Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8994 total)
48 online now:
Base12, driewerf, DrJones*, dwise1, nwr, PaulK (6 members, 42 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,365 Year: 11,113/23,288 Month: 365/1,763 Week: 4/328 Day: 4/49 Hour: 2/2

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dinos and Humans hand in hand
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 1075 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 1 of 55 (252848)
10-18-2005 7:10 PM


I'm starting this thread to save several others from spinning off topic.

Randman recently posted this link

http://www.s8int.com/dinolit1.html

It's to a site that claims to have evidence in art of mankind and dinosaurs being alive at the same time.

Yes, I know it's a crackpot site, but I think it's useful for showing how people see what they want to see. So I'm going to discuss the images seen there. Please check out the site if you wish to discuss it.

I've gone over the picture once again and have several comments.

First - Many of these have no context whatsoever. It's clay figures with no timeframe association, no cultural association. I am perfectly willing to admit that Mrs. Huffington's 6th grade art class can make figures that look like dinosaurs. What's the point?

Second - Others are clearly unclear. Several of these images are blury at best. There's one set that's a couple of lines on black background. These are the creationist ink blots, you will see what you want.

Third - The site offers a number of "points" as if they were disproving something when in fact they are just reconfirming what we already know. For the record - There were camels and elephants in N. America when people got here. There were and still are crocs in the Nile. Etc.

Fourth - Several of the "dinosaurs" are pots / pipes with long handles / spouts. A long handle is not evidence of a long necked dinosaur. It is evidence that the pot was probably put in a fire.

Fifth - The site hinges on the idea that "dragons" are in many cultures, but this is a phalacy. We have assigned the word "dragon" to the mythical creatures in different cultures mythology even though those creatures have strikingly different appearences and characteristics. Additionally, the dragons of myth talk / breath fire / fly without wings / fly with wings and have four legs / horde gold / hang out with unicorns. None of this is done by dinosaurs.

To offer up this site as evidence on par with 10 billion fossils and the entire geological profession is kind of embarising for you Randman.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by MangyTiger, posted 10-18-2005 9:10 PM Nuggin has responded
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 10-18-2005 9:48 PM Nuggin has not yet responded
 Message 33 by Zhimbo, posted 10-20-2005 3:30 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
AdminBen
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 55 (252853)
10-18-2005 8:03 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

AbE: And nice job in spinning off a new thread. Thanks Nuggin.

This message has been edited by AdminBen, Tuesday, 2005/10/18 05:04 PM


  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4936 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 3 of 55 (252869)
10-18-2005 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
10-18-2005 7:10 PM


The Anasazi Apatosaurus Petroglyph
The Anasazi Apatosaurus Petroglyph shown on Page 3 is interesting.

I've seen that picture in several places and two things have always struck me.

The first is that it looks suspiciously like the sort of dinosaur representation you see in early animated movies - say between the World Wars. Although it isn't Gertie The Dinosaur it's not a million miles away either.

The second is that the picture looks strange somehow. I finally tracked down why. I had always assumed it was a photograph of the actual petroglyph but it isn't. The Objective Ministries site quotes the source as "Field drawing of an Apatosaur petroglyph found at Natural Bridges National Monument in Utah" from "Prehistoric Indians" by Barnes and Pendleton, 1995 page 201. So all we really know from that picture is that somebody drew what they saw on a rock and it looked to them like a big dinosaur (specifically an Apatosaurus).

If you look for actual photos of it on the web it appears more than a little different. A typical example is this one. Now I understand this is not from a professional photographer but even so, the difference is striking.

I did find a photograph that looks like the drawing at Apologetics Press, but it contains this note underneath it - "To help you see the image, we have enhanced the color of certain portions and circled both the human figure in the upper left-hand section and the dinosaur figure to the right.".

Without actually going to see it yourself or getting hold of a really high quality photograph I'm not convinced you can say it looks like a dinosaur. In the first picture I linked to it's not even clear that the last two thirds of the tail is actually even connected to the body.


I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2005 7:10 PM Nuggin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by jar, posted 10-18-2005 9:19 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded
 Message 6 by arachnophilia, posted 10-18-2005 11:02 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded
 Message 13 by Nuggin, posted 10-19-2005 2:40 AM MangyTiger has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32727
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 4 of 55 (252873)
10-18-2005 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by MangyTiger
10-18-2005 9:10 PM


Re: The Anasazi Apatosaurus Petroglyph
We covered the Anasazi drawing many, many, many moons ago.

It's a classic example of Creationist gullibility at best and rank outright fraud at worst. Like the rest of that site is simply another example of the total complete vacuity of the whole Creationist and YEC positions.

You can read about the drawing in this thread


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by MangyTiger, posted 10-18-2005 9:10 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 5 of 55 (252881)
10-18-2005 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Nuggin
10-18-2005 7:10 PM


Stones of the Ica have been debunked as forgeries on other threads here. The first picture shows nothing that relates to a dinosaur so much as an ill drawn animal, which (given the location) could just as easily be a sea lion or the like.

Any images of dinosaurs that are carved or drawn can also be reconstructions from bones that are in plentiful supply in many areas, especially ones that would not show any unpredictable features. For such a pictograph to be compelling for me it would have to show a feature that was then found to exist but which doesn't show on the skeleton.

There are others that could as easily be a giant sloth as a dinosaur, and much more likely.

Another interesting perspective can be found in a book by Adrienne Mayor called The First Fossil Hunters and which concerns fossils as the source of several greek myths (griffins, cyclops, etc), and I have seen a portion of the cover from her book as "evidence" on one of these 'creatortionista' websites.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0691058636/103-8500812-6605468?v=glance

There were some discussions on these things a while ago. Perhaps they could be consolidated into a column debunking each one (te dium) -- do a search on Redwolf's posts (Ted Holden).

When it comes to validating artifacts, context is everything. Bare objects are worthless, unless there is a substantial part of the artifact that can be dated (and not a part that could have been added for that purpose).

The biggest problem is {scientific skepticism} versus {wanting to believe myths}


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Nuggin, posted 10-18-2005 7:10 PM Nuggin has not yet responded

  
arachnophilia
Member
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 6 of 55 (252895)
10-18-2005 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by MangyTiger
10-18-2005 9:10 PM


it DOES look like a dinosaur:

seriously. i don't mean to facetious: that's like every old depiction of brontosaurus, ever.

if it's supposed to be a sauropod, whomever drew it certainly never saw one. we have a long history of bad paleontology, and the notion that dinosaus dragged their tails like cold-blooded lizards is an old and disproven one. we know now that sauropods work kind of like suspension bridges, anchored over their hips. their tails extended backwards, cantilevered out to provide counter balance for their necks. an apatosaurus would have looked more like this in real life:

so basically, we have two options:

1. it's a forgery done in the last 150 years or so by someone looking at bad information or ray harryhausen or gertie or a color book or the blanket i slept under as a child; or:

2. it's something else.

[edit]also, as a photomajor, i should point out how far a little dodging and burning can go, even avoiding full-blown photoshop trickery.

This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 10-18-2005 11:04 PM


אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by MangyTiger, posted 10-18-2005 9:10 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3481 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 7 of 55 (252910)
10-19-2005 12:25 AM


Lots of talk but little substance. The pics certainly look like dinosaurs. Sure, some are blurry. Some may even be forgeries, but the fact is there are depictions here that look just like dinosaurs along with written accounts.

Simply claiming they must be forgeries is not an argument, but that seems to be what you guys are doing here.

Btw, the depictions from the Indians of the reptilian bird of great length is probably accurate as the Indians in the southwest had "legends" or accounts of such a creature, depending on how you want to look at it.

As far as more obvious myths on dragons having exotic qualities, the same goes often for more mundane creatures like bears. There are myths of animals we know existing having exotic qualities in certain myths, but the creatures are still real. They were just exagerrated.

Dismissing all of the accounts of large reptiles (dinosaurs) a priori seems closeminded to me.


Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 10-19-2005 12:54 AM randman has responded
 Message 14 by Nuggin, posted 10-19-2005 2:44 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 18 by jar, posted 10-19-2005 10:30 AM randman has responded
 Message 22 by Chiroptera, posted 10-19-2005 4:08 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 10-19-2005 5:46 PM randman has not yet responded
 Message 25 by DrJones*, posted 10-19-2005 7:07 PM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3481 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 8 of 55 (252914)
10-19-2005 12:29 AM



Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by AdminJar, posted 10-19-2005 12:42 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 15 by Nuggin, posted 10-19-2005 2:47 AM randman has not yet responded
 Message 32 by nwr, posted 10-20-2005 10:43 AM randman has not yet responded

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 55 (252920)
10-19-2005 12:42 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by randman
10-19-2005 12:29 AM


Getting close to spamming
That message is simply a bare link to rehashes of the very same old material that was included in the first link.

You offered no comment, no additional information.

Such practices are against the rules and guidelines here as you well know.

Cut it out!


Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month" Forum

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by randman, posted 10-19-2005 12:29 AM randman has not yet responded

      
    arachnophilia
    Member
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 10 of 55 (252925)
    10-19-2005 12:54 AM
    Reply to: Message 7 by randman
    10-19-2005 12:25 AM


    Simply claiming they must be forgeries is not an argument, but that seems to be what you guys are doing here.

    please note, that's not what i'm doing. i made a fairly coherent argument that shows that whomever drew that particular picture never saw a sauropod dinosaur alive.

    i am absolutely fascinated at the possibility of a dinosaur alive today. i just don't think this even hints at any such thing.

    Dismissing all of the accounts of large reptiles (dinosaurs) a priori seems closeminded to me.

    i'm still holding out on mkele mbembe, personally


    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by randman, posted 10-19-2005 12:25 AM randman has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 11 by randman, posted 10-19-2005 1:04 AM arachnophilia has responded

      
    randman 
    Suspended Member (Idle past 3481 days)
    Posts: 6367
    Joined: 05-26-2005


    Message 11 of 55 (252932)
    10-19-2005 1:04 AM
    Reply to: Message 10 by arachnophilia
    10-19-2005 12:54 AM


    The tail appears oversized in the carvings, but it still closely resembles a dinosaur and nothing else. To my knowledge, there is no credible evidence that the drawing is fake. It is considered real and protected by the state it is located in.

    Maybe the person that drew/carved the depiction only saw the creature dead, after it was killed by a hunting party or something, and thus the tail lies on the ground.

    That would be consistent with your notion that the person that drew the depiction didn't see the creature alive, but still also consistent with the evidence that the drawing predates by a long shot the modern discovery of dinosaurs.

    This message has been edited by randman, 10-19-2005 01:05 AM


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 10 by arachnophilia, posted 10-19-2005 12:54 AM arachnophilia has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 12 by arachnophilia, posted 10-19-2005 1:36 AM randman has not yet responded

      
    arachnophilia
    Member
    Posts: 9069
    From: god's waiting room
    Joined: 05-21-2004


    Message 12 of 55 (252934)
    10-19-2005 1:36 AM
    Reply to: Message 11 by randman
    10-19-2005 1:04 AM


    intellectual rigor mortis
    The tail appears oversized in the carvings, but it still closely resembles a dinosaur and nothing else.

    some sauropods have incredibly long tails, even longer than the tail of apatosaurus pictured above. part of the key here is that they're shaped differently. so it's definitally stylized at the very least.

    frankly, it looks like a cartoon. i'm sorry. it's got and eye and a smiley face. but if it's REAL, i suggest that it might be a case of mistaken identity. look at the bible.ca picture. notice the most prominent part is the series of right angles that would NOT be found in a live sauropod. now look at this:

    a little bit of discoloration in the wrong place gives it legs. notice in the bible.ca one it doesn't have hind legs. apologetic press actually draws a line there where there isn't one on the rock. there's a dark splotch that continues up the tail where the "body" is, and the "rear legs" are cut off at a weird angle

    (i see a lot of subtlety when i look, part of my drawing background...)

    To my knowledge, there is no credible evidence that the drawing is fake.

    well, if it's meant to be a sauropod, the person who drew it never saw one alive. that's all i'm saying.

    It is considered real and protected by the state it is located in.

    so?

    Maybe the person that drew/carved the depiction only saw the creature dead, after it was killed by a hunting party or something, and thus the tail lies on the ground.

    well, if people hunted it, someone saw it alive. but if the artist saw it DEAD, he would have seen it like this:

    it's called "rigor mortis." the tendons and muscles tend to seize up in such a way that in dinosaurs makes the head and tail arch upwards -- not in that right angle patter on the rock.

    coincidentally, that's labelled "apatosaurus" as well, but it doesn't look like one to me. if it is, it's still got the "brontosaurus" skull on it. but the rest of it looks like a camarasaurus too, so i think the website just got their labels mixed up. i just chose it because it demonstrates rigor mortis in sauropods really, really well.

    That would be consistent with your notion that the person that drew the depiction didn't see the creature alive, but still also consistent with the evidence that the drawing predates by a long shot the modern discovery of dinosaurs.

    who says dinosaurs were discovered in modern times? the earliest, i think, was in the 1700's, and the earliest significant find the 1800's -- but the chinese have probably been digging them up for a few thousand years.

    there's a popular theory that dragon legends and so forth are based on the fossilized skeleton of dinosaurs. if you ever seen some thecodonts (dinosaur ancestors) some look very close to chinese dragons...

    but anyways. it might be someone's take on a fossil find. which would also be consistent with the idea that, if it's a sauropod, the artists never saw one alive.

    This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 10-19-2005 01:36 AM


    אָרַח

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 11 by randman, posted 10-19-2005 1:04 AM randman has not yet responded

      
    Nuggin
    Member (Idle past 1075 days)
    Posts: 2965
    From: Los Angeles, CA USA
    Joined: 08-09-2005


    Message 13 of 55 (252936)
    10-19-2005 2:40 AM
    Reply to: Message 3 by MangyTiger
    10-18-2005 9:10 PM


    Re: The Anasazi Apatosaurus Petroglyph
    Great work. That's exactly the photo I was asking to see in my previous notes about context.

    Notice that even in the enhanced photo, the "body" is far from clear. It could just as easily be a snake as anything else.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 3 by MangyTiger, posted 10-18-2005 9:10 PM MangyTiger has not yet responded

      
    Nuggin
    Member (Idle past 1075 days)
    Posts: 2965
    From: Los Angeles, CA USA
    Joined: 08-09-2005


    Message 14 of 55 (252937)
    10-19-2005 2:44 AM
    Reply to: Message 7 by randman
    10-19-2005 12:25 AM


    If Dinos then Unicorns
    If you are suggesting that dinos/dragons in art imply dinos in modern history, then you must accept that European tapestries with unicorns are dipictions of a real animal as well.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 7 by randman, posted 10-19-2005 12:25 AM randman has not yet responded

      
    Nuggin
    Member (Idle past 1075 days)
    Posts: 2965
    From: Los Angeles, CA USA
    Joined: 08-09-2005


    Message 15 of 55 (252938)
    10-19-2005 2:47 AM
    Reply to: Message 8 by randman
    10-19-2005 12:29 AM


    So, no new info...
    That link is just more of the same pictures.

    The image from Australia is interesting. You are aware that there were very large reptiles living in Australia during the megafaunal when humans first arrived there?

    I'm not saying that big lizards haven't been around recently. Heck, Komodo dragons are around right now


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 8 by randman, posted 10-19-2005 12:29 AM randman has not yet responded

      
    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020