If our species had appeared during the time of the dinosaurs,

>>2416112
how could it appear if it didn't survive to evolve in the first place. are you autistic

>>2416113
>Missing the point
>Accusing others of being autistic

Within about 2 weeks it would literally be like the Flintstones....we would using dinosaurs to make are lives better I.e construction workers mixing there concrete in a pelicans beak like stone age cement mixer....

>>2416119
>Enslave Dinos
>Have civil war over freeing dinos
>Dinos get civil rights and live on welfare
>Dinos get shot by police for stealing food and eating white women
>"That Dino do nuffin, he was a good boy, was gonna go to college"

>>2416122
Dino's form a 'rap' group then hang around Harlem...

>>2416112
no.
almost all of the metal ore deposits we mine for our technology didn't exist back then.

we would be stuck with stone-age technology in a world where there were far more gigantic predators hunting us.

>>2416131
Not to mention the angiosperms that form most of our diet hadn't evolved yet. We'd be eating pine needles and meat. Without plants to eat we'd be dead quick.

>>2416112
No because we're poorly adapted to that environment and would be easly outcompeted. Now if modern day educated humans got transported to the cretaceous period or something then maybe.

>>2416131
>almost all of the metal ore deposits we mine for our technology didn't exist back then.
how do you know?

>>2416122
>Meteor hits
>Dino lives matter movement begins

Do you think humans would survive the K-T mass extinction? How?

Hardmode, how would we survive it without technology.

We'd probably have been arboreal if so

>>2416133
>angiosperms

Huh?

>>2416122
Stealing bread is a misdemeanor at worse and not worthy of being shot, you NRA moron.

Also, in regarding rape, key word should always be ALLEGEDLY (innocent until proven guiltily') to which must be handled in a court of law. Not in some 'duel' in the street by 12:00pm in the afternoon, like in a cowboy movie.
Unless you are one of those witch trialing 'Rape-Culture' feminists, in which you better start shooting most husbands and boyfriends, because the vast majority of alleged rapes are done to women by men close and intimate with them.

File: 127634.jpg (133KB, 900x619px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 900x619px

>>2416112
>Excluding the fact that humans and non-avian dinosaurs could never naturally exist together, as humans and the dominant mammals of today came to be as a direct result of non-avian dinosaur extinction.
Humans would have a hard time living with many of them pre-cities. Villages would almost always be watched by predatory dinosaurs, or herbivores trying to steal crops.


But primarily with bustling cities with armed guards with long spears and perhaps most of all fire, humans could probably keep most of them at bay. Wild animals tend to naturally avoid cities, as they feel very alien and uncanny.


But if you are a guy who live in a farm of a 'country side' area known to still have wildlife around, the risk is obviously going to be a lot higher of being attacked by a dinosaur.

File: 976f8e122a299711e46e92dce8f600e6.jpg (82KB, 720x603px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 720x603px

>>2416330
>If HUMANS had appeared during the reign of dinosaurs.
There is a major component to human evolution you are missing that was a game changer for early man. Man's close connection with DOGS.


Dogs helped to hunt, protect, guard, alert, find, and locate. Their high empathy with ability to understand and recognize human language and emotions made them especially ideal. They also tend to be very loyal, compared to most other animals.
Without them, even farming would be impossible for ancient men.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDmzzREXI_g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCLQ_8I1paY

Dogs were a 1 in a trillion chance that benefited humanity ever since.
Most dinosaurs were simply too dumb and likely not attuned to human emotions to be of the same use.
Thus it is even less likely humans could develop marketing and cities.

File: 020__utahraptor_ostrommaysorum_by_green_mamba-d4s2rtf.png (729KB, 900x566px) Image search: [Google]

729KB, 900x566px

>>2416379
What about utahraptor? They were pack hunters that were highly intelligent that pretty much filled the same niche that wolves and dogs do in many places on earth today. I'd bet there'd be a good chance they could be domesticated. They are believed to have far more acute vision and similar sence of smell to modern dogs too.

>>2416390
Very birdlike brain. Most falconers say birds of prey are a (literal) pain to deal with.

>>2416399
That is true, a lot of them are very simple. Humans would have to find and manage to domesticate that era's equivalent to pigeons, corvids, striated caracaras, and vultures in order to have a chance, due to the intelligence of those birds.

File: Utahraptor_scale.png (126KB, 1920x875px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 1920x875px

>>2416390
>Largely for the same reason why we were never able to domesticate lions
It's a powerful large predator that would if anything, hunt us and get ride of us for less competition, rather than live with or aside us.
Also, there is a major gap in intelligence between raptors, avian dinosaurs, and higher intelligent birds like hawks and especially parrots and crows.
Velociraptor for example was actually less intelligent than a modern domesticated chicken. But was obviously a lot more aggressive and dangerous
Troodon was the smartest non avian dinosaur known thus far, but was about as smart or a bit smarter than a chicken
Chickens are known to be some of the least intelligent of the birds.

Dogs are smarter than average birds, but arguably less intelligent than pigeons, crows, and parrots. However, the smartest birds are very hard to train. They simply do not care about things that do not interests them, whiles dogs are more connected to humans and more likely to try to learn and make their owners happy.
Meaning even if utahraptor was as smart as a hawk (which it was nowhere near), it would likely lose itself and shred you to bits than to struggle to learn what it does not to know or do.

>>2416399
>>2416449
This. Birds don't care unless it is beneficial only for them. BoP won't even fly if they're well fed.

To keep them in line it would probably border on starving them into relative submission.

>>2416112
Would we even survive the oxygen or CO2 concentrations of that time? Assuming that's the case ...
I think we'd fare pretty well until the extinction event, assuming the people would be smart enough to build enclosures. Set up wooden walls with spikes pointed outwards to deter bigger predators or random pissed off herbivores.

Dinosaurs were big and strong, but one of the dumbest motherfuckers this planet has ever had to offer.

>>2416114
No, the one missing the point is yours. If the OP had been "If our species was transported to the time of the dinosaurs back when they were cavemen, would we have survived?", then it would be fine. But if a species "appears", it's because it evolved from that environment.

>>2416263
radiometric dating and a degree in geology.
>>2416305
angiosperms evolved at the end of the Mesozoic. The ones we eat didn't evolve until much later.

>>2416505
>Would we even survive the oxygen or CO2 concentrations of that time?
yes, within a few thousand years we'd have evolved to cope with the reduced O2. Just like people that live at high altitudes did. A lot of people would die from it, but not everyone.

>>2416536
O2 concentration was higher then, not lower.

File: o2 graph.gif (35KB, 540x810px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 540x810px

>>2416541
no.

there was more oxygen in the atmosphere, but it was in the form of carbon dioxide (that "dioxide" means two oxygens).

But we do live in the time of dinosaurs. They're just less dangerous.

>>2416544
>dinosaur people have data going back hundreds of millions of years

Lol.

File: 1312165657450.jpg (141KB, 480x600px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 480x600px

>>2416553
>evolution didn't happen because nobody was there to observe it
>we can't know nuffin

File: teach.png (6KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 300x300px

>>2416553

No, not a chance. Mammal biology was still in its infant state back then, if humans had come to be then they'd essentially be retarded x20 while completely lacking the fundamental biological functions to thrive.

>>2416305
Flowering plants (angiosperms) didn't appear til near the end of the Cretaceous.

File: ceratosaurus.png (1MB, 2800x1172px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2800x1172px

>>2416112
>>2416113
>>2416119
>>2416131


How could the complex/large mammals evolve if the dinosaurs were keeping them down? Didn't the dinosaurs going extinct lead to the development of our modern mammals?

>>2416131
This. Idk what OP means by 'appear in their time' but it's kind of an oxymoron considering the fact that we only showed up as a result of them not filling every large biological niche and using brute size and strength to conquer the world. We would not last long enough to develop technology because we wouldnt be small enough to evade medium size predators or large enough to secure good meals for ourselves.
I like the hypothetical though, OP

File: WE WUZ.png (26KB, 746x600px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 746x600px

>>2416399
>>2416483
>>2416449
It's not just a matter of intelligence, Hyenas are very intelligent and the only way they are 'tamed' is using heavy sedatives. Anyway, the anons are right, birds (especially the predatory ones) have self-serving attitudes and cannot be persuaded out of this despite their intellect, whatever that may be

File: satoru iwata being informed of xbone sales.gif (1MB, 290x260px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 290x260px

>>2416122
>eating white women

File: wihetey.jpg (115KB, 844x755px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 844x755px

>>2416694
kek

>>2416535
>radiometric dating and a degree in geology.
Not the guy you're replying to, but I'd genuinely like to learn more.

>>2416697
Here's a quick rundown on the most common method of dating rocks:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium%E2%80%93lead_dating

once we know how old the rocks we're mining metals from we can be certain that those metals were deposited either when the rocks formed- or more often- AFTER the rocks formed.

the reason for this is when rocks form they often contain metals, but the metals are so spread out they aren't worth mining. Various forces, but most notably water, will leach those spread out metals from the rocks and deposit them in zones that contain concentrations of metals worth mining. Often these zones (ore bodies) are deposited well after the rocks that contain them formed. Usually over periods of millions of years. However we can date the ores as well using methods like lead-lead dating.

so anyways, we can know how old the metals we're mining are, and how old the rocks we're mining them from are. The upshot of this is most of the metals we mine were deposited in the Tertiary, what we now call the lower Paleogene. This is well after the time of dinosaurs.

It's still possible that there were metals deposits during the time of dinosaurs that just eroded away completely since then. But we know in most cases that this isn't true because the dinosaur bones we find were buried in the sediments produced by the erosion of mountains that existed back then. And those sediments weren't rich in industrial minerals. In cases where they ARE rich in minerals (uranium or pyrite or whatever) we find that those metals were deposited long after the dinosaurs were dead and buried or have an organic origin including presumably the iron in the body of the dinosaur itself.

>>2416755
I have a rock.
He's just a babby rock though, 10 years old.
I performed a microscope analysis of the carbon striations on the underbelly of the mineral, and late Cambrian specimen comparisons indicated the composition to be similar to a rock that just turned 10.
I am a smart man.

>people actually believe you can determine the age of a rock
>"But I thought she was 18, officer!"

Monkeys. Fuck off.

>>2416763
you're trying too hard.
nobody online takes creationists seriously anymore since Poe's Law. We just assume you're trolling and laugh along with you.
>haha you're right
>there's actual retards out there that believe this shit!

>>2416772
>creationist

>creates own "law" regarding internet culture
>follows it because he thinks it's the "law"
>pretends not to be a creationist
>places undoubted faith in a "law" that doesn't exist

Ok. I'm not a "6000 year old earth" guy, and instead of pulling shit from the bowels of christianity to harass the other with, perhaps you should prove """"carbon dating"""" to everyone.

Do the rocks have dates carved on them carefully by dinosaurs, like our relics will in thousands of years when they are found?
Where the FUCK is the proof of your wild claims? Did your university force a curriculum that you swallow and regurgitate?

I bet you believe in gravity too. Described as a "magical force" that acts on objects that weigh more than air. Lol faith.

>>2416788
>Do the rocks have dates carved on them carefully by dinosaurs, like our relics will in thousands of years when they are found?
seriously though, can you imagine?

if people survive thousands of years you can bet we won't be counting years from the birth of a jewish rabbi we murdered 2000 years ago. In fact that whole system will be long forgotten. If anyone learns of it they won't be able to figure out when Jeshua was born, so the dates will be meaningless. Just numbers that pertain to nothing.

Perhaps they'll be able to line up the 1940's based on the first appearance of nuclear radiation from an A-bomb or something. But even then the only way they could correlate that to their time would be through carbon dating.

So the only way for future people to confirm the birthdate of OUR LORD AND SAVIOUR will be using the devil's own C14.

>>2416795
Well, if we consider carbon dating to be real, where did we get the baseline for deterioration when no one alive is over 120 years old and carbon doesn't deteriorate in that amount of time.

Did they just pick up two rocks and say "well this one is from the Cambrian period and this other one is from the Jurassic period, so considering the deterioration, we now know how fast carbon deteriorates and can tell you how old rocks are."

How the fuck do you get to this deterioration rate if you don't know how old the first and second rocks are?

Why can't people think critically?

>>2416797
>where did we get the baseline for deterioration when no one alive is over 120 years old and carbon doesn't deteriorate in that amount of time.
the baseline actually comes from physics, the same physics that produced nuclear weapons.

we can check it against tree rings or lake sediment layers or ice layers in glaciers. Things that can be reliably counted back thousands of years. And we do. That's how we calibrate it. By comparing it to things that were around before Jesus.

>>2416803
Physics:
Drop ball. Ball falls.
Throw ball. Ball goes.
Outside force doesn't affect ball. Ball stays still.
Outside force affects ball. Ball doesn't stay still.

>count tree rings
>date rocks

I'm humiliated, how did I not see this all along.

>>2416807
carbon dating isn't used on rocks.

so you can keep doing your little dance if you like.

rocks are far too old to date with carbon.

>>2416810
>carbon dating isn't used on rocks

"This fossil is dated at about 350 million years old."

I can't stop loling at bunk agenda driven science. We all know you guys want to disprove god, but good luck.

>>2416817
we use different isotopes for different time spans.

radioactive carbon is only good for about 60k years back.

we mostly use uranium and lead to date older stuff like rocks. Because uranium and lead give us dates back before the crust of the Earth solidified.

>>2416818
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qUUSfTgSySs
0:30

So what if I told you that NASA lied about the firmament, and that they can't go into space at all.

That would prove god. That would prove a creation. A landmass with a giant dome above it. How the fuck did you "big bang" people get where you are, and why would NASA lie?

The same damn reason geologists and scientists lie about the age of the earth, to enforce evolution, hide the dome, disprove god and further their satanistic causes.

Disproving god is mission #1 and the greatest evidence of him is right above you, past the thick haze of barium and aluminum.

I don't need to explain to you that NASA lies. Everyone with a brain knows. It says exactly why in Genesis. You are a smart man, you can read the first 1000 words of the bible.

You're following bunk ass science and I don't care for a response, I just want you to know that you missed something somewhere along the line.

Earth is 6,000 years old? Nah. It doesn't even say that in the bible. It's assumed by radical christianity branches that are mentally ill. It's far older, but 7 billion TRACABLE years is FUCKING DEAD ASS RETARDED TO ASSUME DUDE COME ON.

>>2416821
>you can read the first 1000 words of the bible.
I was raised a Jehovah's Witness. A young earth creationist. I read the bible from alpha to omega 7 times before I was 18 years old. I have parts of it memorized.

your god is the biggest bitch of them all.

Humans did live at the time of dinosaurs.

One of the big lies of evolutionists is that dinosaurs only lived millions of years ago. But you can easily see that's false because ancient people carved them along with other animals, because dinosaurs were alive around them. In many texts they are referred to as dragons. Why would everyone from china to Europe to south America talk about giant lizards if they weren't real.

After the flood, most died out due to the different atmosphere, which also shortened the lifespan of humans. Nevermind the terraforming and genetic engineering going on today ("Global Warming") to attempt convert the planet back to its pre-flood state, and circumventing the confusion of languages through the internet. When you look at the result of man made climate change, and compare to pre-flood fossils where Antarctica is a tropical paridise, researching the nephilim and who they are, where they came from, and how they want to go about it makes it clear why they want to return to this proto-babel pre-flood state, perfecting head transplants so the elites can stay alive forever on earth avoiding hell they believe, etc. People are even being programmed by all these scientific fiction novels where the planet is always united under a one world government against an "Alien" threat and one theory is that the great delusion at the beginning of the tribulation will be that the return of YHVH is actually an invasion by aliens and look in revelation 19 where all the armies of the planet under a one world government will try to meet him with military force.

File: ancient65.jpg (24KB, 300x224px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 300x224px

>>2416938
I meant to attach this picture to my post above.

You can disprove evolution by watching Tucker Carlson for one week and seeing how stupid the liberals on there are. There's no way they survived any natural selection... Plus evolution is always the justification for atrocities like the holocaust, North Korea, abortion, ect.

Essentially, Atheism is the SICKEST religion on the planet at this point in time when all things are considered.

>>2416938
>>2416951

Thank you for being a witness for Christ

>>2416938
>all you need to do to live a few hundred years is to breathe better oxygen and eat better carbs
I've actually had people say this to me in real life.

>>2416939

That is not a dinosaur. It's hilarious how people to one single shred of 'evidence' to back up their ridiculous claim, despite all genetic, archeological, carbon dated and historical records saying that dinosaurs NEVER existed at the same time as man, and yet people actually believe that a single shitty carved rhinoceros is a dinosaur despite it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC3powddXWg

Scientifical illiterates can GTFO my website, thanks.

>>2417101

It is very obviously a stone carving of a dinosaur. It must take a huge amount of faith in your dogmas regarding evolutiinary timelines, to look at this carving and deny what it obviously is.

>>2416390
Reptiles don't have the same neurological make-up as Mammals, not entirely sure we could domesticate a raptor.

File: 1498464420247.jpg (132KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 600x600px

>>2417225
>reptiles

>>2417157
It does look like a dinosaur. But fossils still existed in prehistoric times and would have been found by prehistoric peoples. Just because there's a carving that looks like a dinosaur doesn't mean that dinosaurs existed at the same time. Besides, stegosaurus is known to have died out before the cretaceous, so they were gone even before the extinction event.

Similarly, there's modern influence on ancient objects. There's a gargoyle of Darth Vader on a cathedral in the US, added later when they had to replace a broken gargoyle. Doesn't mean that Star Wars existed at the time the cathedral was built hundreds of years ago. The dino could easily have been photomanipulated or carved out at a later date.

>>2417968
Occam's razor says that it is just a dinosaur, and that these conspiracy theories you use to prop up evolution have no merit.

File: yo mamma.jpg (555KB, 1024x680px) Image search: [Google]

555KB, 1024x680px

>>2417976
Occam's razor says this is a carving of your mother and you need to stop denying the existence of ancient stone giants.

>>2416821
>comments are disabled for this video

File: e3dc15d4eca9d2e17ad19057dc276464.jpg (366KB, 795x446px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 795x446px

>>2416112
>If our species had appeared during the time of the robots, do you think we would have survived?