Men and dinosaurs

[bknight]

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.

[Luke Pemberton]

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.

[Zakalwe]

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.

[bknight]

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!

[Cat Not Included]

People and dinosaurs coexisting? Sure!


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?

[Cat Not Included]

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

[bknight]

Looks like a fabrication to me.

[Cat Not Included]

Oops. The post I was replying to vanished before I even finished replying to it. :p

[Peter B]

People and dinosaurs coexisting? Sure!


[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.

[LionKing]

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

[Peter B]

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".

[LionKing]

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

[Jason Thompson]

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....

[bknight]

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)

[LionKing]

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