Ya know. I was thinking about that also and it kind of made me feel nervous. I really can’t imagine man living along side carnivorous dinosaurs. Velosa raptors, for one, were known to not only hunt other dinosaurs, but also each other. Different species of raptor, would hunt others in groups. Can you imagine poor little man with that? I just don’t think we could have survived the long term haul and we would have constantly been looking over our shoulders. There would have been no time for proper reproduction; infants would have been at risk every second of every waking moment. It was bad enough as it was.

Also, if we accept the theory for a moment that these enormous (and smaller) sized carnivores did live but a mere 6000 years ago, wouldn’t we be able to find some kind of evidence in their fossilized stool remnant? A human's body consumed? Bones? Copperlites?

Yea, I agree with Krimsa about two things, the mortality rate, due to illness, murder, whatever AND due to a dino problem. MMMM..

Also, have another one of those puzzeling questions. So in 900 years we have a population of 2,000 - is that what someone said?

Now these poeple were, obviouse extremely intelligent. They were able to build cities, fight off disease, animals and natural catastrophies. Not to mention the fact that god made the first set of clothes for Adam and Eve, sent them out into the world and they were able to KNOW how to fend for themselves, make babies, raise them, clear the land, build shelter and EVERYTHING else all at once.

So why did it take over 6000 years to have world wide mass communication? Why has the majority of knowledge and technology only occurred in the last, oh say 150 years? (being generous of course)

mmmmm.

Still another problem, going back to Adam and Eve. If humans were so dang intelligent, why did some of them end up living in caves instead of building shelter or cities? Why did they not farm? You may not believe in evolution, but we do have archeological findings that indicate such lifestyles. Why?

Actually voicing these questions just gives rise to more creative thinking becasue there will always be responces no matter how unlikely or how rediculous they sound. As far as the imagination can stretch, that is as far as people will go to defend that for which there is no proof, their faith.

Keep it then, that faith but remember that those with the least to say, are often thought more intelligent than those who open their mouths and prove otherwise.

Just a thought!

Happy week end to you all!

and as we talk about why or what if on life and dinosaurs a banner is above my screen reading "The God that never existed". lol

Here is a link as I clicked on it to see what it is meant about it.

http://www.thegodmovie.com/?gclid=CJjA-9THtpUCFQE0xgodmXWgQw

what interest me is where did the native Indians of north, central, and south America, come up with the idea or thought of a great spirit, a singular creative force/god?? Through my studies i see this theme especially in the north American tribes no matter how far separated their tribes were from each other? whether it be waken tanka or by other name.

As far as we can tell they had no knowledge of european gods or a mediterrainian monotheistic god, so where did this concept of a singular great spirit come from? it's even called the great "white" spirit by some. They knew no white man until the 16 century, so where did this come from? are they descendant's of the lost tribe of Israel?

no i don't think so.

again i think it goes back to there being 2 creations which would put everything into a better understood perspective - jmo

Tribo, as I mentioned before, can you find these specific tribes that you feel were monotheistic in some respect? I have been looking and all I can find over and over again is generally descriptions of this nature.

The environmental wisdom and spirituality of North American Indians is legendary.
Animals were respected as equal in rights to humans. Of course they were hunted, but only for food, and the hunter first asked permission of the animal's spirit. Among the hunter-gatherers the land was owned in common: there was no concept of private property in land, and the idea that it could be bought and sold was repugnant. Many Indians had an appreciation of nature's beauty as intense as any Romantic poet.

Religious beliefs varied between tribes, but there was a widespread belief in a Great Spirit who created the earth, and who pervaded everything. This was a panentheist rather than a pantheist belief. But the pantheistic tone was far stronger than among Christians, and more akin to the pantheism of William Wordsworth. It was linked to an animism which saw kindred spirits in all animals and plants.

The Indians viewed the white man's attitude to nature as the polar opposite of the Indian. The white man seemed hell-bent on destroying not just the Indians, but the whole natural order, felling forests, clearing land, killing animals for sport.

Of course, not everything that every Indian tribe did was wonderfully earth-wise and conservation-minded. The Anasazi of Chaco Canyon probably helped to ruin their environment and destroy their own civilization through deforestation. In the potlatch the Kwakiutl regularly burned heaps of canoes, blankets and other possessions simply to prove their superiority to each other; the potlatch is the archetypal example of wanton overconsumption for status. Even the noble plains Indians often killed far more bisons than they needed, in drives of up to 900 animals.

In other words, the Indians were not an alien race of impossibly wonderful people. They were human just like the rest of us. And in that lies hope.

"The first peace, which is the most important, is that which comes within the souls of people when they realize their relationship, their oneness with the universe and all its powers, and when they realize that at the center of the universe dwells the Great Spirit, and that this center is really everywhere, it is within each of us."

Black Elk

And let me mention that was North American Indian specific. From a cultural anthropological standpoint, the Plaines Indians would for all intensive purposes fall into the above description. There was a creation myth held and that is typical of all humans on earth. Just as Genesis is the Christian account for how life came into existence on Earth. It would appear to be a common trait held in humans to question and seek to understand how everything came to be. Just as lightning, fire, pregnancy, everything would be questioned in a similar, probing manner.

But help me out here with the names of these tribes in central or South America or Mexico. Thanks.

Black Elk's Earth Prayer

Grandfather, Great Spirit, once more behold me on earth and lean to hear my feeble voice. You lived first, and you are older than all need, older than all prayer. All things belong to you -- the two-legged, the four-legged, the wings of the air, and all green things that live.

"You have set the powers of the four quarters of the earth to cross each other. You have made me cross the good road and road of difficulties, and where they cross, the place is holy. Day in, day out, forevermore, you are the life of things."

Tribo:

you may call it pananthiestic and i get what you mean to that extent - but as above - you may see that although they give credit to the great spirit, they hold him as also above and beyond all on earth, that theme you see in every tribe.
the great spirit lives before "all things" and is responsible for all things being made or existing "and" also in all things. that is the way the indian understrood god from all the prayers to him i know of.

the central amercan aztecs had a great white god called - "Quetzalcoatl" whom they mistook one of the spaniards for when they arrived, why? it was said in their traditions that he would come back just at the time they came. he was supposed to have golden hair which this spaniard did [dont remember his name anymore] and he was supposed to come from the sea. now that was not there only god, but it was their major one if my memory serves me. so look up Q and read.

Quetzalcoatl is an Aztec sky and creator god. The name is a combination of quetzal, a brightly colored Mesoamerican bird, and coatl, meaning serpent. The name was also taken on by various ancient leaders. Due to their cyclical view of time and the tendency of leaders to revise histories to support their rule, many events and attributes attributed to Quetzalcoatl are exceedingly difficult to separate from the political leaders that took this name on themselves. Quetzalcoatl is often referred to as The Feathered Serpent and was connected to the planet Venus. He was also the patron god of the Aztec priesthood, of learning and knowledge. Today Quetzalcoatl is arguably the best known Aztec deity, and is often thought to have been the principal Aztec god. However, Quetzalcoatl was one of several important gods in the Aztec pantheon along with the gods Tlaloc, Tezcatlipoca and Huitzilopochtli.

I found this on Wiki and I can’t find his association with a "white god". Even if he was dubbed this at some point in history and it was recorded, then we may not have the exact understanding of the context in which this description was being used. It may have had absolutely nothing to do with ethnic association with a Caucasian person. I would just need to see more evidence to support your theory.

screw whackypedia - google - "aztecs great white god"

Krimsa;

You are a good one to ask this. What was the elephant before it was the elephant? What was the transitional line. I heard somewhere that the manatee was involved - but I'm not familiar with how the lines are traced.

The quick response to your question is - Yes, he made man one way - but the longer answer is , No, it is not the same. In ancient times, man lived an average of about 900 years, and woman had children when they were 500 years old. The idea of manapause setting in at 50 or so was not evidenced in scripture. After the flood - man's days on earth began to decline. By the time the Law was introduced to Moses and the Isrealites, man's days were greatly reduced, and incest was no longer to be practiced. Previous to the Law - "incest" (a modern concept in terms of being taboo) was the norm. Both amoungst the Isrealites, and the world at large. That is the biblical concepts of these things you ponder about.

Are you asking me to explain the evolutionary premise to you yet again? I have attempted to do this several times on forum and it has resulted in resentment and arguments. You can look on any number of threads and see where I have tried my best.

Can I ask you something in order that we are fair since I have done my part?

Where are the bones of Adam and Eve? Where can I find that skeleton? Like this? They should be in MUCH better repair seeing as they are only about 6000 years old.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Neanderthalensis.jpg

Well - If you interpret the biblical account to refernce that A&E "ONLY" had 3 children - as opposed to mention 3 "amoung" their children, then any conclsions drawn from this has no basis in logic. However, that is an unbelievable amount of time to be abstinate - which would indicate that they chose to be in direct conflict to the mandate "increase and multipy and fill the earth". To concllude that there were only 3 children - would be to assume that A&E were in "constant" rebellion. The text would be amiss for not stating this - as that is in direct conflict with the central theme of what is discussed afterwood. If they were in constant rebellion in this matter of procreating - would they give thanks to God for Seth - or would they not be cursing him?

I never said I was a literalist.

I guess I couldnt resist anyway.

The development of the elephant ancestors started abt 60 million years ago, when Ungulata, (Latin: meaning "provided with hoofs"), evolving from the large primitive mammal herbivores named Condylartha, forked in five groups: (Eisenberg 1981)

Cete (whales and dolphins)
Meridungulata (extinct +)
Phenacodonta (Perissodactyla: horses, tapirs and rhinos)
Eparctocyon (Artiodactyla: cloven-hoofed or even-toed animals)
Paenungulata - (superorder, elephant ancestors!!)

you know I'm not a literalist either but when i read it as those who do take it literally i have to conclude that during the writing there is only 3 children mentioned, now this does not mean that they didn't have other children "after" C&A and Seth, but you cant say that they did because their is no mention of them directly. i don't see that as conflict that if they had children after Seth that they had not performed as god had told them to do. besides as i say my take on the others outside of eden is totally diff. than yours.

Now here again if we put A&E in your position of doing as god said to be fruitful and multiply - then how long was it before C&E were born? were they later children or the first? since we can again only go by whats written it would be foolish to presume that they would be leaving out kids before C&A and then adding them in after 2 or 3 hundred years have passed. It would make no sense to do so and it does not state this at all. in literal context i have to take it that when C&E are brought up at first, that they are to recognized as A&E first kids.

also we have lack of the text talking of other children helping A&E to do the work, till the ground, so in absence of such basic things as these i also don't ascribe to there being kids before C&E. be it they were 130 yrs old or 230 yrs old, god could have done just as you suggest with later kids and had them baring triplets or quadruplets etc.. to me it all hinges as i have stated in the past as to whether there are two creation stories i believe there was.

if fact the lack of any mention of "FAMILY LIFE" makes my case a better option than one that has all the children before C&E having wandered away on their own, as important as "family" life was - i cannot conclude that the absence of such would ever be a sign that other children were present before C&E.At lest then we see cain and abel doing work in the family unit. don't have to guess there - its written.

It is often difficult to extrapolate the circumstances of man today with what went on 6,000 years ago. For instance - how do we know that there was disease, murder, cataclismic occurances 6,000 years ago - other than the flood, and most people deny even that. Why would anyone think Dinasaurs saw man as potential meals?
Because Stephen Spielburg implied it in a movie?
Because they weren't pets in War of the Worlds.

Why does my cat go after birds and rodents for the kill - and not me? Should I start thinking a herd of cats in the neighborhood is going to reak havoc?

These idea's make for great hllywood scripts - but to assume this was they way it was?

Extrapolating modern idea's into ancient time. Not much more can be said but that.




They did farm. Why do some people today live in boxes in alleyways? What's up with the aboriginies of the outbacks?

It's obvious from the pyramids that there were some who could think complexly. It's just a matter of what pictures you are looking at. If - in a 1,000 years all that remained were photo's of the tribes in the Congo, they would think that man was uncililized in the 21st century.

And you are correct. People will formulate their opinions based on the information they process. For all that we as the human race have always though we know - it has constantly remained that it's a mere tear drop in the ocean of what we have yet to discover.

So since we are going in this direction anyway, did they have dinasaurs on the Ark?

Another thing Eljay, we know that certain species of dinosaurs were carnivorous and very large. I ‘m not sure if you are attempting to dispute that either. You are only challenging the time frame in which they existed. Reptiles that were that large and carnivorous would need to consume several hundred pounds of meat in order to survive. There is evidence to support that they ate one another. They were also scavengers meaning if they ran across the carcass of a fallen dinosaur well, that’s supper. Velosa raptors exemplified these traits and are in fact, where the term "raptor" comes from today as it relates to birds of prey.

No - I was just asking where the elephant came from.

The bones of A&E are somewhere under ground. Yet to be excavated as far as is known. Likely never to be as well, as there is no record as to where Eden even was (only a general idea) - let alone where the remains of anyone who's name has been recorded and who wasn't entombed. Where's te bones of Amelia Earhart? Should we assume she didn't exist?

Thanx. I knew you'd know.