[Debate] Dinosaurs Co-Exist With Man/Have Co-Existed With Man

[NarutoVsGoku]

no im not on drugs
not drunk
not trolling

im serious. theres evidence that point to Dinosaurs having co exisitng with man in the past, theres even some evidence that dinosaurs may exist today with man as we speak.

theres hardcore evidence from historical artifacts, fossils, photographs, documents, myths, even eye witness accounts from past and present day.

this contradicts the evolution theory that claims dinosaurs never lived with man. this supports the genesis story of the bible that every living creature had lived together at one time in the beginning of creation of the universe.

btw this is not a religion based thread. this really is based on facts and hardcore evidence.

im going to list them, not going to go too into it, will explainurther throughout the thead cuz im sure there will be people who disagree or dont buy into it.

evidences:

all around the world ancient cultures have drawn pictures of dinosaurs in cave walls, on potteries, made clay statues and figurines of dinosaurs. the egytians have drawn dinosaurs on their pyramids, the nativ americans ade dinsaur statues and figurines out of clay. they also drew it on pottery. the ancient greeks and romans drew it on clay also. asians, japanese also. theres a place called dinosaur land (i think its called) or dinosaur park in texas that has fossils of dinosaur foot prints and human footprints that have been found in the same area. also caves that have drawings of dinorsaurs.

all around the world there are stories, legends, myths, and epics about dragons. the description of dragons are close to the description of dinosaurs. having scales, being huge, long necks, serphent like head, strong legs, long tales, spike plates, horns, wings. the word "dinosaur" is only a few hundred years old while the word "dragon" has been used or centuries. it may have been that the term dinosaur have replaced dragon without mainstream knowledge.

you may be skeptic that dinosaurs may have been dinosaurs but all descriptions of dragons of old fables fit descriptions of dinosaurs. one thing that may not fit is the "breathing fire" that dragons are knowned for. this may have been true about some type of dinosaurs. maybe they were able to breathe fire, we never know, besides we have creatures on this planet that generate light like a firefly, that generate electricity like a electric eel, that can change the caller of their skins like a chameleon or octopus, that can secrete poison like snakes and etc etc. this earth is full of crazy animals and a fire breathing one is not far fetched if you think about it.

again let me remind you that the tale of dragons is something that has been told by anctient civilizations ALL AROUND THE WORLD. in parts of europe, asia, africa even the americas. how is it that people separated by moutains, lands, great bodies of water, all have ancient stories of dragons?

the loch ness monster has been reported to be seen millions of times. some have taken pictures. the loch ness monster is always described to look like a pleisosaur.

in a little villge somewhere in africa, i forget where specifically, there has been eye witness accounts of a giant creature that when described, bears the resemblence of a Brochiosaur. the native africans who have witnessed it said it lived in the swamp, ate leaves, had a long neck, snake like had, was huge, had a huge tail, huge hind legs, body of an elephant but long neck like a giraffe taile long and thick. africans who have witnessed it were terrified. there was a documentary about it on the discovery channel

there has been eye witness accounts about people in america, somewhere in the west, forget where, spottings of pterodatyls. skeptics say they the witnesses witnessed bats but the witnesses say the flyin animal was way bigger then a bat and had a long head that resembles a pteradactyl. pteradactyls have been spotted in parts of africa as well

remember when i said all around the world stories about dragons? alexander the great in his journals of his expeditions encountered dinosaurs, the legend of Behowolf, he fought a dinosaur, theres thousands of stories in europe of knights slaying dragons, theres a japanese story of farmers flaying dragons that ate their crops and animals, tales of japanese rulers taming dragons, speaking of asians why is it that in the chinese callendar the chinese base their years on animals? 11 years of real animals and the year of the dragon is supposed to be based on a fake animal? i believe christopher colombus may have also encountered dragons when landing on the americas, dont quote me on that.

also the bible never mentions dinosaurs but it mentions creatures like dragons, leviathons and behemonths which all, when described, bear resemblence to dinosaurs.


conclusion

i know i wrote alot, i tried not to, but dont take my word for it, look it for yourself. google it. i garauntee you will find alot of great vids about this on youtube. this isnt mainstream knowledge for a reason. we've been lied to.

 

[naruto1246]

i didnt have to read to know this
you ever hear of the flinstones lol

in kidding but what you said makes since to me

 

[Shinobi Train]

Actually, to some extent, you're debate is really focused around creation vs evolution. To an evolutionist, they'd need to study the facts and see if the two ever existed together. To a creationist, they'd reply with a yes. It really depends on your point of view; and if taking the evolutionist side, then I can't help you; I know very little about the geological column. If taking the creationist standpoint, then you already have your answer.

(an unbiased post if I ever saw one...if I do say so myself. ^_^)

 

[Olorin]

this contradicts the evolution theory that claims dinosaurs never lived with man. this supports the genesis story of the bible that every living creature had lived together at one time in the beginning of creation of the universe.

even if we would find dinosaur remains and confirm that it lived at a point where humans already existed you cant say that because even if dinos and ppl existed together at one point dinosaurs existed millions of years before that and other creatures before that

also the universe is a lot older than our planet so no creature here was alive at one time at the beginning of the universe

 

[Uzamki Seerar]

no im not on drugs
not drunk
not trolling

im serious. theres evidence that point to Dinosaurs having co exisitng with man in the past, theres even some evidence that dinosaurs may exist today with man as we speak.

theres hardcore evidence from historical artifacts, fossils, photographs, documents, myths, even eye witness accounts from past and present day.

this contradicts the evolution theory that claims dinosaurs never lived with man. this supports the genesis story of the bible that every living creature had lived together at one time in the beginning of creation of the universe.

btw this is not a religion based thread. this really is based on facts and hardcore evidence.

im going to list them, not going to go too into it, will explainurther throughout the thead cuz im sure there will be people who disagree or dont buy into it.

evidences:

all around the world ancient cultures have drawn pictures of dinosaurs in cave walls, on potteries, made clay statues and figurines of dinosaurs. the egytians have drawn dinosaurs on their pyramids, the nativ americans ade dinsaur statues and figurines out of clay. they also drew it on pottery. the ancient greeks and romans drew it on clay also. asians, japanese also. theres a place called dinosaur land (i think its called) or dinosaur park in texas that has fossils of dinosaur foot prints and human footprints that have been found in the same area. also caves that have drawings of dinorsaurs.

all around the world there are stories, legends, myths, and epics about dragons. the description of dragons are close to the description of dinosaurs. having scales, being huge, long necks, serphent like head, strong legs, long tales, spike plates, horns, wings. the word "dinosaur" is only a few hundred years old while the word "dragon" has been used or centuries. it may have been that the term dinosaur have replaced dragon without mainstream knowledge.

you may be skeptic that dinosaurs may have been dinosaurs but all descriptions of dragons of old fables fit descriptions of dinosaurs. one thing that may not fit is the "breathing fire" that dragons are knowned for. this may have been true about some type of dinosaurs. maybe they were able to breathe fire, we never know, besides we have creatures on this planet that generate light like a firefly, that generate electricity like a electric eel, that can change the caller of their skins like a chameleon or octopus, that can secrete poison like snakes and etc etc. this earth is full of crazy animals and a fire breathing one is not far fetched if you think about it.

again let me remind you that the tale of dragons is something that has been told by anctient civilizations ALL AROUND THE WORLD. in parts of europe, asia, africa even the americas. how is it that people separated by moutains, lands, great bodies of water, all have ancient stories of dragons?

the loch ness monster has been reported to be seen millions of times. some have taken pictures. the loch ness monster is always described to look like a pleisosaur.

in a little villge somewhere in africa, i forget where specifically, there has been eye witness accounts of a giant creature that when described, bears the resemblence of a Brochiosaur. the native africans who have witnessed it said it lived in the swamp, ate leaves, had a long neck, snake like had, was huge, had a huge tail, huge hind legs, body of an elephant but long neck like a giraffe taile long and thick. africans who have witnessed it were terrified. there was a documentary about it on the discovery channel

there has been eye witness accounts about people in america, somewhere in the west, forget where, spottings of pterodatyls. skeptics say they the witnesses witnessed bats but the witnesses say the flyin animal was way bigger then a bat and had a long head that resembles a pteradactyl. pteradactyls have been spotted in parts of africa as well

remember when i said all around the world stories about dragons? alexander the great in his journals of his expeditions encountered dinosaurs, the legend of Behowolf, he fought a dinosaur, theres thousands of stories in europe of knights slaying dragons, theres a japanese story of farmers flaying dragons that ate their crops and animals, tales of japanese rulers taming dragons, speaking of asians why is it that in the chinese callendar the chinese base their years on animals? 11 years of real animals and the year of the dragon is supposed to be based on a fake animal? i believe christopher colombus may have also encountered dragons when landing on the americas, dont quote me on that.

also the bible never mentions dinosaurs but it mentions creatures like dragons, leviathons and behemonths which all, when described, bear resemblence to dinosaurs.


conclusion

i know i wrote alot, i tried not to, but dont take my word for it, look it for yourself. google it. i garauntee you will find alot of great vids about this on youtube. this isnt mainstream knowledge for a reason. we've been lied to.

dude it is even in islam it says that their where was big beast and i belive man used to be giants back then and well we ate most of them lool cause i really belive that our history is far intresting then we no more of really intresting seriously we was giants even says in the quran and it acutally makes senses e.g. the pyramids it is physically impossible for human beigns to stacck big cubes of brick and drag them from whatever and even stack them on in such a precious order it would be difficult todayalso this is where my theory of devolution happened say we are aliens or whatever we must of been better in our orginal form then we slowly but surely devolutionised crazy theory but beats that bull crap of us been apes really thats a mock just cause they look like us and why they hell do they still exsits exactly the same as evolutionist say they were million of yrs ago faiil

 

[NarutoKage2]

You must be registered for see links

That ^^ will tell you when dinosaurs lived. As you can see, their extinction event occurred 65 million years ago. However, humans in their present form evolved directly form homo habilis which later became homo erectus and then homo sapien(us), an event that could not have been earlier than 2.3 million years ago:

You must be registered for see links

Spoiler

The earliest documented members of the genus Homo are Homo habilis and Homo gautengensis, which evolved around 2.3 million years ago. Homo habilis is the first species for which we have positive evidence of use of stone tools. The brains of these early homininas were about the same size as that of a chimpanzee. During the next million years a process of encephalization began, and with the arrival of Homo erectus in the fossil record, cranial capacity had doubled. Homo erectus and Homo ergaster were the first of the hominina to leave Africa, and these species spread through Africa, Asia, and Europe between 1.3 to 1.8 million years ago.

So no, humans in their present form did not exist when dinosaurs were around, but our biological ancestors were.

EDIT: And these people who you claim are 'lying' to you are experts who have cumulative knowledge of these events by years of studying many different fields of specialist, highly credible science. Investigate what the links tell you yourself to test their credibility.

 

[Caliburn]

You keep saying hardcore facts, but where are they then? By default these are no real facts, in the least not the kind of 'facts' that prove what you say. If that was the case, then we wouldn't have this discussion.

1) Your first argument about different cultures having pictures, potteries, myths and whatever is by its very nature invalid. Then you're assuming all those things actually would represent things they saw. That's an extreme naive notion as then you're saying people always make things they have seen for themselves and always write down the truth. With other words it would be no different than me now drawing a dinosaur on my wall and 2000 years from now people find it and say "they lived with dinosaurs because it's clearly written on the wall". You completely disregard the context in which all of those drawings and objects were made, not to mention ignore the human imagination. If anything this actually goes against your theory for the simple fact that most of those cultures you mentioned can be easily dated. If they lived with dino's, why haven't they found any traces of them? Relatively seen those cultures lived very recently. If they lived with dino's, there should be real, substantial evidence present like skeletons, which is not the case. All the remains of dino's are incredibly old, how is it possible that we don't have any recent remains then?

There is indeed a theory that dinosaurs were the inspiration of dragons, however just based on their skeletons and thus is no proof either. We find skeletons all the time, so that they could find some in the past and created a mythical dragon of it is very plausible, but that has nothing to do with saying that they actually lived together. Same with saying that dino's replaced dragons. Dinosaurs is just a scientific name given to their species based on the remains they found, if they did the same with dragons you could say dino's replaced dragons, however that has nothing to do with saying that humans and dino's lived together as no such remains exist. Till now all the dino remains preceded the human race by far.

Yes I also know of that footprint, I read it in a book of conspiracy theories of M. Baigent, however one footprint? Be real. You're also making a big mistake by sticking to an archetypical dragon, however you completely neglect the diversity of how dragons are perceived. The way you're talking is like that everyone had the same image of what a dragon was, but that's a huge mistake.

Either way nothing of this all proves a thing. At most it could be that dino's were the inspiration for dragons, however that doesn't mean they lived together, not even close. So everything in your first four paragraphs are invalid. They don't prove what you claim in the least.

2) Loch Ness monster has still not been proven to exist and they did some very thorough searches for it. There does not exist a single picture that clearly proves it. The most famous one ever taken was proven to be a hoax. One of the biggest issues with the entire story of Loch Ness is that even if it existed, how is it possible it survived that long? If it would reproduce, it would mean there are more and thus they should have been found by now. There are countless of local legends like that all around the world, like in Congo where you are referring too, but that doesn't mean they're true. In Mongolia they believe that under the sand of the Gobi desert live humongous worms that can spit out acid.

Just some eye witness reports are no proof either. It's easy to mistake something for something else, especially when there is already a local legend about it. Then it's very easy to start seeing things you were expecting to see.


3) Again with the stories? Marco Polo wrote that in the East there were people walking with only one leg and whatnot. Does that make it true? Of course not. You in fact you just again invalidated what you just said. If there are so many stories about people slaying dragons and what not, where are their remains? There is not even a single trace of them. Newsflash but till very recently, and I mean like the last two centuries, people didn't really write things down objectively. That they wrote things that were simply not true was perfectly normal.

We have not been lied to, common sense just prevails. If you are going to claim that what you're saying here is true and that we have been lied to, I'm going to close this thread and infract you for trolling as that's simply what you're doing then. That you want to believe this that is your business and you're free to debate about it, but that also means you need to take into consideration you're simply wrong, however if you're going claim that this is the truth based on some half-baked, brittle arguments and that we have been lied to, then you're just trolling.

You made one humongous mistake and that's that you only provided arguments that could possibly back you up, however you did not invalidated anything that goes against it. Tell me why do you think the mainstream believe is that we did not live with dino's? For the simple fact that there is countless of evidence from a variety of sources that proves that notion. So you would need to disapprove those, which you did not do. On top of that everything you said can hardly be called evidence. It's shallow and naive and above all lacks any kind of solid, physical proof. Everything you said can easily be disregarded.

On top of that not all dino's died, so humans have always been living together with dino's. At most it might be possible that on some very remote locations a real dino survived, however there's a big difference between saying that somewhere in a European or African lake in the middle of nowhere live 5 dino's and that the entire world is populated by them.

 

[Olorin]

dude it is even in islam it says that their where was big beast and i belive man used to be giants back then and well we ate most of them lool cause i really belive that our history is far intresting then we no more of really intresting seriously we was giants even says in the quran and it acutally makes senses e.g. the pyramids it is physically impossible for human beigns to stacck big cubes of brick and drag them from whatever and even stack them on in such a precious order it would be difficult todayalso this is where my theory of devolution happened say we are aliens or whatever we must of been better in our orginal form then we slowly but surely devolutionised crazy theory but beats that bull crap of us been apes really thats a mock just cause they look like us and why they hell do they still exsits exactly the same as evolutionist say they were million of yrs ago faiil

ok you saying this combined with your grammar is making me believe that you are an idiot

sorry for insulting but this was painful to read

 

[Sarutobi Sasuke]

Some people think that crocodiles, alligators, monitor lizards, etc are modern dinosaurs but they're not. Dinosaurs were/are not lizards. And they're actually more like birds than crocodiles, etc. In fact modern birds are the only descendants of dinosaurs.

Spoiler

You keep saying hardcore facts, but where are they then? By default these are no real facts, in the least not the kind of 'facts' that prove what you say. If that was the case, then we wouldn't have this discussion.

1) Your first argument about different cultures having pictures, potteries, myths and whatever is by its very nature invalid. Then you're assuming all those things actually would represent things they saw. That's an extreme naive notion as then you're saying people always make things they have seen for themselves and always write down the truth. With other words it would be no different than me now drawing a dinosaur on my wall and 2000 years from now people find it and say "they lived with dinosaurs because it's clearly written on the wall". You completely disregard the context in which all of those drawings and objects were made, not to mention ignore the human imagination. If anything this actually goes against your theory for the simple fact that most of those cultures you mentioned can be easily dated. If they lived with dino's, why haven't they found any traces of them? Relatively seen those cultures lived very recently. If they lived with dino's, there should be real, substantial evidence present like skeletons, which is not the case. All the remains of dino's are incredibly old, how is it possible that we don't have any recent remains then?

There is indeed a theory that dinosaurs were the inspiration of dragons, however just based on their skeletons and thus is no proof either. We find skeletons all the time, so that they could find some in the past and created a mythical dragon of it is very plausible, but that has nothing to do with saying that they actually lived together. Same with saying that dino's replaced dragons. Dinosaurs is just a scientific name given to their species based on the remains they found, if they did the same with dragons you could say dino's replaced dragons, however that has nothing to do with saying that humans and dino's lived together as no such remains exist. Till now all the dino remains preceded the human race by far.

Yes I also know of that footprint, I read it in a book of conspiracy theories of M. Baigent, however one footprint? Be real. You're also making a big mistake by sticking to an archetypical dragon, however you completely neglect the diversity of how dragons are perceived. The way you're talking is like that everyone had the same image of what a dragon was, but that's a huge mistake.

Either way nothing of this all proves a thing. At most it could be that dino's were the inspiration for dragons, however that doesn't mean they lived together, not even close. So everything in your first four paragraphs are invalid. They don't prove what you claim in the least.

2) Loch Ness monster has still not been proven to exist and they did some very thorough searches for it. There does not exist a single picture that clearly proves it. The most famous one ever taken was proven to be a hoax. One of the biggest issues with the entire story of Loch Ness is that even if it existed, how is it possible it survived that long? If it would reproduce, it would mean there are more and thus they should have been found by now. There are countless of local legends like that all around the world, like in Congo where you are referring too, but that doesn't mean they're true. In Mongolia they believe that under the sand of the Gobi desert live humongous worms that can spit out acid.

Just some eye witness reports are no proof either. It's easy to mistake something for something else, especially when there is already a local legend about it. Then it's very easy to start seeing things you were expecting to see.


3) Again with the stories? Marco Polo wrote that in the East there were people walking with only one leg and whatnot. Does that make it true? Of course not. You in fact you just again invalidated what you just said. If there are so many stories about people slaying dragons and what not, where are their remains? There is not even a single trace of them. Newsflash but till very recently, and I mean like the last two centuries, people didn't really write things down objectively. That they wrote things that were simply not true was perfectly normal.

We have not been lied to, common sense just prevails. If you are going to claim that what you're saying here is true and that we have been lied to, I'm going to close this thread and infract you for trolling as that's simply what you're doing then. That you want to believe this that is your business and you're free to debate about it, but that also means you need to take into consideration you're simply wrong, however if you're going claim that this is the truth based on some half-baked, brittle arguments and that we have been lied to, then you're just trolling.

You made one humongous mistake and that's that you only provided arguments that could possibly back you up, however you did not invalidated anything that goes against it. Tell me why do you think the mainstream believe is that we did not live with dino's? For the simple fact that there is countless of evidence from a variety of sources that proves that notion. So you would need to disapprove those, which you did not do. On top of that everything you said can hardly be called evidence. It's shallow and naive and above all lacks any kind of solid, physical proof. Everything you said can easily be disregarded.

On top of that not all dino's died, so humans have always been living together with dino's. At most it might be possible that on some very remote locations a real dino survived, however there's a big difference between saying that somewhere in a European or African lake in the middle of nowhere live 5 dino's and that the entire world is populated by them.

+Rep

 

[Uzamki Seerar]

ok you saying this combined with your grammar is making me believe that you are an idiot

sorry for insulting but this was painful to read

lol honestly i really don't type carefully i just do it really fast lool just cant be asked with correct gramma it does turn me on thou lol

 

[Uzamki Seerar]

Some people think that crocodiles, alligators, monitor lizards, etc are modern dinosaurs but they're not. Dinosaurs were/are not lizards. And they're actually more like birds than crocodiles, etc. In fact modern birds are the only descendants of dinosaurs.


+Rep

seriously do u know the film the ring your the male version of the ghost girl

You must be registered for see images

 

[NarutoVsGoku]

i didnt have to read to know this
you ever hear of the flinstones lol

in kidding but what you said makes since to me

lol i forgot to mention the Flintstones, but i was going to mention it not as evidence but i just knew that someone was going to bring it up lol.. i just knew it..

+rep for being that person and thanks

Actually, to some extent, you're debate is really focused around creation vs evolution. To an evolutionist, they'd need to study the facts and see if the two ever existed together. To a creationist, they'd reply with a yes. It really depends on your point of view; and if taking the evolutionist side, then I can't help you; I know very little about the geological column. If taking the creationist standpoint, then you already have your answer.

(an unbiased post if I ever saw one...if I do say so myself. ^_^)

no honestly im not trying to make it solely about creatonist vs evolutionist, even though thats what it comes down to in the end. really we shouldnt focus on that, we should really focus on seeking the truth. so many people take evolution as truth but theres so much evidence to disprove it. but those things arent presented in mainstream. theyre not presented in school.

thanks by the way

even if we would find dinosaur remains and confirm that it lived at a point where humans already existed you cant say that because even if dinos and ppl existed together at one point dinosaurs existed millions of years before that and other creatures before that

also the universe is a lot older than our planet so no creature here was alive at one time at the beginning of the universe

smh this is sad. i cant believe you actually said this..

let me tell you this. dinosaur fossilized footprints and human footprints have been found together in some areas of the world. they date back to around the same time. in some of these areas where these human and dino footprints have been founded, they have been closed off by officials or some higher authority who do not want people to witness or see these things.

why? because the evidence points to that dinos and humans lived together at some point and time. now if humans and dinos lived at some point and time then that alone disproves evolution. it disproves that dinos came before humans, it dsproves that humans and dinos never lived together, it disproves the timelines and so called millions and billions of years that this earth is

the evidence disproves the theory. the evolution theory is not even fact. its not even scientific. it cannot be observed nor can it be experimented and tested. it disproves the scientific method itself where something is supposed to be observed, tested and experimental for validation. some scientists believe it or not have described evolution as a fantasy itself.

dude it is even in islam it says that their where was big beast and i belive man used to be giants back then and well we ate most of them lool cause i really belive that our history is far intresting then we no more of really intresting seriously we was giants even says in the quran and it acutally makes senses e.g. the pyramids it is physically impossible for human beigns to stacck big cubes of brick and drag them from whatever and even stack them on in such a precious order it would be difficult todayalso this is where my theory of devolution happened say we are aliens or whatever we must of been better in our orginal form then we slowly but surely devolutionised crazy theory but beats that bull crap of us been apes really thats a mock just cause they look like us and why they hell do they still exsits exactly the same as evolutionist say they were million of yrs ago faiil

+rep!

i forgot to mention giants but i guess its for another thread. i am aware that giant human skeletal remains have been found in parts of india and egypt and other parts of the world. its almost scary honestly but those things remind me of the David and Goliath story of the bible where a kid defeated a giant.

and what you say makes sense about the pyramids. and i didnt really know about the whole alien thing but i have heard things that the giants were the result of the fallen angels and humans mating. they were called the Nephilim aka "giants of their times". speaks about it in the bible.

but honestly im not sure i buy into that. its about interpretation. some people interpret that the Nephilims were literally giants, while others interpret that they were called "giants" meaning higher in the social classes. some people interpret the scriptures that the "sons of God took the daughters of man" as fallen angels mating with humans, but others interpret it as the chosen people of god mating with non beleivers or gentiles or people with pagan beliefs.

idk really its really what you think but giants definently lived. i think thats why so many fables and myths about giants exist like with the greek mythlogies and i think norse mythology had giant myths and hell even the "Jack and the Beanstalk" kid story.

btw i also dont buy the whole "monkeys are our evolution cousins" neither. its stupid.

You must be registered for see links

That ^^ will tell you when dinosaurs lived. As you can see, their extinction event occurred 65 million years ago. However, humans in their present form evolved directly form homo habilis which later became homo erectus and then homo sapien(us), an event that could not have been earlier than 2.3 million years ago:

You must be registered for see links

Spoiler

The earliest documented members of the genus Homo are Homo habilis and Homo gautengensis, which evolved around 2.3 million years ago. Homo habilis is the first species for which we have positive evidence of use of stone tools. The brains of these early homininas were about the same size as that of a chimpanzee. During the next million years a process of encephalization began, and with the arrival of Homo erectus in the fossil record, cranial capacity had doubled. Homo erectus and Homo ergaster were the first of the hominina to leave Africa, and these species spread through Africa, Asia, and Europe between 1.3 to 1.8 million years ago.

So no, humans in their present form did not exist when dinosaurs were around, but our biological ancestors were.

EDIT: And these people who you claim are 'lying' to you are experts who have cumulative knowledge of these events by years of studying many different fields of specialist, highly credible science. Investigate what the links tell you yourself to test their credibility.

there has been fossils of dinosaur footprints found right next to (not even inches away) from fossils of human footprints. these human footprints are the same as human footprints of today. someone even put there own footprint in the fossils to size it and it fit.

these fossils of human footprints and dino prints that date to the same time disproves the evolution timeline. besides the evolution timeline cannot be observed, cannot be tested, no one can claim that the earth is 65 million years old cuz frankly there is no one who have lived that long.

there is carbon dating, but theres some people who say that after some thousands of years carbon dating becomes non realiable. these claims are made by scentists, and experts who have also aquired accumulative knowledge over the years.

the "experts" that you speak of, could be lying, could be saying what they say to just keep the evolution theory realevant. other scientists have said that evolution is a fantasy at best. that believing evolution is the equavalent of believing in God, that it was merely about faith.

an ex-satanist or ex-devil worshipper said on an interview that Charles Darwin was tutored by the devil himself on how to come up with the evolution theory, that the evolution theory was thought up just to destroy the bible and bring people not to believe god. i know that'll be hard to believe but you can look up the interview on youtube. its not hard to find and you will know it when you see it.

btw i dont want to even focus too much on the whole creatonist vs evolutionist thing in here. did you look up anything i said in the OP?

ok you saying this combined with your grammar is making me believe that you are an idiot

sorry for insulting but this was painful to read

please dont be that guy... i understood what that guy said perfectly, some people make mistakes because they type fast or just arent good with english. but its not neccessary to be a grammer Nazi if what he said is understandable.

 

[Olorin]

let me tell you this. dinosaur fossilized footprints and human footprints have been found together in some areas of the world. they date back to around the same time. in some of these areas where these human and dino footprints have been founded, they have been closed off by officials or some higher authority who do not want people to witness or see these things.

why? because the evidence points to that dinos and humans lived together at some point and time. now if humans and dinos lived at some point and time then that alone disproves evolution. it disproves that dinos came before humans, it dsproves that humans and dinos never lived together, it disproves the timelines and so called millions and billions of years that this earth is

the evidence disproves the theory. the evolution theory is not even fact. its not even scientific. it cannot be observed nor can it be experimented and tested. it disproves the scientific method itself where something is supposed to be observed, tested and experimental for validation. some scientists believe it or not have described evolution as a fantasy itself.

as a scientist i feel sad that ppl still believe that, no offense

as a physicist i cant agree with anyone that says that the earth and universe are young enough so that all creatures could have coexisted at one time

so i know very well what a theory is, do you?

ppl can either agree with you if they want to, in that case i have the right to comment or argue my point, or they can believe what science tells us, they hae the right to choose

if i were to bring this topic up at the lab wed get a good laugh

im sorry but thats my opinion

 

[NarutoVsGoku]

You keep saying hardcore facts, but where are they then? By default these are no real facts, in the least not the kind of 'facts' that prove what you say. If that was the case, then we wouldn't have this discussion.

did you look up anything i said? saying theres no hardcore facts when you have not searched is ignorant.

1) Your first argument about different cultures having pictures, potteries, myths and whatever is by its very nature invalid. Then you're assuming all those things actually would represent things they saw.

i see what you mean here. that not everything drawned or mad into statues by people mean that they were real. like im sure the greeks never really saw the gods and goddess that they built statues of. or the egytians, im sure they never saw anubis or ra, who they drew and built statues of. then again maybe they did, thats for another arguement but not one im willing to make, i agree its a fallacy to claim that people saw what they drew in the past.

but you would be wrong to say that the pictures of dinosaurs drawn by people in ancient civilizations does not support the idea that people may have witnessed them and co existed with them..

you are very unaware of the types of drawings im talking about and you will be embarrassed when i present them to you.

That's an extreme naive notion as then you're saying people always make things they have seen for themselves and always write down the truth. With other words it would be no different than me now drawing a dinosaur on my wall and 2000 years from now people find it and say "they lived with dinosaurs because it's clearly written on the wall".

our generation and culture have dug up fossils of dinosaurs remains. past civilizations have not. thats the difference between you just drawing a dinosaur now. werent dino fossils dug up just a few thousand years ago? im talking about ancient civilizations who have drawn dinos that they had no fossils of. the term dinosaur is a new word just only a couple of hundred years old. and im saying that the pictures drawn on walls, highly support the arguement im making. you cant deny that.

You completely disregard the context in which all of those drawings and objects were made, not to mention ignore the human imagination. If anything this actually goes against your theory for the simple fact that most of those cultures you mentioned can be easily dated. If they lived with dino's, why haven't they found any traces of them? Relatively seen those cultures lived very recently. If they lived with dino's, there should be real, substantial evidence present like skeletons, which is not the case. All the remains of dino's are incredibly old, how is it possible that we don't have any recent remains then?

you dont know what your talking about at all.. it wasnt by imagination. the pictures are very close to the dinosaurs we know of today that civilizatons thousands and thousands of years ago wouldnt have knowned based on the evolution theory. just 300 or 200 years ago dinosaurs were being discovered.

and to the bold there has been a t rex fossil that has been found with dna or protein present in its bone marrow. how could that even be possible for that to exist in the bone of a dinosaur if its millions and millions years old?


this is a stone made by the Incas. they drew what is obviously a triceratops, and an Inca is on top of it

You must be registered for see images

again here is some more Inca (native americans btw to those who dont know) drawings of these monsters or dragons or dinosaurs if you will, eating and attacking people

You must be registered for see images

this is the site i found this

You must be registered for see links

the thing that gets me is that they said the stone depicts dinosaurs but they say it makes people think humans lived 65 million years ago which makes me facepalm.. they still hold onto the evolution timeline even though they acknowledge that humans and dinosaurs co exisitng may have been possible. btw theres thousands of those stones made by the past Incas, alot of them depicting dinosaurs and different types of dinosaurs. it suggests that the Incas saw dinosaurs up close and personal and didnt just imagine them, or dig up fossils.

the egytians are obviously drawing dinosaurs

You must be registered for see images

and you wanted to talk about context of which the pictures are being drawn, dont ignore that these dinosaur pictures have people riding them or being attacked by them.

check this websites it shows more about the egyptians and babylonians depicting dinosaurs or dragons on there stuff

You must be registered for see links

is that a Stegosaurus?

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see links

There is indeed a theory that dinosaurs were the inspiration of dragons, however just based on their skeletons and thus is no proof either. We find skeletons all the time,

we fid skeletons because we dug them up. and finding a skeleton doesnt mean you will know what it will look like if it was alive. the dinosaurs depicted by ancient cultures are pictures of dinosaurs. it took us hundreds of years to know what skeletons of dinosaurs would have looked like based on their skeletal remains, things like how the dinosaur walked, or moved, or if some dinos could stand on their hind legs. im not too sure if we can really say if some had feathers or scales or what color, i dont think you can really determine something like that just based on skeletal remains but we could figure what their bodies would look like because of the technology that we have.

so that they could find some in the past and created a mythical dragon of it is very plausible, but that has nothing to do with saying that they actually lived together. Same with saying that dino's replaced dragons. Dinosaurs is just a scientific name given to their species based on the remains they found, if they did the same with dragons you could say dino's replaced dragons, however that has nothing to do with saying that humans and dino's lived together as no such remains exist. Till now all the dino remains preceded the human race by far.

wrong. the fact that they drew dinosaurs suggests that they lived with them. dinos precede humans based on evolution which is a faulty theory itself. your biased and basing your arguements that evolution is true.

Yes I also know of that footprint, I read it in a book of conspiracy theories of M. Baigent, however one footprint? Be real.

again youre being ignorant. its not just one footprint and even if its one, one is enough. all you have to say is "be real"? on that one footprint? thats the best arguement you have to disprove it? thats a fallact, youre ignoring it and just rolling your eyes on that matter. and you try to make it less credible by saying you read it in a book of conspiracy theories.

btw i dont know what "one footprint" you speak of but i''l post them and you let me know which one you read about in your book

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see links

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see links

picture of a hominid being eaten by a dinosur

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see links

"We found a fossil of a hominid, being eaten by an allosaurus dinosaur. Look at the picture.

Of course, it is the impossible in Darwin's theory for hominids to have been lived 140 million years ago. In the 70s, there was talk of a human fossil called "Moab Man" found in dinosaur deposits, also Morrison formation, near Moab of Utah. But this case was controversial because some claimed the human skeleton fell into a crevise in the dinosaur layers. No one can tell, because the remains were taken away, and never tested. And that is what is happening again this time! All the evidence of this incredible find has been taken away."

You're also making a big mistake by sticking to an archetypical dragon, however you completely neglect the diversity of how dragons are perceived. The way you're talking is like that everyone had the same image of what a dragon was, but that's a huge mistake.

no i am not. you mistaken my description. i mentioned long necks, horns, wings. not all dinosaurs have long necks, horns or wings. some do some dont. just like there are all different types of descriptions of dragons. some descriptions they have horns, or wings, or long tails, scales, etc. anyways descriptions of dinosaurs dont fall far away from descriptions of dinosaurs and thats the point i was making.

also there are legends of dragons around the world! legends of giant creatures fighting humans, attacking humans, and humans slaying them. there are dinosaur fossils found around the world. its very likely that what we call dinosaurs today were what people called dragons in the past.

Either way nothing of this all proves a thing. At most it could be that dino's were the inspiration for dragons, however that doesn't mean they lived together, not even close. So everything in your first four paragraphs are invalid. They don't prove what you claim in the least.

wrong and do your own research on this and look up the facts and evidences. the remains of dinosaurs being depicted by ancient civiliazations suggest that humans lived with dinosaurs. they called them dragons in their time. they didnt dig up dinosaur remains as fossils, if they dug up dinosaurs bones it was probably fresh and not fossilized like how we dig them up today.

2) Loch Ness monster has still not been proven to exist and they did some very thorough searches for it. There does not exist a single picture that clearly proves it. The most famous one ever taken was proven to be a hoax. One of the biggest issues with the entire story of Loch Ness is that even if it existed, how is it possible it survived that long? If it would reproduce, it would mean there are more and thus they should have been found by now. There are countless of local legends like that all around the world, like in Congo where you are referring too, but that doesn't mean they're true. In Mongolia they believe that under the sand of the Gobi desert live humongous worms that can spit out acid.

the ocean is i think 70% un explored by us humans. i might be wrong and that number may be much greater but fact is theres alot in the water we dont know about. thousands or even millions of species may have be still undiscovered. the giant squid which was thought to be a myth pasted by sailors, hasnt that been discovered to be real? hell theres animals that have been thought to be exstinct to still live in the oceans today like:

The Coelacanth

You must be registered for see images

You must be registered for see links

thing agan i cant agree with is that these people think this animal survived for 65 million of years.. smh so why is it that it survived for 65 million of years no evolving while other species of animals evolved over the 65 million of years from the dino era to today? again this lie of evolution has people confused.

anyways my point is that Nessy may very well be real and theres always people who say they witness it. of course im not saying those witness accounts are always true but cmon do you really think all those people were liars? even those who described it. and those descriptions fit a pleisosaur? you think every single of those witnesses lied? i dont even fully buy into the hoax thing. itd be convient for people who didnt want others to think dinosaurs co exist with man that Nessy was a hoax.



the people in the Congo. you think they are liars to? they described the monster and it fits a dinosaur. you think they saw an elephant in the swamp? or a giraffe in the swamp?

Just some eye witness reports are no proof either. It's easy to mistake something for something else, especially when there is already a local legend about it. Then it's very easy to start seeing things you were expecting to see.

you cant discredit eye witness accounts. you cant deny that the locals saw something. those who saw it describe it and it fits the description of a dinosaur. they are cut from the outside world, and they dont have internet, tv, or basic plumbing or anything. they dont gain anything by lying, no money, no plubicity. i know about people seeing what they expect to see, but they saw something, their reports are valid and it means something is out there that fits the description of a dinosaur, the locals of that area dont even know what a dinosaur is!

3) Again with the stories? Marco Polo wrote that in the East there were people walking with only one leg and whatnot. Does that make it true? Of course not. You in fact you just again invalidated what you just said. If there are so many stories about people slaying dragons and what not, where are their remains?

dinosaur fossils...

There is not even a single trace of them. Newsflash but till very recently, and I mean like the last two centuries, people didn't really write things down objectively. That they wrote things that were simply not true was perfectly normal.

what are you talking about? people of this age, yea all we right about is things that are only non fiction. we dont write fictionl movies, or fictional stories, comics or mangas about fiction, etc etc.. these myths of the past very well may have some truth in them, they may even have alot of truth in them based on the findings of fossils with dinosaur and human remains.

We have not been lied to, common sense just prevails. If you are going to claim that what you're saying here is true and that we have been lied to, I'm going to close this thread and infract you for trolling as that's simply what you're doing then. That you want to believe this that is your business and you're free to debate about it, but that also means you need to take into consideration you're simply wrong, however if you're going claim that this is the truth based on some half-baked, brittle arguments and that we have been lied to, then you're just trolling.

this would make a great troll bait thread i admit, but i am not trolling. im not baiting. im not trying anything but to get people to think twice about things. this is something that completely contradicts the mainstream knowledge and what we've been taught to at school about evolution and dinosaurs. these things i presented are evidences that suggest dinos and man lived together. the art, sculptures and accounts of people saying they witnessed creatures that look like dinosaurs or ancient past, near past and present times.

You made one humongous mistake and that's that you only provided arguments that could possibly back you up, however you did not invalidated anything that goes against it. Tell me why do you think the mainstream believe is that we did not live with dino's? For the simple fact that there is countless of evidence from a variety of sources that proves that notion. So you would need to disapprove those, which you did not do. On top of that everything you said can hardly be called evidence. It's shallow and naive and above all lacks any kind of solid, physical proof. Everything you said can easily be disregarded.

On top of that not all dino's died, so humans have always been living together with dino's. At most it might be possible that on some very remote locations a real dino survived, however there's a big difference between saying that somewhere in a European or African lake in the middle of nowhere live 5 dino's and that the entire world is populated by them.

sharks, croodiles, even the coleanth fish i posted above were said to live 65 million years ago with dinosaurs but they still exist today and you find it as a crazy idea that some dinosaurs could possibly be alive today? you find it as a crazy idea that maybe some survived for those years and humans, people actually witnessed them and fought with them or even domesticated them (based on some pictures of people riding dinosaurs). you have to stop being biased and ignorant and do your own research. i just wanted to present the idea to others, i presented some evidence but i just gave the tip of the iceberg. If you want proof to this idea and arguements to disprove the theory of evolution then go look it up, you will find..

you'll have to excuse the religious-"ness" of these vids but they show and speak on the evidence that dinosaurs existed with humans, and that dinosaurs today were the dragons of yesterday.














this is the best one, but its an hour. if you have the time watch it

 

[NarutoVsGoku]

as a scientist i feel sad that ppl still believe that, no offense

as a physicist i cant agree with anyone that says that the earth and universe are young enough so that all creatures could have coexisted at one time

so i know very well what a theory is, do you?

ppl can either agree with you if they want to, in that case i have the right to comment or argue my point, or they can believe what science tells us, they hae the right to choose

if i were to bring this topic up at the lab wed get a good laugh

im sorry but thats my opinion

i feel sad that you have bought into your deception.

just please thoroughly look at my last comment. look at the pictures, check the sites and watch the videos. do your own research and come back to me to tell me what you think

btw put your arrogance aside before anything. check everything out with an unbiased mind.

 

[Olorin]

i feel sad that you have bought into your deception.

just please thoroughly look at my last comment. look at the pictures, check the sites and watch the videos. do your own research and come back to me to tell me what you think

btw put your arrogance aside before anything. check everything out with an unbiased mind.

I cant be unbiased when forming My own opinions

I looked at some Of what You posted but Sorry Im not convinced There is plenty Of "evidence" for many conspiracy theories

 

[NarutoVsGoku]

I cant be unbiased when forming My own opinions

I looked at some Of what You posted but Sorry Im not convinced There is plenty Of "evidence" for many conspiracy theories

think think what you will..

and dont see this as a conspiracy theory or how it could fit one. do you know what a theory is?

 

[Jukain]

Ive heard about this before. Has some credibility....might be true might not. Interesting stuff though.

 

[Avani]

these fossils of human footprints and dino prints that date to the same time disproves the evolution timeline. besides the evolution timeline cannot be observed, cannot be tested, no one can claim that the earth is 65 million years old cuz frankly there is no one who have lived that long.

there is carbon dating, but theres some people who say that after some thousands of years carbon dating becomes non realiable. these claims are made by scentists, and experts who have also aquired accumulative knowledge over the years.

The age of Earth is not determined on the basis of evolution or carbon dating. You can perform carbon dating only on the things which once lived. Rocks are not living.

It is not supposed to be 65 million years either, but, 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%). It was determined by minerals analyzed in small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia , which were at least 4.404 billion years old.

This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. It is done by measuring lead in uranium-rich minerals

The rocks on the Earth have been constant regerating and recycled in the Subduction Zone and if older rocks existed they probably got melted and reformed again.


I find Naruto jutsus more believable than your theory.

 

[NarutoKage2]

there has been fossils of dinosaur footprints found right next to (not even inches away) from fossils of human footprints. these human footprints are the same as human footprints of today. someone even put there own footprint in the fossils to size it and it fit.

these fossils of human footprints and dino prints that date to the same time disproves the evolution timeline. besides the evolution timeline cannot be observed, cannot be tested, no one can claim that the earth is 65 million years old cuz frankly there is no one who have lived that long.

there is carbon dating, but theres some people who say that after some thousands of years carbon dating becomes non realiable. these claims are made by scentists, and experts who have also aquired accumulative knowledge over the years.

the "experts" that you speak of, could be lying, could be saying what they say to just keep the evolution theory realevant. other scientists have said that evolution is a fantasy at best. that believing evolution is the equavalent of believing in God, that it was merely about faith.

an ex-satanist or ex-devil worshipper said on an interview that Charles Darwin was tutored by the devil himself on how to come up with the evolution theory, that the evolution theory was thought up just to destroy the bible and bring people not to believe god. i know that'll be hard to believe but you can look up the interview on youtube. its not hard to find and you will know it when you see it.

btw i dont want to even focus too much on the whole creatonist vs evolutionist thing in here. did you look up anything i said in the OP?

For starters, i don't see why so many people think this is an argument about God. That's a question for theology, not science and btw many evolutionary scientists such as Francis Collins the Director of the human genome project believe in God and accept evolution as a scientific fact.

Don't know where you get your sources from. Now, instead of trying to dodge my point, answer this:
Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science

You must be registered for see links

Why is that so? You think all biologists would be biased about evolution, and yet be totally unbiased and work using testable data for everything else?
Or maybe wikipedia is lying to us all? Lets test its credibility to what we can all agree on, then. What does it say about the Solar System:

You must be registered for see links

Or gravity:

You must be registered for see links

So unless you contend that there are conspiracies afloat about gravity, and that the Earth does not in fact orbit the sun nothing you say can be taken seriously. Name one instance, for anything other than evolution, where all scientists, be they physicists, biologists or chemists would universally be biased about any one theory. Why would they be?

Also, radiometric dating takes into account any errors that may arise in its measurement. And its not just carbon dating, there's potassium argon and uranium dating as well. And guess what? They all show the same results about the Earth's age.

Please read through ALL of this, or study any scientific journal about it and then try and argue about this. That way, you'd at least know what you're talking about:

You must be registered for see links

The age of Earth is not determined on the basis of evolution or carbon dating. You can perform carbon dating only on the things which once lived. Rocks are not living.

It is not supposed to be 65 million years either, but, 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%). It was determined by minerals analyzed in small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia , which were at least 4.404 billion years old.

This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples. It is done by measuring lead in uranium-rich minerals

The rocks on the Earth have been constant regerating and recycled in the Subduction Zone and if older rocks existed they probably got melted and reformed again.


I find Naruto jutsus more believable than your theory.

+ rep