Dinosaur & Human Interaction in Our Times

[teri107]

Dinosaur & Human Interaction in Our Times (the New York Times, LA Times, Chicago Sun Times etc.)

http://article

Charles Darwins book; The Origin of the Species; was written back in 1859. The word dinosaur had been coined a few years earlier, in 1841 by Sir Richard Owen.

I began a review of the dinosaur and man controversy in the press after that time thinking that perhaps the world of science and news reporting would have still been rather naive and innocent for a time and still willing to report things as they were discovered-without the filter and hold that Darwinism currently holds over both.

Actually, the Darwin free honeymoon period proved to be remarkably short, however, scientists did make reports during this period that would ruin the reputation of anyone making such scientific claims today.

Some say that you cant prove a negative; what is true is that when you make a negative proposition, i.e. blue fairies dont exist, the breadth of that statement is universal, while the positive (opposing) side of that argument, i.e. blue fairies do exist only has to be shown to exist in one place in the universe to be correct and to simultaneously prove the negative proposition incorrect.

Another example of this type is the proposition that man and dinosaur never interacted.

http://s8int.com/WordPress/?p=2821

Edited June 7, 2011 by teri107

[Ravinar]

humans of the past did find dinosaur fossils to and where just as capable of putting the pieces together and then imagining what the creature might have looked like. only difference being that we call them dinosaurs and they called them dragons.

[Goodnite]

I don't think that finding a few likenesses of dinos in ancient art qualifies as proving this theory. It be like 50,000 years from now finding footage of "I, Robot" to prove we had robots abounding in our society.

Edited June 7, 2011 by Goodnite

[+DieChecker]

Most of the things in this article have been discussed many times on these forums. Dinosaurs do exist in modern times, but only in the form of Birds. Every single point that has been called out as possibly being a dinosaur in historical art and archeology has turned out to have a much better historic explaination other then dinosaurs. The Ica Stones for instance might have started off as a real cache of objects, but before too long the natives were mass producing them to sell to stupid adventurers who came looking for them. Same goes with most South American dinosaur artifacts. Carbon dating and scratch dating on the pottery and stones has shown them to, for the most part, be modern fakes.

In the early 20th century newspaper sensationalism was still big and thus newspapers would print outrageous claims to sell papers and increase circulation. Little, if any, evidence of any of the earliest stores still exist.

The footprints in stone are simply wear patterns that suggest a human foot.

Edited June 7, 2011 by DieChecker

[thewatchman7]

those statuetes in the article were proven as a fraud were they not?

[ali smack]

how do you dinosaurs don't exist anymore?I don't think they do but how do we know

[thewatchman7]

how do you dinosaurs don't exist anymore?I don't think they do but how do we know

you would need a breeding population.

this would need at least 2-300 at a minimum, and a stable food source.

and with mans spread across the globe im sure we would come across some at one point if they were still about.

good question though.

[aquatus1]

those statuetes in the article were proven as a fraud were they not?

Indeed they were, and they are still being sold today to tourists, along with their sister hoax, the Ica stones.

The most amusing factor of these dinosaurs is that they do not resembles the dinosaurs as we know them to be today, after a half-century of study and learning. Instead, they resemble the dinosaurs that can be found in that era's comic books, including several "dinosaurs" more closely resembling medieval dragons than anything else.

[Rafterman]

Dinosaur & Human Interaction in Our Times (the New York Times, LA Times, Chicago Sun Times etc.)

http://article

Charles Darwins book; The Origin of the Species; was written back in 1859. The word dinosaur had been coined a few years earlier, in 1841 by Sir Richard Owen.

I began a review of the dinosaur and man controversy in the press after that time thinking that perhaps the world of science and news reporting would have still been rather naive and innocent for a time and still willing to report things as they were discovered-without the filter and hold that Darwinism currently holds over both.

Actually, the Darwin free honeymoon period proved to be remarkably short, however, scientists did make reports during this period that would ruin the reputation of anyone making such scientific claims today.

Some say that you cant prove a negative; what is true is that when you make a negative proposition, i.e. blue fairies dont exist, the breadth of that statement is universal, while the positive (opposing) side of that argument, i.e. blue fairies do exist only has to be shown to exist in one place in the universe to be correct and to simultaneously prove the negative proposition incorrect.

Another example of this type is the proposition that man and dinosaur never interacted.

http://s8int.com/WordPress/?p=2821

I would think that the fact that this article is from a young earth creationist blog would answer your question right there. The blogger has a defined agenda, but instead of being able to point to scientific evidence, he has to rely on 100 year old newspaper articles. As bad as journalists are today about sensationalizing stories, they come nowhere near the journalism of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Personally I wouldn't saddle up my Jesus Horse just yet.

Edited June 8, 2011 by Rafterman

[Wookietim]

Dinosaur & Human Interaction in Our Times (the New York Times, LA Times, Chicago Sun Times etc.)

http://article

Charles Darwin’s book; “The Origin of the Species; was written back in 1859. The word “dinosaur” had been coined a few years earlier, in 1841 by Sir Richard Owen.

I began a review of the dinosaur and man controversy in the press after that time thinking that perhaps the world of science and news reporting would have still been rather naive and innocent for a time and still willing to report things as they were discovered-without the filter and hold that Darwinism currently holds over both.

Actually, the Darwin free “honeymoon period” proved to be remarkably short, however, scientists did make reports during this period that would ruin the reputation of anyone making such “scientific” claims today.

Some say that you can’t prove a negative; what is true is that when you make a negative proposition, i.e. “blue fairies don’t exist”, the breadth of that statement is universal, while the positive (opposing) side of that argument, i.e. “blue fairies do exist” only has to be shown to exist in one place in the universe to be correct and to simultaneously prove the “negative proposition” incorrect.

Another example of this type is the proposition that man and dinosaur never interacted.

http://s8int.com/WordPress/?p=2821

Let's count the ways that this is flawed :

1. Little dolls do not equal proof that living dinosaurs and humans co-existed.

2. Complaining about "Darwinism" is a dead giveaway for a less than intelligent piece of writing.

3. Including that the dolls are believed to come from "South Atlantis" adds in an extra level of fantasy to the article.

Shall I continue?

[Pax Unum]

A creationist blog, sources from the 30's, debunked/explainable 'evidence'... How could anyone have doubts?

[Soul Kitchen]

I don't think that finding a few likenesses of dinos in ancient art qualifies as proving this theory. It be like 50,000 years from now finding footage of "I, Robot" to prove we had robots abounding in our society.

But it's different making up something that coincidentally existed in the past, rather than something that is foreseeable in the future.

[Soul Kitchen]

3. Including that the dolls are believed to come from "South Atlantis" adds in an extra level of fantasy to the article.

LOL

I missed that part

[Wookietim]

LOL

I missed that part

Well, you know, it's best of get artifacts from South Atlantis rather than the lower rent North Atlantis...

[Soul Kitchen]

Well, you know, it's best of get artifacts from South Atlantis rather than the lower rent North Atlantis...

Yeah. North Atlantis has never been that appealing.

My friend got mugged there once.

[Wookietim]

Yeah. North Atlantis has never been that appealing.

My friend got mugged there once.

And it's so crowded! All of those Slush-O stands opening up everyplace! And don't get me started on the influx of mermen from Lemuria!

[Soul Kitchen]

And it's so crowded! All of those Slush-O stands opening up everyplace! And don't get me started on the influx of mermen from Lemuria!

Woah... Dude...

You predjudiced against Mermen?

My friend's a Merman.

[Wookietim]

Woah... Dude...

You predjudiced against Mermen?

My friend's a Merman.

It's the illegal mermen - they are taking our jobs! Dur durk a dur! (South park reference for a South Atlantis topic)

[Soul Kitchen]

It's the illegal mermen - they are taking our jobs! Dur durk a dur! (South park reference for a South Atlantis topic)

You don't know what it's like for Mermen. They swim across treacherous ocean just so that they can get a meager paying job to feed their merchildren, and are met with all this unnecessary hate in Atlantis.

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

I believe the opener belives in creationism and is trying to provide something to prove it.

BUT it didn't.

[bunji]

this is a little far fetched but it does have some good points.

the scientific community does tend to poo poo anything that goes against accepted theory. so i actually believe there may indeed be flaws in darwins theory that were proven wrong but ignored. as far as dinosaur and man coexisting or atlantis who knows you can't say its not possible not probable i'd accept. but with no way to check and actually see..... in my opinion the problem with modern science is people take this stand where if its not proven its not real but at the same time they accept certain theories because its the most plausible explanation. theres so much of this planet thats unexplored and so much we don't know. it would be a lot better if people would stop arguing about stupid stuff like this and go out and make new discoveries looking for the truth. instead of chewing old fat and arguing about who's right or wrong.

[The Skeptic Eric Raven]

this is a little far fetched but it does have some good points.

the scientific community does tend to poo poo anything that goes against accepted theory. so i actually believe there may indeed be flaws in darwins theory that were proven wrong but ignored. as far as dinosaur and man coexisting or atlantis who knows you can't say its not possible not probable i'd accept. but with no way to check and actually see..... in my opinion the problem with modern science is people take this stand where if its not proven its not real but at the same time they accept certain theories because its the most plausible explanation. theres so much of this planet thats unexplored and so much we don't know. it would be a lot better if people would stop arguing about stupid stuff like this and go out and make new discoveries looking for the truth. instead of chewing old fat and arguing about who's right or wrong.

Hmmmmm. No.

[Mike G]

But it's different making up something that coincidentally existed in the past, rather than something that is foreseeable in the future.

Plus there are in fact tons of robots around in society these days. Automation is everywhere.