Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,581 Year: 2,838/9,624 Month: 683/1,588 Week: 89/229 Day: 61/28 Hour: 3/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   101 evidences for a young age...
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 135 (511051)
06-05-2009 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by dwise1
06-05-2009 2:59 AM


talking coral heads revisited
Hi dwise1
Now here's the beauty of it. Do the math and you will find that about 400 million years ago, in the Devonian (Parc national de Miguasha - Parcs nationaux - Spaq), the year would have been 400 days long (in case you didn't know, the current year is 365 days long, 366 days in a leap year). The coral shows that the year back then was indeed 400 days long. Two independent lines of evidence coming together to give the same results.
Another source for the coral day lengths is provided here:
Age Correlations: Talking Coral Heads
quote:
For now we can assemble the bits and pieces, placing the ancient cores by dates derived from radiometric testing (thorium-230 is used for some), and while we can derive similar dates from two or more tests, this is hardly enough to impress people who still have some doubts about radiometric dating methods. Is there something else that will give us an independent confirmation?
The answer is yes, and it comes from the astrophysics of the earth-moon system.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/...coral_growth.html (2)
quote:
The other approach, radically different, involves the astronomical record. Astronomers seem to be generally agreed that while the period of the Earth's revolution around the Sun has been constant, its period of rotation on its polar axis, at present 24 h, has not been constant throughout Earth's history, and that there has been a deceleration attributable to the dissipation of rotational energy by tidal forces on the surface and in the interior, a slow-down of about 2 sec per 100,000 years according to the most recent estimates. It thus appears that the length of the day has been increasing throughout geological time and that the number of days in the year has been decreasing. At, the beginning of the Cambrian the length of the day would have been 21 h ...
The best of the limited fossil material I have examined so far is from the MiddleDevonian ... Diurnal and annual growth-rates vary in the same individual, adding to the complexity, but in every instance there are more than 365 growth -lines per annum. usually about 400, ranging between extremes of 385 and 410. It is probably too much, considering the crudity of these data, to expect a narrower range of values for the number of days in a year in the Middle Devonian; many more measurements will be necessary to refine them.
A few more data may be mentioned: Lophophllidium from the Pennsylvanian (Conemaugh) of western Pennsylvania gave 390 lines per annum, and Caninia from the Pennsylvanian of Texas, 385. These results imply that the number of days a year has decreased with the passage of time since the Devonian, as postulated by astronomers.
I also found this graphic on this website although it was not used in the article:

Original at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/...ogy/fig1wells.jpg (3)
This shows the smooth change in the length of days with time. The calculations based on just the astrophysics gives a 400 day/year figure for the Devonian and a 390 day/year figure for the Pennsylvanian, so there is very close accord between the predicted number of days, the measured number of days and the measured age of the fossil corals. These corals will be useful in anchoring the database of annual layers as it builds up a picture of climate change with age and extending, eventually, back into the Devonian period (360 to 408.5 million years ago).

The age of the earth >400,000,000 years based on this data.

References:
(2) Wells, John W. "Coral Growth and Geochronometry" Nature 197, 948 - 950 (09 March 1963); doi:10.1038/197948a0. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/...coral_growth.html
(3) Wells, John W. - source of picture not known, found on website accessed 10 Jan 2007 from http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/...ogy/fig1wells.jpg
The article linked is a copy of the article in Nature.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : new subtitle

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by dwise1, posted 06-05-2009 2:59 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 40 of 135 (511665)
06-11-2009 3:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Coyote
06-04-2009 7:30 AM


C14 dates too young ...
Hi Coyote,
The "101 evidences" includes the usual nonsense, refuted over and over but which keeps coming back.
Aren't these all the same issue of radioactive formation of C14 and background levels?
quote:
51. Carbon-14 in coal suggests ages of thousands of years and clearly contradict ages of millions of years.
52. Carbon-14 in oil again suggests ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
53. Carbon-14 in fossil wood also indicates ages of thousands, not millions, of years.
54. Carbon-14 in diamonds suggests ages of thousands, not billions, of years.
Curiously the link for the oil one goes to diamonds - great proof-reading and cross-checking, eh? They go on to "counter" the "Objections (technical)" with more typical answers:
quote:
In any case, the mean of the 14C/C ratios in Dr Baumgardner’s diamonds was close to 0.120.01 pMC, well above that of the lab’s background of purified natural gas (0.08 pMC).
...
The 14C ‘dates’ for the diamonds of 55,700 years were still much older than the biblical timescale. This misses the point:
Yeah, it misses the point that this is the limit of C-14 dating and it is not above the level of background radiation in normal objects.
This background level of radiation is why the normal limit to C14 is generally considered to be 45,000 to 50,000 years
http://id-archserve.ucsb.edu/...y/08_Radiocarbon_Dating.html
quote:
The practical upper limit is about 50,000 years, because so little C-14 remains after almost 9 half-lives that it may be hard to detect and obtain an accurate reading, regardless of the size of the sample.
Radiocarbon Date calculation
quote:
It is vital for a radiocarbon laboratory to know the contribution to routine sample activity of non-sample radioactivity. Obviously, this activity is additional and must be removed from calculations. In order to make allowances for background counts and to evaluate the limits of detection, materials which radiocarbon specialists can be fairly sure contain no activity are measured under identical counting conditions as normal samples. Background samples usually consist of geological samples of infinite age such as coal, lignite, limestone, ancient carbonate, athracite, marble or swamp wood. By measuring the activity of a background sample, the normal radioactivity present while a sample of unknown age is being measured can be accounted for and deducted.
Figure 1: This gif shows the comparison in radioactivity between a sample, or unknown (green area) , a modern standard (dark blue) and a background (small red peaks) derived from beta decay. The scale represents log E (energy).
And the presence of background levels doesn't really affect ages less than 40,000 years by a significant margin, especially considering that these ages derived are too young for the actual ages. Thus these ages are still valid, and still a problem for YECs to deal with.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : jpg added

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Coyote, posted 06-04-2009 7:30 AM Coyote has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by dwise1, posted 06-11-2009 10:46 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 55 of 135 (514194)
07-04-2009 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by wirkkalaj
07-03-2009 3:44 PM


reasonable interpretations and reality
Hi wirkkalaj, welcome to the fray -- if you stick around eh?
I like to point out that there are hundreds of ancient artifacts, cave drawings and other relics that have depictions of dinosaurs on them.
Correction: that are interpreted by some (often unscrupulous unscientific or gullible ignorant) people to represent dinosaurs. In many cases other explanations are much more likely. In some cases there is evidence of outright fraud (see Ica Stones, Paluxy river tracks, etc etc etc)
One petroglyph I know of likely shows a giant sloth being attacked by humans. It is the right size relationship for a sloth and the wrong proportions for a dinosaur. Interestingly, giant sloths did exist when man first explored the NAmerican continent, and skeletons of them are known from the same ages as early man in NA.
As Coyote has pointed out there are no fossils of humans and (non-bird) dinosaurs in the same strata.
As roxrkool has pointed out, it is more than likely that ancient people came across bones and fossils of ancient animals, and from dissecting food sources they would have developed a pretty good sense for how the pieces fit together. Thus it is entirely possible that they could assemble the bones into a rough idea of the original animal.
We also see depictions of fire-breathing dragons: does that mean they really existed? There are many mythological or fanciful animals that could be based on fossil finds.
One of these depictions I have seen on creationist sites is this one:
Which demonstrates the dishonesty of the creationists posting this "evidence", because it comes blatantly from the cover of this book:
The First Fossil Hunters: Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times. by Adrienne Mayor
quote:
Since fossils have presumably existed for millions of years, why don't we see much paleontological thought from ancient writers? Classics scholar Adrienne Mayor suggests that we can, in fact, learn much about the Greek and Roman attitudes toward fossils if we turn to a surprising source of data and theory: their myths. In The First Fossil Hunters, she explores likely connections between the rich fossil beds around the Mediterranean and tales of griffins and giants originating in the classical world. Striking similarities exist between the Protoceratops skeletons of the Gobi Desert and the legends of the gold-hoarding griffin told by nomadic people of the region, and the fossilized remains of giant Miocene mammals could be taken for the heroes and monsters of earlier times. Mayor makes her case well, but, as with all interpretive science, the arguments are inconclusive. Still, her novel reading of ancient myth--and her critique of the modern scientific mythology that seeks to explain the lack of classical paleontological thinking--is compelling and thought-provoking.
As noted by Hyroglyphx this book makes a compelling argument that several myths are based on fossils of ancient animals, such as the one here. This is a protoceratops:
Protoceratops - Wikipedia
Note the bird like beak and the four legged stance. That the myth of the Griffin started in the area where protoceratops fossils have been found is clear indication of a reasonable conclusion that the legend is based on the fossils. That the legend is of half bird and half lion beasties is a clear indication that the legend is NOT based on experience with living animals at the time of man.
There are many such legends of fantastic beasties and creatures, and not to difficult to think that many are based on primitive interpretations of fossils, and not of living animals.
When we look at cave art that is distinctive enough to tell species of animals (south france, spain) the depictions there are all of post ice age animals, and not one of them is remotely close to a dinosaur.
There are no "depictions of dinosaurs" that represent any recognizable species of dinosaurs with the clarity and detail in those cave paintings.
It does show how blindly wrong the evolutionists are in their conclusions that the dinosaurs died off millions of years ago.
No it doesn't. It does not contradict in any way the fact that no dinosaur fossils (other than birds) have been found after the 65 million year mass-extinction.
While this does not really prove anything about young earth.
It doesn't prove a thing. There are many organisms alive today that survived the extinction event - otherwise we would not be alive. Finding a dinosaur alive would not change this either. Coelacanths and crocodiles survive (albeit different species) from earlier times.
If they can be that wrong about the dinosaurs and not willing to concede that they did indeed live along side humans throughtout the ages, ...
Except that you have not established that they are wrong. There is no need to concede a position that is not based on facts.
... then why should I believe them in anything else concerning ages?
Because it is based on facts. Curiously, that is how science works, not on belief, but on facts. Facts are compiled, and then reasonable explanations are sought that explain all the evidence, the evidence of ages and ecologies and the geological consistency of certain finds in certain strata that date to certain ages. If you want to investigate the evidence of an old earth, see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 and note that it is not just the evidence of an old earth, but the correlations between the different methods and systems, correlations that would not occur if the measurement systems were in error.
Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:
quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):

... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.
Edited by RAZD, : Hyroglyphx noted, beat me to the punch

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by wirkkalaj, posted 07-03-2009 3:44 PM wirkkalaj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-04-2009 8:27 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 56 of 135 (514195)
07-04-2009 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by roxrkool
07-04-2009 2:07 PM


Re: Ancient paleontology
Hi roxrkool,
It is an excellent book, very readable, and talks about several myths being based on fossils common to the area of the greeks, but not of animals alive at the same time, hence the fanciful interpretations.
The cyclops myth can be explained by the mastodon skeletons, where the actual eye sockets are very small, and the large opening for the trunk was seen as the location for the eye.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : not mammoth

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by roxrkool, posted 07-04-2009 2:07 PM roxrkool has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by greentwiga, posted 07-04-2009 5:38 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 67 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-05-2009 7:14 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 63 of 135 (514251)
07-05-2009 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Dr Adequate
07-05-2009 3:35 AM


Re: Ancient paleontology
woops
They weren't mammoths (as RAZD said) but pygmy elephants.
Actually should have been mastodons in macedonia, curiously not pygmy.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2009 3:35 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 65 of 135 (514266)
07-05-2009 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Dr Adequate
07-05-2009 3:35 AM


Re: Ancient paleontology - quibbles
Hi Dr Adequate
In the same way, you find people saying that the Greek authors reported griffins in the Gobi (where Protoceratops fossils are found) on the say-so of the Scythians (whose territory may have extended to the Gobi depending on what you mean by "Scythians"). But this all seems to be the purest rubbish, produced by people playing the game that Americans call "Telephone" and I would call "Chinese Whispers".
Curiously, one of the beliefs associated with Griffins is that they hoarded gold, and Mayor has a map on page 28 showing the juxtapositions of gold digs and protoceratops\dinosaur bones found lying on the ground, along ancient trade routes, so "purest rubbish" seems to be supported by some actual evidence. The area in question covers from the hindu kush into kazakhstan, mongolia and china.
... the Greek sources agree that the Scythians said that there were griffins in the extreme north of Europe, ...
Curiously you seem to now imply that the range of the Scythians extended into northern europe where previously you doubt they extend to mongolia? As far as the "say-so of the Scythians" is concerned, there does not seem to be that much available:
from the book,
quote:
p26: The territory of the Issedonian Scythians where Aristeas learned about the griffin in about 675 B.C. is a wedge bounded by the Ien Shan and Altai ranges, in an area that straddles present-day northwestern Mongolia, northwestern China, southern Siberia, and southeastern Kazakhstan. ...
p27: The nomads left no written records. Even Aristeas's poem itself no longer exists, but his epic was so famous in antiquity that quotations from it are preserved in works by several ancient authors. Those authors also refer to other, now lost, works of Greco-Roman writers who collected information about Scythia, gold, minimg, and griffins. So, in piecing together the natural history of the griffin of Scythian lore, we must rely on terse, fragmentary passages that derive from a much fuller and richer tradition.
But they aren't --- they're examples of people using fossils to confirm myths that they already had, as I emphasized. It is hard to find cases where we can definitely say that a fossil find was the origin of a myth.
As for the Chinese, we can certainly find them identifying what we now know as dinosaur bones as being "dragon bones", but which came first, the bones or the Chinese dragon myth? A definite answer is lost, like so much else, in the mists of antiquity.
I don't think there would be such a recording for any such find, because such finds likely pre-date writing, and the interpretations are likely lost in time.
I had better write that article. It seems it will have at least one interested reader.
You would likely have several. Certainly I would like to see your substantiations and evidence, and how many myths and legends you can find such explanations of.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2009 3:35 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by roxrkool, posted 07-05-2009 3:55 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-06-2009 1:19 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 85 of 135 (518259)
08-04-2009 6:17 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by wirkkalaj
08-04-2009 8:27 AM


reality testing
Hi again wirkkalaj, welcome back.
See messages 73 and 74 and tell me if I am misrinterpreting these depictions and let me know which ones are fraud.
The ica stones are a known fraud. Known since 2002.
CH710.1: Dinosaurs on Ica stones
quote:
The stones are almost certainly modern, created by local villagers to sell to gullible tourists. Two peasants from Callango, Basilio Uchuya and his wife, Irma Gutierrez de Aparcana, have admitted to carving the stones they sold to Cabrera, basing their designs on illustrations from comic books, school books, and magazines (Polidoro 2002).
The Ica stones reputedly give evidence for a highly advanced, very ancient civilization, but no other trace of such a civilization exists. (The Nazca drawings are nearby, but they do not depict any dinosaurs or evidence for advanced technology.)
An admitted fraud, which in science would be sufficient evidence to discard them as evidence of anything, just as Piltdown man was discarded when scientists demonstrated that it was a fraud.
Here's a test: take a known science fraud and find an article claiming that it is evidence of reality, and that is published one year or more after the fraud has been uncovered. Do the same for creationist frauds (like the Ica Stones, now going on 7 years as a known fraud).
Note that any website that posts the "Ica Stones" as fact has actually posted a fraud, a hoax, and they should not be trusted for having ANY valid information: they are a fraud.
Regardless, a few examples of fraud do nothing to discredit my argument as a whole. Evolutionists have had their own cases of fraud. The infamous Piltdown controversy. It doesn't mean that all other primate fossils are hoaxed.
See Scientific vs Creationist Frauds and Hoaxes .
The difference between scientists and creationists is that science discards frauds and hoaxes as soon as they are uncovered, they correct their view/s and move on. Creationists ignore the fact that it is a hoax and keep posting information about it, hoping that gullible people will continue to be flummoxed, too intellectually lethargic to investigate further, too willing to believe a fairy tale rather than look skeptically for reality - and (non-avian) dinosaurs co-existing with humans is a fairy tale.
Curiously, the only ones who still refer to scientific hoaxes are creationists, as is evidenced by all the creationist websites on the Piltdown hoax, thus creating another hoax in the process - the hoax hoax that trys to fool gullible people into thinking that science relies on hoaxes, rather than on tested evidence that is validated by other evidence.
Perhaps just willfully or unknowingly misinterpreted.
Amazingly, the scientific attitude is not complacent acceptance of only concepts one wants to believe, but an active skeptical deconstruction of concepts by testing them against the evidence: science tries to prove concepts wrong, and only when that cannot be done is a concept tentatively accepted as possible.
Given the fact that most culture's around the world have dragon legends or dinosaur depictions.
And yet none of the dragons or other depictions really look like an actual dinosaur. Please look again - closely - at the depictions you have posted and see if they accurately portray known dinosaurs. Here's a hint of what to look for:
This one can be found in Angkor-wat is in northwest Cambodia.The construction of the temple took place in the first half of the 12th century
(image modified to thumbnail)
vs
Not even close - the head is completely wrong, and the "horns" are shown on the wrong end - details that would be well known by any human with actual knowledge of a living stegosaurus. It would be impossible to misinterpret these details from a living specimen, but easy to misinterpret and mix up the details from a bed of fossils, where the small size of the actual stegosaurus skull could be overlooked in favor of one from another dinosaur that was nearby. There are details like this in all the other depictions.
It is not very common to find dinosaur bones just lying about on the ground. You usually have to dig for them.
Except in some places, like the Gobi dessert, where they are, in fact, just lying around.
It is also common that unusual things are collected in temples, whether in Greece or Ankor-wat or the Vatican.
I would consider it too unlikely that each independent culture interpreted them from fossils.
Interestingly, whatever you consider "unlikely" has absolutely no effect on reality, opinion that is not supported by fact is only reflective of the mind with the opinion.
See 73 and 74. I can produce more examples if these aren't satisfactory.
I've seen all of these and more -- they are not physical evidence of dinosaurs living with humans, they are evidence that ancient people knew SOME aspects about SOME even more ancient animals, but that is the most that they are evidence of, and even this is of questionable validity.
Yeah, assuming the dates they give are accurate. I tend to agree with The Dating Game and I simply don't put much emphasis on most dating methods. The age of the Earth, the age of the Mass-Extinction and so many other things, which were taught as fact and as indiputable, have changed so many times from when I was a kid, I just don't consider them fact anymore.
Fascinatingly, your opinion is still invalid as a measure of reality. What we have are much more than just opinions, but massive correlations between various dating methods of a degree that it is hard to conceive them resulting from chance combinations of errors all producing the same results.
Well, then you have to note all of these correlating methods as well.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/.../topic/young-age-evidence
You have linked to a page that is a list of different articles, some by known frauds, btw, rather than to an article about evidence for a young earth, and certainly nothing that provides any correlation from one piece of "evidence" to another.
cor·re·la·tion -noun (American Heritage Dictionary, 2009)1. A causal, complementary, parallel, or reciprocal relationship, especially a structural, functional, or qualitative correspondence between two comparable entities: a correlation between drug abuse and crime.
2. Statistics The simultaneous change in value of two numerically valued random variables: the positive correlation between cigarette smoking and the incidence of lung cancer; the negative correlation between age and normal vision.
3. An act of correlating or the condition of being correlated.
We are talking about correlation2, just to be sure you are on the same page: different processes resulting in the same value.
Please pick your best piece of evidence from your source/s, one you personally think you can defend, and present it. This would, after all, be in line with the topic of this thread eh? Not frauds, not hoaxes, and not fantasy depictions, but physical evidence of a young earth. Note that I have already done this for the evidence that the earth is indeed very old and I referred you to just this kind of evidence in Message 55, so I am not asking you to do anything I have not already done.
If you want to investigate the evidence of an old earth, see Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, and note that it is not just the evidence of an old earth, but the correlations between the different methods and systems, correlations that would not occur if the measurement systems were in error.
Note, btw, that I expect you to fail, so let's see if you can prove my hypothesis wrong.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : smaller image

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-04-2009 8:27 AM wirkkalaj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-04-2009 8:37 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 89 by Blue Jay, posted 08-04-2009 11:25 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 99 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-08-2009 11:42 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 111 of 135 (518925)
08-09-2009 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by wirkkalaj
08-08-2009 11:42 PM


Re: reality testing
Hi again, wirkkalaj, I thought you'd pick that one, as superficially it appears to match a modern reconstruction:
This one is obvious, of course you'll probably just call it a hoax.
http://s8int.com/dinolit1.html
http://s8int.com/meso-cylinder.html
quote:
Seal and impression. Located at the Louvre Museum.
Note the points of comparison between the head of the "Mesopotamium sauropod" and the skull of Diplodocus Longus, as highlighted in the graphic below.

The head and the tail are wrong. The tail does not taper and look at the blow up of the head again:
Note (a) that the head is out of scale to the body in the seal compared to the dinosaur, and (b) what is apparently shown is a bare bone skull -- no flesh, no eyes, etc. -- complete with holes in the bones through the head, and (c) that the shape is still wrong.
What this would have proven - at best - is that the ancient people found fossil bones and assembled them but did not have a clue to what a living head looked like, but that is only part of the story ... from
404
Well, I looked at all the search results for "seal" (129) "dinosaur" (none) and "mesopotamia" (146) and found it:
photo
quote:
La glyptique l'époque proto-urbaine
Sceau-cylindre
Frise de lions monstrueux et aigles tte de lion
poque d'Uruk
Jaspe vert
Acquisition 1877
Département des Antiquités orientales
Curiously, the heads are more distinct here, showing eyes and ears and lion like snouts.
... of course you'll probably just call it a hoax.
No, what I've done is proven that it is a hoax, because your website does not show the actual seal, but a picture that has been modified: a hoax by anyone's definition.
Try again?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : Louvre Musee results added -- the proof of the hoax.
Edited by RAZD, : clarity
Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.
Edited by RAZD, : splng of name (sorry tpyo)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-08-2009 11:42 PM wirkkalaj has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 112 of 135 (518930)
08-09-2009 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Blue Jay
08-04-2009 11:25 PM


Re: reality testing
Hi Bluejay
Actually, I disagree with you on this.
Here's an ancient Mesoamerican sculpture that's supposed to be a jaguar:
And a Tlingit eagle:
And a Tlingit eagle:
I agree that stylized depictions of animals can be intentional transformation of the spirit of the animal (especially the Tlinglet painting of the spirits inside the outlines).
However, the argument is that these depictions are anatomically correct, thus demonstrating knowledge of the living animal. They aren't.
What we see from the example I gave shows a stegosaurus-like body minus spiky tail and with a head from some other dinosaur (or a fantasy version of one).
Your jaguar and coyote's eagle don't try to portray anatomically correct depictions, but rather ones that capture the spirit of the animals.
In order for ONE of these depictions to be evidence of cohabitation of dinosaurs and humans, there should be details known to those humans that would not be known from the bones. Color patterns, feathers, behavior.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Blue Jay, posted 08-04-2009 11:25 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Coyote, posted 08-09-2009 7:36 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 123 by Blue Jay, posted 08-10-2009 1:43 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 120 of 135 (518993)
08-10-2009 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Coyote
08-09-2009 7:36 PM


Re: reality testing - the evidence/s neccessary
Hi Coyote, let's try look at the basic claim again:
Depiction (A) shows a dinosaur
this depiction compares to (B) a known dinosaur
Therefore humans and dinosaur (B) co-existed
... because it "didn't try to portray anatomically correct depictions" -- here is one that should take care of your objection:
But it doesn't show an organism that we know existed. You need to have an (A) and a (B) to make the inference.
For instance there is no question that this represents an actual animal alive at the same time as humans:
quote:
Lascaux is the setting of a complex of caves in southwestern France famous for its Paleolithic cave paintings. The original caves are located near the village of Montignac, in the Dordogne département. They contain some of the most well-known Upper Paleolithic art. These paintings are estimated to be 16,000 years old. They primarily consist of realistic images of large animals, most of which are known from fossil evidence to have lived in the area at the time. In 1979, Lascaux was added to the UNESCO World Heritage Sites list along with other prehistoric sites in the Vézre valley.[1]
Cave painting of a dun horse (equine) at Lascaux
There is a link between the fossil bones and the depictions of the animals in the caves, even though they are not strictly "anatomically correct" they do show the animals in sufficient detail for identification, and the details show things that would not be known from the bones - the colors and the hair patterns, the short stubby manes:
Dun gene - Wikipedia
quote:
The dun coat color is thought to be a primitive trait in the horse. This is because equines appearing in prehistoric cave paintings are dun and because several closely related species in the genus Equus are known to have been dun. These species include both subspecies of Equus ferus (the extinct tarpan and the extant but endangered Przewalski's horse), the extinct Equus lambei, and the extant Onager and Kiang.
Przewalski's horses. The animal on the left shows the dorsal stripe along its spine, the one on the right shows faint horizontal "zebra" striping on the back of its legs by the knee, both classic examples of "primitive" dun markings.
The Lascaux, and other, cave drawings are legitimate examples of animals cohabiting with humans because:
  • there is fossil evidence of the animals in question,
  • the depictions show the animals involved without anatomically misplaced features (eagle head on lion body) as known from the bones, and
  • they show details that would not be known from the bones, would not be known without knowing a living specimen - manes, coloration, etc
The fact that they are also dated from the same time is bonus for those that use real world ages, but relatively irrelevant to the creationists who avoid dates and correlations of ages with fossils.
To use a different standard for the creationist claims than for Lascaux cave paintings would be to use a double standard.
Of course most of the creationist claims don't have the (B) evidence to correlate with the (A) evidence -- as shown for the stegosaurus -- relying instead on the gullibility of people to make the connection.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Coyote, posted 08-09-2009 7:36 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Coyote, posted 08-10-2009 11:17 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 125 of 135 (519027)
08-10-2009 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by Blue Jay
08-10-2009 1:43 PM


Re: reality testing
Hi Bluejay, I think you are reading more into his argument than exists.
I disagree with this. Wirkkalaj's argument is that dinosaurs influenced ancient cultures and art, not that the ancients were particularly good at anatomical illustration.
I went back over all his posts on this thread and did not see that argument.
Message 75
Message 80
Message 93
Message 95
Message 99
Message 101
Message 102
Message 110
What I did see was:
Message 72
quote:
So how could they have drawings, statues and other artifacts that (in many cases) look just like dinosaurs if they never saw them?
Message 87
quote:
I still don't see how can say that the carvings do not at least resemble a Stegasaurus (spelling?). Even a 1st grader could see the resemblance!? You might consider that their interpretations of the beast are more accurate than our fossil re-constructions because they saw them first hand.
Your entire line of argument is easily defeated by Wirkkalaj suggesting that the artisan was carving based on an anecdote, or from memory long after the sighting.
A position that also destroys the argument that they are drawn\carved etc from first hand knowledge, as he is quoted as arguing.
No, for the only way the argument can be valid is if the argument follows this form:
Depiction (A) shows a dinosaur
this depiction compares to (B) a known dinosaur
Therefore humans and dinosaur (B) co-existed
And there can be no anatomical errors (spikes on the head instead of the tail, head too large, etc)
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by Blue Jay, posted 08-10-2009 1:43 PM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Blue Jay, posted 10-12-2009 11:40 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1395 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 134 of 135 (530180)
10-12-2009 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by Blue Jay
10-12-2009 11:40 AM


Re: reality testing
Hi Bluejay, yeah, old posts
Does this mean the artist never saw a human?
No, what it means is that the statue is not proof that the artist did see humans.
Why can there be no anatomical errors? I hear first-hand bug stories all the time about cockroaches six inches long and spiders with twenty or more legs (neither of which has ever been documented)... I’m very familiar with the inability of people to properly diagnose the weird stuff right in front of their eyes.
Because only with anatomically correct representations can you conclude that they co-existed.
Any other depiction that can be derived from seeing fossil bones can only prove that they saw fossil bones.
Enjoy

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Blue Jay, posted 10-12-2009 11:40 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Blue Jay, posted 10-12-2009 5:43 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024