Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   101 evidences for a young age...
Brian
Member (Idle past 4949 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 46 of 135 (514088)
07-03-2009 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Taz
07-03-2009 5:00 PM


Re: Such as?
I'm sure Nessie is in there somewhere!
Gzus, no leaps at all on that page.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Taz, posted 07-03-2009 5:00 PM Taz has not replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9053
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.4


Message 47 of 135 (514090)
07-03-2009 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Taz
07-03-2009 5:00 PM


Re: Such as?
from the same source you use. I refuse to link to such dishonest crap.
In 1496 the Bishop of Carlisle, Richard Bell, was buried in Carlisle Cathedral in the U.K. The tomb is inlaid with brass, with various animals engraved upon it (see right). Although worn by the countless feet that walked over it since the Middle Ages, a particular depiction is unmistakable in its similarity to a dinosaur. Amongst the birds, dog, eel, etc. this clear representation of two long-necked creatures should be considered evidence that man and dinosaurs co-existed.
I guess this cinches it. Lest we forget that in 1492 the King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella presented Columbus with the royal dinosaur to protect him on his journey. The reason the dinosaur is not mentioned is because Chris ate it.
Seriously, this stuff is batshit crazy. Using this logic then we still have we have aliens from outer space among us. People draw them, there are stories and movies about them, therefore they exist.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Taz, posted 07-03-2009 5:00 PM Taz has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 979 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 48 of 135 (514097)
07-03-2009 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by wirkkalaj
07-03-2009 3:44 PM


How likely do you think it is that no ancient peoples ever came upon fossilized dinosaurs? Or even whale, mammoth, sabor toothed cat, or other large animal skeletons?
Hell, the first time I saw a cave bear skeleton at the museum, it looked like a giant human.

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 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-04-2009 9:38 AM roxrkool has replied
 Message 72 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-04-2009 7:20 AM roxrkool has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2096 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 49 of 135 (514100)
07-03-2009 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by wirkkalaj
07-03-2009 3:44 PM


Dinosaurs cavorting with humans
I like to point out that there are hundreds of ancient artifacts, cave drawings and other relics that have depictions of dinosaurs on them. While this does not really prove anything about young earth. It does show how blindly wrong the evolutionists are in their conclusions that the dinosaurs died off millions of years ago.
Where are the bones?
If there are dinosaurs strolling and cavorting about with early humans, we should be able to find dinosaur bones. We don't.
We find dinosaur fossils all over the place, in strata dating 65 million years and older, but no bones.
And if you are pushing a young earth, then everything is compressed into 6,000 years and bones preserve readily at such young ages. So I ask again, where are the bones? Wouldn't archaeologists be knee deep in the things?
I've been doing archaeology for decades, and we regularly find bones down to the size of sardines and anchovies, but no dinosaur bones.
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, then why should I believe them in anything else concerning ages?
If creationists can be wrong about dinosaurs and humans cohabiting, what else are they wrong about? Why should we believe anything they claim?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

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 71 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-04-2009 7:14 AM Coyote has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 50 of 135 (514112)
07-03-2009 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by wirkkalaj
07-03-2009 3:44 PM


I like to point out that there are hundreds of ancient artifacts, cave drawings and other relics that have depictions of dinosaurs on them.
But this is not actually true.
There are, on the other hand, hundreds of thousands of modern artifacts depicting dinosaurs.
Here's one.
Look, it even has a picture of a human and an elephant standing next to the dinosaurs.
Does this prove that humans and elephants are cohabiting the Earth with dinosaurs? Or is it, you know, a picture?
It does show how blindly wrong the evolutionists are in their conclusions that the dinosaurs died off millions of years ago.
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, then why should I believe them in anything else concerning ages?
The notion that dinosaurs are extinct has nothing to do with "evolutionists" and everything to do with the fact that no-one can find a living dinosaur. If "evolutionists" could find a colony of surviving dinosaurs tomorrow, then they would throw one hell of a party --- and of course this discovery would not cast the least doubt on the dates ascribed to the fossils. (You do not explain how, in your fantasy world, such a discovery would invalidate dating methods. It would not. How could it?)
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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 73 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-04-2009 7:34 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 827 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 51 of 135 (514146)
07-04-2009 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by wirkkalaj
07-03-2009 3:44 PM


Saddle up yer Tricerotops Pardner
wirkklalaj writes:
I like to point out that there are hundreds of ancient artifacts, cave drawings and other relics that have depictions of dinosaurs on them.
Perhaps you could enlighten this community with some actual examples. All previous claims of this nature have either been shown to be faked or misinterpreted.
While this does not really prove anything about young earth. It does show how blindly wrong the evolutionists are in their conclusions that the dinosaurs died off millions of years ago.
That would naturally depend upon one's definition of dinosaur.
It is dawn and I hear birds singing.
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, then why should I believe them in anything else concerning ages?
Yeah, why believe in gasoline or smallpox? They are all within the realm of that evil 'science'
No one has come up with one whit of evidence that any classical jurassical sauropods or theropods are out eating lawyers and big game hunters (or instead, amusement park owners, as in the book). Perhaps you could be the first and therefore enshrine your name in history.
Edited by anglagard, : remove misplaced ?
Edited by anglagard, : replace false with faked as it is more appropriate

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon
The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

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 52 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-04-2009 7:38 AM anglagard has not replied
 Message 74 by wirkkalaj, posted 08-04-2009 7:48 AM anglagard has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3091 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 52 of 135 (514149)
07-04-2009 7:38 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by anglagard
07-04-2009 7:25 AM


Re: Saddle up yer Tricerotops Pardner
Anglagard writes:
Perhaps you could enlighten this community with some actual examples. All previous claims of this nature have either been shown to be false or misinterpreted.
Here is the cave driving the creationists are alledging puts the nail in the coffin that dinasours lived with man courtesy of Taz.
I am speechless! And here I thought creationists were not an imaginative bunch! (Please hold the snickering down )
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by anglagard, posted 07-04-2009 7:25 AM anglagard has not replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 135 (514161)
07-04-2009 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by roxrkool
07-03-2009 6:25 PM


Ancient paleontology
How likely do you think it is that no ancient peoples ever came upon fossilized dinosaurs? Or even whale, mammoth, sabor toothed cat, or other large animal skeletons?
There is some compelling evidence that suggests Greeks and other ancient cultures dabbled considerably in paleontology. It is theorized that many of their mythologies stem from discovering fossilized dinosaur remains.
The image below is a Corinthian artifact dated at around 560-540 B.C. The artists rendering is of some kind of mythological beast, a kind of chimera, that a Greek warrior is fighting. If you look closely at the head of the beast you'll note that it almost appears to be a skull, specifically that of an extinct dinosaur along with artistic modifications.
Anyone with the best guess as to the species gets a firm handshake a pat on the back.
Another website critiquing the book from which this image derives goes over the plausibility of its contents and describes this,
"The figures, like on most Greek vases and such, are fully fleshed out and well done, but note the monster emerging from the cave. Note the skeletal appearance - including sclerotic eye rings, the jaw articulation and the broken premaxilla. The skull itself is probably chimerical - that is composed of traits of several species. For example, the sclerotic eye rings appear only in dinosaurs and birds, not mammals, yet other features of the skull are mammalian. From there Mayor surveys archaeological discoveries of fossil bones. For example, Schliemann found a fossil in his Troy excavations."
The jacket of the book entitled, "The First Fossil Hunters:
Paleontology in Greek and Roman Times," describes this,
"They frequently encountered the fossilized bones of these primeval beings, and they developed sophisticated concepts to explain the fossil evidence, concepts that were expressed in mythological stories. The legend of the gold-guarding griffin, for example, sprang from tales first told by Scythian gold-miners, who, passing through the Gobi Desert at the foot of the Altai Mountains, encountered the skeletons of Protoceratops and other dinosaurs that littered the ground.
Like their modern counterparts, the ancient fossil hunters collected and measured impressive petrified remains and displayed them in temples and museums; they attempted to reconstruct the appearance of these prehistoric creatures and to explain their extinction. Long thought to be fantasy, the remarkably detailed and perceptive Greek and Roman accounts of giant bone finds were actually based on solid paleontological facts."
If you really think about it, this helps to make mythological motives more evident. it is more than just possible or plausible. It's very likely that they did in fact stumble upon fossil remains and tried to explain what they were looking at. Clearly the evidence was right in front of them. Now they needed a theory. The writers also further suggest that at one point proto-paleontology in Greek and Roman culture became a lucrative and sought after practice. I don't doubt it.
I've long advocated that seldom a myth springs out of thin air without any cause. I wouldn't hesitate to assume that in almost all mythologies, there are shreds of truth interlaced with speculative interpretation.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.
Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." Thomas Jefferson

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by roxrkool, posted 07-03-2009 6:25 PM roxrkool has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by roxrkool, posted 07-04-2009 2:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 979 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 54 of 135 (514180)
07-04-2009 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Hyroglyphx
07-04-2009 9:38 AM


Re: Ancient paleontology
I completely agree. Sounds like an interesting book. I think I'd like to pick that one up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Hyroglyphx, posted 07-04-2009 9:38 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2009 5:09 PM roxrkool has 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

  
greentwiga
Member (Idle past 3417 days)
Posts: 213
From: Santa
Joined: 06-05-2009


Message 57 of 135 (514197)
07-04-2009 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by RAZD
07-04-2009 5:09 PM


Re: Ancient paleontology
I also thought it interesting that dinosaur and other thigh bone fossils look very similar to human thigh bones. Could this be the source of the giant myths? Notice also the myths about things turning other things to stone. (gorgons, basilisks) Could this be in response to finding bones turned to stone? With the author finding notes about throwing away fossil bones when unearthing Greek temples, it makes a strong case that the Greeks and others found fossils.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2009 5:09 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by roxrkool, posted 07-04-2009 5:58 PM greentwiga has not replied
 Message 59 by bluescat48, posted 07-04-2009 11:16 PM greentwiga has not replied
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-05-2009 1:39 AM greentwiga has replied

  
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 979 days)
Posts: 1497
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


Message 58 of 135 (514201)
07-04-2009 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by greentwiga
07-04-2009 5:38 PM


Re: Ancient paleontology
Great points, green.
That's why I mentioned my experience with the cave bear skeleton. The second I saw that thing, I thought, "A giant!" At first glance it looked human. I could totally see coming upon such a skeleton a thousand years ago and thinking it was a giant.
P.S. Thanks for the recommendation, RAZD. I'm going to look for that book this weekend.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by greentwiga, posted 07-04-2009 5:38 PM greentwiga has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4180 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 59 of 135 (514218)
07-04-2009 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by greentwiga
07-04-2009 5:38 PM


Re: Ancient paleontology
I also thought it interesting that dinosaur and other thigh bone fossils look very similar to human thigh bones. Could this be the source of the giant myths? Notice also the myths about things turning other things to stone. (gorgons, basilisks) Could this be in response to finding bones turned to stone? With the author finding notes about throwing away fossil bones when unearthing Greek temples, it makes a strong case that the Greeks and others found fossils.
Could very well be. Considering the imaginative powers of humans it would be very logical to assume large thigh bones as being from a giant human if one had no other explanation.

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by greentwiga, posted 07-04-2009 5:38 PM greentwiga has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 274 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 60 of 135 (514221)
07-05-2009 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 57 by greentwiga
07-04-2009 5:38 PM


Re: Ancient paleontology
I also thought it interesting that dinosaur and other thigh bone fossils look very similar to human thigh bones. Could this be the source of the giant myths?
The first dinosaur bone we know of being described by a Western scholar dates from 1677, when the lower part of a femur was described by Robert Plot. From his description belonged to Megalosaurus or something similar. (The fragment has been lost, but we have his description and this drawing).
Of course, by that time there were already legends of giants, so this does not demonstrate the origin of the legend: but it does show that your conjecture is not implausible.
Another interesting case is the "Klagenfurt Dragon". The people of Klagenfurt found a skull, identified it as that of a dragon, and were so impressed that in 1590 they put up a big statue of it. They kept the skull, which turned out to be that of a woolly rhinoceros. Again, it's not the origin of dragon myths, but it does suggest that they might have got started in this way.
(I've got a whole file of these things, I keep meaning to write an article on them.)
Notice also the myths about things turning other things to stone. (gorgons, basilisks) Could this be in response to finding bones turned to stone?
Another interesting conjecture. Do you know the legend of St Patrick and the snakes? According to Irish legend, when he drove all the snakes out of Ireland (which is indeed snake-free) they curled up and turned into ammonites. There are similar less well-known myths about other saints from other parts of the British Isles.
There used to be a cottage industry carving snake heads on ammonites to make them look more snake-y, to sell to tourists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by greentwiga, posted 07-04-2009 5:38 PM greentwiga has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by greentwiga, posted 07-05-2009 2:22 AM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 69 by Brian, posted 07-06-2009 6:58 AM Dr Adequate has 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