ApolloHoax.net
Off Topic => General Discussion => Topic started by: LionKing on August 27, 2015, 04:28:44 AM
-
http://www.forbiddenarchaeology.net/forbidden-archaeology/did-man-walk-with-dinosaurs/
what do you think of the carvings?
http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/
so similar to types of dinosaurs uncovered!
-
Seems to me like artist license at work by the various artists. For example looking at the "stegosaurus" carving, look at the serpent coiling around the center animal(snake maybe or dragon?). It has "fins" also. Since snakes never have depicted as having fins, one can only surmise this is a "dragon". Now what does a "dragon" look like? About anything the artist wishes.
Man did not walk among dinosaurs of roughly 145-65 million years ago.
-
They're interesting because they demonstrate that ancient people were just as imaginative as we are. I've seen pictures of Banthas, 25-foot tall gorillas and Sharktopi but they don't actually exist!
Anyway, if that Cambodian sculpture really is a Stegosaur, where is its Thagomizer? :)
-
Saurolophus & Protoceratops look very much like the arts...there are also the paintings in the caves..very similar to the long neck.. I would have thought about imagination hadn't the diverse types of dinosaurs been discovered that look very similar..
-
Seems to me like artist license at work by the various artists. For example looking at the "stegosaurus" carving, look at the serpent coiling around the center animal(snake maybe or dragon?). It has "fins" also. Since snakes never have depicted as having fins, one can only surmise this is a "dragon". Now what does a "dragon" look like? About anything the artist wishes.
Man did not walk among dinosaurs of roughly 145-65 million years ago.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2051804/13-800-year-old-spear-killed-mastodon-proves-humans-America-millennium-earlier-thought.html
new excavations change earlier thought issues about humans..
-
something else is that teh ancients used to depict their huntig skills
they depicted horses, mammoths, and other animals as they saw them
here they depict themselves hunting a long-neck http://www.genesispark.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Axel-Photo-Amazon-Warriors-and-Dinosaur2.jpg
I don't think it is 'imaginantion'
-
The problem is, some of those cultures had written languages. If dinosaurs were commonplace, wouldn't they have mentioned them in a matter-of-fact way, in much the same way as they mention horses or cattle? Owning one, or even hunting and killing one would confer great prestige. Their skulls would be decorating the Chief's hut or the temple walls even now. I guarantee that if there were sauropods wandering Northern England in the 1490's there'd be a lot more evidence than an ambiguous engraving on someone's coffin!
I think this is a confluence of a number of things - illustrations of mythical beasts which are chimera made up of existing animals, or even plucked entirely from the imagination, misinterpretations of things like animal skulls and fossilised remains or even an artist's rendering of some traveller's best description of an actual animal. This, for instance, is a carving of an elephant in Chester cathedral here in the UK : https://fiskeandfreeman.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/ec1.jpg
-
Seems to me like artist license at work by the various artists. For example looking at the "stegosaurus" carving, look at the serpent coiling around the center animal(snake maybe or dragon?). It has "fins" also. Since snakes never have depicted as having fins, one can only surmise this is a "dragon". Now what does a "dragon" look like? About anything the artist wishes.
Man did not walk among dinosaurs of roughly 145-65 million years ago.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2051804/13-800-year-old-spear-killed-mastodon-proves-humans-America-millennium-earlier-thought.html
new excavations change earlier thought issues about humans..
A mastodon kill is hardly close to 145-65 million years ago. I don't think there is much discussion that Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal existed during the ice ages and hunted the Mastodons. If fact some suggested that it was over hunting by those same individuals that doomed the Mastodons. However, I don't hold to that theory, rather ecological changes that they could not adapt was probably the villian
-
Seems to me like artist license at work by the various artists. For example looking at the "stegosaurus" carving, look at the serpent coiling around the center animal(snake maybe or dragon?). It has "fins" also. Since snakes never have depicted as having fins, one can only surmise this is a "dragon". Now what does a "dragon" look like? About anything the artist wishes.
Man did not walk among dinosaurs of roughly 145-65 million years ago.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2051804/13-800-year-old-spear-killed-mastodon-proves-humans-America-millennium-earlier-thought.html
new excavations change earlier thought issues about humans..
A mastodon kill is hardly close to 145-65 million years ago. I don't think there is much discussion that Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal existed during the ice ages and hunted the Mastodons. If fact some suggested that it was over hunting by those same individuals that doomed the Mastodons. However, I don't hold to that theory, rather ecological changes that they could not adapt was probably the villian
they are not talking about coexistence of humans and mammoths but about the presence of humans in North America at that time, which was not known because until then no remains were found to suggest it.
-
The problem is, some of those cultures had written languages. If dinosaurs were commonplace, wouldn't they have mentioned them in a matter-of-fact way, in much the same way as they mention horses or cattle? Owning one, or even hunting and killing one would confer great prestige. Their skulls would be decorating the Chief's hut or the temple walls even now. I guarantee that if there were sauropods wandering Northern England in the 1490's there'd be a lot more evidence than an ambiguous engraving on someone's coffin!
I think this is a confluence of a number of things - illustrations of mythical beasts which are chimera made up of existing animals, or even plucked entirely from the imagination, misinterpretations of things like animal skulls and fossilised remains or even an artist's rendering of some traveller's best description of an actual animal. This, for instance, is a carving of an elephant in Chester cathedral here in the UK : https://fiskeandfreeman.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/ec1.jpg
yes I can your point about the bones..
-
they are not talking about coexistence of humans and mammoths but about the presence of humans in North America at that time, which was not known because until then no remains were found to suggest it.
I didn't indicate the article said anything about coexistence, what I am merely trying to bring the magnitude of this discovery is dwarfed in geological times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal Neanderthals] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal) Approximately 200-250 THOUSAND years in Eurasia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cro-Magnon)
Approximately 30-35 THOUSAND years in Eurasia.
Now compare those values with 145-65 MILLION years.
-
but the issue is if they took that much excavations to uncover the time of humans in north america, some evidence might exist , yet unfound, to prove dinosaurs and humans coexisted..it can take only one find
-
but the issue is if they took that much excavations to uncover the time of humans in north america, some evidence might exist , yet unfound, to prove dinosaurs and humans coexisted..it can take only one find
You slay me with your lack of understanding geologic time spans.
-
but the issue is if they took that much excavations to uncover the time of humans in north america, some evidence might exist , yet unfound, to prove dinosaurs and humans coexisted..it can take only one find
Are you arguing that dinosaurs may have existed until fairly recently? That humans were around tens of millions of years ago? Or from a Young Earth Creationist viewpoint that the world isn't as old as science says as it is?
-
Lionking, the entire evolutionary record of hominids fails utterly to overlap with the existence of dinosaurs. It would take a lot more than 'only one find' to overturn that particular huge evidentiary edifice. If the fossilised remains of a modern human were found with the fossilised remains of a dinosaur, and if radioisotope dating techniques showed them to be the same age, then that one find would stand in contravention of an entire pile of evidence showing the development of modern man through such antecedents as Australopithecus afarensis and Homo erectus, none of which were around within tens of millions of years of the extinction of the dinosaurs. So either we would have to explain how modern humans could have existed tens of millions of years before their evolutionary ancestors or how dinosaurs could have survived into the era of modern man without leaving vast amounts of evidence of themselves, and if they did survive that long how they became extinct within the last few thousand years.
Science does not work by 'only one find' toppling accepted theories. That one find stands as an anomaly to be investigated, and if no further supporting evidence comes along it is discounted as just that: an anomlay. We have tried over and over again in your time on this board to get you to show some understanding of how science works but I am saddened to see that it still seems to be in vain.
-
Lionking, the entire evolutionary record of hominids fails utterly to overlap with the existence of dinosaurs. It would take a lot more than 'only one find' to overturn that particular huge evidentiary edifice. If the fossilised remains of a modern human were found with the fossilised remains of a dinosaur, and if radioisotope dating techniques showed them to be the same age, then that one find would stand in contravention of an entire pile of evidence showing the development of modern man through such antecedents as Australopithecus afarensis and Homo erectus, none of which were around within tens of millions of years of the extinction of the dinosaurs. So either we would have to explain how modern humans could have existed tens of millions of years before their evolutionary ancestors or how dinosaurs could have survived into the era of modern man without leaving vast amounts of evidence of themselves, and if they did survive that long how they became extinct within the last few thousand years.
Science does not work by 'only one find' toppling accepted theories. That one find stands as an anomaly to be investigated, and if no further supporting evidence comes along it is discounted as just that: an anomlay. We have tried over and over again in your time on this board to get you to show some understanding of how science works but I am saddened to see that it still seems to be in vain.
A link to what Jason is referring
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_(Australopithecus)
3.5 million years versus 145-65 million years.
I repeat human(oid) remains will not be found in the same strata with dinosaurs.
-
Lionking
Having recently visited the Loch Ness Exhibition Centre, it is quite evident how humans can create mythical creatures from logs floating in the water, water waves, catfish, sturgeon, swimming deer... you name it. All Loch Ness monster sightings are explained quite rationally. The same arguments are readily applied to the statues and paintings in your links. Throughout human history, there is a record of our interest with mythical creatures.
Taking on board Jason's post, it is well accepted that humans originate from Africa with evolutionary drivers set in action about 2 million year ago. It is also fairly well accepted that the dinosaur fossil record stopped abruptly around 65 million years ago. Humans and dinosaurs did not coexist, other than in the films with Rachel Welch. According to those films, the cavemen wore watches too.
-
It's hard to give any thread that uses the Daily Mail and a creationist website as evidence to support a claim, anything more that a scoff and a sneer.
-
It's hard to give any thread that uses the Daily Mail and a creationist website as evidence to support a claim, anything more that a scoff and a sneer.
Perhaps you should create a different icon with a sneer! :)
-
People and dinosaurs coexisting? Sure!
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/birds_and_dinosaurs.png)
The people who want to "compress" history sure like to talk about dinosaurs and humans coexisting. "See, see this dragony fire breathing thing in this old story? Must have been a dinosaur!"
But what about trilobites? For the YECs who want to pack billions of years of history into a few thousand years, all of those trilobites coexisted with people. Compressed from the millions of years over which they lived to a few thousand years, there would have been trilobites EVERYWHERE. Every net of fish would surely bring up trilobites. People would easily be able to catch them in shallow water. They'd probably be either a staple food source, or a major annoyance if inedible. But how come nobody mentions them? Why did one of the most common species ever manage to totally elude every single historian, author and story-teller of ancient times?
-
http://ianjuby.org/examining-the-delk-track/
how to explain this?
http://www.paleo.cc/paluxy/delk.htm
For a more general discussion on the topic:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/mantrack.html
-
Looks like a fabrication to me.
-
Oops. The post I was replying to vanished before I even finished replying to it. :p
-
People and dinosaurs coexisting? Sure!
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/birds_and_dinosaurs.png)
[SNIP]
As much as I love XKCD, I have to disagree with the premise of this cartoon. The way I see it, birds are not dinosaurs; they're descended from dinosaurs. Otherwise, by the same argument, we're all Australopithecines, or Homo Erectuses, or Homo Habilises (or whatever the darn plural is) or some other ancestor of modern humans. Why do birds get to be called by the term applied to their ancestors of 100 million years ago and not their ancestors of some other time in the past?
Oh, and LionKing, while the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, the fact that we can fairly clearly trace the fossil record of dinosaurs and humans provides fairly strong evidence that humans and dinosaurs failed to overlap by more than 60 million years. The period from ~220 million years ago to ~65 million years ago shows large numbers of dinosaurs. After that, there are a tiny number of controversial so-called Palaeocene dinosaurs; but even these are all dated to within a million years of the main extinction of dinosaurs.
-
http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/dragons/
literature
still, I agree it needs further proofs, and we can't say for sure before irrefutable evidence emerges
-
http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/dragons/
literature
But not very good literature. In fact, very bad literature.
The people who run that site are Biblical Creationists. That is, they believe in the literal accuracy of the Book of Genesis in the Christian Old Testament/Jewish Bible. They believe the Earth is only 6000-odd years old, and that the entire fossil record was created in that time.
This way of looking at the history of the Earth and of humanity has several major problems. For one, they believe Noah's Flood happened exactly as described in the Book of Genesis. That is, they believe literally eight humans survived the Flood, and we're all descended from them. While that's numerically plausible if everyone survives to adulthood and has lots of children (neither of which have ever happened in the history of humanity) it means the Egyptian pyramids must have been built when the entire population of the Earth was still only a few thousand.
Another problem is that the only way creationists can explain the supposedly massive age of some rocks is to theorise that the speed of light was much faster in the past. The problem is that if the speed of light was much faster, then all reactions would be more energetic, and distant (and thus old) stars would look very different and behave very differently from nearby stars, which we don't see.
still, I agree it needs further proofs, and we can't say for sure before irrefutable evidence emerges
It's fantasy, and belongs next to "The Hobbit" and "Game of Thrones".
-
http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/dragons/
literature
But not very good literature. In fact, very bad literature.
The people who run that site are Biblical Creationists. That is, they believe in the literal accuracy of the Book of Genesis in the Christian Old Testament/Jewish Bible. They believe the Earth is only 6000-odd years old, and that the entire fossil record was created in that time.
This way of looking at the history of the Earth and of humanity has several major problems. For one, they believe Noah's Flood happened exactly as described in the Book of Genesis. That is, they believe literally eight humans survived the Flood, and we're all descended from them. While that's numerically plausible if everyone survives to adulthood and has lots of children (neither of which have ever happened in the history of humanity) it means the Egyptian pyramids must have been built when the entire population of the Earth was still only a few thousand.
Another problem is that the only way creationists can explain the supposedly massive age of some rocks is to theorise that the speed of light was much faster in the past. The problem is that if the speed of light was much faster, then all reactions would be more energetic, and distant (and thus old) stars would look very different and behave very differently from nearby stars, which we don't see.
still, I agree it needs further proofs, and we can't say for sure before irrefutable evidence emerges
It's fantasy, and belongs next to "The Hobbit" and "Game of Thrones".
we should take though what is put forward objectively, because it is written..they didn't fake it and put it..no matter what they falsely believe..just separate things
-
It was taken objectively, and dismissed for objective reasons. There is, regardless of what has been written, no objective evidence that men and dinosaurs ever co-existed, and quite a lot of evidence that they could not have done so.
After years on this board you would think I'd get less annoyed by people coming back against dismissals with 'you're not being objective', but no, it still riles me....
-
http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/dragons/
literature
still, I agree it needs further proofs, and we can't say for sure before irrefutable evidence emerges
You might get your irrefutable evidence about the same time as you get your second set of teeth(natural ones, not man made ones)
-
It was taken objectively, and dismissed for objective reasons. There is, regardless of what has been written, no objective evidence that men and dinosaurs ever co-existed, and quite a lot of evidence that they could not have done so.
After years on this board you would think I'd get less annoyed by people coming back against dismissals with 'you're not being objective', but no, it still riles me....
taking it objectively means not just dismissing because it comes from a creationist website..he wrote a lot about them being creationist but not about the content..you don't need to get this agitated.
.it is not that no one has mentioned them
-
The fact that it comes from a creationsit website is relevant to an objective assessment, and in any case a large part of the objective side of things is already covered in the repeated mentions in this thread that there is no actual evidence of human/dinosaur co-existence due to their spearation on geological timescales.
Speculation about literature and representations of dragons does not consitute evidence that such things occurred. Where are the physical remains of these creatures? We have the physical remains of humans, we have the physical remains of their clothes, their buildings, their armour, their food, their writings, going back thousands of years. And yet no dragon/dinosaur remains from the same periods exist. That's a very conspicuous gap in the record which is hard to explain by the 'we just haven't found it yet' argument.
-
It was taken objectively, and dismissed for objective reasons. There is, regardless of what has been written, no objective evidence that men and dinosaurs ever co-existed, and quite a lot of evidence that they could not have done so.
After years on this board you would think I'd get less annoyed by people coming back against dismissals with 'you're not being objective', but no, it still riles me....
taking it objectively means not just dismissing because it comes from a creationist website..he wrote a lot about them being creationist but not about the content..you don't need to get this agitated.
.it is not that no one has mentioned them
The top comment (currently) on that video clip provided a link to an article explaining why it's plausible the tissue survived intact for 68 million years rather than a few thousand years: http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
-
The people who run that site are Biblical Creationists. That is, they believe in the literal accuracy of the Book of Genesis in the Christian Old Testament/Jewish Bible. They believe the Earth is only 6000-odd years old, and that the entire fossil record was created in that time.
we should take though what is put forward objectively, because it is written..they didn't fake it and put it..no matter what they falsely believe..just separate things
If you want to be objective then you need to be objective about all the evidence. Peter raises a good point that your citation is written by people that believe the Earth is only 6000 years old. Surely you need to take their story as the complete evidence. You cannot be objective by choosing the parts that suit your argument. So what do you believe Lionking?
(a) The Earth is only 6000 years old so dinosaurs and humans could coexist.
(b) The Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the oldest fossils are 3.5 billion years old.
-
As much as I love XKCD, I have to disagree with the premise of this cartoon. The way I see it, birds are not dinosaurs; they're descended from dinosaurs. Otherwise, by the same argument, we're all Australopithecines, or Homo Erectuses, or Homo Habilises (or whatever the darn plural is) or some other ancestor of modern humans. Why do birds get to be called by the term applied to their ancestors of 100 million years ago and not their ancestors of some other time in the past?
A better comparison would be that by the same argument we're all mammals. Taxonomically, dinosaurs are a clade (Dinosauri) that modern birds are part of.
-
After years on this board you would think I'd get less annoyed by people coming back against dismissals with 'you're not being objective', but no, it still riles me....
Especially when it comes from the least objective regular member of the board.
We are back into "what would convince you that you're wrong" territory. I can lay out the exact evidence that would convince me that dinosaurs had roamed Medieval Europe, and it isn't there. (Physical evidence in the way of skeletons, for starters.) What would convince LionKing that she's wrong? Well, we've never seen it yet.
-
we should take though what is put forward objectively,
It has been taken objectively.
because it is written..
The meduim is of no import- garbage is garbage whether it's written, in hieroglyphics or delivered through the medium of interpretive dance. Young Earth Creationism is an unmitigated, steaming turd of a thing and it will get not a shred of airtime or respect from me.
they didn't fake it and put it
Yes, they did. Being wilfully ignorant is, in my opinion, the most heinous and lazy of intellectual crimes. It is only made worse by the nefarious methods that creationists use to get their dogma and BS into schools and into the minds of children. Anyone can believe whatever old bollocks they like, but once they start trying to infect children with their BS they become open game.
no matter what they falsely believe..just separate things
No, it's not "just separate things". BS is BS- someone's belief in it does not make it correct. Mealy mouthed, hand-wringing apologies for creationism ("It's another world-view and as applicable as a science-based view") has no place in the world.
-
taking it objectively means not just dismissing because it comes from a creationist website..he wrote a lot about them being creationist but not about the content..you don't need to get this agitated.
.it is not that no one has mentioned them
Of course this video, produced by those that embrace the Earth is young and dinosaurs died very recently, jumps on soft tissue found in T Rex fossilized bones. The comment that I heard was "they (paleontologists) attack the process but "can't" attack the time line because that would refute Creation. (Paraphrasing not quoting).
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
Here is an article that lk won't accept as to a description of how the process has changed. What the Creationists don't themselves identify, how long it takes a bone to fossilize? Longer than 6000 years.
Now I believe in creation, but not in the time frames the Creationists embrace.
I have always thought:
Science and religion walk down different sides of the same road.
I re-peat dinosaurs and humanoids are separated by roughly 60 million years.
-
I should point out that it's not unheard of for people trying to push "unconventional" views to actually fake evidence. If I see a rock painting of people hunting a sauropod, my first question is, "Is this a genuine painting?"
It's not an unfair question. Von Daniken used a lot of "evidence" that didn't really exist.
-
I should point out that it's not unheard of for people trying to push "unconventional" views to actually fake evidence. If I see a rock painting of people hunting a sauropod, my first question is, "Is this a genuine painting?"
It's not an unfair question. Von Daniken used a lot of "evidence" that didn't really exist.
Exactly as the foot print on top of the dinosaur track was fabricated. And then there are the Big Foot tracks!!
-
what if it is like this fish, thought to be extinct since the time of dinosaurs, but then found alive with very minor evolution
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-living-fossil-coelacanth-fish-left-behind-by-evolution-8577129.html
-
what if it is like this fish, thought to be extinct since the time of dinosaurs, but then found alive with very minor evolution
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-living-fossil-coelacanth-fish-left-behind-by-evolution-8577129.html
Coelacanths are not dinosaurs although they did inhabit the Earth during the time of dinosaurs. The fact is that if paleontologists find Coelacanth bones in Cretaceous rocks, no human remains would have been found. If the rock that they may have been found from about 3 million or less years ago, then yes there may have been human(oid) fossils. This tactic is moving the goal posts to meet the theory. The OP was man living with dinosaurs, not a an ancient fish living with man.
-
what if it is like this fish, thought to be extinct since the time of dinosaurs, but then found alive with very minor evolution
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-living-fossil-coelacanth-fish-left-behind-by-evolution-8577129.html
Explain the dating of the rocks please.
-
what if it is like this fish, thought to be extinct since the time of dinosaurs, but then found alive with very minor evolution
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-living-fossil-coelacanth-fish-left-behind-by-evolution-8577129.html
Coelacanths are not dinosaurs although they did inhabit the Earth during the time of dinosaurs. The fact is that if paleontologists find Coelacanth bones in Cretaceous rocks, no human remains would have been found. If the rock that they may have been found from about 3 million or less years ago, then yes there may have been human(oid) fossils. This tactic is moving the goal posts to meet the theory. The OP was man living with dinosaurs, not a an ancient fish living with man.
not sure what you mean
"Coelacanths were thought to have gone extinct in the Late Cretaceous, around 66 million years ago, but were rediscovered in 1938 off the coast of South Africa" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth
they were thought to be extinct and they lived with dinosaurs. They survived for millions of years without their fossils being found with humans until they recently found it with minimal evolution.
-
what if it is like this fish, thought to be extinct since the time of dinosaurs, but then found alive with very minor evolution
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-living-fossil-coelacanth-fish-left-behind-by-evolution-8577129.html
You're changing the goalposts with this a bit. There are species of animals that have undergone little evolution, the crocodile is a prime example. No one disputes this. Thus far my assumption has been that the term dinosaur applies to the well known classification of giant reptiles and fish. Men did not coexist with T-rex, stegosaurus and such like, as you have eluded to with your evidence that dragons and giant lizards exist in art (if I have read your posts correctly).
-
what if it is like this fish, thought to be extinct since the time of dinosaurs, but then found alive with very minor evolution
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-living-fossil-coelacanth-fish-left-behind-by-evolution-8577129.html
You're changing the goalposts with this a bit. There are species of animals that have undergone little evolution, the crocodile is a prime example. No one disputes this. Thus far my assumption has been that the term dinosaur applies to the well known classification of giant reptiles and fish. Men did not coexist with T-rex, stegosaurus and such like, as you have eluded to with your evidence that dragons and giant lizards exist in art (if I have read your posts correctly).
what I am not getting is why dinosaurs should be viewed differently. they are animals after all. They didn't find the fossil of this fish with humans because it became rare, but it has been surviving all the time with humans. why should dinosaurs be different? why should Nessie, reported to be seen by too many people and even pictures, be extinct and not a type of dinosaur that also underwent minimal evolution.
-
what if it is like this fish, thought to be extinct since the time of dinosaurs, but then found alive with very minor evolution
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-living-fossil-coelacanth-fish-left-behind-by-evolution-8577129.html
Coelacanths are not dinosaurs although they did inhabit the Earth during the time of dinosaurs. The fact is that if paleontologists find Coelacanth bones in Cretaceous rocks, no human remains would have been found. If the rock that they may have been found from about 3 million or less years ago, then yes there may have been human(oid) fossils. This tactic is moving the goal posts to meet the theory. The OP was man living with dinosaurs, not a an ancient fish living with man.
not sure what you mean
"Coelacanths were thought to have gone extinct in the Late Cretaceous, around 66 million years ago, but were rediscovered in 1938 off the coast of South Africa" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth
they were thought to be extinct and they lived with dinosaurs. They survived for millions of years without their fossils being found with humans until they recently found it with minimal evolution.
If fossils of the Coelacanth were found in strata that had a date of 65 million years ago, no human(oid) fossils will be found.
If fossils of the Coelacanth were found in strata of say less than 3.5 million years ago, human(oid) fossil may be found.
I hope that clarifies my thoughts.
-
what if it is like this fish, thought to be extinct since the time of dinosaurs, but then found alive with very minor evolution
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-living-fossil-coelacanth-fish-left-behind-by-evolution-8577129.html
Coelacanths are not dinosaurs although they did inhabit the Earth during the time of dinosaurs. The fact is that if paleontologists find Coelacanth bones in Cretaceous rocks, no human remains would have been found. If the rock that they may have been found from about 3 million or less years ago, then yes there may have been human(oid) fossils. This tactic is moving the goal posts to meet the theory. The OP was man living with dinosaurs, not a an ancient fish living with man.
not sure what you mean
"Coelacanths were thought to have gone extinct in the Late Cretaceous, around 66 million years ago, but were rediscovered in 1938 off the coast of South Africa" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth
they were thought to be extinct and they lived with dinosaurs. They survived for millions of years without their fossils being found with humans until they recently found it with minimal evolution.
If fossils of the Coelacanth were found in strata that had a date of 65 million years ago, no human(oid) fossils will be found.
If fossils of the Coelacanth were found in strata of say less than 3.5 million years ago, human(oid) fossil may be found.
I hope that clarifies my thoughts.
Thanks for clarification. yes right, but it is a different issue here being discussed. it is that no fish fossil were found with humans, although it has been living since millions of years.
-
Why should Nessie, reported to be seen by too many people and even pictures, be extinct and not a type of dinosaur that also underwent minimal evolution.
Because there's 20 tonnes of fish (such as Arctic char) in Loch Ness. Based on the science of food chains, that would support a single monster with a mass of 2 tonnes. Now, take that monster, and think that is has to breed and produce offspring if it survived millions of years. Suddenly you don't have a two tonne monster, but a family of large fish.
What about the thermocline and the effect on the monster's food source? I'd like an answer to that too?
Now, you're slightly picking on the wrong person with the Nessie argument, as I have recently spent time around Loch Ness and visited the Loch Ness Exhibition Centre. There are many effects in the Loch that explain the sighting - swimming deer (yes), light slicks, bow waves, floating logs, upturned boats. Go and spend some time next to the Loch, and you'll see a monster each day. I did, but once you double take you'll realise it's a trick of light. If you look at every instance of the monster photographs, there's a range of different types of monsters, some with small necks, some with long necks, some that are serpent like, some that are round bodied. Are you telling me the Loch Ness monster morphs? I'd like an answer to that too.
In fact, after a thorough investigation, the Loch Ness monster is probably nothing more than a sturgeon or giant catfish that has found its way into the Loch.
-
what I am not getting is why dinosaurs should be viewed differently. they are animals after all. They didn't find the fossil of this fish with humans because it became rare, but it has been surviving all the time with humans. why should dinosaurs be different?
I think Jason has answered this point. The evidence that dinosaurs did no coexist with humans far outweighs the evidence that they did. The fossil record is not a perfect, but your one datum does not swim against the tsunami of evidence that nullifies your thesis. In any case, the article is cleverly written, and for once offers a little sensible scientific reporting by the main stream media. Notice the quotation marks around the words 'living fossil?' They are there for a reason, care to take guess why? There's an underpinning sensationalism to the article that is moderated by those quotation marks.
-
Why should Nessie, reported to be seen by too many people and even pictures, be extinct and not a type of dinosaur that also underwent minimal evolution.
Because there's 20 tonnes of fish (such as Arctic char) in Loch Ness. Based on the science of food chains, that would support a single monster with a mass of 2 tonnes. Now, take that monster, and think that is has to breed and produce offspring if it survived millions of years. Suddenly you don't have a two tonne monster, but a family of large fish.
What about the thermocline and the effect on the monster's food source? I'd like an answer to that too?
Now, you're slightly picking on the wrong person with the Nessie argument, as I have recently spent time around Loch Ness and visited the Loch Ness Exhibition Centre. There are many effects in the Loch that explain the sighting - swimming deer (yes), light slicks, bow waves, floating logs, upturned boats. Go and spend some time next to the Loch, and you'll see a monster each day. I did, but once you double take you'll realise it's a trick of light. If you look at every instance of the monster photographs, there's a range of different types of monsters, some with small knecks, some with long necks, some that are serpent like, some that are round bodied. Are you telling me the Loch Ness monster morphs? I'd like an answer to that too.
In fact, after a thorough investigation, the Loch Ness monster is probably nothing more than a sturgeon or giant catfish that has found its way into the Loch.
so this eyewitnesses are lying,
the woman who saw it looking at her and going back ?
-
Thanks for clarification. yes right, but it is a different issue here being discussed. it is that no fish fossil were found with humans, although it has been living since millions of years.
As Luke noted you are moving the goalpost here and I'll repost the last thought in my earlier post today.
The OP was man living with dinosaurs, not a an ancient fish living with man.
You linked images claimed by you that indicate early man lived with dinosaurs.
That a fish that happened to live during the period that dinosaurs lived and continues in existence does not give any evidence of the original post. Whether or not fish fossils have been found in the same strata as human(oid) fossils have been formed does not give any evidence of your original post. You don't seem to be able to differentiate the difference concerning finding human(oid) in strata that is clearly deposited 60+ million ago is not possible. Dinosaurs died out long ago, some of the evolved animals live today, but they aren't dinosaurs. That is the concept you need to come to grip with.
-
so this eyewitnesses are lying,
the woman who saw it looking at her and going back ?
The guy giving the description does not say it is a dinosaur, he says it looks similar, but it could be a log who knows. No I'm not saying she is a liar, but rather the situation may have bent/twisted her recognition of whatever the object was.
-
Thanks for clarification. yes right, but it is a different issue here being discussed. it is that no fish fossil were found with humans, although it has been living since millions of years.
As Luke noted you are moving the goalpost here and I'll repost the last thought in my earlier post today.
The OP was man living with dinosaurs, not a an ancient fish living with man.
You linked images claimed by you that indicate early man lived with dinosaurs.
That a fish that happened to live during the period that dinosaurs lived and continues in existence does not give any evidence of the original post. Whether or not fish fossils have been found in the same strata as human(oid) fossils have been formed does not give any evidence of your original post. You don't seem to be able to differentiate the difference concerning finding human(oid) in strata that is clearly deposited 60+ million ago is not possible. Dinosaurs died out long ago, some of the evolved animals live today, but they aren't dinosaurs. That is the concept you need to come to grip with.
I do't take everything they say word for word. dinosaurs out dying out when humans came doesn't mean that human remains for 60 million years have to be found. It only means that when humans came, dinosaurs were still there, not extinct, same as the fish.
-
so this eyewitnesses are lying,
the woman who saw it looking at her and going back ?
The guy giving the description does not say it is a dinosaur, he says it looks similar, but it could be a log who knows. No I'm not saying she is a liar, but rather the situation may have bent/twisted her recognition of whatever the object was.
I am talking about sandra's account
-
so this eyewitnesses are lying,
I see this a lot, not just from you. Please try to understand there is a difference between lying and being mistaken. The brain is a wonderful thing and will fill in a lot of gaps based on limited information.
-
There is also a world of difference between the original claim and the coelocanth. Humans and coelocanths each live in parts of the world that are hostile to the other. The original claim is about humans not only living at the same time as dinosaurs but actually co-existing to the point of humans and dinosaurs encountering each other regularly. Under those circumstances we would expect to see a lot more evidence of dinosaur/human coexistence than a few mythical representations and anecdotes of 'dragons and beasts'.
-
so this eyewitnesses are lying,
the woman who saw it looking at her and going back ?
The guy giving the description does not say it is a dinosaur, he says it looks similar, but it could be a log who knows. No I'm not saying she is a liar, but rather the situation may have bent/twisted her recognition of whatever the object was.
I am talking about sandra's account
And I referenced her account.
-
There is also a world of difference between the original claim and the coelocanth. Humans and coelocanths each live in parts of the world that are hostile to the other. The original claim is about humans not only living at the same time as dinosaurs but actually co-existing to the point of humans and dinosaurs encountering each other regularly. Under those circumstances we would expect to see a lot more evidence of dinosaur/human coexistence than a few mythical representations and anecdotes of 'dragons and beasts'.
Maybe he will understand this better than what I have posted. Goalpost shifting to meet the CT's perspective is.
EDIT: Correct spelling
-
If what LionKing is saying is that maybe, possibly, a small population of dinosaurs have survived until relatively recent times, this would be cryptozoology, not creationism. In which case I can only say that I would be delighted if it were ever proven true, but with such complete absence of physical evidence, I doubt it will ever happen.
-
It would be a marvelous encounter IF a sample of dinosaurs were found, not the evolutionary ancestors. And I doubt that will happen as you so doubt.
-
The thing is, people have been actively looking for 'living dinosaurs' for decades, and they've found nothing. The only evidence is dodgy pictures, film and video, and even dodgier eyewitness testimony (eyewitnesses being the least reliable form of evidence, no matter what anyone says).
If these were real animals and still existed, you'd expect to find carcasses, tracks, droppings and, as Luke Pemberton says, a large enough food source to support them.
If they existed until relatively recently (i.e. the Middle Ages) but were now extinct, there'd still be ample evidence beyond the occasional engraving or cave painting.
-
No. She's not lying. Visit Scotland and Loch Ness and you'll understand there have been sightings of large fish that people believe. It's just that the explanation for their sightings can be explained by migratory sturgeon or prey seeking catfish. Now, are you going to ignore the food chain analysis of the biologists that have studied the Loch? There simply is not enough food to sustain a monster and its offspring. Please address the foodchain analysis and how this supports your monster theory.
Sent from my C2105 using Tapatalk
-
No. She's not lying. Visit Scotland and Loch Ness and you'll understand there have been sightings of large fish that people believe. It's just that the explanation for their sightings can be explained by migratory sturgeon or prey seeking catfish. Now, are you going to ignore the food chain analysis of the biologists that have studied the Loch? There simply is not enough food to sustain a monster and its offspring. Please address the foodchain analysis and how this supports your monster theory.
Sent from my C2105 using Tapatalk
I hope you are not texting and DRIVING
-
There is also a world of difference between the original claim and the coelocanth. Humans and coelocanths each live in parts of the world that are hostile to the other. The original claim is about humans not only living at the same time as dinosaurs but actually co-existing to the point of humans and dinosaurs encountering each other regularly. Under those circumstances we would expect to see a lot more evidence of dinosaur/human coexistence than a few mythical representations and anecdotes of 'dragons and beasts'.
Maybe he will understand this better than what I have posted. Goalpost shifting to meet the CT's perspective is.
EDIT: Correct spelling
She. And if you find a way to get her to listen to opposing opinions, I'd be very interested in finding out what it is. No one else has ever managed.
-
She. And if you find a way to get her to listen to opposing opinions, I'd be very interested in finding out what it is. No one else has ever managed.
My bad totally labeling her as masculine and I didn't know of her. As you may read the task is happening as you indicated. Moving the goalposts, throwing in other material not associated with the OP.
-
There is also a world of difference between the original claim and the coelocanth. Humans and coelocanths each live in parts of the world that are hostile to the other. The original claim is about humans not only living at the same time as dinosaurs but actually co-existing to the point of humans and dinosaurs encountering each other regularly. Under those circumstances we would expect to see a lot more evidence of dinosaur/human coexistence than a few mythical representations and anecdotes of 'dragons and beasts'.
Maybe he will understand this better than what I have posted. Goalpost shifting to meet the CT's perspective is.
EDIT: Correct spelling
I am not shifting the goal. I was trying to use another example to illustrate what I wanted to say. It was obvious you understood that I am totally with the creationists. Let us not turn to personal snipes OK?
-
If what LionKing is saying is that maybe, possibly, a small population of dinosaurs have survived until relatively recent times, this would be cryptozoology, not creationism. In which case I can only say that I would be delighted if it were ever proven true, but with such complete absence of physical evidence, I doubt it will ever happen.
HAVE HOPE :D
although these are mere eyewitnesses, but at least of the Mbembe they saw it close up and personal and even heard its loud noise .. so a lot better account than Nessie's
-
No. She's not lying. Visit Scotland and Loch Ness and you'll understand there have been sightings of large fish that people believe. It's just that the explanation for their sightings can be explained by migratory sturgeon or prey seeking catfish. Now, are you going to ignore the food chain analysis of the biologists that have studied the Loch? There simply is not enough food to sustain a monster and its offspring. Please address the foodchain analysis and how this supports your monster theory.
Sent from my C2105 using Tapatalk
I hope you are not texting and DRIVING
No, I caught the train. No one with an ounce of sense would drive into central London.
Sent from my C2105 using Tapatalk
-
Jason,
maybe they were rare, so you don't expect that extensive encounters, but they would have left humans impressed.
-
No. She's not lying. Visit Scotland and Loch Ness and you'll understand there have been sightings of large fish that people believe. It's just that the explanation for their sightings can be explained by migratory sturgeon or prey seeking catfish. Now, are you going to ignore the food chain analysis of the biologists that have studied the Loch? There simply is not enough food to sustain a monster and its offspring. Please address the foodchain analysis and how this supports your monster theory.
Sent from my C2105 using Tapatalk
I don't have answer for every question re foodchain, but the woman is saying he stuck his head above the water and she saw it, then it drifted down.
-
There is also a world of difference between the original claim and the coelocanth. Humans and coelocanths each live in parts of the world that are hostile to the other. The original claim is about humans not only living at the same time as dinosaurs but actually co-existing to the point of humans and dinosaurs encountering each other regularly. Under those circumstances we would expect to see a lot more evidence of dinosaur/human coexistence than a few mythical representations and anecdotes of 'dragons and beasts'.
Maybe he will understand this better than what I have posted. Goalpost shifting to meet the CT's perspective is.
EDIT: Correct spelling
She. And if you find a way to get her to listen to opposing opinions, I'd be very interested in finding out what it is. No one else has ever managed.
you notice how you pop up to create trouble?
-
No. She's not lying. Visit Scotland and Loch Ness and you'll understand there have been sightings of large fish that people believe. It's just that the explanation for their sightings can be explained by migratory sturgeon or prey seeking catfish. Now, are you going to ignore the food chain analysis of the biologists that have studied the Loch? There simply is not enough food to sustain a monster and its offspring. Please address the foodchain analysis and how this supports your monster theory.
Sent from my C2105 using Tapatalk
I hope you are not texting and DRIVING
No, I caught the train. No one with an ounce of sense would drive into central London.
Sent from my C2105 using Tapatalk
I've been on the train from out near Heathrow down toward the Underground.
-
Creatures like that would have left a lot more than a few impressed humans behind them, however rare they were.
-
There is also a world of difference between the original claim and the coelocanth. Humans and coelocanths each live in parts of the world that are hostile to the other. The original claim is about humans not only living at the same time as dinosaurs but actually co-existing to the point of humans and dinosaurs encountering each other regularly. Under those circumstances we would expect to see a lot more evidence of dinosaur/human coexistence than a few mythical representations and anecdotes of 'dragons and beasts'.
Maybe he will understand this better than what I have posted. Goalpost shifting to meet the CT's perspective is.
EDIT: Correct spelling
She. And if you find a way to get her to listen to opposing opinions, I'd be very interested in finding out what it is. No one else has ever managed.
you notice how you pop up to create trouble?
Gillianren is not creating trouble, LionKing, she is stating a valid point. In all the years you have been posting here you have never grasped what science actually is all about despite numerous attempts by scientists on this discussion board to get you to understand, and you still pull up arguments like 'scientists say' and 'it would take only one find' to overturn a scientific idea.
-
you notice how you pop up to create trouble?
gillianren posts an interesting questions have you ever listened to an opposing opinion and changed yours? I'm new so I don't know what mind set you have. You certainly have not conceded that man did not live with dinosaurs as most of the rest of the world believes.
-
you notice how you pop up to create trouble?
gillianren posts an interesting questions have you ever listened to an opposing opinion and changed yours? I'm new so I don't know what mind set you have. You certainly have not conceded that man did not live with dinosaurs as most of the rest of the world believes.
I keep an open mind about it, I listened to all, I can see pros and cons , but I am not conclusive either way. did she have to post such an attack? does this help the debate? is this a good way of how people talk to each other?
-
There is also a world of difference between the original claim and the coelocanth. Humans and coelocanths each live in parts of the world that are hostile to the other. The original claim is about humans not only living at the same time as dinosaurs but actually co-existing to the point of humans and dinosaurs encountering each other regularly. Under those circumstances we would expect to see a lot more evidence of dinosaur/human coexistence than a few mythical representations and anecdotes of 'dragons and beasts'.
Maybe he will understand this better than what I have posted. Goalpost shifting to meet the CT's perspective is.
EDIT: Correct spelling
She. And if you find a way to get her to listen to opposing opinions, I'd be very interested in finding out what it is. No one else has ever managed.
you notice how you pop up to create trouble?
Gillianren is not creating trouble, LionKing, she is stating a valid point. In all the years you have been posting here you have never grasped what science actually is all about despite numerous attempts by scientists on this discussion board to get you to understand, and you still pull up arguments like 'scientists say' and 'it would take only one find' to overturn a scientific idea.
yes she is. what would be expected as a result of such an aggressive post? love and peace? scientists say..yes..who else would we resort to? and didn't it take only one find to declare the fish unextinct? it would depend on issues debated
-
yes she is. what would be expected as a result of such an aggressive post? love and peace?
It was not aggressive, it was factual.
scientists say..yes..who else would we resort to?
Oh good grief. How many times? There are scientists here, and they usually say something totally different to your anonymous scientists who say the things you agree with, and yet you argue against us all the time. You have argued from ignorance about pharmaceutical products and the difference between 'natural' and 'synthetic' chemicals with no idication that you have understood and assimilated the responses from people who work in the relevant fields that populate these boards.
You 'resort to' the 'scientists' who agree with your preconceived notions and ignore or argue with the ones who don't. Repeatedly.
and didn't it take only one find to declare the fish unextinct?
No. It took one find followed by requests for other finds to confirm it was really what it appeared to be.
-
yes she is. what would be expected as a result of such an aggressive post? love and peace?
It was not aggressive, it was factual.
scientists say..yes..who else would we resort to?
Oh good grief. How many times? There are scientists here, and they usually say something totally different to your anonymous scientists who say the things you agree with, and yet you argue against us all the time. You have argued from ignorance about pharmaceutical products and the difference between 'natural' and 'synthetic' chemicals with no idication that you have understood and assimilated the responses from people who work in the relevant fields that populate these boards.
You 'resort to' the 'scientists' who agree with your preconceived notions and ignore or argue with the ones who don't. Repeatedly.
and didn't it take only one find to declare the fish unextinct?
No. It took one find followed by requests for other finds to confirm it was really what it appeared to be.
fine. let's drop it, please
-
Sure, why not? It beats having to say the same thing over and over again to little avail.
-
This is an honest, legitimate question, LionKing, and I hope you'll respond to it in an honest fashion.
What would it take to convince you that humans and dinosaurs were separated in time by millions of years? Because I've already said what it would take to convince me they weren't. Evidence. I'd want you to show non-fossilized remains. Documentation that isn't in fiction or legend--actual histories that were intended to be histories. Things along those lines. What would convince you?
-
This is an honest, legitimate question, LionKing, and I hope you'll respond to it in an honest fashion.
What would it take to convince you that humans and dinosaurs were separated in time by millions of years? Because I've already said what it would take to convince me they weren't. Evidence. I'd want you to show non-fossilized remains. Documentation that isn't in fiction or legend--actual histories that were intended to be histories. Things along those lines. What would convince you?
i posted previously a link to historians but you can search marco polo, herodotus and Dion copied by another one amongst others
nonfossilized bones found with tissue, but scientists say it could be because of iron
non fossilized bones also where discovered with bloid in them.
-
i posted previously a link to historians but you can search marco polo, herodotus and Dion copied by another one amongst others
nonfossilized bones found with tissue, but scientists say it could be because of iron
non fossilized bones also where discovered with bloid in them.
You didn't read the material correctly, the samples were fossilized bones in which the blood and soft tissue were found. Scientist were indeed surprised but the bones were 68 millions years old.
http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html
-
Just one point I would like to make regarding humans in North America. Earlier a poster (I think it was Lion King) suggested that the existence of evidence of a Mastodin killed by a spear proved that humans were in North America a lot earlier than has been thought. Well I'm afraid that simply isn't true.
Mastodons became extinct about 11,000 years ago (Mammoths about 4,500 years ago), but humans are known to have lived in the North American continent only for the last 25,000 to 40,000 years.
The DNA of a 24,000 year-old skeleton discovered neal Lake Baikal in southern Siberia shows not only a close genetic relationship to today's Native Americans, but it also shows that he descended from people who had lived in Europe and Western Asia. It is almost certain that the ancestors of all Amerind people migrated to the Americas across the Bering Land Bridge which exists from about 25,000 to about 11,500 years ago until it was flooded in the big melt at the end of the last ice-age.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Beringia_land_bridge-noaagov.gif)
You have to go back to 130,000 years ago before there is enough ice locked up to lower the sea levels sufficiently for another land bridge to form in Berengia. There is no evidence of humans living in Siberia or North America at that time.
-
knight yes..sorry my mistake i mixed two information i read sepqrately that ninfossilized bones were found in alaska
however the quick search i made for non fossilizedmammoth bones found there didn't retrieve anything
-
i posted previously a link to historians but you can search marco polo, herodotus and Dion copied by another one amongst others
nonfossilized bones found with tissue, but scientists say it could be because of iron
non fossilized bones also where discovered with bloid in them.
You do know that Herodotus is called "The Father of Lies" as often as he is "The Father of History," right? He is not considered a reliable source. This is a man who claimed, I kid you not, that one of the Pyramids was built by a pharaoh's daughter who prostituted herself out to earn money for her father but demanded that each man she slept with bring her a stone, and that those stones stacked formed a pyramid. Marco Polo? His history is so checkered that plenty of people don't even think he went to China at all. But if dinosaurs were alive in Marco Polo's time, there are literally hundreds of other people whose writings we still have from those days who might have recorded them as not wonders from somewhere far away but as a thing from their region. We don't.
But either way, that doesn't answer my question. What would convince you dinosaurs and humans never interacted? Don't give me information about mammoths; we know humans and mammoths interacted. Don't cite writings of dubious historical merit to bolster the belief that they did. Tell me, in your own words, what would convince you they didn't.
-
http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/dragon
gillianren, all those ppl are lying you think?
what would convince me is how they knew to draw on caves long necks, for example..flying birds artefacts looking like later discovered flying dragons...
-
So the word "imagination" means nothing to you?
-
http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/dragon
gillianren, all those ppl are lying you think?
Thats an appeal to popularity. "Surely all those people can't be lying". Well, yes, they can, actually. Are Scientologists telling the truth? 25% of Americans over 18 believe in astrology. It's still bunkum, no matter how many believe in it.
And using a Creationist website as a source won't get you very far..... The reason why garbage websites like this exist is to popularise the notion that the Earth is only 6000 years old, in order to fit in with fundamentalist (emphasis on the mentalist bit...) belief in Bible fairy stories. Notice that they use photo's from one of Dr Duane Gish (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Duane_Gish)'s books. The term "gish-gallop (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop)" was named after him.
what would convince me is how they knew to draw on caves long necks, for example..flying birds artefacts looking like later discovered flying dragons...
Why wouldn't they? Mankind has drawn and told tales about fantastical creatures for as long as mankind could draw or talk. Did you parents never tell you tales about the Boogie Man, ogres, Santa Claus (substitute whatever bedtime story suits your culture)? That doesn't mean that they are real.
Look at the list of medieval mythical creatures that man invented. https://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/monster_list.html Would you argue that they are evidence of cryptozoology?
I keep an open mind about it, I listened to all, I can see pros and cons , but I am not conclusive either way.
That old chestnut, used by believers in woo since time began. Funny how people that claim to have an "open mind" seem to ignore rational explanations. Sure an open mind is a good thing to have, as long as it's not so open that your brains fall out.
-
http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/dragon
gillianren, all those ppl are lying you think?
what would convince me is how they knew to draw on caves long necks, for example..flying birds artefacts looking like later discovered flying dragons...
I could think of many similar descriptions of those drawings. My descriptions aren't similar to those described, but they are descriptions. Mankind has an infinite ability to conceive replications to images in their minds.
Slightly off topic but why do you believe that most those who have has close encounters with "UFO personnel" draw or give directions to draw very similar head shapes? Possibly subliminal images from stories or images previously seen?
I am a religious person, but I don't believe that the Earth's history in encompassed by roughly 6000 years. Humanoids have been first recognized at about 3.5 million years ago. Will a humanoid be found that is older--perhaps. But to propose that dinosaurs extinct at 65 million years ago and some humanoid from 3.5 million years ago co-habituated the Earth is simply ridiculous.
-
Thats an appeal to popularity. "Surely all those people can't be lying". Well, yes, they can, actually. Are Scientologists telling the truth? 25% of Americans over 18 believe in astrology. It's still bunkum, no matter how many believe in it.
And, hell, they don't have to be lying to be wrong. I believe, for example, that the majority of those people really do believe in Scientology and astrology and so forth. They're still wrong. There is such thing in this fine world as just being mistaken.
-
http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/dragon
gillianren, all those ppl are lying you think?
what would convince me is how they knew to draw on caves long necks, for example..flying birds artefacts looking like later discovered flying dragons...
The Japanese and Chinese have depicted dragons in their traditional art for thousands of years. Does this mean that dragons actually existed then? Of course it doesn't.
When you see "here be dragons" depicted on an old map, it does not mean there are actually any there!
-
The Japanese and Chinese have depicted dragons in their traditional art for thousands of years. Does this mean that dragons actually existed then? Of course it doesn't.
When you see "here be dragons" depicted on an old map, it does not mean there are actually any there!
And thus comes the tale of "Poof" the magic dragon. ::)
-
The quote "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" very clearly predates personal computers.
Or at least the RDRAND instruction.
-
what if it is like this fish, thought to be extinct since the time of dinosaurs, but then found alive with very minor evolution
Many of today's organisms are little changed from their ancestors, some who lived long before even the dinosaurs. Bacteria, for example. They were among the earliest life forms and are still by far the most numerous. And the great majority of bacteria species are still undiscovered and unstudied by science.
But none of this says humans and dinosaurs lived at the same time, because they didn't.
-
The quote "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results" very clearly predates personal computers.
Or at least the RDRAND instruction.
I had to look that one up, and I agree.
-
Jason,
maybe they were rare, so you don't expect that extensive encounters, but they would have left humans impressed.
The problem with this idea is that dinosaurs simply disappear from the fossil record about 65 million years ago. They're found across a range of about 160 million years, and then suddenly they're not there.
Now it's true that only a tiny fraction of animals and plants survive long enough after death to be fossilised, so it's likely that there are many creatures which walked the Earth which we have no fossil record of. But the more common something is, the more likely it is that it'll appear in the fossil record. What this means is that if some dinosaurs survived the event 65 million years ago which wiped out most of them, the surviving population would have been small, and it would have likely remained small for the next 65 million years until recent times. The problem with this is that small populations of any organism are far more at risk of extinction from any unexpected event - bad weather, volcanic eruption, disease, predation, or simply in-breeding.
So while it's possible that a small population of dinosaurs survived the extinction event of 65 million years ago until now-ish, it's statistically extremely unlikely. A very simple comparison is with human families, especially in the time before modern medicine - families where the parents had lots of children were more likely to survive over long periods of time than families where the parents had few children. And stretching this concept out over 65 million years simply makes it even more unlikely.
-
There is also a world of difference between the original claim and the coelocanth. Humans and coelocanths each live in parts of the world that are hostile to the other. The original claim is about humans not only living at the same time as dinosaurs but actually co-existing to the point of humans and dinosaurs encountering each other regularly. Under those circumstances we would expect to see a lot more evidence of dinosaur/human coexistence than a few mythical representations and anecdotes of 'dragons and beasts'.
Maybe he will understand this better than what I have posted. Goalpost shifting to meet the CT's perspective is.
EDIT: Correct spelling
She. And if you find a way to get her to listen to opposing opinions, I'd be very interested in finding out what it is. No one else has ever managed.
you notice how you pop up to create trouble?
Gillianren is not creating trouble, LionKing, she is stating a valid point. In all the years you have been posting here you have never grasped what science actually is all about despite numerous attempts by scientists on this discussion board to get you to understand, and you still pull up arguments like 'scientists say' and 'it would take only one find' to overturn a scientific idea.
yes she is. what would be expected as a result of such an aggressive post? love and peace? scientists say..yes..who else would we resort to? and didn't it take only one find to declare the fish unextinct? it would depend on issues debated
Yes, it only took one live coelacanth to prove that they must have survived from the time the latest known fossilised coelacanth had died.
However there's an important difference between coelacanths and most dinosaurs - ceolacanths live in the ocean, quite often at depths below 100 metres. This means that most coelacanths died in places where their fossilised remains will be very hard to find - in the deep ocean. By comparison most dinosaurs lived on land, and most of this land is still above sea level. This makes dinosaur fossils comparatively much easier to find than coelacanth fossils.
Despite this, scientists have found no record of any dinosaurs after the extinction event of 65 million years ago, except for a couple of questionable fossils dating to less than a million years after the extinction event (that is, still 64 million years before now). Instead, the fossil record of the last 65 million years is full of mammals expanding through the evolutionary niches previously occupied by dinosaurs - plant eaters, scavengers, top predators and so on.
-
http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/dragon
gillianren, all those ppl are lying you think?
LionKing
The people running the Genesis Park website are Christian Creationists. They believe the Book of Genesis is factually accurate - that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, that all humans are descended from the three sons of Noah, that all animals on Earth are descended from the animals on the Ark, and so on.
These people are well documented as saying things that are considered untrue by scientists. This takes a variety of forms - quoting scientific documents out of context, lying about articles published, or simply making up answers to questions. Regardless of their behaviour, they seem to believe that anything is justified in the pursuit of what they see as their higher goal - the promotion of Christian Creationism and its strongly conservative Protestant Christian theology. Examples of the sorts of things they've done are available here: http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/from_a_frog_to_a_prince.htm And here's a link to a page where there's evidence that creationists even lie about their own credentials: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html
Therefore, anything written on a creationist site needs to be treated with extreme caution - it simply can't be relied upon to be accurate.
-
When you speculate about dinosaurs and humans co-existing, its probably a good idea to define which dinosaurs co-existed with humans. "Dinosaur" covers an incredibly diverse range of creatures of many sizes and types, which lived over a very long period of time - any given dinosaur didn't even co-exist with many other dinosaurs!
Here, it seems you are mostly talking about the classic big dinosaurs. Tyrannosaurs, stegosaurus, diplodocus, plesiosaur, etc. The cool attention grabbing ones.
what if it is like this fish, thought to be extinct since the time of dinosaurs, but then found alive with very minor evolution
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-living-fossil-coelacanth-fish-left-behind-by-evolution-8577129.html
And here's where there's a big problem with thinking that the big cool dinosaurs could be around today, just like the coelacanth. They are big and cool. There's a temptation to imagine some Hollywood style expedition to a remote part of the ocean discovering the long-lost coelacanth, but it was nothing like that. Local fishers caught them regularly - and generally threw them back because apparently they taste terrible. You see, by and large, a coelacanth looks pretty much like a fish.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Latimeria_chalumnae.jpg)
People were seeing and interacting with coelacanths. They just didn't know there was anything special or unusual about them, because honestly nobody without a specific background would be likely to know that.
But dinosaurs, like the tyrannosaurus and diplodocus? They are NOT fish. They are much bigger than most animals we see. They look radically different from most animals we see. Nobody is going to see a tyrannosaur and think "Oh, I guess its just a big bird and nothing interesting". Even if the viewer has no clue what a dinosaur is, they will damn well know its SOMETHING unusual.
And by virtue of people being pretty much everywhere, if there were big dinosaurs around, we'd have spotted them by now.
As for Loch Ness...people have been looking for a monster there for close to a hundred years now, and have nothing to show for it but blurry photos and exposed fakes. As more and more people carry cameras everywhere and camera quality improves, we don't get any better photos. There's no monster. Luke thought it was maybe a giant catfish...I think even that is putting too much substance to it. Like the "supernatural" everywhere, Nessie is easily explainable by pareidolia and wishful thinking.
Here's an interesting interview with the world's most dedicated Nessie-hunter. Even he dismisses most of the claims and sightings.
http://www.csicop.org/sb/show/alone_on_the_loch_one_mans_search_for_nessie/
-
Excellent summary, Cat Not Included. And I should point out that coelecanths are generally deep-water fish. They've probably been leaving fossils for millions of years, but those fossils are at the bottom of the sea right now.
Land animals such as T. Rex or Brontosaurus (yes, the name's making a comeback!) should be leaving fossils on land, just like mastodons, and fossil horses, and camelids, that were hunted by humans. And yet, despite their huge size, they pretty well disappeared from the fossil record 65 million years ago. Heck, if humans had been hunting them I'd expect to find T. Rex teeth or sauropod bones used as tools by humans.