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

Though your allegations against Science (empirical) are not true. The people who have been wrong are a hybrid sort of historians who like to dabble in science called 'Evolutionist'.They are the ones who hypothesize the suspected timelines along with a few other pseudoscientists regarding the great evolutionary timeline. While criticizing such people you should leave empirical science out of it since it is based on experimentation and is supported by reproducible results and theoretical proof to back the claim (all these things are missing or non-existent when you talk about evolutionists).

I never mentioned anything about pseudoscience. Read my last post again and try to find that word mentioned. It would seem you theorized that's what I meant.

What I stated about the coelacanth is true. They were thought to be extinct until 1938. Google it.

Furthermore, Science doesn't know with 100% certainty that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. It's only theory but they implanted it in the public mind on

that's what happened. I remember a recent thread on this website that some scientist are having second thoughts that it wasn't an asteroid that killed off the

dinos and seem to think it was volcanoes that put them into extinction. My point being is science is always revising there theories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We really don't know unless someone isn't telling. If so I will feel like Burt from Tremors 2 Aftershocks

[media=]

[/media]

What about prototype humans which can be anything as far as I'm concerned? *rolls dice* No evidence yet maybe I think. Perhaps "they" can delete it.

If a dinosaur was manifested at one time then the thread title stands true. That's when modern day humans(us) were here. It's up to us if we want to believe it. Reports are here. I'll keep gambling and say true. :passifier:

There is a gap of 60 million years between modern humans and dinosaurs, the reports are there as well. Gamble as much as you want, that is not going to make it true.

I never mentioned anything about pseudoscience. Read my last post again and try to find that word mentioned. It would seem you theorized that's what I meant.

What I stated about the coelacanth is true. They were thought to be extinct until 1938. Google it.

Furthermore, Science doesn't know with 100% certainty that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. It's only theory but they implanted it in the public mind on that's what happened. I remember a recent thread on this website that some scientist are having second thoughts that it wasn't an asteroid that killed off the dinos and seem to think it was volcanoes that put them into extinction. My point being is science is always revising there theories.

Science went for what seemed the most plausible explanation based on the evidence at hand. which is what science (usually at least) does. Science never says it's 100% correct, we all know that it is constantly being revised and corrected, in order to be the most accurate possible. Science as such is not at fault, it's the human, emotional factor that sometimes does bring difficulty. Lets face it even amongst scientist, people just don't like to be wrong or proven wrong.

And I don't think science "implanted" anything in the public mind, the public mind just was so mesmerized with the idea, that an asteroid could destroy 95% of all life on earth, that it stuck.

And no, I didn't read pseudo-science in your post neither. As to what effectively caused the dinosaurs to go extinct, that's either the impact theory or as you say volcanic activity, by which you probably mean the Deccan Traps (for an explanation of this particular theory, please read here, for an explanation on a more general level of this phenomenon, please read here). Those are the two foremost theories so far.

I've read a rather compelling piece about the first few hours after impact of the asteroid, based on the geological evidence of the impact. I would recommend the read, it's very interesting, if somewhat tedious by times.

I have for the longest of times wondered if it might not have been an cumulative effect of the two, the impact triggering the volcanic activity and both being the cause of the widespread extinction event.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never mentioned anything about pseudoscience. Read my last post again and try to find that word mentioned. It would seem you theorized that's what I meant.

What I stated about the coelacanth is true. They were thought to be extinct until 1938. Google it.

Furthermore, Science doesn't know with 100% certainty that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. It's only theory but they implanted it in the public mind on

that's what happened. I remember a recent thread on this website that some scientist are having second thoughts that it wasn't an asteroid that killed off the

dinos and seem to think it was volcanoes that put them into extinction. My point being is science is always revising there theories.

The coelacanth is not a really good analogue for the dinosaur situation. They are deep-water animals and we don't really have any deep-water fossils simply because the layers that contain them are mostly still underwater. We knew about a number of shallow water coelacanths that went extinct during the K-T event and assumed, due to the lack of evidence, that they were the only ones. Then a deep-water species was found to have survived until recent times and was found around the time when the explorations of the open oceans really started to get going. In contrast, we have an ample fossil record of the terrestrial fauna between the K-T event and our time and we see no sign of non-avian dinosaurs. What we see is the proliferation of mammals and birds that took up the ecological niches that used to be filled by dinosaurs in all parts of the world. If he had a non-avian dinosaur milling around, we would have some proof by now.

Of course, this whole "surviving dinosaurs" nonsense completely bypasses the fact that all extant birds are in fact dinosaurs and is still looking for forms that remained unchanged for 65 million years. This is why young-earth creationists are so invested in all non-avian dinosaur theorising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the Flintstone universe, they did coexist.

Otherwise, not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, they did...dont let anyone tell you different.

That's right don't let fact and evidence sway you. Believe in the fantasy with all your heart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-Snip-

Of course, this whole "surviving dinosaurs" nonsense completely bypasses the fact that all extant birds are in fact dinosaurs and is still looking for forms that remained unchanged for 65 million years. This is why young-earth creationists are so invested in all non-avian dinosaur theorising.

Dammit man, I knew I had forgotten to mention something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The coelacanth is not a really good analogue for the dinosaur situation. They are deep-water animals and we don't really have any deep-water fossils simply because the layers that contain them are mostly still underwater. We knew about a number of shallow water coelacanths that went extinct during the K-T event and assumed, due to the lack of evidence, that they were the only ones. Then a deep-water species was found to have survived until recent times and was found around the time when the explorations of the open oceans really started to get going. In contrast, we have an ample fossil record of the terrestrial fauna between the K-T event and our time and we see no sign of non-avian dinosaurs. What we see is the proliferation of mammals and birds that took up the ecological niches that used to be filled by dinosaurs in all parts of the world. If he had a non-avian dinosaur milling around, we would have some proof by now.

Of course, this whole "surviving dinosaurs" nonsense completely bypasses the fact that all extant birds are in fact dinosaurs and is still looking for forms that remained unchanged for 65 million years. This is why young-earth creationists are so invested in all non-avian dinosaur theorising.

The Coelancanth isn't a good analogue??? It existed with the dinos in the Cretaceous and still exist today. Sounds to me like a personal opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Coelancanth isn't a good analogue??? It existed with the dinos in the Cretaceous and still exist today. Sounds to me like a personal opinion.

I think I know what Clobhair is getting at, since the Coelancanth is in essence a deep water animal it was most likely protected a lot better than surface or shallow water animals. Like he said, we knew about a number of shallow water Coelacanths that went extinct during the K-T event and assumed, due to the lack of evidence, that they were the only ones. Besides deep water exploration is still a very hard thing to do, because of the extremely difficult environment, even now. So imagine, what it would be like for an paleontologist and getting fossils from the sea bottom.

I think that crocodilians would be a better example The largest air-breathing survivors of the KT event were crocodilians and champsosaurs, they were (and crocodilians still are) semi-aquatic and had access to detritus. Modern crocodilians can live as scavengers and can survive for months without food and go into hibernation when conditions are unfavourable, and their young are small, grow slowly, and feed largely on invertebrates and dead organisms or fragments of organisms for their first few years. These characteristics have been linked to crocodilian survival at the end of the Cretaceous.

Is this maybe a better analogue?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Coelancanth isn't a good analogue??? It existed with the dinos in the Cretaceous and still exist today. Sounds to me like a personal opinion.

Basically, they are bad analogues because while we have plenty of post-K-T terrestrial fossil beds to examine, none of which contain a single non-avian dinosaur, we have practically no access to the layers where we could have spotted any signs of surviving coelacanths. We didn't even know that deep-sea coelacanths even existed any time in history until we found two extant species.

Crocodiles are much better, but it has to be stated that even with their remarkable survival adaptations that make them fairly unique among tetrapods, most of them went extinct during the K-T event and only the smallest species managed to survive. Which is also true for dinosaurs, as their smallest and most adaptable variants, birds, are still very much around.

When people talk about surviving dinosaurs, they mean charismatic megafauna, sauropods, large theropods, ceratopsians, while ignoring the fact that we don't really know of any land (or semi-aquatic) animal much larger than a metre in length that survived the K-T event.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science tells us a lot of things and most of us accept what they tell us but science has been proven wrong

on things they say. Such as the Coelacanth. A fish that was suppose to be extinct along with the dinosaurs but they

were rediscovered in 1938 off the coast of S. Africa.

This is a bit misleading since the genetic evidence suggests that the specific species found today, Latimeria menadoensis and Latimeria chalumnae, diverged some 30 - 40 million years ago which greatly post-dates the time of the dinosaurs. The above argument is akin to saying that because Sarcosuchus predated the extinction of the dinosaurs and crocodilians still exist today then all crocodilians are examples of Sarcosuchus. That would be incorrect.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037811190500017X

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never mentioned anything about pseudoscience. Read my last post again and try to find that word mentioned. It would seem you theorized that's what I meant.

What I stated about the coelacanth is true. They were thought to be extinct until 1938. Google it.

Furthermore, Science doesn't know with 100% certainty that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. It's only theory but they implanted it in the public mind on

that's what happened. I remember a recent thread on this website that some scientist are having second thoughts that it wasn't an asteroid that killed off the

dinos and seem to think it was volcanoes that put them into extinction. My point being is science is always revising there theories.

But the extinction of coelacanth was never a scientific fact.I am talking about pseudoscience posing as science. Asteroid crash killing the Dinosaurs is also not a claim made by empirical science....it is a statement made by a hybrid sort of historians who dabble in science.None of the statements that you reject are based on empirical science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never mentioned anything about pseudoscience. Read my last post again and try to find that word mentioned. It would seem you theorized that's what I meant.

What I stated about the coelacanth is true. They were thought to be extinct until 1938. Google it.

Furthermore, Science doesn't know with 100% certainty that an asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. It's only theory but they implanted it in the public mind on

that's what happened. I remember a recent thread on this website that some scientist are having second thoughts that it wasn't an asteroid that killed off the

dinos and seem to think it was volcanoes that put them into extinction. My point being is science is always revising there theories.

Yes, they now think the Deccan Traps caused the atmosphere to deteriorate long before the Chicxulub event., and was already whiping out the dinos (and most other life forms). They now think the asteroid was the finishing blow.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the extinction of coelacanth was never a scientific fact.I am talking about pseudoscience posing as science. Asteroid crash killing the Dinosaurs is also not a claim made by empirical science....it is a statement made by a hybrid sort of historians who dabble in science.None of the statements that you reject are based on empirical science.

It seems though that Science has a competitor (Pseudoscience) just like Science was a competitor to Religion.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dinos and humans still live together: our very own admin Saru is believed to be a dino:

http://www.unexplain...5

:w00t:

Man/Dino/Kitten...a hybrid that trumps even Man/Bear/Pig!

Edited by Lilly
sounds better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the extinction of coelacanth was never a scientific fact.I am talking about pseudoscience posing as science. Asteroid crash killing the Dinosaurs is also not a claim made by empirical science....it is a statement made by a hybrid sort of historians who dabble in science.None of the statements that you reject are based on empirical science.

You're not entirely correct there, the impact theory is actually made by empirical science, as the hypothesis was first proposed by physicist Luis Alvarez (Nobel prize winner btw), his son geologist Walter Alvarez and chemists Frank Asaro and Helen Michel. If I'm not mistaken they posited it in 1980. for the first time.No hybrid sort of historians dabbling in science here.

Sorry but that is most definitely not pseudoscience.

Man/Dino/Kitten...a hybrid that trumps even Man/Bear/Pig!

So Saru is actually a Man/Dino/Kitten? Dayum, I have a hard time picturing that one....... :innocent:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say I have enjoyed paging through this topic. I always find it intriguing hearing about our origins etc.

Talking to a physicist type, some time ago. It was explained to me that everything, yes every single thing, is what we have thought up. Hard to grasp, I enquired further. You cannot actually, truly know anything which you have not witnessed, which means you are influenced by heresay about topics occurring prior to your birth. News is how someone else is saying it is, and education is something which someone in the same boat has decided you are going to believe. At school I did a number of experiments to validate that which I had been taught. After that, there weren't any further experiments, but I believed in science and learned what followed without validation.

Books are footprints of those who passed this way earlier. The reader is a hunter, following the footprints.

Some time ago, I read a book about the evolution of the bird. It is superseded now, but at the time, there were all kinds of experiments about bird flight and so on. It became clear the extent to which science will bend findings to shoehorn everything into the evolution theory. The problem was nil finds of birds, prior to a certain timeline of fossils. Coupled with the earliest fossil of a feather, with identical characteristics to modern bird feathers, being dated almost on top of it. There being no time for evolution.

Later, following a find in China, fresh light was cast on the puzzle, but the answer did not complement evolution theory. It seems that evolution was contracting out to the Chinese and a lot of other places. Different essentials for bird flight was now evolved remotely in different places, on different creatures, even species. So evolution is an economist.

Maybe I do accept evolution, but the point I am making is that evolution should not be taken for granted. It does not make sense for it to exist exclusively. There may, because of the enormity, be overlying, coexisting phenomena, and who knows what influences over time.It is already obvious that we have been evolving ourselves, by forced weddings and so on. Why then could not other creatures have done so. Ants breed mushrooms.

What is so difficult about saying you don't know? At least, surely we can keep open minds, instead of signing, slavishly to theories without being compelled to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not entirely correct there, the impact theory is actually made by empirical science, as the hypothesis was first proposed by physicist Luis Alvarez (Nobel prize winner btw), his son geologist Walter Alvarez and chemists Frank Asaro and Helen Michel. If I'm not mistaken they posited it in 1980. for the first time.No hybrid sort of historians dabbling in science here.

Sorry but that is most definitely not pseudoscience.

So Saru is actually a Man/Dino/Kitten? Dayum, I have a hard time picturing that one....... :innocent:

An asteroid/meteorite impact will leave proofs there is no denying that but that event leading to extinction of all dinosaurs is an unverifiable statement and hence not a part of empirical science.In short it is an unverifiable assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets start another thread that men and big feet are having sex in secret to keep the population alive but being covered up by a branch of the roman catholic church based in the american north west.

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Man did not co-exist with dinosaurs, that concept was created by Fundamentalist Christians to back up their claims of a young earth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, Man did not co-exist with dinosaurs, that concept was created by Fundamentalist Christians to back up their claims of a young earth.

Well i am not a fundamentalist Christian but am still considering the possibility of it being true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. We are talking about an awful lot of time here. Either all life in the here and now existed with the Dinosaur in some form, or there is a new life generator somewhere. I heard yesterday that a new virus had emerged. I'm not sure if that is supposed to mean it spontaneously started to exist or not. No not a humour, because it sure happened at some time in the past. Proof that it is not impossible.

I might be mistaken, but I think the fundamental Christian preaching in some quarters is more profound than suggested, I.e. That the merry ground is as young as Abraham, or thereabouts. A few thousand years. This thinking does not seem to cause them any problems, but is more obviously disputable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An asteroid/meteorite impact will leave proofs there is no denying that but that event leading to extinction of all dinosaurs is an unverifiable statement and hence not a part of empirical science.In short it is an unverifiable assumption.

That still does not make it pseudoscience.

Well i am not a fundamentalist Christian but am still considering the possibility of it being true.

Considering the timing in between the two, it's still impossible though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, Harsh86_Patel, you're still here? Hmm...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, but a very different kind of man and a very different kind of Dinosaur, in fact so different that the "man" of the Dinotime walked on all four, was two inches long and mostly hid underground until nightfall.

Actually the mammals ruled the earth before dinosaurs and the dinor ancestors looked like 2 inch mini t rexes. Then most everything got extincted in a time of severe drought and that began the dinosaur age.

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.