|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: 101 evidences for a young age... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brian Member (Idle past 4989 days) Posts: 4659 From: Scotland Joined: |
I'm sure Nessie is in there somewhere!
Gzus, no leaps at all on that page.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9202 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.4 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1019 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 867 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3131 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1019 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
I completely agree. Sounds like an interesting book. I think I'd like to pick that one up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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: 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: 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 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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 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) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greentwiga Member (Idle past 3457 days) Posts: 213 From: Santa Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
roxrkool Member (Idle past 1019 days) Posts: 1497 From: Nevada Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluescat48 Member (Idle past 4220 days) Posts: 2347 From: United States Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024