Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* - - - - 1 votes

Proof that dinosaurs lived alongside humans ?


  • Please log in to reply
95 replies to this topic

#76    Jim88

Jim88

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 456 posts
  • Joined:04 Apr 2007

  • Knowing you don't know is superior. Not knowing you don't know is a sickness.

    Tao Te Ching

Posted 24 April 2007 - 08:28 PM

Quote

so it would appear that for every theory there is an equal and opposite one LOL


That's true. Every theory has an opposing theory.

1. Not to value and employ men of superior ability is the way to keep the people from rivalry among themselves; not to prize articles which are difficult to procure is the way to keep them from becoming thieves; not to show them what is likely to excite their desires is the way to keep their minds from disorder.

Tao Te Ching

#77    cyrus11

cyrus11

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 317 posts
  • Joined:12 Jan 2006

Posted 24 April 2007 - 11:25 PM

you want evidence of dinosaur living along humans? look in the sky and trees at the birds.  those are the only dinosaur that are still living along side humans today.


#78    Jim88

Jim88

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 456 posts
  • Joined:04 Apr 2007

  • Knowing you don't know is superior. Not knowing you don't know is a sickness.

    Tao Te Ching

Posted 25 April 2007 - 12:33 AM

Check out this site, one of the other threads linked to it. It has photographs of what they claim are dinosaurs.

http://www.anzwers.org/free/livedragons/evolutio.htm

Most of them it's hard to tell the bodies are so badly decomposed. The lake Champlain monster looks like a dinosaur though.

What do you think? Do you think it's a hoax?

1. Not to value and employ men of superior ability is the way to keep the people from rivalry among themselves; not to prize articles which are difficult to procure is the way to keep them from becoming thieves; not to show them what is likely to excite their desires is the way to keep their minds from disorder.

Tao Te Ching

#79    Harte

Harte

    Supremely Educated Knower of Everything in Existence.

  • Member
  • 11,489 posts
  • Joined:06 Aug 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Memphis

  • Skeptic

Posted 25 April 2007 - 06:38 PM

Quote

Check out this site, one of the other threads linked to it. It has photographs of what they claim are dinosaurs.

http://www.anzwers.org/free/livedragons/evolutio.htm

Most of them it's hard to tell the bodies are so badly decomposed. The lake Champlain monster looks like a dinosaur though.

What do you think? Do you think it's a hoax?


Jim,

I've looked into several of the "sea monsters" the author at that page cites.  The simple fact is, the rotting corpses of whales and sharks do resemble the classic descriptions of sea monsters we have over the last few millenia.

There's a very good reason for this, the ancient people couldn't identify these creatures either.

Almost certainly every single picture showing a corpse on that page actually shows the corpse of a known sea creature which has deteriorated to the point of practical unidentifiablity.  Any such remains that are brought to scientists have always been shown to be so, whether it be through microscopic examination or, more recently, dna analysis.

There are other so-called "dinosaurs" shown on that page that can sometimes be convincing to a casual observer but on closer examination, these also evaporate into more mundane things.  The Angkor Wat stegosaur is one of these things.

This "Stegosaurus" is always shown by itself and is used as proof that there were stegosaurs living with humans in Cambodia at some point in the past.  Now, the temple where this carving is dates to about 800 years ago.  What killed these stegosaurs in the last 800 years?  Why are there no bones from them to be found?  Why is it that absolutely no stegosaur bones or fossils have ever been found in Cambodia if these creatures have such a long history of existence there?

The question of the depiction of the "stegosaur" on the temple can be answered by several local Cambodians, were anyone to bother to ask.  It is a boar.  The "plates" shown along it's back are stylized leaves on a bush/tree behind it (the trunk of the tree is visible between the legs, below the belly of the animal.)  Other animals (well-known and currently living animals I should say) are also depicted on the temple, and several of these also show this sort of sylized leaf pattern behind them.  Additionally, though the photo usually shown at creationist sites very cleverly is taken at an angle to minimize it's visibility, the carving actually shows tusks at the sides of the animal's mouth, exactly like a boar, and long ears.

Similar results come from close examination of other such "carved dinosaur" claims, when they aren't hoaxes.

The Acambrero figurines shown at that page can only be classified as fakes, at least for the time being.  This is because the owners of the figures refuse to allow scientific analysis of them for the purposes of obtaining an approximate date of their manufacture.  Without this date, it's impossible to say, so we have to go with Occam on this one.  Besides, why would scientists be refused access to real artifacts?

I believe enough has already been said about the Ica Stones around here, another so-called "evidence" of human-dinosaur coexistence.

This is not to say that we have discovered every single animal out there.  There's little doubt that some animals we consider prehistoric still exist in the ocean.  The coelacanthe is a good example, another is the Megamouth Shark, a rather large species only discovered in 1976.

I still personally hold out some hope that lake mosters exist as well, though I sincerely doubt that they are surviving species of dinosaurs (BTW, marine reptiles have never been classified as "dinosaurs" anyway.)  You mentioned the Lake Champlain monster "Champ."   Are you aware that a recent investigation into Champ turned up anomalous echolocation soundings assumed to be emanating from an unknown animal in the lake?  Seems to indicate that Champ could be some sort of whale, or at least a cetacean, either a known species or one that is currently unknown.  Ironic if true, since most of the sea monsters that wash up on beaches are really the rotting corpses of whales!

Harte

Posted Image
See the new Harte Mark III
And the Mayan panoramas on my pyramid pajamas haven't helped my little problem. - The Alan Parsons Project
Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do so. - Bertrand Russell
Anybody like Coleridge?

#80    Luka the Rentboy

Luka the Rentboy

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 618 posts
  • Joined:18 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nowhere.

  • "Come now, don't make such a funeral face. It isn't dying that's sad; it's living when you're not happy."

Posted 26 April 2007 - 12:30 AM

Quote

I still personally hold out some hope that lake mosters exist as well, though I sincerely doubt that they are surviving species of dinosaurs (BTW, marine reptiles have never been classified as "dinosaurs" anyway.)  You mentioned the Lake Champlain monster "Champ."   Are you aware that a recent investigation into Champ turned up anomalous echolocation soundings assumed to be emanating from an unknown animal in the lake?  Seems to indicate that Champ could be some sort of whale, or at least a cetacean, either a known species or one that is currently unknown.  Ironic if true, since most of the sea monsters that wash up on beaches are really the rotting corpses of whales!


I think something similar (to the 'anomalous echolocations') was found in lake Seljordsvattnet in Norway, sometime around the year 2000; although if I remember correctly it was in the end just a stunt for publicity and money on behalf of one particular confused "cryptozoologist" who faked it all. It was described as being "the sound uttered by what experts have called 'an unknown mammal'."

http://www.anzwers.org/free/livedragons/evolutio.htm though, is similar to many other Creationist "living dinosaur" sites, and what can I say? It's pretty hilariously misinformed. For crying out loud it refers to Alex Jones. New World Order. Conspiracies. Early on the page it talks of that whale carcass from Russia as a actual find of something unusual.

It also mentions the classic "Gambo" find from Gambia in a passage as follows:

Quote

THIS IS A RECONSTRUCTION BY A MISSIONARY IN GAMBIA WHO FOUND THIS CREATURE ON A BEACH, BURIED IT IN THE SAND FOR LATER RECOVERY & RESEARCH, BUT LOST IT. THIS WAS OF COURSE POOH-POOH-ED BY THE EVOLUTIONIST "CRYPTO-ZOOLOGIC COMMUNITY", YET....


...which really brings credibility to the article, ne? Owen Burnham, who found the carcass on June 12, 1983, was 15 years old at the time and hardly a missionary.

Quote

On November 16, 1970, this 17 meter (50 foot) long carcass washed ashore in Situate Harbor, Massachusetts in the middle of the night. Before it could be safeguarded and studied, a crowd had gathered and mutilated the body.


Where that absurd lenght comes from, I don't know. I know that, at the time when the basking shark carcass washed up, it was said to have weighed "15-20 tons", but those numbers later shrunk to 2 tons. The carcass was about 20 feet long. The photos clearly does not show a carcass anywhere near 50 foot long.


Edited by Nena, 26 April 2007 - 12:31 AM.

LONG LIVE OUR SOVIET MOTHERLAND
Posted Image


#81    Cradle of Fish

Cradle of Fish

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,583 posts
  • Joined:07 Apr 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Australia

  • "He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man." - Dr. Johnson

Posted 26 April 2007 - 09:43 AM

Quote



That website is so stupid it hurts, I want the brain cells I lost back. sad.gif

I am not a man, merely a parody of one.


#82    Luka the Rentboy

Luka the Rentboy

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 618 posts
  • Joined:18 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Nowhere.

  • "Come now, don't make such a funeral face. It isn't dying that's sad; it's living when you're not happy."

Posted 26 April 2007 - 07:47 PM

Quote

That website is so stupid it hurts, I want the brain cells I lost back. sad.gif


I'm sorry. ): Didn't mean to re-link things and cause excessive brain trauma. ;_;

LONG LIVE OUR SOVIET MOTHERLAND
Posted Image


#83    Jim88

Jim88

    Extraterrestrial Entity

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 456 posts
  • Joined:04 Apr 2007

  • Knowing you don't know is superior. Not knowing you don't know is a sickness.

    Tao Te Ching

Posted 26 April 2007 - 08:09 PM

Quote

That website is so stupid it hurts, I want the brain cells I lost back. sad.gif


I didn't say I agreed with everything the person on the website says. I don't believe in the New World Order. I don't believe the government was behind 9/11. Clearly the person who runs the website believes in some pretty outlandish things. You can ignore all his rablings. I just wanted to get people's opinions on the photographs.

1. Not to value and employ men of superior ability is the way to keep the people from rivalry among themselves; not to prize articles which are difficult to procure is the way to keep them from becoming thieves; not to show them what is likely to excite their desires is the way to keep their minds from disorder.

Tao Te Ching

#84    Skim Milky

Skim Milky

    I Want to Believe...

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,606 posts
  • Joined:03 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee


  • Xbox Live: SkimMilky Smith

Posted 21 May 2007 - 08:53 AM

Quote

And evolutionist propaganda
holds about as much, so please check your facts before flaming.

"Evolution is a proven fact." Wrong. Neither evolution, nor Creation is proven, because we cannot now see either theory in operation today. Both ideas are theories that must be accepted by faith. The person's conclusions for their faith must be based upon truth though - the evolutionist has no proof, only more theories. The Creationist has the words of the Bible which can be proven in a court to be true. It has been consistently proven there are no false statements in the Bible!

What Evolution is. Evolution is a theory of the origin of all things based upon a process of continuous “innovative” change. It states the universe is continually improving itself through this "process." It may take billions of years, but it is supposedly gradually improving! This usually means without allowing for an outside Creator’s help. It represents the acceptance of anything that can explain the existence of this universe, as long as it does not allow for the existence of God.
   1.  Some Scientific Laws Against ANY Form of Evolution.



1.        The Laws of Thermodynamics (Heat Energy).



a.        The first law says energy and matter can be transformed (changed) and altered, but cannot now be created or destroyed. This Law does away with Theory B. A universe that accidentally "big banged" out of nothing is unscientific since matter can't naturally be created (see Nehemiah 9:6). Evolution requires you to believe everything “accidentally” came from nothing!

b.       The second law states that energy in a closed system[1] will   run out. This is called ENTROPY. All forms of energy run down like a watch. For example: things do not grow toward order and cleanliness by accident (ask any housewife with kids). Nothing is in the process of "evolving" (getting better, and more advanced, and more powerful), but rather EVERYTHING which can be seen demonstrates dissipation, disintegration, decay and degeneration. Nothing is "improved" unless it is worked on by an outside force! This Law is stated in Isaiah 51:6, and does away with Theory A since if the universe had always been here, it would have "burned-out" long ago! Even though matter and energy cannot disappear, energy is always slowing down - never increasing (and never being replaced)! An example is the burning of a fire log. The log burns, and produces heat energy. That energy is then gone from the log, and cannot be produced from the same log anymore.



2.        The Law of Cause and Effect. To every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. For every effect that we see in the universe, there had to be an original cause. Evolution requires that all of ORDER came from CHAOS being “helped along” - again “accidentally.”

3.        The Law of Biogenetics demonstrates that life ONLY comes from life! Every living organism comes only from living organisms (John 1:1-4)! Never has life "spontaneously" come from a dead thing.

4.        Mendel’s Laws. Gregor Mendel (1822-1914) proved scientifically:



a.        Only genetic characteristics are inherited (things that are already coded in the DNA molecules of a gene) - only things that the parent already had “in” themselves, are passed on to the next generation. Nothing new can be passed on except for mutations which are 99.9% disastrous to the next generation.

b.       Variations are built-into the DNA code of an organism - this allows for variations in a specific kind of animal - i.e., a dog’s genes have many variations already built-in (doberman, terrier, greyhound), just as a cat’s genes have many variations, etc.

c.        Variations outside of the limits of the genetic code do not occur. The variations do not include the ability for offspring to turn into anything BUT what the parent was - i.e., a cat ALWAYS produces a cat! Never a cat-dog, or a butterfly, or a frog, etc.

d.       No “new” characteristics appear in ANY species (it would be like trying to play keys on a piano that aren't there) except by mutation - which ALWAYS means a degradation of the offspring’s quality of life - which is opposite of the evolutionary theory.

e.        All mutations are proven to be destructive to the off-spring, because they are “degenerative” and not evolutionary - the next generation ALWAYS becomes sterile.
# Order Out of Chaos? Could you believe that a delicate and beautiful Swiss watch could come from an explosion in a steel mill, or that a dictionary could come from an explosion in a print shop? Then how could a rational person believe that all the beauties and perfection of nature result from an explosion of hot gasses back at the "big bang?" Only if you are told again and again that it MUST have happened!

   4. Find the Fossil Evidence. The theory of evolution contends that life appeared "spontaneously" on the earth, and that over millions of years, life forms changed and became more complex. Man is assumed to be the product of this process. Fossils, the remains of dead plants and animals, have supposedly left a record of the organisms that once populated the earth.

      Modern research has shown that in recorded history, species are constantly moving toward extinction. Every day, more than 50 species become extinct. If evolution were true, one would expect to see the process providing examples of emerging species in their "transitional forms." The question arises, "where are the emerging species and their transitional forms?"[2] The fossil record shows no transitional forms - only fully developed creatures, in all strata!
Evolutionary Hoaxes, Scams, and Abuses



   1. Dating Methods - Billions? Millions? Or Just Thousands of Years Old?



1.        Date the fossils by the “strata” they are found in. Most scientists believe that layers of the earth’s crust (called strata) represent different time periods, and were laid down over millions and even billions of years. In the 1800’s, each layer was labeled by its depth and rock type. Then, the fossils found within each layer were classified by that layer (i.e., Cambrian, Jurassic, Carboniferous, etc).

2.        Date the strata by what fossils are found in it. As time went on, strata were not found to be uniform in layering, and so the fossil type that was found in each strata was used to label the strata. The problem is this: based upon a preliminary assumption in the 1800's that all the strata in the world were laid down uniformly, all fossils and strata are classified based upon each other’s preliminary labeling - i.e., the strata is identified by the fossils it contains, and the fossils are classified by the strata they are found in - circular reasoning! Not science!

3.        The “Flood” ruined everything! A creationist approaches the problem from the vantage of the world-wide flood of Genesis 7 & 8, which sorted the fossils and strata in a cataclysmic, not uniform fashion.



   2. The So-Called “Missing Links” of Human Ancestry



1.        Java Man (Pithecanthropus) - In 1890, a skull cap, femur, and two molar teeth were grouped together as belonging to the same person. The skull is that of an ape, but the teeth and the femur bone of an human. What was not published was that they were found 45 feet apart from each other, along with many other bones of clearly apes, humans, and other animals. It was a grocery store of “parts” to construct any animal you wanted! Java man has since been reclassified as human.

2.        Neanderthal Man (Homo sapiens neanderthalensis) - 1856, in Neanderthal, Germany, a skull cap and limb bones were found. It was grouped with a set of skeletons found all over Europe that had the following characteristics: prominent eyebrow ridges, low forehead, long narrow brain case, protruding upper jaw, a strong lower jaw lacking a chin. The overall skeletons were short, and stooped-over. Anthropologists believed it to be a “missing link” between man and ape because it seemed to have shuffled along when walking. However, 150 years later, it is now admitted that these skeletons were of people that suffered from rickets, and syphilis. Neanderthal Man was just a variation of the modern human kind with disease!

3.        The Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus). In England, in 1912, a human skull cap and an orangutan’s jaw were grouped together, along with a tooth as a hoax to prove another so-called “missing link.” It was believed by the scientific world for over 40 years until tested for age, only to find that the tooth had been filed down to look human, and the jaw bone stained to look as old as the skull cap.

4.        The Peking Man - all the “evidence” of this ape-man was lost in World War II, and is not available for examination.

5.        The Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus) - an entire skeleton of an ape-man was constructed based upon a single tooth of a supposed “missing link.” The tooth was discovered to be of a rare pig found in Paraguay.

6.        Lucy (Ramapithecus) - once widely accepted as the direct ancestor of humans, it has now been realised that this skeleton is merely an extinct type of orangutan - not an early human.



And they call all this "SCIENCE?"


nice, ive had this same arguement with people all the time.  do people really have too much pride and vanity to just admit that they might be wrong?


#85    Skim Milky

Skim Milky

    I Want to Believe...

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,606 posts
  • Joined:03 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee


  • Xbox Live: SkimMilky Smith

Posted 21 May 2007 - 08:55 AM

okay, there are more than one way to consider christianity, so you cant dump everyone into a few stereotypes.


#86    Skim Milky

Skim Milky

    I Want to Believe...

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,606 posts
  • Joined:03 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee


  • Xbox Live: SkimMilky Smith

Posted 21 May 2007 - 09:02 AM

Quote

Actually, there are a number of scientists that find the bible compatible with evouloution if the days are translated as "epochs", and not 24 hour days.

How would the ancients know life would begin in the sea?  And then there is the age of great reptiles and birds (Mesozoic).  The word tannin here is sometimes translated as whales, but more correctly it means a dragon, which was the common word for any large reptile before the word dinosaur was invented.  Then came the age of mammals with man coming about  in the last period.

So intelligent people who understand the earth is billions of years old can also believe in God.  One of the best known paleontologists is a Christian deacon, but still believes dinos and men didn't live together becasue the fossil record proves this is impossible and the Bible doesn't say this.  It does say heavenly creatures called dragons living in the time of men, but not dinosaurs, all of which died out 65 million years ago.



this is true, the stages of creation in genesis are accurate at a time when the knowledge didnt exist.  consider that at the time, there were only around 3000 different words used to describe things.


#87    Skim Milky

Skim Milky

    I Want to Believe...

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,606 posts
  • Joined:03 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee


  • Xbox Live: SkimMilky Smith

Posted 21 May 2007 - 09:11 AM

Quote

Scientists make other assumptions besides that. All their studies have underlying assumptions. Scientists reason their assumptions are true, but they don't really know. Science is only as good as the reasoning behind it. That's why peer review is so important. Science doesn't tell you absolute truth. There is uncertainty in science. Scientists use statistics to quantify the uncertainty.

It is true that religion is philosophy. I agree with that. However, science is also a philosophy. It used to be called natural philosophy. Science is a philosophy for discovering things about the physical universe.



yes, and that scientific philosophy points to creationism



#88    Skim Milky

Skim Milky

    I Want to Believe...

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,606 posts
  • Joined:03 May 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tennessee


  • Xbox Live: SkimMilky Smith

Posted 21 May 2007 - 09:14 AM

Quote

It would be interesting to read what it says in the book of Enoch. Is that available on the Internet? I don't believe the current Big Bang theory. It would be interesting to see how close what is written in the book of Enoch is to the Big Bang theory though.

I checked out that website he linked me to and it did mention numerous cases where scientists observed speciation.

As for people coming from apes, scientists will never be able to prove that. They can only theorize about our origins. They could conceivably prove that life evolves, but that wouldn't disprove creation. God could have created life and given it the ability to evolve.



what animals do evolve is macroevolution, changes already encoded and ready to be tapped in the dna.

and officially mankind began when god gave them the breath of life.  maybe there were manlike creatures before us.  just because they used simple tools and built shelter doesnt prove they had a soul.  many many species of animals use tools and build shelters today


#89    Deinychus_rulz

Deinychus_rulz

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 229 posts
  • Joined:14 May 2007

Posted 22 May 2007 - 04:51 PM

OK, HUMANS DID NOT COME FROM APES!!!! How do i know??? If we did, apes wouldn't exist! The species would have evolved into US!!!! We came from the Homo- species, yesm primates, but NOT "apes". OK? We have fossil evidence showing transitional species en-route to homo sapian!!


#90    eyesaurSy

eyesaurSy

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 18 posts
  • Joined:12 May 2007
  • Gender:Male

Posted 20 June 2007 - 03:20 AM

Quote

The Creationist has the words of the Bible which can be proven in a court to be true. It has been consistently proven there are no false statements in the Bible!

Okay, I must have missed the memo or something. Where in heaven or earth or hell or nirvana or the freakin' afterlife does it say that everything in the Bible is true. Somewhere that comes from a solid, consistently proven statistic not invented by humans to back up their beliefs.

The Bible is a book. A book written two thousand years ago by people with very few resources at their disposal to accurately document the world and its past. I could write a book that states the creation of the universe all happened by magic and say that everything in my book is true regardless of any evidence to the contrary. Would anyone believe me? Of course not! They'd all say I was insane! I could believe in flying fruitcakes that shoot lasers at people and write a book about that. It still wouldn't be true. Just because some book says it doesn't mean that it is absolute unarguable truth.

If the Bible said that when a person turns twelve they should jump off a cliff and see if they survive, would you honestly do it? Would you do it because some guy sacrificed himself for the bad things that we do? Would you do it because some all powerful deity wanted you to. Oh, yes, I'm sure he would get a kick out of that! Tons of people throwing themselves off of cliffs every single day.

Face it. Nothing in the Bible can be proven conclusively except things with statistics to back them up.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users