Please Help Me Disprove This (Re: Modern dinosaurs)

If you say these are photoshopped images, which totally possible given the technology we have today, do you still have the original photos?I should ask, though, conversely, how do you know the alleged original is actually the original? How do you know the one you possess is not the photoshopped image of the Anasazi petroglyph? I only ask because I lived with members of the Anasazi tribe in Flagstaff.And what of the Khmer temple stegosaurus? Is that photoshopped too?

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

I wandered all over that area. I don't have a link to the image but it was pretty obvious. We discussed the anasazi images in several threads here, notably this one and this oneThe Cambodian image is just misrepresentation and creative lighting. It is of a wild boar and what looks like plates are actually plants in the background.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Did ancient people inherently invent mythological creatures that just so happened to resemble what we know today to be dinosaurs?

---

Sure, why not?They invented all sorts of imaginary animals like the following:

Some sort of details of provenance would be nice.If that thing at the bottom is meant to be a pterodactyl, then the head and the wings are both wrong.

Well, until you can get original, the benefit of the doubt goes to the image because it doesn't seem obvious to me. I'll give you example of an obvious photoshopped image of an alleged pterosaur. And you know this how? Are you just guessing or did you meet the sculptor?

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

Actually I looked at lots of pictures of the carving, from before it was cleaned up for the movies and after. I looked at the other carvings around the temple, at the differences for example in the head size between the dino, a boar and the image, the same shapes used as leaves in the other carvings.And if you want to believe some of these images are of dinosaurs, then fine. You are free to believe anything you want. That's what the conmen count on, gullible folk that believe nonsense.AbE:Also, did you actually read the links I provided? Did you look at the images?Second Addition:Look at this message Here as well as the actual photos (what is shown so far is simply a drawing) that can be found here and here as well as nosy's response to me in this post to see some of the past discussions on the subject.Edited by jar, : No reason given.Edited by jar, : add more info

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Absolutely amazing! I'm convinced! Three, read it, yes, three examples of piss-poor look alikes!What you have shown is poor correlation (poor because those images may not be what you think they are). Not causation. You need causation to prove your idea that dragons and dinos have similar structures.I also find it telling that when defending your claim about dinos and dragons you bring up a boar, a giant lizard, and a long-necked creature.It is also telling you have but three examples of poor look alikes. How many dinoes are/were there? And how great was their variation?And if I'm not mistaken, pterosaurs are not dinosaurs. Neither are the sea creatures.

My point would be that even if the "lookalikes" were not so poor, what would it prove. Great white sharks, ichthyosaurs & killer whales resemble each other but are in no way closely realted.

The three you listed are similar very superficially.
Sharks don't have dorsal fins and a tail that flaps up and down, but rather, side to side.
Killer Whales have a dorsal fin and a tail that goes up and down to swim, not side by side.
Then there's the total lack of gills in whales but the prescence of them on sharks.
Poor look alikes, I'd say.I don't know enough about the ichtyosaur to say how dissimilar it is.On the other hand, gorillas, chimps, man, and bonobos resemble each other and are fairly closely related.And the point in dispute is not whether those three are related, but whether those pictures nem put up as comparison are close enough to say that the 'modern' creatures pictured are the 'old' dinos and others. Poor similarity between the pictures disproves his case.

What I was saying was that even if they were exaxt lookalikes it would mean that the mythological dragons were dinosaurs any more than or that dragons existed anymore than that the winged horse, Pegasus ever existed.

There is a lot of talk on this thread about birds being dinosaurs. What is interesting is that you talk of it as if it is a fact. Here is the fact: not even all evolutionists agree that dinosaurs evolved into birds. For example, Science Magazine published an article in 1997 that refutes this theory (Burke, A. C., Feduccia, A. (1997, October 24). Developmental Patterns and the Identification of Homologies in the Avian Hand. Science, 278, 666-668).
That is just one example, I can produce dozens if I wanted to spend the time, I dont.
The truth is (real truth, not relative truth), that most, if not all, theories and claims that have to do with evolution, that are presented as "fact" by one scientist, are refuted by another. It makes the creationist's job who wants to refute evolution quite easy.
If there are so many "facts" about evolution, then why dont other evolutionists agree on them?
The answer: there are no "facts" of evolution. Oops, except this fact: EVOLUTION NEVER HAPPENED, ISNT HAPPENING, AND WONT HAPPEN!Dont believe me? Find one universally agreed "fact" of evolution.
The "fact" that every evolutionist agrees that evolution happened does not count. I want you to find a universally accepted fact that supports the idea that evolution happened.GOOD LUCK and keep me posted!Oh, one more thing. Try to keep on subject. The way evolutionists avoid every really settling anything is quite annoying. They love to change the subject when backed into a corner. If this requires posting a new forum, that is fine. Use my post as the start, just let me know so I can follow it.

I wouldn't be bragging about how evos can't agree on one set of facts. Creationism has a worse track record. You all cannot agree on the age of the earth (anywhere from 6,000 to ten thousand to 4.5 billion), a relatively simple fact, and that's just the tip of the iceberg.Further, science changes on a daily basis--what once was fact no longer is, and vice versa. Such is the manner of things based on increased knowledge. Is it a bad thing to say one day that the earth is flat and the next that it is round once more information has been gathered? Now throw in a controversial area of study (of which the theory of evolution certainly isn't) and you'll get quite a few different ideas. One such area is in physics--is it M-theory or is it something else (can't think of other name right now).By the way, the study you quote is 10 years old. That is ancient in science. Try to find something more up to date, won't you? Maybe an article that cites your study as a source?

Your request is highly off-topic for this thread.
You can start a new one or peruse our boards for some older threads on this topic.

There are only a few scientists who no longer accept the idea that birds are dinosaurs. Feduccia may still be one, but pointing to a paper published ten years ago is no guarantee of that. The fact is that science is not a monolithic enterprise that enforces conformity. There are no thought police who suppress dissent. As a new consensus is reached some scientists will be left behind, as Hoyle was left behind when the Big Bang became the dominant view in cosmology.But even Feduccia believes that birds belong in the archosaurs. He only disagrees which group of archosaurs gave rise to birds. It's not that big a disagreement, on that level. So much for your claim that there is no agreement.

quote:

---

If this requires posting a new forum, that is fine. Use my post as the start, just let me know so I can follow it.

---

If you want to establish a new topic you are required to post the starting post to the Proposed New Topics forum. If it passes muster it will be promoted to an open forum for discussion. If there is any doubt about which forum would be most suitable, include your preference in the original post.

Find one universally agreed "fact" about anything. I bet anything that you consider to be a fact, there is going to be some nut somewhere who disagrees with it.By your criterion, nothing at all is true.

---

Computers have cut-and-paste functions. So does right-wing historical memory. -- Rick Perlstein