[_ Old Earth _] Man And Dinosaur

[lordkalvan]

pronghorn antelope

The antelope has very long, narrow legs, and a much leaner body than the image in question. The antelope's neck and head also extend above the body. The image from angkor wat shows a very stout beast with the head much shorter and at a lower neutral level. Granted it appears to be drinking or eating or -whatever- with it's head in a dipped position, it is certainly not long enough to be as an antelope. And once again LOOK AT THE TAIL.

Ummm, I don't know what road you are going down here, but I never suggested that the animal in question was a pronghorn antelope, a beast native to North America anyway. What I did point out was that the pronghorn was misidentified by European colonists as an antelope because it happens to look very much like Old World antelopes.

You interpret THIS AS SHOUTING, EH?

It is an emphasis. There is no such thing as tone on teh internetz [sic]. true I could use bold, but it is easier to kill the cap lock/shift key. After all I am "lazy" aren't I?

The conventions I am familiar with view caps lock as intentionally shouting - i.e. to get the attention of the terminally ignorant. If you did not intend it as such, I am happy to take your word for it and withdraw the accusation. I only commented that you appeared to be lazy in respect of your apparent attitude towards replying to posts; how far this extends into your keyboard use, I have no idea .

Concerning your point that the stegosaurus indigenous to Colorado lacks horns, I already told you that I believed it was a variant dinosaur either of the stegosaurid GENUS or a cousin thereof. Notice how I said genus and not species? That is because stegosaurus is not any one dinosaur, but a family of them.

I made no such point. I simply mentioned that there is no evidence of stegosaurus being indigenous to south-east Asia and certainly none that it dwelt there 1,000 years ago. What guides your belief as to the Angkor Wat carving depicting 'a variant dinosaur either of the stegosaurid GENUS or a cousin thereof'? Can you point to any such 'variant' or 'cousin' displaying the cranial features that the carving does?

I did not say the angkor wat image was Stegosaurus armatus which is the north american variety

Nope, you simply claimed it was stegosaurus on the bais of some rather shaky 'looks like' observations.

There are over 5,000 species of frogs in the world not counting the projected thousands of unknown species of all kinds of wildlife the globe over. Do you really think that the stegosurid family is any different?

From observation, the genera of large animals seems to be limited to relatively few numbers. Speculating on the possible existence of 5,000+ stegosaurus species on the basis of the observation that there are thousands of different frog species seems an unconvincing argument.

I have read that there have been approximately 1,200 dinosaur skeletons found thus far in the world --of all the various genera and species-- not to mention just how many of those are even near "complete". One of the stegosaurus species, madagascariensis is named from the grand discovery of teeth ---nothing else is found of this species of stegosaurus.

So, if only about 1,200 dinosaurs have been uncovered the world over, what makes you think that the handful of stegosurids found are the entirety of their kind, and what makes you think that they represent a significant proportion of the whole of dinosaurs found?

As there are around 3,000 'full' dinosaur specimens - complete or near-complete skeletons or complete or near-complete skulls - in US museums alone (source: Will we ever run out of dinosaur bones? - By Kim Gittleson - Slate Magazine), I don't know where your figure of 1,200 comes from. That aside, I do not see how this point does anything to add conviction to the conclusion that the Angkor Wat carving represents a stegosaurus (the forelimbs are all wrong as well).

If dinosaurs died millions of years ago, it is a miracle that we even have the precious few that we do. You act as if our paleontological finds are holistic of time immemorial.

I don't know what point you are making here. Dinosaur fossils are comparatively rare because the circumstances under which fossilization occurs are comparatively rare and geological processes mean that fossil-bearing strata are being continually disrupted.

You saying that no variation of the stegosaurus could possibly have horns is like saying that species are never adorned with unique features which distinguish them from the rest of their genus.

No, I am saying that such speculation is quite without foundation and you may as well speculate that the carving represents some unknown variety of any animal that you care to imagine it does.

The Pacu ---Would it have ever crossed your mind that this grill came from a fish if I cropped away the rest of the image? I was tempted to try it. Something tells me that if the Pacu was long extinct and these teeth were discovered in some layer of strata, they would be evidence for some sort of early hominid.

I hope I would refrain from reaching a dogmatic conclusion on the basis of incomplete information. Regarding your last point, as no primate I know of has multiple rows of teeth in its jaw, I would immediately doubt that I was being shown a photograph of hominid teeth.

Consider also the extinct three-toed horse species. If that variety of horse could have three toes and not a single hoof as the living species have, why can't one of the stegosaurus species come with horns?

Speculation is cheap and easy. Why can't one of the stegosaurus species have come with opposable thumbs on its forelimbs? If you want to allow evidence-free speculation as supporting argument for your conclusions, then feel free to do so, but this does not amount to a very rigorous approach to identifying the animal in the carving as the type you appear to wish very much for it to be.

I refer you once more to consider the various kinds of dogs. Wolves, coyotes, foxes, chiuauas, beagles, pitt-bulls, bull dogs, poodles, "weiner dogs", shi-tzus, great dames, german shepherds, saint bernards, and so on..... All of the various sizes and fur types and skeletal structures... Think about the ears of a beagle or a besset hound and then think about the ears of a pitt-bull. Think about the fur of a chiuaua and then the fur of the old english sheepdog or the shi -tzu. These are variations within a genus.

And after your first three, all the dogs you name are sub-species of the gray wolf and the result of deliberate breeding for preferred traits by human beings. Wolves, coyotes and foxes display none of the dramatic differences that you can demonstrate by choosing your examples as carefully as you do here. Again, if you want to argue that the Angkor Wat carving represents an as yet unknown species of stefosaurus, you need to provide something in the way of evidence that such an animal either could or did exist. Absent such evidence, you appear to be just speculating in the absence of facts in order to explain away features of the carving that are demonstrably different from those of any known stegosaurus species and, strangely, quite typical of animals that are known to have been indigenous to the region at the time the carving was supposedly made.

 

[Ashua]

--To whatever points you countered with which I do not touch on below, the reason is because there really isn't anything to say. I don't believe it is possible to convince you short of some breakthrough discovery, so it just isn't worth it anymore. Your points and my points are at that stalemate threshold where it really cannot be broken down any more.---

Speculation is cheap and easy. Why can't one of the stegosaurus species have come with opposable thumbs on its forelimbs? If you want to allow evidence-free speculation as supporting argument for your conclusions, then feel free to do so, but this does not amount to a very rigorous approach to identifying the animal in the carving as the type you appear to wish very much for it to be.

Speculation is what makes the science world go round. Einstein's relativity was a speculation for a long time. Hypothesis testing is conceived in speculation. of course it is cheap and easy. That doesn't mean it is wrong either. Until it can be confirmed it is a "theory" or "speculation". I am content with that.

So, let's take a slightly different approach to the Angkor Wat image.

We cannot come to terms with what it may be, but surely we can come to terms with what it certainly is NOT.

Can you think of a single known living species which is at least plausible considering every characteristic? Can you think of any species now extinct besides a dinosaur which bears a resemblance? Mammalian or otherwise?

Either the Angkor Wat image was based on a real organism or it was the product of pure imagination. I am very interested to know if the other Ankor Wat images appear to be known creatures. That sort of cross referencing would fairly reasonably shed light or doubt on the idea that it was a work of fantasy. Saying that is is fantasy and not based off of some living creature irrespective of what it may have been is also "speculative". If it can be reasonably concluded that there is no reason to suspect that the Angkor Wat artisans were making animals up, then what sort of fossils represent this creature? The process of elimination of species seems like a good starting point, no?

 

[lordkalvan]

--To whatever points you countered with which I do not touch on below, the reason is because there really isn't anything to say. I don't believe it is possible to convince you short of some breakthrough discovery, so it just isn't worth it anymore. Your points and my points are at that stalemate threshold where it really cannot be broken down any more.---

This seems to be admitting that you have no effective reply to the points raised and arguments made. However, you are right that evidence-free speculation and 'looks like to me and therefore must be' assertions about this particular sculpture do not carry conviction that it represents what you think it does.

Speculation is what makes the science world go round. Einstein's relativity was a speculation for a long time. Hypothesis testing is conceived in speculation. of course it is cheap and easy. That doesn't mean it is wrong either. Until it can be confirmed it is a "theory" or "speculation". I am content with that.

Not exactly. 'Speculation' is to form a theory or conjecture about a subject without any firm evidence. A 'hypothesis' in the scientific meaning of the word is an explanation for an observed phenomenon that can be tested. And in science a 'theory' is a comprehensive explanation of something that has been so thoroughly tested that it provides a robust understanding of empirical observations and is consistent across the range of phenomena it deals with.

So, let's take a slightly different approach to the Angkor Wat image.

We cannot come to terms with what it may be, but surely we can come to terms with what it certainly is NOT.

I have my doubts as we obviously disagree on what certain features of the carving in question may or may not represent. Case in point: you think the 'back plates' are representative of a stegosaurus; I point out that they could be background features or, if associated directly with the animal in question, representing some imaginary product of the sculpture's. I point out that the carving looks very much like a rhinoceros; you argue that it is not anatomically accurate enough to depict such an animal, despite the obvious fact that it is even less anatomically accurate of a stegosaurus.

Can you think of a single known living species which is at least plausible considering every characteristic? Can you think of any species now extinct besides a dinosaur which bears a resemblance? Mammalian or otherwise?

See above. You are assuming that we can agree on what constitutes an associated characteristic of the carving and that we must exclude imaginary beasts from the category of creatures that it might be.

Either the Angkor Wat image was based on a real organism or it was the product of pure imagination.

Well, it could be a blend of these two things; they are not mutually exclusive. It could be the sculpture's depiction of something that was described inaccurately or misleadingly to him/her by another. It could even be an anachronism or a deliberate hoax. Here's a comment on the carving by leading French palaeontologist Eric Buffetaut:

'I think this carving is a recent fake. As you mention, it seems to be
a different color from the other blocks, which suggests a recent
addition, which had no time to weather to the same dark color as the
rest. [This block appeared while the temple was being
restored]. People in SE Asia are now perfectly familiar with dinosaurs
and what they may have looked like, so I can easily imagine a local
sculptor deciding to add a dinosaur carving to a Khmer temple (in a
place like Cambodia, restoration of remote ancient buildings is
likely to be done locally with not much supervision by trained
archeologists). I have seen many sandstone carvings of dinosaurs in
Thailand, made by local people as decorations.
Moreover, the head is not at all stegosaur-like. It is too big relative to the
body and in fact it is ceratopsian-like, with a neck frill and what
looks like a horn above the eye. It is totally unlikely that an
ancient Khmer sculptor could have combined parts of two different
dinosaurs in this way (not to mention the fact that no remains of
horned and frilled ceratopsians have ever been found in SE Asia). But
it is just the kind of amusing combination a modern Cambodian who has
seen dinosaur reconstructions in a book or on television could produce.
In my opinion, this carving is a modern creation.'

Source: personal letter quoted at Stegosaurus, Rhinoceros, or Hoax? | Dinosaur Tracking

I am very interested to know if the other Ankor Wat images appear to be known creatures. That sort of cross referencing would fairly reasonably shed light or doubt on the idea that it was a work of fantasy.

I believe the carvings include a wide variety of fantastical images, as in the two more weathered depictions immediately below 'stegosaurus':

Saying that is is fantasy and not based off of some living creature irrespective of what it may have been is also "speculative".

The suggestion is offered for what it's worth. Mythical animals exist in most cultures and depictions of them occur in art and sculpture. There are other fantastical images amongst the Angkor Wat carvings, which adds at least as much superficial plausibility to the suggestion as does the idea that it is a stegosaurus.

If it can be reasonably concluded that there is no reason to suspect that the Angkor Wat artisans were making animals up, then what sort of fossils represent this creature? The process of elimination of species seems like a good starting point, no?

Except that we have no certain grounds on which to offer up such a conclusion, or even that the original artisans were indeed responsible for the artifact at all.

 

[Ashua]

This seems to be admitting that you have no effective reply to the points raised and arguments made.

Not really, I'm just tired of going in circles with you. All of what you say is long winded and empty.

As much as I hate to use the cookie cutter definition of "insane", that is exactly what this is. I'm tired of going in circles with you and coming to the same checkpoint. Nothing changes, so think what you want. If you want to feel like you "won" this debate, then know it was by attrition and not by sound argument. I just don't feel like going in circles anymore with you.

 

[lordkalvan]

Not really, I'm just tired of going in circles with you. All of what you say is long winded and empty.

Long, well yes, I'll put my hand up to that - but long-winded and empty? I don't think so.

As much as I hate to use the cookie cutter definition of "insane", that is exactly what this is.

I thought it was an ongoing discussion around a subject that interested us both.

I'm tired of going in circles with you and coming to the same checkpoint. Nothing changes, so think what you want.

Well, we've both presented new arguments as the discussion has progressed. Is that entirely futile?

If you want to feel like you "won" this debate, then know it was by attrition and not by sound argument. I just don't feel like going in circles anymore with you.

It's not a question of 'winning' anything, for me it's more about the journey. I have no problem with continuing a discussion over a lengthy period with significant intervals between posts because I know that not everyone can spend as much time posting as others and are also engaged in other topics. I would quibble over your accusation that I simply wore you down, however: if you think my arguments were not sound, you quite failed to demonstrate that to any noticeable extent.

 

[Deavonreye]

I think such discussions are good to have, and I have been following this debate. Maybe it would be a bit better if posts were very precise and shorter.

Anyway, there is something to be said about "fakes". It goes along with another thread [about angels having sex with earth women and producing giants, and some "evidence" in pictures], that was pretty much ended when I suggested that someone point me to one example of one of these "giants" in a credible science center, museum, or whatever. Fakes are all too common and deceive many.

It seems unlikely that man and dinosaurs ever lived at the same time.

 

[lordkalvan]

I think such discussions are good to have, and I have been following this debate. Maybe it would be a bit better if posts were very precise and shorter.

Anyway, there is something to be said about "fakes". It goes along with another thread [about angels having sex with earth women and producing giants, and some "evidence" in pictures], that was pretty much ended when I suggested that someone point me to one example of one of these "giants" in a credible science center, museum, or whatever. Fakes are all too common and deceive many.

It seems unlikely that man and dinosaurs ever lived at the same time.

Yep - and the thing about fakes is that, even after they have been demonstrated unequivocally to be exactly that, there are those who cling unswervingly to the belief that the fake is the genuine article - Ica Stones, Acambaro Figurines, Pyramidiocy, etc, etc - the list is probably endless.

 

[Ashua]

It sure is easy to dismiss as fake, isn't it? If you are suggesting the images I posted are intentional fakes, I'd like to see some real evidence of that. Show me which ones are "fake" and why --and not just because you think so, but with real reasoning and I will renounce them on an individual basis. No more about the Angkor Wat one either. Tell me why they are fake if you are going to make that claim, let's hear some "honest" defense for the claim, if indeed you are making it. "Demonstrate" them "unequivocally" to be fakes and I won't defend or use them anymore.

 

[lordkalvan]

It sure is easy to dismiss as fake, isn't it? If you are suggesting the images I posted are intentional fakes, I'd like to see some real evidence of that. Show me which ones are "fake" and why --and not just because you think so, but with real reasoning and I will renounce them on an individual basis. No more about the Angkor Wat one either. Tell me why they are fake if you are going to make that claim, let's hear some "honest" defense for the claim, if indeed you are making it. "Demonstrate" them "unequivocally" to be fakes and I won't defend or use them anymore.

In the first place, I don't think Deavonreye's comment was directed at any specific examples other than the one he quoted.

In the second place, no one suggested that the images you posted are fakes. However, absent any supporting argument and context provided for those images, it is difficult to offer any opinion at all. The Angkor Wat example was different, because argument and context were offered.

In the third place, it is not our responsibility to explain why images you posted are or are not acceptable 'evidence' that they represent extinct dinosaurs and thus the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs. It is your responsibility to support this argument, explaining why the pictures are evidence of this.

And finally, if you want 'No more about the Angkor Wat one either', can we take it that you no longer regard this example as persuasive evidence for the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs? If this is not the case, it seems unlikely that anything anyone can say in respect of your other images (and any arguments you offer to support your case) will persuade you that they do not represent what you think they represent.

 

[Ashua]

In the first place, I don't think Deavonreye's comment was directed at any specific examples other than the one he quoted.

In the second place, no one suggested that the images you posted are fakes. However, absent any supporting argument and context provided for those images, it is difficult to offer any opinion at all. The Angkor Wat example was different, because argument and context were offered.

In the third place, it is not our responsibility to explain why images you posted are or are not acceptable 'evidence' that they represent extinct dinosaurs and thus the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs. It is your responsibility to support this argument, explaining why the pictures are evidence of this.

And finally, if you want 'No more about the Angkor Wat one either', can we take it that you no longer regard this example as persuasive evidence for the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs? If this is not the case, it seems unlikely that anything anyone can say in respect of your other images (and any arguments you offer to support your case) will persuade you that they do not represent what you think they represent.

Oh, I expected as much.

First, that is why I posted in an inquisitive form. --Fair--

Second, See above

Third, it would be an exhibition of special pleading to suppose that the aboriginal peoples of Australia coincidentally dreamed up the creature which I suggest is a plesiosaur, or that the brontosaurus-like creature in the cave art was likewise a coincidental imagining or of the "dinosaur" which I contend appears in the Mosaic.
However, unlike before when you contended it was my responsibility to "prove" the stegosaurid, when I was making the affirmative statement, this time it is on you when the posited question is "are these images intentional fakes." You said that neither you nor the other poster suggested the images I posted were on the mind when you both made your last few posts. That is fine. But if you are at all willing to extend the claim that the images I used are forgeries and vessels of intentional deception, then you have the burden to back up your affirmative claim which under such an extension boasts of "unequivocal" demonstration. If you do not adapt that former statement to the current context, then your "final" remark of the last post in which you question that I "no longer regard" they stegosaurus as legitimate evidence would apply in sentiment to your case when you aren't willing to accept "responsibility" to explain why they are fakes to me. Which leads me to...


"Finally", no I wanted to take that out of the equation because you seem pent up on contending for eternity with me when no new information is being added to the "debate" What the creature in the image of Angkor Wat didn't even matter for this last post. Why? Because the question was Intentionally deceptive frauds and not simply a question of what is being portrayed. I still believe the Angkor Wat thing is an extinct creature which dwelt among men long after it was supposed to be dead --and most probably closely related to or actually of the stegosaurid genus.

If this is not the case, it seems unlikely that anything anyone can say in respect of your other images (and any arguments you offer to support your case) will persuade you that they do not represent what you think they represent.

This is precisely the reason why I said forget the stegosaurus. Because it was an irreconcilable waste of time to continue in the circles. I feel the exact same way about any images I may present, irrespective of the images themselves. I was going to show some accounts of respected historians of antiquity like Heroditus and Josephus but of course that would also be a waste of time. Most of antiquity's writings as you well know were destroyed by scourges and the like throughout history such as the destruction of the library at Alexandria. A Few documents do survive however. --Like I said. Waste of time. Your mind at the very least matches mine in how cemented it is in it's ways. So, to say this one last time. My position on the Angkor Wat image hasn't changed. I just don't see the point of playing an endurance game.

U R Lose
No U
K... No U
No U R
No U
k No U
no, k U R teh lose
No U.

It feels like a game of "whoever gets the last word."

Nothing I say will change your mind and vice versa.

 

[lordkalvan]

Oh, I expected as much.

Pleased to be of service.

First, that is why I posted in an inquisitive form. --Fair--

Second, See above

Lost me there, I'm afraid. How does posting 'in an inquisitive form' make it likely that you will get what you expect and what is it that I am supposed to 'see above'?

Third, it would be an exhibition of special pleading to suppose that the aboriginal peoples of Australia coincidentally dreamed up the creature which I suggest is a plesiosaur...

As you have established no context for this claimed depiction, I point out again that it is very difficult to offer any comment on it. How sure you are that it is not an anachronism, for example? How sure are you that it is not a Dreamtime representation?

....or that the brontosaurus-like creature in the cave art was likewise a coincidental imagining....

Likewise no context or argument offered other than the unsupported implication that the artwork in question is not an anachronism and must represent what you say it does without any evidence as to why this must be so.

....or of the "dinosaur" which I contend appears in the Mosaic.

I am glad to see you put this reference in quotation marks. What leads you to suppose that the picture is more likely that of a dinosaur than, say, the artist's rendition of a crocodile from a second- or third-hand description of a beast that he had never himself seen?

However, unlike before when you contended it was my responsibility to "prove" the stegosaurid, when I was making the affirmative statement, this time it is on you when the posited question is "are these images intentional fakes." You said that neither you nor the other poster suggested the images I posted were on the mind when you both made your last few posts. That is fine. But if you are at all willing to extend the claim that the images I used are forgeries and vessels of intentional deception, then you have the burden to back up your affirmative claim which under such an extension boasts of "unequivocal" demonstration.

No one has said that the depictions in question are 'forgeries' or 'vessels of intentional deception'. What has been pointed out is that you have offered neither context nor argument supporting the interpretations of the depictions; all you have done is posted a number of pictures absent any supporting comments at all and invited others to show how either they are not representations of dinosaurs at all or fakes. As it stands, the only observation that can be made about these representations absent a context and supporting argument is that 'looks like' does not mean 'is the same as', in exactly the same way as was pointed out in the case of the supposed Angkor Wat stegosaurus. You would also need to establish some grounds for concluding that the representations in question do not constitute anachronisms.

If you do not adapt that former statement to the current context, then your "final" remark of the last post in which you question that I "no longer regard" they stegosaurus as legitimate evidence would apply in sentiment to your case when you aren't willing to accept "responsibility" to explain why they are fakes to me. Which leads me to...

As I have not said that the representations are fakes then your point is moot at best.

"Finally", no I wanted to take that out of the equation because you seem pent up on contending for eternity with me when no new information is being added to the "debate" What the creature in the image of Angkor Wat didn't even matter for this last post. Why? Because the question was Intentionally deceptive frauds and not simply a question of what is being portrayed. I still believe the Angkor Wat thing is an extinct creature which dwelt among men long after it was supposed to be dead --and most probably closely related to or actually of the stegosaurid genus.

So you don't want to discuss the Angkor Wat 'stegosaurus' at all except to assert that it is what you want it to be, despite the 'new information' you bewail not being provided actually being provided to demonstrate that a noted palaeontologist believes it to be a fake and can cite reasons as to why he comes to that conclusion based on experience of similar 'fakes' and observed characteristics of the 'stegosaurus' that count against it being any such animal?

This is precisely the reason why I said forget the stegosaurus. Because it was an irreconcilable waste of time to continue in the circles.

So the pursuit of truth amounts to an 'irreconcilable waste of time' and you prefer to cling to your pre-existing idea as to what the carving represents rather than to have that belief challenged with relevant information?

I feel the exact same way about any images I may present, irrespective of the images themselves. I was going to show some accounts of respected historians of antiquity like Heroditus and Josephus but of course that would also be a waste of time.

Why? Because you know that those accounts are not wholly reliable, as in Herodotus's description of a tribe of headless, chest-faced African or Indian humans?

Most of antiquity's writings as you well know were destroyed by scourges and the like throughout history such as the destruction of the library at Alexandria. A Few documents do survive however. --Like I said. Waste of time. Your mind at the very least matches mine in how cemented it is in it's ways. So, to say this one last time. My position on the Angkor Wat image hasn't changed. I just don't see the point of playing an endurance game.

Actually, I have no problem with the Angkor Wat carving being a genuine depiction of the animal claimed and that it can be put forward as supporting the claim that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. However, as there is virtually no persuasive indication from the carving that it does represent a stegosaurus, at least as persuasive evidence that it could be some other animal indigenous to the locale, evidence of similar anachronisms elsewhere in south-east Asia, and no convincing evidence that dinosaurs co-existed with humans at all, your contninuing position on the Angkor Wat 'stegosaurus' seems sufficiently self-deluding to lead me to suppose that you have no interest in a serious discussion about the validity of the other representations at all.

U R Lose
No U
K... No U
No U R
No U
k No U
no, k U R teh lose
No U.

It feels like a game of "whoever gets the last word."

Nothing I say will change your mind and vice versa.

You can change my mind by presenting sufficiently persuasive evidence. I take you at your word that our exchanges have demonstrated that nothing will change your own, however.

 

[Ashua]

Pleased to be of service.

Lost me there, I'm afraid. How does posting 'in an inquisitive form' make it likely that you will get what you expect and what is it that I am supposed to 'see above'?

As you have established no context for this claimed depiction, I point out again that it is very difficult to offer any comment on it. How sure you are that it is not an anachronism, for example? How sure are you that it is not a Dreamtime representation?

Likewise no context or argument offered other than the unsupported implication that the artwork in question is not an anachronism and must represent what you say it does without any evidence as to why this must be so.

I am glad to see you put this reference in quotation marks. What leads you to suppose that the picture is more likely that of a dinosaur than, say, the artist's rendition of a crocodile from a second- or third-hand description of a beast that he had never himself seen?

No one has said that the depictions in question are 'forgeries' or 'vessels of intentional deception'. What has been pointed out is that you have offered neither context nor argument supporting the interpretations of the depictions; all you have done is posted a number of pictures absent any supporting comments at all and invited others to show how either they are not representations of dinosaurs at all or fakes. As it stands, the only observation that can be made about these representations absent a context and supporting argument is that 'looks like' does not mean 'is the same as', in exactly the same way as was pointed out in the case of the supposed Angkor Wat stegosaurus. You would also need to establish some grounds for concluding that the representations in question do not constitute anachronisms.

As I have not said that the representations are fakes then your point is moot at best.

So you don't want to discuss the Angkor Wat 'stegosaurus' at all except to assert that it is what you want it to be, despite the 'new information' you bewail not being provided actually being provided to demonstrate that a noted palaeontologist believes it to be a fake and can cite reasons as to why he comes to that conclusion based on experience of similar 'fakes' and observed characteristics of the 'stegosaurus' that count against it being any such animal?

So the pursuit of truth amounts to an 'irreconcilable waste of time' and you prefer to cling to your pre-existing idea as to what the carving represents rather than to have that belief challenged with relevant information?

Why? Because you know that those accounts are not wholly reliable, as in Herodotus's description of a tribe of headless, chest-faced African or Indian humans?

Actually, I have no problem with the Angkor Wat carving being a genuine depiction of the animal claimed and that it can be put forward as supporting the claim that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. However, as there is virtually no persuasive indication from the carving that it does represent a stegosaurus, at least as persuasive evidence that it could be some other animal indigenous to the locale, evidence of similar anachronisms elsewhere in south-east Asia, and no convincing evidence that dinosaurs co-existed with humans at all, your contninuing position on the Angkor Wat 'stegosaurus' seems sufficiently self-deluding to lead me to suppose that you have no interest in a serious discussion about the validity of the other representations at all.

You can change my mind by presenting sufficiently persuasive evidence. I take you at your word that our exchanges have demonstrated that nothing will change your own, however.

Your base argument is always centered around an alleged failure of me to establish petty specifics; and as such, nothing "new" ever comes into the conversation.

When you say anachronism, are you saying that a rogue survivor of a species may have lived into the age of man? (A case of extreme endangered species) or are you saying that modern science may have screwed up the chronology of a particular species? The word can mean either or and I don't want to assume which you meant. As for the idea that it is a product of dreaming or something like a "vision quest" or a drug induced state.... That still means the idle mind is producing creatures too conveniently like that of known extinct creatures of which man should not had any influence whatsoever in the world's canon of history. How can you dream up that which you have not seen --AND have it be "coincidentally" exactly like a real thing.

That is pretty much like if some third world tribal person fell asleep, dreamed about some series of events, wrote it down in a book, and turn out being a word for word translation of "Hamlet" without ever hearing of william shakespeare. Sure the sub conscience mind can "invent" creatures, but what is the odds of eventing something that is identical to that which really existed apart from any foreknowledge?

Again, you do not offer "new" information. You talk about such things as antelope and then turn around and tell me that you were only drawing attention to it's horns and that you werent actually suggesting it was the same thing. How is that "new" information? Like I said. Show me with "real" evidence why that image is not what I suspect it is and I will abandon it. I have found absolutely nothing you have said to be of any significance whatsoever. It is conjecture at best and for someone who holds "scientific standards" in such high regards, yours seems to be a position built on silence and a grievous demand for 100% proof. Who was that philosopher who went mad trying to find the ultimate indisputable proof? He came to the conclusion "I think therefore I am?" That reminds me a lot of this.

So, because I say "it is" you demand I have perfect proof that it is. You say "it is not", why can't you supply proof for your definite statement? If you say "I don't believe/am not convinced" that is one thing, but to say "It is not" and be just as impotent as you say I am to "take it to the bank", why the double standard? Because I made a claim? So did you. You made a negative claim.

Your arguments like "You would need to prove they are not anachronisms" isn't too terribly far off from a lawyer-type argument. You are trying to find any and every possible far-fetched excuse for "burden of proof" at me. That argument isn't any better than Kent Hovind's (an I don't like this) "You can't prove evolution from fossils because you can't prove those bones had -any- children at all." Really, that is just as bad.

your contninuing position on the Angkor Wat 'stegosaurus' seems sufficiently self-deluding to lead me to suppose that you have no interest in a serious discussion about the validity of the other representations at all.

You can change my mind by presenting sufficiently persuasive evidence. I take you at your word that our exchanges have demonstrated that nothing will change your own, however.

The answer to this whole segment can be summarized in three words.

"Lack of faith"

It isn't that I lack the interest or that I am "unwilling" to change my position (as I expressly told you I would if you could explain the pictures away legitimately) It isn't a refusal to change a view. I have done that several times in my life. I used to buy into the same science books as you. It is a lack of faith that I can find that "I think therefore I am" quality response for your questions. You seem determined to refuse any evidence short of an actual captured dinosaur.

 

[lordkalvan]

Your base argument is always centered around an alleged failure of me to establish petty specifics; and as such, nothing "new" ever comes into the conversation.

The 'specifics' are far from 'petty' as they are crucial to your claims. Simply posting pictures and claiming they represent dinosaurs portrayed by artists who can only have made them as a consequence of the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs does not amount to anything other than a wholly unsupported assertion. By context, I mean that you need to explain where they are found and how and why they are interpreted as 'X' rather than 'Y'. By origin, I mean that the date to which they are attributed needs to be verified in some way. With the exception of the Angkor Wat 'stegosaurus', none of your pictures offer any of this information and yet you expect to be told why they do not represent the dinosaurs you imagine they do simply on the basis of your 'looks like therefore is' assertions.

When you say anachronism, are you saying that a rogue survivor of a species may have lived into the age of man? (A case of extreme endangered species) or are you saying that modern science may have screwed up the chronology of a particular species? The word can mean either or and I don't want to assume which you meant.

Sorry for not being clearer in my use of language. In this context, by anachronism I mean that the representation may be a later work than attributed by artists quite familiar with the beasts supposedly portrayed from information generally available from the 19th century onwards, as demonstrated by the existence of the south-east Asia dinosaur carvings mentioned in the reference I previously gave you.

As for the idea that it is a product of dreaming or something like a "vision quest" or a drug induced state.... That still means the idle mind is producing creatures too conveniently like that of known extinct creatures of which man should not had any influence whatsoever in the world's canon of history. How can you dream up that which you have not seen --AND have it be "coincidentally" exactly like a real thing.

Dreamtime is a fundamental tenet of Aboriginal religion and is populated by a variety of more or less fantastical fauna. Can you show that the animal you call a plesiosaur is conclusively not one of these imaginary beasts? If you can, this strengthens your argument, but you would still need to show a verified date for this artifact.

That is pretty much like if some third world tribal person fell asleep, dreamed about some series of events, wrote it down in a book, and turn out being a word for word translation of "Hamlet" without ever hearing of william shakespeare. Sure the sub conscience mind can "invent" creatures, but what is the odds of eventing something that is identical to that which really existed apart from any foreknowledge?

Your analogy is dramatically inappropriate (pun intended): you are asserting that a crude depiction of something whose attribution is unspecified and whose identification depends on a ‘looks like to me therefore is’ assumption corresponds in some way to reproducing the exact detail of Shakespeare’s longest play in complete ignorance of its prior existence; this is palpable nonsense.

Again, you do not offer "new" information.

How are Eric Buffetaut’s comments not ‘new information’?

You talk about such things as antelope and then turn around and tell me that you were only drawing attention to it's horns and that you werent actually suggesting it was the same thing. How is that "new" information?

You continue to miss the point concerning the pronghorn, which was presented to illustrate the misleading conclusions that can be drawn from assuming that ‘looks like’ means ‘is the same as’.

Like I said. Show me with "real" evidence why that image is not what I suspect it is and I will abandon it.

You have been presented with such evidence and handwaved it away.

I have found absolutely nothing you have said to be of any significance whatsoever.

So you regard as lacking ‘any significance’ at all the observed facts that the carving has a central horn and ears (or three horns – you pays your money and you takes your choice) that no known stegosaurus species possesses, that it lacks the thagomizer that is a characteristic feature of stegosaurus, that its forelimbs are quite wrong for a stegosaurus, and that a leading French palaeontologist points out that it cannot be a stegosaurus and has knowledge of similar modern carvings existing in the region? Tell me, what exactly would you regard as ‘significant’ then?

It is conjecture at best and for someone who holds "scientific standards" in such high regards, yours seems to be a position built on silence and a grievous demand for 100% proof. Who was that philosopher who went mad trying to find the ultimate indisputable proof? He came to the conclusion "I think therefore I am?" That reminds me a lot of this.

The conjecture seems to originate solely in your own arguments and to amount to not very much more than wishful thinking. You have offered no ‘proof’, let alone ‘100% proof’, that any of the depictions you have offered represent any of the animals you claim they do, nor that they originate from a time when knowledge of these animals was non-existent.

So, because I say "it is" you demand I have perfect proof that it is.

Nope, I ask for some evidence beyond ‘looks like therefore is’.

You say "it is not", why can't you supply proof for your definite statement?

I have supplied ample evidence that the Angkor Wat carving does not represent a depiction of a stegosaurus.

If you say "I don't believe/am not convinced" that is one thing, but to say "It is not" and be just as impotent as you say I am to "take it to the bank", why the double standard? Because I made a claim? So did you. You made a negative claim.

I have explained the reasons for my doubts about the Angkor Wat ‘stegosaurus’; I have seen nothing from you beyond ‘looks like to me therefore is’. If you believe that my scepticism about your assertion is not scientific, you have to at least acknowledge that I have grounds for voicing it.

Your arguments like "You would need to prove they are not anachronisms" isn't too terribly far off from a lawyer-type argument. You are trying to find any and every possible far-fetched excuse for "burden of proof" at me.

Nope, I am asking you to present an evidenced argument to support your claim. The ‘burden of proof’ rests with you because it is you that is making the extraordinary claim that dinosaurs and humans may have co-existed. The question of whether the representations might be anachronisms is fundamental to your claims.

That argument isn't any better than Kent Hovind's (an I don't like this) "You can't prove evolution from fossils because you can't prove those bones had -any- children at all." Really, that is just as bad.

I don’t think so.

The answer to this whole segment can be summarized in three words.

"Lack of faith"

Huh? Are you saying that I am supposed to believe that the Angkor Wat carving represents a stegosaurus as an act of faith?

It isn't that I lack the interest or that I am "unwilling" to change my position (as I expressly told you I would if you could explain the pictures away legitimately) It isn't a refusal to change a view. I have done that several times in my life. I used to buy into the same science books as you. It is a lack of faith that I can find that "I think therefore I am" quality response for your questions. You seem determined to refuse any evidence short of an actual captured dinosaur.

I am determined to refuse evidence that amounts to no more than ‘looks like to me therefore is’ and the demand that failure to disprove this assertion to your satisfaction means that this ‘looks like’ claim stands substitute for an evidence-based argument.

 

[Ashua]

The 'specifics' are far from 'petty' as they are crucial to your claims. Simply posting pictures and claiming they represent dinosaurs portrayed by artists who can only have made them as a consequence of the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs does not amount to anything other than a wholly unsupported assertion. By context, I mean that you need to explain where they are found and how and why they are interpreted as 'X' rather than 'Y'. By origin, I mean that the date to which they are attributed needs to be verified in some way. With the exception of the Angkor Wat 'stegosaurus', none of your pictures offer any of this information and yet you expect to be told why they do not represent the dinosaurs you imagine they do simply on the basis of your 'looks like therefore is' assertions.

Sorry for not being clearer in my use of language. In this context, by anachronism I mean that the representation may be a later work than attributed by artists quite familiar with the beasts supposedly portrayed from information generally available from the 19th century onwards, as demonstrated by the existence of the south-east Asia dinosaur carvings mentioned in the reference I previously gave you.


Dreamtime is a fundamental tenet of Aboriginal religion and is populated by a variety of more or less fantastical fauna. Can you show that the animal you call a plesiosaur is conclusively not one of these imaginary beasts? If you can, this strengthens your argument, but you would still need to show a verified date for this artifact.

Your analogy is dramatically inappropriate (pun intended): you are asserting that a crude depiction of something whose attribution is unspecified and whose identification depends on a ‘looks like to me therefore is’ assumption corresponds in some way to reproducing the exact detail of Shakespeare’s longest play in complete ignorance of its prior existence; this is palpable nonsense.

How are Eric Buffetaut’s comments not ‘new information’?

You continue to miss the point concerning the pronghorn, which was presented to illustrate the misleading conclusions that can be drawn from assuming that ‘looks like’ means ‘is the same as’.

You have been presented with such evidence and handwaved it away.

So you regard as lacking ‘any significance’ at all the observed facts that the carving has a central horn and ears (or three horns – you pays your money and you takes your choice) that no known stegosaurus species possesses, that it lacks the thagomizer that is a characteristic feature of stegosaurus, that its forelimbs are quite wrong for a stegosaurus, and that a leading French palaeontologist points out that it cannot be a stegosaurus and has knowledge of similar modern carvings existing in the region? Tell me, what exactly would you regard as ‘significant’ then?

The conjecture seems to originate solely in your own arguments and to amount to not very much more than wishful thinking. You have offered no ‘proof’, let alone ‘100% proof’, that any of the depictions you have offered represent any of the animals you claim they do, nor that they originate from a time when knowledge of these animals was non-existent.

Nope, I ask for some evidence beyond ‘looks like therefore is’.

I have supplied ample evidence that the Angkor Wat carving does not represent a depiction of a stegosaurus.

I have explained the reasons for my doubts about the Angkor Wat ‘stegosaurus’; I have seen nothing from you beyond ‘looks like to me therefore is’. If you believe that my scepticism about your assertion is not scientific, you have to at least acknowledge that I have grounds for voicing it.

Nope, I am asking you to present an evidenced argument to support your claim. The ‘burden of proof’ rests with you because it is you that is making the extraordinary claim that dinosaurs and humans may have co-existed. The question of whether the representations might be anachronisms is fundamental to your claims.

I don’t think so.

Huh? Are you saying that I am supposed to believe that the Angkor Wat carving represents a stegosaurus as an act of faith?

I am determined to refuse evidence that amounts to no more than ‘looks like to me therefore is’ and the demand that failure to disprove this assertion to your satisfaction means that this ‘looks like’ claim stands substitute for an evidence-based argument.

This is where this discussion becomes impossible. You are expecting me to prove what is portrayed in an image independent of "looks like". You cannot DNA test a painting. What sort of evidence are you looking for? If you say you cannot go by "looks" and the article of evidence is a painting or sculpture, then what possible other angle does this category of evidence have to offer? This may be your point, but that is just a backhanded way of dismissing all evidence of this kind if so.

And about the comment that you ask if I expect you to take the interpretation on faith, you missed what I meant.

I said, I do not have faith in anything I can say or demonstrate irrespective of how seemingly convincing it would be would have any affect on you. In other words I don't have faith in you accepting any argument whatsoever made by scrutinizing a work of art. I think you probably have more of a problem with the type of evidence (art) more than anything else.


I know you're sick of my images, so this will probably be the last time I post any.
Strictly scientifically speaking, can you tell me what these are?

 

[lordkalvan]

This is where this discussion becomes impossible. You are expecting me to prove what is portrayed in an image independent of "looks like".

Yes, otherwise you are simply asserting that if it 'looks like X' to you this is good enough reason to assert that 'it is X'. The Angkor Wat 'stegosaurus' is a classic example of this fallacious reasoning at work because, as pointed out, it can look like something completely different to other equally subjective interpretations. At the very least, you need to establish that the artifact is contemporary to the time that is claimed and then establish that it could represent the animal claimed. The absence of this animal from the locale in which it is depicted and the lack of any evidence that it existed contemporaneously with the artist - or with someone the artist could reasonably have received information from - is indicative that the animal cannot be what it might otherwise be claimed to be.

You cannot DNA test a painting. What sort of evidence are you looking for? If you say you cannot go by "looks" and the article of evidence is a painting or sculpture, then what possible other angle does this category of evidence have to offer? This may be your point, but that is just a backhanded way of dismissing all evidence of this kind if so.

Well, there are ways to date it with a fair degree of accuracy. We can then also look at context and we can look at other evidence that might support or undermine the claim. One thing is certain and that is that we cannot simply rely on 'looks like' assertions as to what the animal truly is.

And about the comment that you ask if I expect you to take the interpretation on faith, you missed what I meant.

I said, I do not have faith in anything I can say or demonstrate irrespective of how seemingly convincing it would be would have any affect on you. In other words I don't have faith in you accepting any argument whatsoever made by scrutinizing a work of art. I think you probably have more of a problem with the type of evidence (art) more than anything else.

Sorry to have misunderstood what you meant. It still remains the case that your only argument seems to amount to 'looks like' and, scientifically speaking, 'looks like' jusyt isn't good enough to outweigh the great deal of other evidence that shows that dinosaurs and humans were not contemporaneous.

I know you're sick of my images, so this will probably be the last time I post any.

Not at all. I am happy to comment on anything you care to post.

Strictly scientifically speaking, can you tell me what these are?

Obviously not, because I lack sufficient detail to make a conclusive determination, such as context and origin. I can make 'looks like' assessments which might or might not be supported by additional evidence independent of the paintings (remains found in middens, fossil remains contemporaneous with the paintings, what animals were indigenous to the region in question at the time in question, etc.

Your first image looks like some kind of bison or aurochs. It could be a water buffalo or maybe a yak.

The second image looks like some sort of bear, but I suppose it could just be a hyena or some other spotted animal.

The third image looks like the same sort of animals as mentioned in the first three.

The major difference amongst these images and the alleged dinosaur images, of course, is that the paintings are the product of human artistry and we have ample and sufficient additional evidence that such animals existed at the same time (and still exist) and in the same habitats as humans.

 

[Ashua]

Well, there are ways to date it with a fair degree of accuracy. We can then also look at context and we can look at other evidence that might support or undermine the claim. One thing is certain and that is that we cannot simply rely on 'looks like' assertions as to what the animal truly is.

If you are talking about dating things to see if they fit the right time... Like Is this cave painting really from the stone age, then I agree that's fine. They did the same thing with the shroud of turin. I never believed it was legitimate, but they still need to date the inner fabrics to get its true origin.. I digress. The shroud is bogus but, yeah. No complaint here. I was vague when I said DNA. What I mean is there is nothing but "looks like" by the very nature that it IS a picture. It is an appeal to optics. You cannot DNA test a picture. There is nothing to extract from it except optical perception. (Unless the pigments used were derived from animal tissue which I certainly doubt.) I was trying to see if there is any sort of evidence that you could think of that could be gleaned from an image that goes beyond that "looks like" middle-level analogy theory.

Sorry to have misunderstood what you meant. It still remains the case that your only argument seems to amount to 'looks like' and, scientifically speaking, 'looks like' jusyt isn't good enough to outweigh the great deal of other evidence that shows that dinosaurs and humans were not contemporaneous.


Obviously not, because I lack sufficient detail to make a conclusive determination, such as context and origin. I can make 'looks like' assessments which might or might not be supported by additional evidence independent of the paintings (remains found in middens, fossil remains contemporaneous with the paintings, what animals were indigenous to the region in question at the time in question, etc.

Your first image looks like some kind of bison or aurochs. It could be a water buffalo or maybe a yak.

The second image looks like some sort of bear, but I suppose it could just be a hyena or some other spotted animal.

The third image looks like the same sort of animals as mentioned in the first three.

The major difference amongst these images and the alleged dinosaur images, of course, is that the paintings are the product of human artistry and we have ample and sufficient additional evidence that such animals existed at the same time (and still exist) and in the same habitats as humans.

Not bad. The first one I believe was a Bison but not quite sure. The second one is not a bear. It is actually a spotted Hyena. The last image is indeed an aurochs.

This may tickle you as comical, but my major of study is actually anthropology (archaeology). Have you any technical knowledge of the techniques and methods of which archaeologists make their claims? Often times it is very sketchy in as much as you can have 20 PH.D.s with 23 different interpretations of 1 artifact. It is largely conjecture and guess work and relies heavily on "looks like".

The purpose behind posting these last three images is that they are also very crude artworks and that the science of archaeology relied solely on "looks like" interpretation of these cave paintings and nobody at all second guesses them. I can see why you thought the second one was a bear. To that very ordinal degree of course you have a point. crude images are not necessarily easy to discern. Still, I cannot think of an existent species with the key features of Angkor Wat artifact. What separates "looks like" in these images declared by a "science" from the "looks like" inference of any other artifact that I posted? Controversy? One of the things archaeologists always say is that it is not subject to religious/political/ideological/social biases. It shouldn't be biased in the controversies of science either. Im not saying go gung ho for every little obscure artifact we find, but certainly keep an open mind towards them.

If they could prove forgery or as you said, date it from a much later time than it is "supposed" to be then that is one thing. But if these are authentic carvings and paintings, they deserve an honest look.

 

[Oats]

Long, well yes, I'll put my hand up to that - but long-winded and empty? I don't think so.

I thought it was an ongoing discussion around a subject that interested us both.

Well, we've both presented new arguments as the discussion has progressed. Is that entirely futile?

It's not a question of 'winning' anything, for me it's more about the journey. I have no problem with continuing a discussion over a lengthy period with significant intervals between posts because I know that not everyone can spend as much time posting as others and are also engaged in other topics. I would quibble over your accusation that I simply wore you down, however: if you think my arguments were not sound, you quite failed to demonstrate that to any noticeable extent.

hahaha

----

on topic

why is it hard to believe men have walked with dinosaurs?

God can make anything look how he feels....

 

[lordkalvan]

If you are talking about dating things to see if they fit the right time... Like Is this cave painting really from the stone age, then I agree that's fine. They did the same thing with the shroud of turin. I never believed it was legitimate, but they still need to date the inner fabrics to get its true origin.. I digress. The shroud is bogus but, yeah. No complaint here. I was vague when I said DNA. What I mean is there is nothing but "looks like" by the very nature that it IS a picture. It is an appeal to optics. You cannot DNA test a picture. There is nothing to extract from it except optical perception. (Unless the pigments used were derived from animal tissue which I certainly doubt.) I was trying to see if there is any sort of evidence that you could think of that could be gleaned from an image that goes beyond that "looks like" middle-level analogy theory.

I don't have any dispute with anything you have said here. I am unaware of any technique that could be applied within the context of the artwork in question alone that can be used to determine whether a simple 'looks like therefore is' statement can be supported or not, except to accurately date it and assess whether it is an anachronism created later than its apparent age - in which case it might very well be possible to conclude that 'looks like' indeed means 'therefore is'. Which is why I think you have to acknowledge that 'looks like' alone is quite insufficient to reach any meaningful conclusion absent any supporting evidence from other sources.

Not bad. The first one I believe was a Bison but not quite sure. The second one is not a bear. It is actually a spotted Hyena. The last image is indeed an aurochs.

This may tickle you as comical, but my major of study is actually anthropology (archaeology). Have you any technical knowledge of the techniques and methods of which archaeologists make their claims? Often times it is very sketchy in as much as you can have 20 PH.D.s with 23 different interpretations of 1 artifact. It is largely conjecture and guess work and relies heavily on "looks like".

Yes, but informed by context, I would suggest, and supported (or undermined) by whatever relevant additional evidence might be available. Absent other evidence of human/dinosaur co-existence, the parsimonious conclusion regarding artifacts of the type you have offered must be that they are subjectively misinterpreted, coincidental similarities, anachronisms or deliberate fakes.

The purpose behind posting these last three images is that they are also very crude artworks and that the science of archaeology relied solely on "looks like" interpretation of these cave paintings and nobody at all second guesses them. I can see why you thought the second one was a bear. To that very ordinal degree of course you have a point. crude images are not necessarily easy to discern. Still, I cannot think of an existent species with the key features of Angkor Wat artifact. What separates "looks like" in these images declared by a "science" from the "looks like" inference of any other artifact that I posted? Controversy? One of the things archaeologists always say is that it is not subject to religious/political/ideological/social biases. It shouldn't be biased in the controversies of science either. Im not saying go gung ho for every little obscure artifact we find, but certainly keep an open mind towards them.

Again, I point out that the animals in your latest postings are interpreted as animals which, from other evidence, are known to be contemporaneous with humans. Therefore 'looks like' is informed by context. The 'key features' that you atrribute to the Angkor Wat 'stegosaurus' are subjectively interpreted - and we still have no grounds for concluding that it is not a later anachronism, which Eric Buffetaut's comments go to the heart of. That you cannot think of any existent species that has the 'key features' of this carving is simply your subjective assessment concerning which 'key features' to focus on and which to ignore by positing the existence of sub-species of an animal for which no evidence exists.

If they could prove forgery or as you said, date it from a much later time than it is "supposed" to be then that is one thing. But if these are authentic carvings and paintings, they deserve an honest look.

Indeed, but the context of most of these representations has not yet been established and, as I keep saying 'looks like' is, in this case, clearly insufficient to conclude 'therefore is'.

 

[Ashua]

All I have to add to your latest post is that the "context" itself is being challenged in this instance. Even if such a scenario as the one I misinterpreted when you first brought up anachronisms were true... That "dinosaurs" were virtually wiped out billions of years ago --its possible a small remnant could have survived until more recent times. I am "agnostic" towards lockness for instance, but that very well could be based on such a case. I mean it hasn't even been ten years (I believe) since half of humanity has lived within cities. The human population only a few centuries ago was much less and as such, much more wilderness and so fourth.

I am not saying dinosaurs lived only a few centuries ago in remote and limited quantities --only that it isnt impossible.

Anyways, yeah. You can base judgments off of context. Known animal populations to the area and so fourth. Still, the "context" itself is subject to the very heart of the question: In order for those dinosaurs to be portrayed in those artifacts, the "context" must be misrepresented. These images do not offer proof. They offer evidence. Science is the interpretation of natural evidence. Citing paleo-chronological context in this discussion is like having an accused suspect testify as a witness against another defendant. Of course it isn't going to substantiate the other's case.

 

[Ashua]

Not to go off on a tangent, but "context" disputes are also a reason why radio dating methods are disputed. According to a 6-7k year old world, we wouldn't have had time for the earth to stabilize to equilibrium. If no equilibrium we have skew right off the bat. I really shouldn't have opened that can of worms because one topic is plenty for now. You can get in a last word on that if you wish. The purpose of it is that "context" isn't always infallible.