Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2
Harsh86_Patel

Did man and dinosaur co-exist?

478 posts in this topic

They certainly don't look at all that different. All facts are a matter of interpretation. Two different lines you say? In my opinion, they are the same line only less robust. But nevertheless, still extremely impressive dinosaur specimens. They are less robust and smaller probably because their larger prey went extinct.

Since the etymology of the word dinosaur is "terrible lizard" than what else are crocodiles only terrible lizards, they are hardly pretty lizards.

Your opinion isn't the one that matters here. Like I said they belong to two completely different lines. Crocodilians to Crocodylomorpha and dinosaurs to Dinosauromorpha.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its kind of cool really, most trolls don't hang around for 157 posts. truly an enigma!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your opinion isn't the one that matters here. Like I said they belong to two completely different lines. Crocodilians to Crocodylomorpha and dinosaurs to Dinosauromorpha.

cormac

Citing from mainstrean again and wanting people to blindly obide by the opinions and interpretations of others. So predictable.

I strongly disagree with your theory cited from mainstream so called research.

Crocodylomorpha, crocodiles or whatever you want to call them, lived in the time of the Dinosaurs, they looked like their fellow giant lizards and hunted like them. To seperate them from dinosaurs in not very scientific. Crocodilians are related to Crocodylomorpha, and the latter is a remnant of the dinosaur era. Therefore crocodilians or whatever you want to call them are a continuum and are related to fellow giant ancestral lizards of the dinosaur era.

Seperating them from dinosaurs and calling crocidilians archosaurs is hypocritical, given the fact that the word "dinosaur means terrible lizard" They are still ferocious lizards like T-REX was. Crocodiles can take down huge prey.

Their skeletal structure and ferocity even resembles T-REX. But hey whatever floats your boat, disagree all you like, you won't change my opinion, so keep citing other peoples theories.

Sebecus_icaeorhinus.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its kind of cool really, most trolls don't hang around for 157 posts. truly an enigma!

So posters are considered a troll if they don't accept mainstream theories? I am a troll for suggesting that crocodiles look and act like dinosaurs and for suggesting that to seperate them into a different category from dinosaurs is non scientific? Wow, thats interesting to say the least.

Well if that makes someone a troll in your book, then you are rather intolerant of alternative opinions. What are you afraid of? alternative history perhaps?

Read the forum title, "Ancient Mysteries And Alternative History" yes alternative history should be allowed to be expressed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Citing from mainstrean again and wanting people to blindly obide by the opinions and interpretations of others. So predictable.

I strongly disagree with your theory cited from mainstream so called research.

Crocodylomorpha, crocodiles or whatever you want to call them, lived in the time of the Dinosaurs, they looked like their fellow giant lizards and hunted like them. To seperate them from dinosaurs in not very scientific. Crocodilians are related to Crocodylomorpha, and the latter is a remnant of the dinosaur era. Therefore crocodilians or whatever you want to call them are a continuum and are related to fellow giant ancestral lizards of the dinosaur era.

Seperating them from dinosaurs and calling crocidilians archosaurs is hypocritical, given the fact that the word "dinosaur means terrible lizard" They are still ferocious lizards like T-REX was. Crocodiles can take down huge prey.

Their skeletal structure and ferocity even resembles T-REX. But hey whatever floats your boat, disagree all you like, you won't change my opinion, so keep citing other peoples theories.

Sebecus_icaeorhinus.JPG

Far be it for me to prevent you from being willfully ignorant. Must make you very happy. :yes:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So posters are considered a troll if they don't accept mainstream theories? I am a troll for suggesting that crocodiles look and act like dinosaurs and for suggesting that to seperate them into a different category from dinosaurs is non scientific? Wow, thats interesting to say the least.

Well if that makes someone a troll in your book, then you are rather intolerant of alternative opinions. What are you afraid of? alternative history perhaps?

Read the forum title, "Ancient Mysteries And Alternative History" yes alternative history should be allowed to be expressed.

Nah, bro - I'm fine with alternative history. I do find your continued assertion that "all facts are open to interpretation" rather trollish and fringe-y. Essentially its a get-out-of-jail-free card, a blank check that indicates that you never really bothered to learn much of anything. Only that you are skilled at making **** up as you go. Which is totally entertaining, in a trollish sort of way.

And actually I'm also fine with your opinions. You are certainly entitled to them. However there is a distinction between "fact" and "opinion" that it seems you don't quite grasp, or you refuse to acknowledge...tough to tell the difference.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nah, bro - I'm fine with alternative history. I do find your continued assertion that "all facts are open to interpretation" rather trollish and fringe-y. Essentially its a get-out-of-jail-free card, a blank check that indicates that you never really bothered to learn much of anything. Only that you are skilled at making **** up as you go. Which is totally entertaining, in a trollish sort of way.

And actually I'm also fine with your opinions. You are certainly entitled to them. However there is a distinction between "fact" and "opinion" that it seems you don't quite grasp, or you refuse to acknowledge...tough to tell the difference.

The mainstream does not make up things as they go along? They are always right without question? To challenge their theories risks being labelled as trollish and fringe-y? thats really funny.

Definition of the word Fringe: Those members of a group or political party holding extreme views:

Now who is being extreme. You pull out the troll and fringe card if i express different views from the mainstream and other posters citing from the mainstream theories and blindly accepting them as the end all and be all of everything.

By the way, there is sometimes little difference between facts and opinions, Facts are an interpretation that not everyone has to believe.

One definition of the word Fact: a truth verifiable from experience or observation.

Peoples experiences and observation can and will differ, so facts can be open to interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not everyone has to obide by your opinion.

In my opinion, crocodiles are dinosaurs, the etymology of the word dinosaur is "terrible lizard" modern day crocodiles have the exact same type of shape as ancient crocodiles, only smaller. When their prey got smaller so did the terrible lizards (crocodile). Their hunting also remains unchanged, they hide in water and then ambush unsuspecting prey that need to consume water for sustenance.

Aegisuchus is an extinctgenus of giant, flat-headed crocodyliform within the family Aegyptosuchidae. That is a dinosaur and modern day crocodiles still resemble them

aesthetically. They are related as you say. Crocodiles are a continuum of more ancient dinosaurs, the terrible lizards et cetera.

Just because the word "dinosaur" happens to be derived from the Greek for "terrible lizard" doesn't mean that any reptile you deem "terrible" qualifies as a dinosaur. Both Dinosauria and Crocodylomorpha are branches of the lineage called Archosauria; archosaurs alive today include crocodilians and birds (the latter of which are the only living descendants of the Dinosauria clade). Birds (class Aves) are the sole clade of Dinosauria to have survived past c. 63Ma BP. Crurotarsians (the clade which includes crocodylomorphs and their relatives) diverged from the ancestors of the clade Avemetatarsalia some time during the Upper Permian [253.8 ± 0.7 Ma - 253.8 ± 0.7 Ma].

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archosauria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crurotarsi

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosauria#Evolutionary_history

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because the word "dinosaur" happens to be derived from the Greek for "terrible lizard" doesn't mean that any reptile you deem "terrible" qualifies as a dinosaur. Both Dinosauria and Crocodylomorpha are branches of the lineage called Archosauria; archosaurs alive today include crocodilians and birds (the latter of which are the only living descendants of the Dinosauria clade). Birds (class Aves) are the sole clade of Dinosauria to have survived past c. 63Ma BP. Crurotarsians (the clade which includes crocodylomorphs and their relatives) diverged from the ancestors of the clade Avemetatarsalia some time during the Upper Permian [253.8 ± 0.7 Ma - 253.8 ± 0.7 Ma].

http://en.wikipedia....iki/Archosauria

http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Crurotarsi

http://en.wikipedia....tionary_history

There you go, confusing people with facts again. :lol:

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The mainstream does not make up things as they go along?

No... that's why it's called "mainstream science". You might familiarize yourself with a little something called peer review.

They are always right without question? To challenge their theories risks being labelled as trollish and fringe-y? thats really funny.

No, not necessarily.

Definition of the word Fringe: Those members of a group or political party holding extreme views:

Now who is being extreme. You pull out the troll and fringe card if i express different views from the mainstream and other posters citing from the mainstream theories and blindly accepting them as the end all and be all of everything.

How is it any better that you blindly disbelieve the mainstream? Incidentally, for those of us who are scientifically literate (or, such as myself and others here: actual scientists), no "blind acceptance" is necessary. Blind acceptance, indeed, is very stupid. Fortunately though, science, and those of us who comprehend it, needn't ever involve blind acceptance of anything.

By the way, there is sometimes little difference between facts and opinions, Facts are an interpretation that not everyone has to believe.

One definition of the word Fact: a truth verifiable from experience or observation.

Peoples experiences and observation can and will differ, so facts can be open to interpretation.

You're being a bit... fluid with the definition, aren't you? You honestly mean to tell me you don't know what a fact in science is? Examples: evolution, gravity, conservation of energy, the speed of light, heliocentricity, etc. Now, please don't tell me you're going to claim that any of these are "open to interpretation"... Yes, the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. There'll be no contesting that, unless you can make a measurement of a photon moving faster (which, incidentally, will have to be checked by peer review before it could really be considered "reinterpreting" the fact of luminal velocity).

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because the word "dinosaur" happens to be derived from the Greek for "terrible lizard" doesn't mean that any reptile you deem "terrible" qualifies as a dinosaur.

It qualifies them for dinosaur in my opinion. I don't really care about your opinion or any other mainstream opinion on the matter. I also don't care for your idea of mainstream science, as i believe mainstream science is not real science, its an abomination.

Since i have covered and expressed my opinion on this thread, and believe that dinosaurs still exist, it shall be my last post on the thread, i do not see the point in arguing back in forth with people who are ignorant of my views. I'm not going to try to convince you that crocodiles are dinosaurs, their appearance in of itself qualifies as dinosaur in my opinion. Going around in circles might be a hobby of the mainstream and their supporters, but i find it boring arguing with skeptics and pontificating posters who boast about their so called credentials.

Feel free to discredit my theory, quite frankly i believe you and others on the thread are putting forth a straw-man argument. An argument that i do not see any reason in entertaining. .

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It qualifies them for dinosaur in my opinion. I don't really care about your opinion or any other mainstream opinion on the matter. I also don't care for your idea of mainstream science, as i believe mainstream science is not real science, its an abomination.

Since i have covered and expressed my opinion on this thread, and believe that dinosaurs still exist, it shall be my last post on the thread, i do not see the point in arguing back in forth with people who are ignorant of my views. I'm not going to try to convince you that crocodiles are dinosaurs, their appearance in of itself qualifies as dinosaur in my opinion. Going around in circles might be a hobby of the mainstream and their supporters, but i find it boring arguing with skeptics and pontificating posters who boast about their so called credentials.

Feel free to discredit my theory, quite frankly i believe you and others on the thread are putting forth a straw-man argument. An argument that i do not see any reason in entertaining. .

Don't give up.Seems that you have not sold your critical mental faculties to the mainstream.Hope to see more posters like you on UM with their own original views and theories.Without people like you UM would be very dry.Seems like you have been given the same welcome by the Snide Mainstream Parrots that every other free thinking member has been subjected to,i would suggest you ignore them and put your views forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It qualifies them for dinosaur in my opinion. I don't really care about your opinion or any other mainstream opinion on the matter. I also don't care for your idea of mainstream science, as i believe mainstream science is not real science, its an abomination.

Since i have covered and expressed my opinion on this thread, and believe that dinosaurs still exist, it shall be my last post on the thread, i do not see the point in arguing back in forth with people who are ignorant of my views. I'm not going to try to convince you that crocodiles are dinosaurs, their appearance in of itself qualifies as dinosaur in my opinion. Going around in circles might be a hobby of the mainstream and their supporters, but i find it boring arguing with skeptics and pontificating posters who boast about their so called credentials.

Feel free to discredit my theory, quite frankly i believe you and others on the thread are putting forth a straw-man argument. An argument that i do not see any reason in entertaining. .

So if x looks like y, we can just assume all x's are y's

Dogs resemble cats. From now on, all dogs are really cats because they look similar.

Hmm... better put raccoons and opossums in there under the cat label, too, since they walk on all fours and have tails.

Just to be safe, lets call all four legged animals with tails cats.

Take that , mainstream science! You and your 'facts' can go straight to hell!!!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The difference is that you are claiming, from a position of ignorance, that the opinions of all the trained experts in the world are false because you and a bunch of ideologically motivated lunatics on the internet say so.

You and many others seem to think that you are superior and your ideologies are better then others.

Tell me who trains the so called trained experts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It qualifies them for dinosaur in my opinion.

Which is meaningless. Opinion is not fact.

Sure, you can have the opinion that crocodiles should be dinosaurs; that doesn't make them dinosaurs. Nothing will ever make them dinosaurs. By the definition of dinosaur as it has been used for centuries, crocodiles simply do not qualify.

I don't really care about your opinion or any other mainstream opinion on the matter. I also don't care for your idea of mainstream science, as i believe mainstream science is not real science, its an abomination.

And that is how we know you are a troll.

So, to you: Science... is not "real science"? Interesting...

As I said: your reliance on blind disbelief in the "mainstream" is no less pathetic than blind acceptance of the same.

Since i have covered and expressed my opinion on this thread, and believe that dinosaurs still exist, it shall be my last post on the thread, i do not see the point in arguing back in forth with people who are ignorant of my views. I'm not going to try to convince you that crocodiles are dinosaurs, their appearance in of itself qualifies as dinosaur in my opinion. Going around in circles might be a hobby of the mainstream and their supporters, but i find it boring arguing with skeptics and pontificating posters who boast about their so called credentials.

Excuse me, as I laugh... Biology doesn't care about whether a crocodile "looks like" a dinosaur to you... the fact remains that they are not in the same category.

Feel free to discredit my theory, quite frankly i believe you and others on the thread are putting forth a straw-man argument. An argument that i do not see any reason in entertaining. .

You're causing me to question whether you know what "straw-man" even means in this context... You made a claim, and I disproved it... that is in no way a straw-man argument. It's a statement of fact. Oh, sorry, I forgot... you don't like facts...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't give up.Seems that you have not sold your critical mental faculties to the mainstream.Hope to see more posters like you on UM with their own original views and theories.Without people like you UM would be very dry.Seems like you have been given the same welcome by the Snide Mainstream Parrots that every other free thinking member has been subjected to,i would suggest you ignore them and put your views forward.

There's a very clear distinction between being critical and being delusional... Being skeptical, and questioning claims before believing them, that's very healthy... Disbelieving something for the sole reason that experts who have actually studied it for hundreds or thousands of years believe it is just willful ignorance.

Putting views forward is fine too... putting forward views, having them challenged, and then putting them forward again is, again, just willful ignorance.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You and many others seem to think that you are superior and your ideologies are better then others.

Indeed... for one very simple reason: ours are verified scientifically, and yours aren't. Capisce? It isn't hard... We would have no quarrel with you if you actually put forward claims that were tenable.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering dinosaurs and humans lives millions of years apart? no.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You and many others seem to think that you are superior and your ideologies are better then others.

Tell me who trains the so called trained experts?

Other experts, who work at universities around the world. During their training, they are thought to critically view all ideas and spend most of their lives trying to disprove other people's findings and to uncover something radically new.

And no-one but you is talking about ideologies. We are talking about evidence-based facts.

It qualifies them for dinosaur in my opinion. I don't really care about your opinion or any other mainstream opinion on the matter. I also don't care for your idea of mainstream science, as i believe mainstream science is not real science, its an abomination.

Fortunately science and facts don't care about what individuals believe. Can you provide any evidence for your statements?

Since i have covered and expressed my opinion on this thread, and believe that dinosaurs still exist, it shall be my last post on the thread, i do not see the point in arguing back in forth with people who are ignorant of my views. I'm not going to try to convince you that crocodiles are dinosaurs, their appearance in of itself qualifies as dinosaur in my opinion.

So, are Tasmanian tigers dogs? Are Ichthyosaurs dolphins? Would you consider a bat to be a bird or an echidna a hedgehog?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gods.. please dont tell me.. there are still people that actually believe that humans and dino's lived at the same time?

good grief people.. its the 21st century.. time to put the dark age thoughts away and come join us in reality..

this is just as bad as the whole ancient aliens beliefs lol..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know recent studies have shown that evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics never happened,the genes that give antibiotic resistance were found in bacterial cultures taken from very old frozen stocks before we started wide scale use of particular antibiotics.This means that some bacteria always had resistance to these antibiotics and over the period of time our constant use of antibiotics has killed the rest but the one's which 'always had the resistance genes' are the ones alive and multiplying.

Though the example yoiu gave shows that you are ready to think,since you don't like creationist website which have hence 'the bible is right' inference,here are a few more issues you can look into.

http://www.programme...ion_issues.html

Even if it is the case that every single gene that leads to antibiotic resistance already existed, what you are describing is evolution. Your example is a perfect example of allelic frequency changing over time and natural selection. It really helps to know a little bit about what you are trying to discuss.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crocodylomorpha, crocodiles or whatever you want to call them, lived in the time of the Dinosaurs, they looked like their fellow giant lizards and hunted like them. To seperate them from dinosaurs in not very scientific. Crocodilians are related to Crocodylomorpha, and the latter is a remnant of the dinosaur era. Therefore crocodilians or whatever you want to call them are a continuum and are related to fellow giant ancestral lizards of the dinosaur era.

Huge insects also lived in that era, hence dragonflies are dinosaurs as well.

Seperating them from dinosaurs and calling crocidilians archosaurs is hypocritical, given the fact that the word "dinosaur means terrible lizard" They are still ferocious lizards like T-REX was.

Their fossils don't have the word "dinosaur" printed on them, so why is tthe use of this term not hypocritical in the way that the use of the term "Ancient Egyptian" is?

Their skeletal structure and ferocity even resembles T-REX.

While some dinosaurs have skeletal structures that slightly resemble a few bones in crocs, the one you're talking about (T Rex) was dissimilar in a very high degree.

For example, T Rex had the pelvic bone (and feet) of a bird. T Rex walked on two upright legs while croc's four legs are splayed out to the side.

The differences in the teeth are striking. Croc's teeth are round, while T Rex teeth are triangular in cross section.

The jaw is completely different, as is the skull structure (front-facing rather than upward facing eye sockects, the number of plates making up the cranium and where they fuse, etc.

Turns out that you are only displaying your own ignorance here. You claim a thing is a certain way only because you are ignorant of the facts and too lazy to spend the time discovering what is known.

I get the lazy part, BTW.

Harte

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if it is the case that every single gene that leads to antibiotic resistance already existed, what you are describing is evolution. Your example is a perfect example of allelic frequency changing over time and natural selection. It really helps to know a little bit about what you are trying to discuss.

My point was there was no new gene that had '"evolved".I have no beef with variation and natural selection,but these processes leading to class transitions is something i can't digest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It always amuses me to watch the religion of science followers bash the creationists or whoever else doesnt fully agree with what they believe. The pot never seems to get aquinted with the kettle does it. Science is ever evolving. What we knew to be facts 50 years ago have been proven to be false by today.

Seems to me Harsh just asks the questions alot of people have and has an immense amount of patience. Rock on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me Harsh just asks the questions alot of people have and has an immense amount of patience. Rock on.

The issue is that he asks the questions and then ignores the answers.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 2

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.