Dinos and Humans hand in hand

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.

http://www.geocities.com/...ropics/Shores/1951/dinosaurs.htm

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

jar, it looks like a dinosaur. Take some time to view a number of photos. It's pretty clear.

The claim is the mishaped heads they show are warped in a way that mere head-shaping would not do.The site has some bogus stuff, but it's not all bogus. It just throws out all sorts of anamolous info. On some of the skulls, I think they are correct in stating they exhibit some traits inconsistent with head shaping.Also, on the issue of giants, there is quite a lot of evidence giants did exist. Perhaps you are just unaware of the evidence?Evos call them more primitive hominids, but they have been found with tools fitted to their size so they seem to just be a giant form of "people" in layman's terms.This message has been edited by randman, 10-20-2005 02:27 AM

Well, if you only took that attitude with your science textbooks as they presented ToE, I don't think we'd be arguing today parasomnium, but hey, PhD written textbooks teaching evolution can contain all sorts of errors, such as Haeckel's drawings which they presented for decades or Neanderthal as excessively ape-like or human gill slits, etc... and yet you guys go to bat defending the ideas they present (ToE).At least this site does not purport to be a textbook, and is not paid for with my tax dollars. It has some interesting stuff. If you don't like it, and think it lacks credibility, please know it has about as much credibility with me as most evos. That's not saying much, I know, but I tend to think I can view facts independently of the site/person presenting them.