I am by no means an expert in this field. I don't know what the answer is, and asking the questions are fun and may potentially lead somewhere. But mags, don't come to a conclusion based off such spotty information. Ask the question, do the research, but to conclude something so drastically different than the experts believe is foolhardy at best. What is not quite so spectacular is, I believe there may still be thylacine in Tasmania. That's also called the Tasmanian Tiger or Tasmanian Wolf, and was a large carnivorous marsupial that people hunted to extinction (or so they believe) back about 85 years ago. They are freaky weird animals, there is video of them, they can open their mouths a full 90 degrees. They have heads that look wolf like and their back half is striped like a tiger. But there have been hundreds of sightings, and I know a PSU professor who claimed he saw on. It's like big foot but more likely, because we know they existed. And the wilderness in Tasmania is huge. I don't believe they exist, but I certainly think its a real possibility.
Really! Why would our planet remain desolate? Wouldn't evolution continue with new life forms? Sounds as if you believe in only one creation of creatures which may then evolve.
If you can appreciate how long the odds of anything on this planet being alive are you can appreciate how unlikely it would be for everything to evolve the same way (or at all) again after a complete extinction event, especially under different terrestrial conditions (Earth 3.5-billion years ago vs. 65-million years ago) and a much shorter (<2%) time scale. Seems like this planet is teeming with life but 99% of the species Earth has produced have gone extinct which is hardly a success story.
Magnifier, I think "shit" is an appropriate word. Nothing wrong with entertainment, hell, I like a good Stephen King from time to time. The problem is taking entertainment as fact. Dinosaurs as the term is defined have been extinct for 65 million years. That some creationist looked at cave drawings (maybe, they may be alterations or inventions) and claims they looked like his interpretation of a dinosaur does not invalidate 150 years of science.
Hey Mags, since nobody answered this question, I thought I'd do my best to help out! Basically the "extinction event" whatever it was, seems to have caused a super ice age and at the same time the ocean's chemistry changed dramatically. A bulk of the animals and plants died off, but I believe some of the shallow water animals managed to survive. Things that lived in the rivers. Now to address your second question about evolution not pushing them further. So the way most people accept how evolution works, is that a mutant/freak/single offspring( or it's lineage) which has an advantage over others will get more food and be able to reproduce easier. And typically when mutations exist which are negative that random event doesn't repeat. Clear so far? Well let's say a creator develops a really great set of eyes, and they basically don't need to hear very well. Because they all don't need to hear well, the advantage of GREAT hearing versus bad hearing is very slim. So a bad hearing, but Great vision animal compared to a good hearing and Great vision animal is almost negligent. Which means they will reproduce equally and the gene pool will not shift towards one thing. To get back to the alligator/crocodile story, they probably evolved where they can kill and eat just fine without needing to see really well, or communicate a lot to each other. Typically those fancy behaviors evolve in a not top of the food chain creature because they have weaknesses they need to overcome. So the long answer is that alligators always did just fine as they looked, so there was no reason to evolve much. But there are variations!
Maybe dragons were real too? I mean we've got lots and lots of folktales from the dark and middle ages about men fighting giant, winged lizards that breathe fire.
the problem with this assertion Mags is that science first relies on observations, then hypotheses, then testing, revision, testing, more observations, revision, etc. before they ever put forth something you would casually call a "theory" - like it's been pulled out of thin air. Your statement that you believe that drago ... er ... dinosaurs and men coexisted doesn't even have an observation to rest on.
Difference... The paintings that resemble the stegosaurus or triceratops are accurate. We haven't dug up dragon fossils.
Just decended from. Modern birds lack the tails, the teeth and the ability to grow to substantially larger sizes. But there are many similarities, like the s-shaped curve in the neck, to feathers on many dinosaurs. But just as a turtle and an alligator are not quite dinosaurs, neither are birds. But dang, that's a pretty diverse family.
So what you are saying is man has genetic memory of the physical anatomy of a dinosaur that was dug up thousands of years before being excavated? Your dragon analogy is flawed because of no physical discovery of a dragon. You can get all smart ass as you want, but using physical empirical evidence and historical evidence has been used in science. Look no farther than Julius Caesar. It is wildly accepted that he did exist, but did we dig him up? Please enlighten me of the fossil records of Caesar! That would be a great discovery!
but there are hundereds of thousands of cave drawings, don't you think that if we coexisted, there would be more than a single drawing here or there? Seems more likely that the drawings were either stylized, mistakes or a merging of several types of animals. And you can't say the triceratops was accurate when it looks just slightly like one. But why don't we see T-Rex in every other cave painting. It seems to me that we should be inundated with thousands of dino pics if we coexisted.
We are talking 200k years ago. The ones that were excavated could have stood the test of time because of the right conditions. There could have been millions of drawings or paintings that faded through the natural decomposition process. Have you been to crystal caves in Sequoia? Water has carved through marble and granite like butter. Just took a few thousands of years. Just imagine 200k years.
Sorry, mags. This is nuts. tens of millions of years between the last dinosaur and man. No way around it. You asked if we had dug up dragon bones. No. We also haven't dug up any dinosaur bones younger than 65 million years ago.
a highly stylized bas relief carving on a wall in Cambodia or Thailand that sort of resembles a stegosaurus but also strongly resembles a species of rhino native to the area does not rise to the level of empirical evidence needed to begin hypothesizing that dinosaurs and men lived side-by-side, especially when a preponderance of evidence already exists that says they didn't. As for Julius Caesar, there's a convincing historical record that suggests he really lived ... but there is no scientific proof.
