[_ Old Earth _] Man And Dinosaur

[Bronzesnake]

Wow! It's the gift that keeps on giving Barb!

I never mentioned the Inca stones Barb, so why are you rambling on and on about them when this discussion is in relation to the Mexican dinosaur figures? This account is extremely legitimate in spite of your best rebuttal where you off handedly proclaim it to be “fakeryâ€.

You really do your atheistic faith a disservice when you attempt to dismiss historical events which can be independently corroborated via newspaper articles and correspondences - for example, the test results which dated the figures at thousands of years old.

The way you continue to totally avoid the actual subject speaks volumes and is much more effective than any argument based on the actual events surrounding the story.
Of course I don't expect you to switch camps Barb, but I would have more respect for you if you approached such powerful evidence with more honest attitude, and perhaps just questioned the dating results for example. But when you attempt to convince us that all these people are dirty liars and the entire story is a huge conspiracy perpetrated by us evil creationists in order to fool the masses into believing that perhaps God is real and just maybe the scriptures are truly accurate historically correct documents... well, it really comes across as silly.

Just think for a moment as to what you are expecting us to accept.
Every single person involved save those few who dismissed the figures, are all liars and are all involved in this conspiracy. They would have had to have gotten together and concocted the story to the point where even the locals would be in on it and would just go along with it for a measly 12 cents per figure.

I don't know if you actually took the time and effort to read the entire account barb, but these figures would be made over an open wood fire. There are thousands of figures and some are almost two feet long. Many of these figures were buried deep in the ground and in one instance; many figures were actually dug up beneath the chief of police’s home which was built twenty five years before any figures were ever found! This would put the conspiracy on par with J.F.K.!
Many of the figures were dug up and found to be wrapped up in deep roots Barb. How far did these conspirators go to legitimize their dirty lies?

The region is almost devoid of wood and it would have been very expensive to buy. Also, the open fires would have caused a lot of smoke and so we would have to believe that many of the locals would have known about such an operation, and these would all have to be included in the scam as well. I wonder how many times you can divide 12 cents? Government official have been on record stating this effort would be impossible and that it simply did not happen Barb...are they all liars? Is the Christian camp really this sneaky and powerful barb? You may not agree with creation barb, but I suspect you would agree that the great majority of faithful, Christians are honest people who would never be involved in such deceit. Also, I happen to be friends with several Mexican farmers and I have found them to be extremely hard working and honest people, so the dark light that has been draped over such people is a real insult and almost prejudice. In the very least it is extremely distasteful.

The very idea that this kind of scam could have been planned and carried out involving all these people and the logistics involved makes it laughable Barb. There’s also the damning fact that your own camp dated the samples in the thousands of years and they went onto brag about how positive and how accurate their methods and dates were until they discovered the samples were from dinosaur figures, then they out and out lied to cover their butts which is really disgusting and extremely revealing in that is gives us a brief open window into the world of secrecy and dishonesty of the evolution camp at its highest levels. These people have shown an ability to openly lie without blinking an eye. We know that in that atheistic world you must tow the company line or face the consequences.

Your out of hand dismissal of the facts surrounding this event is just not believable. So it does your credibility real harm when you openly dismiss it all off as "fakery"

Take care Barb.

Bronzesnake

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hey if I post a picture of a document written by Darwin stating that he renounced evolution and believes 100% in Y.E. creationism would that finally prove evolution to be the fraud that it actually is?

Lol, yes... *sarcasm*

Just like if Newton and Einstein both "renounced" their theories of gravity, makes gravity a fraud. Your inability to understand how scientific theories, no matter how far fetched you believe they are, are all an attempt to explain a phenomenon that exists, is absolutely outstanding. <---- that's not a compliment.

What I find difficult to understand is how you have barely discussed any of these ridiculous claims about evolution (and the people who accept it) in my topic specifically about evolution? "Something tells me someone is a wee bit afraid..."
Go here for that topic

Perhaps you should read the relevant post before you make comments which take my response out of context Evo.
The topic discussed was the Mexican Figure. Barb avoided the actual topic and tried to infer the figures were fakes by providing an example of actual controversial (in his opinion) Inca stones.
So, I turned it around with my own example.

Bronzesnake

 

[Bronzesnake]

Bronzesnake wrote:I am really enjoying all this blatant denial my friends.
Please keep em comin!

I rather think you're interpreting reasoned counter-argument in a manner that best suits your presuppositions about what that counter-argument amounts to.

No, actually I’m not.
I am simply pointing out that Barb and now apparently you, are avoiding the actually subject and attempting to put doubt on the figures by proving examples that have absolutely nothing to do with the figures.
Why doesn’t Barb provide relevant rebuttal in direct relation to the Mexican figures L.K?
Why haven’t you?
Bronzesnake Wrote - Sooo, lemme get this straight - you want me to prove your religious beliefs?

Eh, no, what I would like you to do is what it says on the lid: please explain the scientific evidence that leads the creationist 'camp' to deny the existence of fossils that demonstrably support the tenets of evolutionary theory.

Again, I assert there are no series of graduated transitional fossils anywhere on the planet, which show one life form slowly transitioning over long periods to become a new, distinct life form.
If Darwin was correct, then there should be loads of such series.
All you can ever present are tenuous single fossil examples which you yourself admit do not “prove†Darwinian evolution, only infer it may have happened. Your best evidence is your lack of understanding as to why some structure may or may not be what you need it to be in order to further infer macro evolution.
Anytime anyone asks for examples of macro evolution we exclusively are offered up examples of micro evolution and are provided with long winded explanations of how micro leads up to macro in spite of the complete lack of any empirical evidence. It’s ok to have faith in a thing L.K. just don’t go around preaching it as fact to our youth. Teach it in philosophy class, that’s fine, but it’s not science if you can’t use the scientific method to corroborate it – that argument is used against I.D. so it’s good enough to use against your faith based beliefs as well my friend. I’m tired of this double standard where evolutionists scream as loud as they can that their beliefs are “real science†even though they can’t be reproduced or tested in a lab, and our beliefs are not “real science†in spite of the fact that our scientists are trained in the exact same universities and have the exact same accreditation as your folks do.

Why should they show 'it' and what is 'it'?

Why do you continue to ask us to corroborate your beliefs?
Read Darwin’s book, he said it, I’m just referring to it.

and also to please explain the scientific evidence that leads the creationist 'camp' to deny the existence of fossils that demonstrably support the tenets of evolutionary theory.

What? Like the dolphin legs that look exactly like fins? Gimme a break.

Your pelvic girdle is also a 'penis girder', acting as it does as the anchor point for the relevant muscles (as well as the muscles of your legs); structures serve more than one purpose (think of your mouth). I am continually amazed at the extent to which creationists opposed to evolution on nothing more than theological grounds will go to argue that something isn't what it is.

Hey, if you want to believe in such unsubstantiated ideas that’s great. Just don’t try and make us believe it’s reality.

Here's a dolphin with vestigial hind limbs:

This really shows the depths of desperation the evolutionists’ camp has sunk to.
I truly believe you actually think those fins are legs...sad really.

Take care L.K.

 

[Bronzesnake]

Bronzesnake wrote:...Dipeso made ridiculous accusations against the locals, stating farmers had watched movies, read comics and researched books in the local library in order to come up with source material to make these figurines. Are you kidding me!!????...

Well, Di Peso was there, so why do you suppose the points he made were 'ridiculous'? Acambaro was (and is) a city, a major railway junction with yards and maintenance shops for the National Railways of Mexico. Are you saying that you find it incredible that, in the 1930s and '40s, such a municipality would not have had available, a library, comic books and a cinema? D.W. Griffith's Man's Genesis (1912) contains the first authenticated cinematographic depiction of a dinosaur; Conan Doyle's The Lost World, the first significant novel to feature dinosaurs, was published in 1912 (and made into a film by Willis O'Brien in 1925). The Mexican film industry began as early as 1896, although it took off significantly in the 1930s, with the first 'talkie' appearing in 1931.

Are you being serious?
Do you honestly believe these poor hard working Mexican farmers actually went to movies, read comics and book etc back in the 30’s and 40’s to the point where they were able to perpetrate this huge conspiracy? That really stretches credulity my friend.
Even if I temporarily lost my senses, I would still be left having to believe in a huge conspiracy involving dozens of people.
I would have to explain how these poor Mexican farmers would be talked into participating and how they managed to buy expensive scarce wood for the fires, and how they hid the smoke while they were creating these thousands of figures, and how they managed to burry these thousands of figures in deep pits where some figures actually were wrapped around roots six feet beneath the ground, or how they knew to bury some of these figures in the exact spot that one day, the police chief would build his home and that twenty five years later, some unsuspecting fool would ask for permission to dig beneath the house and low and behold and gold mine of 12 cents per figure! And they only had to wait a mere twenty five years to collect!!
Come on my friend, be reasonable. Go ahead and doubt the dates but it makes you look desperate when you are forced to come up with this grand conspiracy.

Take care L.K.
God loves ya brother, and He wants you on the winning team.
Bronzesnake

 

[lordkalvan]

I rather think you're interpreting reasoned counter-argument in a manner that best suits your presuppositions about what that counter-argument amounts to.

No, actually I’m not.
I am simply pointing out that Barb and now apparently you, are avoiding the actually subject and attempting to put doubt on the figures by proving examples that have absolutely nothing to do with the figures.

I have made several points directly regarding the Acambaro figurines that you have not responded to.

Why doesn’t Barb provide relevant rebuttal in direct relation to the Mexican figures L.K?
Why haven’t you?

Barbarian is quite capable of speaking for himself. I have made a number of points so far unaddressed.

[quote:1jkgyyio]Eh, no, what I would like you to do is what it says on the lid: please explain the scientific evidence that leads the creationist 'camp' to deny the existence of fossils that demonstrably support the tenets of evolutionary theory.

Again, I assert there are no series of graduated transitional fossils anywhere on the planet, which show one life form slowly transitioning over long periods to become a new, distinct life form.[/quote:1jkgyyio]
You can assert what you like; however, you have yet to give us any criteria by which we can judge what you mean by a 'series of graduated transitional fossils' or, for that matter what you mean by 'long periods' and 'a new, distinct life form'.

If Darwin was correct, then there should be loads of such series.

You have yet to give us any criteria to judge what you mean when you say 'series'. There are many fossils that demonstrate transitional features from earlier to later forms of a particular animal. Are these part of such a 'series' or not and, if not, why not?

All you can ever present are tenuous single fossil examples which you yourself admit do not “prove†Darwinian evolution, only infer it may have happened.

I am happy to present you with as many fossils as I can. It would seem useful, however, if you began by considering the examples you have been provided with and explaining why you find the demonstrated transitional features to be unsatisfactory. Also, I think you need to reflect on the fact that what science considers is what the weight of evidence suggests, rather than outright proof, and also the meaning of infer in this context.

Your best evidence is your lack of understanding as to why some structure may or may not be what you need it to be in order to further infer macro evolution.

Well, perhaps you can better explain what my 'understanding' should actually be, then?

Anytime anyone asks for examples of macro evolution we exclusively are offered up examples of micro evolution and are provided with long winded explanations of how micro leads up to macro in spite of the complete lack of any empirical evidence. It’s ok to have faith in a thing L.K. just don’t go around preaching it as fact to our youth. Teach it in philosophy class, that’s fine, but it’s not science if you can’t use the scientific method to corroborate it – that argument is used against I.D. so it’s good enough to use against your faith based beliefs as well my friend.

What is your understanding of what macroevolution means? Do you disagree with the understanding in evolutionary biology that it refers to evolutionary change at or above the level of the species? Do you think that there is some mechanism that prevents small evolutionary changes over time leading to larger ones and, if so, what is that mechanism, how can it be identified and how does it function?

I’m tired of this double standard where evolutionists scream as loud as they can that their beliefs are “real science†even though they can’t be reproduced or tested in a lab, and our beliefs are not “real science†in spite of the fact that our scientists are trained in the exact same universities and have the exact same accreditation as your folks do.

Well, as you have yet to critique any of the evidence that supports evolutionary theory or to explain any of the 'creationist' science that offers an alternative, credible explanation of observed nature, I think it reasonable to continue to take the viewpoint that 'real' science is done by those who do not decide in advance what evidence that they encounter can or cannot be regarded as valid based solely on whether it contradicts one particular understanding derived from biblical scripture as opposed to another.

[quote:1jkgyyio]Why should they show 'it' and what is 'it'?

Why do you continue to ask us to corroborate your beliefs?
Read Darwin’s book, he said it, I’m just referring to it.[/quote:1jkgyyio]
I am trying to struggle towards an understanding of what you are trying to say. I have no idea of what 'it' is that should be shown and why 'it' should be shown at all.

[quote:1jkgyyio]and also to please explain the scientific evidence that leads the creationist 'camp' to deny the existence of fossils that demonstrably support the tenets of evolutionary theory.

What? Like the dolphin legs that look exactly like fins? Gimme a break.[/quote:1jkgyyio]
The fins are where no fins should be and correspond to the skeletal location where hind limbs would occur in a land mammal. The point about vestigial features is that they do not necessarily look exactly like the fully-developed functioning features of the ancestral animal. The development of both fins and limbs are controlled by the same genetic toolkit.

[quote:1jkgyyio]Your pelvic girdle is also a 'penis girder', acting as it does as the anchor point for the relevant muscles (as well as the muscles of your legs); structures serve more than one purpose (think of your mouth). I am continually amazed at the extent to which creationists opposed to evolution on nothing more than theological grounds will go to argue that something isn't what it is.

Hey, if you want to believe in such unsubstantiated ideas that’s great. Just don’t try and make us believe it’s reality.[/quote:1jkgyyio]
Insofar as you have not shown why your pelvic bones do not also constitute a 'penis girder', why biologists have misidentified these supposed 'penis girders' as vestigial pelvises and why the embryological development of cetacean fetuses has no significance, I rather think it is yourself that is turning your face away from 'reality'.

[quote:1jkgyyio]Here's a dolphin with vestigial hind limbs:

This really shows the depths of desperation the evolutionists’ camp has sunk to.
I truly believe you actually think those fins are legs...sad really.[/quote:1jkgyyio]
Nope, those 'fins' are vestigial hind limbs. Nowhere did I say that they either are or even look like legs. This is the construction you have chosen to place on the features, presumably because it is the only 'rebuttal' that you can think of.

Take care L.K.

You, too.

 

[lordkalvan]

[quote:1lqzihk5]Bronzesnake wrote:...Dipeso made ridiculous accusations against the locals, stating farmers had watched movies, read comics and researched books in the local library in order to come up with source material to make these figurines. Are you kidding me!!????...

Well, Di Peso was there, so why do you suppose the points he made were 'ridiculous'? Acambaro was (and is) a city, a major railway junction with yards and maintenance shops for the National Railways of Mexico. Are you saying that you find it incredible that, in the 1930s and '40s, such a municipality would not have had available, a library, comic books and a cinema? D.W. Griffith's Man's Genesis (1912) contains the first authenticated cinematographic depiction of a dinosaur; Conan Doyle's The Lost World, the first significant novel to feature dinosaurs, was published in 1912 (and made into a film by Willis O'Brien in 1925). The Mexican film industry began as early as 1896, although it took off significantly in the 1930s, with the first 'talkie' appearing in 1931.

Are you being serious?
Do you honestly believe these poor hard working Mexican farmers actually went to movies, read comics and book etc back in the 30’s and 40’s to the point where they were able to perpetrate this huge conspiracy? That really stretches credulity my friend.[/quote:1lqzihk5]
I was questioning the grounds for your assertion as to the ridiculousness of Di Peso's comments. I suggest you do some research on carpas (tent shows) and the very successful indigenous Mexican comic book industry. Do you regard it as 'stretching credulity' that impoverished American victims of the Great Depression found some escape from the precarious state of their lives by reading comic books and going to the movies? Do you regard it as 'stretching credulity' to believe that Mexican farmers could have made use of local libraries?

Even if I temporarily lost my senses, I would still be left having to believe in a huge conspiracy involving dozens of people.

How many dozens? Who were they? What might have been their motives? At least one account of the figurines refers to only one farmer and his 'assistants', whoever they may have been.

I would have to explain how these poor Mexican farmers would be talked into participating and how they managed to buy expensive scarce wood for the fires, and how they hid the smoke while they were creating these thousands of figures....

Gosh, I wonder how all those poor Mexican farmers (there were dozens and dozens of them, after all), ever managed to buy expensive scarce wood to fuel their cooking fires and to keep themselves warm in the winter? How did they ever manage to bake bread and tortillas? Just out of interest, what facilities do you imagine would be required to fire a few dozen figurines a day, or a few hundred, for that matter?

...and how they managed to burry these thousands of figures in deep pits where some figures actually were wrapped around roots six feet beneath the ground, or how they knew to bury some of these figures in the exact spot that one day, the police chief would build his home and that twenty five years later, some unsuspecting fool would ask for permission to dig beneath the house and low and behold and gold mine of 12 cents per figure! And they only had to wait a mere twenty five years to collect!!
Come on my friend, be reasonable. Go ahead and doubt the dates but it makes you look desperate when you are forced to come up with this grand conspiracy.

You assume that all the details you assert are accurately reported. By your account, these were impoverished Mexican farmers struggling to scrape a living and unable even to buy 'scarce expensive wood' to fuel their cooking fires. At 32,000 figurines at 12¢ a pop, I make that almost $4,000, or roughly twice the 1950 per capita GDP of Mexico: not to be sneezed at.

Take care L.K.

And you, too, again.

 

[Evointrinsic]

Hey if I post a picture of a document written by Darwin stating that he renounced evolution and believes 100% in Y.E. creationism would that finally prove evolution to be the fraud that it actually is?

Lol, yes... *sarcasm*

Just like if Newton and Einstein both "renounced" their theories of gravity, makes gravity a fraud. Your inability to understand how scientific theories, no matter how far fetched you believe they are, are all an attempt to explain a phenomenon that exists, is absolutely outstanding. <---- that's not a compliment.

What I find difficult to understand is how you have barely discussed any of these ridiculous claims about evolution (and the people who accept it) in my topic specifically about evolution? "Something tells me someone is a wee bit afraid..."
Go here for that topic

Perhaps you should read the relevant post before you make comments which take my response out of context Evo.
The topic discussed was the Mexican Figure. Barb avoided the actual topic and tried to infer the figures were fakes by providing an example of actual controversial (in his opinion) Inca stones.
So, I turned it around with my own example.

Lol, good thing i never said it was irrelevant! I was merely showing how your "example" is a rather poor one.

 

[lordkalvan]

Here's more interesting facts my friends...

The artifacts were accepted as genuine by the Federal Court of Mexico when they were used as prima facie evidence in the trial of Jaime Aquirre and Raul Hernandez. Jaime and Raul were sentenced to the Federal prison in Mexico City where they are still serving time. If Jaime and Raul had been peddling phony pottery, fakes of modern manufacture, they would not have been sentenced to prison. Furthermore, the fact that Jaime and Raul were sentenced for trading genuine artifacts should silence the critics who say that no other Julsrud type ceramic pieces have ever been found by others.

Perhaps the fact that they engaged in supposedly trading the artifacts for weapons in Texas, an offence under Mexican Federal Law, might have had something to do with the sentences they received?

While in Acambaro the authors were introduced to Dr. J. Antonio Villia Hennejon who has a medical practice in Guadalajara and Acambaro, Mexico. Dr. Herrejon personally excavated ceramic artifacts on Bull Mountain and Goat Mountain from 1950 to 1955.

Dr. Herrejon insisted that the ground he dug in was hard packed with no loose soil. This was confirmed in personal conservation with other participants in such excavations who remain in Acambaro; i.e. Porfirio Martinez Espinoseo, who accompanied us to Goat mountain and showed us where in his youth he had excavated hundreds of ceramic artifacts. Twice Dr. Herrejon accompanied Julsrud on burros to an area below Goat Mountain, near a lake. There he said on terrain that was overgrown with grass and cactus, they dug up many ceramic pottery pieces including enough dinosaur figurines to fill two bags to be carried back on a burro.

Has anyone come up with a plausible explanation of why 32,000+ pre-Columbian ceramic figures would be buried in this supposedly small area? Most archaeological discoveries have a context and some cultural reference. Where is it here? Where are the other forms of native art depicting these apparently ubiquitous animals? Where are the other forms of native ceramic art using similar materials and techniques?

Antonio Herrejon recalled that in the 1940's and early 1950's virtually nothing was known about dinosaurs in Mexico. They had no books, pamphlets, matchbox covers, movies or other information about dinosaurs. Herrejon postulated that the only dinosaur skeleton on display in Mexico in the 1940's was that of a brontosaurus at the Chupa railroad station in Mexico City.

And Herrejon stands as an authority on palaeontological knowledge and memorobilia in Mexico on what basis, exactly?

Dr. Herrejon was intimately aware of the details and of the immensity of the Julsrud collection (33,700 ceramic pieces). He said it was simply astonishing that not one piece was a duplicate of another. They were all individually distinct. Others who closely examined the collection have also observed this fact. Antonio commented, "If there was a fabrication who was its artist?" No single artist could make 33,700 figurines, all different in style. If there was a hoax then there must have been many artists. How could such a conspiracy be kept silent all these years? Surely someone would have known about such activities.

I notice the seguy here from 'not one piece was a duplicate of another' to the claim that the figurines were 'all different in style'.

Dr. Swift inquired of Dr. Herrejon as to the condition of the artifacts when they were excavated. Antonio said that they were encrusted with dirt and other materials (patina). During Easter week of 1951 Antonio spent two days with Julsrud cleaning the dirt and patina off recently excavated ceramic pieces.

Herrejon and Julsrud did not realize that the absence of patina on the objects would later erupt into accusations that they could not be old or authentic. Julsrud ignorantly commenced the cleaning of all the artifacts back in the 1940's. The job was completed by Tinejero and his helpers.

So was Julsrud an ignorant amateur or an 'astute archaeologist'? Do you not find something just slightly jarring in the way the account shifts its ground as necessary to deal with a perceived problem or likely criticism?

OK can anyone come up with a reasonable explanation of the figures that were dug up beneath the police chief’s house?

Well, the reported methodology (or complete absence thereof) behind this supposed archaeological excavation is glaringly inadequate. Where are the dig maps identifying where each piece was excavated from and at what level? Where are the photographs recording the progress of the excavation?

Did these scamming Mexican farmers cleverly burry those figures twenty five years prior hoping someone would someday dig them up so they could get their twelve cents apiece?

You may want to ask whether they were buried at all before the excavation began. Who was the watchman for the dig when the excavators weren't actually working? Was there one?

Be honest here. Just admit that you can’t explain it at least. To continue on denying these extremely solid facts makes you look desperate.

How shoddy does the report of an alleged archaeological investigation actually have to be before you might begin to scratch your head and ask some searching questions about it?

 

[lordkalvan]

Bronzesnake? Anyone?

<crickets>

 

[Strangelove]

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?

Maybe because men and dinosaurs die in different habitats.

 

[lordkalvan]

Maybe because men and dinosaurs die in different habitats.

Hmmm, did/do sharks, Ichtyosaurs and dolphins die in different habitats? What about African Lesothosauruses and African gazelles? What about Plateosauruses and giraffes?

 

[Strangelove]

Hmmm, did/do sharks, Ichtyosaurs and dolphins die in different habitats? What about African Lesothosauruses and African gazelles? What about Plateosauruses and giraffes?

dunno do they?

 

[lordkalvan]

dunno do they?

You don't appear to know much. How do you know men and dinosaurs 'die in different habitats' or, if you don't know this, what leads you to suppose it? Maybe men and dinosaurs don't die in the 'same habitats' because they didn't co-exist? Their fossil remains certainly aren't found in the same geological strata.

 

[Ashua]

Ancient Dinosaur Depictions

Gotta love artifacts. They are usually hush-hush in academia, but whatever. When you have places like ankor watt with stegosaurus on it, it's pretty hard to explain away. It isn't about religion in and of itself. Acknowledging these would in effect be an admission that the paelo-geologic time scale is a bunch of preconceived...

The Egyptian Chronology, for instance contradicts the records of the ancients, but is given priority. "New Chronology", a growing but minority movement matches up very well with the ancient records. Why won't they throw away the old chronology? because it interferes with the establishment. These charlatans ought to let science run its course. If the theory doesnt line up with the evidence, throw it away and get a new theory. That's how science is supposed to work.

Not too long ago, Troy was a fictional place if I remember correctly. That silly Homer and his imagination. Ancients never know anything. Just a bunch of primitive brutes. Lockness anyone? komodo dragon? crocodile?

 

[lordkalvan]

Ancient Dinosaur Depictions

Gotta love artifacts. They are usually hush-hush in academia, but whatever. When you have places like ankor watt with stegosaurus on it, it's pretty hard to explain away. It isn't about religion in and of itself. Acknowledging these would in effect be an admission that the paelo-geologic time scale is a bunch of preconceived...

'Acknowledging' such an image as what you claim it is would be misleading as there is no evidence that the image is the animal you assert it is.

The Egyptian Chronology, for instance contradicts the records of the ancients, but is given priority. "New Chronology", a growing but minority movement matches up very well with the ancient records. Why won't they throw away the old chronology? because it interferes with the establishment. These charlatans ought to let science run its course. If the theory doesnt line up with the evidence, throw it away and get a new theory. That's how science is supposed to work.

The 'New Chronology' is not accepted by Egyptologists because it does not withstand serious scrutiny.

Not too long ago, Troy was a fictional place if I remember correctly. That silly Homer and his imagination. Ancients never know anything. Just a bunch of primitive brutes. Lockness anyone? komodo dragon? crocodile?

So are you suggesting that everything that Homer wrote is true, simply because a site that has been identified as Troy was discovered in the 19th century?

 

[Ashua]

'Acknowledging' such an image as what you claim it is would be misleading as there is no evidence that the image is the animal you assert it is.

And what evidence do you have to the contrary? It certainly looks like a dinosaur. There is nothing to say it is not. What of the other 20 or 30 images in the link? Not very scientific to turn a blind eye to the anatomical similarities of the image to a stegosaurus. It doesn't prove the Bible if you can prove dinosaurs and man lived together. What we have is intentionally guided interpretation of science --which has no place in true science.

Let me put it this way. If we lived in a world where dinosaurs were as common as a dog or a deer, then no one would be disputing this. No one would dispute that it is a stegosaurus or similar creature. Why does context decide that it is NOT? You can only say "because they were extinct millions of years before man." That is dishonest. Religion or not, how can anyone say they are honest and at the same time utterly refuse to acknowledge the possibility that dinosaurs did survive to the human era? Because it doesn't fit the "accepted" "canon" of pre-history? That kind of thinking is indistinguishable from the fingers pointing at religious people for trying to to find data to support their pre-conceived assumptions/hypothesis. That is dishonest.

The 'New Chronology' is not accepted by Egyptologists because it does not withstand serious scrutiny.

Perhaps you could tell me how the accepted chronology and the new chronology came to be? Perhaps you know about the so called scrutiny? Just because the "elite" decide to agree on something,..... I fail to see how their camp is automatically authoritative. Discerning history is not subject to 'democracy' wherein the majority auto-win. The medieval church was the authority of "scrutiny" at one point in time. As I said, there is more to it than it appears.

So are you suggesting that everything that Homer wrote is true, simply because a site that has been identified as Troy was discovered in the 19th century?

No, but generally speaking, the ancients were not J.R.R. Tolkein. They used real world settings USUALLY, and real monarchs, and real time frames. They did not invent worlds and places. You can site atlantis and the occasional exception, but give me a break. I did not say everything homer wrote was true, but I'm willing to bet that every city he wrote about that was set on earth.

The Bible contains so much in the way of geography, rulers -Hebrew and otherwise (nothing to do with Egyptian chronology), and dates (under a lunar calendar, not gregorian or julian)

The Bible speaks of four rivers in Genesis: Tigres, Euphrates, Pishon, and Gishon. The later two do not exist. Satillite images have discovered the fossilized rivers where the Bible said they were. Kings like Cyrus and Nebuchadnezzar, and Ahasuerus.... Events are said to happen in the X year of the reign of (monarch)... Locations and cities and local peoples... The Bible stripped of its theology has no reason for "science" to dispute it. But it does. Even though things are verified. Its not just the Bible that speaks of dinosaurs (Job). The world over has "myths" and legends and art portraying creatures described as dinosaurs, many of which were found in the link. A lot more than an handful. Perhaps the separate testimony of the many ancients describing the same thing should be considered?

If they found a complete T-rex fossilized and within it was found the fossil of a homo sapien, they would find some inventive excuse to explain it away. Its pretty ridiculous and not at all scientific to reject evidence BECAUSE IT CONTRADICTS the favored INTERPRETATION of the evidence held by the status quo.

No, proving dinosaurs existed with man does not confirm the Bible. But when you look at artifacts and writings the world over... It's pretty weak to say everything that suggests the POSSIBILITY of it is suppressed and denied.

UFOs... I don't know if they exist. I wouldn't deny real tangible evidence that suggests they do if I saw it. I have no agenda here. Science for whatever reason wants to turn a blind eye when something contradicts the core religion found like a weed in the heart of true science. Take away the pillars of the geologic column and the supposition that dinosaurs could not possibly have existed X thousand years ago and... lol. Charlatans.

even if it was 20,000 years ago (conflicting the Bible but possible for mankind to have seen them...) its pretty cheap. Just deny it like the government denies things.

As I said, if dinosaurs existed in our modern world, NOBODY would deny that the image in question was a dinosaur. If they did, they certainly wouldn't deny that it could be. But because they do not exist in the present, that magically qualifies the equation. Neat.

 

[Ashua]

 

[Ashua]

Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, 2nd century

Prehistoric cave paintings

 

[Ashua]

Plesiosaur looking dinosaur. This is (Australian) aboriginal art.

 

[Ashua]

Back to the Angkor Wat stegosaurus now.