken from sources of extremely variable dates and histories, two, that they are taken from several areas around the world - possibily unlinked in culture and tradition, and three, that they really are not that convincing.

You don't give any consideration to these people's religious beliefs (you assume it fits yours), you dont give any consideration to their culture and tradition,( and how the finds are similar), you dont give the context that could tell us why such finds were made, you dont consider how possibly it would be to exagerate existing animals (simply impossible presumably?), you've not given room for alternative interpretation, you've not given any credit to these people and the possibilty that they actually thought about things and used their imagination to invent animals and possibly dieties.
Finally, the "evidences" of dinosaurs have been made with the desire to prove creationism as correct, and more often than not, they also contain "biting" comments about how evolution is/will/has crumbled due to these discoveries, which is highly misleading, and highly unscientific.
You really dont need much evidence if a small figurine or a carving is enough to sway your mind, and not only that, but catagorically prevent any other explanation from being considered.


The difference between Tiktaalik and a seal is a fairly obvious one, and besides a superficial argument there's not a lot else you can say to argue against transitional status.

A seal is a tetrapod - it is evolved from land-dwelling organisms. Tiktaalik isnt, it's evolved from earlier fish. A seal isnt a strictly aquatic organism because it breeds and lounges on land. Tiktaalik is, and nobody claims it walked on land. Some of its characteristics are shared by tetrapods however.
Besides analogous features (i.e. fins), it doesnt change the fact that such a trait is acquired by seals through evolution towards a marine lifestyle, and not the other way around.



Well, you have to come up with a better explanation than luck imagination to explain the petroglyhps
You claim they died out 65 million years ago, but the observable blood cells testify otherwise.


Well it's not actually that convincing. It looks like a rhino, with some kind of background, perhaps symbolising sunlight or vegetation.

Why, if these people were so aware of dinosaurs, have science not found one single dinosaur bone dating from the same time?



There is no animal wondering aroung today that matches the bohemoth described in the Bible.

You can't have it both ways... You say there is no reason that dinos living contempory with man does not damage the theoly of evolution, and then you say that there are none found in a supposed 65 million year span because they died out 65 million years ago.

You have to do better than lucky imagination to explain the indian petroglyphs


The behemoth that according to most emminent scholors is most likely a large mammal. Simply because the bible says "it had a tail like a cedar tree" doesnt mean it actually did. Tail in some hebrew sources has been translated as an euphemism for a erect *that word not allowed*. The Behemoth was probably an ox.
Its the age old principle of "the bible says it, so it must be true", which isnt actually the case. Does poetic license mean nothing to creationists?

The "convincing" indian petroglyph looks more like a bird to me then anything.

If some dinosaurs survived the K-T extinction, and lived for a further 65 million years into human history, it still wouldnt damage evolution. All it would damage is our understanding that ALL dinosaurs went extinct shortly after the asteroid struck earth. Just as crocodiles (which were here BEFORE the dinosaurs) are around today. On the other hand, such a suggestion isnt currently supported by evidence.
So we can actually have it both ways.


Geology has nothing to do with it.....

Chemistry however does.... There's nothing to suggest that observable blood cells, and fibrous tissue should remain intact for 65 million years. There is reason to believe that they should have totally broken down, and its called amino-acid racemization.


... and Amino-acid racemization allows for variable conditions of decay and ratios of D/L concentrations. It occurs far far faster in wet and humid conditions then dryer environments, where the T-rex was found. It doesnt stop (or state) that exceptionally preserved examples can't occur in nature. Besides, its important to note that structures resembling blood cells have been seen - not alive, functioning, perfectly whole cells.

Those bones are principally at max 200k years old.


Nope, and even that is thousands of years before the world was created.


Dr Schweizer et al can't make a grand claim of "we have blood cells from a dinosaur" without correctly scrutinising what they actually have. They were very careful to make sure any such claims were completely accurate; not to hide their guilt of "disproving" science's understandings of the earth's age and evolution.


There is no reasonable evolutionary explanation for it, and its a serious contradiction to what you accept by Faith.


Not really. The fossil still dates from around 68-65 million years ago, and the collagen protein structures found in T-rex bones are still extremely closely related to those of chickens, with similarity to certain amphibians, which is predicted according to evolution.

#20 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 09 September 2007 - 02:26 PM

Nope, and even that is thousands of years before the world was created.


That's an upper limit, and know one has any idea of how something that should be completly broken down in 200k years looks like its still basically intact.

Dr Schweizer et al can't make a grand claim of "we have blood cells from a dinosaur" without correctly scrutinising what they actually have. They were very careful to make sure any such claims were completely accurate; not to hide their guilt of "disproving" science's understandings of the earth's age and evolution.


Golly gee whiz, no kidding.......... To admit what the the bones actually are screaming to them would mean they would have to flush their world view, not to mention their PhDs down the toilett. :o

Not really. The fossil still dates from around 68-65 million years ago, and the collagen protein structures found in T-rex bones are still extremely closely related to those of chickens, with similarity to certain amphibians, which is predicted according to evolution.


The amino-acids in the fossils means they are most likely far far far less than 200k years old. It also means that the other dating techniques that date the age of the surrounding material are in question.

Whether anyone thinks they look like chicken bones or not has nothing to do with the discussion.

Terry




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users