Proof that dinosaurs lived alongside modern mammals

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

I'm reading through the accounts.

Most describe coiling serpents, many without feet and many more with wings. NONE of the accounts described thusly can be a dinosaur. Those descriptions fit no species that ever lived.

Others speak of 200 foot serpents, which would make them the largest animals that science has ever heard of by more than double the next closest animal (blue whale).

Dinosaurs aren't dragons and they aren't serpents. They didn't look or move that way. I'll continue looking at the list

Well yes they are somewhat strange but the accounts exist and the word dinosaur did not come into usage till the 1800's so they would describe these creatures in ways that are unfamiliar to our modern language, also perhaps some exaggeration went on? The biggest dinosaur found to date was 131 feet: http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160201-meet-the-most-massive-dinosaur-to-ever-stomp-the-earth

 

[Greg Jennings]

Well yes they are somewhat strange but the accounts exist and the word dinosaur did not come into usage till the 1800's so they would describe these creatures in ways that are unfamiliar to our modern language, also perhaps some exaggeration went on? The biggest dinosaur found to date was 131 feet: http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20160201-meet-the-most-massive-dinosaur-to-ever-stomp-the-earth

Good article!!

My point also is that the only even mildly serpentine dinos were vegetarians, like the 131 ft giant your article talks of. And had massive, clearly visible legs. But I take your point.

But I'm still going through them

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Good article!!

My point also is that the only even mildly serpentine dinos were vegetarians, like the 131 ft giant your article talks of. And had massive, clearly visible legs. But I take your point.

But I'm still going through them

The word "dinosaur" was created in 1841 by an English Scientist named, Sir Richard Owen. He created the word to describe giant lizards that had recently been discovered in the fossil record. Prior to 1841, the most common term in the english language used to describe giant lizards was the word, dragon.
http://www.forbidden-history.com/dinosaurs-in-history.html

So dragons could be carnivorous or herbivores.

 

[Greg Jennings]

The word "dinosaur" was created in 1841 by an English Scientist named, Sir Richard Owen. He created the word to describe giant lizards that had recently been discovered in the fossil record. Prior to 1841, the most common term in the english language used to describe giant lizards was the word, dragon.
http://www.forbidden-history.com/dinosaurs-in-history.html

So dragons could be carnivorous or herbivores.

Does it bother you that no winged dragons/dinosaurs existed, yet most dragon stories have winged serpents?

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Does it bother you that no winged dragons/dinosaurs existed, yet most dragon stories have winged serpents?

 

[Greg Jennings]

Quickly before ----- I erred: dinosaurs didn't fly, but some had little wings for gliding through the treetops



But to your picture, that's no dinosaur. But I suppose that's more semantics than anything else. Are you suggesting that pterosaurs were responsible for these reports? They do not fit most decriptions. Where is a beak described? There aren't large scales on a pterosaur either

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Quickly before ----- I erred: dinosaurs didn't fly, but some had little wings for gliding through the treetops



But to your picture, that's no dinosaur. But I suppose that's more semantics than anything else. Are you suggesting that pterosaurs were responsible for these reports? They do not fit most decriptions. Where is a beak described? There aren't large scales on a pterosaur either

Not sure how they mind of an ancient might describe the creatures they saw or the reasoning behind the words they chose to use? Who can say?

 

[The Barbarian]

The legs are the same but yes there are a few slight differences

Head is completely wrong. It's huge with horns. A stegosaurus has a tiny head with no horns. Legs are equal size on the carving. But stegosaurus hind limbs are about twice the size of for limbs. No thagomizer on the carving. Hooves instead of toes on the carving.

It looks much more like a water buffalo than a stegosaurus.


but then the artists skill and impression might be responsible for that? Or perhaps it was another type of Stegosaurus that we have not discovered yet? But it certainly looks more like a stegosaurus than any other animal I can think of? And is the first one that comes to mind when looking at it, unless you know of a better match?[/QUOTE]

 

[The Horn]

"The Flintstones " is not a science documentary .

 

[Greg Jennings]

Not sure how they mind of an ancient might describe the creatures they saw or the reasoning behind the words they chose to use? Who can say?

Well there is the issue. Why would you assume a dinosaur, and not just a fantastical version of a crocodile or even large lizard (Komodo dragon maybe?)


Let me ask this: we know that mammoths and lions and so on lived with early man bc we find their bones in early tribal "dumps." Why no Dino bones ever in these dumps?

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Head is completely wrong. It's huge with horns. A stegosaurus has a tiny head with no horns. Legs are equal size on the carving. But stegosaurus hind limbs are about twice the size of for limbs. No thagomizer on the carving. Hooves instead of toes on the carving.

It looks much more like a water buffalo than a stegosaurus.


but then the artists skill and impression might be responsible for that? Or perhaps it was another type of Stegosaurus that we have not discovered yet? But it certainly looks more like a stegosaurus than any other animal I can think of? And is the first one that comes to mind when looking at it, unless you know of a better match?

When people see it the first thing most of them think is 'stegosaurus', are you saying the first thing you thought was 'water buffalo'?:

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

Well there is the issue. Why would you assume a dinosaur, and not just a fantastical version of a crocodile or even large lizard (Komodo dragon maybe?)

Well yes that is possible that some of them might have been describing other animals. Who can know?

Let me ask this: we know that mammoths and lions and so on lived with early man bc we find their bones in early tribal "dumps." Why no Dino bones ever in these dumps?

You will need to prove this assertion. I've never heard of this. Most Mammoth bones are found in 'random' places not middens. Lion's also are not an animal that were often eaten people but yes both of these animals lived with man and lions of course still do.

 

[patrick jane]

Eric Dubay: Dinosaurs Never Existed!


- FIRST AND FOREMOST: please read "ZETETIC ASTRONOMY' at our website (http://www.PlanetPlane.Com) under "RESOURCES", and also, watch the videos under "MULTIMEDIA", in order to get answers to the most frequently asked questions. These steps are VITAL to understand the subject at hand. Thank you!- ATTENTION: Before commenting, please watch our COURTESY NOTICE:


29 Minutes - The Earth is about 6,000 to 10,000 years old, get real folks

 

[Greg Jennings]

Well yes that is possible that some of them might have been describing other animals. Who can know?

You will need to prove this assertion. I've never heard of this. Most Mammoth bones are found in 'random' places not middens. Lion's also are not an animal that were often eaten people but yes both of these animals lived with man and lions of course still do.

I will gladly look for support for this claim.

It was something I was shown and taught in school, but I've no doubt I can find some compelling source online

 

[The Barbarian]

There certainly were very large reptiles when early humans were about. But they weren't dinosaurs, which had died out many millions of years earlier.

There were huge lizards. One giant monitor lizard was as large as 18 feet long.

 

[The Barbarian]

When people see it the first thing most of them think is 'stegosaurus', are you saying the first thing you thought was 'water buffalo'?:

As you see, it looks a lot more like a water buffalo. Big head, horns turned up and back, legs about equal in length, The stuff behind it was clearly not intended to be part of the animal. Notice that it's head turns slightly toward us, and the bumps don't go on its back, but are arranged behind it. It has hooves rather than claws, and there is no thagmizer on the rather small tail.

[/QUOTE]

 

[User Name]

"The Flintstones " is not a science documentary .

YEC's beg to differ.

 

[Stripe]

As you see, it looks a lot more like a water buffalo.

:darwinsm:

YEC's beg to differ.

You're an idiot.

 

[User Name]

Not sure how they mind of an ancient might describe the creatures they saw or the reasoning behind the words they chose to use? Who can say?

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/stegosaur-claim.htm

You're an idiot.

:wave:

 

[WatchmanOnTheWall]

As you see, it looks a lot more like a water buffalo. Big head, horns turned up and back, legs about equal in length, The stuff behind it was clearly not intended to be part of the animal. Notice that it's head turns slightly toward us, and the bumps don't go on its back, but are arranged behind it. It has hooves rather than claws, and there is no thagmizer on the rather small tail.

[/QUOTE]

May be, TBH I could not say what animal it is supposed to be?