Thread: Did man walk with the dinosaurs?

I had heard something about a 150 million year old cave painting that depicted a T-Rex, so I did a search to try to find out more about it, and came across the most fascinating site. It's well worth the read no matter where you stand on evolution.

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/exhibit/exhibit.htm

No. They are separated by 65 million years.

I can only hope that this is a bad joke.

Sigh, that's about what I expected from you people. The length of time between my post and those replies indicates you didn't examine that site in the least. It must be nice to know everything.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Sigh, that's about what I expected from you people. The length of time between my post and those replies indicates you didn't examine that site in the least. It must be nice to know everything.

You had a question, and I answered it. I don't give credibility to what mythology buffs trying to make money off books have to say about it. I looked at some of it, and it was laughable. Every dinosaur extinction theory worth anything says they became extinct 65 million years before humans were ever here. If you don't want to know my view, mention that next time.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

If you don't want to know my view, mention that next time.

For future reference, I'm not interested in hearing your crap ever.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

Sigh, that's about what I expected from you people. The length of time between my post and those replies indicates you didn't examine that site in the least. It must be nice to know everything.

There is a fair chance that most people that visit the religion forum here have already heard of Genesis Park and the Creation evidence Museum, and so would know already that there is no actual evidence and that they just have a bunch of wax statues of dinosaurs with saddles and other similarly ridiculous "evidence".

I'd debate this, but I'm rather preocuupied with this dinosaur I'm fighting.

Originally Posted by The Cusp

I had heard something about a 150 million year old cave painting that depicted a T-Rex, so I did a search to try to find out more about it, and came across the most fascinating site. It's well worth the read no matter where you stand on evolution.

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/exhibit/exhibit.htm

Btw: That was faked.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Btw: That was faked.

What?? But it looks so real!

Oh hey. Archaeological anomalies. They are always fuin. Did you know they found plans for ancient Egyptian lightbulbs, and computers, and batteries, and this interesting two billion year old sphere in a lump of coal, and cities that appear to have been nuked, and the ancient Indians had airships and space travel technology. Probably the ancient Egyptians used van der graaf generators in ritual!

Lots of ancient tribes knew about stars we hadn't discovered, or dinosaurs. Some old maps even show what look like the outline of Antarctica! Maybe they got these ideas from ancient Atlantis, or aliens, or ghosts.

I am willing to entertain all of these ideas because they are very very entertaining. There is a lot we haven't fitted into our idea of history yet and I'm interested in what all this weird evidence means.

But the idea that the world was created in six days by a being from another dimension approximately 10,000 years ago to be a home for two primates who were tricked into eating an apple by a talking snake does not to me seem like the most probably explanation.

More likely, aliens have been watching the Earth for billions of years and one day they got so drunk that they ended up accidentally teaching our ancestors palaeontology.

But yeah, for the record the facts there are interesting. The problem with sources like this is knowing what is factual and what is hearsay or really badly misinterpreted.

Originally Posted by apachama

Oh hey. Archaeological anomalies. They are always fuin. Did you know they found plans for ancient Egyptian lightbulbs, and computers, and batteries, and this interesting two billion year old sphere in a lump of coal, and cities that appear to have been nuked, and the ancient Indians had airships and space travel technology. Probably the ancient Egyptians used van der graaf generators in ritual!

Lots of ancient tribes knew about stars we hadn't discovered, or dinosaurs. Some old maps even show what look like the outline of Antarctica! Maybe they got these ideas from ancient Atlantis, or aliens, or ghosts.

What the fuck are you talking about? Jesus Christ on a cracker.

Originally Posted by apachama

Oh hey. Archaeological anomalies. They are always fuin. Did you know they found plans for ancient Egyptian lightbulbs, and computers, and batteries, and this interesting two billion year old sphere in a lump of coal, and cities that appear to have been nuked, and the ancient Indians had airships and space travel technology. Probably the ancient Egyptians used van der graaf generators in ritual!

It's always fun to say ridiculous things with-out backing them up.

I think apachama is referring to

Baghdad Batteries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Battery

Antikythera Mechanism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antikythera_mechanism

Vitrified Desert Glass and Vitrified Forts
http://jcolavito.tripod.com/lostcivilizations/id9.html

The Nazca Lines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazca_lines

And the like. I agree that it is very interesting, but purely from a mythological standpoint. I love what conspiracy theories and the interent have done to myth making. Some people feel that unexplained mysteries need fantastic myths as explanations. It is like backing up in your car, and automatically assuming there is a unicorn hiding in your blind spot.

Originally Posted by Grod

It's always fun to say ridiculous things with-out backing them up.

Archaeological anomalies are quite real. The problem is that books on them tend toassume all sorts of crazy things. Also, some of the evidence they refer to is obviously a hoax if you look into it at all.

I imagine this is especially true for sites like this. I mean, they take the testimony of a ten year old boy as obviously not faked.

Originally Posted by apachama

I am willing to entertain all of these ideas because they are very very entertaining.

lol! I love this

it is very fun when history pops up with something that we can't easily answer - we'll probably never know - but its fun all the same

You can tell that humans were not around with dinosaurs bacause of the fossil locations. The dinosaur bones are way deeper than human bones.

65 million years ago, some dude had a NASTY foot injury for a little while (before he was eaten).

Flintstones, meet the Flintstones. They're that modern stone age family....

All right, there is no way those footprints were faked. There is video of them lifting up layers of limestone to find more underneath. Then geologists slice those stone footprints open, and the geological evidence proves they were not carved.

12 minutes into this video to to see them uncover the footprints from the limestone, and at 13 minutes for the geological evidence.

Or just watch the whole thing. Charlton Heston wouldn't lie to you!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...68803639628771

Aren't dinosaurs just another name from dragons. Yeah, and dragon is written in the bible somewhere. So yes, they did it sas in the bible.

Anyway, think about it, if a lizard could live a thousand years, wouldn't it grow big, then wouldn't in a thousand years it would be as big as a bus or something.

^lol

I like the theory that the dragons came from finding dino bones. It makes the most sense to me. Apparently the idea of cyclops in Greece came from finding mastadon skulls with no tusks as well. At least thats what the history channel says

Seriously though, there are numerous extant creatures that, given a game of telephone played across continents, could account for dragons--not least of all dragons, as in komodo. Familiarity with snakes + valley-dweller's first view of a river from afar = dragons. Dinosaurs need not be involved, and really don't bear that close a resemblance to dragons of myth, which tend to be impossibly large serpents (i.e. exaggerated fear/archetypefication of snakes), not raptors or appatosaurs. The Western dragon, aggressive, dominant and maiden-ravaging, is basically a big scaly penis. Any connection to dinosaurs is a stretch well after the fact.

I'm not sure I buy that completely. I don't really 'see' a snake when I look at most depictions of dragons. And Why would the giant lizard be such a constant? Why not giant rats or giant frogs?