Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire evidence for man with dinosaurs

Without getting too bogged down in this: The creation story in the King James bible (which is mirrored more or less closely in other translations) is generally agreed by theologians to be more about the origin and nature of sin than about the nuts and bolts of how humans came to be. Conflicting accounts in the earliest Hebrew suggest that Adam was created and then Eve (in one version from Adam's rib, another version from Adam's bone and flesh) or that they were created simultaneously. It's hard to know, because we don't know exactly how some of these pronouns were perceived by the people who wrote the accounts nor by the people for whom they were intended. If there were Cro-Magnons or other prehumans in existence, the scriptures fail to mention them.

We know from both the archeological record and recent genetic discoveries that the line of the genus Homo which became Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals diverged from the line from which modern humans descended around 600,000 years before present time (bp).

The first overlap between these lines occurred 100,000 to 60,000 years bp in the Middle East, not in Europe as many had supposed. The first modern humans appeared in the Middle East approximately 100,000 years bp and were apparently coexistent with at least some Neanderthal ancestors. This is when the first mating of modern humans and Neanderthals occurred, based primarily on genetic analyses, but buttressed somewhat by the archeological evidence, as well. Again, the fossil and archeological record cannot give us a precise date for the emergence of modern humans. We just know where they lived at the points in time for which we have evidence.

The next time that we know that they lived side by side was in Europe where they lived 44,000 to 30,000 years bp, at which time the Neanderthal line disappeared from the archeological record. Recent genetic research suggests that as much as one to four percent of our modern human genome consists of Neanderthal DNA. Some archeologists believe that these estimates are too low and that as much as ten percent of our genome may have originated in the Neanderthal line. This record is not so neat as to support the hypothesis that you proposed.

Your attempt to reconcile biblical accounts with the archeological data reminds me of my high school biology teacher who was a devout Southern Baptist. Biologists had just discovered parthenogenesis in some lines of amphibians and hypothesized that it could be found in reptiles and mammals, as well. Mr. Robbins advanced parthenogenesis as a possible means of explaining the Virgin Birth. The only problem with his hypothesis is that parthenogenesis produces females, not males.

If you really believe, you just have to believe. There is no need to rationalize or try to prove your faith based on the meager facts that we think that we know to those who choose not to believe.

a carnivorous therapod the size of whats depicted on the pot? nowhere.....there is not the large herbivore population required to keep them going.....besides the fossil record in South America post-Cretaceous is actually pretty good and no dinosaurs show up......giant 10 foot tall predatory birds show up from 62 through 1.5 million years ago, running crocs show up, sabortooth cat looking possums show up but no dinosaurs earlier than 65 million years ago....

what also shows up in Peru is mummified skin from giant sloths in Peru which look an awful lot like the critter on the pot.....we know they were there for sure 10,000 years ago.....and the descriptions of a large weird creature encountered in various regions of the Amazon fits these creatures to the letter including bony plates in the skin....

??? "Paleontologists"? Which ones?

Long as I can recall (back to the '60's) folks have been speculating on colors and calls forever.

Anyhoo, google-fu continues, see....

http://www.bibleandscience.com/otherviews/swift.htm

TRH, I like it too.

It's not a matter of rationalizing. Merely aligning the current state of scientific knowledge with the Biblical account. Errors in this regard are unimportant. It's pure speculation, and can be modified at will. I certainly agree that the Bible was never intended to provide any detail on matters so unimportant to essential religious truth.

You obviously haven't read the scriptures and therefore are speaking of that which you do not know.

Then again, this is the Internet.

Carry on....

This one disturbs me

I don't think its been mentioned, but advances in the knowledge of DNA all support Evolution. In many instances, science is having to look again at the fine detail because of what DNA is turning up, but it still supports evolution..

That's putting it very mildly indeed.

Of animals. Not people.

They try to say Lucy is the missing link, or this one is the missing link!

Fact is, it has never been found, when tons of other fossilized animal remains have been discovered that correspond to the time period in which scientists claim we changed from monkey to man.

However, if you look at Iran's President it is hard to deny that he is not descended from some type of ape.




JM

hate to be the one to tell you JM, but people are 'animals' too. Hard for some to accept, but THAT is not theory, but fact.

My post points out the lack of evidence supporting human evolution.

Stating the obvious doesn't change that.

I hard ever tread in these muddy waters JM, but "lack of evidence".......???

Dooooooood...they just don't teach it in the schools down there.....



Where exactly do you think us heathens came from???

Most of the carbon in the air is C12 but there is a small percentage of the C14 isotope. After the organism dies and quits taking in air, the C14 will slowly deteriorate back to C12. Carbon dating is based on measuring the percentage of C14 in the organism and comparing it to the known rate of decay. Good idea but there's a fallacy in the process. It's assumed that the level of C14 has always been the same but that's not known. The industrial revolution dumped huge amounts of pollutants into the air so the level of C14 today could be vastly different than the level before, say, 1500AD.

The whole concept of a "missing link" is archaic, and stems from misunderstanding, as if there was a direct line from, say, [bleep] to modern man. There were all sorts of distant and proximate dead ends along the way from our common ancestor with [bleep], branching off from that line, producing all sorts of close cousins now extinct, while not being in direct line of descent. There is no doubt whatsoever that there existed a species of ape (Australopithecus) that possessed the unique adaptation of routinely walking on two hind legs (this is determined conclusively by where the spinal column connected to the skull), starting about six million years ago. He was little different, other than that unique characteristic, from his close cousin, modern [bleep]. There is also no doubt that, as zoological classifications go, we also are a species of ape that walks on two legs. Apes walking on two legs is sufficiently rare to conclude that we are descended from Australopithecus. From Australopithecus to us (over millions of years) are found various approximations to us from Australopithecus, with increasingly expanding cranial capacities as they approach more recent times, also upright walking apes, zoologically speaking.

Notice, from the above two faces, the only truly significant differences are 1) nose shape, and 2) cranial size. That characteristically human nose shape is an adaptation to living in colder climates. Only the most intelligent of apes (later hominid variants) could adapt to such climates, after which nature selected out the flat ape-normal nose style in favor of the protruding kind for the purpose of creating an air warming chamber. Those humans who returned to the region where our early ancestors originated, soon lost a good bit of this nasal characteristic, returning to a shape somewhere in between, as cold weather adaptations were useless to them. Skin, too, returned to the more characteristic color, as light colored skin was also a useless cold weather (low light) adaptation if you live anywhere near the Congo line.

That's why they verify their findings by testing objects of known age predating 1500 AD.

yelp. the author Desmond Morris has long held the Naked Ape view of things.

i'm beginning to like the basic tenant of philosophy more and more, and that is: we don't know where we are, we don't know where we've been, and most certainly we don't know where we are going.

BINGO!

If "Christians" could grasp that simple concept they would be far better off. Alas, so many have a 'house of cards' faith that requires a literal word-for-word 'inspired' and 'infallible' reading of the Bible. Theerefore, they cannot allow for a single 'error' (read: interpretation other than what they've been taught) or else the whole house comes tumbling down. In a bizarre form of 'idolatry' they have made the Bible (as it has been taught to them) to be their god.

On the dinosaur discussion it is clear to me that nature produced a "super predator" that was responsible for the demise of the dinos. It had the power and ferocity of the thunder lizards themselves with the intelligence and posture of a man. It was called the ... Gorn. And it ruled supreme until defeated by the next supreme being on the food chain called the Shatner. (If you don't believe me Google it.)

FYI, giant sloths DO still exist--have you been to a Walmart recently?

Man that is crazy as crazy gets.