PDA

View Full Version : ARCHIVE - An honest question....



muldoon
March 1st, 2002, 04:06 PM
Take a look at the following image...

click here to view image (http://www.theologyonline.com/photopost/index.php?photo=103)

It is a Roman mosaic created in the first century.

Modern man did not discover dinosaur fosils until the 1800's.

What would compel the 1st century artist to create such an image?

notto
March 1st, 2002, 04:38 PM
The same thing that would compel 3rd century artists to draw griffins.

http://www.strangescience.net/pics/griffin.jpg

Year: c. 310
In the seventh century B.C., ancient Greeks made contact with Saka-Scythian nomads who prospected for gold in the Gobi Desert. One of the legends that the Greeks gleaned from this contact was of the griffin, a lion-sized, four-legged, winged animal with a "cruel sharp beak" that ferociously guarded its hoard of gold. (A more cautious account suggested that griffins didn't guard gold but simply lived near it, and carefully protected their young from all intruders.) This Roman mosaic shows a griffin drawn to a trap whose unfortunate bait is a man. Where did this legend come from? Twentieth-century excavations in the Gobi have unearthed Protoceratops and Psittacosaurus skeletons, both beaked dinosaurs, from the same regions where the nomads prospected. It's quite possible that gold seekers found these fossils eroding out of the desert sands and, making astute observations about their skeletal structures, speculated on the appearance of the live animal.

http://www.strangescience.net/stdino2.htm

muldoon
March 1st, 2002, 04:45 PM
Thanks "notto".

Any thoughts? You, or anyone else?

juliod
March 1st, 2002, 04:48 PM
Isn't that mocaic simply a picture of Nubians hunting a lion?

DanZ

muldoon
March 1st, 2002, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by juliod
Isn't that mocaic simply a picture of Nubians hunting a lion?

DanZ Does that look like a lion to you?

The text on the mosaic is translated.... Crocodile-Leopard

P.S. The Romans new what real crocodiles looked like as seen in the same mosaic. As seen here (http://www.theologyonline.com/photopost/index.php?photo=104).

Special thanks to...Ooparts & Ancient Technology (http://msnhomepages.talkcity.com/SpiritSt/s8int/phile16a.html)

Knight
March 1st, 2002, 05:38 PM
I must admit I am fascinated with this topic.

KurtPh
March 1st, 2002, 07:33 PM
From what I understand, most fantastic creatures in Old World mythology are based on fossils of some sort, some of which were still basically intact due to the way they were preserved. I know that some apothacaries in Beijing (then Peking) sold Homo erectus remains, in addition to rhino and other large mammals, as dragon bones which were cruched and put drunk as some sort of medicine. Also, when some creatures were described which do exist, such as Giant Pandas, gorrilas, and other such creatures, their proportions were often exagerated and artistic renditions created by those who had never seen the creature he was depicting often looked nothin like the way it really appears.

juliod
March 1st, 2002, 07:40 PM
The problem with this topic is that it is even more dubious than modern cryptozoology. We can't be sure of what the original artist may have had in mind. They may have simply did a bad job of a natural animal that they weren't very familiar with.

DanZ

Knight
March 1st, 2002, 11:49 PM
Originally posted by juliod
The problem with this topic is that it is even more dubious than modern cryptozoology. We can't be sure of what the original artist may have had in mind. They may have simply did a bad job of a natural animal that they weren't very familiar with.

DanZ OK, fair enough, but you must admit that many of these ancient drawings and sculptures have the uncanny resemblance to dinosaurs. Wouldn't you at least agree with that statement?

Knight
March 1st, 2002, 11:54 PM
The image below is from Peru and dated around 1500.

MrReality
March 2nd, 2002, 09:27 AM
I don't know if the above picture was some sort of a joke or meant to be taken seriously but this is quite obviously not 16th century Peruvian art. The detail in drawing the toe nails of the dinosaur is the first obvious hint and the cartoonish belly and the lines extending up past the belly for the legs demonstrate this to be much more contemporary. It looks more like the artist was copying something from the flintstones than from real life.

I'd be interested in knowing where this piece came from.

bob b
March 2nd, 2002, 09:47 AM
Kurt,

>>From what I understand, most fantastic creatures in Old World mythology are based on fossils of some sort<<

Sounds like someone's fantasy to me. ;)

Is there any evidence to support such a theory?

Knight
March 2nd, 2002, 11:35 AM
Check out this art from a Mesopotamiam Cylinder Seal from approximately 3300 B.C.

MrReality
March 2nd, 2002, 02:46 PM
The image on the top left looks disctinctly like a fire hydrant turned over sideways with a dog's head coming out of it. I suppose this is proof that dogs urinated on fire hydrants in 3000 BCE.

KurtPh
March 2nd, 2002, 05:49 PM
Originally posted by bob b
Kurt,

>>From what I understand, most fantastic creatures in Old World mythology are based on fossils of some sort<<

Sounds like someone's fantasy to me. ;)

Is there any evidence to support such a theory?

Did you read the rest of my response?

KurtPh
March 2nd, 2002, 05:56 PM
Knight

The first picture you posted appears to me to be fraudulent. Still, I'm curious to know where you got it, as I'd be interested in tracing its origins down.

The second image looks clearly like a Mesopotamian cylinder seal, but I did notice one little detail...

The creatures depicted had hooves and to my knowledge dinosaurs did not have hooves.

I'm inclined to think that the two creatures on the cylinder seal were giraffs. Lions, for example, used to be found all over Asia Minor up until the time the population was wiped out by the Romans who needed to continually fill the coloseums with wild and dangerous animals (there is still a remenent population in India, but it likely won't last another 25 years). Other large animals were also found there, such as rhinos. Now, I'm not certain if giraff's range extended into Asia Minor, but the Mesopotamians would still have known of their existence through their trade with the Egyptians.

Knight
March 2nd, 2002, 06:25 PM
Kurt you write…
The first picture you posted appears to me to be fraudulent. Still, I'm curious to know where you got it, as I'd be interested in tracing its origins down. It could be a hoax, I suppose.

It is from the ICA Stones collection. Have you ever heard of that collection? I have read some about these stones found by a Dr. Cabrera. Some of the story sounds pretty fishy. Although, I will say if it is a hoax, it took some incredible work as I believe there were 16,000 stones found many with images of dinosaur looking creatures.

You continue…
I'm inclined to think that the two creatures on the cylinder seal were giraffs.I really do not know what the images are on the cylinder but they sure do NOT look like giraffes to me! I have never seen a giraffe with a tail that long, with a fat body and with short muscular legs.

Kurt, what do you make of the many ancient images of dragons?

And what did you think of the Roman mosaic mentioned earlier? (in the first post) Juliod said it looked like a Lion, do you think it looks like a Lion?

KurtPh
March 2nd, 2002, 06:40 PM
Really quickly, regarding the ICA Stones, here's a link that I found which discusses 'em. No, I hadn't heard of them before.

http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/go/btcarrol/skeptic/icastones.html

As for the possibility of those creatures being giraffs, I would have to say that it is a possibility. Take a look at modern art. Does it always faithfully reproduce images of its model?

When it comes to dragons, I think you'll find that many cultures dipict their dragons in very different ways. Still, I think that some at least are the result of fossils. I gave an earlier example of a case when ancient fossils were slod in China as dragon bones.

Finally, no, I don't think it looks like a lion. Muldoon said the caption was that of a Crocodile-Leopard. Perhaps this image might have been influenced by Egyptian art, which combined different creatures, including humans. Many of the gods had human bodies and animal heads. Come to think of it, I think that one of the myths found in 'The Book of the Dead" says that the souls of the unworthy were devoured by an animal such as the one provided by Muldoon. Might be the same creature.

Knight
March 2nd, 2002, 06:53 PM
Kurt this is one of those frustrating conversations.

What would be the harm in admitting that the images on the cylinder look remarkably like dinosaurs?

Its not like the admission would prove young earth creationism or anything.

Several animals thought to have been extinct have been found very much alive. Isn’t it possible that certain creatures that are now extinct were still alive in the recent past?

It wasn’t that long ago I was an atheist myself debating Christians but I cannot imagine being so far gone into my position that I couldn’t have said "wow, that is weird, it does look an awful lot like some sort of dinosaur".

MrReality
March 3rd, 2002, 12:36 PM
Exactly what kind of dinosaur do you think it looks like?

Mr. Ben
March 3rd, 2002, 03:11 PM
The image below is from Peru and dated around 1500.

Knight has attached this image:

Actually those rocks date to around the late 1970's, early 1980's, and they're obviously made in the traditional way (with carbide hacksaw blades).

These stones come up pretty frequently on creationists sites, and the creationists are often suprised that they are complete frauds.

http://skepdic.com/icastones.html

KurtPh
March 3rd, 2002, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by Knight
Kurt this is one of those frustrating conversations.

What would be the harm in admitting that the images on the cylinder look remarkably like dinosaurs?[/B]

I'm being quite honest with you. I don't see it as looking like a dinosaur at all. Perhaps we're both have different criteria in our evaluation. When I look at the picture of those creatures, I see characteristics which are mammal rather than reptile.


Its not like the admission would prove young earth creationism or anything.

You're right, it wouldn't. That's not the reason why I say that those creatures look like giraffs.



Several animals thought to have been extinct have been found very much alive. Isn’t it possible that certain creatures that are now extinct were still alive in the recent past?


Right on both counts. There have been a number of animals, fish, reptiles, etc which have been found which were unknown to us before. There have been some creatures found which we believed to have died off millions of years ago. I'm willing to look at evidence which proports to show the existence of dinosaurs, but extrordinary claims do require extrodinary evidence, and thus far that's been lacking. Many of the pictures are so fuzzy you can't make hide nor tail of them, and some are clear forgeries (as admitted by many of the forgers themselves). Ancient art, while providing interesting food for thought, is not evidence that such huge creatures walked with man. Personally, I would like very much if dinosaurs were alive and if credible evidence is presented, I'll support it 100%. Still, there's nothing wrong with being a skeptic when.


[B]
It wasn’t that long ago I was an atheist myself debating Christians but I cannot imagine being so far gone into my position that I couldn’t have said "wow, that is weird, it does look an awful lot like some sort of dinosaur".

But this really has nothing to do with atheism or theism. To my eye, they really don't look like dinosaurs. Honestly. In fact, when I looked at them, I wondered how you could make such a leap. I saw hooves and body types which are inconsistent with dinosaur images. That's what I looked at.

Knight
March 3rd, 2002, 07:37 PM
OK, Kurt what ever you say.

I think you are being a tad bit dishonest.

I showed the picture to several people today, just to see what they would say ( just to make sure I am not going crazy). And every single one of them said it looked like some sort of dinosaur except one that said it looked like a dragon. Oh well, I realize that is simply anecdotal evidence but I am now beginning to wonder about the giraffes you have seen in your lifetime.

It doesn't look EXACTLY like a dinosaur but it sure looks allot more like a dinosaur than a giraffe!

Mr. Ben
March 3rd, 2002, 07:45 PM
I would be suprised that out of the many hundreds of thousands of images that humans have made over the millenia, that none of them in any way resembled anything like a dinosaur.

The fact that we finally have at least one that could pass as a dinosaur is pretty much within what would be expected of mere chance.

The Ica stones, on the other hand, show men with triceratops, men with brachiosaurs, and men with stegosaurs. Those are pretty particular dinosaurs, and this is one of the reasons why fraud was suspected, and fraud was eventually uncovered.

Knight
March 3rd, 2002, 07:49 PM
Mr. Ben, I became suspicious of the stones as well when I began to read about them myself.

Have you ever heard of the The Acambaro, Mexico, Figurines?

They might be the same type of deal I haven’t been able to discern yet.

Mr. Ben
March 3rd, 2002, 07:49 PM
P.S. The Romans new what real crocodiles looked like as seen in the same mosaic. As seen here.

The image makes just as bad a crocodile as it does a dinosaur. No dinosaurs or crocodiles have legs like that, OR a head like that.

I think you're reading too much into a particularly bad rendition by a poor artist of a crocodile.

KurtPh
March 3rd, 2002, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by Knight
OK, Kurt what ever you say.

I think you are being a tad bit dishonest.[/B]

Well now, I've told you what I honestly think. If you decide not to believe me, then that's your issue. As a general rule, however, I really don't care being called a liar. I know this isn't necessarily what you intended, but I have to say that it was not appreciated.



I showed the picture to several people today, just to see what they would say ( just to make sure I am not going crazy). And every single one of them said it looked like some sort of dinosaur except one that said it looked like a dragon. Oh well, I realize that is simply anecdotal evidence but I am now beginning to wonder about the giraffes you have seen in your lifetime.

I likely have seen more living giraffes then you've seen living dinosaurs.



It doesn't look EXACTLY like a dinosaur but it sure looks allot more like a dinosaur than a giraffe!

And I never said that the creatures looked EXACTLY like giraffes. I said, based on what I know of the culture and their trade relations, a giraffe would be a likely candidate.

I looked again, and I just don't see it. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to sit here and lie.

Knight
March 3rd, 2002, 07:50 PM
Ben do you think the figures on the cylinder look like giraffes?

Knight
March 3rd, 2002, 07:52 PM
Kurt says…
I likely have seen more living giraffes then you've seen living dinosaurs.Have you ever seen a giraffe that looks like the animals on the cylandar?

Mr. Ben
March 3rd, 2002, 07:52 PM
I was really stumped by the stones the first time I saw them. The one I saw showed a little guy riding what was obviously a triceratops. I thought that that particular stone could be simply a coincidence, but then the guys showed me several more. That's when I began to suspect foul play. The other stones were obviously dinosaurs, and some of them had outdated poses for them from old dinosaur books.

That's when I found the origin of the Ica stones, and the shenanigans the discoverer had been up to.

Knight
March 3rd, 2002, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Mr. Ben
I was really stumped by the stones the first time I saw them. The one I saw showed a little guy riding what was obviously a triceratops. I thought that that particular stone could be simply a coincidence, but then the guys showed me several more. That's when I began to suspect foul play. The other stones were obviously dinosaurs, and some of them had outdated poses for them from old dinosaur books.

That's when I found the origin of the Ica stones, and the shenanigans the discoverer had been up to. OK, I think I agree with ya on the ICA stones....

What about the Mesopotamiam Cylinder Seal from approximately 3300 B.C. This is the one Kurt says looks like a Giraffe.

Mr. Ben
March 3rd, 2002, 08:00 PM
They look sort of like dragons and griffins to me. They could be dinosaurs, or they could be dragons, or they could be hydras or something else.

I've never seen a dinosaur's tail curl up like a monkey's before.

This is typical of the kind of imagery that really doesn't show much of anythign other than a coincidental and partial resemblance to something we know about today. Nothing more than what we should find by random chance.

It certainly kind of looks like a dinosaur except for the tail and the head.. but I suppose there are many other vases that kind of look like dinosaurs, and kind of look like whatever. Erik Von Daniken found lots of pictures he thought looked like space-men and space-craft, and airplanes. It is easy to see what we want to see in some types of abstract pictures.

Knight
March 3rd, 2002, 08:05 PM
Ben says….
They look sort of like dragons and griffins to me. They could be dinosaurs, or they could be dragons, or they could be hydras or something else.

I've never seen a dinosaur's tail curl up like a monkey's before.Oh, no doubt that they are stylized that’s for sure! After all I doubt dinosaurs curled around each other like that ;)

So what do you make of images of dragons? Many of them look very much like a dinosaur of some type. What do you think (in your opinion) was the origin of these types of images?

Knight
March 3rd, 2002, 08:10 PM
And Ben, maybe you missed my question because these posts are flying fast and furious but have you ever heard of the The Dinosaur Figurines Of Acambaro, Mexico? There are about 33,000 of them. Maybe they are fakes like the ICA stones I haven’t had time to look into it very well yet.

I attached an image of some Acambaro, Mexico figurines.

MrReality
March 3rd, 2002, 09:39 PM
Perhaps Knight is familiar with other types of dinosaurs than the rest of us.

Mr. Ben
March 3rd, 2002, 10:52 PM
Many of them look very much like a dinosaur of some type. What do you think (in your opinion) was the origin of these types of images?

Who knows. Possibly imagination, possibly stylized renderings of something else, possibly nothing in particular.. whim. I'd be suprised if after examining thousands upon thousands of these ancient images, we wouldn't find any images that would partially resemble something like a dinosaur. If you look through the same set of pictues, you'll probably find some that look like airplanes, computers, figher jets, etc. from a certain angle or perspective.

There's nothing unusual about this. There is only so many ways of drawing quadrapedal animals, and a few of them, especially the abstract or the poorly rendered ones, are going to inevitably look like dinosaurs occasionally.

I can tell you with great certainty that there has never been any dinosaur fossils found that do not show great antiquity, and are not buried in the Cretaceous, Jurassic, or Triassic layers in the geologic strata. That means that dinosaurs have never been found anywhere near modern animal life, only with other dinosaurs and fossils of small primitive mammals that lived during that period.

Knight
March 4th, 2002, 01:43 PM
Ben, Thanks!

Although we disagree, I appreciate your rational answers and responses.

I will try to give you some other items to look at in the near future as my time permits!

Knight
March 4th, 2002, 01:53 PM
MrReality, you are not being very rational.

The images I have displayed may not look EXACTLY like dinosaurs, I have admitted that already.

But this topic is interesting for the following reasons:

Modern man did not discover dinosaur fossils until the 1800's yet there are these images created well before that time that have some striking similarities to how WE modern humans visualize dinosaurs.

This presents an interesting dilemma because according to many scientists, men and dinosaurs existed in DRASTICALLY different time frames separated by millions of years. The time frame difference should not allow even the "passing down" of legends of dinosaurs or giant reptiles. So why would we find these images that look so very similar to what we call dinosaurs?

Furthermore, keep in mind when stating "oh those look nothing like dinosaurs" that even the images that we see today of dinosaurs are only estimations of what dinosaurs looked like since no actual pictures exist. In other words, you cannot boldly claim that we know EXACTLY what dinosaurs looked like because we don't.

MrReality
March 4th, 2002, 03:01 PM
But they don't look anything like dinosaurs. I asked you before what species of dinosaur you think these creatures look like but you failed to respond. So what kind of dinosaur do you think they look like? Please be rational when you respond.

juliod
March 4th, 2002, 03:45 PM
Come on , Knight. The ball is in your court. Those images really do not look anything like dinosaurs. Or to be fair, they look about as much like dinosaurs as any child's drawing of Barney.

So what dinosaur do you think they look like?

DanZ

The Barbarian
March 4th, 2002, 06:46 PM
The Peruvian "artifact" is a modern work, created for tourists. They can even make them to order for you, if you ask.

Boy are some people gullible.

theophilus
March 4th, 2002, 07:33 PM
Maybe the images are Neandertal surrealism?

Sort of like a Pleistocene Picasso?

:D

Those guys may have had some pretty heady fermentable goo, don't ya think?

...butting out...

your humble servant.

KurtPh
March 4th, 2002, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by Knight
Kurt says…Have you ever seen a giraffe that looks like the animals on the cylandar?

Nope, that's why I suggested giraffes as a possiblity, not a certainty. Have you seen dinosaurs that look like the animals on the cylinders? If so, what kind?

MrReality
March 4th, 2002, 09:46 PM
No rational responses from Knight yet? Hmm, maybe one a dinosaur ate him.

Knight
March 5th, 2002, 11:46 AM
Well, I think the images on the cylinder look very much like some type of dinosaur like a Brontosaurus or something.

Knight
March 5th, 2002, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by The Barbarian
The Peruvian "artifact" is a modern work, created for tourists. They can even make them to order for you, if you ask.

Boy are some people gullible. How about The Dinosaur Figurines Of Acambaro, Mexico?

And do you think the images on the cylander look more like giraffes or more like a Brontosaur?

MrReality
March 5th, 2002, 09:44 PM
Are you sure you know what a bronotsaur looks like?

Knight
March 5th, 2002, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by MrReality
Are you sure you know what a bronotsaur looks like? No more sure than anyone else.

Lion
March 6th, 2002, 05:01 PM
Mr.Unreality needs a reality check.

Lion
March 6th, 2002, 05:03 PM
Especially since they recently found they have had the wrong head of the supposed brontosaurs all this time.

KurtPh
March 6th, 2002, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by Lion
Especially since they recently found they have had the wrong head of the supposed brontosaurs all this time.

Perhaps you should "bone" up on your news just a bit. This is an OLD, though true, story. However, it was something that occured several years ago (I want to say at the turn of the 20th century) and was rectified some years later.

Lion
March 7th, 2002, 03:12 AM
Historically speaking that’s pretty recent, wouldn’t you say?

Kurt, don’t major in the minors.

Knight
March 7th, 2002, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Lion
Historically speaking that’s pretty recent, wouldn’t you say?

Kurt, don’t major in the minors. LOL....

Lion, Kurt has a PhD in the minors! :D

Knight
March 7th, 2002, 11:20 AM
So Lion what do you make of those that say the animals on the cylinder look more like giraffes than dinosaurs?

Lion
March 7th, 2002, 02:51 PM
Knight-I would say that is quite obvious that they look more like dinosaurs than any other animal I have seen. Not far off from the description of Behemoth found in Job.


Job 40:15-24 “Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox. See now, his strength is in his hips, And his power is in his stomach muscles. He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit. His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron. He is the first of the ways of God; Only He who made him can bring near His sword. Surely the mountains yield food for him, And all the beasts of the field play there. He lies under the lotus trees, In a covert of reeds and marsh. The lotus trees cover him with their shade; The willows by the brook surround him. Indeed the river may rage, Yet he is not disturbed; He is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth, Though he takes it in his eyes, Or one pierces his nose with a snare.

Of course, I guess it could be a giraffe.

Or maybe a jet, if you look at it from the right perspective… mmmm… say, upside down, slightly canted, inverted to the left and turned inside out… and with the Air Force Logo behind it… mmmm… yes I think… I think I can almost see it.

MrReality
March 7th, 2002, 10:13 PM
Lion seems not to be aware of the fact that the first dinosaur was discovered less than 200 hundred years ago. Then again he also seems to think a hoofed mamilian looking creature is a dinosaur. Lion and Knight, other than the long neck what part of these creatures look like a brontosaurus to you?

KurtPh
March 7th, 2002, 10:25 PM
Originally posted by Lion
Historically speaking that’s pretty recent, wouldn’t you say?

Kurt, don’t major in the minors.

In the cosmic scheme of things, I suppose it is. ;)

I wouldn't say this is necessarily a minor point, though. The field of paleontology is fairly young as well, but this did occur in the earlier years of this field. To condemn paleontologists who did not yet have a firm grasp of the subject which they were studying and making an error (which was corrected) seems rather petty.

KurtPh
March 7th, 2002, 10:26 PM
Originally posted by Knight
LOL....

Lion, Kurt has a PhD in the minors! :D

Speaking of petty...:rolleyes:

Lion
March 8th, 2002, 07:54 AM
Hey Kurt…I did a little research and you were wrong about the head… but no big deal.


Click here to go to page (http://www3.sympatico.ca/dinoguy/ksaur.html)

Diplodocids
This group is one of the most famous of the Sauropods, usually under the incorrect name of Brontosaurs. "Brontosaurus" is a name that was given to a skeleton that turned out to be just another specimen of Apatosaurus. By the time it was realized the two were the same (back in 1903), the name "Brontosaurus" had become popular enough that it has stuck until today. Another separate problem that Apatosaurus suffered was haveing the wrong head put on its body. When found without a skull, one was given to it (even though the incorrect skull was found over 7 km's away!). The correct skull was found in the 1920's, but it sat on a shelf until the 1970's when this mistake was realized. Poor Apatosaurus!

As for it being wrong to condemn poor new-to-the-sciences-paleontologist… oh boo hoo!

What would they know; they probably think the Brontosaurus is a giraffe.

No, that's not fair of me... even they wouldn't be that stupid.

Knight
March 8th, 2002, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by MrReality
Lion seems not to be aware of the fact that the first dinosaur was discovered less than 200 hundred years ago. Then again he also seems to think a hoofed mamilian looking creature is a dinosaur. Lion and Knight, other than the long neck what part of these creatures look like a brontosaurus to you? Hmmmm what part of it looks like Brontosaur?

- The neck
- The big thick body
- The size of the legs
- The muscle and "stalkyness" of the legs
- The tail

Other than that nothing :D

Actually the ONLY thing that doesn't look like a brontosaur is the head.

What part of it looks like a giraffe? The neck?

MrReality
March 8th, 2002, 04:14 PM
So you think that a brontosaurus has hooves, a long curly tail, a neck that extends upward and twists around and a short stocky body. Well I guess that explains why you think it looks like a dinosaur. I would say this topic is officially dead. The only people who think it looks like a dinosaur seem to have no comprehension of dinosaur anatomy.

Lion
March 8th, 2002, 05:50 PM
Mr.Unreality needs a reality check, again! Does it still look like a jet?

MrReality
March 8th, 2002, 05:56 PM
Have you considerd trying an intelligent defense of your position?

Lion
March 8th, 2002, 07:06 PM
Oh…you mean like…”It looks like a giraffe?”

Lion
March 8th, 2002, 07:13 PM
Juliod said:
Come on , Knight. The ball is in your court. Those images really do not look anything like dinosaurs. Or to be fair, they look about as much like dinosaurs as any child's drawing of Barney.

Oh and um… just what is Barney supposed to be? Sort of an artistic dinosaur right?

MrReality
March 8th, 2002, 07:32 PM
Another creationist shows his true colors. Why are they all so stupid and obnoxious?

BTW, could you point out where I said it looks like a giraffe or a jet?

KurtPh
March 8th, 2002, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Lion
Hey Kurt…I did a little research and you were wrong about the head… but no big deal.


Click here to go to page (http://www3.sympatico.ca/dinoguy/ksaur.html)


It looks like I was wrong, although at least they did find the right head eventually. Nice that real scientists can admit their mistakes, eh?



As for it being wrong to condemn poor new-to-the-sciences-paleontologist… oh boo hoo!


Full points for intelligent rebutal.




What would they know; they probably think the Brontosaurus is a giraffe.

No, that's not fair of me... even they wouldn't be that stupid.

Perhaps the only thing more stupid would be to claim that creatures with obviously mammalian features are dinosaurs.

KurtPh
March 8th, 2002, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by MrReality
Another creationist shows his true colors. Why are they all so stupid and obnoxious?

BTW, could you point out where I said it looks like a giraffe or a jet?

Oh, that was me. The giraffe part, in any case. I looked at the animals depicted, saw the mammal-like qualities about them, and suggested that they might be giraffes. Makes more sense than a dinosaur.

MrReality
March 8th, 2002, 08:16 PM
Yes it does make more sense than calling it a dinosaur but it doesn't really look like a giraffe either. I know that you were the one who called it a giraffe. I find it amusing though that Lion and Knight can't recall who said what in a simple conversation yet they want us to think that they have the mental capacity to understand something as complex as science. You'd think that creationists would realize there's something wrong with their little theory when intelligent creationists are so rare, but then again I suppose if you are a creationists you don't really have the intellect to realize that.

KurtPh
March 8th, 2002, 08:57 PM
Oh, I willingly admit that it very well might not be a giraffe, but I think we both can agree that it has more mammalian features then it does reptilian.

To be fair, I'm sure Knight would remember that it was me who said it.

MrReality
March 8th, 2002, 09:21 PM
Wonder why he said this to me earlier then, "What part of it looks like a giraffe? The neck?"

I don't think we're dealing with rocket scientists here.

bob b
March 8th, 2002, 09:27 PM
Speak for yourself. ;)

Lion
March 8th, 2002, 09:28 PM
Waaaaaaaaaa… you make me laugh. I didn’t say you (Mr. Unreality) called it a giraffe or a jet, just that you obviously can’t, or won’t admit that it looks more like a dinosaur than either a jet or a giraffe, which your companions have stated it looks like. What a joke.

You atheists are so afraid to admit anything that even hints at creationism that you make fools of yourselves in front of the whole world. This is just another example.


You'd think that creationists would realize there's something wrong with their little theory when intelligent creationists are so rare, but then again I suppose if you are a creationists you don't really have the intellect to realize that.

Great rebuttal. You have shown your true wit.

If you weren’t so afraid to admit the most obvious things, others might take you more seriously.

I bet if we showed that picture to a thousand school children, not one of them would say it looked like a jet or a giraffe. But you know what they would say?

MrReality
March 8th, 2002, 09:39 PM
So this fellow thinks that because it doesn't look like a giraffe or a jet that it must be a dinosaur. What brilliant logic. Wonder how long he's been trying to get is GED?

KurtPh
March 8th, 2002, 09:46 PM
Hey, keep talking Lion. The more you do so the more you prove creationists really have no place in the field of science.

Lion
March 8th, 2002, 10:50 PM
Kurt I expected a little better from you than silly insults… but if that’s all you have then go right ahead. From Mr. Unreality it is exactly what I expected since he never really has anything to say anyway.

And if you remember the original question, it wasn’t “is this a dinosaur?” It was “What does this picture look like.”

Both of you have shown your refusal to admit that this picture, that any ordinary person of at least modest intelligence would say resembles a dinosaur, does in fact look like an artistically rendered image of a dinosaur.

Would it hurt you so bad to just admit the truth?

MrReality
March 8th, 2002, 10:51 PM
Deputy Fife is still grasping at straws I see. Are there any honest creationists anywhere?

Lion
March 8th, 2002, 11:00 PM
You are soooo wise.

MrReality
March 8th, 2002, 11:03 PM
What is a biggererlion anyway?

Lion
March 8th, 2002, 11:10 PM
Time for you medication, Mr. Unreality.

MrReality
March 8th, 2002, 11:15 PM
Does that mean you have no idea what you labelled that file on your computer "biggererlion"? I thought perhaps it was some sort of dinosaur that coexisted with men. Sorry but I'm not up on all these pet theories you guys have. So is that a picture a lion or a bronotsaurus?

Lion
March 8th, 2002, 11:24 PM
Oh so you want to get back to the question instead of trading insults… very big of you.

Look it’s this simple, when I look at the picture on the cylinder I think it looks roughly like what we think an Apatosaurus would look like. At least an artistically rendered version of one.

The question, as asked by Knight, is; if it is a dinosaur what does this mean? Anything? Nothing? What?

MrReality
March 9th, 2002, 08:38 AM
Glad to see you've finally met your match and are actually interested in the topic. I'll ask again, why do you think this looks like a brontosaurus? Yes I know it has a long neck but what else makes you think that the artist was drawing a dinosaur, or perhaps is it just wishful thinking on your part?

Mr. Ben
March 9th, 2002, 02:42 PM
Well, I think the images on the cylinder look very much like some type of dinosaur like a Brontosaurus or something.

I think it "kinda" looks like a brontosaurus too. Inevitably some imagery somewhere is going to look like a brontosaurus regardless. Human artists have drawn decorative four footed creatures, even poorly rendered ones, on perhaps millions of vases. If we examine enough of them, we will eventually find "one" or even "two" that looks like what we want and need it to look like. I don't think I need to explain how wishful thinking enteres into this, or how special selection of a tiny tiny set of quasi-evidence that might seem like it supports an extraordinary notion if you look at it right doesn't quite equal a vast set of refuting evidence.

Rest assured that if Brontosauruses really were contemporary with human beings, we would have more than one or two poorly rendered abstract images that would record his presence. Not only that, but we would have non-fossilized bones in beds with contemporarly mammals, at least once. Unfortunately the distance separating modern mammals and the youngest dinosaurs are the Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene. That's a large number of fossil beds, each showing lots of new and different extinct mamallian species (100% fossilized), with no dinosaurs to be found at all. Only Holocene fossils are not fossilized, and we have plenty of them, but no dinosaurs at all in any of them.

If the dinosaurs were contemporary with modern flora or fauna, they were hiding extrememly well, which would be rather difficult for 40 meter long beasts.

Now, have we had enough of this wishful thinking nonsense yet?

KurtPh
March 9th, 2002, 04:36 PM
Originally posted by Lion
Kurt I expected a little better from you than silly insults… but if that’s all you have then go right ahead. From Mr. Unreality it is exactly what I expected since he never really has anything to say anyway.


I don't beileve I did insult you. You are starting to act like a petulent child. The "discussion" has degenerated mainly because I don't see what you or Knight want me to see.



And if you remember the original question, it wasn’t “is this a dinosaur?” It was “What does this picture look like.”


True. And I said what it might have been. Whether it is a giraffe or not is perhaps subject to debate, and I'm very willing to believe that it is not a giraffe at all, but perhaps a composite animal which includes the features of several animals. Sort of like the sphinx or chimera.



Both of you have shown your refusal to admit that this picture, that any ordinary person of at least modest intelligence would say resembles a dinosaur, does in fact look like an artistically rendered image of a dinosaur.


Why do you insist on pursuing this argument. If all long necked creatures looked like dinosaurs, then I would agree that these creatures look like a dinosaur. We know that's not the case. When you look at the picture, at least when I do, I see mammalian characteristics, but nothing that looks even remotely like a dinosaur.


Would it hurt you so bad to just admit the truth?

I have. Over, and over again. I truely, honestly, beileve that these creatures do not look like dinosaurs. At all. Not a bit.

Now, perhaps you could look at the creatures again and tell me, besides the fact that they have long necks, why I should change my opinion?

theophilus
March 10th, 2002, 12:13 AM
There is an artist's rendition of a brontosaurus in the Google image search (on the first page).

I tried to post it here but the html tags didn't work and I don't know how to insert an image into a document from my hard drive.

Sorry.

your humble servant.

Knight
March 12th, 2002, 10:37 PM
So, does anyone know anything about the Acambaro figurines? There are approximately 33,000 of them and they are dated (800 B.C. to 200 A.D.) found near Acambaro, Guanajuato, Mexico.

I have attached an image below, as you can see it looks just like a Giraffe ;)

MrReality
March 12th, 2002, 10:54 PM
Try this: http://www.ntskeptics.org/1999/1999october/october1999.htm

Hey Knight, maybe next you can bring up those mysterious Bible codes, or the wood from Noah's ark that was found a few years ago, or the pillar of salt near the dead sea that has been proven to be Lot's wife, or better yet how about that hole that was dug to hell in Siberia - Boy the evidence is just overwhleming isn't it?!!!!

Knight
March 12th, 2002, 11:05 PM
Mr. Unreality your link didn’t dispute the authenticity of these figures. It basically said the figures may indeed be real but maybe they are not dipictions of dinosaurs.

Maybe they are giraffes??? ;)

Your article stated..
If they are authentic, do they represent dinosaurs? Some of the ones exhibited are dead ringers for dinosaurs, but they were culled from a reported cache of over 30,000 items. Many of the figurines presented as dinosaurs required a bit of a stretch to make the resemblance. It’s possible we are just seeing some selective sampling. Given the amount of variation apparent in the collection there was bound to be a dinosaur in there somewhere.So …. Just by chance we have figures that look like dinosaurs do you agree that is the origin of these figures?

notto
March 12th, 2002, 11:16 PM
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro.htm#initial

Yep, real acurate depictions of dinosaurs alright, just look for yourself. (and based on the web address I'm assuming that these are the BEST examples out of the 33,000 they could find!)

I especially like the ones with 2 legs or the long lizard with wings. The tall skinny standings ones kind of crack me up as well.

Out of the 33,000, looks like you've got the one that looks closest to a dinosaur and it still doesn't quite get it right (pretty skinny - done from eye witnesses you say?) Does the anatomy of these match the real anatomy (and not a comic book rendition) of the dinosaurs we find? No.

Now of course in addition to the approx 10% of these that could possibly be imagined to be dinosaurs, there is the 90% that show unidentfiable monsters, demons, hominids, and gods.

I guess to you creationist types, we should just identify the things in this 90% as "yet unidentified kinds".

Should we start looking for Griffins, Cyclops, Unicorns and Hydras? This at best is at best a coincidence, at worst a hoax.

MrReality
March 12th, 2002, 11:24 PM
Knight, the ENTIRE page is there for anyone to read. It's really a trip watching you make these desperate attempts time and time again though.

Knight
March 12th, 2002, 11:31 PM
Notto, you can brush the topic off to "coincidence" if you like, that’s fine with me. I simply find this a very interesting topic. Are the figures a hoax? I am not sure, I am skeptical myself!

Keep in mind these figures are only one of hundreds of examples of creatures drawn, sculpted or described from ancient times that look very much like what we think dinosaurs looked like, isn’t that a bid odd?

MrReality
March 12th, 2002, 11:35 PM
One of hundreds? This is the third one you've posted. It's also the third that seems dubious Knight. Don't lie and say you are skeptical. You aren't remotely skeptical.

Knight
March 12th, 2002, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by MrReality
Knight, the ENTIRE page is there for anyone to read. It's really a trip watching you make these desperate attempts time and time again though. Mr. Unreality what would be the harm in making a rational, meaningful post?

Let me ask you this….

Do you think the figurines are actually old as dated yet look the way they do (like dinosaurs) by coincidence?

or….

The dating of the figurines was faulty?

notto
March 12th, 2002, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by Knight
Keep in mind these figures are only one of hundreds of examples of creatures drawn, sculpted or described from ancient times that look very much like what we think dinosaurs looked like, isn’t that a bid odd?

And there are thousands of examples of drawing, sculptures, or descriptions of COMPLETELY MADE UP ANIMALS AND GODS. Some of the examples look like what we might think aliens look like as well. Do you think that these show that aliens visited us during our history?

If you trust the depictions of dinosaurs during these times as "real", why don't you consider their pictures of gods as real as the descriptions in the bible?

WHY HAVEN'T WE FOUND ONE DINOSAUR BONE IN ANY HUMAN SETTLEMENT?

The examples you give show men killing dinosaurs, men riding dinosaurs, men LIVING WITH dinosaurs, but then they just took all those bones that are lying around and buried them where we would find them with no human remains and no signs of human contact? Why didn't they do the same with sheep bones, cow bones, deer bones, fish bones, and chicken bones?

You may be skeptical, but you are obviously not skeptical enough.

(I have a real jackalope and a real mermaid skeleton for sale - interested?)

Knight
March 12th, 2002, 11:47 PM
Mr. Unreality… I have read literally dozens of your posts and they are all the same. You post nothing but short meaningless comments with no real substance. One of TheologyOnLine’s commandments is…
Thou shall not be unnecessarily disruptiveAnd your posts are a perfect examples of being "unnecessarily disruptive". Please attempt to add value to the debate as opposed to wasting disk space as you are doing currently.

Knight
March 12th, 2002, 11:54 PM
Notto writes…
And there are thousands of examples of drawing, sculptures, or descriptions of COMPLETELY MADE UP ANIMALS AND GODS. Some of the examples look like what we might think aliens look like as well. Do you think that these show that aliens visited us during our history?That is a good point. However, that is why I like to take all of these evidences case by case and ponder their origins.

You continue…
If you trust the depictions of dinosaurs during these times as "real", why don't you consider their pictures of gods as real as the descriptions in the bible? Well, most depiction’s of gods are all based on things we know to exist with additions or modifications, likewise the unicorn, griffin etc. are based on already existing animals with slight variations. I find it odd that the ancients could create dinosaur looking images strictly by chance.

You continue…
WHY HAVEN'T WE FOUND ONE DINOSAUR BONE IN ANY HUMAN SETTLEMENT?We really haven’t found that many types of animal bones in any human settlement so I do not find that to be a very convincing argument.

notto
March 13th, 2002, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by Knight
most depiction’s of gods are all based on things we know to exist with additions or modifications

Care to back that up?


Originally posted by Knight
We really haven’t found that many types of animal bones in any human settlement so I do not find that to be a very convincing argument.

This is incorrect. This is actually a very active part of archeology and the animal bones that are found tell us a lot about how a people traveled, farmed, traded, and lived.

http://www-dateline.ucdavis.edu/072001/DL_dnarevise.html
"Kemp is eyeing the study of ancient animal bones found in human camps. The ideas is to track human migrations by looking at DNA from animals that travel with humans."

http://www.arctictravel.com/chapters/archeol2page.html
"These people wore skin clothing and made tools from bones, antlers, ivory, skins and rocks. They travelled mostly by foot, although they did have a few dogs and a small single-person boat similar to a qajaq (kayak). All animals except the massive bowhead whales were hunted."

http://www.sfu.ca/archaeology/museum/ask/wonder.htm
Clues can be artifacts like stone or bone tools, pottery, or elaborate ornaments. They can be features, like house mounds, hearths, storage pits and depressions, or burials.
Even the smallest stone flake, or fragment of animal bone can help tell the archaeologist more about how people lived in the past.

STILLL NO DINOSAUR BONES!! Not even a fragment!

Knight
March 13th, 2002, 12:16 AM
Notto, I didn’t say we had NEVER found animal bones in human settlements, I said we hadn’t found that many TYPES of animal bones comparatively in human settlements. Imagine how many animals there are, now think of all the types of bones that have been found in human settlements. That number would only represent a tiny fraction of the different types of animals in the world.

notto
March 13th, 2002, 12:32 AM
Originally posted by Knight
Notto, I didn’t say we had NEVER found animal bones in human settlements, I said we hadn’t found that many TYPES of animal bones comparatively in human settlements. Imagine how many animals there are, now think of all the types of bones that have been found in human settlements. That number would only represent a tiny fraction of the different types of animals in the world.

But we can find the types of animal bones in and around the area people lived if they hunted, wrestled, and saw them. Dinosaur bones are not found in the same burial condition, location, or weathered condition as the animals these people hunted, cohabitated with, and saw on a day to day basis.

We don't find dinosaur bones even remotely close to any archeological dig that is concerned about uncovering human settlement. We do find the bones of other animals that lived at the time.

When we find mammal bones, we don't find dinosaur bones.
Except in the rare case of finding transitional finds, but this is the exception and is easily shown as such because we don't find mammal fossils older (or deeper) than the find and we see dinosaur fossils become unfindable in newer (or shallower) digs.

Please give one example if you can of mammal, human, and dinosaur bones that have been found in the same condition, same location, and same preservation state. Bet you can't.

If you would like, I can show you plenty of examples of mammals and human fossils found in the same condition, same location, and same preseravation state. Well, that's easy, because we're mammals!

What I can't do is show you human remains with Dragons, Gargoyles, Gryphons, Merfolk, Phoenix or Unicorns.

notto
March 13th, 2002, 06:46 AM
Palette of Narmer (http://campus.northpark.edu/history/classes/Sources/Narmar.html)

This Egyptian find is strikingly similar to the Mesopotamian Seal (yet definately not reptillian).

Hmmm . . .

Knight
March 13th, 2002, 10:25 AM
notto writes...
But we can find the types of animal bones in and around the area people lived if they hunted, wrestled, and saw them. Dinosaur bones are not found in the same burial condition, location, or weathered condition as the animals these people hunted, cohabitated with, and saw on a day to day basis.I understand that, but many (if not most) of the animal bone types of the world are not found with ancient civilizations therefore your argument isn't a very persuasive one. The fact that we do not find certain bone's with human settlements does not indicate in the least that those missing animals were not in existence at the same time of the human settlement.

Furthermore...
I don't think anyone has suggested that people saw dinosaurs on a daily basis. How many hippopotamus have you seen today? ;)

You write...
Except in the rare case of finding transitional finds"transitional finds"??? Please support that claim.

You continue...
Please give one example if you can of mammal, human, and dinosaur bones that have been found in the same condition, same location, and same preservation state. Bet you can't.Nor can you make that claim for 50% (or more) of the animals that we know to exist!

Knight
March 13th, 2002, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by notto
Palette of Narmer (http://campus.northpark.edu/history/classes/Sources/Narmar.html)

This Egyptian find is strikingly similar to the Mesopotamian Seal (yet definately not reptillian).

Hmmm . . . So in your opinion.... what are the animals on your Egyptian find? The Egyptians sure knew how to draw on OX semi accurately so what were they drawing above the OX?

notto
March 13th, 2002, 11:53 AM
Knight,

I only asked for one example of dinosaur bones and mammal bones being found in the same condition at the same spot. I can certainly give you examples of many mammals that are found together (along with birds as well-tar pits for example). If dinosaurs and ANY mammal coexsted, we should able to find them together.

When I speak of transitional finds, these are not transitional fossils. The type of find that I am talking about covers large spans of time and shows:
Dinosaurs at the bottom
Dinosaurs with small mammals next
Dinosaurs, small mammals, and primative birds next
Birds, small mammals, and large mammals next
Birds, small mammals (including hominids) next.
US at the top!

Can you find an example of the above where any layer contains dinosaurs, small mammals, large mammals and hominids)

NOPE!

Do you agree that if dinosaurs existed with humans that they existed with mammals. Don't you think we should be able to find at least ONE example of their remains being found in the same location at the same time along with large mammals that are known to have existed or currently exist in the area (or that they most likely ATE)?

I'm pretty sure that the egytian animals are MADE UP. That was kind of the point. They are similar to the Mesoppotamian made up animals which is not suprising because those cultures had a lot in common (and a common history).

In discussions like this is is often easy to discuss "dinosaurs" but if we are going to discuss supposed pictures of dinosaurs, then we need to look for pictures of specific species of dinosaurs and see if we can find fossils that match the pictures.

In the acambaro finds there are figurines that show man like creatures wrestling with "dinosaurs", being eaten by "dinosaurs" and petting "dinosaurs". Do we have examples dinosaurs that match this scale and look like the ones in the figurines (man can't wrestle a full scale stegasaurs).

Also, in the Seal picture of what you said looked like a
Brontosaurus. The seal also has birdlike creatures on it that must be HUGE if this is the case. Have we found any large birds with feathers as in the picture (that could actually fly?) that would match the scale in the seal?

Is the bird figure made up but the large animal not made up?

If man hunted "dinosaurs" and killed them or used them in the same way as other animals in their vecinity, why can't we find a single example of a trophy, furniture, tool, clothes, or religeous symbol made out of their remains? This is common for other animals people hunt and eat such as birds, lions, tigers, elephants, bears, cows, crocodiles, etc.

Knight
March 13th, 2002, 12:29 PM
notto says...
I only asked for one example of dinosaur bones and mammal bones being found in the same condition at the same spot. I can certainly give you examples of many mammals that are found together (along with birds as well-tar pits for example). If dinosaurs and ANY mammal coexsted, we should able to find them together.Hmmm.... you are hopelessly missing the point. MANY types (if not most) of animal bones are NOT found with human settlement remains yet that doesn't prove or even give reliable evidence that they didn't co-exist.

Oh well... no biggy I am not here to convince you of anything on this thread, I just find the topic interesting.

notto
March 13th, 2002, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Knight
notto says...Hmmm.... you are hopelessly missing the point. MANY types (if not most) of animal bones are NOT found with human settlement remains yet that doesn't prove or even give reliable evidence that they didn't co-exist.

Oh well... no biggy I am not here to convince you of anything on this thread, I just find the topic interesting.

Speaking of missing the point (or avoiding it)
I said MAMMAL bones, not human settlement.

You can't give me one example of any MAMMAL bones and dinosaur bones found in the same geographic area, buried at the same level (time), and in the same state of fossilization. Is this a correct statement or not?

Knight
March 13th, 2002, 01:50 PM
Why do you think mammals and dinosaurs didn't co-exist?

Even the secular world believes that mammals and dinosaurs came into existence in Triassic Period 248 - 206 million years ago.

notto
March 13th, 2002, 02:11 PM
Originally posted by Knight
Why do you think mammals and dinosaurs didn't co-exist?

Even the secular world believes that mammals and dinosaurs came into existence in Triassic Period 248 - 206 million years ago.

Obviously I'm talking in the general sense. I also explained the transitional period between large dinosaurs, small mammals, and large mammals, and hominids in an earlier post.

Large mammals did not coexist with Large Dinosaurs.

Mammals did not coexist with Dinosaurs for long

Modern Man did not coexist with early mammals.

Modern Man did not coexist with Dinosaurs.

These statments are very broad and yes there are times in geologic history when this may not have been true (except for that last one).

My "beliefs" and what I have represented here are in no way conflicting with what the "secular" world believes (by the way, I think you meant to say "mainstream, peer reviewed science").

Lets put it this way.

I can find huge numbers of species of mammals buried with each other, in the same area, in the same condition.

I can find huge numbers of species of dinosaurs buried wiith each other in the same area, in the same condition, at the same time.

I cannot find a mixture of a huge number of species of dinosaurs and mammals buried in the same area, in the same condition.

Let this be my final comment on the subject. Unless we can find other physical evidence through bones, tools, burial, remains, diet, there is no physical proof that man and dinosaur ever coexisted.

The fact that a few of the thousands of images of gods, demons, mythology, exagerated stories, and fairy tales may resemble what we commonly consider to be a generic "dinosaur" does not change this lack of physical evidence so I choose to assert at this point that this is not evidence of the coexistence.

I have the weight of every piece of physical evidence that has ever been tested, examined, and verified on my side of this assertion. Still waiting for any evidence that would make me even consider that the images in those crude, subjective pictures and figurines are anywhere close to being an accurate, eyewitness, rendition of a dinosaur.

I am willing to be pursuaded based on additional evidence if it is ever presented. I will be waiting (along with the rest of the "secular" world).

Knight
March 13th, 2002, 02:22 PM
notto says...
Mammals did not coexist with Dinosaurs for longHuh? Are you sure about that??? Mammals and dinosaurs both appear in secular accounts around 220 million years ago.

notto
March 13th, 2002, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Knight
notto says...Huh? Are you sure about that??? Mammals and dinosaurs both appear in secular accounts around 220 million years ago.

Again, instead of "secular" I think you mean "mainstream, peer reviewed, accepted by 99% of professionals in the field"

They maybe lived together for around 100 million years (far from recent, far from the maximum reign of either mammals or dinosaurs, this is the "transitional" period).

No mammal species that we would recognize as living today lived with dinosaurs.

No humans lived with dinosaurs.

Still can't show even one example of recently buried dinosaur bones with the thousands of recently buried animal and human bones?

You are still giving me no reason to think that crude, subjective, pictures of gods, fairies, dragons, demons, nymphs, unicorns, hydras, flying horses, or sea monsters should be taken as accurate, eye witness renditions of what we commonly consider dinosaurs.

Knight
March 13th, 2002, 04:00 PM
notto... says...
You are still giving me no reason to think that crude, subjective, pictures of gods, fairies, dragons, demons, nymphs, unicorns, hydras, flying horses, or sea monsters should be taken as accurate, eye witness renditions of what we commonly consider dinosaurs.Again... I am not trying to convince you of anything.

I find the topic interesting, apparently you do not and that's OK.

Lion
March 13th, 2002, 05:50 PM
Notto-I don’t agree with your statement. In the first place when skeleton’s or fossils of ancient man (you and I would disagree on what ancient means) are found in places that biased evolutionists feel is not possible for them to be, they dismiss it out of hand or hide their findings altogether.So it is not possible to know how many human skeletons or artifacts have been found with dinosaur fossils.

Bones of many modern-looking humans have been found deep in undisturbed rocks that, according to evolution, were formed long before man began to evolve. Examples include the Calaveras Skull, the Castenedolo skeletons, Reck’s skeleton, and many others. Other remains such as the Swanscombe skull, the Steinheim fossil, and the Vertesszollos fossil, present similar problems. And besides these there have been human footprints found in rock formations in Utah, Kentucky, Missouri, Pennsylvania and Russia, dating back (supposedly) 150-600 million years. There have been human artifacts found incased in coal. Examples include a thimble, an iron pot, an 8-karat gold chain, three throwing spears, as well as others. There have been objects such as nails, a screw, a strange coin, a tiny ceramic doll, all found deeply buried in rocks supposedly hundreds of millions of years old. But evolutionists just ignore these findings, or claim they are nothing more than the results of disturbed burials.

However this being said, I don’t think this is what this thread is even supposed to be about. Knight is trying to see what we think of these pictures and how they came to be.

You have stated:
The examples you give show men killing dinosaurs, men riding dinosaurs, men LIVING WITH dinosaurs…So even you seem to agree they look like dinosaurs. So I think he has made his point.

Do any of the statues or drawings look like…say…a Boeing 747? How about just a jet period? If not… then why dinosaurs?

muldoon
March 13th, 2002, 11:49 PM
Knight and Lion thanks for the interesting comments....

I really think this Roman mosaic is very interesting and it hardly looks like a Lion as somebody suggested.

click here to view image (http://www.theologyonline.com/photopost/index.php?photo=103)

Knight
March 14th, 2002, 10:56 AM
Lion, giraffe, dinosaur.... what's the difference??? :D