Greg Jennings
New member
Is there any?
If so, please provide !!!!
If so, please provide !!!!
Proof that dinosaurs lived alongside modern mammals
- Thread starter Greg Jennings
- Start date
It has been noted that some primitive mammals lived alongside dinosaurs, and at least one was big enough to be a threat to some of them:
/https://public-media.smithsonianmag.com/filer/Rat-eating-dino-hero-2.jpg)
The most famous case is Repenomamus. Hardly a household name, this critter is the exception to everything I heard about mammals in the Age of Dinosaurs. The classic story is that mammals were so stifled by the dinosaurian reign that our furry ancestors and cousins remained small and hid among the shadows. There is some truth to the notion. Mammalian evolution was influenced by dinosaur evolution, and as Mesozoic mammals diversified, most stayed small and became adapted to burrowing, swimming, gliding and other modes of life in the shadow of the dinosaurs.
Repenomamus, on the other hand, was huge for a mammal of its time. This roughly 130-million-year-old carnivore, found in the rich fossil beds of northeastern China, was a badger-like creature a little over three feet long—bigger than some of the feathery dinosaurs that lived at that same time. Repenomamus was big enough to eat dinosaurs, and we know that the mammal definitely did.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...-ate-dinosaurs-129282708/#sBtQYvmjmpQCPUjs.99
The most famous case is Repenomamus. Hardly a household name, this critter is the exception to everything I heard about mammals in the Age of Dinosaurs. The classic story is that mammals were so stifled by the dinosaurian reign that our furry ancestors and cousins remained small and hid among the shadows. There is some truth to the notion. Mammalian evolution was influenced by dinosaur evolution, and as Mesozoic mammals diversified, most stayed small and became adapted to burrowing, swimming, gliding and other modes of life in the shadow of the dinosaurs.
Repenomamus, on the other hand, was huge for a mammal of its time. This roughly 130-million-year-old carnivore, found in the rich fossil beds of northeastern China, was a badger-like creature a little over three feet long—bigger than some of the feathery dinosaurs that lived at that same time. Repenomamus was big enough to eat dinosaurs, and we know that the mammal definitely did.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...-ate-dinosaurs-129282708/#sBtQYvmjmpQCPUjs.99
Greg Jennings
New member
Thank you. My respect for you is growing
Have you examined the dinosaur fossils? No? Who did? Funny that they find them whenever they go looking for them. When was the first one ever found? 10,000 years ago? No? Not until mid 1800s? I heard they were fabricated and fake.
Greg Jennings
New member
I've found dinosaur fossils: Allosaurus and Diplodocus myself. So yeah, I've examined them. It's not wise to assume prior to a reply, PJ
I've also found a myriad of extinct ferns in NM
I believe the ferns. I'll let you have your imaginary dinosaurs.
Greg Jennings
New member
Fine. If you want to deny the reality I lived that's up to you
For what? :idunno:
WatchmanOnTheWall
New member
Only problem is, it doesn't look anything like a stegosaurus. The little circles behind the mammal look like background decoration.
I notice the goofball who thinks it looks like a stegosaurus doesn't want to talk about the humanoid with dog legs and a tail right below it.
For reasons we all can understand.
WatchmanOnTheWall
New member
Possibly? But it would be odd that the artist carved the leaves so regularly as to look like stegosaurus plates? I think they look more like plates. Besides I believe most of the dinosaurs died off in the flood anyway.
Notice it has hooves, not claws. And the head is huge, with horns of some kind, while a real stegosaurus has a tiny head and no horns. There's no difference in size between front and back legs. And no thagomizer.
Sorry. It just doesn't look anything like a stegosaurus.
WatchmanOnTheWall
New member
Notice it has hooves, not claws. And the head is huge, with horns of some kind, while a real stegosaurus has a tiny head and no horns. There's no difference in size between front and back legs. And no thagomizer.
Sorry. It just doesn't look anything like a stegosaurus.
The legs are the same but yes there are a few slight differences but then the artists skill and impression might be responsible for that? Or perhaps it was another type of Stegosaurus that we have not discovered yet? But it certainly looks more like a stegosaurus than any other animal I can think of? And is the first one that comes to mind when looking at it, unless you know of a better match?
genuineoriginal
New member
Dinosaurs in history?
Yes, that's correct. Dinosaurs in the written historical record. There are numerous accounts of dinosaurs in the written historical record of many of the world's ancient cultures. The word that is commonly used today to describe extremely large "extinct" reptile creatures is the word dinosaur.
The word "dinosaur" was created in 1841 by an English Scientist named, Sir Richard Owen. He created the word to describe giant lizards that had recently been discovered in the fossil record. Prior to 1841, the most common term in the english language used to describe giant lizards was the word, dragon.
The dragon, no doubt, has been romanticized down through the ages, but when you look back into the historical records of nearly every culture in the world you find stories about men seeing and killing dragons.
Yes, that's correct. Dinosaurs in the written historical record. There are numerous accounts of dinosaurs in the written historical record of many of the world's ancient cultures. The word that is commonly used today to describe extremely large "extinct" reptile creatures is the word dinosaur.
The word "dinosaur" was created in 1841 by an English Scientist named, Sir Richard Owen. He created the word to describe giant lizards that had recently been discovered in the fossil record. Prior to 1841, the most common term in the english language used to describe giant lizards was the word, dragon.
The dragon, no doubt, has been romanticized down through the ages, but when you look back into the historical records of nearly every culture in the world you find stories about men seeing and killing dragons.
When I was a kid in elementary school the teachers took us to see 'supposed' reconstructed Dinosaurs. Skipping ahead many years, come to find out these "Dinosaur Skeletons" are made out of some kind of plastic material or something? Supposedly, they have the "Real" fossils locked away somewhere. Do I buy it, absolutely not.
Greg Jennings
New member
Those of us who have brushed away the dust from a 10 foot long vertebral column would beg to differ. I saw the claw marks deep on the rib of a sauropod (as well as the embedded tooth) from an Allosaurus in Montana. They have very distinctive teeth: curved slightly back, serrated edges front and back, and a thin knife-like appearance (as opposed to the nearly conical fangs of a T-Rex, for instance)
But the old saying goes, "seeing is believing", for a reason. Too many are doubting Thomas' even in the face of second-hand evidence. One only ever truly believes their own eyes
Thank you, again, to all participating in this thread and making it a healthy, cordial discussion
Greg Jennings
New member
It seems that we cannot find said proof
WatchmanOnTheWall
New member
Yes I remember reading this:
The Roman historian Cassius Dio recounted how a Roman army once killed a dragon. The original fragment from Book 11 of his Roman History, now lost, was repeated by John of Damascus (AD ~676–749), in his book On Dragons and Ghosts: “One day, when Regulus, a Roman consul, was fighting against Carthage, a dragon suddenly crept up and settled behind the wall of the Roman army. The Romans killed it by order of Regulus, skinned it and sent the hide to the Roman senate. When the dragon’s hide, as Dio says, was measured by order of the senate, it happened to be, amazingly, one hundred and twenty feet long, and the thickness was fitting to the length.”
And there are many other accounts: http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/written.html
Greg Jennings
New member
I'm reading through the accounts.
Most describe coiling serpents, many without feet and many more with wings. NONE of the accounts described thusly can be a dinosaur. Those descriptions fit no species that ever lived.
Others speak of 200 foot serpents, which would make them the largest animals that science has ever heard of by more than double the next closest animal (blue whale).
Dinosaurs aren't dragons and they aren't serpents. They didn't look or move that way. I'll continue looking at the list