Mankind and dinosaur side by side ? ?

I'll go ahead and answer this one:"Now answer my question: why aren't there human bones found inside dinosaur ribcages?"First of all, it is very possible, even likely, that humans and carnivorous dinasaurs lived in seperate ecological zones. Also, it's not neccesarily even likely that dinasaurs would often eat humans (most animals are afraid of humans). Even if a dinasaur had eaten a human just previous to the flood, there is no guarantee that that dinausaur would be fossilized. And even if a dinasaur who had eaten a human WAS fossilized, the odds are it will never be discovered.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
I'll go ahead and answer this one:

​

"Now answer my question: why aren't there human bones found inside dinosaur ribcages?"

​

First of all, it is very possible, even likely, that humans and carnivorous dinasaurs lived in seperate ecological zones. Also, it's not neccesarily even likely that dinasaurs would often eat humans (most animals are afraid of humans). Even if a dinasaur had eaten a human just previous to the flood, there is no guarantee that that dinausaur would be fossilized. And even if a dinasaur who had eaten a human WAS fossilized, the odds are it will never be discovered.

---

Likely? How do you get "likely" for humans and predators in different ecological zones? Do you have any evidence for this? Do you know the ecological zone that dinosaurs lived in? Can you say that this (these) zone(s) had no humans? If so, why do we see human "footprints" in the same place with dinosaur footprints(see the title of this thread)?Care to try again?

It seems likely to me that humans would tend to live in different areas as opposed to living where supposedly blood-thirsty dinasaurs were roaming.Also, I thought that the general consensus was that these reported "footprints" are fakes or something like that. Have I yet made any indication that I support Carl Baugh's findings and the like?

First of all I gave you a plausible answer for the spear.
Second are we to assume that because you don't have chicken bones in your stomach that you don't eat chicken?Dan
http://musicinit.com/pvideos.html

Now let's get back to the supposed "evolution" of bird wings. Suppose rather than the wings growing from STUBS, as I have implied before, the poor creature becomes CRIPPLED as its front paws/claws are HALF AND HALF, USELESS FOR RUNNING FROM PREDATORS, BUT NOT YET FULLY DEVELOPED FOR FLIGHT. Oh yes, this seems like a real FIT species! And according to Darwin this poor creature might be LIMPING around in this half crippled state for a MILLION YEARS OR MORE? Not plausible at all. Oh and while this "bird" is developing "wings" it will be simultaneously developing FEATHERS and A LIGHTER BONE STRUCTURE. All at the same time! I think it is more LOGICAL to believe CREATION.Dan
http://musicinit.com/music.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
It seems likely to me that humans would tend to live in different areas as opposed to living where supposedly blood-thirsty dinasaurs were roaming.

---

That is hardly evidence. On the other hand if we look around today, we do find humans living not far from mammal predators and there is frequent interaction. Even in the ocean we find sharks with human remains and other artifacts in their stomachs. Seems to me the best assumption would be that humans and predatory dinosaurs would LIKELY have existed in the same environment. Even if it were to hunt the same prey.

quote:

---

Also, I thought that the general consensus was that these reported "footprints" are fakes or something like that. Have I yet made any indication that I support Carl Baugh's findings and the like?

---

Indeed that is the consensus. You were however suggesting that humans and dinos were contemoraneous. We are just asking for evidence of this. So far you have not offered any.

quote:

---

Originally posted by techristian:
Now let's get back to the supposed "evolution" of bird wings. Suppose rather than the wings growing from STUBS, as I have implied before, the poor creature becomes CRIPPLED as its front paws/claws are HALF AND HALF, USELESS FOR RUNNING FROM PREDATORS, BUT NOT YET FULLY DEVELOPED FOR FLIGHT. Oh yes, this seems like a real FIT species! And according to Darwin this poor creature might be LIMPING around in this half crippled state for a MILLION YEARS OR MORE? Not plausible at all. Oh and while this "bird" is developing "wings" it will be simultaneously developing FEATHERS and A LIGHTER BONE STRUCTURE. All at the same time! I think it is more LOGICAL to believe CREATION.

​

Dan
http://musicinit.com/music.html

---

Tell you what, since I asked first, why don't you answer me, then I'll answer you, deal?Since you ask "Where are your transitional species ?, I repeat, what would you accept as a transitional?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

"Since you ask "Where are your transitional species ?, I repeat, what would you accept as a transitional?"
--I don't think the argument is rightly posed as 'where are the transitionals', but more it should be 'where is the transition'.------------------

[QUOTE][b]First of all I gave you a plausible answer for the spear.[/QUOTE][/b]Your "plausible answer" was that dinosaurs run too fast to be hunted, to which my response was that animals that could run faster than 40 MPH, and one that had a top speed of 80 MPH, were hunted by humans. The fastest speed in the dinosaur range you could provide was 70 MPH (and you didn't give a reference, but it seemed reasonable so I let it go). Now, unless you want to claim that all dinosaurs could exceed 80 MPH on foot and were too smart for traps and never were sick or young you need to be finding spearpoints in carcasses, or at least you need to be finding dinosaur fossils at archealogical sites along with the usual camels, mammoths, horses, and dire wolves. If those people routinely hunted wooly mammoths I don't think there were very many dinosaurs they would have cowered from. Plus, I should point out (particularly after Cobrasnakes' post in which he makes an interesting argument) that dinosaurs were cosmopolitan. North America was rife with them as is obvious from the dinosaur fossils being found throughout the West and New England. If you claim that the Paluxy tracks are genuine, then that particularly demands the evidence I am asking for.I think my question is still valid, where are those human/dino interactions?And what woud you consider to be an unmistakable transitional fossil?

[QUOTE][b]poor creature becomes CRIPPLED as its front paws/claws are HALF AND HALF, USELESS FOR RUNNING FROM PREDATORS, BUT NOT YET FULLY DEVELOPED FOR FLIGHT. Oh yes, this seems like a real FIT species! And according to Darwin this poor creature might be LIMPING around in this half crippled state for a MILLION YEARS OR MORE?[/QUOTE][/b]You didn't know that the dinosaurs associated with birds were bipedal, and would not have used their forearms for running in the first place?

"That is hardly evidence. On the other hand if we look around today, we do find humans living not far from mammal predators and there is frequent interaction. Even in the ocean we find sharks with human remains and other artifacts in their stomachs. Seems to me the best assumption would be that humans and predatory dinosaurs would LIKELY have existed in the same environment. Even if it were to hunt the same prey."Fine, but even with your assumption granted, it would not be likely that we would find human remains inside of dinasaurs."Indeed that is the consensus. You were however suggesting that humans and dinos were contemoraneous. We are just asking for evidence of this. So far you have not offered any."Although I didn't really suggest it, it is my opinion that humans and dinos lived at the same time. However, you must realize that I was not attempting to offer evidence of this occuring. I was simply trying to give you a plausible solution to the question of, if indeed humans and dinos lived at the same time, why don't we find human remains in dinasaur ribcages? Whether or not I offered a plausible solution is of course your opinion, but it is a bit of a straw man for you to try to attack my solution based on evidence in which I have acknowledged is most likely faulty.

[QUOTE][b]It seems likely to me that humans would tend to live in different areas as opposed to living where supposedly blood-thirsty dinasaurs were roaming.[/QUOTE][/b]You just said that most animals are afraid of humans. Dinosaurs would have to be hunting humans already before people would begin actively avoiding them. It seems that both of your replies are contradictory. Also humans would have had to come down from their hideouts to gather food and move across the continent.As for chicken bones in my stomach, I'm a lot more polite about how I eat than most large predators. Dinosaurs are found with fossilized remains of food and yet we don't find any human material in there.

[QUOTE][b]Fine, but even with your assumption granted, it would not be likely that we would find human remains inside of dinasaurs.[/QUOTE][/b]I maintain my disagreement, I still contend it would be inevitable that people would be eaten if they were contemporaries with the dinosaurs, just as it is inevitable that people would have eaten dinosaurs, and we would find their remains at archealogical sites.But let's set aside the 'human hideout' concept and widen the question a little more. Why aren't we finding bones from mountain goats, horses, camels, pronghorns, rabbits, birds, deer, mice, voles (for the procomposagnathids and ceoleophysis) wildcats, wolves, mammoths, elk, bears etc. in dinosaur bellies? In fact, every extant large land animal that I can think of is post-Cretaceous. Imagine, not one of them being represented inside a dinosaur ribcage!

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Since you ask "Where are your transitional species ?, I repeat, what would you accept as a transitional?"
--I don't think the argument is rightly posed as 'where are the transitionals', but more it should be 'where is the transition'.

​

---

I never posed the question ""Where are your transitional species ?".I do ask what criteria creationists apply to potential transitionals to know that they don't exist. Because creationists DO "know" transitionals don't exist, just wondering how.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-14-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-14-2002]

"Creationists reject any evidence that contradicts Creationism. In fact, AiG considers the automatic rejection of any Old Earth evidence so important they mention that it is necessary in their statement of faith:"Well, creationists think that any evidence that contradicts creationism is being interpreted wrongly."AiG is the perfect example of a Creationist organization that is not interested in evidence, but only wants to promote YEC views regardless of what the truth might be. According to that quote, if God Himself descended from Heaven and told the AiG crew they were wrong, they would be obligated to ignore Him and continue their work. That is what a SoF is. No evidence of any kind will ever convince AiG because they aren't interested in evidence, and so Creationism is itself a religion and AiG is hawking a new subgroup of Christianity, in which the Bible itself is elevated to near Godhood."Creationists are interested in evidence, they just happen to think that all evidence interpreted correctly will support the bible."As for Hovind, if they rebuked the fellow, what does that say about him?"Well, I don't personally recall ever supporting Hovind or his actions.