[_ Old Earth _] Man And Dinosaur

[Crying Rock]

How come we never find any fossils of men chilling with the dinosaurs? If man lived at the same time as dinosaurs did in the pre-Flood world, why are there no fossils where a man and a dinosaur are together?

This is a good question, and before the evolutionists in the room say something like, "there is no hard evidence, like a fossil, so it didn't happen!"

That's not what scientists say. They merely note that the evidence does not support such a belief.

[quote:11luzqts]Let's first consider that there are no fossils that back your theory of evolution beyond the micro-evolution that is accepted by all camps (mostly).

Last check, about 0.3% of all biologists doubt modern evolutionary theory. About one-third of one percent.

One of the main ideas behind the theory of evolution is that animals evolved from little organisms into humans and such that we have today, and yet there is not a single fossil to prove this theory.

Actually, the theory is that humans evolved from other primates. And there is abundant evidence for it. Would you like to see some more?

I'd also like to say that there are fossils of humans and dinosaurs together, however they have been "discredited" by evolutionists. The reason I say "discredited" is because often the studies into their creditability were quick and weak affairs and much more work is required before they can be confirmed OR denied.

Actually, the most commonly-cited "proof" was debunked by YE creationists. I speak of the "Paluxy River Man-tracks."[/quote:11luzqts]

"...Last check, about 0.3% of all biologists doubt modern evolutionary theory. About one-third of one percent..."

Source?

 

[Evointrinsic]

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.

Source = http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

That's one source at least, I am not too sure precisely where Barbarians information came from.

 

[jwu]

So no one wnats to bite on my dino figurines post huh?
Something tells me someone is a wee bit afraid to answer that post.

Bronzesnake

You mean the Ica stones?

Very most of them are admitted fakes, and the others might as well be based on fossil finds, not live dinosaurs. It is noteworthy that e.g. a brontosaur that is depicted on them could not have stood in the pose depicted there unless its neck were broken - it was copied straight from a poorly made dinosaur textbook.

Anyway, while the evidence does not support dinosaurs surviving into recent history, them doing so wouldn't put a dent into the ToE either.

 

[jwu]

Macro-evolution requires for a complete mutation of gnome to occur.

Sorry if I'm being slow, but could you explain what "complete mutation of genome" means?

Mmm, to add information to the genetic sequence. There is no way a mutation can add data the the genetic sequence and this is required for a jump from one group to another (like reptile to mammal)

if you all want to discuss the addition of information to the genome of said species do so in another thread.

Ohh indeed. I'll make a thread about it.

 

[Crying Rock]

jwu:

...Anyway, while the evidence does not support dinosaurs surviving into recent history...

Unless you're one that maintains that birds are dinosaurs:

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/avians.html

 

[Barbarian]

Unless you're one that maintains that birds are dinosaurs:

Which would be like maintaining that mammals are reptiles. Strictly speaking, it's true, but not what we normally think of such things.

 

[lordkalvan]

How come we never find any fossils of men chilling with the dinosaurs? If man lived at the same time as dinosaurs did in the pre-Flood world, why are there no fossils where a man and a dinosaur are together?

I think you've answered your own question with that If.

This is a good question, and before the evolutionists in the room say something like, "there is no hard evidence, like a fossil, so it didn't happen!"

Well, I would be more inclined to say that there is a great deal of evidence that indicates the contrary, such as the complete absence of dinosaur remains from any human campsites, while there is ample evidence of remains from animals that we would expect to find there. No palaeolithic and neolithic art that we are familiar with depicts dinosaurs, yet it depicts the kind of examples of animals we would expect it to depict.

Let's first consider that there are no fossils that back your theory of evolution beyond the micro-evolution that is accepted by all camps (mostly).

The only 'camp' that does not accept it is that which has a vested interest in denying it for reasons that have nothing to do with science. You may want to argue that the fossil evidence does not support the conclusions drawn from it, but you cannot argue that the evidence does not exist.

One of the main ideas behind the theory of evolution is that animals evolved from little organisms into humans and such that we have today, and yet there is not a single fossil to prove this theory.

The evolutionary history of life on Earth is represented by a great deal of fossil and other evidence that supports this understanding, so your assertion does not have very much going for it.

I'd also like to say that there are fossils of humans and dinosaurs together, however they have been "discredited" by evolutionists. The reason I say "discredited" is because often the studies into their creditability were quick and weak affairs and much more work is required before they can be confirmed OR denied.

The fact is that even creationist sites have said this evidence is dubious at best.

With that I would like to open the floor to debating this issue posed in the first sentence of this topic.

(I will give my own belief when I get back from the store)

 

[lordkalvan]

Oh look! Evo provided great illustrated evidence for micro evolution!

Can you demonstrate what mechanism prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution and how that mechanism can be identified?

First of all the Paluxy River tracks were not debunked, they were not accepted by evolutionists - that’s not the same as being debunked.

Sorry, they have been debunked:

http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts/paluxy.php

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/onheel.htm

Anyway, hey, here's a theoretical question.
Let's say a whole bunch of oh... I don't know...let’s say, clay dinosaur figurines were discovered. Now let's say for sake of this debate that there were thousands of them and they accurately depicted known dinosaurs.

Are you sure this is a theoretical question?

Now let's say that some broken off chunks of the figurines were sent to a few labs for dating.
And let's also say, for arguments sake, that these labs dated these dated these chunks at oh...over 2,000 years.

Hmmm, how were these clay figurines dated?

OK, now for arguments sake, would that be good proof that man and dinosaurs were living concurrently?

Are these the Acambaro figurines, by any chance? In which case, no, they wouldn't:

Archaeologist Charles C. Di Peso was working for the Amerind Foundation, an anthropological organization dedicated to preserving Native American culture. Di Peso examined the figures and determined that they were not authentic, and had instead been produced by local modern-day farmers, publishing his results in the journal American Antiquity.

'He concluded that the figurines were indeed fakes: their surfaces displayed no signs of age; no dirt was packed into their crevices; and though some figurines were broken, no pieces were missing and no broken surfaces were worn. Furthermore, the excavation’s stratigraphy clearly showed that the artifacts were placed in a recently dug hole filled with a mixture of the surrounding archaeological layers. DiPeso also learned that a local family had been making and selling these figurines to Julsrud for a peso apiece since 1944, presumably inspired by films shown at Acámbaro’s cinema, locally available comic books and newspapers, and accessible day trips to Mexico City’s Museo Nacional.[3]'

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acámbaro_figures

Alright, we all know this never happened but I will explain why I am using this theoretical scenario after I get replies.

I think we already know.

 

[Barbarian]

Kalvan, good to see you back.

 

[lordkalvan]

Kalvan, good to see you back.

Thanks. Been a bit busy, but have been dipping in from time to time.

 

[Barbarian]

How's the World Cup going for your guys? :eyebrow

 

[lordkalvan]

How's the World Cup going for your guys? :eyebrow

Oooooh, that hurt.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Bronzesnake wrote: Something tells me someone is a wee bit afraid to answer that post.

Are you in preschool? I really hope that isn't an actual statement.

Oh the horrible irony!! LOL!

Bronzesnake wrote: Anyway, hey, here's a theoretical question.
Let's say a whole bunch of oh... I don't know...let’s say, clay dinosaur figurines were discovered. Now let's say for sake of this debate that there were thousands of them and they accurately depicted known dinosaurs.
Now let's say that some broken off chunks of the figurines were sent to a few labs for dating.
And let's also say, for arguments sake, that these labs dated these dated these chunks at oh...over 2,000 years.
OK, now for arguments sake, would that be good proof that man and dinosaurs were living concurrently?

Alright, we all know this never happened but I will explain why I am using this theoretical scenario after I get replies.

I would say not entirely, that doesn't give hard evidence that man and dinosaurs were living together. It may possibly be on the right track, but we wouldn't be able to make a direct conclusion out of that. It would suggest that there may be a connection, however. especially if those "thousands" were all different ones that represent known dinosaurs.

So, you’re telling us that if a bunch of dinosaur figurines were discovered and dated at approx 2,000 years and showed detailed examples of actual known dinosaurs, that wouldn’t be good evidence that man and dinosaur lived together???

What would it take? A grave with a T-Rex hugging the first Pope?!!

In any case, there are examples of dozens of dinosaur figurines which were dug up in Mexico, and broken off chunks were sent to labs and were in fact dated in the thousands of years. However, once the fact that these chunks were pieces of dinosaur figurines came out, the labs went into damage control mode and came up with extremely weak excuses as to why their dating methods were wrong.
Classic isn’t it? When the dating methods are questioned by creationists, the dating methods are staunchly defended as being totally reliable. And yet when the dates affirm dinosaur figurines as being in the thousands of years, the evolutionists start yelping about how their methods are not reliable!!
So which one is it? Are the methods reliable or not?
I guess I already know the answer to that – the methods are reliable when they corroborate the evolutionist’s presuppositions and assumptions and they are not reliable when they discredit such presuppositions and assumptions.

Have a look for yourselves my friends.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro.htm

John Bronzesnake

 

[Bronzesnake]

Official World Site Malachite Man
(Malachite is a green mineral) http://www.bible.ca/tracks/malachite-man.htm
Skeletons of ten perfectly modern humans have been excavated from fifty eight feet down in the Dakota Sandstone, over an area spanning about 50 by 100 feet. This formation is a member of the Lower Cretaceous, supposedly 140 million years old. It is known for its dinosaurs and is the same formation found at Dinosaur National Monument. At least four of the ten individuals are female. One is an infant. Some of the bones are articulated. Some are not, appearing to have been washed into place. No obvious tools or artifacts were found associated with the bones. The bulldozer driver who uncovered the first bones in 1971 expresses certainty that there were no tunnels or cracks in the extremely hard overlying layers of rock. The bones are partially replaced with malachite (a green mineral) and turquoise, thus appropriately named "Malachite Man".

Malachite Man
The evidence appears obvious that these 10 men, woman and children, were buried rapidly by some catastrophe, like a flood. Articulated skeletons indicate rapid burial. Some propose to explain these bones by arguing that they were mining, when the mine collapsed. However there is no indication of tunnels, and woman and small children would not likely be included in a mining operation. Additionally, no tools have been found and there are no crushed bones which would be expected if the mine caved in. Another invalid explanation is that this is a mass grave and they were buried. This cannot be true because the living would have to dig a grave 50-100 feet deep through extremely hard sandstone layers. The modern mining operation was halted in the 1970's because the sandstone was so hard it was destroying the bulldozers. These humans appear to have been buried by the same catastrophe that buried dinosaurs in this continent spanning formation. Humans and dinosaurs must have lived at the same time!

Fossilized Hammer: (click the url for photos)
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/fossilized-hammer.htm
Found in a formation famous for its dinosaurs, supposed to be 140 million years old (lower cretaceous).
Max Han was fishing with his family near London, TX when he found a rock with wood protruding from it. When the rock was cracked open, this octagonally shaped iron hammer was exposed.

The wood handle is partially coalifed with quartz and calcite crystalline inclusions. Tests performed at Battelle Laboratory document the hammer’s unusual metallurgy, 96% iron, 2.6% chlorine and .74% sulfur (no carbon). Density test indicate casting of exceptional quality. A unique coating of FeO, which does not readily form under present atmospheric conditions, appears to inhibit rusting.

The enclosing rock contains Lower Cretaceous fossils. It is a concretionary sandstone nodule from the nearby cliff which is made up of concretionary sandstone nodules.

This cliff is part of the Lower Cretaceous Edwards Plateau which evolutionists tell us was formed 140 million years ago, when dinosaurs roamed the earth. Of course, the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs would destroy evolutionary theory, so maybe the hammer was made by dinosaurs. Do you really think so?

Fossilized Human Finger:

Found in a formation famous for its dinosaurs, supposed to be 110 million years old (Middle Cretaceous).
Some argued that it could not be a fossilized finger since pressure from overlying layers mashes fossils flat. This is usually true, but not in the Glen Rose Formation. Several locations reveal thousands of fossilized worms that are perfectly three dimensional. If anything should be mashed flat it would be worms, but they are not. Obviously, very rapid lithification is required in order to preserve such astonishing detail.

Some who claim to be scientists will immediately say, "It’s just a rock." They "know" humans did not live with dinosaurs, so it can’t be a fossil finger, no matter how much it looks like a finger.
Science proceeds in a different manner. Real scientists perform experiments that will test their conclusions. We sectioned this fossil to see if any indication of interior structure was preserved which would allow us to determine whither this was a fossil finger or a strange looking rock.

The fossil has been replaced with limestone. Sometimes replaced fossils maintain their interior structure. Sometimes they do not. Fortunately, when the fossil was sectioned, we were able to see obvious indications of bone and ligaments.
Medical Doctor Dale Peterson of Oklahoma City, OK examined the sectioned specimen by means of x-ray, CT Scan and MRI. He was able to identify joints and to trace tendons throughout the length of the fossil. His expert conclusion is: "There can be no reasonable doubt that this is a fossil finger."

This fossil which corresponds perfectly to a human handprint shows astounding detail. Even the print of the thumb nail can be seen. It is found in the Glen Rose limestone which is designated as Middle Cretaceous, supposedly 110 million years old and contemporary with the dinosaurs!

Dinosaurs in ancient Cambodian temple
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm
(pics don't show fully here, so click link for full shots)
The magnificent jungle temples of Cambodia were produced by the Khmer civilization, beginning as early as the eighth and extending through the fourteenth century A.D. One of, if not the greatest monarchs and monument builders of this empire was Jayavarman VII, crowned supreme king in 1181. Portrait statues, depicting him meditating in the fashion of Buddha, have been found throughout the region.
An excellent example can be seen in the National Museum Of Cambodia in Phnom Pehn. He built the beautiful temple monastery Ta Prohm in honor of his mother, dedicating it in 1186

These awesome temples were rediscovered by Portuguese adventurers and Catholic missionaries in the 16th century and many were restored in 19th and 20th centuries. Ta Prohm, one of the most picturesque, was left in it's natural state. It recently gained international attention as the setting for the first Laura Croft movie.
At the corner formed by the elaborate front entrance and the front wall is a ten-foot column covered with these decorative circles.
One of the animals enclosed in these circles is a stegosaurus

Ta Prohm abounds with stone statues and reliefs. Almost every square inch of the gray sandstone is covered with ornate carvings. Hundreds of decorative stone circles surround familiar animals, such as monkeys, deer, water buffalo, parrots.

The obvious indication is that the stone carvers of the tenth century saw a stegosaurus as they saw monkeys, buffalo and deer.

OK, let the screaming and gnashing of teeth begin!
There’s more of these kind of examples my friends, so let’s get on with the excuses and reasons why these are all fakes, and then we’ll add more to the pile.

Bronzesnake

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hello lordkalvan.

The only 'camp' that does not accept it is that which has a vested interest in denying it for reasons that have nothing to do with science. You may want to argue that the fossil evidence does not support the conclusions drawn from it, but you cannot argue that the evidence does not exist.

This kind of argument could be turned right around and aimed at evolutionists as well my friend.
I can and have made excellent arguments which prove there are absolutely no series of graduated transitional fossils on the entire planet which show even a single case of one distinct species slowly transitioning into a new, unique species.

When challenged to show such examples, faithful evolutionist believers will provide very nice examples of illustrations accompanied by long winded explanations about exactly how these graduated transitional series would look like if only there were any. These explanations are cunning in that they appear to actually be referring to actual real life examples, which we all know is just not true.
Perhaps evolutionists cannot afford cameras, or photographers, and that would explain the total lack of photographical evidence to show such a graduated transitional series of evolution.
Hey, keep on kneeling before the illustrated alter of wishful thinking and fertile imagination my friends, just don’t hammer us for kneeling before our creator God, who actually does exist. Ever heard of Jesus?

Bronzesnake

 

[jasoncran]

lord kalvan isnt a christian.

 

[Bronzesnake]

lord kalvan isnt a christian.

Ya I caught that brother.

Bronzesnake

 

[Evointrinsic]

Bronzesnake wrote: Something tells me someone is a wee bit afraid to answer that post.

Are you in preschool? I really hope that isn't an actual statement.

Oh the horrible irony!! LOL!

No, I just haven't heard someone say "Well if you don't answer, that means your afraid!" since preschool... Usually adults have at least a mild sense of common sense to realize that sometimes things over accidental overlooked. Notice how when you actually posted, showing that people accidentally overlooked a single post, that I answered right away... Curious, isn't it?

hahaha, I like how you said numerous times in your original post; "Theoretical", "For the sake of debate", "For arguments sake", "Theoretical scenario", and of course plenty of cases where you say "Now let's say..." which is common in a hypothetical explanation. And then in this new post you all of a sudden bring up the exact same story as the "hypothetical" explanation. Not very honest are you? Clearly you were trying to make a trap with this.

There are hundreds of artifacts around the world which appear to represent aliens and or flying saucers. Is this, then, evidence to you that Aliens and Flying Saucers 100% exist?

Back to your "Theoretical Scenario" though. The fact that you still believe this story (I was made aware of it far before you came around) is quite outstanding.

The very circumstances from which the figures first appeared are cited as dubious.[2] Julsrud claims that he paid the farmers for every figure they brought him, which would have given the farmers motive to create their own figures and disguise them as ancient artifacts.

According to Di Peso, the surface of the figures was practically brand new and they showed no characteristic evidence of having been in the ground for at least 1500 years. If they were authentic artifacts, they should be scratched and marred from the rocky soil, which is characteristic of artifacts found in that area of Mexico. Also, while people were digging up the artifacts, Di Peso observed them crush through authentic artifacts to reach the figures, yet none of the figures themselves displayed any marks of damage. Other evidence includes fresh manure and fingerprints found under the ground, and black fill from other strata which was discovered in sterile red earth, all of which is evidence of tampering with the site.

The sheer number of perfect figures found is cited as evidence for a hoax. Over 32,000 figures were found, and all of them in perfect condition except for a few that were cleanly broken, perhaps to create the illusion of antiquity. If these were authentic antiquities, they would not be preserved with such perfection in such an inhospitable environment. Pottery is almost always uncovered as fragments called sherds; nowhere have 32,000 unblemished ceramics been uncovered with none of them in fragments and all of them in perfect condition (cleanly broken in two does not count as fragmentation).
source

1. The figurines show every evidence of being recent folk art, fraudulently buried in an archeological excavation. De Peso (1953) made the following observations:

* The surfaces of the figurines were new. They were not marred by a patina or coating of soluble salts characteristic of genuinely old artifacts from the same area. The owner said none of the figures had been washed in acid. Edges of depressions were sharp and new. No dirt was packed into crevices.

* Genuine archeological relics of fragile items are almost always found in fragments. Finding more than 30,000 such items in pristine condition is unheard of. The excavators of the artifacts were "neither careful nor experienced" in their field technique, yet no marks of their shovels, mattocks, or picks were noted in any of the 32,000 specimens. Some figurines were broken, but the breaks were unworn and apparently deliberate to suggest age. No parts were missing.

* "The author spent two days watching the excavators burrow and dig; during the course of their search they managed to break a number of authentic prehistoric objects. On the second day the two struck a cache and the author examined the material in situ. The cache had been very recently buried by digging a down sloping tunnel into the black fill dirt of the prehistoric room. This fill ran to a depth of approximately 1.30 m. Within the stratum there were authentic Tarascan sherds, obsidian blades, tripod metates, manos, etc., but these objects held no concern for the excavators. In burying the cache of figurines, the natives had unwittingly cut some 15 cms. below the black fill into the sterile red earth floor of the prehistoric room. In back-filling the tunnel they mixed this red sterile earth with black earth; the tracing of their original excavation was, as a result, a simple task" (Di Peso 1953, 388).

* Fresh manure was found in the tunnel fill.

* Fingerprints were found in freshly packed earth that filled an excavated bowl.

2. The story of their discovery gives a motive for fraud. Waldemar Julsrud, who hired workers to excavate a Chupicuaro site in 1945, paid workers a peso apiece for intact figurines. It very well may have been more economical for the workers to make figurines than to discover and excavate them. Given the quantity that he received, the contribution to the peasants' economy would have been substantial.

3. The figurines are not from the Chupicuaro. They came from within a single-component Tarascan ruin. The Tarascan are post-classical and historical, emerging between 900 and 1522 C.E.

4. If authentic, the figurines imply even more archeological anomalies:
* If the figurines really were based on actual dinosaurs, why have no dinosaur fossils been found in the Acambaro region?
* Why did no other Mexican cultures record any dinosaurs?
* What caused the dinosaurs to disappear in the last 1,100 years?

5. There is no credible information to support the claims. The only sources are pseudoscience journalists, creationists, and crackpots, who have obvious ulterior motives for gullibility. Their own dating results are discordant with each other and with the ages of the native cultures, and even attempting to do carbon dating on the inorganic figurines shows their incompetence.
source

Don Patton, another young-earth creationist supporter of the figures, has provided what he claims to be accurate radiocarbon dates for the figures ranging from 6500 years to 1500 years.

The labs that produced these dates have claimed that they were inconclusive, but Dennis Swift claims that once the labs discovered what it was they were dating, they retracted their original dates in order to keep with the science community’s agenda of suppressing “real†knowledge.
source

I could go all day finding evidence that shows that this is a rather poor excuse for "evidence"

As for this being conclusive evidence that dinosaurs existed with man? Even if it was true, it still wouldn't be hard evidence. For an example, let's take a murder scene which we have found a murder weapon at. The murder weapon has no prints on it or any biological matter that can proof that our suspect is the murderer. That isn't hard evidence, and that's precisely what your offering here.

 

[lordkalvan]

...Have a look for yourselves my friends....

I notice that your links refer to the testing commissioned by Charles Hapgood in the late 1960s by Isotopes Inc of new Jersey. In the first place, I can find no trace of this company, but then they may very well no longer be in business. In the second place, however, and more significantly, ceramics cannot be C14 dated; they are not organic, so this immediately casts doubt on the tale as reported.

Next there is the matter of thermolumiscence dating, which can be applied to ceramics, but the details of which are seriously garbled in the links. We are told that Arthur Young submitted two figurines for testing, but the quoted letter refers to four samples; in this letter Froelich Rainey does not appear to know how to spell versus either. We are also told that in some mysterious time-travelling way John Tierney in 1956 managed to commission some unspecified dating process (presumably C14, which see above) that exposed the alleged 'shenanigans' of the thermoluminescence dating 16 years later; this seems bizarre, to say the least. It is also interesting that although this allegedly highly accurate dating procedure was carried out in 1972, thermoluminescence dating had only been invented some 12 years earlier and eight years after the dating of the figurines (was it two or was it four?), as late as 1980 the methodology was still in its developmental stage and

'Except for doing simple authenticity tests of art objects, thermoluminescence dating is not generally accurate enough for archaeological standards. There are many factors which have to be taken into account and each of these factors has its own random error. This, combined with poorly understood measurement errors, make the accuracy of thermoluminescence dating only about 15% accurate for a single sample and 7 to 10% accurate for a suite of samples in a single context.'

Source: http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/archaeology ... cence.html

So clearly the story that is being recounted by your various links (i.e. pretty much the same story verbatim) is far less straightforward and clear-cut that you are seeking to suggest; indeed it is not an exaggeration to say that it has a distinctly piscine aroma to it. At the very least the reported facts require further verification before they can be considered to be establishing the Acambaro tale as anything more than the hoax that it, like the so-called Ica Stones, so evidently seems to be.

 

[Barbarian]

Baugh states that a spiral CAT scan was done on the "finger," and declares that "scientific analysis shows replaced bone, tissue, and ligaments. It has been identified as the fourth finger on a girl’s left hand."[2] The latter assertion is reminiscent of his overstated claims regarding supposed human footprints, where vague impressions disputed even by other creationists are declared by Baugh to be so clearly human one can identify whether they are male or female. In fact, there are no clear indications of bones, ligaments, or other specific structures in the CAT scans of the supposed finger. All that is visible are some ill-defined darker areas toward the center of the object. These are expected in any natural stone, due to the greater amount of material the radiation must pass through near the middle of the stone.

cross section
Cross section of the "finger" (photo link to www.biblebelieers.org website)
The lack of clear bones is also evident in the cross sections of the finger, which show some ill-defined concentric bands, but no distinct boundaries. The innermost, lighter-toned region (presumed to be a bone) also is oriented much closer to one side than the other, rather than being more centered as would be expected for a bone. Baugh and others[4] have claimed that the tiny dots represent bone pores, but they extend well beyond the area assumed to be bone, and thus seem to refute rather than support the bone contention. It seems more likely the tiny structures represent particles of contrasting sediment or microfossils (perhaps osctracodes and/or forams), but evidently the finger proponents have not done the rigorous microscopic work needed to conclusively identify them.

In short, the "finger" is no more a human finger than the "Old man of the mountain" is an old man.

The "Stegosaurus" on the Khmer stele isn't remotely like a Stegosaurus. It has some petals behind it that look like early conceptions paleontologists had of steosauri, but the plates were not arranged like that. The head of the beast on the carving is huge and heavy, unlike the tiny head of a real one. No thagomizer on the tail, either.