Men and dinosaurs

[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.

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.

[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.

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.

[Luke Pemberton]

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.

[Luke Pemberton]

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.

[LionKing]

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 ? 

[bknight]

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.

[bknight]

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.

[LionKing]

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.

[LionKing]

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

[Jason Thompson]

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.

[Jason Thompson]

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'.

[bknight]

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.

[bknight]

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

[twik]

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.

[bknight]

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.