The greatest evidence of this, is all of the cave drawings. Remember that these paintings were done long before the "science" of Archeology. The cavemen didn't have computer modelling to put the bones back together and put flesh on the bones. Here are a few more proofs.
The greatest evidence of this, is all of the cave drawings. Remember that these paintings were done long before the "science" of Archeology. The cavemen didn't have computer modelling to put the bones back together and put flesh on the bones.
I've seen 'em. You don't need computer modeling or "archaeology" (or paleontology, which is the study of fossils) to produce vague squiggles and smudges which creationists pretend look like dinosaurs.
Nor, indeed, would you need "computer modeling" to produce a picture of something which actually did look like a dinosaur, you'd just need some bones. Our nineteenth-century ancestors produced pictures that were actually pictures of dinosaurs and not smudges and squiggles, and they did it all without the assistance of computers.
This picture, for example, is far more accurate than the blurred sudges of "cave art":
It was produced by someone who had never seen a dinosaur or a computer.
actually, the problem i have this particular brand of cracked pottery is that the pictures i see that are supposedly proof of mankind seeing dinosaurs with their own eyes all look more like this:
Dr Adequate writes:
than like this:
it's sort of subtle with trikey here, but with theropods, it's more dramatic.
i mean, knowing what we know now from modern paleontology, if you had to guess, which one of those would you say was made by a person that actually saw a living t. rex?
basically, what it tells me, is that the people who made most of those artifacts/drawings/etc were looking at shitty pop-culture dinosaur drawings from before 1990, and not living, breathing non-avian dinosaurs.
I take it your point is that dinosaurs tails stuck out backwards rather than trailing downwards.
But that is only a deduction made by mere scientists looking at mere facts. What are you going to believe: the theories of godless so-called paleontologists, or the vague squiggles produced by actual anonymous eyewitnesses.
Dinosaurs must have looked like this, because this is a picture of a dinosaur, and we know it's a picture of a dinosaur because that's what dinosaurs look like.
What most creos dont get is that even finding a tyrannosaurs Rex living somewhere in the jungle would not put the slightest dent in the theory of evolution. Finding a modern human that lived during the time of dinosaurs would.
So far no one has ever presented a cave painting of a dinosaur.
I've looked at thousands of pictographs and petroglyphs (I'm an archaeologist).
Many of the drawings are a true Rorschach test. You can make most anything out of them.
If creationists want to prove the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs, all they need to do is find a dinosaur bone in a prehistoric archaeological site, or to find a kill site with a spear point in a dinosaur bone. Hasn't happened.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
To be fair and paying due homage to the tongue-in-cheek remark, bridles are a more recent invention and wouldn't have existed prehistorically, though both bridles and yokes would not be preserved over such a long period of time.
*edit: Caught myself at the end. If we're talking 6,000 year old Earth then all bets are off on the bridle/yoke hypothesis.
And we do have examples of bridle, yoke and harness going back at least 5500 years. So if man and dino not just lived together but were domesticated as shown in the absolutely silly Creation Museum up until the imaginary Flud, we certainly should see some examples.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
What most creos dont get is that even finding a tyrannosaurs Rex living somewhere in the jungle would not put the slightest dent in the theory of evolution.
If we found a species from the Cretaceous in the modern world, it probably would be quite a problem for the Theory of Evolution, given that current views of evolution aren't very friendly toward the idea of a single species living unchanged for 65 million years.
But, your general point is right, of course. Finding a tyrannosaur, or some relative of Tyrannosaurus rex would not be a problem for ToE to cover.