Men and dinosaurs

[Jason Thompson]

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.

[Peter B]

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

[Luke Pemberton]

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.

[Cat Not Included]

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.

[gillianren]

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.

[Zakalwe]

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.

[bknight]

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.

[twik]

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.

[bknight]

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!!

[LionKing]

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

[bknight]

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.

[Zakalwe]

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.

[LionKing]

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.

[Luke Pemberton]

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).

[LionKing]

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.