I have been wondering about this question for a long time.

Did intelligent life exist before the dinosaurs age?

We have been told the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the dinosaurs existed for a billions of years. We often forget that scientist reach this conclusion based on little evidence.

Could Aliens be products of Earths past?

What do you think?

It was just fish and insects, and your coping my topic.

well ill follow science with its "little" evidence then pure speculation sorry ^^

It's really not a bad question. If "aliens," by which I mean nonhuman, intelligent creatures, actually exist, then they either come from another planet, or they come from Earth. If they come from Earth, then the question arises, how long have they been here? If they've been around since before the dinosaurs, then a few things need explaining. One is how they've been around so long without leaving any trace of themselves or their civilization. Another is how homo sapiens managed to arise in an environment already occupied by intelligent anthropoids. Another is how the "aliens" managed to outlive the average life expectancy of a species by many orders of magnitude.

So to me, the idea that we share the planet with an intelligent species of terrestrial creature that evolved much as we did, but during the time of the dinosaurs-- it's just too problematic. I'd place it pretty far down the list of possibilities.

Actually scientists claim that dinosaurs exsisted for about 175 MILLION years, not billions. 230-65millionyrs.
The dinos left behind tons of fossil records from which scientists have been able to carbon date and even extract DNA.
It is believed that before the dinosaurs the earth was populated with mostly repitiles, amphibians and fish.
If there was some other type of life form here they would of eventually died leaving a fossil record, or at the very least achaeologists or palentologists would have found some sort of evidence of another form of life.

Well I am not asking you to believe me. I don't believe it myself because there is no evidence. But I wouldn't believe the stories that scientist make up. I just think the evidence we have is not sufficient to reach conclusions about evolution of species. I think even Darwin was too arrogant in concluding species evolved in one particular way. Considering the age of our planet the little evidence we have is negligible. To assume humans are the only intelligent beings who could have evolved on this planet is arrogant. Archaeologists have been finding bones of ancient humans and speculating. There is disagreement among the scientific community about many theories. They can take fake bones and conclude dinosaurs evolved to become birds. They can take bones of midgets and conclude they are a new species. Keep in mind scientists are not always right.

I think it is wrong to make up stories when 8 out of 10 pieces in the puzzle are missing. I think we should keep our mind open and continue to speculate. The planet is too old. We may not find evidence for everything that existed on the planet.

I'd love to know what famous scientist stated that.

And by 'little' evidence, i don't suppose you mean the tens of thousands of skeletons, complete and not, that have been found in different layers of the earth's crust?

And i still find myself asking why is is so hard to accept evolution?!

Keep in mind archeologist's are still working. They may find evidence of a new species that existed with the dinosaurs. The earth is like a bag full of surprises. The evidence that has been found did not pop up at one point in time. More evidence may be found after 100 years. At this stage we are like the bind men and the elephant.

http://www.noogenesis.com/pineapple/blind_men_elephant.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Men_and_an_Elephant

ooooook, but still, if an intellegent species had lived with/before the dinos, where'd they go? I mean, if you are telling me the left, wouldn't we have found their structures? C'mon, i know new stuff is discovered everyday, but this is almost a ridiculous claim.

They're probably dead by now. The climate changed by the time the dinosuars showed up.

The structures are either buried or beyond ruins. I doubt we'll be able to find anymore. If we do, then I'll be surprised.

I believe there was life before the dinosuars.

Well of course there was life before dinosaurs, but the climat was hardly hospitable for a race of super-sentients to survive, then vanish.....If that is in fact what he is saying.

I don't completely disagree with the scientists. That would be foolish. The tens and thousands of skeletons that have been found are still 'little' evidence to complete the story. There could be just one humanoid bones buried somewhere which could prove humans existed with dinosaurs. Who knows what lies beneath?

And if oil is formed from the remains of animals and plants that lived millions of years ago we should forget about finding any good evidence of the truth.

Carbon dating is our friend, no hominid existed in the mesizoic, else we would have died out too.

Humans have evolved very fast. In just a few 100 years we reached the moon. But we could all die because one natural catastrophe.

I think intelligent life could have existed long before us. Maybe they were too intelligent. They could have focused on finding truth rather than destroying themselves and reached beyond the stars. They may not have found it amusing to drive cars and relax by the beach. Truth could have been easy for them to find because of their superior intelligence. Maybe they chose to live in a different planet or dimension.

Actually carbon dating is virtually no use at all on any object older than 70,000 years. Similar techniques are used, using the radioactive decay of other isotopes:

Source: Accuracy of Fossils and Dating Methods By Michael Benton

Exactly, sentient hominids, only date back 20-35,000 years ago. And others of the genus homo, no more than 600,000 years. with the use of calcium dating.

Carbon dating has its flaws. Don't jump to conclusions.

http://www.carm.org/evo_questions/carbondating.htm

That my friend is simple logic. If we are supposed to believe only in famous scientists people shouldn't believe in God or the existence of Aliens.

This is what Albert Einstein had to say about God:
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

Do you believe in Spinoza's God?

What evidence did Einstein have to believe in what he believed?

And which famous scientist told him what to believe before he proved his theory?

That's not correct on both counts. Modern man, homo sapiens is at least 180,000 years old and maybe as old as 195,000 years whilst Homo habilis and another Homo species, possibly H. rudolfensis are over 2 million years old.

Sources:

160,000-year-old fossilized skulls uncovered in Ethiopia are oldest anatomically modern humans, UCBerkley News release, 06-11-03 - LINK

The oldest Homo sapiens - Fossils push human emergence back to 195,000 years ago, EurekAlert, 16-Feb-2005 - LINK

Homo habilis - Archeology Info - LINK

oops, you're right wrong info, that is for something else,

My two cents.... Is it possible? Yes.
But how probable? Virtually nil.
Why? Well, if they evolved on earth there would be some evidance. And because there is none except lots of life on earth that seems as if it was never affected by any intelligence.

Ack! post screwed up!!
Anyhow, ^^, ya i agree with you, very little evidence and mind-bogglinly low probability.

Much Much Much more likely that intelligent life is studying us though..... not sure if that counts in this thread though....


Maybe if they were studying/affecting life on earth a long long time ago...

Of course, it's possible that big-brained, humanoid dinosaurs existed, and it'd be interesting if we ever found their fossilized remains, but that wasn't the question as I understood it. I thought the question was whether or not living "aliens" could actually be a very old species that originated on Earth at the time of the dinosaurs, which I think is a very remote possibility at best.

I thought the whole reason they were called aliens is because they weren't from here.

what?

anyways there is no evidence what so ever that there was once an intelligent race on the planet. so no reason to believe there was considering that all the evidence we do have points to it not having existed.

this isnt saying its not the case... but most likly there wasnt

I believe at any time when considering theories, it is important to ask yourself why should I even begin to consider a theory. How many leaps of faith are required to accept said theory? Generally the scientific community follows the path of least leaps of faith, that is why it is science as apposed to philosophy/religion. Evolution can not be proven conclusively, becuase it is very difficult to find million year old smoking guns, but when looking at the evidence it paints a picture that is hard to explain many other ways. Evolution as a theory may be flawed, but I am waiting for a more complete theory to suplant it, as apposed to one that is full of even more holes.

This is not to say there is no room for speculation, but speculating on ideas with no evidence and feeling they can rightly displace what the mainstream scientific community is leaning towards leads you with little reasonable footing to stand on. It is good to think on matters that are not 100% fact, it is good to question them, but make sure contrary theories are put through the same logical analysis that made you doubt the original ones to begin with.

Could there have been super-sentient life before or during the dinosaurs, sure, why not. Could there have been ten ton grape people who had a pentient for fermenting blood, obviously yes. But it would require a game or logical leap frog to actually believe that that is true.

Just because evolution has some flaws means nothing. Creationism has way too many flaws, and is accepted as a fairy tale for comfort. Abiogenesis has a couple flaws, but when debated with creationism, the creationist tend to twist facts and mix the big bang theory, along with evolution, just force-feeding the general poulation misinformation and lies, along with confusion. The big band theory is theorical physics, the origin of life is Abiogenesis, the beginning of the universe and man together is Creationism, which has hardly anything to do with any of the others except for the fact that people can't come to terms with the fact that life changes. So i don't see the point trying to make evolution look like a mixture between abiogenesis, and the big band theory, it is just wrong.

You have covered 2 beliefs of mine, intelligent life was here before dinosaurs because they created them as part of genetic experiments before finally creating humans. I believe in atheist intelligent design. The human is an alien creation so we could actually be the evidence we are looking for. There are endless websites on alien technology and aliens being interpretated as Gods and 'otherwordly' technology. Secondly I think they are coming from another dimension through black holes. Many planets and alien life could reside in another dimension allowing them to visit us easier and the reason we cannot find any alien or human life forms yet, they are not looking in the right place.

Carbon dating is a flawed way of measuring time:

From: http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/RadioCarbonDating.html

Problems with C14 Dating
For radiocarbon dating to be reliable scientists need to make a number of vital assumptions. Firstly, Dr Libby assumed that C14 decays at a constant rate. However, experimental evidence indicates that C14 decay is slowing down and that millennia ago it decayed much faster than is observed today.

Secondly, the theory behind C14 dating demands that there is the same rate of cosmic production of radioactive isotopes throughout time. The industrial revolution has belched hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon gases into the atmosphere increasing the C12 ratio and atomic weapons testing have increased neutron levels.

Thirdly, the environment in which the artefact lies heavily impacts on the rate of decay. For example, C14 leaches at an accelerated rate from organic material saturated in water, especially saline water.

Fourthly, for C14 to test accurately the artefact must have been protected from contamination. Organic matter, being porous, can easily be contaminated by organic carbon in groundwater. This increases the C12 content and interferes with the carbon ratio.
Archaeologists are Concerned
The unreliability of carbon 14 date testing is a great concern to honest archaeologists. They get particularly concerned when C14 testing shows obviously inaccurate results and they are left in uncertainty about the reliability of the dates that they have previously never questioned.

New or Old?
Some examples of abnormal C14 results include testing of recently harvested, live mollusc shells from the Hawaiian coast that showed that they had died 2000 years ago and snail shells just killed in Nevada, USA, dated in at 27,000 years old. A freshly killed seal at McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, yielded a death age of 1300 years ago.
A petrified miner’s hat and wooden fence posts were unearthed from an abandoned 19th century gold hunter’s town in Australia’s outback. Results from radiocarbon dating said that they were 6000 years old.

More Evidence Needed
These anomalies have driven archaeologists to question their earlier conclusions about archaeological sites and their respective civilizations founded on artefact dating. Many theories about societies and their cultures have been based solely on C14 dating results. The honest archaeologist can no longer propose theories and ideas without bringing a wider plate of evidences to the history table.


So if we cannot trust carbon dating fully everything that is known about in terms of age of things is not really solid evidence of rocks, fossils or anything.

Gosh, that means that we would have found these cities, or at least remnants of the civilization, im not saying it isn't an option, just super-unlikely.

erm why?
i mean you need some kind of reason to think that... as far as we know black holes dont lead to "other dimensions"... thats science fiction squared

A black hole will send you out a whit hole, if it doesn't kill you, or send you through a wormhole, and in any of those cases, you die.

yes and if you would survive you would not be in another dimension...

Your source is what is "flawed" here.


There exists no evidence that radioactive decay rates differ today from anytime at all in the past. There are a couple of cosmological theories, so far not accepted, that would imply this, but not on any scale that would have any effect at all on anything that happened over the last billion years or so.


This problem with C14 was recognized before it was ever even used as a means of dating. C14 dates are calibrated to correct for this, using such techniques as dendrochronology. Does your source claim that trees used to put multiple rings on in one year but today they only do one?

It appears that your source doesn't even have knowledge of where the C14 on Earth originates. It ain't from any "cosmic production of radioactive isotopes" I can tell you that!


Also a well-known problem. Which is why under such circumstances the C14 date is always suspect and other methods are used.


This is the same as the "problem" listed above, and is handled the same way.


Such anomalous dates are found all the time when C14 dating is used. They are thrown out. C14 is notoriously bad when used to date shellfish, for example, because of the way shellfish live on, in or around areas rich in ancient carbon (like dead reefs, for example.) What do seals eat? Shellfish.
However, these exact same "examples" are constantly thrown in the public's faces by creationists. So, I decided to explore your "source" some more, resulting in the evaluation ("flawed") I gave in my first statement above. I arrived at this opinion due primarily to the following:

From your "source":

No scholarly archaeological practitioner on Earth would agree with the above flapdoodly claptrap.

Lastly,

True, there have been several times in the past where it was discovered that C14 dating needed more calibration. Then it was more finely calibrated. End of problem.


That is an absolute falsehood. No theory of any society or culture has ever been based " solely on C14 dating results."


The "honest archaeologist," upon perusing this source, is laughing his butt off.


C14 dating cannot be used on fossils of any kind. As far as rocks go, only very recent concretions are amenable to C14 dating, and then only if they contain organic material. Such organics in concretions are very often the shells of ancient shellfish (see above), so even those dates are quite questionable.

Harte

Hypotetically. What traces would be found from our present "intelligent life" 100 million years in the future?
Maybe some pieces of broken glass?

I am not a C14 expert so I have nothing to say about C14. But it looks like you proved my point. My point is C14 cannot be used on fossils of any kind to support a particular evolutionary theory. The popularly known theory of evolution can be wrong. I think intelligent life could have existed before the dinosaurs. I can't prove it but can you prove me wrong?

The reason they are called Aliens is because we think they are not from here. There is no proof that they are from somewhere else.

What kind of evidence do you expect to find? Underground super malls?

Well.........your debate in itself proves you wrong.

Here you have been outrightly bested publicly and still can't say

Wow, thank you, I didn't know that.

No, you keep grasping to the ridiculous idea that Aliens ran the earth a great deal of time ago. Why? Cause it's your idea

I would strongly suggest a quick read through the geology of the earth, how photosynthesis came into being and changed the face of the planet. The Cambrian explosion. The KT event. All this very real evidence points at no civilised creature inhabiting the earth in the past. Not the depiction you describe. The fossil record disagree's with you no matter how you look at it.

I think the reason I felt I needed to respond is not that I see such a ridiculous theory thrown out there, yet when sensibility is thrust under your nose you refute the evidence and argue for a theory that came together in you head. Yet science is wrong?

I just do not understand people like you. You ask for tolerance, yet display none?

And yes, if an Alien civilisation of the magnitude you describe was a possibility I would expect to find underground malls. We find nails from ancient ship builders, the Aliens you hypothesise must have been very neat by habit indeed.

I wouldn't back off just because a few people think it is a crazy theory. It may sound rediculous but it could be true. I am not holding on to it because it is my idea. My mind doesn't work like a child. I think it is a possiblity becasue we don't know enough about the past and nature has strange surprises. Well I think you should stop being sarcastic and stop acting like you know it all. It is very childish. This is just a forum. Don't take it so seriously. Are you crazy? LOL

Calling this theory likely and science wrong is crazy pal.

It is not a few people that disagree, it is the fossil record, rock strata layers etc.
Actually we do know enough aboout the past to see this never happened.

Could you offer a strange example from nature that makes one think this could be a possibility.

I have not acted like I know it all, once again you demonstrate your arrogance and rudeness. I pointed out some well known facts, not rehashed ancient theories regurgutaed at creationist sites.
Are you in here for serious discussion or are you just letting your brain vomit all over your keyboard?
What is childish is outright refusing known fact for outlandish theories.

"Some people I know think that I'm crazy".......................God rest his soul. Perhaps I am. I am talking to you after all.

Good night.

When did I ask you for your tolerance? I don't need your tolerance and who the hell are you to tolerate me? If my post frustrates you don't participate in the discussion. I did not describe an alien civilization of any magnitude. Read my post properly before you respond to my posts.

Every new idea has always been considered ridiculous by people like you. Popular science can always be questioned. Don't act like you are the father of science. I don't think your idea of sensibility needs to be thrust under my nose. Do you go around thrusting your sensibility under peoples noses? Lunatics do that.

Life can exist in the most harsh conditions. I consider my theory as a possibility. There are stupid scientific theories out there and fools like you will believe everything they read without questioning them. Even in the most harsh conditions of earths evolution intelligent life could have evolved. However discussing any topic with tight arsed people like you is a waste of time.

I am surprised that ill mannered crap like you has survived evolution. It is freaks like you who make me wonder if my theory can be right. You sound like kid. If you are a kid take it easy. This is just a fourm. You can prove your point without insulting people

Scientific theories and scientists can be wrong. Scientist are not gods. Science is systematic study. And scientist can fake a lot of things for personal gain. Unless you have investigated fossil record and rock strata layers don't try to push it. I am not in here for a discussion with kids who think they sh** brains. What is childish is assuming you know all the facts and underestimating others.

I don't discuss anything with egotistical, ill mannered people. Just stay away from my posts if it irritates you. If you want to have stupid childish fun act cool and be rude. I reacted rudely because you were rude. You are playing the blame game like a kid. Kiddish games like this don't amuse me.

You are not crazy. You are a kid. I can tell by your sarcasm. Wisdom makes people humble. Arrogance is clear sign of immaturity.

Mate(Mite?) lol...that explains your attitude. Tolerating me are you mite?

Maybe psyche101 was getting me mixed up with you navigator as my signature is "Most people I know think that I'm crazy" as in the song by Billy Thorpe. I also believe aliens were here before dinosaurs, so maybe that's what happened. And Harte was referring to my post when telling me how wrong I was (once more) to possibly think the scientists could have got it wrong in C14 tests. Yes, science can be wrong!! They tell us dinosaurs looked like this and that but no evidence of skin colour was known so drawings always had fanciful colours. No one knows if T Rexs were actually pink but we believe the pictures that tell us they were grey or brown, why?? Cause they tell us so. Much of science is actually guesswork. I put out many ideas that people refute here, I have an open mind and also don't think science knows as much as it thinks it did. So keep your cool navigator, I have learnt to basically listen to but not necessarily believe people who continue to refute my ideas, as far as I'm concerned unless they have a time machine and have been back in time how do they possibly know except by taking the word of scientists. You should hear some of the names I've been called on here, looney was yesterdays word. I have some Raelian beliefs so you can imagine how much flak I cop, it's OK I have a thick hide. By the way nice to see someone else on here who has an open mind and isn't being pushed into a corner by these self proclaimed know it alls. Maybe you would enjoy the Annunaki thread going, we have some very open minded people there willing to discuss some great ideas and theories. Just remember everyone called Copernicus and Galileo nutcases too.

Anyway psyche101 I have seen tonnes of evidence because I believe we humans are the evidence of aliens being here. Many metals corrode and rust away over time, what are you thinking that might be found that would suggest aliens have been here? Some kind of metals? structures? fossils? what exactly do you think we are looking for anyway, what kind of evidence would be the thing that proves to you aliens or humans were here before dinosaurs?? No one has dug up the entire interior of Australia, how do you know the evidence isn't there?? You don't.

Scientific discoveries also are being found each day that changes the course of what we know, how can anyone think that we should have found evidence by now of everything?? In the link here: http://www.scienceinafrica.co.za/2001/nov/ancestor.htm it states this at the end: "What we have learned in the last eight years is that our theories about early human ancestry are anything but set in stone. Any of these new fossil finds are poised to alter our understanding of early human ancestry. They have already extended the breadth of our knowledge both in geographic space and evolutionary time. Will they offer more? Only time will tell. But what is becoming increasingly clear is that we are dealing not with a family tree, but with a bush. Or as Darwin proposed - I think more appropriately - a coral, where the base of the coral is long dead, and only the tips live on."

Also where is all the evidence you should have on how amphibians became dinosaurs? No fossils, I believe, can prove that it happened. Dinosaur the word is very recent, dragons and many other dinosaur type creatures are in many texts all over the world, do you think these are just made up? What about actual evidence that strings together what a dinosaur or human looked like, many times it can be a tooth or even a part tooth and they make up a complete human or animal off this find. Maybe your science isn't as factual as you think.

Let's cut to the chase here; this hypothesis (trust me, this isn't really a theory) has one big hurdle to overcome...evidence. Where is the evidence of these advanced extremely ancient beings? Without evidence this hypothesis can be considered as little more than fiction.

do you think human remains would last 65 million years?....

Did you read my previous post? Here is some of it:
Many metals corrode and rust away over time, what are you thinking that might be found that would suggest aliens have been here? Some kind of metals? structures? fossils? what exactly do you think we are looking for anyway, what kind of evidence would be the thing that proves to you aliens or humans were here before dinosaurs?? No one has dug up the entire interior of Australia, how do you know the evidence isn't there?? You don't.

My question again......what evidence is to be found do you think??

Scientists usually come in two flavours, experimental and theoretical.

The claims made here that there might be intellegence in the dinosaur period could only be a theoretical claim, however even theoretical scientists need to base their ideas on some established facts. We have no evidence that would suggest any intellegence existed before humans, however, we cant prove the converse either. We cant prove that invisible pink unicorns exist or dont exist either.

Either way these kind topics are cool. Great to speculate on.
Myself personally i'm a little suspect as to our history and some of the bulsh** we're been spoon fed about our past in schools, uni's through the media etc about our history/past and who knows maybe even our prehistory?
This may or may not be one of them but science has been wrong before on certain aspects about our history & i'm sure they'll be wrong again in the future when suddenly they come across and discover/rediscover something new...oops!

I'm not sure about the extraterrestrials and the dino's bit who really knows for certain...loved watching The Herculoids as a kid though.

Just my opinion, make of it what you will...

Giant Humans and Dinosaurs
A Historical Lie: The Stone Age
Ancient Mysteries and Human Origins