What if human artifacts & foot prints were found alongside dinosaurs

[backseatjuan]

We have a solid fact, human foot prints and artifacts carbon dated 50 million years BC. Incident is not an anomaly, there are numerous findings like this. What could it mean?


There is some literature on this subject

 

[Deep Dish]

http://hotcupofjoe.blogspot.com/2006/11/forbidden-archaeology-exaggeration-of.html

http://ahotcupofjoe.net/2011/12/atlantis-risings-micheal-cremo-and-the-calaveras-skull/

 

[switch]

what if i told you goundra and twentee are TWINS? how that?

 

[Who Dares Win]

I find an interesting lie much more appealing than the lame truth, come on backseat give us more.

We want your opinion for which they should be hiding it.

 

[twentee]

I'm pretty sure that the last dinos were gone LONG before that date. google for it.

 

[Fatal Jay]

It's been proven facts that dinosaurs walked with men, I don't see why people think this was so impossible. First off back then forest and wood area was way more massive, so it was rare for man to come across some, just like you living in your area and rarely coming across bears or any other predator. Another thing is a lot of men in ancient times hunted and killed these things, that's why you have so many tales of dragon and dragon slayers.

Everything they taught in school is bullcrap, just like Columbus finding America, first off he didn't find a damn thing, and second he landed in mid America, and not what we know as the U.S

 

[Voice]

It's been proven facts that dinosaurs walked with men, I don't see why people think this was so impossible. First off back then forest and wood area was way more massive, so it was rare for man to come across some, just like you living in your area and rarely coming across bears or any other predator. Another thing is a lot of men in ancient times hunted and killed these things, that's why you have so many tales of dragon and dragon slayers.

Everything they taught in school is bullcrap, just like Columbus finding America, first off he didn't find a damn thing, and second he landed in mid America, and not what we know as the U.S

Are you for real bro?

:crackup:

 

[LiveFreeX]

Maybe its more likely that dinosaurs actually didn't ALL die off right away... it is pretty coincidental that people talk about thunder lizards, dragons and huge reptile monsters in all the legends from every part of the world. Its certainly not outside the realm of possibility, the world is a big place.

I was reading some article from one of the pacific islands where a scientist found a spider that measures 4 to 5ft across or something. Apparently the locals had known about it for years... new things are being discovered or re-discovered everyday... Giant squid found off coast of Japan a few years ago.

 

[Voice]

Maybe its more likely that dinosaurs actually didn't ALL die off right away... it is pretty coincidental that people talk about thunder lizards, dragons and huge reptile monsters in all the legends from every part of the world. Its certainly not outside the realm of possibility, the world is a big place.

I was reading some article from one of the pacific islands where a scientist found a spider that measures 4 to 5ft across or something. Apparently the locals had known about it for years... new things are being discovered or re-discovered everyday... Giant squid found off coast of Japan a few years ago.

Ancestors of dinosaurs do live today. Many species of reptiles and birds evolved from what you would call dinosaurs. The only difference is their size and shape. We don't see animals as big as they used to be 65 million years ago because the climate was much different and there was much more carbon dioxide in the air and a huge amount of vegetation.

The term dinosaurs refers to a immensely broad spectrum of animals living across hundreds of millions of years, but greater than 65 million years ago. 65 million years ago marks the extinction of the majority of life on the planet. Large animals like dinosaurs did not survive because they required a huge amount of food, and being that most plants also became extinct they died out, leaving smaller animals that required less food.

To think we lived 65 million years ago is ignoring an immeasurable amount of evidence that says the contrary. Modern Homo Sapiens haven't even been around for 50,000 years and even that is a generous estimate. The earliest ancestor that we can find that are traced to the Homo genus lived about 1 million years ago.

 

[PlayHer Man]

There is no way to know when ALL the ocean dwelling dinosaurs officially died out. Some may still exist.

If all animals that existed at the time of the dinosaurs count as "dinosaurs" then they never totally died out. There are small rats, Alligators/crocodiles and other lizards, frogs, etc. that existed at the time of T-Rex. So they are technically "dinosaurs".

The Great White Shark lived with T-Rex (and even way BEFORE) and has basically survived UNCHANGED since then. If you met a Great White Shark at the time of the dinosaurs it would be like meeting one in 2013.

 

[goundra]

I think that dinosaur is Latin for " terrible lizard", and lizards do NOT live in the ocean. Pretty hard to leave footprints in the ocean, too.Just because something was a "hominid" doesn't make it "human", either. Words are supposed to have MEANING, stop bastardizing them.

 

[Fatal Jay]

Are you for real bro?

:crackup:

Dude stop being a brainwash sheep, and read about the studies of the allsaurous bones that was found, which only dated a few thousand years back, stop being such a damn sheep and going by what others say. Man has always walked on the earth, it was rarely a time where it was just animals on this planet. There is no such thing as evolution, things live then they die off, man will always be on this planet.

 

[Deep Dish]

Fatal Jay:
Dude stop being a brainwash sheep, and read about the studies of the allsaurous bones that was found, which only dated a few thousand years back, stop being such a damn sheep and going by what others say. Man has always walked on the earth, it was rarely a time where it was just animals on this planet. There is no such thing as evolution, things live then they die off, man will always be on this planet.

You’re talking about, in 1990, a bone sample was submitted to the University of Arizona for carbon-14 dating, which yielded a result of about 10,000-16,000 years.

Dinosaur bones can’t be carbon dated!

Carbon-14 dating has a maximum range of 50,000 years. Carbon dating is so unreliable that if we carbon dated you right now, the result could easily come up that you’ve been dead for the past 3,000 years. Other radiometric dating methods (Potassium-Argon, Uranium-Lead, or Rubdidium-Strontium) are used for material aged in the millions of years, like rocks. When fossils are found, the surrounding rock bed is analyzed to help with the time estimate.

And evolution is more than adequately proven through DNA evidence.

You should stop listening to idiots.

 

[Fatal Jay]

actually idiots was the ones who developed evolution, there is no proof of evolution lol. Evolution is ironic because atheist say there is no proof in religion yet they believe in evolution where there is no proof in that.

 

[goundra]

sure there's proof of evolution,, but morons can't see it. They just WANT their lives to not be over with at death, because they "think" that SOMEHOW they are SO special, that it CAN'T be that they will just die and it's OVER. So they postulate some bs about Life after death,( Ie, religion), which makes them want to believe religious dogma (ie, bs) about things. Nobody with a lick of sense believes in any religion.

 

[Deep Dish]

Fatal Jay:
actually idiots was the ones who developed evolution, there is no proof of evolution lol. Evolution is ironic because atheist say there is no proof in religion yet they believe in evolution where there is no proof in that.

You have the brain of a four year old, I bet they were glad to be rid of it.

http://www.forbes.com/2009/02/12/evolution-creation-proof-opinions-darwin_0212_jerry_coyne.html
http://news.virginia.edu/content/richard-dawkins-universal-dna-code-knockdown-evidence-evolution
http://eveloce.scienceblog.com/16/dna-proves-evoution/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/03/0308_060308_evolution.html

 

[Voice]

Dude stop being a brainwash sheep, and read about the studies of the allsaurous bones that was found, which only dated a few thousand years back, stop being such a damn sheep and going by what others say. Man has always walked on the earth, it was rarely a time where it was just animals on this planet. There is no such thing as evolution, things live then they die off, man will always be on this planet.

First of all you lost all credibility when you couldn't even spell the dinosaur right. Second of all it's ironic you'd say I'm a brainwashed sheep. I go by what science says, not by what Reverend Billy-Bob says.

Here's a few predictions:
You are from a very conservative family from the South
You go to church every Sunday
Your biggest hero in life is Jesus
Your minister told you the earth is only 12,000 years old

 

[backseatjuan]

So hold on a minute:



We have a human artifact which was found in layers of rock dated back 100 million years, and also carbon dated that far. In other words, the age of artifact is confirmed.


But, this human artifact does not fit into the theory of evolution!


Thus, the artifact is crap!



I understand you people right?


I'm not taking sides here, favoring one over the other. I just want truth. It seems to me if there is an artifact disproving theory of evolution, the proper thing is to question the theory of evolution, and not the artifact that does not fit into the theory of evolution. Because the artifact is just that, it lays there in rock, waiting to be discovered and carbon dated. But discovering it, carbon dating it, and then ignoring it???


Hold on a minute.


If you ignore an artifact like that who are you lying to?


It appears to me you are lying only to yourself by ignoring these artifacts.

 

[Who Dares Win]

So hold on a minute:



We have a human artifact which was found in layers of rock dated back 100 million years, and also carbon dated that far. In other words, the age of artifact is confirmed.


But, this human artifact does not fit into the theory of evolution!


Thus, the artifact is crap!



I understand you people right?


I'm not taking sides here, favoring one over the other. I just want truth. It seems to me if there is an artifact disproving theory of evolution, the proper thing is to question the theory of evolution, and not the artifact that does not fit into the theory of evolution. Because the artifact is just that, it lays there in rock, waiting to be discovered and carbon dated. But discovering it, carbon dating it, and then ignoring it???


Hold on a minute.


If you ignore an artifact like that who are you lying to?


It appears to me you are lying only to yourself by ignoring these artifacts.

What are you talking about? whats this artifact?

 

[backseatjuan]

Well there isn't just one artifact.


There are numerous artifacts.


I pointed to the literature, you'll have to read the book for a list of artifacts and for their locations.


Of course you could do a google image search of "human footprint dinosaur" but that's not evidential, but literature written on subject by PhD's is evidential.


Still, the question remains, what to make of all of this. Artifacts dated dozens of million years old and in same time frame as dinosaurs. You can't ignore them. They don't fit into generally accepted theory of evolution.