If the dinosaurs hadn't been killed off by that meteor long ago, do you think dinosaurs would still be living here on Earth? Or would they have been killed off by something else by now?

Silurians.

They would have become Silurians.


-- Jaylemurph

Dont be stupid...

I doubt it. Anyways, it was most likely not a meteorite that fully caused it.

Yea, I guess I can see that. Because I dont see how a meteorite could kill off every single dinosaur...

I'm sure man would have killed them off by now, just depends on how good they are to eat!!

An asteroid alone wasn't the cause of their death, but it certainly was a BIG CATALYST. There is evidence that a large asteroid struck around that time, and probably caused severe geological and climate changes.

I still think dinosaurs would of died out. Their numbers were declining at the end of the Cretaceous. Sauropods were almost extinct BEFORE 65 MYA.

Scientists have theorized that if the dinosaurs survived the K-T event; an intelligent species such as the rapture might have evolved into dinosauroid.

What's a rapture?
Rapture:
1. The state of being transported by a lofty emotion; ecstasy.
2. An expression of ecstatic feeling. Often used in the plural.
3. The transporting of a person from one place to another, especially to heaven

Troodontids were theorized to be the smartest dinosaurs.

Holy cow! I've been looking for that picture for years! I tried to explain "dinosaur man" (as presented by Christopher Reeve) to someone and they thought I was making it up.

Hooray! I'm not crazy!

I went to a lecture by Dale Russell a number of years ago on this topic, quite an interesting discussion.

Source: http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/...saurintell.html

So, if dinosaurs hadn't died, they'd have evolved into aliens?

Probably not...

Not exactly, If dinosaurs hadn't died out they would probably be sitting here posting in this forum instead of us mammals lol.

Very interesting thought! I hadn't really thought about it, but I could see the world being a whole different way. I don't think we'd have some of the same creatures we have now, simply cause the dinosaurs would eat them. Give a different thing to worry about other than mountain lion or bear if you were hiking in the woods!

Also would there be a sharp increase in poaching of big game....REALLY BIG GAME!!!

Possibly, but in some 150 million years of evolution they didn't seem to be getting any smarter, so why would they if we just added another 65 million years? But it is safe to say, that even though some dinosaurs were dying out, many carnivorous ones were still very succesful, and probably would have continued to dominate the world, eating up any mammal larger than a racoon. So it is very probable we would not be here today. Or maybe we would have evolved as miniature humans, hiding underfoot huge predatory dinosaurs, surviving only becasue we weren't worth eating becasue of our diminutive size.

Would there be miniature computers as well? Or would we not have evolved that intelligent?

Doubtful, mammals are more adabt at climate survival - mammals can live in almost any environment on earth, Which reptiles can't really do.

Here is something that will make you wonder:


"Dinosaurs In History has enlightened many readers to the prospect that millions of years may actually not have separated the two "species," but that they co-existed, often inharmoniously, to the culmination of what we know today as myths and legends of dragons and monsters.

Some evolutionists accept the idea, and some creationists accept the idea. To be more specific, few evolutionists accept the idea, whereas most creationists accept the idea. Why? From the evolutionary perspective, dinosaurs would have had to survive for millions of years, part of which time involved a long and tedious ice age. Not only that, they would have had to do so without undergoing any great deal of evolutionary change. Indeed, if a living apatosaurus today still looks like its fossil grandparents, one question ensues. "Where's the evolution?"

From the creationist perspective, dinosaurs existed with man from the beginning, later dying off from climatic changes and human hunting, until by the time of knights, maidens, and heraldry, only a few stragglers were left.

But let us take you now back to the 15th century to examine a particular tomb. On this tomb, we trust, you will find something quite remarkable.


The Tomb Of Richard Bell

He was bishop at Carlisle until shortly before his death in 1496. His tomb lies underneath a protective carpet along a main aisle of the Carlisle Cathedral (UK), inlaid with brass. Richard Bell, born in 1410, became a monk at the tender age of 16 and would remain so for the next 50 years, during which time he was ordained a priest and earned a degree at Oxford University. Because he was a monk, he was not allowed to write a will, but historians agree that he died in 1496, and date the tomb as such. The brass on the tomb shows Bell, dressed in his vestments, with his bishop's cap and hooked staff.


Mystery In The Brass

Contained in the brass fillet running around the edge of Bell's tomb are two interesting animal engravings. What makes them even more interesting is their placement . . . next to various fish, a dog, an eel, a bird, a pig, a weasel, etc. Whatever creatures they are, the tomb designer clearly intended them to be taken as literally as the other animals carefully portrayed.

The first one shows two animals seemingly engaged in a struggle. The one on the right has a long neck positioned horizontally, much like a sauropod dinosaur (i.e. apatosaurus). Amazingly, paleontologists, only until recently, believed that sauropods held their necks vertically aloft, somewhat similar to the way a giraffe does. Now, popular belief is that they held them horizontally, just as the brass fillet shows. Also, the tail of the animal on the fillet is suspended in the air. Sauropod reconstructions only up until recently portrayed the tails as lying lazily on the ground. Yet again, the fillet was correct.

The animal on the left possesses appendages near the end of its tail that resemble large spikes. As most any kindergartner could tell you, the stegosaurus also sported spikes, while the ankylosaurus had a large clubbed tail. Both animals portrayed in the brass, in fact, may have had spiked tails, but the one on the right unfortunately had its worn away.

The other engraving on the tomb also seems to be unlike any animal alive today. It is worn, but one still can discern a well-defined head and mouth that appear similar to those of a crocodile. Unlike a crocodile, however, the legs are large, allowing the creature to stand in the same way a hippopotamus can stand. What is it? We don't know, but it does seem to resemble a large, reptilian creature that could be a type of dinosaur. Impossible? Illogical?

Perhaps we should have a brief review of what we've learned.

1. The creatures were portrayed next to known, living animals
2. The neck of the sauropod was held horizontally, not raised aloft
3. The tail of the sauropod was suspended, not lying on the ground

Could they, in the 15th century, have known of such creatures from fossils, and decided to portray them on their tombs, walls, etc? Although it is possible, it is highly improbable. Until Richard Owen invented the name "dinosaur" in 1841, only a few scientists were aware of their existence. True, large bones had been found before the 19th century, but they were never scientifically categorized. Furthermore, how could they have known to place the neck of the animal horizontally, or suspend the tail above the ground? Lucky guesses? Most unlikely. Rather, the evidence suggests that they were eye-witnesses.

It is interesting to note that males of some long-necked animals, such as the giraffe, engage in tests of strength by "necking." They do so to establish dominance, whereby they have access to breeding females. As we can clearly tell from the brass engravings, these creatures were engaged in something very similar. Amazingly, Bell's tomb isn't the only artifact that shows two long-necked creatures vying for dominance in this manner. An ancient Roman mosaic, dated around the 2nd century A.D. (shown above-right), portrays the exact same behavior. Coincidence? You be the judge.


Conclusion

Coincidence. Is it all lucky coincidence? Logic tells us otherwise, desperately crying out for the minds of the masses to reconsider what they've been taught . . . what they've grown up believing and have always believed for as long as they can remember. Dinosaurs with man? Could it be true? Is it possible? We've done our best to share the facts, and now it's time for you to decide."


Source: http://www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/engraved.htm

To see the pictures of the engravings: http://www.trueauthority.com/dinosaurs/engraved.htm

And remember; the engravings were made 2 centuries before real evidence had been found of the existance of Dinosaurs.

Hmm you have got some good evidence, but I still find it hard to believe

No, logic, science, and reasoning tells us dinosaurs have been dead.

Hahaha........or for fashion Click to view attachment


Click to view attachment

I saw that episode of Star Trek: Voyager. As I recall, the dinosaurs didn't like the idea that they came from our planet and summarily suppressed all research that proved otherwise.

I think he meant Raptor.

It's hard to say what they would've looked like today but had they existed today, they would've evolved into a much smaller size; there's no way these huge creatures could've found so much food for so long on Earth.

there was a small dinosaur found that showed the same qualities and future evolutionary brain pattern growth as we do....this would of probably evolved into a similar homosaphian yet it was half avian reptile so i would of took a dis-simular feature.

Link? Never heard of such a thing!

that would suk, i am slightly paranoid about that when i am hunting alone as it is. but i bet KFC pterosaur would be good with spicy buffalo sauce! but they couldn't be aliens, aliens are a foreign substance or being. a meteor alone didn't kill them of, but for sure it was a culmination of climat, possibly disease and over population, and most likely, if not definetly e meteor all helped in taking millions away from the colonal.

i think that if dinos hadn't become extinct, mammals would've had to evolve into enormous sizes or evolve some new biologic weapons in order to survive anainst reptiles, so maybe we'd be more advanced or bigger that we are today

a ammal fossil from the time of the dinosaurs was found that was the size of a dog and had a small dinosaur in its stomach. so mammals were adapting and evolving, slowly, to life with dinosaurs, adn given time, may have been a worthy apponent.dino eating mammal

HMMM... very interesting and somewhat disturbing for the scientific community because if mammals as large as that had successfully evolved then what other mammals had evolved alongside the Dinosaur? I suspect we are in for some surprises in the future.

Exactly how is it disturbing for the scientific community?

Actually, the dinosayrs that are still alive now are fish as has been discovered by some people in Japan. Obviously, they could not survive in this atmosphere now with the pollution we have.

what? fish aren't dinos. you mean living fossils like the tuatara and ceolocanth. over time mammals would have gottne larger and contiued to evolve, but very slowly and a seperate path. things would be different and we probably wouldn't get past astrolopithicus. so really we can't be for sure.

Oh yeah, you're right I wasn't thinking about that. I was thinking along the line of 'The creature from the Black Lagoon.' That's what that fish looked like.

pic? can we view this "creture from the black lagoon"-like creture?

I think that they were most likely wiped out by a number of things: Climate change, disease, etc. I also think that it probably happened over a length of time, not all at once.

If they had lived, they would've stood a good chance of evolving into more intelligent beings. They would've had millions of years to develope, the same years that we used to evolve from shrew like creatures into what we are today. If we could evolve as far as we have, I see no reason that a species of dinosaur couldn't.

As far as humans, I don't think that we would be the humans that we are today. Concider thins, we are the product of evolution. Millions of different factors played into our development at different times. We would have evolved into a species that could co-exist on Terre Saur, in much the same way as deer and bears share the world with us today. If there had been an extinction of the more intellegent, we would certainly use some dinos in much the same way that we have used other animals for thousands of years. If higher levels of dino intellegence had continued to evolve, I think that we would have evolved to be more like the monkeys or squirrils. Smart but, by no means the masters of the world.

greggk meant godzilla...

exactly. had the dinos aurs not gradually died off, we would be squirrel sized mammals. but still, theres the fact that during the time of the dinos, mammals WERE getteng bigger. a dog sized mammal has been found with a dino in its stomach. so we can't really be sure. we we as humans definatly wouldn't be so.