none of the ones you showed were from hundreds of thousands of years ago, none were even close. How many people do you think can stand in a line and get a game of telephone to be even remotely accurate? I admit, we can't know for certain that Dino's went extinct completely 65million years ago, but the fact that there hasn't been a single bone that was aged to as more recent makes me think we either got it right, or we got it so close to right than any that managed to make it past those years were likely much smaller and lived in certain niche habitats like muddy rivers, the sky, or underground. Heck, even the bone that you are pointing to with the possible RBCs was aged at 68million years old. Since man has been on the scene we have used the bones of whatever was around us as tools, sure seems to me we should have some collar bone chairs or rib cage vehicle ala the Flintstones.
There could have been thousands of dragons wandering the Earth, but just because we haven't found any bones or evidence they lived I choose to believe they did because of the story of St. George and the Dragon. See what I did there? You keep stretching imaginings to fill in the holes rather than using evidence ... and by evidence I mean all of the evidence available to you - You can't cherry pick.
You are aware that the radioactive breakdown of soft tissue cannot survive longer than 200k years right?
Oh sorry bro. Yeah I read it. I didn't respond because your point was valid. Sorry I didn't give you credit.
You actually have a point; but it still doesn't work in conjunction with actual excavated fossils. <-- See what I did there? This carving much resembles a triceratops. And this, by a civilazation that didn't have the excavating technology as we do today. As I posted before... Guess they have a good genetic memory huh?
You're basing your conclusions of the assumption that the carving was intended to look like a triceratops, discounting the very real likelihood of a coincidental resemblance.
See what you did where? You are speaking gibberish. And for the record a clay pot is not a "fossil." Show me a dinosaur bone that has either been absolute or relative dated to a time coterminous with human beings and we'll talk, but everything you've posted fails to meet a scientific standard of evidence supporting a hypothesis that humans and dinos coexisted.
There isn't a conclusion on my part actually. I am debating on the possibility. This seems pretty coincidental though.
Yeah so true. Its more probably that a civilization that lived thousands of years ago, guess the animal so accurately. Forgot.... My mistake
That carving resembles a tricerotops? Looks more like a rhinceros to me. Or do you want to pretend it's a rhinosaurus and just like a dinosaur? So, a biblical literalist sees a representation of cave drawing in an uncertain state of preservations, says it "looks like" a stegosaurus or a tricerotops (whatever "looks like" means), concludes that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, the universe is 5000 years old, and Genesis is literally true based on his interpretation of a drawing! Mags, do you really truly consider that nonsense the equivalent of science based on testing, peer review, DNA analysis, carbon dating, etc etc etc etc? We often disagree but I did have a better impression of your brains than that!
LMAO @ you. Is this better? Go ahead and guess other animals that they look like! Hahaha Also, I find it funny that you are taking this to some young earth bullshit argument; which I have clearly said I don't believe. But if it makes you feel better, go for it pappy
You're aware that you don't know what you're talking about? Wherever they dig into the ground, the deeper they dig, the farther back in time they go. There are no human remains and dinosaur remains at the same depth. And that's just one of numerous other ways they can tell the dates involved.
I'm going to use Occam's razor here. The most logical conclusion I can draw about that pot is that it's a fraud. Where was it found, by whom and in what context. EDIT: I say this knowing absolutely nothing about it.
Yes because an earthquake couldn't open the ground and cause sediments to fall to areas in which the age of the dirt is 65 million years old. Okay spock
This is very different than the carving. The pottery could simply be modern fakes. Is there a "timestamp" so to speak, of when it was made?
Except that the ancient rock and "newer" material would be dissimilar and that fault layer would be completely distinct. To answer your question, No it couldn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ica_stones In 1973 during an interview with Erich von Däniken, Uschuya stated he had faked the stones that he had sold.[3] In 1975 Uschuya and another farmer named Irma Gutierrez de Aparcana confirmed that they had forged the stones they gave to Cabrera by copying the images from comic books, text books and magazines.[2] Later Uschuya recanted the forging story during an interview with a German journalist, saying that he had claimed they were a hoax to avoid imprisonment for selling archaeological artifacts. In 1977, during the BBC documentary Pathway to the Gods, Uschuya produced an Ica stone with a dentist's drill and claimed to have produced the patina by baking the stone in cow dung.[3] That same year, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical analysis of Cabrera's stones, and the newfound attention to the phenomenon prompted Peruvian authorities to arrest Uschuya, as Peruvian law prohibits the sale of archaeological discoveries. Uschuya recanted his claim that he had found them and instead admitted they were hoaxes, saying "Making these stones is easier than farming the land." He engraved the stones using images in books and magazines as examples and knives, chisels and a dental drill.[6] He also said that he had not made all the stones. He was not punished, and continued to sell similar stones to tourists as trinkets.[3] The stones continued to be made and carved by other artists as forgeries of the original forgeries.[2]
