How did we survive the dinosaur era?

[Rykster]

The point is, we did survive. Otherwise, a cockroach would be responding to your post.

[ShaunZero]

haha, so says your conditioned brain. But in fact you are wrong. Just because an idiot scientist says something does that mean you're going to believe him? It wasn't too long ago these evolutionalists were saying grass didn't exist back then either.....AND THEN, they find grass remains in fossilized dino poo. The evolutionalsists are wrong on just about everything they talk about. They can't even get their story straight on how the so called exticntion event took place!!! And you people just nod your heads and agree with them?!?!

First they say an asteriod did everything in; then they say no a climate change or ice age; then they say no it was volcanos; then they say no they became birds; then they say no it was an asteriod and volcanos that were triggered by the asteriod; then they say no it was just volcanos again. I mean come on!!!!

First they say no grass-then we find grass.

They say dinos were cold blooded and sluggish-then we find they were warm blooded and not sluggish.

First they say sauropods couldn't even support their own weight and that they must have spent all their time in water-then we find migration tracks through mountains.

They say T-Rex was the biggest meat eating dino-then we see they're wrong about that too.

They say Megalodon died off around 4 to 3 million years ago-then people find Megalodon teeth only a few thousand years old washed up on a beach.

First they say giant squids don't exist at all-then they start washing up on our beaches.

They say all life forms slowly evolved from a different life form-yet no proof AT ALL has ever been shown to prove this.

The fact is, the entire evolutionist theory is flawed. They claim that animals slowly evole into other life forms by random changes in dna because of enviornment circumstances. BUT ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT TWO ANIMALS AT THE EXACT SAME TIME ARE BORN WITH THIS SAME EVOLUTIONARY MUTATION IN ORDER FOR THOSE TWO ANIMALS TO BREED AND MAKE A NEW LIFE FORM?!?!?! ARE YOU F'N KIDDING ME?!?! Even if one species may have mutated, what are the chances that another of it's original species would mutate in the same way, at the same time, and in the same vicinity as the other one??? It's is complete retardidness! Evolution can't explain the vast stagnation (as they would call it) of species in the fossil record, nor can they come up with ANY missing links for ANY species in history!

It all comes down to what came first, the chicken or the egg? Evolutionists would say egg. But once that egg grows up, what does it do when there aren't any other grown up eggs???? In order for something to continue (in above micro animals) there has to be at least two, i.e the Chicken came first followed by another created one of its' kind. Evolution is false, plain and simple. Creation is the truth, plain and simple.

Very true. We can only think we got things the right way given the current data. We can't really know for sure unless we were there, so evolutionists need to quit bashing people who don't agree with the Theory. I mean come on! Next thing they'll say is that humans came from poop!

I am being dead serious, I actualy laughed out loud when reading your post. I'm not laughing at you, I'm laughing at the way those evolutionists kept getting sh** wrong.

Edited February 22, 2006 by ZeroShadow

[JeremyGTS]

ummm the only ones bashing here are the creationist. now me i just want to ask a question did any of you go to a christian private school or public school? a little off topic but it will fit.

[ShaunZero]

Not me.

[capeo]

Wow, Essence, you don't understand science and evolutionary theory in any shape or form do you? Evolution's fundamental genetic mechanisms have been proven in laboratory research. Everything you posted is absolute rubbish. There's never been an anomalous fossil found, ever. The megalodon teeth you speak of were dated using manganese encrustation, an extremely inaccurate dating method because the teeth are already fossilized prior to encrustation, and the owners of them won't allow them to be actually dated using modern methods. Then you mention petroglyphs and the Ica stones? The Ica stones were a proven hoax in the seventies. Local village stone cutters regularly make them. Petroglyphs are simple shapes that can be interpreted to be anything you want. You also state that ancient people wouldn't be able extrapolate what an animal looked like from bones. That's patently false. Ancient people butchered animals regularly and had a great understanding of how bones fit together. A fossil found on the surface does not require a hundred feet of digging to see it. It would be on a surface strata and easily uncovered. I have know idea what you mean by ancient people having no "digging technology" when gatherers regularly dug up tubers from the ground as a staple food in just about every ancient culture. All this is beside the point really as the fossil record shows clearly lines of descent from one morphological form to the next.

You bring up the common creationist argument of transitional fossils displaying even further the complete lack of scientific understanding that creationists consistently display. There is no such thing as a transitional fossil or missing link, or better said, everything is a transitional fossil as every creature found is a snapshot of it's natural selection up to that point in time. You also display your complete lack of comprehension of genetics when you put forth idea of how things evolve. There's nothing in evolution that says two different species mutate and then breed to form a new species. Read a book. The mutations are within a species and extremely minor and do not interfere with breeding within that species but the accumulation within an isolated population of that species of allele frequency changes selected by the environment, whether social or environmental, leads to a point where said population can no longer breed with the population most closely related to it and it is thus a new species. There's no such thing as "stagnation". An animal whose environment has never changed would have mutations selected out and remain the same, though this really never happens as at least size variation is common in ancient surviving family such as Crocodylidae. The taxonomy of animals is quite clear from the fossil record and now especially aided by genetics in relation to living species.

As for paleontologists and geologists revising their theories? That's science not dogma! That's the point, revising theories as new evidence comes forward and that's the beauty of science. What you fail to mention is that these revisions are being based on finds that are still 65+ million years old and completely congruous with know finds. No anomalies. I've studied comparative religion and theology as well as biology. I'd recommend you do the same and get your science from someplace other than creationist websites before you try to disprove theories you don't even understand.

[Guardsman Bass]

Furthermore, even if they somehow dug hundreds of feet underground (expending lots of man power for no real reason) and found dino bones, and even if they somehow managed to lay them out on the ground in the right order, how would they be able to decipher their physical appearances? Not just shape, but physical features like skin, frills, and the way in which the animals stood and moved??? And where exactly are these excavated remains now?? If all these people were digging up dinosaur bones, and if they gave their excavations such importance that they drew them, why wouldn't they save the originals somewhere that we would be finding along side their panitings????

Essence, I'm surprised you didn't see the irony in your own statement; i.e., claiming that the scientists are full of crap because they can't possibly decipher the physical features of dinosaurs from fossilized bones (even though there are ways to find out how the muscles connected to the bone, and so forth), then going on to make the claim that a vague picture of a four-legged creature standing on its hind legs, with a tail, is an edmontosaurus. The picture is profoundly vague; I think it is more likely that it is a picture of one of the giant sloths that existed in the Ice Age period, who DID occasionally stand on their hind legs, and reached nearly 20 feet tall in the largest.

Edited February 22, 2006 by Guardsman Bass

[capeo]

Here, Essence, read:

From a christian on radiometric dating and earth's age:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html#page%2010

Observed instances of speciation:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Transitional fossils not missing:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq%2Dtransitional.html

On "anomalous" (read hoaxed) fossils:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_anomaly.html

A metasite full of links about hominid evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

A site that defines many of the absurdities of a literal reading of scripture:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/don...gan/absurd.html

And lastly creation "scientists" contradicting each other and finally admiting that they were wrong or intentionaly mislead (you'll note your fake footprints in there as well as completely fabricated items):

http://www.darwin.ws/contradictions/

Your dino-heart (or not):

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/291/5505/783a

Though the right kind of sedimentation can preserve soft parts, it doesn't do so selectively.

Just read a bit.

Edited February 22, 2006 by capeo

[5aret]

Wow. This is like a debate.

I personally believe that the dinosaurs and man did not live together. Carbon dating and logic have told us this. O and by the way, I am a Christian.

[capeo]

Wow. This is like a debate.

I personally believe that the dinosaurs and man did not live together. Carbon dating and logic have told us this. O and by the way, I am a Christian.

Actually, not to be a stickler but C-14 dating is useless for dating fossils (it only goes back 50,000 years). Radiometric dating of the strata it's found in is what is needed in such a case.

The c-14 dating Essence refered to was a trick played on the lab and was long ago tossed out. Creationists sent fossil bone fragments to be tested and lied about their origin. The results garnered were from carboniferous inclusions in the stone and poor handling of the items prior to the lab reciveing them. The lab noted the inclusions in their tests and assumed this is what they were dating. These results have since been used on unscrupulous websites but some of the more honest creationist sights have retracted them.

[DAPRS]

Wow. This is like a debate.

I personally believe that the dinosaurs and man did not live together. Carbon dating and logic have told us this. O and by the way, I am a Christian.

I am a graphic artist, I have been working with photos for more than 5 years, and I must say that the photos on the site and above are certainly not that old, I would say roughly 5 to 10 years old, based on research gathered from Authentic cave paintings compared to the actual photos and using an age verifying technique used to date photos.

My theory is that Dinosaurs and humans lived during separate times, but the earth is not as old as geologists say it is. I believe the earth is, at max, 1 million years old.

This is my opinion.

[5aret]

I am a graphic artist, I have been working with photos for more than 5 years, and I must say that the photos on the site and above are certainly not that old, I would say roughly 5 to 10 years old, based on research gathered from Authentic cave paintings compared to the actual photos and using an age verifying technique used to date photos.

My theory is that Dinosaurs and humans lived during separate times, but the earth is not as old as geologists say it is. I believe the earth is, at max, 1 million years old.

This is my opinion.

That sounds about right. I dont think Carbon dating is relialble beyond the 50,00 year mark as it violates the laws of entrepony (1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics)

[capeo]

That sounds about right. I dont think Carbon dating is relialble beyond the 50,00 year mark as it violates the laws of entrepony (1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics)

C-14 goes back 50,000 years but K-Ar and many other radiometric dating techniques go back billions of years and thousands upon thousands of independent tests all over the world all correlate within a few percent of each other. It has absolutely nothing to do with thermodynamics. Thermodynamics is also incorrectly understood by and thus used by creationists. The second law of thermodynamics is about spontaneous heat flow or, more generally, about the impossibility to perform useful work indefinitely in a closed system. It has nothing to do with information nor complexity as is so often stated by creationists. We do not live in a closed system as the earth is constantly gaining energy from the sun and its internal heat (both of which will eventually dissipate).

[5aret]

Oh, ok. I didnt know that Earth was an open system. Thanks. Well actually i knew, but I forgot. But then I didnt know.... oh this is confusin me..

[capeo]

Oh, ok. I didnt know that Earth was an open system. Thanks. Well actually i knew, but I forgot. But then I didnt know.... oh this is confusin me..

Sorry, I don't mean to be confusing

[5aret]

No problem at all.

[Nethius]

The site I got the picture from doesn't give the specific date of that picture. But it cleary indicated that it was done by the aboriginal peoples. Noting the fact that they must have really hunted those creatures because the painting even shows the digestional track of the creature. The site cites a lot of books as the source of the real life pictures of ancient peoples. The book given credit for that particular one is the "CEN Technical Journal, VOL.12, No. 3, 1998, p 354"

Saying they are from aboriginals says nothing, it could have been painted yesterday. Your book says nothing of the date, then how can you use it in your argument?

The fact is you probably won't find many things about these discoveries on mainstream archealogical web sites because they won't even look at the evidence.

Why not? Since when is archeology against religion? Please show me where you get your info, cause I never heard of this.

Claiming the depictions are something else, misinterpratations, a hoax, or that (like you said) they must have dug up fossils and put them together. If they only knew how laughable that was!

Laughable becasue it's very possibly true?

Are you telling me that people with no modern means of digging stumbled upon a bone on the ground one day and suddenly thought to himself this must be different from all the other dead animal bones left behind by predators, lets dig hunderds of feet into the ground and find the rest of the bones and then reconstruct the animal....come on!!!

Yea, why not? A skull 10 times bigger then any other he's seen before would most definately grab his interest. They don't need to reconstruct to get a general idea. There have been lots of big fossils found near the surface or on the sides of cliffs.

Even if people did find some bones on the surface of the ground they wouldn't likely find all of them, nor would they put them together properly.

That's why some look like dragons or what not.

As a matter of fact, a scietist using that as an excuse for dino depcitions underminds their claims that the whole reason people think dragons were real is because they found bones and reconstructed them improperly! So which is it? Are they putting bones together wrong or right? Why don't they make up their minds?!?!

Some may have been put together wrong and others correctly. Why do you think that is impossible? If you do 10 puzzles and get one wrong, it doesn't make the other 9 you did wrong as well.

Furthermore, even if they somehow dug hundreds of feet underground (expending lots of man power for no real reason) and found dino bones, and even if they somehow managed to lay them out on the ground in the right order, how would they be able to decipher their physical appearances? Not just shape, but physical features like skin, frills, and the way in which the animals stood and moved??? And where exactly are these excavated remains now??

Alot of guess work, that's why some look like dragons.

If all these people were digging up dinosaur bones, and if they gave their excavations such importance that they drew them, why wouldn't they save the originals somewhere that we would be finding along side their panitings????

Becasue I doubt too many were actually dug up, I bet most were found near the surface or on the sides of cliffs. Also it may have been a few generations earlier that found the fossils, and the next generation just copies what the previous drew.

Those cave paintings, and figurines were really excavated and found. Even if modern evolutionists refuse to look at them.

It's not that they refuse to look at them, it's that you refuse to listen.

There's no disputting the cave paintings dug up by archeologists or the Ican burial stones found in ancient tombs that haven't been opened until that point, or the thousands of figurines found that no group of hoaxers could fake. And I didn't even post all the pictures of this stuff that I've found.

I searched for these things and the only sites I found that even mentioned them are creation web sites or postings like these. If this is indeed true there must be papers on them somewhere. Please provide a source, as that will probably answer the question.

Here's another picture of a Native American Petroglyph found in Arizona's Havasupai Canyon. The left is the original outlined in white to be easily seen and the right is a modern artistic depiction of an edmontosaurus.

Sorry that could be "outline" anything, do you think they had that picture and copied it? Or you think they thought... hey, lets make a drawing of this creature, but instead of having it front on or to the side, I want a nicely angled drawing coming from the back?

Haven't had time (and don't now) to go over any posts after the one I quoted, but I'll be checking back soon.

Edited February 22, 2006 by Nethius

[5aret]

[ShaunZero]

I'm not saying I disagree with everything you guys are saying. But I have to say that those pictures are not vague AT ALL. It's pretty insane to say they are.

[Rykster]

Perhaps mankind predates our current theory. Perhaps we did walk with the dinos. That still does not throw a need for gawds into the mix.

[capeo]

I'm not saying I disagree with everything you guys are saying. But I have to say that those pictures are not vague AT ALL. It's pretty insane to say they are.

If the anasazi petro is real (which I doubt simply because it doesn't follow the typical patterns of anasazi rock art) it still doesn't mean anything besides a representation of a fossil find, same with the Sumer seal. I lived near the volcanic tablelands in the owens valley in Cali (Bishop to be exact) and climbed there regularly. Petroglyphs abound throughout the area as did many that were not much more than graffiti from early white settlers. That's not necessarily the case here, but that petro looks too cartoonish. The greek image is clearly a lion or other big cat. Either way it proves nothing. There are no large dino fossils after the KT barrier. Somewhere in 65 million years of strata you think we might have found one as a breeding population would have to rather substantial but such is not the case. Depictions from human imagination don't mean a single thing. The Acambaro, Mexico, Figurines are a proven hoax:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_2.html

The aboriginal pic is only on creationist websites and isn't credited anywhere. It looks like its in perfect condition which doesn't make sense. If anyone has more info, post it.

The overall point remains the same, pictures, anecdotes, folklore and legend are in no way proof and notoriously misleading. Find me a 1,000 year old dinosaur bone, verified by three or more independent dating labs, then you can talk about proof.

[ShaunZero]

f the anasazi petro is real (which I doubt simply because it doesn't follow the typical patterns of anasazi rock art) it still doesn't mean anything besides a representation of a fossil find

You can't prove that. So I'm undecided on the subject.

Edited February 23, 2006 by ZeroShadow

[capeo]

You can't prove that. So I'm undecided on the subject.

You can't prove anything, so stay undecided and continue to ignore factual evidence. Next you'll say that unicorns and griffons must have been real because they were depicted constantly throughout medieval times. Have fun with that.

By the way, one of the creationist websites gives a date c1990 for the aboriginal painting and claims the artist could never have seen a book, picture or film with a plesiosaur, which is ridiculous. Aboriginal tribes in australia are highly integrated into modern society though they still retain there autonomy as best they can. If you can get sneakers, cars and vcrs you probably have seen a depiction of a dinosaur:

http://sites.schooltools.us/sites/CoolScie...bservations.pdf

Again, not that it matters. Conjecture and imagination are not evidence. Where's the evidence, creationists?

Edited February 23, 2006 by capeo

[Rykster]

The point is, we did survive.

[ShaunZero]

You can't prove anything, so stay undecided and continue to ignore factual evidence. Next you'll say that unicorns and griffons must have been real because they were depicted constantly throughout medieval times. Have fun with that.

By the way, one of the creationist websites gives a date c1990 for the aboriginal painting and claims the artist could never have seen a book, picture or film with a plesiosaur, which is ridiculous. Aboriginal tribes in australia are highly integrated into modern society though they still retain there autonomy as best they can. If you can get sneakers, cars and vcrs you probably have seen a depiction of a dinosaur:

http://sites.schooltools.us/sites/CoolScie...bservations.pdf

Again, not that it matters. Conjecture and imagination are not evidence. Where's the evidence, creationists?

You're as closed minded as they come. I have to agree with you or you make fun of me? I can't even say I'm undecided on something, my GOD!

I didn't say it was true that we walked with dinosaurs, I said I'm undecided because there's possible evidence for both! Just like pyschic abilities, I'm undecided!

[5aret]

This all could link with the Young Earth theory. According to that, we are only about 10,000 years old. If that was the case, we actually might have been with the dinosaurs.