Did dinosaurs and humans coexist?
I've seen The Flintstones!!!
That's a pretty high percentage of "yes" votes for something that's such a no brainer. How embarrassing.
1 out of 4 republicans on this app are laughably uneducated 😂
Haha! Calling your political opponents uneducated just because they have a different opinion than you! Haha rofl
Lol looks like I triggered somebody who failed intro to geology 😂😂
Oh I'm not triggered, im just stating how ridiculous your statement is
Unless you're a really special individual who voted "yes", it's not considered a ridiculous statement at all. This is basic knowledge, and it really illustrates the shortcomings of our education system when so many folks don't have a clue. Might as well say the earth is flat while you're at it 😂😂😂.
I didn't pick yes, I just don't know why you have to bring politics into this and say that republicans are dumb
The only rationale I can see for this is if you consider all theropods to be dinosaurs, so that modern birds count as dinosaurs.
Or, I suppose there may be a possibility of some small surviving species in deep caves, etc. Unlikely, but I guess it's possible.
Mostly, I'm going with no.
Yes, we have proof. Jurassic Park
Land of the Lost
Life, uh, finds a way
Hello, The Flintstones!!!
You realize the Flintstones is not a real show right? It's a cartoon. It's just based on real events. But some parts are dramatized, like the dinocars. The show makes it sound like everyone had these but in reality it was only for the affluent
Are you kidding me??? I've been lied to all of these years!!!
Get woke brah
How can anyone who is not an utter idiot believe this? I mean, fuck, the differences in environmental requirements between the two groups would probably kill one or the other.
Did you misinterpret the question? Because I know you're smarter than this.
I think t@laney1 puts the age of the earth at around 6,000. Given the timeline for this belief, people need to do some amazingly creative compaction of events.
Let Tom answer for himself. I highly doubt he thinks the earth is 6,000 years old (LOL!), but there is a possibility that I'm overestimating him.
I wish we could wager on the response.
He used to be an academic (albeit English). But surely he knows a thing or two about geology.
I must say I'm rather an agnostic on the age of the Earth and the universe. God could have easily made them within a six-literally-day some 6000 years ago if He had wanted to, and still have all the geological features that lead us to believe the Earth is millions of years old; but that doesn't mean He did. But I do firmly believe that He made all living creatures and the first man and woman within a span of two or three days about 6000 years ago.
So you're both right!
And wrong... 😃
I was in a hurry earlier when I wrote that response. Let me expound a bit. I respect geologists as real scientists, of course. They study for years and get out and get dirty digging through layers of soil and rock. They make observations based on what they see, as all scientists do. I am not an expert on geology, and do not pretend to be. I am an expert in multiple fields, but geology is certainly not among them. For that reason, I have to keep my mind open about the age of the earth. It could have existed for millions of years before Genesis 1:1, which, in the original Hebrew, basically says, "In the beginning, when God was creating the heavens and the Earth, the Earth was formless and empty." So the very beginning of Genesis chapter 1 is a bit fuzzy as to time. But as soon as God says "and there was evening and morning, the first day," we must interpret that to mean a regular 24-hour day. The Jews consider a day to begin at sundown and to end at sundown of what we would call (more)
...the next day. It's a 24-hour day, but it runs from sundown to sundown, not midnight to midnight. So it becomes very important to note that the text says "evening and morning." this equates the day mentioned in the text with a normal Jewish day, beginning with evening and continuing on through morning and daytime until the next evening. Many of the statements regarding the first two or three days can be baffling to our modern scientific minds, but can be deciphered to describe The phenomena that we observe in the universe around us. I totally reject Macroëvolution, because there is absolutely no evidence for it. It is simply a hypothesis that Darwin made to explain how we got here in an anti-supernatural way. I do, however, recognize microëvolution, since we can observe it in dog breeding and the like. So, looking at the Genesis text again, we find that God made all the animals, birds, and fish. But this (more)
...does not imply that he made Golden Retrievers and St. Bernards and Chihuahuas simultaneously. He made a m/f pair of generic canines. He made a m/f pair of generic equines, not Arabians and Mustangs and Pintos, etc. so when we say that God created "all the animals," we understand that He created the proto-animals from which all modern breeds are mutated. Do I accept "Evolution"? No. Do I accept Microëvolution? Yes. And it is perfectly compatible with believing in direct Creation.
By the way, am I some sort of uneducated religious fanatic? No indeed. I am a former Mensa member with an IQ in the top ½%. I have a Master's in Choral Conducting plus over 24 hours of Education and English courses, which led to my Texas Teacher Certification in six subjects: Secondary English, Speech Communication, Drama, Microcomputing, Reading, and Secondary Music. I have also been studying Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Greek, two of the requirements for a Master of Divinity. And I sing in 6 languages. 😃
Oh, rats, forgot the 6,000 year thing. Bishop James Ussher, an Irish genius, scholar, and cleric, wrote a fascinating book called Annals of the World, in which he charts out human history in multiple parallel timelines going back to an estimated Creation date of October somethingth, 4004 BC. He realized that all the clues he needed were right there in the Biblical text. He was able to calculate when each of the Patriarchs was born and died and when they had their children. In this way, he figured backwards to his estimated creation date. It's a magnificently simple, and ironically very scientific, methodology. That's where we get our estimated 6000+ year age for the first living things, including plants, animals, birds, fish, and humans. Most "Young-Earth Creationists" would say that the universe itself and all the stars and planets were created during the same six-day period In that year of approximately 4004 BC. So I'm considerably more reasonable than that. 😃
You have to be very stupid to think we once coexistenced with dinosaurs
Not in the physical world.
Lol to the yes votes
Y'all kill me. Fuck no! Why does anyone think they did?
Glenn Rose, that's why it is debatable.
Ta Prohm also raises questions.
How about the Ica Stones? It is quite debatable.
I just love how people are SO sure they know the answers to debatable questions. We actually don't even know for sure what color dinosaurs were. Maybe some should peek at this link if it works.
Dinosaurs were covered in feathers so they would probably have a lot of different colors dailydigestnews.com/article.php?n=dinosaur-tail-preserved-in-amber-proves-they-were-covered-in-feathers&id=119768
Pretty much what I mean, we will never recover a completely accurate record of Earths history, it's all fragmented discoveries and educated guesses. When people believe they are 100% sure about prehistoric things they look foolish to me.
But we don't need to know what color that were to know roughly when they existed. Scientists could be off by millions of years and still be correct in saying humans didn't live when dinosaurs lived.
It's not possible and our dating methods say otherwise. Dinosaurs would've made primates go extinct.
Is it POSSIBLE that our dating methods aren't accurate and that they may have existed at the same time but in separate locations?
Or that they still live
Or u 2 have been on pot way to long to think like this or get your facts from u tube
Dude, accepting a scientific theory as an absolute fact without questioning it is actually anti-science. Every theory has eventually been proven wrong. By the way, that article I posted is from Berkeley University.
Guess what Berkeley is a hot bed of pot smokers since the 60s
I agree with that statement. And I'm not sure if that study has any merit or not. I'm just saying that we should always question scientific discoveries. They are never complete and more often than not wrong.
You should change your answer to "I don't think so" or "probably not".
No. they went through a extinction 65 million years ago. The great apes started about 2.5 million years ago, and man first appeared about 115,000 years ago.
There are some claims that some avian dinosaurs (birds) survived.
Humans have been around for around 1.6 million years. Birds are close relatives of dinosaurs, if not dinosaurs themselves. However, the poll does not specifically include birds in it's definition of dinosaurs. Therefore, dinosaurs and humans did NOT live at the same time according to this poll's definition of dinosaurs.