Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,627 Year: 4,884/9,624 Month: 232/427 Week: 42/103 Day: 0/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Did Dinosaurs live with man?
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 667 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 61 of 373 (664226)
05-30-2012 2:35 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by RAZD
05-18-2012 12:01 PM


The fact that fossils of dinosaurs exist today, and existed in the times when those legends were born should also be evidence that the dragon concepts were based on the fossils.
Again I suggest you read The First Fossil Hunters: Dinosaurs, Mammoths, and Myth in Greek and Roman Times by Adrienne Mayor.
Very interesting. I have never thought about it that way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 05-18-2012 12:01 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 667 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


(1)
Message 62 of 373 (664227)
05-30-2012 2:47 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Dr Adequate
05-18-2012 2:57 PM


Though I must admit that Ica stones were claimed a Hoax. By the maker. My problem is why didnt artifact dating was not able to properly date these stones. By dating they unable to prove it was acient or not. Only the creator admission was anyone able to find this out. Not by dating.
DrNasty writes:
So you cited evidence that you know to be a hoax.
This is why you are infuriating. While I don't agree with scotty in the least, you are falsely accusing him citing a hoax as evidence. Indeed he cited the hoax, but the hoax itself was not the evidence; it was science's inability to correctly date the stones that scotty used as evidence. He was saying that if science cannot correctly date artifacts, why should we believe they can correctly date dinosaur bones? The fact that he listed this evidence right after the soft tissue evidence of a t-rex should have given you a clue as to what he was using evidence for. The only way scotty could have used the hoax as evidence is he were trying to say the stones were as old as hoaxster originally said they were. This is dishonest of you unless you are in such a hurry to humiliate scotty that you did not take time to actually try and figure out what his argument was.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-18-2012 2:57 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by arachnophilia, posted 05-30-2012 4:18 AM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 64 by Granny Magda, posted 05-30-2012 11:02 AM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 65 by Taq, posted 05-30-2012 12:16 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1428 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(4)
Message 63 of 373 (664229)
05-30-2012 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by foreveryoung
05-30-2012 2:47 AM


to be fair, it's not the stones that are the hoax, but the inscriptions on them. the rocks themselves are very, very old. the only question is how recently someone scrawled on them. and that sort of thing is a touch harder to date, reliant on much flimsier evidence that can be sometimes faked effectively enough to an untrained eye.
dating based on coloration of patina, and apparent weathering isn't so solid.
potassium/argon dating, the law of superposition, and the geologic column are.
does that make sense? also relevant is the fact that hoaxers are often trying to deceive, and create a false appearance of age. geology is not. in any case, what exactly is your source that "science!" failed to correctly date them? they were never found by archaeologists, only (forged by) a local farmer. so it's not like science could have dated them relative to their geologic strata. and you can't K-Ar date an inscription. i don't see any way that science could have offered a date at all on those grounds.
though it could have offered a date based on comparing the inscriptions to depictions of dinosaurs in popular media. and it would have found that there was no way in hell they'd been carved by anyone who had ever seen a living dinosaur. it also would have been relatively easy to compare it to native art styles, from pre-columbian to contemporary, and give them an approximate date based on that. but that's a bit less scientific.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by foreveryoung, posted 05-30-2012 2:47 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Granny Magda
Member (Idle past 122 days)
Posts: 2462
From: UK
Joined: 11-12-2007


(2)
Message 64 of 373 (664239)
05-30-2012 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by foreveryoung
05-30-2012 2:47 AM


Hi foreveryoung,
While I don't agree with scotty in the least, you are falsely accusing him citing a hoax as evidence. Indeed he cited the hoax, but the hoax itself was not the evidence; it was science's inability to correctly date the stones that scotty used as evidence. He was saying that if science cannot correctly date artifacts, why should we believe they can correctly date dinosaur bones?
Except that this isn't what he originally said. Take a look at the OP;
ScottyDouglas writes:
Physical evidence that dinosaurs lived with man!
The truth is undeniable!
Ica, Peru - Nazca Indians 1 ad to 750 ad Ica stones
This culture produced many crafts and artwork. This culture produced massive amounts of carvings and painting that have actual well known dinosaurs on them. These are well recorded acient discoveries that relate that dinosaurs and large ones were a everyday exsperience to these people.
in 1535 Spanish came through Peru and reported finding stones with strange creatures on them.
In Mexico over 56 thousand clay figurines were found all depicting dinosaurs. The age of these figurines are around 2000 bc.
It is well known that the Aztecs portrayed serpents and dragons in thier culture.
Many people today still claim seeing an array of long ago exstinct dinosaurs.
He's not making an argument about dubious dating at all. He's just citing the stones (amongst other bits of tosh) and saying "Look! Models of dinosaurs! HUMANS AND DINOSAURS MUST HAVE LIVED TOGETHER!!!". Scotty was quite content to cite the stones as evidence without bothering until later to mention that they were a known fraud.
The only way scotty could have used the hoax as evidence is he were trying to say the stones were as old as hoaxster originally said they were.
No. He used them as evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. He did so in a completely straight-faced manner. Take another look;
Scotty Douglas writes:
This culture produced massive amounts of carvings and painting that have actual well known dinosaurs on them. These are well recorded acient discoveries that relate that dinosaurs and large ones were a everyday exsperience to these people.
Nothing about dubious dating. That was just a smokescreen that Scotty conjured up later in the thread, presumably after he realised that the Ica stones are a hoax. He's just making excuses. It's deplorable, but sadly, not unprecedented. There is a certain class of creationist who will use any argument at all, even ones that they know full well are fake. It doesn't matter whether it's true or not to these guys, all that matters is its effectiveness as apologetics. I do not believe that you belong to this category of creationist. I think you are more honest than that. I would urge you not to defend such dishonest tactics, whether it's creationists using them or evolutionists.
There is one thing that's confusing me though; you say you don't agree with Scotty, but the other day you said that you believed the Noahic Flood took place before the dinosaurs. Since that story involves humans, doesn't that mean that you should be agreeing with Scotty? For your model to be true, wouldn't humans and dinosaurs necessarily have co-existed?
By the way, I would like to second everything that arachnophilia said about dating the stones.
Mutate and Survive

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by foreveryoung, posted 05-30-2012 2:47 AM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by foreveryoung, posted 05-30-2012 1:35 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10158
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.4


(3)
Message 65 of 373 (664245)
05-30-2012 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by foreveryoung
05-30-2012 2:47 AM


While I don't agree with scotty in the least, you are falsely accusing him citing a hoax as evidence.
No we aren't. Scotty was pushing the claim that these stones were carved by ancient Peruvians, and that they were real depictions of dinosaurs that lived at the same time as these Peruvians. This is untrue.
it was science's inability to correctly date the stones that scotty used as evidence. He was saying that if science cannot correctly date artifacts, why should we believe they can correctly date dinosaur bones?
The problem is that the stones were pulled from a "mystery cave" by their discoverer. For archaeological finds you need to use carbon dating on the organic materia in and around the stones in order to date them properly.
quote:
Why don't scientists simply date the stones and settle the matter? Stones without organic material trapped in them can only be dated by dating the organic material in the strata in which they are found. Since Cabrera's stones come from some mystery cave which has never been identified, much less excavated, there is no way to date them.
Ica Stones - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
It's a matter of not having the proper geologic context of the stones that prevents them from being dated, primarily because they are a hoax. This would not be the case for real dinosaur bone finds where scientists will date the rocks above and below the fossil to determine the age of the fossil.
So the question to you is why we always find dinosaur bones below rocks that date to 65 million years old? Why this correlation? If radiometric dating is so wildly inaccurate how are we able to get such a strong correlation between species and radioisotopes in rocks?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by foreveryoung, posted 05-30-2012 2:47 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4313 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 66 of 373 (664247)
05-30-2012 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by arachnophilia
05-29-2012 9:35 PM


Re: maybe
so, i'm not really sure that you actually understand what a dinosaur is.
BUSTED!
you totally got me. I didn't really know what a dinosaur was.
thanks.
recognize this guy from jurassic park? yeah, i didn't think so. that's velociraptor (late cretaceous, one of the last dinosaurs). science tells us that they had quill barbs on their arms. that means wings. they are skeletally very similar to the another dinosaur you might have heard of: archaeopteryx. in fact, they are so similar that seems that archaeopteryx (the first bird) was a basal (early) dromaeosaur (the family that includes velociraptor). they're sort of like birds' nephews.
it's... relatively hard to find an accurate reconstruction of a dinosaur like velociraptor on the internet. the shape seen in the movies has taken over the popular imagination. but if you saw a real one, you'd think it was a strange kind of bird that had teeth instead of a beak. in fact, that description would be closer to being accurate than thinking a tuatara was a dinosaur. small theropods (including velociraptor) would look like fluffy birds. larger theropods would look like ostriches.
Your 2nd picture didn't come in, but i get this one. I find myself nerding out on this one all the time. Last week we were playing Darksun, and some monsters attacked and the DM described the monsters as "looking like a velociraptor"; i said which version the hollywood version or the scientist version. of course he had no clue what i meant. I said wikipedia it on your iPad and he was shocked they had feathers. it was funny, because it wasn't what he meant at all.
off topic: what is this?
אָרַח
Path?
Edited by Artemis Entreri, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by arachnophilia, posted 05-29-2012 9:35 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by arachnophilia, posted 05-30-2012 1:31 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1428 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 67 of 373 (664254)
05-30-2012 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Artemis Entreri
05-30-2012 12:54 PM


Re: maybe
Artemis Entreri writes:
Last week we were playing Darksun, and some monsters attacked and the DM described the monsters as "looking like a velociraptor"; i said which version the hollywood version or the scientist version. of course he had no clue what i meant. I said wikipedia it on your iPad and he was shocked they had feathers. it was funny, because it wasn't what he meant at all.
even the wikipedia pictures aren't that great. most depictions just kind of slap a few feathers on, and still have them looking like plucked chickens. they should have a full set of fluffy, downy feathers that hide the contours of their bodies, sort of like modern birds do. we're just so set on seeing that sleek, naked-lizard that even the feathered drawings come across the same way.
off topic: what is this? אָרַח
Path?
thinking too literally. or maybe, not literally enough. it's a name from the bible, and it's pronounced "arach".

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Artemis Entreri, posted 05-30-2012 12:54 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Artemis Entreri, posted 05-30-2012 5:10 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 667 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 68 of 373 (664256)
05-30-2012 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Granny Magda
05-30-2012 11:02 AM


He's not making an argument about dubious dating at all. He's just citing the stones (amongst other bits of tosh) and saying "Look! Models of dinosaurs! HUMANS AND DINOSAURS MUST HAVE LIVED TOGETHER!!!". Scotty was quite content to cite the stones as evidence without bothering until later to mention that they were a known fraud.
Ok. I haven't read the whole thread much less the OP. That is why I misunderstood. I had only read the post I took the quote from DA. It seemed from that post alone that DA was falsely accusing scotty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Granny Magda, posted 05-30-2012 11:02 AM Granny Magda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-30-2012 3:35 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 368 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 69 of 373 (664265)
05-30-2012 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by foreveryoung
05-30-2012 1:35 PM


I could say something now, but I won't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by foreveryoung, posted 05-30-2012 1:35 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Dogmafood, posted 05-30-2012 3:49 PM Dr Adequate has not replied
 Message 75 by foreveryoung, posted 05-30-2012 9:07 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 433 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


Message 70 of 373 (664267)
05-30-2012 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Dr Adequate
05-30-2012 3:35 PM


I could say something now, but I won't.
...but you did and it was funny too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-30-2012 3:35 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4313 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 71 of 373 (664272)
05-30-2012 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by arachnophilia
05-30-2012 1:31 PM


Re: maybe
they should have a full set of fluffy, downy feathers that hide the contours of their bodies, sort of like modern birds do. we're just so set on seeing that sleek, naked-lizard that even the feathered drawings come across the same way.
it takes some time I'm sure to get all the old pictures out of everyone memory and filled with the new ones.
what I learned from you and Dr. Adequate (YEAH I SAID IT!!!!!), was more what dinosaurs were, that there was a leg structure and that I had to read more. Honestly I just assumed all the reptiles from 200+ million to 50 million years ago (approx. timeline) were Dinosaurs, I really never stopped to see what the classification was.
I'm just glad you were informative about it instead of mocking me calling me stupid and then moving on, but then again you probably aren't from Minnesota or Wisconsin are you?
thinking too literally. or maybe, not literally enough. it's a name from the bible, and it's pronounced "arach".
nope still not thinking. I just took it to the Israeli translator down the hall and asked him. he said it sorta meant "path", that it didn't really translate and it depended on the context, but based on what he saw he thought it meant "path."
lemme go back there and bug him again, I wanna know what it means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by arachnophilia, posted 05-30-2012 1:31 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by arachnophilia, posted 05-30-2012 8:47 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3035 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 72 of 373 (664277)
05-30-2012 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by arachnophilia
05-29-2012 9:35 PM


Close enough?
so, i'm not really sure that you actually understand what a dinosaur is.
RAWR! Pictures, Images and Photos
Yes?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by arachnophilia, posted 05-29-2012 9:35 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by arachnophilia, posted 05-30-2012 8:05 PM onifre has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1428 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(1)
Message 73 of 373 (664283)
05-30-2012 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by onifre
05-30-2012 6:41 PM


Re: Close enough?
no, more like this.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by onifre, posted 05-30-2012 6:41 PM onifre has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1428 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


(3)
Message 74 of 373 (664289)
05-30-2012 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Artemis Entreri
05-30-2012 5:10 PM


Re: maybe
Artemis Entreri writes:
Honestly I just assumed all the reptiles from 200+ million to 50 million years ago (approx. timeline) were Dinosaurs, I really never stopped to see what the classification was.
out of curiosity, where did you get that impression?
when dinosaurs were first discovered, people looked at the bones and imagined giant lizards. the name itself, coined by sir richard owen, means "terrible lizard", and was apparently meant to imply their great size.
the oldest depictions of dinosaurs basically treated them like cold-blooded lizards (the earliest drawings showed them with impossibly splayed legs), and it wasn't really until the 1980's that the public saw anything else. science was only a few decades ahead of that. it's actually this disparity between the science and the popular depictions that lets us look at stuff like the ica stones and say "forgery" immediately without even looking very hard. they look like popular depictions from the 40s-80s at worst, and jurassic park at best.
but your misconceptions aren't too far away from the way dinosaurs were thought of 100 years ago. and without, you know really studying the subject, one might be inclined to make the same kinds of classification errors...
also, fwiw, "reptile" is no longer the favored term because the colloquial definition of "reptile" is paraphyletic: it's the group of sauropsids, excluding avian dinosaurs. and there's some argument, really, about whether we should call dinosaurs "reptiles". whereas we can call them all, including birds, "sauropsids" just fine.
I'm just glad you were informative about it instead of mocking me calling me stupid and then moving on, but then again you probably aren't from Minnesota or Wisconsin are you?
nope. but there's little point in mocking someone for something they just haven't learned. i follow paleontology from my armchair (i'm not a scientist) because i find the subject of dinosaur evolution fascinating, and frankly, because i just never grew out of it from when i was a kid. i think it's exciting, and interesting, and i love learning new things so i imagine others probably would too.
nope still not thinking. I just took it to the Israeli translator down the hall and asked him. he said it sorta meant "path", that it didn't really translate and it depended on the context, but based on what he saw he thought it meant "path."
no no, you're not seeing the forest for the trees. it sounds a bit like the shortened version of my username. that's really about it. no special meaning.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Artemis Entreri, posted 05-30-2012 5:10 PM Artemis Entreri has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Artemis Entreri, posted 05-31-2012 11:16 AM arachnophilia has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 667 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 75 of 373 (664293)
05-30-2012 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Dr Adequate
05-30-2012 3:35 PM


Yeah, don't want to reveal more of your arrogance and hatred toward fundamentalist Christians do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-30-2012 3:35 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Panda, posted 05-30-2012 9:19 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 78 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-30-2012 10:33 PM foreveryoung has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024