Man and dinosaurs, when did we first know about them?

Arsonist · 17 Sep 2013 at 18:03

nick.lidgett said:
Woooooah Rambo chill out

I'ma go Rambo on yo ass too if yo post some crazy fool idea!

(I think the 40C heat is getting to me)

estebanrey · 17 Sep 2013 at 18:08

Theophany said:
"And o, Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth, but the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus with a splinter in his paw. And o, the disciples did run a-shrieking 'What a big lizard, Lord.' But Jesus was unafraid, and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus' paw, and the big lizard became his friend. And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a Loch for oh so many years, inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat families and their fat dollar bills. And O Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you, Lord."

Given there was no such dinosaur as a Brontosaurus, doesn't that prove the Bible was wrong?

arknor · 17 Sep 2013 at 18:22

RDM · 17 Sep 2013 at 19:05

jmc007 said:
I can see the lion, fighting the dragon you describe, yet still that "dragon" looks uncannily like what we would call today, a Diplodous; or a dinosaur of that kind.

Probably because you cant see the wings due to the (deliberately) awful photography. Take the wings off a dragon and it will look somewhat like a sauropod, it doesn't mean that they were around 500 years ago.

413x · 17 Sep 2013 at 19:22

lizards, dragons, dinosaurs, all pretty similar and a large group of animals throw in some random chance and imagination and how different they appear from us

all makes sense

ShaolinDreams · 17 Sep 2013 at 20:26

RDM said:
Probably because you cant see the wings due to the (deliberately) awful photography. Take the wings off a dragon and it will look somewhat like a sauropod, it doesn't mean that they were around 500 years ago.

Only out like 66,000,000 years who'll notice

Fob · 17 Sep 2013 at 20:30

Evolution is really the story of creationism, creationism theory just mistakes evolution for creationism to fit the bible story.
And the truth is out there somewhere! :confused:

Spook187 · 17 Sep 2013 at 20:33

lol i liked the way it says.

This one is situated in that normally uninteresting town of Carlisle.

Well that tomb is about 10 mins walk from my house, never knew about that :eek:

estebanrey · 17 Sep 2013 at 20:35

Fob said:
Evolution is really the story of creationism, creationism theory just mistakes evolution for creationism to fit the bible story.
And the truth is out there somewhere!

Not really. Evolution concerns the adaption of life whereas creationism concerns the creation of life (and sometimes the evolution [or lack of] after).

Abiogenesis is the scientific study of how the first life formed from non-life and that area (unlike evolution) isn't well understood by science...yet.

jmc007 · 17 Sep 2013 at 20:36

RDM said:
Probably because you cant see the wings due to the (deliberately) awful photography. Take the wings off a dragon and it will look somewhat like a sauropod, it doesn't mean that they were around 500 years ago.

Better photos here, can't see any remnants of wings? Though can now see, the tail of said "lion".

Castiel · 17 Sep 2013 at 20:37

Fob said:
Evolution is really the story of creationism, creationism theory just mistakes evolution for creationism to fit the bible story.
And the truth is out there somewhere!

Evolution is the story of adaptation and diversity, it isn't really about Creation.

checjb · 17 Sep 2013 at 20:48

OP: The real problem with your "evidence" is that, if mankind had seen/interacted with dinosaurs, then they should have been able to paint them accurately. Scientific reconstructions of sauropods haven't used the out-dated and anatomically impossible "tail-dragger" form for many years. A sauropod would've had the neck and tail elevated roughly parallel to the ground.
This is such a tired and frequently debunked attempt to justify creationism/co-existence that it really does show your lack of research/independent thought.

B@Th*nG · 17 Sep 2013 at 20:57

checjb said:
This is such a tired and frequently debunked attempt to justify creationism/co-existence that it really does show your lack of research/independent thought.

it really does show your lack of research/independent thought.

lack of research/independent thought.

independent thought.

oh you

B@

[FnG]magnolia · 17 Sep 2013 at 21:06

Are we talking about dinosaurs, dragons or the hilarious joke that is creationism? I'm slightly worried that we're only a handful of posts in and already I'm confused.

jmc007 · 17 Sep 2013 at 21:40

[FnG]magnolia;24961595 said:
Are we talking about dinosaurs, dragons or the hilarious joke that is creationism? I'm slightly worried that we're only a handful of posts in and already I'm confused.

Well the OP was regarding dinosaurs and man. I am not sure where that and creationism tie in, though seems to be the ball people are running with. I wonder why?

checjb · 17 Sep 2013 at 21:43

OK then, I'll take back the comments about a link to creationism and just point out the obvious errors in the man/dinosaur coexistence concept in your OP then.

glenimp617 · 17 Sep 2013 at 21:45

I think we need to ask Steve Spielberg

dirtychinchilla · 17 Sep 2013 at 21:47

glen8 said:
Adam and Eve spoke to a dinosaur in the garden of eden. They were told not to eat an orange.

I laughed!

jmc007 · 17 Sep 2013 at 21:54

This is an interesting case, the Zuiyo-Maru dinosaur.

checjb · 17 Sep 2013 at 21:56

jmc007 said:
Better photos here, can't see any remnants of wings? Though can now see, the tail of said "lion".

I'm loving the images in that link. "The creature on the left has what appear to be spikes on its tail (reminiscent of the stegosaurids like Tuojiangosaurus or Kentrosaurus minus the plates)." Funny, even when he was 4 years old my son used to draw the plates on a stegosaurus. Yet - ascribing to the theory proposed on that website - the artist somehow forget the most visible and impressive feature of the animal (although he does seem to draw an eye on his terribly drawn thagomiser (the actual name for the tail spikes)). And the other "dinosaur" looks remarkably rodent-like to my, admittedly, artistically untrained eye.
We should all forget many decades of impressive, detailed and consistent scientific research due to a few poorly illustrated "eye witness" doodles.

Oh man! The deeper I dig into that website to funnier/sadder it becomes.