One of the questions that frustrates evolutionist is....Did humans co-exist with dinosaurs?

A little while ago this sandstone carving was discovered at an ancient Buddhist temple.

Very Nice Photo.

do you have a link or anything, I'd like to read more about that find.


Ohh I found this
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm

Lots of good pictures there!
Very good find.

I don't know if I can do better than what you presented.

This is a must visit site:

click here

It kinda squashes the idea that humans and dino lived seperatly.

Not really, thats not evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. You can't just pick through myth and legend, and other people's cultures, (and perhaps context), and use them for the irrational belief that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.


How can we distinguish between one ancient drawing of a dragon and another?


Even if some fragmented populations of dinosaurs did exist along side humans - afterall crocodiles are still around - it's still not going to do anything to harm evolutionary theory. In fact its part of evolution to understand that bottleneck populations can escape catastrophe, and continue breeding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_bo...utionary_theory

We'd still need more evidence then some pots and small figurines, which may be based upon imagination or exaggeration of existing animals.

That stegosaurus looks more like a sumatran Rhino or another large ungulate to me. Those "plates" on its back are arguably also present outside its "cartouche" and they follow it in a circle. If you look carefully,there's a "plate" under the Stegosaurus's head and one under its belly, which suffice to say, isnt consistent with stegosaurus biology. The last plate on its tail curls upwards at an unnatural angle, and its larger then the others, which also isnt like a stegosaurus. They could be purely decorative. Theres a small horn-like indentation on the animals head too.

There are also similar triangular background pieces in the water buffalo's cartouche, and some of the others.

LF,
There is more evidence presented in my link than you have to offer for evolutionISM

This is solid evidence. Any other assumption is just that. Dragons are mentioned and depicted by various peoples, the word "dinosaur" being of relatively recent vintage. The Ica Stones were investigated by a reputable researcher and he judged them genuine. It is clear to me that the time scales are wrong.

Evolution is an idea perpetuated by a group that primarily wants to remove God from creation. It has only been around in its present form for a relatively short time. Intelligent Design is far more sensible and avoids the myriad assumptions of a worldview that must ignore the anomalies, whether it's rock strata that are not in the correct order, ancient artifacts and anomolous dates. Further evidence is the relatively recent invasion of evolutionists on Christian forums that insist we believe in evolution, evidence to the contrary.

Note: I do not need AiG, ICR or any other such organization to do research. I am not a member of nor do I support the "Religious Right." I have no political party affiliation.

Here's a link Creationists might find interesting. http://www.biblelandstudios.com/nuke/modul...=article&sid=44



God bless,
Al

I found it interesting too, that page shows a reference to the Paluxy tracks which are also mentioned on one of Ikester's sites here: Creation Wiki

Yeah, that's right. Only evidence found by evolutionists, accepted by evolutionists, and examined by evolutionists is acceptable evidence. When you creationist ever going to learn?

Not true, but we need more evidence then a "dinosaur" or a "dragon" which are easily inspired by lizards to provide evidence for this:




You've not addressed the issue that even if some populations of Dinosaurs did survive it still doesnt suggest that such animals were created by god a few thousand years ago...

I think they say it is stegosaurus...like. No one claims it is actually a stegosaurus. The term stegosaurus is used because it's the closest thing we have to compare it with.

I have to laugh at lordfaunswater as he presents a fragmented fossil and assumes it is a transitional between a fish and a reptile....then he presents post like the ones above claiming there is no evidence of dino and man living together.

But such a fossil shows features of fish and features of tetrapods (not reptiles by the way), so its not an assumption to say "this is a transition between fish and tetrapods".
A small figurine (which is very much open to interpretation and could quite easily be an extension of imagination) isnt evidence to suggest that human's and dinosaurs lived together, sorry but its not.

If all life was created by Jesus Christ, and it was, then we would expect to find human dipictions of dinosaurs, and written testimony about them. Both exist, and that is difficult to deny.

You don't expect to find any evidence of dino's and man living together, and to suggest that a few of them somehow lasted 65 million years with no other evidence of them in between is totally absurd.

T-Rex fossils with observable blood cells and tissue are also evidence that Dino's lived not too long in the distant past.

Terry

There's no evidence in between because dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago!

If you are happy with the only evidence being abstract drawings and figurines, thats entirely your choice.



Can we say that was inspired by a real animal?

Theres nothing to say in geology that Observable blood cells and tissue can't be preserved, but that such occurances are extremely rare. It doesn't change the fact that the animal lived millions of years ago. If your right, every single fossil dinosaur should show the same "freshness" - and they dont.

Sometimes creationists cling to any scrap of 'evidence', no matter how unlikely or absurd it may be.
The temple where this was found was built in 1186 A.D. we are speaking about Malaysia, a country with a history, written records, etc. We are speaking about 800 years ago. Needless to say, no one ever provided any written record or evidence that a dinosaur, other than birds, was living in Malaysia 800 years ago.
It is curious that the carving appears so suspiciously clean, compared to other carvings near it. The reason? The creationist who found it says that a "famous photographer" cleaned it in order to take the photograph. How likely is that a famous photographer does that, if he is a professional?
Well, to sum up: it's likely a hoax. If it isn't, creationists should not have much of a problem digging up some evidence for dinosaurs in the zone. A non-fossilized bone, carbon-dated, appearing to be 800 y.o. would suffice, and delight the scientific community with plenty of research avenues.

Call it a hoax if you want. This and other evidence, clearly indicates that man and dinosaurs lived together. The book I posted a link to also backs that up. Evolution is a worldview where new "scientists" are taught by the old to look at the evidence in one way only. Any anomolies must be ignored. This worldview must be supported with copious funds since removing God from daily life is the goal.

Transitional fossils. What nonsense. I remember the recent stir over the fossil of a fish whose fins, it was claimed, were turning into hands. I immediately thought of the common seal that walks on land using its flippers.




God bless,
Al

Well, you have to come up with a better explanation than luck imagination to explain the petroglyhps
You claim they died out 65 million years ago, but the observable blood cells testify otherwise.




There is no animal wondering aroung today that matches the bohemoth described in the Bible.

You can't have it both ways... You say there is no reason that dinos living contempory with man does not damage the theoly of evolution, and then you say that there are none found in a supposed 65 million year span because they died out 65 million years ago.

You have to do better than lucky imagination to explain the indian petroglyphs

Link to page with ptroglyph info.





Geology has nothing to do with it.....

Chemistry however does.... There's nothing to suggest that observable blood cells, and fibrous tissue should remain intact for 65 million years. There is reason to believe that they should have totally broken down, and its called amino-acid racemization.

Those bones are principally at max 200k years old.

You act like its no big deal, but if you read the responses from the early find 10 years ago by Dr. Schweizer, and other analyzing the substances, they fought tooth and nail to deny what they ultimately had to admit when they discovered the relatively fresh tissues a couple of years ago.

There is no reasonable evolutionary explanation for it, and its a serious contradiction to what you accept by Faith.

Terry

Wrong wrong and wrong.

They dont clearly indicate for several reasons.

One, that they are taken from sources of extremely variable dates and histories, two, that they are taken from several areas around the world - possibily unlinked in culture and tradition, and three, that they really are not that convincing.

You don't give any consideration to these people's religious beliefs (you assume it fits yours), you dont give any consideration to their culture and tradition,( and how the finds are similar), you dont give the context that could tell us why such finds were made, you dont consider how possibly it would be to exagerate existing animals (simply impossible presumably?), you've not given room for alternative interpretation, you've not given any credit to these people and the possibilty that they actually thought about things and used their imagination to invent animals and possibly dieties.
Finally, the "evidences" of dinosaurs have been made with the desire to prove creationism as correct, and more often than not, they also contain "biting" comments about how evolution is/will/has crumbled due to these discoveries, which is highly misleading, and highly unscientific.
You really dont need much evidence if a small figurine or a carving is enough to sway your mind, and not only that, but catagorically prevent any other explanation from being considered.


The difference between Tiktaalik and a seal is a fairly obvious one, and besides a superficial argument there's not a lot else you can say to argue against transitional status.

A seal is a tetrapod - it is evolved from land-dwelling organisms. Tiktaalik isnt, it's evolved from earlier fish. A seal isnt a strictly aquatic organism because it breeds and lounges on land. Tiktaalik is, and nobody claims it walked on land. Some of its characteristics are shared by tetrapods however.
Besides analogous features (i.e. fins), it doesnt change the fact that such a trait is acquired by seals through evolution towards a marine lifestyle, and not the other way around.





Well it's not actually that convincing. It looks like a rhino, with some kind of background, perhaps symbolising sunlight or vegetation.

Why, if these people were so aware of dinosaurs, have science not found one single dinosaur bone dating from the same time?





The behemoth that according to most emminent scholors is most likely a large mammal. Simply because the bible says "it had a tail like a cedar tree" doesnt mean it actually did. Tail in some hebrew sources has been translated as an euphemism for a erect *that word not allowed*. The Behemoth was probably an ox.
Its the age old principle of "the bible says it, so it must be true", which isnt actually the case. Does poetic license mean nothing to creationists?

The "convincing" indian petroglyph looks more like a bird to me then anything.

If some dinosaurs survived the K-T extinction, and lived for a further 65 million years into human history, it still wouldnt damage evolution. All it would damage is our understanding that ALL dinosaurs went extinct shortly after the asteroid struck earth. Just as crocodiles (which were here BEFORE the dinosaurs) are around today. On the other hand, such a suggestion isnt currently supported by evidence.
So we can actually have it both ways.




... and Amino-acid racemization allows for variable conditions of decay and ratios of D/L concentrations. It occurs far far faster in wet and humid conditions then dryer environments, where the T-rex was found. It doesnt stop (or state) that exceptionally preserved examples can't occur in nature. Besides, its important to note that structures resembling blood cells have been seen - not alive, functioning, perfectly whole cells.



Nope, and even that is thousands of years before the world was created.


Dr Schweizer et al can't make a grand claim of "we have blood cells from a dinosaur" without correctly scrutinising what they actually have. They were very careful to make sure any such claims were completely accurate; not to hide their guilt of "disproving" science's understandings of the earth's age and evolution.




Not really. The fossil still dates from around 68-65 million years ago, and the collagen protein structures found in T-rex bones are still extremely closely related to those of chickens, with similarity to certain amphibians, which is predicted according to evolution.

That's an upper limit, and know one has any idea of how something that should be completly broken down in 200k years looks like its still basically intact.



Golly gee whiz, no kidding.......... To admit what the the bones actually are screaming to them would mean they would have to flush their world view, not to mention their PhDs down the toilett.



The amino-acids in the fossils means they are most likely far far far less than 200k years old. It also means that the other dating techniques that date the age of the surrounding material are in question.

Whether anyone thinks they look like chicken bones or not has nothing to do with the discussion.

Terry

Dinosaur bones have been found on a lot of places on this planet - and there are a LOT of species of dinosaurs that have been found (stegosaurus, tyrannosauras, raptors, triceratops, etc see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur). And of course, the bones of what evolutionists call modern mammals are relatively common in recent sediment (e.g., humans, monkeys, elephants, whales, dolphins, cows, hippos rhinos, llamas, horses, dogs, wolves, zebras, sheep, cats, tigers, even mastadons, sabre tooth tigers etc).

Has anyone ever found a dinosaur in the same layer as a modern mammal? Has anyone ever found a dinosaur in a layer above a mammal?

Has anyone ever found evidence that a dinosaur ate a modern mammal? (I know that the bones of their prey have often been found in the stomachs of dinosaur fossils).

Wouldn't one expect that somewhere on the planet the Flood would have mixed these bones into the same geologic layer or put mammals in lower layers if they lived at roughly the same time?

As far as I know, no modern mammal has been found below the KT boundary and no dinosaur has been found above it. But if there is evidence to the contrary I would love to see it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kt_boundary

There are certainly a lot of bones out there to test the hypothesis (that any modern mammal coexisted with any dinosaur) and over 150 years of people looking.



James,

p.s. There is a nice little book called the Dragon Seekers that looks back at the dinosaur hunters in the hundred years of so before Darwin and some of the theories they suggested to account for the lack of overlap in the fossils.

Do you mean to tell me that you do indeed really believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted in Malaysia in 1184 A.D.?

First off I believe in evolution over creationism.

There are written accounts of what are supposed to be dinosaurs as well. this link leads to some information available online: Supposed writings about dinosaurs

Yes it is a creationism site but that does not mean that all the information presented there is invalid and could actually lead to further research.

Now let us assume for the sake of argument that the visual and written records do indeed reflect that dinosaurs, at least pockets of them, existed alongside men. That alone does not indicate a young earth or preclude an old one. No proof has been forthcoming that dinosaurs are a mere 6000 years old. Yes there are tracks of dinosaurs supposedly alongside human tracks but there are remains of dinosaurs in those same areas that are in strata far below remains of humans.

Without definitive proof that dinosaurs are only 6000 years old, the possibility that dinosaurs species did indeed thrive for far longer can not be ruled out.

Sure, read this:


http://nwcreation.net/dinosdragons.html




God bless,
Al

If you believe evolution over creation, then you are not agnostic to the issue of creation vs evolution.

Agnostic: A word first used by Professor Huxley, to indicate one who believes nothing which cannot be demonstrated by the senses.

That's not exactly what the term means according to Huxley. The following was found on Dictionary.com and includes a quote from Huxley himself:



To put it in layman's terms: A single person or group of people can't know everything. It is what I believe and in no way indicates that I can't believe Evolution over Creationism.

Why not Epp?

Does it go against your belief...so it can't be true?

Now I'm pretty sure you wern't taught this in school.

Great Link Trilobyte.

to any of the evolutionism people who don't believe that the pictures in the orginal post clearly show a dinosaur..... "I laugh in your general direction"

Just like with lucy:
[attachmentid=146]

[attachmentid=147]

Just add hands and feet, when no hands or feet bone were found. And poof, you have a transitional fossil.

Should I change my world view to agnostic because I believe creation over evolution? Or does it only apply when evolution is believed over creation?

Carbon dating only works with the assumption that the earth is really really old. If you start with the assumption that the earth is not really really old, (and the radioactive carbon hasn't reached equilibrium yet), then you get dates that are MUCH younger.

There are a lot of graphs out there like the one shown below. I would be interested to hear how creation theory accounts for such results. Does one deny that these results exist? Or does one argue that it is just a mere coincidence that these different aging techniques agree? C14, varves, tree rings, and coral growth rings are all in decent agreement out to 35,000 years or so.





I have heard the argument that someone used the technique once and got a bad date - therefore the data can be ignored.. But it seems that such an argument is like saying I used a clock once and it gave a bad time so I can conclude clocks don't work.

There are data like shown in the graph found in many labs. How does one account for these data?

There is a theory that pre-flood there was a canopy that surrounded the earth.
This canopy blocked most of the cosmic radiation much the same way the ozone layer sheilds us from ultraviolet radiation.

With the cosmic radiation blocked the nitrogen in our upper atmosphere would not have produced as much carbon 14.

This would have made anything pre-flood apear as extremely old when dated.
After the flood the amounts of carbon 14 would have began to rise producing ages like your graph showed.

Thanks Trilobyte. However, I may not have posed my question well. I understand that any given dating technique might have problems - especially if used incorrectly or the assumptions are wrong. My question is...

Why do these different techniques usually give the same answers in the hands the experts?

If each technique gave bad dates, then it would seem likely that they would give very different dates. The fact that most researchers get the same dates seems like a very unlikely coincidence. Why would tree rings give the same dates as C14. Why would lake varves give the same dates as c14. Why would coral growth layers give the same dates as c14? Seems like a very strange coincidence if each one is simply producing bad dates.

It was these kinds of results that first convinced the scientific community that c14 can be trusted when done correctly, but I assume that young earth creationists have their own view of why these different techniques agree?

Why do these different techniques usually give the same answers in the hands the experts?

Different techniques typically don't produce the same results...unless you allow for the biased fudge factors.

I am sorry that you feel all these hundreds of scientists using these tools are dishonest. How many studies would I need to show you lined up like this before you would be convinced? (lined up without any fudge factors).

Is there any point at which you would be convinced by the data?

Would ten studies that lined up like this be convincing if you could see there were no fudge factors? Or is it a matter of principle that all data shows such allignment must be rejected?

We could add stalagtite data and ice core data. We could then look at historic volcanic explosions and show that these show up in the ice core data at the expected time.

We could also show that the dating of wood from coffins in the Egyptian empires with known dates also line up. (some of these results can be found in data that led to the 1960 Nobel Prize).

But I guess all this doesn't matter if no amount of data from reputable sources will convince you.

data is overrated. lol

Just like you would believe that Lucy has fully formed human hands and feet, even though neither hands or foot bones were formed.

You know, such strong skepticism on your part would leave you to believe absolutely nothing at all if you held that same standard to old earth beliefs. How is that toy any different than an artist from thousands of years ago? Well...for starters our children and businesses are exposed to current renditions of such images. When was the last time a 2,000 year old dead man was able to go to a local store and purchase a rendition of the animal he drew, or see it on TV to copy it? The only way the ancients could have created such accurate images is to have witnessed those creatures in first person, or to have dug up accurate skeleton corpses themselves. I think the ancients were a little more focused on war and survival at their times than to be digging up huge excavation sites. Please, there is no need to continue fooling yourself.

Think not of the people who watch TV and buy toys, but think of the people creating the monsters. Do they create them from real existing monsters, or do they use their imagination ?
Why can an artist that lived 2000 years ago not have similar imagination ?

Yes, imagination. No. There are other depictions of what are clearly dinosaurs.

70 million year old T-Rex bone with soft tissue? I'm guessing it's not that old, by a lot less.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7285683/




God bless,
Al

Plus those monsters aren't reproduced all over the place.

Pennywise is only on Stephan King toys/comics/movies/books/etc.

We have lot of really old drawing of dinosaurs that all look similiar.

Besides what are the chances of me drawing a comic monster
Say a huge Turtle with a bird head
And then 1000 years in the future they happen to dig up fossils of millions of years ago and find that very same monster?

There are also a lof of drawings of people with the head of a dog. There are a lot of drawings of orcs. There are a lot of drawings of leprechauns.

About the fossils and how they look, it is regularly said here the fossils are formed to the image already in our minds.

And there are claims of gill slits that we once had during the gestation period, but no fish we evolved from. Imagination or fantasy?

Science being what it is, how hard would it be to take a human fetus at that exact stage that died. And examine those so called gill slits? It will never happen because that part of evolution is based on faith. Besides, it would be absolute evidence of what evolutionists claim. And an absolute of this nature would be required for evolution to make another step in becoming actual truth. Problem is, the gill slit idea was a fraud to begin with. So to go as far as to prove positively one way or the other would be just another blow. Or would you like to explain why this claim is still made but never really looked into?

I though this topic was about humans co-existing with dinosaurs.
Gill slits are off-topic I would say.

The point is that an image that could be looked as describing a dinosaur might be a product of imagination, or a representation of an existing animal,
After all do we really know what dinosaurs looked like ?

all of those are from a MUCH later time frame, and all of those remained very localized until folklore really took off... After the printing press, they spread like wildfire.

Very different scenerio then anceint people drawing the same dinosaurs.




I don't understand what you're saying?

Well guide me to all ancient dinosaur drawings that you know.

Well maybe if I start another thread the question will get answered. But you are right it would derail this one.

Dinosaurs existing at the same time as man does not indicate a young earth. Dinosaurs could simply have remained in existence far longer than expected or previously discovered. Todays reports of Nessie, Champ and Mokolo-Mbembe, appear to be dinosaurs that still exist on this earth at this time. Does this mean that the first reports in the 1800's indicate the earth is only that old? No. So just because a species can still exist now and can be found among mankind is no indication they did not first come into being long long ago. As an example the crocodile is pretty much unchanged (except for size I believe) from when they came into existence with the dinosaurs.