Dinosaurs coexisted with Man - Here's the Proof!

topic posted Sat, December 20, 2008 - 8:48 AM by  Dan
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
This article offers numerous evidences of dinosaur man coexistence refuting the evolutionist claim that Dinosaurs existed “millions and millions of years before man and higher mammals. My opponents will of course reject this evidence out of hand as “unscientific”, “myths”, “from a biased source” etc. . They are not interested in the truth, and probably unable to discern it if they see it. Yet an honest reader will be surprised that such overwhelming evidence exists and wonder why this information has been withheld from them by public education, media, textbooks, teachers and professors. The bible teaches that man and dinosaurs were created on day 6, along with all other land dwelling mammals. It also describes a great flood which swept over the world and the world that then was, perished. The fossils we now see in the rocks are largely deposits from this flood, not depositions over millions of years, but rather over a single year.
The full article with pictures can be found here: www.apologeticspress.org/articles/15
An article in the January 1993 National Geographic boldly proclaimed: “No human being has ever seen a live dinosaur” (“Age of the Dinosaurs,” 1993, 183[1]:142). The evidence, however, reveals an entirely different story. Consider the following:
The Doheny Expedition
In the late 1800s, Samuel Hubbard, honorary curator of archaeology at the Oakland, California, Museum of Natural History, was excavating ancient Indian dwellings in the Hava Supai Canyon in Arizona. On the walls of the canyon where the Indians’ ancestors once lived, Dr. Hubbard found elegant drawings of an elephant, an ibex, a dinosaur, and other animals. He stated concerning the dinosaur drawing: “Taken all in all, the proportions are good.” He further suggested that the huge reptile is “depicted in the attitude in which man would be most likely to see it—reared on its hind legs, balancing with the long tail, either feeding or in fighting position, possibly defending itself against a party of men” (as quoted in Verrill, 1954, pp. 155ff.). Dr. Hubbard also noted:
The fact that some prehistoric man made a pictograph of a dinosaur on the walls of this canyon upsets completely all of our theories regarding the antiquity of man.... The fact that the animal is upright and balanced on its tail would seem to indicate that the prehistoric artist must have seen it alive (1925, pp. 5,7, emp. in orig.).
Nearby, Dr. Hubbard and his team of archaeologists discovered dinosaur tracks preserved in strata identified as Triassic—alleged by evolutionists to be more than 165 million years old. Question: How could Indians have known how to draw such a perfect picture of an animal (the dinosaur) that they never had seen (or had described to them by someone who had seen it)?
According to the belief commonly held by evolutionists, no advanced mammals were present during the “age of the dinosaurs.” Artists’ reconstructions generally show the huge reptiles living in swamps, surrounded only by other species of dinosaurs. The late evolutionary paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson suggested that the only mammals that had evolved up to that point in time (even at the very end of the Cretaceous period) were supposedly “small, mostly about mouse-sized, and rare” (Simpson, et al., 1957, p. 797). In his book, Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, Stephen J. Gould addressed the same issue when he wrote:
Mammals evolved at the end of the Triassic, at the same time as dinosaurs, or just a tad later. Mammals spent their first hundred million years—two-thirds of their total history—as small creatures living in the nooks and crannies of a dinosaur’s world. Their sixty million years of success following the demise of the dinosaurs has been something of an afterthought (1989, p. 318).
It thus is completely unthinkable, in evolutionary terms, that dinosaurs and advanced mammals (like elephants or giraffes) could have co-existed. Again, however, Dr. Hubbard’s discoveries have “thrown a monkey wrench” into the evolutionary timescale.
However, a discovery reported in the January 13, 2005, issue of Nature challenged everything evolutionists have ever maintained regarding dinosaurs and mammals. The Associated Press reported: “Villagers digging in China’s rich fossil beds have uncovered the preserved remains of a tiny dinosaur in the belly of a mammal, a startling discovery for scientists who have long believed early mammals couldn’t possibly attack and eat a dinosaur” (Verrengia, 2005). Not only do we now have additional proof of mammals coexisting with dinosaurs, but we also have scientific evidence of a large mammal eating a dinosaur! The authors discovered the fossil remains of two different mammals. One was 50% larger than previous mammal fossils that were considered to be living with the dinosaurs, and was named Repenomamus giganticus. The other, Repenomamus robustus was fully intact—and had a dinosaur in its stomach. Yaoming Hu and his colleagues noted:
During preparation of the specimen a patch of small bones was revealed within the ribcage, on the ventral sides of the posterior left thoracic ribs and vertebrae, where the stomach is positioned in extant mammals. Unduplicated dentition [teeth—BH], limb bones and phalanges [bones of the toes or “fingers”—] in the patch confirm that these bones belong to a juvenile individual of Psittacosaurus, an herbivorous dinosaur that is common in Jehol Biota. The serrated teeth in the patched skeleton are typical of juvenile Psittacosaurus. The skull and most of the skeleton of the juvenile Psittacosaurus are broken, disarticulated and displaced, in contrast to the preservation of the R. robustus skeleton, which is essentially in its original anatomical relation. Although fragmentary, the bones of the Psittacosaurus are packed in a restricted area. These conditions indicate that the juvenile skeleton of Psittacosaurus is the remaining stomach contents of the mammal (Hu, et al., 2005, 433:151).
To complicate matters, researchers reported in the April 18, 2002 issue of Nature, one of the premier science journals in the world, that they now have determined that the “last common ancestor of extant primates” existed (as dated by evolutionary dating methods) 85 million years ago (Tavaré, et al., 2002). Since dinosaurs are supposed to have died out 65 million years ago, that means the primate would have lived with the dinosaurs for at least 20 million years. One of the co-authors of the Nature paper, Christophe Soligo of London’s Natural History Museum, stated in regard to the find: “What we demonstrate is that modern orders of mammals appeared well before dinosaurs disappeared...” (see “Primate Ancestor Lived with Dinos,” 2002). So much for the belief that mammals evolved “just a tad later” than the dinosaurs.
Ica Burial Stones
Javier Cabrera Darquea came into possession of his first burial stone (from the Ica section of the country of Peru) when he was given one as a paperweight for his birthday. Ironically, he could recall his own father also possessing similar oddly carved stones that his family found in their fields in the 1930s. Dr. Darquea sought out the origin of his unique gift, in an effort to amass a collection of these unique stones, and eventually assembled over 11,000 of them. The rocks turned out to be ancient burial stones that the Inca Indians placed with their dead. Almost one-third of the stones depicted specific types of dinosaurs (such as Triceratops and Stegosaurus) and various pterosaurs. The type of art form represented by these stones, and their location, dated them to the time of the Inca Culture, c. A.D. 500-1500. How could these ancient Indians have known the anatomy of these creatures if they never had witnessed them firsthand?



Validation of these stones comes from a full understanding of their history. In the 1570s, the Indian historian and chronicler of the Incas, Juan de Santa Cruz Llamgui, wrote about the engraved stones. He noted that Conquistadors had taken some of the stones back to Spain, and wrote that at the time of the Inca Pachachuti, many carved stones had been found in the kingdom of Chinca, in Chinchayunga. On October 3, 1993, the OJO, Lima Domingo, a major newspaper based in Lima, Peru, reported a Spanish priest traveling in the area of Ica in 1525, inquiring about the unusual stones that had strange animals carved on them. These reports verify that the stones were in existence long before those discovered by Dr. Darquea. Since that time, other investigators have had the opportunity to observe stones in Nasca tombs, as well as to inspect the entire Darquea collection.
Interestingly, several Diplodocus-like dinosaurs on the stones have what appear to be dermal frills—something never previously reported by scientists. In 1992, however, dermal frills were found during an examination of fossilized remains of sauropods. In an article titled “New Look for Sauropod Dinosaurs,” paleontologist Stephen Czerkas noted:
Recent discovery of fossilized sauropod (diplodocid) skin impressions reveals a significantly different appearance for these dinosaurs. The fossilized skin demonstrates that a median row of [dermal] spines was present.... Some are quite narrow, and others are broader and more conical (1992, 20:1068).
Also, the skin of many of the carved dinosaurs resembled bumpy rosettes. For many years, scientists pointed to this as proof that these stones were not scientifically accurate. However, more recent discoveries of fossilized dinosaur skin and embryos have silenced the critics. In more than one report, these bumpy rosettes have been identified and discussed. In fact, one of the discoveries comes from the same continent as the Ica burial stones. Luis Chiappe and colleagues discussed sauropod dinosaur embryos, noting:
The general skin pattern consists of round, non-overlapping, tubercle-like scales.... A rosette pattern of scales is present in PVPH-130 [designation for one of the specimens—BH/BT] (Chiappe, et al., 1998, 396:259).
Again, we must ask: How could the Incas have drawn such accurate pictures of dinosaurs if they never had seen the animals (or had them described by someone who had seen them)? [For a discussion of Dr. Darquea’s research, see Swift, 1997].
Natural Bridges National Monument Petroglyph
Natural Bridges National Monument is located in a desolate area in southeastern Utah. Visitors to this site will see where the White River has carved meandering paths through the sandstone rock. Three natural bridges have formed where these wandering streams have undercut the above rock formations: Sipapu Bridge (the second largest natural bridge in the world); Kachina Bridge; and Owachomo Bridge. It is at Kachina Bridge where an Indian petroglyph depicting a dinosaur was discovered. In fact, visitors to the site can see three or four drawings that appear to be dinosaur-like creatures. Francis Barnes, an evolutionist and widely recognized authority on rock art of the American Southwest, had this to say about this find just outside of Blanding, Utah:
There is a petroglyph in Natural Bridges National Monument that bears a startling resemblance to a dinosaur, specifically a Brontosaurus, with long tail and neck, small head and all. In the San Rafael Swell, there is a pictograph that looks very much like a pterosaur, a Cretaceous flying reptile. The artists who created this “pterosaur,” and the “dinosaur,” could of course, have been trying to portray some other real or imagined creatures. But what about other animals seen on rock art panels, such as “impalas,” “ostriches,” “mammoths” and others that either are long extinct in the western hemisphere or were never here at all? Such anomalous rock art figures can be explained away, but they still tend to cast doubt upon the admittedly flimsy relative-time age-dating schemes used by archaeologists (Barnes and Pendleton, 1979, pp. 201-202).
If National Geographic is correct in stating that “no human being has ever seen a live dinosaur,” then whence came the models for these petroglyphs?
The Acambaro Figurines
On a bright and sunny morning in July 1944, Waldemar Julsrud, a German merchant in Acambaro, Mexico, found himself riding on horseback on the lower slope of El Toro (The Bull) Mountain. From his elevated vantage point, Mr. Julsrud spotted some partially exposed, hewn stones and a ceramic object half buried in the dirt. After climbing off his horse, he dug the stones (and a few ceramic pieces) out of the ground. Being somewhat archaeologically astute, Julsrud immediately realized that these artifacts were unlike anything that he had ever seen. The objects he held in his hand seemed distinctively different than those from other known Indian cultures. He eventually worked out a deal with a local farmer to excavate these precious pieces.
Eventually, over 33,500 figurines and artifacts of ceramic and stone (including some in jade) were uncovered. A key feature of this discovery was the fact that many of the artifacts were highly detailed dinosaur figurines. Charles Hapgood, a professor of history and anthropology at Keene State College (of the University of New Hampshire), became interested in the figurines and decided to investigate firsthand. Initially, Hapgood was a self-confessed (but open-minded) skeptic. However, after witnessing the excavations (even going so far as to dictate specific locations for the workers doing the digging), and after examining the figurines personally, he became a believer. He made his first visit to Acambaro in 1955, returned on numerous occasions, and eventually authored a book about his eighteen years of research into the figurines (see Hapgood, 2000). Consider the following measures, enacted to establish the authenticity of the Acambaro collection:
When Teledynes Isotopes laboratories performed dating tests on the carbon deposited during firing on ceramic samples submitted by Hapgood, dates of up to 4530 B.C. obtained. Arthur M. Young, the inventor of the Bell Helicopter, who had sponsored Hapgood’s investigation along with [Erle Stanley] Gardner [author of the Perry Mason mysteries—BH/BT], submitted Julsrud artifact samples [i.e., the Acambaro figurines—BH/BT] to the University of Pennsylvania for dating. Radiocarbon dating performed by Dr. Froelich Rainey in the laboratories of the University indicated that this culture may have been developed between 6,400 and 3,500 years ago. Additional tests using thermoluminescence method of dating pottery were performed. They produced dates of up to 4,500 B.P. (Before Present), or 2500 B.C., which upset the professional archaeologists and set off within the scientific and museum world a controversy over the accuracy of thermoluminescence dating. Retesting was done, and it was announced that because of anomalous factors in the clays it was impossible to determine an accurate date (Hapgood, p. 17).
According to David Childress, who penned the foreword to Hapgood’s book, the most recent thermoluminescence testing done on Acambaro pottery fragments (taken by Bill Cote and John H. Tierney during the filming of the video, Jurassic Art, in the early 1990s) obtained results of 3,975±55 B.P. (Hapgood, p. 18). Consider also the fact that teeth from an extinct ice-age horse, the skeleton of a woolly mammoth, and a number of human skulls also were found at the same site as the ceramic artifacts. Hapgood noted: “I later took these teeth to Dr. George Gaylord Simpson, America’s leading paleontologist, at the Museum of Natural History. He identified them as the teeth of Equus conversidans owen, an extinct horse of the ice age” (p. 82). Thus, the collection had evidence of extinct animals, human skulls, and dinosaur carvings from the same culture of people. But how could this be?
In 1999, Dennis Swift (who also was personally acquainted with Javier Darquea of Peru) made a trip to view the figurines. After receiving permission from the local authorities, he began to unwrap the ceramic figures. Dr. Swift noted:
There was an absolutely astonishing moment of breathless magnitude as one object was unwrapped and there before us was an Iguanodon dinosaur figurine. [For documentation on the Iguanodon discovery to which Swift alluded, see The Dinosaur Encyclopedia (Michael Benton, 1992, New York: Simon & Schuster, p. 80).]

Childress went on to note in an article titled “In Search of Sea Monsters”:
Adding to the mind-boggling aspects of this controversy is the fact that the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia through the late Director of Prehispanic Monuments, Dr. Eduardo Noguera, admitted “the apparent scientific legality with which these objects were found.” Despite evidence of their own eyes, however, officials declared that because of the objects’ “fantastic” nature, they had to have been a hoax! (no date).
This archaeological “hoax” presents insoluble problems for evolutionists. As Childress put it, “Most ‘respectable’ archaeologists will walk around the Acambaro mystery as if it were a land mine. The very existence of the figurines threatens the ivory tower of the current paradigm of history” (as quoted in Hapgood, 2000, p. 20).
Dinosaur Bones Only Thousands of Years Old?



In 1990, samples of various dinosaur bones were submitted for Carbon-14 dating to the University of Arizona’s department of geosciences’ laboratory of isotope geochemistry. Bones from an Allosaurus and an Acrocanthosaurus were among those sent to the university’s testing facilities to undergo a “blind” dating procedure (which means that the technicians performing the tests did not know that the bones had come from dinosaurs). Not realizing that the samples were from dinosaurs prevented “evolutionary bias,” and helped ensure that the results were as accurate as possible (within the recognized assumptions and limits of the C-14 dating method). We have in our possession—on the official stationery of the University of Arizona—a copy of the test results for the Allosaurus bones (see reproduction at right, sample B). Amazingly, the oldest C-14 date assigned to those bones was a mere 16,120 years (and only 23,760 years for the Acrocanthosaurus fossils; see Dahmer, et al., 1990). Both dates are a far cry from the millions of years that evolutionists suggest should be assigned to dinosaur fossils.
The Monster of Troy
The February 26, 2000 issue of Science News contained an article that diligently attempted to defuse a potential bomb within the evolutionary camp (Hesman, 2000). Sitting inside the Boston Museum of Fine Arts is an ancient Greek vase. This vase is covered by a series of somewhat unusual paintings, including one that is bewildering to both archaeologists and evolutionists. The vase portrays a monster that possesses the head of a dinosaur. And, to make matters worse, the images on the vase depict men and dinosaurs as coexisting.
Known as the Hesione vase, this elegant potteryware was created around 550 B.C., and depicts the Greek hero Heracles rescuing Hesione from the monster of Troy. The tale of the monster was first told by Homer in the eighth century B.C. In this legend, a terrifying monster suddenly appeared on the Trojan coast after a flood, and began preying on the farmers in the neighborhood of Sigeum. The king’s daughter, Hesione, was sent to be offered as a sacrifice to the monster, but according to the legend, Heracles arrived in time to kill it. The painting on the vase shows Hesione and Heracles battling the monster, with Hesione tossing rocks at it, and Heracles shooting arrows. You can understand the obvious plight of evolutionists when confronted with such imagery. Thus, in an effort to “explain” this artwork in light of evolutionary timescales, the editors of Science News concluded that the paintings on this unusual vase simply prove that ancient people dug fossils, too. They believe that this painting was the end result of fossils—possibly of an extinct giraffe—that were dug up thousands of years ago. What’s that old saying? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a—giraffe?
Human Footprints with Dinosaur Tracks?
Consider also that in 1983, researchers reported in the science and engineering news section of The Moscow News that they had discovered what appeared to be a human footprint in 150-million-year-old Jurassic rock, next to a giant, three-toed dinosaur footprint. The article stated:
This spring, an expedition from the Institute of Geology of the Turkmen SSR Academy of Sciences found over 1,500 tracks left by dinosaurs in the mountains in the southeast of the Republic [Turkmen Republic—BH/BT]. Impressions resembling in shape a human footprint were discovered next to the tracks of prehistoric animals (see “Tracking Dinosaurs,” 1983, 24:10).
Naturally, this report has received precious little attention, given the mindset of evolutionists.
Historical Records of Flying Reptiles
Additional evidence for the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs is derived from various ancient writings. For instance, the largest creature ever known to have soared in the skies above the Earth was a pterosaur identified as Quetzalcoatlus (KWET-zal-COAT-lus). The fossil bones of one of these flying reptiles were unearthed in 1972 at Big Bend National Park in Texas. This Quetzalcoatlus had a wingspan of 48 feet (which is longer than some small airplanes!). While these giant birds are not classified scientifically as dinosaurs (since they are not strictly land-dwelling creatures, as dinosaurs were, by definition), they often are lumped into a group of animals known as “dinosaur-like” creatures. Notice the following quotation taken from Herodotus, a Greek historian from the fifth century B.C., who wrote:
There is a place in Arabia...to which I went, on hearing of some winged serpents; and when I arrived there, I saw bones and spines of serpents, in such quantities as it would be impossible to describe. The form of the serpent is like that of a water-snake; but he has wings without feathers, and as like as possible to the wings of a bat (1850, pp. 75-76, emp. added).
Herodotus knew of flying reptiles, and recognized that these creatures were neither birds, mammals, nor insects—but reptiles with wings. Notice also what the Jewish historian Josephus wrote 2,000 years ago about Moses and his army having a difficult time passing through a particular region because of the presence of flying serpents.
When the ground was difficult to be passed over, because of the multitude of serpents (which it produces in vast numbers...some of which ascend out of the ground unseen, and also fly in the air, and do come upon men at unawares, and do them a mischief)....
[Moses] made baskets like unto arks, of sedge, and filled them with ibes [i.e., birds], and carried them along with them; which animal is the greatest enemy to serpents imaginable, for they fly from them when they come near them; and as they fly they are caught and devoured by them (n.d., 2:10:2, emp. added).
Although these two historians do not mention the extremely large flying reptiles, they do record that snake-like winged creatures, which could fly, did live in the distant past. These reports are consistent with findings that A.H. Verrill reported in 1954 in his book, Strange Prehistoric Animals and Their Stories.
Primitive man, finding a fossil pterodactyl, might assume that the skeleton was that of some strange winged monster which still existed. Being totally ignorant of fossils and geology, an Indian or any other savage or semi-savage human being would never suspect that the bones had been reserved in rock for millions of years. Neither would it be possible for such primitive men to reconstruct mentally the creature as they appeared in life.... It is of course, inconceivable that the Cocle potter had first-hand knowledge of a living pterodactyl, ancient as the pottery is; yet had he been as familiar with the flying monsters as he was with pelicans and jaguars, he could not have depicted them more strikingly and accurately. Not only do the drawings show beak-like jaws armed with sharp teeth, but in addition the wings with two curved claws are depicted. Included also are the short, pointed tail, the reptilian head crest or appendages, and the strong hind feet with five-clawed toes on each (1954, pp. 55,57-58).
Obviously, the scientific evidence for the coexistence of dinosaurs and man speaks loudly, and yet it continues to fall on deaf ears within the evolutionary community. That silence, however, does little to change the documented facts, as we now know them.
CONCLUSION
Contrary to popular opinion, dinosaurs do not present a problem for creationists. In fact, quite the opposite is true. It is evolutionists who have a problem. While they continue to maintain, as the late paleontologist Roland T. Bird of the American Museum of Natural History once put it, that “no man had ever existed in the age of the reptiles” (1939, 43[5]:257), the evidence documents exactly the opposite.
The Mosaic record of the Creation is inexhaustively sublime. In it, we learn of the creation of the heavens and the Earth by an Almighty God. By divine fiat, light was formed and atmosphere was wrapped around this planet. Great seas were gathered together, and separated from dry land. The world of botany miraculously bloomed, and lights burst forth in the heavens. The waters swarmed with living creatures, and birds soared through the pristine air. Varieties of domestic animals and beasts were created and finally, man, the zenith of God’s creation, stood proudly upon the Earth’s bosom.
The dinosaur—one of the most majestic of God’s creatures—stood with man. No doubt they pondered each other’s existence. Today, we still stand amazed at these awesome giants. And as we do, their presence in the past should remind us of the magnificence of the God Who was able to speak them into existence by “the word of His power” (Hebrews 1:3). Awesome creatures—from the hand of an awesome Creator.
REFERENCES
“Age of the Dinosaurs” (1993), National Geographic, 183[1]:142, January.
Bakker, Robert T. (1986), The Dinosaur Heresies (New York: William Morrow).
Barnes F.A., and Michaelene Pendleton (1979), Canyon Country Prehistoric Indians: Their Cultures, Ruins, Artifacts and Rock Art (Salt Lake City, NV: Wasatch Publishers).
Bird, Roland T. (1939), “Thunder in His Footsteps,” Natural History, 43[5]:254-261, May.
Chiappe, Luis M., Rodolfo Coria, et al. (1998), “Sauropod Dinosaur Embryos from the Late Cretaceous of Patagonia,” Nature, 396:258-261, November 19.
Childress, David H. (no date), “In Search of Sea Monsters,” World Explorer, vol. 1 no. 7, [On-line], URL: www.wexclub.com/BackIssues/WEX7.html.
Clayton, John N. (1968a), “The History of Man on Planet Earth,” Does God Exist? Correspondence Course, Lesson 8.
Clayton, John N. (1968b), Teacher’s Manual, Does God Exist? Correspondence Course.
Clayton, John N. (1977), “Dinosaurs and the Bible,” Evidences of God, Volume I (South Bend, IN: Privately published by the author), pp. 149-151.
Clayton, John N. (1982), “Where Are the Dinosaurs?,” Does God Exist?, 9[10]:2-6, October.
Czerkas, Stephen (1992), “New Look for Sauropod Dinosaurs,” Geology, 20:1068-1070.
Dahmer, Lionel, D. Kouznetsov, et al. (1990), “Report on Chemical Analysis and Further Dating of Dinosaur Bones and Dinosaur Petroglyphs,” Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, ed. Robert E. Walsh and Christopher L. Brooks (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship), pp. 371-374.
Gould, Stephen Jay (1989), Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History (New York: W.W. Norton).
Hapgood, Charles (2000), Mystery in Acambaro (Kempton, IL: Adventures Unlimited Press).
Herodotus, (1850 reprint), Historiae, trans. Henry Clay (London: Henry G. Bohn).
Hesman, T. (2000), “Vase Shows that Ancients Dug Fossils, Too,” Science News, 157:133, February 26.
Hu, Yaoming, Jin Meng, Yuanqing Wang, and Chuankui Li (2005), “Large Mesozoic Mammals Fed on Young Dinosaurs,” Nature, 433:149-152, January 13.
Hubbard, Samuel (1925), Discoveries Relating to Prehistoric Man by the Doheny Scientific Expedition (Oakland, CA: Oakland Museum of Natural History).
Josephus, Flavius (no date), Antiquities of the Jews (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, reprint).
Morris, Henry M. (1984), The Biblical Basis for Modern Science (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
“Primate Ancestor Lived with Dinos” (2002), [On-line], URL: news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english...935558.stm.
Simpson, George Gaylord, C.S. Pittendrigh, and L.H. Tiffany (1957), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company).
Swift, Dennis (1997), “Messages on Stone,” Creation Ex Nihilo, 19[2]:20-23, March-May.
Swift, Dennis (no date), “The Dinosaurs of Acambaro,” [On-line], URL: www.omniology.com/3-Ceramic-Dinos.html.
Tavaré, Simon, C.R. Marshall, et al. (2002), “Using the Fossil Record to Estimate the Age of the Last Common Ancestor of Extant Primates,” Nature, 416:726-729, April 18.
“Tracking Dinosaurs” (1983), Moscow News, 24:10.
Verrengia, Joseph B. (2005), “Fossils Show a Mammal Turned Tables, Devoured Dinosaur for Last Meal,” [On-line], URL: www.cp.org/english/onli...011204A.html.
Verrill, A.H. (1954), Strange Prehistoric Animals and Their History (Boston, MA: L.C. Page).
Wilson, Edward O. (1982), “Toward a Humanistic Biology,” The Humanist, September/October.
posted by:
Dan
offline Dan
Indiana
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: Dinosaurs coexisted with Man - Here's the Proof!

    Tue, December 23, 2008 - 8:55 AM
    When people use psedo-science to try to defend religion against science on its own terms, they invariably fail and bring only further scorn and contempt upon religion.

    You have chosen a battle that you cannot win. You will win no converts this way. It is folly.

    God cannot be proven through science. If your Bible is the word of God, then neither can it be proven through science. If it can be proven through science, then it is not the word of God.
    • Dan
      Dan
      offline 8

      Re: Dinosaurs coexisted with Man - Here's the Proof!

      Tue, December 23, 2008 - 12:04 PM
      the bible is a historical narrative of Gods dealings with man. It contains real history and real science. Defending the truth against an attack of lies is a rational and reasonable pursuit. It has nothing to do with "proving religion". I hate religion.
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Dinosaurs coexisted with Man - Here's the Proof!

        Tue, December 23, 2008 - 12:17 PM
        You hate religion? I quote you "Dan."

        You say you hate religion?

        It is this hate that seperates you from God.
        • Dan
          Dan
          offline 8

          Re: Dinosaurs coexisted with Man - Here's the Proof!

          Tue, December 23, 2008 - 2:02 PM
          I hate hate a lot of things. You would too if you had a lick of good sense. Hate is a normal human emotion with practical value. God himself hates. To love is to "hate what is evil and cling to what is good". Before coming to me with your pretend wisdom, why not read the bible, the word of the Living God?
          • Unsu...
             

            Re: Dinosaurs coexisted with Man - Here's the Proof!

            Tue, December 23, 2008 - 8:03 PM
            I have read the bible, in several languages, the koran, the torah, the dead sea scrolls

            But a recommendation to read the bible coming from a person who professes to hate a lot of things, as you do, my friend, is not a good sell.

            You don't actually want people to read the bible. You only use your reading of the bible as a way to claim superiority over those who have not.

            This is a sin.
            • Re: Dinosaurs coexisted with Man - Here's the Proof!

              Wed, December 24, 2008 - 7:32 AM
              >You don't actually want people to read the bible. You only use your reading of the bible as a way to claim superiority over those who have not.<

              Dan uses the Bible in the same way a drunken man uses a light post - for support rather than illumination.
              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: Dinosaurs coexisted with Man - Here's the Proof!

                Fri, December 26, 2008 - 8:45 PM
                Dan has been preaching for 20 years.

                In twenty years, he has turned a thousand people away from God, away from Jesus.

                He uses the bible to preach hate. He defaces the bible and slanders god with his doctrine of hate.

                I pray for him. We pray that he stops.
  • Re: Dinosaurs coexisted with Man - Here's the Proof!

    Wed, December 31, 2008 - 9:03 AM
    >>"This article offers numerous evidences of dinosaur man coexistence"<<

    Drawings by ancient men are evidence men have good imaginations, nothing more. I think you know that, Dan; why do I need to point it out?

    There is no evidence of dinosaurs in rocks younger than Cretaceous, that is accepted by the scientific community. I think you know that, Dan; why do I have to point it out?

    The "evidences" quoted in your article are laughable and of course you also know your sources are biased, I don't even need to point this out, as you and other creationists openly admit their entire aim is to cram all data they encounter into a narrow box of possibilities that fit with the some old writings of ignorant ancient people that are preserved from a few thousand years ago. This is not a scientific approach and you know this, Dan; so why pretend that it is?
    • Dan
      Dan
      offline 8

      Re: Dinosaurs coexisted with Man - Here's the Proof!

      Wed, December 31, 2008 - 12:23 PM
      “Drawings by ancient men are evidence men have good imaginations, nothing more. I think you know that, Dan; why do I need to point it out?”

      Because this explanation does not adequately explain known facts Rene. How did those ancients possess such good imaginations? They drew pictures of known dinosaurs in upright positions with all of their flesh on their bones. They show them in scenes with modern mammals. They made carvings of triceratops which included details of their skin and scales, something only known recently to modern scientists. History is replete with embellished stories of dragan beasts matching known dinosaurs, pteradactyls and amphibious beasts which they should not have known about. How can this be attributed to active imaginations Rene? The bible offers details of these beasts as well, one such example is found in Job 40:

      “ 15 "Look at the behemoth, [a]
      which I made along with you
      and which feeds on grass like an ox.
      16 What strength he has in his loins,
      what power in the muscles of his belly!
      17 His tail [b] sways like a cedar;
      the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.
      18 His bones are tubes of bronze,
      his limbs like rods of iron.
      19 He ranks first among the works of God,
      yet his Maker can approach him with his sword.
      20 The hills bring him their produce,
      and all the wild animals play nearby.
      21 Under the lotus plants he lies,
      hidden among the reeds in the marsh.
      22 The lotuses conceal him in their shadow;
      the poplars by the stream surround him.
      23 When the river rages, he is not alarmed;
      he is secure, though the Jordan should surge against his mouth.
      24 Can anyone capture him by the eyes, [c]
      or trap him and pierce his nose?”

      What animal existed in modern times which matches this description Rene? Are you saying that Job had an “active imagination” also? Certainly this description fits known dinosaurs.


      “There is no evidence of dinosaurs in rocks younger than Cretaceous, that is accepted by the scientific community. I think you know that, Dan; why do I have to point it out?”

      I understand what the consensus of the scientific community is Rene. But scientific consensus has been wrong before. And scientists are dismissing a bunch of evidence which argues against their paradigm. Note Sir Fred Hoyles apt comment:

      Hoyle says: “Science today is locked into paradigms. Every avenue is blocked by beliefs that are wrong, and if you try to get anything published by a journal today, you will run up against a paradigm, and the editors will turn it down.” March 1995 issue of Scientific American, p. 47

      Could it be that dinosaurs did coexist with man and that these paradigms Hoyle refers to here prevent them from acknowledging it Rene? Remember, it would not be the first time that evolutionists thought something had gone extinct, only to find it alive and well off the coast of Africa!

      “The "evidences" quoted in your article are laughable and of course you also know your sources are biased,”

      Yes, I know my sources are biased, but you have not yet discovered that the same is true of your sources. The only reason these evidences are “laughable” is because we know the conclusions of the article “can’t” be true. Have there been times in history when laughable ideas have turned out to be true?

      “I don't even need to point this out, as you and other creationists openly admit their entire aim is to cram all data they encounter into a narrow box of possibilities that fit with the some old writings of ignorant ancient people that are preserved from a few thousand years ago.”

      You often call ancient people ignorant Rene, Why is that? Could it be that you have an evolutionary bias which paints your view of ancient civilizations? We know that the ancient Egyptians were not ignorant Rene. One can just consider the mathematical precision involved in constructing the pyramids to realize this. We know that technology existed which allowed them to move 60 ton rocks, something we cannot do today. According to Dr Colin Fink of the electro-chemistry department at Columbia University, the ancient Egyptians copper-coated many artefacts using a form of electro-chemical exchange (William Corliss, Ancient Man: A Handbook of Puzzling Artifacts, The Sourcebook Project, Glen Arm (Maryland), 1978, p. 443.) A Scientific American publication referred to this technique as 'a secret later lost and not rediscovered until the last century by Faraday'. By Cleopatra's day, the Parthians had even developed a primitive electric battery.

      How much of what you believe about the past is tainted by your evolutionary bias? I think, a lot!

      “This is not a scientific approach and you know this, Dan; so why pretend that it is?”

      A good scientist does not ignore conflicting evidence Rene. Nor does he fear opposition to his pet theory’s. He pursues the truth, where ever it leads. If evolutionary scientists were really objective, they would be thankful for the critiques of creation scientists as criticism is what drives true science. But what we really see are biased scientists who are locked into paradigms, jealously guarding their turf.
      • Re: Dinosaurs coexisted with Man - Here's the Proof!

        Wed, December 31, 2008 - 1:20 PM
        >>"What animal existed in modern times which matches this description Rene? Are you saying that Job had an “active imagination” also? Certainly this description fits known dinosaurs."<<

        Well Dan, it does not sound like a dinosaur to me, maybe an elephant. Active imagination describes this well---> "His bones are tubes of bronze" "The hills bring him their produce" Your silliness is reaching new heights.

        >>"Could it be that dinosaurs did coexist with man and that these paradigms Hoyle refers to here prevent them from acknowledging it"<<

        What prevents this idea from being even marginally reasonable is the fact that dinosaur and human remains are found in strata of completely different ages and on any possible time scale, even a short one of 6000 years there is no way the two groups could have shared anything at all, based on the quite abundant evidence at our disposal.

        >>'You often call ancient people ignorant Rene"<<

        In the case of the bible, what was written there, clearly demonstrates their ignorance. There have been more advanced cultures that have regressed and clearly some knowledge was lost. Still in comparison to what we know in the modern scientific world, they were ignorant. Of course, in comparison to you, the gap would not be so large.

        >>"A good scientist does not ignore conflicting evidence Rene. Nor does he fear opposition to his pet theory’s. He pursues the truth, where ever it leads."<<

        Nobody fears your creationist myths, Dan. What is feared is people like you trying to pretend their religion is science while denigrating and failing to educate young people with good science. And of course you know very well that your "creation scientists", in contrast to real scientists, are not willing to "pursue the truth, where ever it leads." You know that every theory they propose must fit into a very narrow box and no others are acceptable. The fact of the matter is that paradigm busting is what ever scientist dreams of and we are not limited in our thinking like you have forced yourself to be. It is utterly ridiculous of you to make such an accusation and once again I think you actually know it. The games you play disgust me!
        • Dan
          Dan
          offline 8

          Re: Dinosaurs coexisted with Man - Here's the Proof!

          Wed, December 31, 2008 - 7:07 PM
          "Your silliness is reaching new heights"

          And yours. Take the wife to the Houston Zoo soon. You need to rediscover Elephant tails. They were not the size of cedar trees last I visited...

          Strata position is meaningless. All this implies is that dinosaurs were buried deeper than other animals.

          "The games you play disgust me!"

          I am not playing any games Rene.



          • tbi
            • If we're going to accept the validity of ancient art as representational of reality, dinosaurs are the least of our concerns. (explain "the sorcerer" in these terms?) Really, I'm sorry if anyone's imagination is not developed enough to understand that ancient man had the same vivid imagination as we do, in fact, they were less constrained by scientific understanding.

              Then again, if a literal interpretation of ancient art is part of what supports your literal interpretation of the Bible, maybe your imagination is alive and well...
              • Dan
                Dan
                offline 8
                "If we're going to accept the validity of ancient art as representational of reality, dinosaurs are the least of our concerns. (explain "the sorcerer" in these terms?) Really, I'm sorry if anyone's imagination is not developed enough to understand that ancient man had the same vivid imagination as we do, in fact, they were less constrained by scientific understanding."

                None of this makes any logical sense. When an ancient makes detailed carvings and drawings of animals which we know of today, along with story's of these creatures, it is reasonable to suggest they had actual experiences with these creatures. It makes no sense to suggest that they just lucked out. Many of the dragon story's combined fiction with non.

                "Then again, if a literal interpretation of ancient art is part of what supports your literal interpretation of the Bible, maybe your imagination is alive and well..."

                Grim, you are avoiding the issue. How did these ancients come up with drawings, which were do detailed at times that they actually were considered fraudulent until scientists came to understand the exact texture of the dinosaur skin? This isn't imagination, this is natural science.
                • No, ancient art is not always representational of reality. Beginning with "the sorcerer," a paleolithic representation of a human form with the head of a beast, we can follow a theriocephalic trend through the art of numerous cultures through time. (in egyptian art, for example) Do you now propose to tell me that humans with the heads of wild beasts are a historical fact, simply because there are wonderful artistic representations of them? No, theriocephaly has other explanations, as do the artistic representations you site. Lack of human imagination is not a valid argument.

                  This line of logic is flawed. Continuing to cling to it will only weaken your argument as a whole.


                  I do believe though, that the descendants of dinosaurs walk beside man. (and some of them taste like chicken...)
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    Dan
                    Dan
                    offline 8
                    "Do you now propose to tell me that humans with the heads of wild beasts are a historical fact"

                    No, but if we dug up one and it matched the historical story verbatum I wouldn't argue that they existed millions of years prior to these ancients because they were buried in lower strata, thus dismissing contrary documented evidence for unobserved conjecture.

                    "Lack of human imagination is not a valid argument. "

                    Lack or no is not an argument at all. Nor is it the one I am making. Your analogy is flawed Grim. If scientists discovered a living dinosaur in the jungles of Africa, you would be amazed at how quick evolutionists adjusted their story, without of course, abandoning evolution or long ages. We would simply have another "living fossil" and enigma of science.
                    • >>"We would simply have another "living fossil" and enigma of science."<<

                      "Living fossils" really are not much of an "enigma". They simply tell us some species have survived far longer than the average, relatively unchanged. Any number of perfectly valid factors might account for this. One would think that if species were "designed" by some intelligence all species would exhibit this characteristic, but this is clearly not the case.
                      • Dan
                        Dan
                        offline 8
                        Some species which have "disappeared" for millions of supposed years in the fossil record and then appearing again in the present hardly is predicted by the evolutionary model. The Creation/flood model would predict mass extinction, variation and examples of unchanged organisms. Evolution is a plastic theory with no predictive value whatsoever.
                        • A less misleading statement would be: The world is pretty big. Sometimes a group of creatures are known from the fossil record, but not found today. On occasion, that group never fully died out, but became a small and obscure population somewhere. This is especially a problem for smaller creatures, and ones that frequent areas that mankind seldom visits.

                          Once, their population was wider, and in a place that not only fossilized their remains, but also brought those fossils to someplace handy for mankind. After their population became smaller, and/or spent it's remaining time someplace that hasn't led to handy fossil gathering, they seem to leave the fossil record.

                          Finding them now doesn't need to be accounted for by evolution. The fault lies with the limits of fossil gathering and exploration, both imposed by the difficulties in exploring certain environments.
                          • Dan
                            Dan
                            offline 8
                            I am sorry Grim but you haven't a clue here at all. The fossil record is "almost unmanageably rich, and discovery is outpacing integration . ... "—*Stephen Jay Gould. In evolutionary terms, when a species "disappears" for millions of year in the record yet pops up in real time space dimension history this is a falsification of evolution and a real conundrum.

                            Of course if the fossil record is really mostly the result of the Noahic flood over a 1 year period we would expect mass extinction of some creatures and we would not be surprised to find many species living today unchanged from their fossil counterparts which are not accounted for in more "recent" rock layers. Living fossils are abundant:

                            "Some biologists marvel that there is any evolution at all, considering the possible pitfalls of change. "The idea is that organisms are so complex that it is very hard to change one aspect without wrecking everything else," says [Yale paleontologist Elisabeth] Vrba. But it is extremely difficult to show that this is why our supreme survivors remain unchanged for millions of years." (Dicks, "The Creatures Time Forgot," New Scientist, 23 October 1999)

                            Evolutionist Nile Eldrige admits that he has no good explanation for living fossils:

                            "there seems to have been almost no change in any part we can compare between the living organism and its fossilized progenitors of the remote geological past. Living fossils embody the theme of evolutionary stability to an extreme degree. ... We have not completely solved the riddle of living fossils." Niles Eldredge, Fossils:The Evolution and Extinction of Species, Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1991, pp. 100, 108

                            Pierre-Paul Grassé, one of France's best-known zoologists, former editor of the 28-volume Traité de Zoologie (Treatise of Zoology) and former president of the French Academy of Sciences, ends the chapter "Evolution and Natural Selection" in his book Evolution of Living Organisms with these words:

                            The "evolution in action" of J. Huxley and other biologists is simply the observation of demographic facts, local fluctuations of genotypes, geographical distributions. Often the species concerned have remained practically unchanged for hundreds of centuries! Fluctuation as a result of circumstances, with prior modification of the genome, does not imply evolution, and we have tangible proof of this in many panchronic species [i.e. living fossils that remain unchanged for millions of years].
                            Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin On Trial, Intervarsity Press, Illinois, 1993, p. 27

                            Of course all of this was known to Darwin 150 years ago:

                            ... I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this cannot possibly be here done. Darwin, (The Origin of Species, p. 66)

                            Of course Darwin can be perhaps excused for his ignorance as the science of geology/paleontology was new in his day. He expected that time would vindicate his theory. But evolutionists today have no excuse. They blindly cling to a theory devoid of scientific support, twist facts and obfuscate at every turn. Many of these scientists are not disspationate observers of the physical world, but rather activist supporters of an untenable philosophy.
                            • >>"Of course Darwin can be perhaps excused for his ignorance as the science of geology/paleontology was new in his day. He expected that time would vindicate his theory."<<

                              And as every reputable scientist will tell you, Darwin's ideas have been "vindicated" to an extreme degree. The body of evidence that supports the theory of evolution is vast and essentially incontrovertible. I think it is safe to say there is no scientific theory for which there is more evidence. Sadly, a few religious fanatics like you, choose to ignore the facts and cling to a set of nonsense ideas which have no scientific or even religious merit. Until you can integrate into your world view the fact that the earth and the life forms on it are billions of years old and have been changing for all of this time, your view will be exactly like a blind man, unable to truly understand the nature of the world, or the nature of God, if such a thing exists. The time for you to wake up and see the world as it is is far past.
              • Dan
                Dan
                offline 8
                From the article below:

                "These reports verify that the stones were in existence long before those discovered by Dr. Darquea. Since that time, other investigators have had the opportunity to observe stones in Nasca tombs, as well as to inspect the entire Darquea collection.
                Interestingly, several Diplodocus-like dinosaurs on the stones have what appear to be dermal frills—something never previously reported by scientists. In 1992, however, dermal frills were found during an examination of fossilized remains of sauropods. In an article titled “New Look for Sauropod Dinosaurs,” paleontologist Stephen Czerkas noted:
                Recent discovery of fossilized sauropod (diplodocid) skin impressions reveals a significantly different appearance for these dinosaurs. The fossilized skin demonstrates that a median row of [dermal] spines was present.... Some are quite narrow, and others are broader and more conical (1992, 20:1068).
                Also, the skin of many of the carved dinosaurs resembled bumpy rosettes. For many years, scientists pointed to this as proof that these stones were not scientifically accurate. However, more recent discoveries of fossilized dinosaur skin and embryos have silenced the critics. In more than one report, these bumpy rosettes have been identified and discussed. In fact, one of the discoveries comes from the same continent as the Ica burial stones. Luis Chiappe and colleagues discussed sauropod dinosaur embryos, noting:
                The general skin pattern consists of round, non-overlapping, tubercle-like scales.... A rosette pattern of scales is present in PVPH-130 [designation for one of the specimens—BH/BT] (Chiappe, et al., 1998, 396:259).
                Again, we must ask: How could the Incas have drawn such accurate pictures of dinosaurs if they never had seen the animals (or had them described by someone who had seen them)? [For a discussion of Dr. Darquea’s research, see Swift, 1997]. "
  • I don't know whether to laugh at the posting or weep at the prospect that the OP is capable of having, raising and ultimately crippling whatever children he might have or one day father. I can only imagine how intellectually crippled they might turn out having this sort of non-sensical shite shoved into a younf person's mind.
    • Badger: don't know whether to laugh at the posting or weep at the prospect that the OP is capable of having, raising and ultimately crippling whatever children he might have or one day father. I can only imagine how intellectually crippled they might turn out having this sort of non-sensical shite shoved into a younf person's mind.

      I am relatively new to this whole tribe thing, but after browsing through a few of the discussions, I have come to the conclusion that Badger has yet to post anything of intellectual value. He/She simply cheers on others who do have valid input. This above is a perfect example of the childish stabs Badger seems to love making.
      Badger, if you do at some point have any thoughts of your own, that are actually beneficial to the relevant discussion, that you want to put into your own words, please feel free.
      Otherwise your time may be better spent actually learning something so that in future you may actually contribute to society.

      To all the others who are contributing, thank you. Is there any way we can report people like Badger, who appear to merely be here to insult people who have beliefs that are outside of their own?
      • "Otherwise your time may be better spent actually learning something so that in future you may actually contribute to society. "

        Stephen, I take your words to heart and try better as I've been getting a feel for this thread for a month or so to see if it merits real investment of time and effort.. Having said that I'll also note that for someone who doesn't actually know me or the work I do you presume an awful lot to suggest that my contributions to society are marginal or non-existent.

        How fucking dare you.
        • Dan
          Dan
          offline 8
          "Stephen, I take your words to heart and try better as I've been getting a feel for this thread for a month or so to see if it merits real investment of time and effort.. Having said that I'll also note that for someone who doesn't actually know me or the work I do you presume an awful lot to suggest that my contributions to society are marginal or non-existent.

          How fucking dare you."

          a comment of contrition followed by a meaningless and irrational attack. Badger expects to be respected for presumed accomplishments off this tribe, but he fails to understand that we can only judge his posts ON THIS TRIBE. And to date, they are 90% useless and of an attacking nature. Now to be fair, we all attack here and most of us can tolerate "tough talk" as long as the core discussion is around substance. It is when people come here and assume you can use condenscending rhetoric when confronting "ignorant creationists" that they find themselves in a world of hurt. Badgers experience with creationists appears to be only from the caricatures he has read by fellow evolution believers. If he took the time to get to know a real creationist, the cognitive dissonance he would have to endure would blow his mind.
      • Dan
        Dan
        offline 8
        good observations Badger. The trouble is that those of his view "circle the wagons" aroung their own. I have pointed out his overall uselessness to this tribe, but one of the better posters, Rene, only defended the clown. Now I have known Rene for a long time and he is smart enough to know the difference between a heckler and a contributer, but Rene is not concerned about substance, he is content to have supporters and cheer leaders, which is what Badger is and to a lessor extent, so is Joe.

Recent topics in "Evolution/Creation Debate"