[_ Old Earth _] Dinosaurs and man coexisted

[kendemyer]

DINOSAURS AND MAN COEXISTED

First, consider this information:

In 1925, a distinguished English newspaper correspondent, G. Ward Price, was with the future Duke of Windsor on an official visit to Rhodesia. He reported a story that a civil servant told them of the wounding of a man who entered a feared swamp in Rhodesia known to be an abode of demons. The brave native entered the swamp, determined to explore it in spite of the dangers. When he returned he was on the verge of death. He had a great wound in his chest. He recounted how a strange huge bird with a long beak attacked him. When the civil servant showed the man a picture of a pterosaur from a book of prehistoric animals, the man screamed in terror and fled from the servant's home.

In 1942 Colonel C. R. S. Pitman reported stories the natives had told him of a large bat/bird type creature that lived in Northern Rhodesia (now Zambia) in a dense swampy region--supposedly to look upon it was death. Tracks of the creatures were seen, with evidence of a large tail dragging the ground. These reports were not limited to Zambia, but also came from other locations in Africa such as Mount Kilimanjaro and Mount Kenya.

taken from: http://www.cryptozoology.com/cryptids/kongamato.php

PREFACE

There is a large amount of evidence pointing to dinosaurs and man coexisting. This thread will look at dinosaurs reported in history, apparent dinosaurs in the Bible, dinosaur art artifacts, dinosaur footprints, and dinosaur sightings some of which have been seen by trained scientists.

DINOSAURS IN HISTORY AND IN ANCIENT ARTIFACTS


Here are some overview articles with pictures of the art:

http://www.dinosaur-extinction.com/

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm


NOTED CURATOR LOOKS AT DINOSAUR AND MAN COEXISTING EVIDENCE


Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum examines evidence that points to dinosaurs and man existing:

http://www.creationism.org/swift/Doheny ... 01Main.htm

http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoin ... arving.htm



DINOSAURS IN THE BIBLE

The Bible's behemoth was a dinosaur (extensive exegesis):

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i2/behemoth.asp

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/behemoth.html

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr2003/r&r0302a.htm

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml


DINOSAURS IN HISTORY


I first cite:

Consider the many dragon legends. Most ancient cultures have stories or artwork of dragons that strongly resemble dinosaurs.6 The World Book Encyclopedia states that:

The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth. Dragons were generally evil and destructive. Every country had them in its mythology.7

The simplest and most obvious explanation for so many common descriptions of dragons from around the world is that man once knew the dinosaurs.


6 Lorella Rouster, “The Footprints of Dragons,†Creation Social Science and Humanities Quarterly, Fall 1978, pp. 23–28.

7 Knox Wilson, “Dragon,†The World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. 5, 1973, p. 265.



taken from: from: http://208.55.7.236/onlinebook/FAQ25.html

WERE DRAGONS DINOSAURS?


Here are a number of articles on this subject:


DRAGONS IN PARADISE by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.*
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-241.htm


Dinosaurs in history
http://www.creationdefense.org/22.htm


Dinosaurs in history
http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/s ... 0700W1.htm


Dragons and Dinosaur - Are they the same?
http://www.nwcreation.net/dinosdragons.html


Dinosaurs, Sea Serpents, and “Dragons†in the Time of Man!
http://www.triumphpro.com/dinosaurs___sea_serpents.htm



DINOSAUR AND PEASANT FARMER

On May 13, 1572 a dinosaur may have been killed by a peasant farmer in Italy (pg 41 "The Great Dinosaur Mystery" by Paul Taylor ISBN 0-89636-264-7)

For details see: http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dinoscoexist.html




MODERN DINOSAUR SITINGS


1,000 PEOPLE REPORT SEEING A DINOSAUR-LIKE MONSTER

The Chinese publication, China Today, reports that 1,000 people had seen a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang. 1

1 Lai Kuan and Jian Qun, ‘Dinosaurs: Alive and Well and Living in Northwest China?’, China Today, Vol. XLII No. 2, February 1993, p. 59.

Please see this link regarding the China sitings plus some other sitings : http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... osaurs.asp

TWO TRAINED SCIENTIST REPORT SEEING DINOSAUR

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... osaurs.asp


I also found this interesting:

For the past three centuries, unconfirmed reports have come from the Congo in western Africa that dinosaurs exist in remote swamps. These stories are often from educated people, eyewitnesses, and others who can quickly describe dinosaurs. Although they did not personally see dinosaurs, two expeditions, led by biologist Dr. Roy Mackal of the University of Chicago, verified many of these accounts, some from scientists.5 If any of these accounts are correct, man and dinosaurs were contemporaries.

5
Roy P. Mackal, A Living Dinosaur? (New York: E. J. Brill, 1987).

“Living Dinosaurs?†Science 80, November 1980, pp. 6–7.

Jamie James, “Bigfoot or Bust,†Discover, March 1988, pp. 44–53.



taken from: http://208.55.7.236/onlinebook/FAQ25.html

Apparently zoologist, professor, and government worker report seeing flying dinosaur (government worker said he was attacked and reportedly his wound from the attack was seen):

http://www.trueauthority.com/cryptozool ... gamato.htm


I also cite:

The Geelong Advertiser in Australia had an artist draw this pic below from the description of an Aboriginal elder -- this was before hadrosaurs like Edmontosaurus were officially discovered by science.

taken from: http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showth ... adid=15138

REMARKABLE DINOSAUR/MAN ARTWORK FROM ANCIENT WORLD DATED AS 2ND CENTURY PIECE OF ART.

For a picture of artwork please see:

http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html



A book on the The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina (picture featured in above link)
is mentioned here:

The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina

For those with an interest in the impressive Nile Mosaic at Palestrina, a (costly) academic book by Paul G P Meyboom discusses the mosaic's religious and historical significance. The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina: Early Evidence of Egyptian Religion in Italy relates scenes of the mosaic to Egyptian religious rituals, and their possible place in the Roman world.

http://www.italyheaven.co.uk/palestrina.html

Here is the quote saying the Nile Mosaic at Palestrina is dated in the 2nd century:

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/dinosaurs.shtml


The review at Amazon from Book News says the Nile Mosaic at Palestrina is dated at 100 A.D.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... vi=reviews



DINOSAUR FOOTPRINTS POINT TO MAN AND DINOSAURS COEXISTING

Here is an overview article:

In the footsteps of giants by Michael Oard
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... tsteps.asp




DINOSAURS ON ANCIENT PERUVIAN POTTERY


In the 1500s there were accounts describing pottery that had dinsosaur type creatures on them.

I cite:

EVIDENCE FROM SOUTH AMERICA OF MAN AND DINOSAURS COEXISTING

"Out Of Place" Artifacts

Nasca Burial Stones, Ceramics, Pottery with Dinosaurs, ca. 500 AD

- Spanish Priest described stones in 1525

- Chronicler of Incas wrote of stones in 1570

TAKEN FROM: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dp-evidence- ... merica.htm

* Please see the above link for further details

Dinosaur Art From Ancient Tombs In Peru

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/peru-tomb-art.htm




More on the Inca stones

I read at one website that Dr. Javier Cabrera is very upset that many people in the scientific community do not accept the Inca Stones. I suspect it is because his father's reputation is at stake (see: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/peru-tomb-art.htm ). As you may recall, his father discovered some of the first Inca Stones in a cave (the first stones were found in 1562 by Spanish explorers). I realize that Dr. Cabrera likely bought some forgories later (see: http://www.bibleandscience.com/otherviews/baugh.htm ).

At the same time I think Dr. Cabrera is likely honest. I cite:

A physician and head of the Preventive Medicine Department of the Felix Torrealva Gutierrex hospital, Dr. Cabrera founded the medical school of Ica National University, and was awarded "Favorite Son of Ica City," in 1988.

taken from: http://www.rense.com/general19/inca.htm

I think this commentary on the "stones of Inca" is helpful:

"The Stones of Ica" (Dinosaur art)

"In widely separated areas of North and South America, construction of earth mounds and artificial shaping of hills and cliffs show familiarity on the part of the ancient artisans with animals SUPPOSEDLY EXTINCT in the Americas for thousands, and in some cases, MILLIONS OF YEARS. A great mound in Wisconsin is shaped like the outline of an ele- phant or mastodon . . . Some pre-Incaic people carved the rock cliffs of the Marcahuasi Plateau of Peru into huge representations of lions, camels, and something resembling a STEGOSAURUS .

"In the vicinity of the village of Ocucaje and Ica, in Peru, a collection of rounded stones totaling perhaps 16,000 and weighing from five pounds up to huge boulders of 800 pounds has been amassed by Dr. Javier Cabrera, who has about 11,000 of them in his museum. What is unusual about these 'stones of Ica' is that they are covered with incised drawings ostensibly made by carvers of past civilizations. The engraved drawings show people, extant and extinct animals, star maps, the star ring of the zodiac, and maps of unidentified land areas. The people are shown hunting or struggling with a variety of monsters that resemble BRONTOSAURS, TRICERATOPS, STEGOSAURS, AND PTERODACTYLS, . . . Even more surprisingly, human beings are portrayed as having domesticated animals that appear to be DINOSAURS and are using them for transportation and warfare. People are shown using telescopes, looking at the stars, and performing surgery" (ibid., p.193-194).

Since the original stones were discovered, local villagers appear to be "cashing in" on the discovery, faking stones to sell to tourists and the public. Wherever there is a "buck" to be made, hawkers and forgerers will climb out of the woodwork to make a profit. However, these stones cannot be so easily dismissed because early Spanish reports tell that some of the stones were sent back to Spain by Spanish explorers in 1562 -- proving they are not of recent origin. There is no rhyme or reason for them to have been "fabricated" so many centuries ago. Furthermore, the fact that they are at least several centuries old is attested to by the oxidation produced by the aging of the minerals covering the incisions of the drawings.

TAKEN FROM: http://www.s8int.com/dinolit1.html

Here is some additional commentary on the Inca Stones that I thought was helpful:

http://members.cox.net/icastones/my_opinion.htm


As noted this artwork was commented on in the 1500s. However, some of the more recent finds appear to be people trying to cash in:

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




MEXICAN DINOSAUR ART

The Photogallery of the Dinosaur Figurines Of Acambaro, Mexico

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro-dinos.htm


The Dinosaur Figurines Of Acambaro, Mexico, continued

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro.htm



12 Witnesses to the figurines of Acambaro

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acamb ... nesses.htm

The Acambaro dinosaurs
From: http://www.ntskeptics.org/1999/1999octo ... er1999.htm

By John Blanton

Dinosaurs went missing about 65 million year ago. Or did they?

What if they really didn't. What if dinosaurs were still around as late as 6500 years ago. And if people and dinosaurs lived contemporaneously? That would shoot holes in a lot of modern science. Paleontology would be badly wounded. Evolution would be DOA. So the thinking goes.

If you could find a human fossil in the same stone with a dinosaur fossil you would have some nice ammunition to shoot down evolution. Even better if the fossil showed a dinosaur eating a human. If all you had were something that looked like human footprint alongside dinosaur footprints you might be inclined to shop further. Enter the Acambaro dinosaurs.

A paper titled "Archeological cover-ups" by David Hatcher Childress describes the discovery of the Acambaro dinosaur figurines. 1 In 1944 an accidental discovery of an even more controversial nature was made by Waldemar Julsrud at Acambaro, Mexico. Acambaro is in the state of Guanajuato, 175 miles northwest of Mexico City. The strange archaeological site there yielded over 33,500 objects of ceramic, stone-including jade, and knives of obsidian (sharper than steel and still used today in heart surgery). Julsrud, a prominent local German merchant, also found statues ranging from less than an inch to six feet in length depicting great reptiles, some of them in ACTIVE ASSOCIATION with humans-generally eating them, but in some bizarre statuettes an erotic association was indicated. To observers, many of these creatures resembled dinosaurs. Childress further mentions that radio-carbon dating in the laboratories of the University of Pennsylvania and additional tests using thermoluminescence indicated the objects were made 6500 years ago.

In Atlantis Rising , David Lewis has explained the implications for modern science. 2 The Acambaro figurines, discovered in the 1940s in Acambaro, Mexico, depict fantastic creatures that resemble dinosaurs, as well as African and European men. If verified as authentic and dated to a time before modern science's discovery of the dinosaurs, the existence of the figurines would dismantle the major presumptions of modern evolutionary theory, and, in fact, much of the scientific and academic establishment. Young-Earth creationist Don Patton discussed the subject of the Acambaro dinosaurs at September's meeting of the Metroplex Institute of Origin Science (MIOS). He has journeyed to Acambaro to view and photograph some of the artifacts, and he agrees with Lewis that this spells doom for evolution. Most of those attending the meeting concurred.

Don was gracious enough to provide me with copies of some of his photos, which we reproduce here. His printed brochure compares one of the figurines with a drawing from Robert Bakker's book Dinosaur Heresies (1986). The figurine so resembles the dinosaurs in Bakker's illustration that the ancient artist must have seen one in the flesh.

Of course, modern science is not going to take this lying down, as both Patton and Childress have pointed out. Childress explains the situation in his report: 3 A team of experts at another university, shown Julsrud's half-dozen samples but unaware of their origin, ruled out the possibility that they could have been modern reproductions.

However, they fell silent when told of their controversial source. In 1952, in an effort to debunk this weird collection which was gaining a certain amount of fame, American archaeologist Charles C. DiPeso claimed to have minutely examined the then 32,000 pieces within not more than four hours spent at the home of Julsrud. In a forthcoming book, long delayed by continuing developments in his investigation, archaeological investigator John H. Tierney, who has lectured on the case for decades, points out that to have done that DiPeso would have had to have inspected 133 pieces per minute steadily for four hours, whereas in actuality, it would have required weeks merely to have separated the massive jumble of exhibits and arranged them properly for a valid evaluation.

Tierney, who collaborated with the later Professor Hapgood, the late William N. Russell, and others in the investigation, charges that the Smithsonian Institution and other archaeological authorities conducted a campaign of disinformation against the discoveries. The Smithsonian had, early in the controversy, dismissed the entire Acambaro collection as an elaborate hoax. Also, utilising the freedom of Information Act, Tierney discovered that practically the entirety of the Smithsonian's Julsrud case files are missing.

After two expeditions to the site in 1955 and 1968, Professor Charles Hapgood, a professor of history and anthropology at the University of New Hampshire, recorded the results of his 18-year investigation of Acambaro in a privately printed book entitled MYSTERY IN ACAMBARO. Hapgood was initially an open-minded skeptic concerning the collection but became a believer after his first visit in 1955, at which time he witnessed some of the figures being excavated and even dictated to the diggers where he wanted them to dig.

Adding to the mind-boggling aspects of this controversy is the fact that the Instituto Nacional de Antropologia e Historia, through the late Director of PreHispanic Monuments, Dr. Eduardo Noguera, (who, as head of an official investigating team at the site, issued a report which Tierney will be publishing), admitted "the apparent scientific legality with which these objects were found." Despite evidence of their own eyes, however, officials declared that because of the objects "fantastic" nature, they had to have been a hoax played on Julsrud! Whether Julsrud was hoaxed is something Patton intends to pursue, although he thinks not. He says he plans to excavate under the kitchen floor of the former Julsrud home in Acambaro. This floor is original from before the time Julsrud move in, and finding similar figurines there will rule out their being recent forgeries.

Answering questions following his MIOS talk, Don explained that the figurines in question appeared to have been deliberately buried. They were found in collections of twenty to thirty and packed in sand, and they are made from local clay, which is decayed feldspar. Only ten percent of the figurines resemble dinosaurs.

So, what does all of this have to do with Albert Einstein, Perry Mason, and The Mysterious Origins of Man ? Glad you asked.

Patton notes 4 In the forward to the book, Earth's Shifting Crust, Albert Einstein said Hapgood's concept could be of a "great importance to everything that is related to the Earth's surface." Earth's Shifting Crust was the original title of Hapgood's book, which is now The Path of the Pole . His idea was that all the ice at the poles represented a spinning mass that exerted a horizontal force on the Earth's crust. In the mid 1950s, before the modern idea of plate tectonics was developed, but while Wegener's ideas of continental drift were being floated around, Hapgood proposed that this off-center force occasionally shifted the crust, putting the poles at the equator and causing other nasty results. Hapgood corresponded with Einstein on this topic and received encouragement. Einstein recommended that Hapgood obtain "geological and paleontological facts."

NBC first broadcast The Mysterious Origins of Man ( MOM ) in February 1996. Host Charlton Heston explained to the audience how a lot of standard science, such as evolution, paleontology, archaeology, and anthropology got it all wrong. Young-Earth creationist Carl Baugh helped out by explaining the Paluxy River "man tracks."

Hapgood was there to explain the evidence of sudden Earth crustal displacement. The "fact" that thousands of animals were frozen in short order (in geologic time) and that ancient maps showed an ice-free Antarctica (which was then frozen over very quickly) was given as evidence for this crustal shift. Paul Heinrich has posted a review of these claims at
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/atlantis.html.

The creator of MOM , Bill Cote, has since produced a third program along similar lines. This latest is Jurassic Art , which deals with two topics-the Acambaro figurines and the Ica stones.

So now we are back to where we started, as James Burke would say. A great fan of the Ica stones is Don Patton, who has presented talks on them at MIOS meetings. The deal about the Ica (not Inca) stones is that they are black stones with serpentine figures carved into them. Don Patton contends these are depictions of real dinosaurs done from life. David Lewis had this to say about them: 5 The Ica stones are a collection of thousands of inscribed stones found near the mysterious Nasca Lines in Peru. Many of the stones depict Pterodactyls, T-Rexes, and humans cavorting with Stegosaurs. Who carved these mysterious stones? Some ancient artist who somehow knew about dinosaurs, or a modern prankster? The answer to those questions remains a mystery. Except to you, of course. Dating both the Acambaro figurines and Ica stones has proved inconclusive. Unfortunately, both the stones and figurines have been removed from their original settings, making reliable dating difficult, if not impossible. In the Peruvian case, the curator and discoverer of the artifacts, Javier Cabrera, a medical doctor, refuses to reveal the location of a cave where he allegedly found the stones, leading archeologist Neil Steede, who investigates both cases on Cote's Jurassic Art, to question the doctor's story. So, we come to the end of the tale, and we still don't know what's behind the Acambaro dinosaurs.

Are the figurines really 6500 years old? Don Patton, who appears to finally accept radio-carbon dating, would only give the "dinosaurs" 1500 years in his talk. A human figure he allowed 4000 years.

Are they even authentic? If they are 1500 years old and more, then it's likely they are. That was way before people found sport in fooling archaeologists.

If they are authentic, do they represent dinosaurs? Some of the ones exhibited are dead ringers for dinosaurs, but they were culled from a reported cache of over 30,000 items. Many of the figurines presented as dinosaurs required a bit of a stretch to make the resemblance. It's possible we are just seeing some selective sampling. Given the amount of variation apparent in the collection there was bound to be a dinosaur in there somewhere.

Research into the mystery of the figurines since the MIOS lecture has not provided further explanation, so for the time being we will have to leave it at that. Some stories just don't have neat endings.

Oh wait. I forgot to tell about Perry Mason, although it has absolutely no significance to the story. Accompanying Hapgood in his 1955 investigation of the figurines was prolific detective fiction writer Earl Stanley Gardner. The Acambaro dinosaurs, it would seem, had something for everybody.

Refrences

1. Childress, David Hatcher. Archeological Coverups? Posted by the World Explorers Club at http://www.keelynet.com/unclass/canyon.txt. In the quoted excerpt I have fixed some of the inconsistencies in spelling and punctuation. The capitalization has been left intact.

2. Lewis, David. Jurassic Art? At http://atlantisrising.com/issue11/ar11jurassic.html

3. Childress

4. From Don Patton's untitled brochure on the Acambaro figurines.

5. Lewis

taken from: http://www.meta-religion.com/Paranormal ... osaurs.htm

A skeptic site reproduced the article above. In addition is has some pictures of some figurines:

http://www.ntskeptics.org/1999/1999octo ... er1999.htm



There appears to be a book on the subject:

Mystery in Acambaro: Did Dinosaurs Survive Until Recently?
by: Charles Hapgood, Charles, H. Hapgood


http://www.sciencedaily.com/cgi-bin/apf ... 0932813763

Here is what another skeptical site says about the Mexican dinosaur collection:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_2.html

(The above link is a pro macroevolution hypothesis website. I am a creationist for some of the following reasons: creationism: http://www.christian-forum.net/index.php?showtopic=180 )



MORE REGARDING DINOSAUR AND MAN FOOTPRINTS

I also cite:

Did man and dinosaurs live at the same time? Scientists in the former Soviet Union have reported a layer of rock containing more than 2,000 dinosaur footprints alongside tracks “resembling human footprints.â€Â1 Obviously, both types of footprints were made in mud or sand that later hardened into rock. If some are human footprints, then man and dinosaurs lived at the same time.

1 Alexander Romashko, “Tracking Dinosaurs,†Moscow News, No. 24, 1983, p. 10.

from: http://208.55.7.236/onlinebook/FAQ25.html

Answers in Genesis comments on dinosaur/man footprints reported by Moscow News:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creatio ... osaurs.asp



MORE REGARDING THE DINOSAUR AND MANLIKE FOOTPRINTS FOUND TOGETHER REPORTED BY THE MOSCOW NEWS

A startling report appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald (Australia) on page 1 of a late edition on November 21, 1983:

"A report from the Soviet News agency, Tass, says that about 1500 tracks made by dinosaurs have been found in Turkmenia, but among those prints are those resembling the footprints of a man. According to Professor Amanniyazov, Director of Turkmenia's Institute of Geology, 'If further analysis proves that the prints have been left by anthropoids, the history of mankind will be extended to 150 million not 5 million years.'"

At first we had serious reservations about this report, especially when we heard (in September of 1984) that the Directors of the Creation Research Foundation (in Queensland, Australia) had been unsuccessfully trying to trace the source of the report. In an issue of their journal, Ex Nihilo. they recommended caution. However, they then were able to report (in the next issue of Ex Nihilo) that the account was authentic, having been published in Moscow News, No. 24, 1983, on p.10. Moscow News is an official Moscow paper in English, partly for overseas personnel. We ourselves were also able to do some tracking, and came up with a much more elaborate report, as follows: TRACKING DINOSAURS (Cr. V. Rubstsov) Moscow News, No. 24, p. 10, 1983. "This spring, an expedition from the Institute of Geology of the Turkmen SSR Academy of Sciences found over 1,500 tracks left by dinosaurs in the mountains in the south-east of the Republic. Impressions resembling in shape a human footprint were discovered next to the tracks of the prehistoric animals. Our correspondent Alexander Romashko reports:

'I stood only a step away from a smooth clearing receding up the slope. I stepped forward and found myself in the Mesozoic era, i.e., nearly 150 million years in the past. A chain of dinosaur tracks started at my feet. It looked as if the huge prehistoric beasts passed by here very recently, leaving imprints of massive paws every 1.5 meters.

"Paleontologists explained to me later on that with this long stride, the reptiles had to be 8-12 meters tall. All of a sudden we saw, next to the three-fingered track of a dinosaur, a not-very-clear but quite discernable track looking very much like a human footprint. Anyway, all those who saw it first thought so. Since I am no scholar, I ventured to come forth with an assumption: 'Who knows but maybe our very far removed ancestors did mingle with dinosaurs?' .......

"'Science might possibly answer that in the affirmative sometime in the future', said Professor Kurban Amanniyazov, head of the expedition, Corresponding Member of the Turkmen SSR Academy of Sciences, director of the Institute of Geology'. However, at present we don't have enough grounds to say this. We've imprints resembling human footprints, but to date have failed to determine, with any scientific veracity, whom they belong to, after all. Of course, if we could prove that they do belong to a humanoid, then it would create a revolution in the science of man. Humanity would 'grow older' thirty-fold and its history would be at least 150 millions years long."

The report goes on to mention that dinosaur tracks have been discovered in the Americas, in Europe, in Africa, as well as in Georgia and Uzbekistan of Russia. The area where these present footprints have been found is in Southeast Turkmenia, not far from the Khodzha-pil-ata village.

taken from: http://home.texoma.net/~linesden/cem/diss/v2ch1.htm

WHY NO DINOSAUR AND MAN FOSSILS FOUND TOGETHER?


Dinosaurs and Humansâ€â€Where is the Fossil Evidence for Their Coexistence? by Eric Lyons, M.Min. and Bert Thompson, Ph.D.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1973



LARGE RESOURCES OF MAN/DINOSAUR COEXISTING INFORMATION

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/ar ... osaurs.asp

http://www.defendyourfaith.com/age-main.htm#dinosaurs



CONCLUSION


I think the case for dinosaurs and man coexisting is a strong cummulative case. In short, it is a inductive argument based on history, apparent dinosaurs in the Bible, dinosaur art artifacts, dinosaur footprints, and dinosaur sightings. And I also think there is a lot of archaelogical anomalies to the macroevolutionary position but that is beyong the scope of this thread.




ADDENDUM


Dinosaurs-with-man articles:

(Creation Magazine and CEN Technical Journal is published by http://www.answersingenesis.org )


Fly away Peter, fly away pterosaur! Creation 8(1):4, November 1985



Pterosaur crashes! Creation 8(4):5, September 1986



The Last Pterodactyl? Creation 8(4):35, September 1986



Waddling pterosaurs? Creation 9(4):5, September-November 1987



Pterodactyl hits the skies – and ground!, Creation 9(4):22, September–November 1987



Pterosaur to attempt ptake-off, Creation 10(1):4–5, December 1987–February 1988



Pterosaur sightings? Creation 16(2):5, March–May 1994



Pterodactyls, Creation 18(1):5, December 1995–February 1996



Live plesiosaurs: weighing the evidence, CEN Technical Journal 12(3):339–346, 1998



Let rotting sharks lie: further evidence for shark identity of the Zuiyo-maru carcass, CEN Technical Journal 13(2):83–87, 1998



Dinosaurs and Dragons, CEN Technical Journal 8(1):85–104, 1994



Messages on Stone, Creation 19(2):20–23, March–May 1997



Dinosaurs and Dragons, Creation 14(3):10–14, June 1992



Dragons: animals ...not apparitions, Creation 22(3):14–16, June–August 2000



Man and Dinosaur Tracks! Where are they? Creation 4(4):21–25, March 1982



Red faces over ‘dino’ DNA, Creation 18(3):9, June–August 1996



Dinosaur bones: Just how old are they really? Creation 21(1):54–55, December 1998–February 1999



Australia’s Aborigines... did they see dinosaurs? Creation 21(1):24–27, December 1998–February 1999



Mokele-mbembe: a living dinosaur? Creation 21(4):24–25, September–November 1999



Se Monsters... more than a legend? Creation 19(4):38–42, September–November 1997



Sensational dinosaur blood report! Creation 19(4):42–43, September–November 1997



‘Blood chemicals’ found in dino bone, Creation 18(4):9, September–November 1996



Human and dinosaur footprints in Turkmenistan? Creation 18(4):52, September–November 1996



Fresh dino bones? Creation 16(3):8, June–August 1994



First dino DNA? Creation 17(2):7 March–May 1995



‘Dinosaur’ washes up, Creation 17(2):7 March–May 1995



Dinosaurs living in Africa? Early Reports, Creation 17(2):19 March–May 1995



Dino DNA claim debunked, Creation 17(3):7 June–August 1995



Are dinosaurs alive today? Creation 15(4):12–15 September 1993



Did humans meet dinosaurs? Creation 14(3):39 June 1992



Bunyips and Dinosaurs, Creation 15(2):51 March 1993



Fresh dinosaur bones found, Creation 14(3):16–17 June 1992



Russian Paluxy Source, Creation 7(3):4 March 1985



New Paluxy Find, Creation 9(3):5 June 1987



Ham, K., Dinosaurmania Strikes Again, Back To Genesis, No. 55a, July 1993, http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-055a.htm .

 

[kendemyer]

New Study Supports Idea That Primates, Dinosaurs Coexisted
By Ben Harder for National Geographic News
April 18, 2002

see: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... mates.html


Doesn't the Bible say that behemoth had a tail like a cedar? :D


ALSO CONSIDER: LEAKEY FINDS A ANOMALY FOR MACROEVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESIS

Among the oldest anomalies you report are the Laetoli footprints, discovered by Mary Leakey. These footprints were found in Tanzania in 1979. How old are these footprints and what is so anomalous about them? Is there any other evidence for anatomically modern humans at this same time?

The Laetoli footprints were found in layers of solidified volcanic ash, dated by the potassium-argon method as being about 3.7 million years old, so I would not call them one of the oldest. There are footprints and even shoe prints that go much further back in time than that. For example, the shoe print found by William Meister near Antelope Springs, Utah, goes back about 500 million years. The Laetoli footprints are still quite interesting. According to Mary Leakey, and other scientists, the footprints are exactly like those of modern human beings. This is unusual, because according to most scientists today, human beings capable of making these footprints did not come into existence until about 100,000 years ago. Mary Leakey did not believe, of course, that humans of our type existed 3.7 million years ago in Africa.

So how did she explain the footprints?

She and others proposed that there must have existed at that time some kind of hominid, some kind of ape-man, who had feet exactly like ours. That is possible. Unfortunately, there is no physical evidence to support that idea. We have many hominid skeletons from that period, and none of them have feet exactly like modern human feet. Their feet are all more or less apelike, with toes longer than modern human toes, and a first toe that can extend out to the side, like a human thumb. At present the only creature known to science with a foot exactly like that of a modern human being is a modern human being.

taken from: http://www.biped.info/articles/cremo.html

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Hooray, someone learned to copy and paste.
Now can you say random nonsense? I knew you could.

 

[unred typo]

Doesn't the Bible say that behemoth had a tail like a cedar?:D

Here’s a couple varieties. It wouldn’t take too much imagination to see a dino tail if you laid one of these trees on the ground, with or without it’s branches.
http://www.lrconline.com/Extension_Note ... df/cdr.pdf
http://www.cnr.vt.edu/dendro/dendrology ... cfm?ID=456
Descriptions of cedars:
Typically, the trunk is straight and the tree has a pointed, dense, conical crown that may be varied or irregular, depending on ecotype or competing vegetation.
Dense and pyramidal in shape…
…conifer with an erect pyramidal or conical shape, thick trunk, and graceful habit…..
upright pyramidal rocket shape….
The tree has an attractive pyramidal shape….
an evergreen tree with a skinny, columnar shape in youth, becoming only a little more rounded at maturity.
White cedars have a narrow cone shape…
….even when grown in the open the tree has a long, narrow, conical shape….

 

[Barbarian]

Tail is probably a euphemism, considering it is discussed with loins and the way the beast's "stones" are girded.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote:

Tail is probably a euphemism, considering it is discussed with loins and the way the beast's "stones" are girded.

What in the world makes you think that since other body parts are mentioned that the tail would be a “euphemism?†The inclusion of this information in the description attests to the factual, literal nature of the narrative.

 

[Barbarian]

What in the world makes you think that since other body parts are mentioned that the tail would be a “euphemism?â€Â

The "stones" for example are obviously testicles. And the "tail" is the penis. Just euphemisms.

The inclusion of this information in the description attests to the factual, literal nature of the narrative.

It is, but youi seem to be a bit reluctant to accept it.

 

[Khaine]

Kendemyer, you might want to checkout the following;

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/ ... 72-5277426

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote:

The "stones" for example are obviously testicles. And the "tail" is the penis. Just euphemisms. .

LOL. Nice try. You don’t expect me to believe you believe that, do you? The Hebrew word for ‘stones’ is also ‘testicles’ but the Hebrew word for ‘tail’ is ‘tail‘, as in the fox tails that Samson tied together, not ‘privy member‘ as in Deu 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, (not ‘tail’, btw ) shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
I repeat, the inclusion in the description of body parts such as loins, navel of his belly, sinews of his stones, and his tail, (not privy member), which he moved like a cedar, all attest to the factual, literal nature of the narrative.


Barbarian wrote:

It is, but youi seem to be a bit reluctant to accept it.

You and I both. LOL. Was that a Freudian typo?

 

[Barbarian]

It's pretty obvious what it is. Anyone who thinks about it will realize that.

Ironically, your reading a message into the typo illustrates the problem. By trying to find significance where there is none, you have added all sorts of things to scripture.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote:

It's pretty obvious what it is. Anyone who thinks about it will realize that.

Not all of us are obsessed with sexual fantasies of an enormous beast moving their penis like a cedar tree. Your liberties with that portion of scripture are beyond the pale of abnormal interpretation. Any child with second grade reading comprehension could tell you most animals have a tail and this scripture refers to that ‘member’ of his anatomy. I will remind you that no scripture is of any ‘privy’ interpretation. :wink:

Barbarian wrote:

Ironically, your reading a message into the typo illustrates the problem. By trying to find significance where there is none, you have added all sorts of things to scripture.

It’s ironic that you are trying to pin that tail on me. :

 

[SyntaxVorlon]

Barbarian wrote:

It's pretty obvious what it is. Anyone who thinks about it will realize that.

Not all of us are obsessed with sexual fantasies of an enormous beast moving their penis like a cedar tree. Your liberties with that portion of scripture are beyond the pale of abnormal interpretation. Any child with second grade reading comprehension could tell you most animals have a tail and this scripture refers to that ‘member’ of his anatomy. I will remind you that no scripture is of any ‘privy’ interpretation. :wink:

Barbarian wrote: [quote:d191b] Ironically, your reading a message into the typo illustrates the problem. By trying to find significance where there is none, you have added all sorts of things to scripture.

It’s ironic that you are trying to pin that tail on me. :[/quote:d191b]
The writer obviously was.

 

[reznwerks]

DINOSAURS AND MAN COEXISTED

First, consider this information:

.

I'm not going to bother pasting all the stuff you posted. Kende.. if you are really trying to make a serious point and are really trying to get to the truth of the matter did you consider that all of your sources were from religious sources. Not that there is anything wrong with that but they are not objective and their claims are no where accepted anywhere else. Man did not coexist with dinosaurs as least as your vision of man is today. If you want to make that claim then what may have existed is the hominid we have been discussing which was very similar to being ape like. How is it that you want to dismiss hard evidence but want to cling to stories and interpret stories from a book about three thousand years old of whom the writers and their credibility are a mystery. How is it that you want cling to the notion of a 6000 year earth on one hand and then link man to living alongside beasts that existed 100,000,000 million years ago? The very fact that writing only existed within the past few thousand years should at least make you think. At best he communicated with pictures and that was about 25,000 years ago. Did you ever wonder why you can't find one serious scientist who is schooled in this disipline to make this silly claim? Did you ever wonder why we haven't found one shred of mans bones alongside the bone of a dinasaur even though we have complete skeletons of dinasaurs? Evidence evidence evidence. You have no evidence for what you claim. Not only don't you have any evidence for the belief you have no rationale for the belief. Believing something because it's possible is one thing believing something because its impossible is something else.

 

[Barbarian]

Not all of us are obsessed with sexual fantasies of an enormous beast moving their penis like a cedar tree.

You've obviously never seen an aroused male elephant. :D I guess if you were in a particular frame of mind, you could fantasize about it. But you'd have to find a loxodontophile to learn about it, unless you know one already. :wink:

Your liberties with that portion of scripture are beyond the pale of abnormal interpretation. Any child with second grade reading comprehension could tell you most animals have a tail and this scripture refers to that ‘member’ of his anatomy.

Normally, people don't associate testicles, loins and tails together, but then, not all of us are christianonnet.

I will remind you that no scripture is of any ‘privy’ interpretation.

It's not unique to Hebrew. "Tail" as a euphemism for penis exists in English, German, and probably other languages as well.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote:

It's not unique to Hebrew. "Tail" as a euphemism for penis exists in English, German, and probably other languages as well.

‘Tail’ is not a euphemism for ‘penis’ in Hebrew at all. You made that up to avoid seeing the obvious reference to a dinosaur in Job. No where in the Bible is the word ‘tail’ used for ‘penis.’ If it did, you would be the first to declare the ignorance of such biological unawareness. :roll: It doesn’t. It says he moves his tail like a cedar and that is referring to exactly what it says; his tail. Dinosaurs have tails that resemble cedar trees. As a matter of fact, it also alludes to the extinction of the great beast in verse 19 where it says that the same God who made the behemoth can make his sword approach unto him. Great extinct beast whose tail is like a cedar tree. Duh.

 

[unred typo]

Reznwerks wrote:

…did you consider that all of your sources were from religious sources. Not that there is anything wrong with that but they are not objective and their claims are no where accepted anywhere else.

What kind of reasoning is that? Did you ever consider that all your evolutionary claims are from evolutionary sources? Do you think evolutionist claims are accepted by non-evolutionists? Do you think evolutionist scientists are taken seriously by non-evolutionist scientists? Do you honestly believe evolutionists are any less biased?

Reznwerks wrote:

How is it that you want cling to the notion of a 6000 year earth on one hand and then link man to living alongside beasts that existed 100,000,000 million years ago?

That’s painfully obvious. Your 100,000,000 million years are a figment of your biased evolutionary imaginations. Your methods of dating are hopelessly flawed and your timetables are complete fabrications of self-deluded ToE zealots. Man and dinosaurs were created together, just as Job 40:15 states.

Reznwerks wrote:

Did you ever wonder why we haven't found one shred of mans bones alongside the bone of a dinasaur even though we have complete skeletons of dinasaurs?

Do you wonder why we can’t find a shred of man’s bones beside ostrich bones in the fossil record? Do we have a shred of man’s fossilized bones beside fossilized beaver’s bones? How about a fossilized alligator with a couple of man‘s fragments?

Reznwerks wrote:

Evidence evidence evidence. You have no evidence for what you claim.

We have carefully preserved eye witness accounts from many, many actual manuscripts that have been painfully copied and revered for thousands of years. You have bones and dirt that you had to fabricate into your own stories from assumptions built on speculations derived from conjecture based on belief in a theory that has never been nor ever could be proven.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
It's not unique to Hebrew. "Tail" as a euphemism for penis exists in English, German, and probably other languages as well.

‘Tail’ is not a euphemism for ‘penis’ in Hebrew at all.

In fact, it appears to be so here. Notice that it also uses a euphemism for testicles in the same passage.

You made that up to avoid seeing the obvious reference to a dinosaur in Job.

There is no such reference. Once you start imagining extinct animals, it could certainly be something more recent, such as Baluchitherium. a rhino that stood 18 feet at the shoulder, and had a thick tail about 8 feet long. Nothing would in the passage is particular to a dinosaur.

No where in the Bible is the word ‘tail’ used for ‘penis.’

Nowhere else. And nowhere else are testicles referred to as stones, AFAIK.

If it did, you would be the first to declare the ignorance of such biological unawareness. It doesn’t. It says he moves his tail like a cedar and that is referring to exactly what it says; his tail. Dinosaurs have tails that resemble cedar trees.

Nope. In fact, they have no branching whatever. They are thick, and long, but then so was the tail of Baluchitherium, and many other animals.

As a matter of fact, it also alludes to the extinction of the great beast in verse 19 where it says that the same God who made the behemoth can make his sword approach unto him.

Sounds pretty desperate to me. Doesn't say anything about extinction, either. "Dinosaur" and "extinct" are your additions. "Extinct" is a particularly weird addition, since scripture speaks of it in the present tense.

Great extinct beast whose tail is like a cedar tree. Duh.

I think we should go with the verses as they are, not by adding unsupported ideas like dinosaur and extinct.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote:

In fact, it appears to be so here. Notice that it also uses a euphemism for testicles in the same passage.

The Hebrew uses the word ‘stones’ for testicles and the KJ translators never use the word ‘testicles’ but always calls them, ‘stones’. The word for ‘penis’ is ‘privy member’, never ‘tail’ and everywhere that the word ‘tail’ is used, it refers to a tail, not a penis. I think you should give up this embarrassing argument. You have more hope in your extinct Rhino theory.


Barbarian wrote:

Nowhere else. And nowhere else are testicles referred to as stones, AFAIK.

Now I’m hurt. I just wrote the reference of one such place in one of my previous posts:

My quote:“LOL. Nice try. You don’t expect me to believe you believe that, do you? The Hebrew word for ‘stones’ is also ‘testicles’ but the Hebrew word for ‘tail’ is ‘tail‘, as in the fox tails that Samson tied together, not ‘privy member‘ as in Deu 23:1 He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, (not ‘tail’, btw ) shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD.
I repeat, the inclusion in the description of body parts such as loins, navel of his belly, sinews of his stones, and his tail, (not privy member), which he moved like a cedar, all attest to the factual, literal nature of the narrative.â€Â
Barbarian wrote:

Nope. In fact, they have no branching whatever. They are thick, and long, but then so was the tail of Baluchitherium, and many other animals.

Branching? A cedar is not noted for it’s branching but it’s great length and it’s conical or pyramid shape. I think we both know what kind of animal behemoth was. Some of us are afraid to admit it.


Barbarian wrote:

Sounds pretty desperate to me. Doesn't say anything about extinction, either. "Dinosaur" and "extinct" are your additions. "Extinct" is a particularly weird addition, since scripture speaks of it in the present tense.

Indeed. Weird. Like a prophesy.



Barbarian wrote:

I think we should go with the verses as they are, not by adding unsupported ideas like dinosaur and extinct.

Fine. Explain away Job 40:19... It’s what you do so well. I will just take God at his word and believe it.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian on animal tails vs cedars:
Nope. In fact, they have no branching whatever. They are thick, and long, but then so was the tail of Baluchitherium, and many other animals.

Branching? A cedar is not noted for it’s branching but it’s great length and it’s conical or pyramid shape.

Here is a picture of a cedar from the middle east (Lebanon):

Don't see the resemblance.

I think we both know what kind of animal behemoth was. Some of us are afraid to admit it.

You're a bit upset that your "proof" evaporated. As you see, there are much more recent animals that would be more accurate. BTW, since dinosaur testicles were internal, there would have been no "stones" to comment on. The Behemoth would have to have been a mammal.

Barbarian observes:
Sounds pretty desperate to me. Doesn't say anything about extinction, either. "Dinosaur" and "extinct" are your additions. "Extinct" is a particularly weird addition, since scripture speaks of it in the present tense.

Indeed. Weird. Like a prophesy.

Or, since it lacks scriptural support, a fantasy.

Barbarian wrote: Quote:
I think we should go with the verses as they are, not by adding unsupported ideas like dinosaur and extinct.

Fine. Explain away Job 40:19...

That's what you tried to do. And as you see, it didn't work.

It’s what you do so well. I will just take God at his word and believe it.

Except when you feel the need to "improve" His word a bit.

 

[unred typo]

Barbarian wrote:

Here is a picture of a cedar from the middle east (Lebanon) ( bushy tree picture )
Don't see the resemblance.

Since your picture resembles neither a tail or a ‘privy member’, I would guess that it is not the cedar mentioned in the passage, wouldn’t you? There are several kinds of cedars that would qualify and you pick the bushy type that support neither your nor my contention. Are you just looking to argue?

Perhaps the cedars mentioned are as scarce as the great pines of Maine that were all cut for ship’s masts and are no longer a notable feature in the forests there. The point is, your cedar in no way corresponds to the verse in anyone’s estimation, not even to your strange interpretation.


Barbarian wrote:

You're a bit upset that your "proof" evaporated. As you see, there are much more recent animals that would be more accurate. BTW, since dinosaur testicles were internal, there would have been no "stones" to comment on. The Behemoth would have to have been a mammal.

I’m not a bit upset. I find this whole conversation quite humorous, in fact. The lengths that you will go to in order to reduce a literal passage into allegory is amusing.
As for the dinosaurs stones being internal, would you say that they are wrapped together with his sinews as it records in Job 40:17? I bet the fossil record of dinosaur testicles is about as scarce as hen’s teeth, huh? But we trust your opinion since you clearly are the expert on this subject and I get all my information by watching old Flintstone cartoons. :wink: I did set my browser to ‘Baluchitherium’ and found out it is an extinct rhinoceros of the order Perissodactyla, class Mammalia, that lived during the late Oligocene and early Miocene epochs of the TERTIARY PERIOD (about 20-30 million years ago). So now I’m wondering why you would think this would be the animal in Job if you contend it can’t be a dinosaur. Is a 20-30 million year old mammal easier for you to accept? Curiousier and curiousier. Maybe if you go to the site below, you can read about these animals and get a better idea of which one is the behemoth of Job’s day. Look at the pictures and think about a giant cedar swaying as it is dragged behind. Now look at the pathetic tail of the Baluchitherium and wonder why anyone would even mention such a insignificant feature.
http://www.4to40.com/earth/geography/ht ... nimals.asp


Barbarian wrote in my suggestion of the prophetic nature of Job 40:19:

Sounds pretty desperate to me. Doesn't say anything about extinction, either. "Dinosaur" and "extinct" are your additions. "Extinct" is a particularly weird addition, since scripture speaks of it in the present tense.

Or, since it lacks scriptural support, a fantasy.

There are some translations that don’t support that idea but I am not dogmatic on it anyways. I do think that is what it means and since the animal is obviously extinct, it’s not such an unbelievable concept. I wouldn’t expect you to agree.

Barbarian wrote:

Except when you feel the need to "improve" His word a bit.

Using common sense is definitely an improvement over the method you use to destroy the actual meaning of the passages in question. I think God expects us to use our brains when we read the scriptures and naturally we can’t read anything without adding our experiences and knowledge to understand what is being said. That is a vast difference to changing it to allow for millions of years and other inventions of evolutionary bias.