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

MikeTheNative said:
I agree with you, dinosaurs existed a lot longer than all the scientists suggest and I believe that they still do to this day. With the revelations about the planes that hit twin towers recently, I reckon that they were were in fact flown by dinosaurs, I'm unsure of their intentions or goals though.
Click to expand...

An old John Lydon quote comes to mind, "Ever get the feeling you have been cheated?"

 
Last edited:
A velociraptor in a disguise would be difficult to spot, they are also small and powerful enough to take over the plane. We have all seen Jurassic Park so we know that they are smart enough to work as a group to take it.

raptor2.png
 
What I want to know is, if a dinosaur walks into a building with a person on the floor above it and baby Jesus on the floor above that. What floor would baby Jesus be on? 2nd or 3rd?
 
MikeTheNative said:
A velociraptor in a disguise would be difficult to spot, they are also small and powerful enough to take over the plane. We have all seen Jurassic Park so we know that they are smart enough to work as a group to take it.

raptor2.png
Click to expand...
:eek: That disguise is uncanny! Had you not said I would've said it was another Hilary Duff Twitter selfie :D
hilary-duff-3-apr19__width_420_zps06fce1ff.jpg
Also, now that you've said 'smart enough to work as a group' I'm worried that dinosaurs are taking a leaf from the whales and dolphins :o

dolphins_zpsf28bc499.png
 
MeEsH BaKkA said:
What I want to know is, if a dinosaur walks into a building with a person on the floor above it and baby Jesus on the floor above that. What floor would baby Jesus be on? 2nd or 3rd?
Click to expand...

The baby jebus is omnipresent so he'd actually be on every floor all at once. ;)
 
It was actually genetically engineered birds, buffed with nuclear waste that flew to the towers. Engineered and trained by good old US of A.
 
Again from a dictionary from the 1600's, citing dragons in the first definition as "Now rare".

14237520084_3ac4a98da9_m.jpg


Truly makes sense they would be rare and only get rarer as civilisations grew, who would want dragons nearby, hence I propose why we get all the dragon slayer stories on these Isles. For example how many wild bears are there now in England? None of course. Men hunted them to extinction.


Nice copy and paste I found interesting.
At the end of the 19th century, a Russian Orthodox saint named St. Barsanuphius was stationed in Manchuria to pastor the Russian soldiers during the RussianJapanese War. From there he wrote in his journal: “I happened to hear from soldiers that stand at the posts at the Hantaza station, forty miles from Mullin, that two years ago they often saw an enormous winged dragon creep out from one of the mountain caves. It terrified them, and would again conceal itself in the depths of the cave. They have not seen it since that time, but this proves that the tales of the Chinese and Japanese about the existence of dragons are not at all fantasies or fables, although the learned European naturalists, and ours along with them, deny the existence of these monsters. But after all, anything can be denied, simply because it does not measure up to our understanding.”
 
Make of this what you will. Excerpt from http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/soft-tissue-dinosaur-fossil.htm

"Schweitzer's 2008 paper describing protein sequences adds some weight to the idea that the tissue belonged to the T. rex and not an unrelated contaminant. But some critics remain unconvinced. For example, researcher Christina Nielsen-Marsh was quoted in by National Geographic as saying that the sequences described "make no sense at all" [source: Norris]. In the minds of many, the presence of peptides in a specimen as old as a T. rex is impossible. This means the only option is that the protein came from another source.
In an article published in the journal PLoS One on July 20, 2008, researchers Thomas G. Kaye, Gary Gaugler and Zbigniew Sawlowicz argue just that. This team conducted more than 200 hours of scanning electron microscope analysis on a variety of dinosaur fossils. It came to the conclusion that Schweitzer's samples contained framboids, and the apparent soft tissue was essentially pond scum. Through carbon dating, the team also determined that the material was modern, not prehistoric [source: Kaye et al.]. In statements made to National Geographic, Schweitzer stood by her findings, noting, among other things, that Kaye's team did not address more recent protein studies of her T. rex samples [source: Roach].
But to another group, Schweitzer's findings make perfect sense. In the view of young-Earth creationists, soft tissue is proof that fossils aren't as old as scientists report. After all, according to scientific estimates, T. rex fossils are 65 million years old. Soft tissue and amino acids should last only a fraction of that time. Someone who believes the Earth is less than 10,000 years old may see Schweitzer's find as compelling evidence for a young Earth rather than a cause to re-examine the nature of fossilization. However, analysis using radiometric dating -- the method scientists use to determine the age of fossils -- conflicts with the idea of a 10,000-year-old Earth.
In interviews, Schweitzer has commented that her discoveries have enriched rather than conflicted with her Christian faith [source: Yeoman, Fields]. Schweitzer offers hypotheses for how the tissue could have survived so long. One is that the densely mineralized bone, combined with as-yet-undiscovered geological or environmental processes, protected the structures within [source: Schweitzer, 3/25/2005]. And regardless of whether the paleontological community eventually embraces or refutes the tissue in question, the find does seem to make ideas that used to be impossible merely improbable."
 
jmc007 said:
Again from a dictionary from the 1600's, citing dragons in the first definition as "Now rare".

14237520084_3ac4a98da9_m.jpg
Click to expand...

Actually if you read that properly, it's stating that that particularly usage of the word is "now rare", hence why that particular text is in italics, rather than as part of the main definition. Nice try though.
 
jmc007 said:
Make of this what you will. Excerpt from http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/soft-tissue-dinosaur-fossil.htm

"Schweitzer's 2008 paper describing protein sequences adds some weight to the idea that the tissue belonged to the T. rex and not an unrelated contaminant. But some critics remain unconvinced. For example, researcher Christina Nielsen-Marsh was quoted in by National Geographic as saying that the sequences described "make no sense at all" [source: Norris]. In the minds of many, the presence of peptides in a specimen as old as a T. rex is impossible. This means the only option is that the protein came from another source.
In an article published in the journal PLoS One on July 20, 2008, researchers Thomas G. Kaye, Gary Gaugler and Zbigniew Sawlowicz argue just that. This team conducted more than 200 hours of scanning electron microscope analysis on a variety of dinosaur fossils. It came to the conclusion that Schweitzer's samples contained framboids, and the apparent soft tissue was essentially pond scum. Through carbon dating, the team also determined that the material was modern, not prehistoric [source: Kaye et al.]. In statements made to National Geographic, Schweitzer stood by her findings, noting, among other things, that Kaye's team did not address more recent protein studies of her T. rex samples [source: Roach].
But to another group, Schweitzer's findings make perfect sense. In the view of young-Earth creationists, soft tissue is proof that fossils aren't as old as scientists report. After all, according to scientific estimates, T. rex fossils are 65 million years old. Soft tissue and amino acids should last only a fraction of that time. Someone who believes the Earth is less than 10,000 years old may see Schweitzer's find as compelling evidence for a young Earth rather than a cause to re-examine the nature of fossilization. However, analysis using radiometric dating -- the method scientists use to determine the age of fossils -- conflicts with the idea of a 10,000-year-old Earth.
In interviews, Schweitzer has commented that her discoveries have enriched rather than conflicted with her Christian faith [source: Yeoman, Fields]. Schweitzer offers hypotheses for how the tissue could have survived so long. One is that the densely mineralized bone, combined with as-yet-undiscovered geological or environmental processes, protected the structures within [source: Schweitzer, 3/25/2005]. And regardless of whether the paleontological community eventually embraces or refutes the tissue in question, the find does seem to make ideas that used to be impossible merely improbable."
Click to expand...

ok i will.

the first half contains solid scientific proof that the material found was not from a t-rex.
the second half contains the ramblings of morons that ignore facts because they don't match their narrow minded and provably false beliefs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom