Why is it so difficult for people to accept that dinosaurs and humans once lived toge
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-08-2012, 09:51 AM
Why is it so difficult for people to accept that dinosaurs and humans once lived toge
Dinosaurs and Humans—Together?

I got some lulz from this line. How many times have we heard creationists ask, Why aren't there "transitional fossils" to prove evolution? Yet, when it comes time to prove their point, they say fossils are rare, and human fossils are even rarer. Laughat

"
DINOSAURS AND HUMANS—
WHERE IS THE FOSSIL EVIDENCE FOR THEIR COEXISTENCE?

But if dinosaurs and humans did once live as contemporaries on Earth, why is it that human fossils have not been found alongside, near, or in the same strata as dinosaur fossils? If they lived together and died together, shouldn’t there be evidence from the fossil record of their coexistence?

Admittedly, at times questions like these appear somewhat puzzling. We know from the biblical record that dinosaurs and humans coexisted. Furthermore, various ancient paintings, figurines, rock carvings, and historical references confirm they were contemporaries upon the Earth. Why, then, at first glance, does the fossil record seem not to corroborate this information?

First, fossils are rare. Not every living plant, animal, or human fossilizes after death. In fact, it is extremely rare for things once living to fossilize.
Dead animals lying in a field or on the side of the road do not fossilize. In order for something to become fossilized, it must be buried rapidly in just the right place. Consider as an example all the bison that were slaughtered and left to rot on the prairies of the Old West. In those days, you could buy a seat on a train, pull up to a herd of bison, and keep shooting out of the window until you were either out of bullets or your barrel overheated. When everyone had enough, the train would move on, leaving the dead and dying animals behind. By 1885, millions of bison had been reduced to just 500 (Jones, n.d.). What happened to all of their remains? We do not see them on the prairies today. Why? Because their bones and flesh were scavenged by worms, birds, insects, and other animals. The smallest portions were digested by bacteria, fungi, and enzymatic degradation until the buffalo remains were gone. Even oxygen plays a part in breaking down the chemicals that make up the living body. Evolutionary scientist James Powell described another situation where a rather large population of animals died. He wrote:

[I]n the winter after the great Yellowstone fires of 1988, thousands of elk perished from extreme cold coupled with lack of food. Late the following spring, their carcasses were strewn everywhere. Yet only a few years later, bones from the great elk kill are scarce. The odds that a single one will be preserved so that it can be found 65 million years from now approach zero. At best we can expect to find fossil evidence of only a tiny fraction of the animals that once lived. The earth’s normal processes destroy or hide most of the clues (1998, p. xv).

Normally, as Powell indicated, living things do not fossilize. Under normal conditions, living things decay and rot. It is atypical for plants and animals to fossilize, because they must avoid even the tiniest of scavengers, bacteria, fungi, etc. For bones to fossilize, they must be buried—the deeper and sooner the better. Fine sediments, like mud and silt, are good because they block out oxygen. In this “protected” environment, bones and teeth may last long enough to mineralize. But, normally, carcasses do not find themselves in such environments.

Second, although dinosaur graveyards have been discovered in various countries around the world (e.g., Tanzania, Africa; Jenson, Utah [USA]) where thousands of dinosaur bones are jumbled together (obviously due to some sort of catastrophe—e.g., a flood), most people are unaware of the fact that, in museums, “in spite of the intense popular and scientific interest in the dinosaurs and the well-publicized efforts of generations of dinosaur hunters, only about 2,100 articulated dinosaur bones (two or more aligned in the same position as in life)” exist (Powell, 1998, p. xv, parenthetical comment in orig.; see also Dodson, 1990, 87:7608; Lewin, 1990). Furthermore, in an article in the October 1990 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Peter Dodson of the University of Pennsylvania reported that almost half (45.3%) of all dinosaur genera are based on a single specimen, and 74% are represented by five specimens or less (p. 7608). Even some of the most famous dinosaurs are based on a fraction of what they were originally. For example, the 120-foot-long Argentinosaurus replica (housed in the Fernbank Museum o Natural History in Atlanta, Georgia) is based on only 10 percent of its remains (a dozen backbone vertebrae, a few limb bones and part of the hips) [Meyer, 2002]. Truthfully, although dinosaurs have captured the attention of scientists for more than 150 years, their fossilized remains are not as prevalent as many would think.

Third, humans make up an infinitesimal portion of the fossil record. Due to the number of drawings of our alleged human ancestors that appear in the news on a regular basis, one might get the feeling that hominoid and human fossils are ubiquitous. But such is not the case. More than two decades ago, in an article in New Scientist, John Reader wrote: “The entire hominid collection known today would barely cover a billiard table (1981, 89:802). One year later, Lyall Watson similarly stated: “The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin” (1982, 90:44, emp. added). It is true, of course, that additional alleged hominid fossils have been discovered since Watson and Reader made their comments, but none qualifies as a legitimate human ancestor (see Harrub and Thompson, 2003, pp. 14ff.). In a conversation with James Powell, president and director of the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History, renowned evolutionary paleoanthropologist Meave Leakey gave some insight into her frustrations in searching for hominid (or human) fossils when she described her “nearly futile hunt for human bone in a new field area as four years of hard work producing only three nondescript scraps” (see Powell, 1998, p. xv, emp. added). More recently, David Begun concluded an article in Science titled “The Earliest Hominins—Is Less More?,” by admitting: “[T]he level of uncertainty in the available direct evidence at this time renders irreconcilable differences of opinion inevitable. The solution is in the mantra of all paleontologists: We need more fossils!” (2004, 303:1479-1480, emp. added). Although hominid/human fossils are the most sought-after fossils in the world, scientists readily admit that few such fossils have been found.

As you can see, the question “Why don’t we find dinosaur and human fossils together?” is extremely misleading. The truth is, fossils themselves are rare. And, of all those things that do fossilize, it appears that less than 1% are vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, or mammals) [see Snelling, 1991, p. 30]. Furthermore, human fossils make up a microscopic part of the fossil record. Searching for one is like trying to find the one proverbial needle in a haystack. The real question then, is not, “Why don’t we find dinosaur and human fossils together?,” but, “Where are all of the human fossils?”

Simply because human fossils apparently have not been found with dinosaur fossils does not make the case for the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans any less credible. Think about it. Where are the human fossils that have been found with the recently extinct Pyrenean Ibex? Can we prove that Dodo birds and humans once lived together by observing their fossilized remains together in a particular layer of rock? We know that they once coexisted, but can a person point to the fossil record for such information? The chance of finding human fossils is rare. The chance of finding exactly the combination of fossils for which one is searching (in this case, dinosaurs and humans) is even less likely.

Fourth, considering that sedimentary rocks (the sort of rocks in which fossils are most likely to be found) cover two-thirds of the continents and are over a mile thick on average, even if there are dinosaur and human remains fossilized in the same rock, the chance of them being exposed, discovered, recognized, and reported together is very improbable. They might be exposed somewhere in the world today (like in a mine, road cutting, or a cliff), but unless they are discovered before the wind, Sun, and rain reduce them to dust, such exposure is useless to scientists.

Furthermore, it may very well be the case that these bones have been discovered together in times past, but for at least two reasons, were not reported. First, someone who might have found these bones in a quarry, could react by saying, “Hey look guys, it’s a bunch of old bones. But quick, pass me another stick of dynamite so we can get the next ton of coal out of here.” The proof that men and dinosaurs were fossilized together may have gone up in smoke years ago. Second, it may be possible that human bones have been found by scientists alongside dinosaur fossils, yet simply have not been reported widely. By saying this, we do not mean to accuse evolutionary researchers of dishonesty. Rather, we simply believe they are afflicted with presuppositions that have affected their judgment. It is evolutionary geologists and paleontologists who are doing most of the research in this area. If they did happen upon human fossils and dinosaur fossils in the same strata, is it not possible that they would think to themselves, “Oh, these human fossils are an anomaly; they cannot have actually existed in this time period because evolution is true”? If evolutionists can “confuse” a dolphin’s rib for a human collarbone (Anderson, 1983, p. 199), or an extinct pig’s tooth for a human tooth (e.g., Nebraska Man; see Harrub and Thompson, 2003, pp. 88-89), then similar mistakes could easily be made concerning human and dinosaur fossils. If one ever has been found with another, scientists could have misinterpreted the “anomaly.” Because (from an evolutionary perspective) human fossils “shouldn’t be where they are,” they might very well not get reported as being where they are!"

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Erxomai's post
15-08-2012, 07:55 AM (This post was last modified: 15-08-2012 08:09 AM by roadrunner.)
RE: Why is it so difficult for people to accept that dinosaurs and humans .....
If dinosaurs had dominion of the earth during their existence, there are more than likely not as many human bones and fossils. Considering the rate at which evolution is thought to occur, it matches the fossil record. If humans had continued to evolve through 65 million years, we would have may more fossils to indicate this. Even if there were fossils, the likelyhood that those "humans" would have survived the ice ages and heavy bombardments and to continue to reproduce and evolve is so remote that we can assume that even it they did exist together, they would not have made it through such perils in their primitive state. Considering the basic premise of evolution by natural selection, humans would not go extinct and then "form again" (start over evolving) and still be identifiable as a relative of anything found living alongside of dinosaurs. Unless we can find any indication that the earliest civilizations had some sort of way to continue to reproduce and survive in such a primitive state I wouldn't expect to see any new evidence to indicate that human and dinosaurs walked alongside one another. As much as your argument does make sense, I dont think on the the evidence is there to support that claim
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-08-2012, 09:28 AM (This post was last modified: 15-08-2012 09:31 AM by Vosur.)
RE: Thread
Notice how the book that the author of this article frequently cites from was written by Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson, both which are creationists/apologists and how he uses the Bible as evidence for his assertions. That's almost as bad as citing William Lane Craig's book "Reasonable Faith" to prove that god exists. Drinking Beverage

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
17-08-2012, 07:33 AM
RE: Why is it so difficult for people
It gives me a little bit of confidence in humanity to see that if you click on the link and look at the original article, it has been shared on Facebook zero times, and tweeted only once.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Superluminal's post
17-08-2012, 12:09 PM
Re: Dinosaurs and humans once lived together?
Why didn't dinosaurs and humans once live together? Am I the only one who paid attention during Jurassic Park? Humans would be a nervous wreck and die of old age at about 20 - from stress alone!

We would certainly be well into the middle area on the food chain... and maybe more toward the bottom. I don't think there would be enough of us to survive them constantly eating us and depleting our populations. Then, our weak populations would need to survive an ice age? Fuck that.

Uhm... by the way, no cave paintings contain dinosaurs. Art reflects life. I repeat: Am I the only one who paid attention during Jurassic Park?

And now, a moment of caveman art by one of our forbearers... possibly a Neanderthal.
[Image: c1.jpg]

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like kim's post
17-08-2012, 01:14 PM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2012 01:42 PM by ghostexorcist.)
RE: Dinosaurs and humans once lived together?
(17-08-2012 07:33 AM)Superluminal Wrote:  It gives me a little bit of confidence in humanity to see that if you click on the link and look at the original article, it has been shared on Facebook zero times, and tweeted only once.

Yes, but it has 119 "likes," which means it showed up on 119 Facebook pages.

(17-08-2012 12:09 PM)kim Wrote:  And now, a moment of caveman art by one of our forbearers... possibly a Neanderthal.
[...]

That's from Chauvet cave in France, which dates to around 32,000 years ago. The cave is associated with Homo sapiens. That is a very good point about no dinosaurs being in cave paintings, though. The Chauvet cave paintings are the second oldest examples of human paintings in the world (the first being El Castillo cave in Spain). They portray bison, rhinos, mammoths, horses, cave bears, and cave lions. These were important to early man because the first four were food sources and the last two posed a threat to cave-dwellers. If man and dino had existed at the same time, the latter would have graced the cave walls as both food and enemy. Another thing to think about is the fact that the ice age of 30,000 years ago would have been too cold for very large cold-blooded creatures like dinosaurs to survive.

By the way, Cave Art (2008) by Jean Clottes is a good book on the subject. It's a bit expensive, though. I got it used and it was still $65.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like ghostexorcist's post
17-08-2012, 01:34 PM
Why is it so difficult for people to accept that dinosaurs and humans once lived toge
(17-08-2012 01:14 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  
(17-08-2012 07:33 AM)Superluminal Wrote:  It gives me a little bit of confidence in humanity to see that if you click on the link and look at the original article, it has been shared on Facebook zero times, and tweeted only once.

Yes, but it has 119 "likes," which means it showed up on 119 Facebook pages.

(17-08-2012 12:09 PM)kim Wrote:  And now, a moment of caveman art by one of our forbearers... possibly a Neanderthal.
[...]

That's from Chauvet cave in France, which dates to around 32,000 years ago. The cave is associated with Homo sapiens. That is a very good point about no dinosaurs being in cave paintings, though. The Chauvet cave paintings are the second oldest examples of human art in the world (the first being El Castillo cave in Spain). They portray bison, rhinos, mammoths, horses, cave bears, and cave lions. These were important to early man because the first four were food sources and the last two posed a threat to cave-dwellers. If man and dino had existed at the same time, the latter would have graced the cave walls as both food and enemy. Another thing to think about is the fact that the ice age of 30,000 years ago would have been too cold for very large cold-blooded creatures like dinosaurs to survive.

By the way, Cave Art (2008) by Jean Clottes is a good book on the subject. It's a bit expensive, though. I got it used and it was still $65.
Werner Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams is an incredible film on the subject. I actually got a bit emotional watching it and thinking of our artistic ancestors.

"All that is necessary for the triumph of Calvinism is that good Atheists do nothing." ~Eric Oh My
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
17-08-2012, 03:10 PM (This post was last modified: 17-08-2012 03:22 PM by kim.)
RE: dinosaurs and humans drank coffee together.
(17-08-2012 01:34 PM)Erxomai Wrote:  Werner Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams is an incredible film on the subject. I actually got a bit emotional watching it and thinking of our artistic ancestors.

Yes! Wasn't that brilliant?!!
I couldn't believe I was seeing work done so long ago - it was a very emotional experience.
Herzog filmed it in 3D but my old art cinema wasn't equipped, so I only got to see the regular version. I need to rent it if it's on DVD -I'll probably buy it. Did you get to see it in the theater, Erx? 3D or regular version?

Yes - -El Castillo cave in Spain - - Those were the ones which are really considered to possibly have been made by Neanderthal because of so much nearby evidence. I only posted the Chauvet cave because once you see Cave Of Forgotten Dreams... you just don't forget those images. It's quite haunting.

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2012, 03:27 PM
Why is it so difficult for people to accept that dinosaurs and humans once lived toge
What is your problem ? Jesus came to preach to the dinos.



Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
17-08-2012, 03:53 PM
RE: Maybe the Dinos died laughing!
(17-08-2012 03:27 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  What is your problem ? Jesus came to preach to the dinos.
Tongue

I think in the end, I just feel like I'm a secular person who has a skeptical eye toward any extraordinary claim, carefully examining any extraordinary evidence before jumping to conclusions. ~ Eric ~ My friend ... who figured it out.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: