Man and dinosaur coexisting

[Isaiah55:6]

This is not going to be very in depth. (Father of two little boys)

The myth of evolution has been used to promote the belief that man and dinosaur lived millions of years apart. It's my opinion that the bible clearly teaches that we both lived together. (Job 40:15-24) and (Job 41:1-34). And the evidence we find today very strongly supports that the bible is correct as usual. It's important to remember that the first dinosaur fossil wasn't even discovered until the 1800's. And if that's the case then why does pretty much every culture in the world have legends of great dragons? I wanted to post about all the evidence that supports man and dinosaur coexisting. It's my view that man and dinosaur lived together before and after the great flood. But eventually died off because of climate change do to the great flood and being hunted by man.

Ancient evidence:
Remember what I said before, that the first dinosaur fossil wasn't discovered until the 1800's. So then why are there so many ancient carvings and art depicting what are clear images of dinosaurs hundreds to thousands of years before the first fossil discovery? Even some including man riding on the backs of dinosaurs.

I don't have the time to talk about each one of these pictures but I assure you every one of these is from before the first fossil was discovered.

Soft tissue:
Following the most rigorous tests and checking of data, many evolutionists now admit the existence of such dinosaur soft tissue and organic material in not just one or two specimens, but well over thirty. They now have to explain how extremely delicate structures could have been preserved over incredibly vast time periods.
It is not just dinosaur soft tissue, either, but the presence of detectable proteins such as collagen, hemoglobin, osteocalcin, actin, and tubulin that they must account for. These are complex molecules that continually tend to break down to simpler ones.

Would love to here people views. Again sorry this isn't nearly as in depth as I would have wished. Got two children under 5 and a wife at work.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

This is not going to be very in depth. (Father of two little boys)

The myth of evolution has been used to promote the belief that man and dinosaur lived millions of years apart. It's my opinion that the bible clearly teaches that we both lived together. (Job 40:15-24) and (Job 41:1-34). And the evidence we find today very strongly supports that the bible is correct as usual. It's important to remember that the first dinosaur fossil wasn't even discovered until the 1800's. And if that's the case then why does pretty much every culture in the world have legends of great dragons? I wanted to post about all the evidence that supports man and dinosaur coexisting. It's my view that man and dinosaur lived together before and after the great flood. But eventually died off because of climate change do to the great flood and being hunted by man.

Ancient evidence:
Remember what I said before, that the first dinosaur fossil wasn't discovered until the 1800's. So then why are there so many ancient carvings and art depicting what are clear images of dinosaurs hundreds to thousands of years before the first fossil discovery? Even some including man riding on the backs of dinosaurs.

I don't have the time to talk about each one of these pictures but I assure you every one of these is from before the first fossil was discovered.

Soft tissue:
Following the most rigorous tests and checking of data, many evolutionists now admit the existence of such dinosaur soft tissue and organic material in not just one or two specimens, but well over thirty. They now have to explain how extremely delicate structures could have been preserved over incredibly vast time periods.
It is not just dinosaur soft tissue, either, but the presence of detectable proteins such as collagen, hemoglobin, osteocalcin, actin, and tubulin that they must account for. These are complex molecules that continually tend to break down to simpler ones.

Would love to here people views. Again sorry this isn't nearly as in depth as I would have wished. Got two children under 5 and a wife at work.

I may not fit into your nice stereotype of an "evolutionist" mainly because I wouldn't be particularly opposed to the idea that some small population of large dinosaurs survived the K-T extinction 65 million years ago. I don't think it is particularly implausible that some small population survived. Keep in mind that such a thing would not overthrow evolutionary or geological theory. It would actually be really fascinating and cool.

Also, keep in mind, that birds today are descendants of some small species of dinosaurs which is pretty cool in itself.

Until we find a large dinosaur-like fossil in Quaternary/Neogene strata, it remains only an interesting idea. And there would be no reason to cover it up as some sort of conspiracy either. Any palaeontologist that found such a thing would be shouting to the heavens. They would be famous. It would be Nobel prize worthy. This is evidenced by other cases of "living fossils" which were found (such as the coelacanth).

With regards to the ancient depictions of dinosaur-like creations, I could only say it is an oddity but likely only due to an active human imagination. Do you also think mermaids, griffins, gargoyles, and unicorns were once real things? Not all myths are necessarily based on a real thing. You also neglect the possibility that ancient peoples did find dinosaur bones. Is it any coincidence that dragon myths are most common in China/Mongolia, where dinosaur bones have been very well-preserved?

Most of the human-depictions of dinosaurs are weak connections. The only ones that are somewhat alarmingly similar are those of stegosaurus.

 

[Isaiah55:6]

Thank you for your feedback

And there would be no reason to cover it up as some sort of conspiracy either. Any palaeontologist that found such a thing would be shouting to the heavens. They would be famous. It would be Nobel prize worthy. This is evidenced by other cases of "living fossils" which were found (such as the coelacanth).

I would have too respectfully disagree with this. I have saw many interviews with creation scientists that say you are looked down upon for not agreeing with evolution. Even facing the risk of no longer having a job. Much like this scientist who was fired for his conclusion about the soft tissue.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2014...-discovery-of-soft-tissue-on-dinosaur-fossil/

With regards to the ancient depictions of dinosaur-like creations, I could only say it is an oddity but likely only due to an active human imagination. Do you also think mermaids, griffins, gargoyles, and unicorns were once real things?

in my view there are just to many identical dragon stories from civilizations that had no way of being in contact with each other.

Most of the human-depictions of dinosaurs are weak connections. The only ones that are somewhat alarmingly similar are those of stegosaurus.

The picture I've shown only really scratch the surface of what's out there. But I'd have to say it's not only the stagosaurus but also the brontosaurus that is alarmingly similar. There are also a few triceratops with men riding on there backs. I think there is no question these are real depictions.

I can't find the one I'm thinking of but here are a few more.

Here is what appears to be a t-Rex being hunted

 

[Butterfly99]

Do you also believe in giants and that the earth is flat?

 

[Isaiah55:6]

Do you also believe in giants and that the earth is flat?

Yes I believe there were Giants. And no I don't believe the earth is flat. Why do you ask?

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I would have too respectfully disagree with this. I have saw many interviews with creation scientists that say you are looked down upon for not agreeing with evolution. Even facing the risk of no longer having a job. Much like this scientist who was fired for his conclusion about the soft tissue.

Soft tissue finds in dinosaurs have been getting more common and the first finds of soft tissue in dinosaur were published in highly respected journals and pop science magazines. But the main investigator in this case (Mary Schweitzer) understood the significance of the find: soft tissue preserved in Cretaceous-age bones.

It seems the scientist in the CSUN case was mistaken about the age of the specimen. He found soft tissue on the skeleton and therefore concluded that it must be only thousands of years old, despite the species appearing in upper Cretaceous strata. The reason he may have been fired is that he was not conducting science; his false presuppositions were strongly influencing his conclusions which flew in the face of an enormous weight of geological evidence. How can he honestly argue that the specimen he found was only a few thousand years old when he himself dug it up from upper Cretaceous strata?

in my view there are just to many identical dragon stories from civilizations that had no way of being in contact with each other.

So what about mermaids, griffins, gargoyles, unicorns, etc? You did not address this from my previous post.

The picture I've shown only really scratch the surface of what's out there. But I'd have to say it's not only the stagosaurus but also the brontosaurus that is alarmingly similar. There are also a few triceratops with men riding on there backs. I think there is no question these are real depictions.

I can't find the one I'm thinking of but here are a few more.

Here is what appears to be a t-Rex being hunted

You have seemed to neglect two of my points:

1) A small population of dinosaurs could have survived the K-T extinction. This would not refute evolution or geology.

2) Humans have very active imaginations (see: unicorns, mermaids, griffins, sphinxes, etc) and ancient peoples likely discovered dinosaur bones. The depictions alone do not prove that humans lived alongside them, only that humans may have found their skeletons and then let their imaginations run wild.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Yes I believe there were Giants. And no I don't believe the earth is flat. Why do you ask?

The giants may also have a perfectly reasonable explanation: Neanderthals or some other hominid group which lived alongside ancient humans. Stories of such now-extinct hominids may have been exaggerated, developed or mythologized into the biblical conception of "giants".

The does not support the idea that the Bible is "true" but only that the ancient Hebrew and proto-Hebrew peoples attempted to explain the world that they or their ancestors relayed to them. This is the whole basis of myth.'

Of course, the concept of giants could simply be an active human imagination as well. Humans build stories all the time. Imagine some future humanoid culture discovering an old copy of the Harry Potter book series...

 

[fargonic]

This is not going to be very in depth.

Usually when people debate against paleontology and evolution it by definition isn't very "in depth". In depth often requires far more education than is available to some people.

The myth of evolution has been used to promote the belief that man and dinosaur lived millions of years apart

It could be because no human bones have ever been found anywhere near dinosaur fossils. Ever.

Furthermore dinosaur bones are often in beds that can be dated and no dinosaur bones have been found that are less than about 65 million years old (with the exception of birds which are likely the result of dinosaur evolution). Furthermore, no human bones have ever been found that are nearly 65 million years old.

. It's my opinion that the bible clearly teaches that we both lived together.

It's always sad when one's opinion of the Bible doesn't match reality.

I don't have the time to talk about each one of these pictures

You COULD have possibly given some background or a link for each of the images. But I understand...facts are often unimportant in conversations like this.

See, this is why so many who seek to overturn science fail so badly...they don't even understand the basics of communicating their supposedly devastating evidence.

Soft tissue:
Following the most rigorous tests and checking of data, many evolutionists now admit the existence of such dinosaur soft tissue and organic material in not just one or two specimens, but well over thirty.

Well, remember...what am I saying? You don't "remember" things like this because you likely never took a paleontology class! But keep in mind that we don't assume the age based solely on how things are preserved. Indeed we who do science for a living ALWAYS CONTINUE LEARNING NEW THINGS! Unlike folks who want to assume Bible explains everything they need to learn and they need never learn anything new about the world, there IS ongoing investigation into the preservation of some "soft tissues" beyond a million years.

You might like to read this: http://www.livescience.com/41537-t-rex-soft-tissue.html

Would love to here people views. Again sorry this isn't nearly as in depth as I would have wished. Got two children under 5 and a wife at work.

Maybe instead of posting stuff like this on the internet you could follow the actual science in that spare time!

 

[Butterfly99]

The giants may also have a perfectly reasonable explanation: Neanderthals or some other hominid group which lived alongside ancient humans. Stories of such now-extinct hominids may have been exaggerated, developed or mythologized into the biblical conception of "giants".

The does not support the idea that the Bible is "true" but only that the ancient Hebrew and proto-Hebrew peoples attempted to explain the world that they or their ancestors relayed to them. This is the whole basis of myth.'

Of course, the concept of giants could simply be an active human imagination as well. Humans build stories all the time. Imagine some future humanoid culture discovering an old copy of the Harry Potter book series...

Nah, Neanderthals weren't giants. This fellow here, Jack Bratt, insinuated I'm not a real Christian all cause I asked a question about giants. Oh he believes in them for real, lol. Another said that if you believe the Bible literally you can't believe in a spherical Earth or NASA. To me not "believing" in evolution & thinking dinosaurs & man lived at the same time is just as silly.

You know the concept of humans & dinosaurs living together totally comes from the human imagination too? You're right that humans build stories all the time. The thing about the soft dinosaur tissue - I covered that already in other posts. What was in their tissues was basically like formaldehyde. Why didn't you learn that in school? Did you go to a real school? It's not that the Bible is wrong, it's that you're reading it wrong.

 

[eclipsenow]

I think the author of this thread needs to read a biblical scholar commentary of Job! Literalising biblical metaphors never gets you anywhere. Leviathan and Behemoth are symbols of the destructive chaos in nature. They represent the mystery of when God lets nature go "bad", and the immense power of both beasts and storms and the chaos of the sea. They're symbols. Images. Emotion generating pictures of power and chaos. Not literal! I wish Christians would stop coming to the bible with some kind of post-Darwin paranoia, with creationist-glasses on, skimming through the bible and plucking bits of it out of context, out of good hermeneutics, out of history, and just suddenly twisting words to say what they *think* it means to support their whacko, anti-science positions.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Nah, Neanderthals weren't giants. This fellow here, Jack Bratt, insinuated I'm not a real Christian all cause I asked a question about giants. Oh he believes in them for real, lol. Another said that if you believe the Bible literally you can't believe in a spherical Earth or NASA. To me not "believing" in evolution & thinking dinosaurs & man lived at the same time is just as silly.

You know the concept of humans & dinosaurs living together totally comes from the human imagination too? You're right that humans build stories all the time. The thing about the soft dinosaur tissue - I covered that already in other posts. What was in their tissues was basically like formaldehyde. Why didn't you learn that in school? Did you go to a real school? It's not that the Bible is wrong, it's that you're reading it wrong.

I think you've either misunderstood my position or you quoted the wrong person.

Yea, Jack Bratt is highly misinformed or trolling. I had a pretty lengthy discussion with him about the flat Earth and explained to him why it is not flat.

Why didn't you learn that in school? Did you go to a real school? It's not that the Bible is wrong, it's that you're reading it wrong.

I think you've misunderstood my position on soft tissue in dinosaurs. Read my post #6.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

It's important to remember that the first dinosaur fossil wasn't even discovered until the 1800's.

Not true. Not even close.

Mayor, Adrienne
2000 "The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times" Princeton University Press

Ancient evidence:
Remember what I said before, that the first dinosaur fossil wasn't discovered until the 1800's. So then why are there so many ancient carvings and art depicting what are clear images of dinosaurs hundreds to thousands of years before the first fossil discovery? Even some including man riding on the backs of dinosaurs.

The first group were images of Ica Stones. There are non-figurative examples with grids, and angular line patterns which are recovered by actual archaeological studies. The pictures are are known fakes sold to tourists. A gGerman TV documented haw they were being cranked out. The "dinosaurs" are obsolete representations popular before modern studies based on actual reconstructive anatomy. Basically, the Ica Stones with dinos are copies of 1950s children's books, and comic books. Here is an even clearer example;

The Acámbaro figures were from Mexico, and first turned up in the 1950s. Two obvious problems are that they also failed to represent dinos accurately, and are recently produced. 20 randomly selected examples were shown to have been produced between 1940, and 1969.

Carriveau, G. W.; Han, M. C. (1976). "Thermoluminescent Dating and the Monsters of Acambaro". American Antiquity. 41(4):497-500

I don't have the time to talk about each one of these pictures but I assure you every one of these is from before the first fossil was discovered.

Nope. Not even close.

Soft tissue:
Following the most rigorous tests and checking of data, many evolutionists now admit the existence of such dinosaur soft tissue and organic material in not just one or two specimens, but well over thirty. They now have to explain how extremely delicate structures could have been preserved over incredibly vast time periods.
It is not just dinosaur soft tissue, either, but the presence of detectable proteins such as collagen, hemoglobin, osteocalcin, actin, and tubulin that they must account for. These are complex molecules that continually tend to break down to simpler ones.

Not even close again.

First, see my article, "Dino Blood and the Young Earth"
There is nothing new to report from the creationists.

Next, see my article, "Ancient Molecules and Modern Myths"

I keep toying with an up-dated article, but there is no new argument from the creationists. Just more of the same piled higher and deeper.

Are we through now?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Much like this scientist who was fired for his conclusion about the soft tissue.

Mark Armitage is a microscope technician. He was "permanent part time" as support staff at Cal State Northridge.

He and another YEC, Kevin Anderson, wrote
2013 "Soft sheets of fibrillar bone from a fossil of the supraorbital horn of the dinosaur Triceratops horridus" Acta Histochemica, Volume 115, Issue 6, Pages 603–608

It is a terrible incompetent paper. One reviewer was Mary Schweitzer of dino blood fame. She will sign off anything that supported her ideas. It was actually a terrible paper and weak research.

 

[crjmurray]

Boop

 

[Hoghead1]

If I were you, I would not put too much faith in what creation-science people say, Isaiah. I have spent considerable studying creation science and I find it to be largely a hoax, a deliberate fraud sold to the public. Many of the proponents here sport false credentials and degrees to start with. I have an itemized list here that I could dig out if you want it. Their arguments maybe look impressive to the laity, but to those of us who have had a genuine advanced education in science, they appear totally bogus, presenting at best half-truths. I can cite you chapter and verse on that, if you want. It is also the case that creation-science people are very intolerant and would like to see opponents banished from the universities. A local one here send out emails rejoicing in the fact that the philosophy department has been terminated. Don't want any of those godless philosophers around, do we? Never mind that we really don't know anything about the faith or lack thereof. As I have said before and wool say again, I do not think the real issue here is the Bible or science. I think the real issue is that many have trouble believing that God can and does change. God doesn't change and so neither do we and so there is no evolution. Granted, the classical Christian model of God stressed that God does not change, that creation is over done with. However, that view of God comes largely from certain schools of Hellenic philosophy, rather than Scripture, schools which had major issues with the world of time, change, etc.

 

[Butterfly99]

This post was meant for the OP. I accidentally wrote it to the wrong person. Sorry about that!

I have no idea what your position is tbh because you didn't make it all that clear in your OP. Dinosaurs & man did not coexist. Evolution is not a myth. The earth is not young. The earth is not flat. The point I was making with Jack Bratt is that he believes he's right for real, even though it's obviously crazy. He thinks the Bible backs it up. There's a lot of folks on here who just ignore basic facts about the universe cause they've misinterpreted the Bible. Idk how many ppl are being for real & how many are just trying to make Christians look like idiots. Even this thread title made me cringe tbh.

 

[Isaiah55:6]

I think the author of this thread needs to read a biblical scholar commentary of Job! Literalising biblical metaphors never gets you anywhere. Leviathan and Behemoth are symbols of the destructive chaos in nature. They represent the mystery of when God lets nature go "bad", and the immense power of both beasts and storms and the chaos of the sea. They're symbols. Images. Emotion generating pictures of power and chaos. Not literal! I wish Christians would stop coming to the bible with some kind of post-Darwin paranoia, with creationist-glasses on, skimming through the bible and plucking bits of it out of context, out of good hermeneutics, out of history, and just suddenly twisting words to say what they *think* it means to support their whacko, anti-science positions.

There is no reason to not take those creatures in Job as actual living creatures. Evolution and the bible do not work and all you are doing is trying to force two puzzle pieces together that won't fit.

young earth creationists aren't anti-science. It's just the scientific evidence takes us in a different direction because of presuppositions, that both sides hold too. Eg, you look at rock strata and think it took billions of years. Young earth creationist look at the strata and say it was laid down quickly from the waters of the great flood. Why do trees stand up straight through several layers of strata? Why are mountains all over the world covered in marine life? Why are Modern day mammals buried beside "prehistoric" animals? Why are whale skeletons found in places nowhere near oceans? The flood dramatically changed the face of this planet and scientists desperate to disprove God look at the evidence but because of their presuppositions come to the conclusion that it's the result of the earth being old and not the result of a catastrophic flood.

 

[JacksBratt]

Nah, Neanderthals weren't giants. This fellow here, Jack Bratt, insinuated I'm not a real Christian all cause I asked a question about giants. Oh he believes in them for real, lol. Another said that if you believe the Bible literally you can't believe in a spherical Earth or NASA. To me not "believing" in evolution & thinking dinosaurs & man lived at the same time is just as silly.

You know the concept of humans & dinosaurs living together totally comes from the human imagination too? You're right that humans build stories all the time. The thing about the soft dinosaur tissue - I covered that already in other posts. What was in their tissues was basically like formaldehyde. Why didn't you learn that in school? Did you go to a real school? It's not that the Bible is wrong, it's that you're reading it wrong.

Well hello Butterfly.

I will forgive the gossip as you are younger and we all make mistakes.

Firstly, I did not say that you were not a real Christian. I asked you some simple questions about the scriptures that God has given us and how you comprehend them, believe them or disbelieve them.

You, however, did not answer them. I now see that you assumed that I was being condescending when if fact I was trying to get you to research the Bible and things its states as facts while it is the living word of God.

Secondly, the poster here gave some scripture from the Bible that is impossible to read and understand without realizing that the subject is a dinosaur and the person viewing the living dinosaur is a human.

In a previous post in another thread you told us that your mother told you to be careful what you read here and what people say. I find it concerning that as a young woman and a Christian that you would participate in a forum that is dominated by people with views that are contrary to that of Christianity and the fact that the Bible is the living word of God written by men as they were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

However, I am not your mother and I trust she is checking in on you, the posts you follow, the content and context of your posts and the responses to them.

In conclusion I will state that I truly believe that there were giants on this earth during many eras of time and they ranged in size strength and intelligence. I believe that there is or was a large amount of archaeological evidence for them that has been hidden or destroyed. I also believe the there is more to be found and with the internet it will be viewed by more and more people to the extent that the people who do not want this truth exposed will no longer be able to write it all off as fake or hoaxes.

I also firmly believe that dinosaurs and man walked the earth at the same time.

I do not believe in the flat earth but the people that do believe are not to be written off as crackpots as they have some very good observations and questions that are very hard, or impossible, to explain with the globe model.

Everyone is entitled to their belief Christians, non Christians, flat earthers..... we are all human and deserve respect.
That is if you are still reading this far into my post.

God Bless you Butterfly and be careful here.

 

[Isaiah55:6]

Soft tissue finds in dinosaurs have been getting more common and the first finds of soft tissue in dinosaur were published in highly respected journals and pop science magazines. But the main investigator in this case (Mary Schweitzer) understood the significance of the find: soft tissue preserved in Cretaceous-age bones.

It seems the scientist in the CSUN case was mistaken about the age of the specimen. He found soft tissue on the skeleton and therefore concluded that it must be only thousands of years old, despite the species appearing in upper Cretaceous strata. The reason he may have been fired is that he was not conducting science; his false presuppositions were strongly influencing his conclusions which flew in the face of an enormous weight of geological evidence. How can he honestly argue that the specimen he found was only a few thousand years old when he himself dug it up from upper Cretaceous strata?

You see what your saying there? You identify the Cretaceous strata by the animal you find in it and then identify the age of the animal by the strata it's in. This is circular reasoning.
"How do you know the fossils are old?"
Because it was in old rock!
"But how do you know the rock is old?"
Because it had old fossils!

So what about mermaids, griffins, gargoyles, unicorns, etc? You did not address this from my previous post.

It's not the same thing because we don't have the fossils of any of these like we do the dinosaurs. With dinosaurs we have fossils and ancient depictions to go with each other. I don't know of any historians or philosophers that speak of these other mythological creatures like we do dragons. For example, Apollonius tyana Greek philosopher writes " dragons of enormous size and variety in northern India, the hillside was full of them and no mountain ridge was without one."[/QUOTE]

You have seemed to neglect two of my points:

1) A small population of dinosaurs could have survived the K-T extinction. This would not refute evolution or geology.

I've never heard this view so I can't comment.

2) Humans have very active imaginations (see: unicorns, mermaids, griffins, sphinxes, etc) and ancient peoples likely discovered dinosaur bones. The depictions alone do not prove that humans lived alongside them, only that humans may have found their skeletons and then let their imaginations run wild.

There is no evidence that anyone before the 1800 had the ability to put the fossils together to see what they would have looked like.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I have no idea what your position is tbh because you didn't make it all that clear in your OP. Dinosaurs & man did not coexist. Evolution is not a myth. The earth is not young. The earth is not flat. The point I was making with Jack Bratt is that he believes he's right for real, even though it's obviously crazy. He thinks the Bible backs it up. There's a lot of folks on here who just ignore basic facts about the universe cause they've misinterpreted the Bible. Idk how many ppl are being for real & how many are just trying to make Christians look like idiots. Even this thread title made me cringe tbh.

Yea, I think you are quoting the wrong person....

I think you are intending to quote Isaiah55:6 (username). He's the one that started this thread. He's the one that said evolution is a myth. He's the one claiming dinosaurs and man coexisted. He's the one claiming the Earth is young.

I never claimed any of those things.