[_ Old Earth _] Man And Dinosaur

[Ashua]

Triceratops

Over 33,000 of these found in Mexico dating from 800 B.C. to 200 A.D.

[imghttp://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/graphic/twanakusm.jpg[/img]

 

[Ashua]

[img[http://www.douglashamp.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/nile-extinct-show.jpg[/img]

Roman mosaic at Sepphoris

 

[lordkalvan]

And what evidence do you have to the contrary?

Thanks for your lengthy reply. I will do my best to answer the points you have raised, although probably not all in the same post.

Well, technically I don't have to prove anything. It's your claim, you have to provide something in the way of evidence to back it up.

It certainly looks like a dinosaur.

'Looks like' does not mean 'is the same as'. The pronghorn antelope so closely resembles Old World antelopes that it was identified and named as one; however, it is not an antelope at all.

There is nothing to say it is not.

It depends on the degree of confirmation bias you wish to bring to your interpretation of the image. Look at all the things that point away from a stegosaurus: the animal in the carving has a central horn, something which stegosaurus lacks; it has prominent external ears, also something which stegosaurus lacks; it has a rather small, short tail, completely lacking the characteristic tail-end thagomizer (tip o'the hat to Gary Larson) of the stegosaurus. To me the alleged spine plates could be background mountains or even leaves looming behind a rhinocerous, an animal indigenous to the locality. You might also want to be sure that the carving dates from when it is supposed to date; perhaps it is an anachronism, a carving later than the stonework into which it is etched.

What of the other 20 or 30 images in the link?

I would be immediately doubtful of the reliability of any source that referenced the Ica Stones and Acambaro Figurines as persuasive evidence of the existence of dinosaurs at the same time as humans. My doubtfulness would be reinforced by that site calling the Ica Stones Inca Stones.

Not very scientific to turn a blind eye to the anatomical similarities of the image to a stegosaurus.

Even less scientific to reach the conclusion on a visual interpretation of a relatively crude depiction that the animal in question is most likely a stegosaurus.

It doesn't prove the Bible if you can prove dinosaurs and man lived together.

I didn't think that was the purpose of the claims; I thought the purpose of the claims was to provide some validation of the otherwise completely untenable idea that Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

What we have is intentionally guided interpretation of science --which has no place in true science.

That certainly seems to be so in the case of the site you have referenced.

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.

Well, we don't and as there is no evidence that it is a stegosaurus beyond wishful thinking, then your conclusion is most certainly contentious.

No one would dispute that it is a stegosaurus or similar creature.

I would dispute it for the reasons already given, as the carving in question features distinctive physical characteristics that stegosaurus lacks and lacks distinctive physical characteristics that stegosaurus displays.

Why does context decide that it is NOT? You can only say "because they were extinct millions of years before man."

In the same way that context disproves that Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great were contemporaries, in this case reinforced however by obvious aspects of the carving in question.

That is dishonest.

Not as dishonest as asserting that the carving in question can only represent a stegosaurus.

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 there is no objective, persuasive evidence to that effect. This is not dishonest; it is, in fact, an honest conclusion based on the weight of evidence (or lack of it, in this case).

Because it doesn't fit the "accepted" "canon" of pre-history?

No, because the claim being countered is without any merit at all.

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.

Pointing to the inadequacies of evidence claimed to support a given conclusion (that dinosaurs and humans were contemporaneous) is not the same as interpreting evidence to fit a preconceived idea about what it 'must' show.

More later.

 

[lordkalvan]

...Perhaps you could tell me how the accepted chronology and the new chronology came to be?

The chronology currently in use by Egyptologists has been developed over decades of research and is based on a number of methodologies, including 'absolute' measures (e.g. RM dating, astronomical records) and 'relative' measures (e.g. stratigraphic dating, king lists, contemporary records from other cultures). The 'new' chronology was developed largely by David Rohl and is centred around known difficulties with the dating of the later New Kingdom and Third Intermediate periods. In essence, Rohl's analysis starts with the same claims as Peter James and Immanuel Velikovsky, that Champollion misidentified the biblical pharaoh Shishaq with the historical pharaoh Shoshenq. Despite his use of similar material to James and Velikovsky, however, Rohl reaches different conclusions and the driving force behind his researches and conclusions appears to be the wish to validate biblical chronologies.

Perhaps you know about the so called scrutiny?

Rohl makes unwarranted assumptions about certain things in support of his chronological revisions (arbitrary generation lengths are assigned to priestly generations), he uses priestly generation lists that are known to contain errors and omissions, he draws on hypotheses (James's and Velikovky's) that have already been shown to have serious faults, and he ignores evidence that does not fit his hypothesis (e.g. the finding of a tomb lintel from the tomb of Psussenes re-cycled in Osorkon II’s). These are just a few of the problems Egyptologists have raised with Rohl's work.

Just because the "elite" decide to agree on something...

This imaginary 'elite' has not 'decided' to agree on anything: careful and methodical research over decades has produced findings and conclusions which can only be challenged by rigorous scholarship and persuasive evidence. Rohl has failed to convince the overwhelming majority of Egyptologists that either his scholarship is rigorous enough or that his evidence is robust.

I fail to see how their camp is automatically authoritative.

No one suggests this supposed 'camp' is: what is pointed out is that a hypothesis has to withstand scrutiny from peer review. Rohl's hypothesis has not withstood this scrutiny (you may be interested in particular in Kenneth Kitchen's critiques of Rohl's work - Professor Kitchen is generally acknowledged as one of the leading experts in biblical history).

Discerning history is not subject to 'democracy' wherein the majority auto-win.

In this case the majority's criticisms are based on knowledge and understanding of their subject material and on demonstrated weaknesses in the suggested revisions.

The medieval church was the authority of "scrutiny" at one point in time.

But what sort of 'scrutiny' and driven by what forces?

As I said, there is more to it than it appears.

In which case you need to show what that 'more' happens to be.

More later.

 

[lordkalvan]

....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.

Well, what were you implying when you made the point concerning Homer, the legend of Troy and the 19th Century discovery of an archaeological site that has been identified as Troy? Gone With the Wind includes a great deal of fairly accurate historical narrative; what does this lead you to conclude about Gone With the Wind? Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae has a detailed history of the Kings of Britain, which features the names of many historical figures and many actual places, but does this make it a reliable document for charting the pre-Conquest history of Britain?

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)

And if some of these details are verifiable and others are not, what conclusions are we supposed to draw from this?

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.

How do you know these dried-up river-beds are the rivers referred to in Genesis? David Rohl has located Eden in south-east Azerbaijan, comfortably distant from the Tigris and Euphrates. I was also unaware that the Bible identified the location of these two rivers and that that location matches the referred to satellite images. There are many ancient, dried-up rivers in this part of the world; what makes you suppose that the two referred to are the ones you suppose they are?

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.

Science (and history and archaeology) do not 'dispute' the Bible, it is the evidence that these fields of study uncover that throw aspects of the biblical tales into serious and in some cases absolute doubt.

But it does. Even though things are verified.

Some things are and some things aren't. Because some things in the Bible can be regarded as more or less verified, this does not mean that everything else in the Bible by default is also verified, hence my point about Homer.

Its not just the Bible that speaks of dinosaurs (Job).

There is no valid reason to suppose that the reference you mention has anything to do with dinosaurs. If you believe it has, perhaps you can elaborate your argument?

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.

Many of which are dubious, most of which are unsupported by any evidence other than the depiction, and virtually all of which seem to depend on the wishes of those doing the interpreting of those depictions.

Perhaps the separate testimony of the many ancients describing the same thing should be considered?

And should we also consider the 'separate testimony of the many ancients' when it comes to other things that they described, such as the many gods of their many religions, the magical attributes of diseases, the supernatural aspects of meteorological phenomena and a whole variety of other things which we now consider to be little better than the result of superstition and ignorance?

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.

Given that no such thing has been found, you seem to be assuming your conclusion almost as if such a thing had been found and treated in exactly the way you imagine it will be treated. Why do you suppose that a particular consensus about the understanding that can be drawn from certain evidence is reached in the first place? How many rabbits are you aware of being found fossilized in the Precambrian?

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.

I thought you were the one suggesting that evidence is suppressed and denied by the scientific establishment? Artifacts and documents are considered on their own merits. All those allegedly testifying to the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs have failed the test of rigorous examination. If you believe otherwise, perhaps you could put forward a few examples for discussion.

More later.

 

[lordkalvan]

...UFOs... I don't know if they exist.

Well, UFOs certainly exist, it is what they are that gives rise to controversy, conspiracy theories and tales of alien abduction.

I wouldn't deny real tangible evidence that suggests they do if I saw it. I have no agenda here.

Define 'real' and 'tangible'. Do these mean the same as 'verifiable' and 'authentic' for example? The evidence from Angkor Wat is both real and tangible, but it is not very convincing of the conclusion you wish to draw from it.

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.

And what would that 'core religion' be? For much of the 19th and a good part of the 20th centuries 'science' pretty much continually extended the age of Earth, scientists findings continually challenging and contradicting the established understanding, the 'core religion' if you like. If your argument has any validity, why is there any progress in science at all?

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.

What is charlatanry is to suggest that the geologic column can simply be handwaved away as if it is simply a hypothetical construct and to argue, as you seem to be arguing, that our understanding of when dinosaurs lived is based solely on that column.

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.

'Even if' is not evidential. You could as well have said 100,000 years ago and you would still have no robust evidence to support the idea.

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.

They would deny it for the reasons I have given. It more closely resembles a rhinoceros than a stegosaurus, an explanation eminently more plausible than the one you are putting forward.

But because they do not exist in the present, that magically qualifies the equation. Neat.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'qualifies the equation'. Some of your sources seem to suggest that dinosaurs do indeed exist in the present, yet although new species of primates, the world's largest insect (nearly 0.5m long) and the by no means tiny Walking Shark have all been discovered in the last decade, no one has yet found a living dinosaur. Regardless of this, however, what disqualifies the claim that humans and dinosaurs co-existed at all is the complete absence of any reliable, robust evidence to support the idea.

 

[Ashua]

Rhino, really? Aside from the obvious spinal plates which is consistent with a stegosaurus and also inconsistent with a rhino, take a good look at the tail of a rhino and the tail in the image in question. This is not a rhino. You said it is not what I (allegedly) "would like it to be", but it seems you have just as much agenda in your interpretation too. You can contest it as a stegosaurus all you'd like; but don't try and say it is a rhinoceros. It is clearly not. Sure it has a similar cranial structure, but the tail and back plates are pretty conclusive.

Also, about the geologic column. I am very curious to know how they arrived at all of those millions of years with their calculations before any method of "absolute" dating was developed. The Geologic column in theory is only good for relative dating. There was no C-14, K-AR, dendocrhonology, or any other dating system (flawed as they are) in the 1800's when lyell the lawyer, developed the coloumn theory.

I find that a bit fishy that "deep time" was "discovered" because of lyell without any evidence beyond relative dating.

I posted quite a few images. I captioned a few but couldn't be bothered with the rest. Tell me what animals those "really" are.

 

[lordkalvan]

Rhino, really?

Yes, really.

Aside from the obvious spinal plates which is consistent with a stegosaurus and also inconsistent with a rhino...

And the spinal plates are 'obvious' how? Please explain what leads you to conclude that these are a representation of a double-row of spinal plates on the back of the animal depicted, rather than a stylized range of mountains or leafery behind the animal shown.

...take a good look at the tail of a rhino and the tail in the image in question.

If you are trying to argue that the image in question is a rather crude representation of whatever animal it may be depicting, then you are right.

This is not a rhino.

Neither is it a stegosaurus. You focus on what you think identifies it as a stegosaurus and simply ignore the attributes that suggest it isn't.

You said it is not what I (allegedly) "would like it to be", but it seems you have just as much agenda in your interpretation too.

My 'agenda' is to point out that what you assert to be an unequivocal identification is no such thing and that other understandings are at least as plausible as your own and a good deal more likely given the weight of evidence attesting to the fact that stegosaurus did not roam Cambodia 1,000 years ago.

You can contest it as a stegosaurus all you'd like; but don't try and say it is a rhinoceros. It is clearly not. Sure it has a similar cranial structure, but the tail and back plates are pretty conclusive.

By this argument it is also 'clearly not' a stegosaurus, so your assertion remains unsupported. The ears and horn are at least as 'conclusive' that the animal is a rhino.

Here's a somewhat clearer photo than the one you posted which shows the rhino-like features of the head more clearly than the rather less distinct one that your source chose to display:

Check out those ears and the horn. How similar is this to the picture of stegosaurus you posted?

Also, about the geologic column. I am very curious to know how they arrived at all of those millions of years with their calculations before any method of "absolute" dating was developed.

Maybe you should read around and find out about the 19th century development of our understanding of the processes that shaped the surface of Earth. Simply put, by observation and analysis the early geologists determined that the processes involved in the formation of the structures they were looking at could not have occurred in anything less than timescales that made biblically-derived ages of Earth nonsensical.

The Geologic column in theory is only good for relative dating.

And for dating based on determinations of how long the processes involved in its formation would require. Those processes required great lengths of time.

There was no C-14, K-AR, dendocrhonology, or any other dating system (flawed as they are) in the 1800's when lyell the lawyer, developed the coloumn theory.

Quite an accomplishment to poison two wells in so brief a sentence.

I find that a bit fishy that "deep time" was "discovered" because of lyell without any evidence beyond relative dating.

What you may or may not find 'fishy' does not count for very much unless you can explain why you find it 'fishy' and what better alternative you can offer that has a less piscine aroma about it. Your belief that 'deep time' derives from relative dating is quite mistaken; it derives from observations concerning the processes that led to the formations being analysed.

I posted quite a few images. I captioned a few but couldn't be bothered with the rest. Tell me what animals those "really" are.

Fanciful conclusions about what animals may or may not be depicted in allegedly ancient representations do not need to be refuted: the requirement to provide substance to extraordinary claims rests on those making them; you cannot simply post a picture of a representation, assert it is extinct animal X and then demand that you be told what other animal it is if it isn't the animal you assert it to be. You have not even established that the representations are authentic (i.e. reliably dated to the origin claimed), that they are intended to depict 'real' animals at all or that, if they are, they happen to be the ones that you claim they are.

I notice you have responded to none of the other points I raised concerning the identification of the Angkor Wat 'stegosaurus'. Your claim still seems to rest on little more than 'looks like a stegosaurus to me, therefore is a stegosaurus'.

 

[Ashua]

Yes, really.

And the spinal plates are 'obvious' how? Please explain what leads you to conclude that these are a representation of a double-row of spinal plates on the back of the animal depicted, rather than a stylized range of mountains or leafery behind the animal shown.

If you are trying to argue that the image in question is a rather crude representation of whatever animal it may be depicting, then you are right.

Neither is it a stegosaurus. You focus on what you think identifies it as a stegosaurus and simply ignore the attributes that suggest it isn't.

My 'agenda' is to point out that what you assert to be an unequivocal identification is no such thing and that other understandings are at least as plausible as your own and a good deal more likely given the weight of evidence attesting to the fact that stegosaurus did not roam Cambodia 1,000 years ago.

By this argument it is also 'clearly not' a stegosaurus, so your assertion remains unsupported. The ears and horn are at least as 'conclusive' that the animal is a rhino.

Here's a somewhat clearer photo than the one you posted which shows the rhino-like features of the head more clearly than the rather less distinct one that your source chose to display:

Check out those ears and the horn. How similar is this to the picture of stegosaurus you posted?

Maybe you should read around and find out about the 19th century development of our understanding of the processes that shaped the surface of Earth. Simply put, by observation and analysis the early geologists determined that the processes involved in the formation of the structures they were looking at could not have occurred in anything less than timescales that made biblically-derived ages of Earth nonsensical.

And for dating based on determinations of how long the processes involved in its formation would require. Those processes required great lengths of time.

Quite an accomplishment to poison two wells in so brief a sentence.

What you may or may not find 'fishy' does not count for very much unless you can explain why you find it 'fishy' and what better alternative you can offer that has a less piscine aroma about it. Your belief that 'deep time' derives from relative dating is quite mistaken; it derives from observations concerning the processes that led to the formations being analysed.

Fanciful conclusions about what animals may or may not be depicted in allegedly ancient representations do not need to be refuted: the requirement to provide substance to extraordinary claims rests on those making them; you cannot simply post a picture of a representation, assert it is extinct animal X and then demand that you be told what other animal it is if it isn't the animal you assert it to be. You have not even established that the representations are authentic (i.e. reliably dated to the origin claimed), that they are intended to depict 'real' animals at all or that, if they are, they happen to be the ones that you claim they are.

I notice you have responded to none of the other points I raised concerning the identification of the Angkor Wat 'stegosaurus'. Your claim still seems to rest on little more than 'looks like a stegosaurus to me, therefore is a stegosaurus'.

Which questions in particular? I tend not to bother when a post gets dissected too much. It seems the number of [quote ] [/ quote ] multiply every time and it is too much of a hassle to flip tabs to see what I originally said sense quoting does not retain the quotes within a quote. Oh, and you never touched some of the other images I posted.

Also, that's quite a load when people say it is decorations and not part of the animal. The "plates" follow the symmetry of the back. The angkor wat creature appears to have two horns mounted on top of it's head. rhinoceros has them oriented i the facial "nose" region. Not mounted atop it like antlers.

It would possibly better if you were to say it was an aurochs or something, but aurochs do not have plates and their horns are much more broad and horizontal.

People claim it is a stegosaurus, but I do not think it is the commonly known stegosaurus. There were many variations of the stegosaurus, known and unknown. There were also dinosaur "cousins" to the stegosaurus. You could assume the rinoceros also had cousins, but I don't know of any with horns on top of their head or with back plates which are very obviously attached to the back per symmetric correlation.

Stegosaurus affinis
Stegosaurus seeleyanus
Stegosaurus sulcatus
Stegosaurus ungulatus
Stegosaurus madagascariensis
And more discovered or not.

The first thing must not be in the canine family because it is nothing at all similar to the picture of this dog.

 

[Ashua]

So, you don't like the stegnocerus?

2nd century mosaic. (Nile Mosaic of Palestrina)

Aboriginal art of a "plesiosaur"



Forget the stegoceros. Tell me what these are.

 

[lordkalvan]

Which questions in particular? I tend not to bother when a post gets dissected too much. It seems the number of [quote ] [/ quote ] multiply every time and it is too much of a hassle to flip tabs to see what I originally said sense quoting does not retain the quotes within a quote.

What you can and cannot be bothered replying to in a post that deals with points you have raised only leads to the conclusion that you have no meaningful answer to the arguments raised and questions asked.

Oh, and you never touched some of the other images I posted.

The reason for which I explained. Perhaps you would like me to go through each picture and say 'lizard', 'crocodile', 'monitor lizard', 'mythical imagining', 'beaked whale'? How this would advance the discussion, I have no idea, but until you explain individual representations in some detail, say why you are sure they are not anachronisms or deliberate fakes and describe what evidence leads you to the conclusions about them that you reach, all I can repeat is that as you are making the claims it is up to you to present and argue for them.

Also, that's quite a load when people say it is decorations and not part of the animal. The "plates" follow the symmetry of the back.

A 'load' of what? The 'plates' are also constrained by the format the sculptor has chosen to use to display his artwork, i.e the circle in side which the animal is depicted. It is also the case that there is a distinct line etched between the animal's back and the 'plates'; there is no obvious indication that the 'plates' are intended to represent a physical feature of the animal.

The angkor wat creature appears to have two horns mounted on top of it's head. rhinoceros has them oriented i the facial "nose" region. Not mounted atop it like antlers.

I see the features you describe as horns as ears surrounding a central horn. Why not argue that thye are three horns on a triceratops and the 'plates' are background mountains? So as you can see, we already have three possible interpretations of this 'stegosaurus' carving.

It would possibly better if you were to say it was an aurochs or something, but aurochs do not have plates and their horns are much more broad and horizontal.

You seem to believe this is some kind of anatomically faithful depiction of the animal in question, in which case it clearly looks like none of the creatures we have mentioned, further casting doubt on the 'looks like a stegosaurus to me, therefore it must be a stegosaurus' assertion.

People claim it is a stegosaurus, but I do not think it is the commonly known stegosaurus. There were many variations of the stegosaurus, known and unknown.

If the variations are 'unknown', how do we know they were existing variations. You seem to be clutching at straws here to preserve your preferred interpretation of the carving.

There were also dinosaur "cousins" to the stegosaurus. You could assume the rinoceros also had cousins, but I don't know of any with horns on top of their head or with back plates which are very obviously attached to the back per symmetric correlation.

I do not say it is definitely a rhino, I only point out that you have no persuasive evidence that it represents a dinosaur.

And more discovered or not.

If they have not been discovered, how do you know there were more? Looks like more straw-clutching.

The first thing must not be in the canine family because it is nothing at all similar to the picture of this dog.

And your point is? That the animal in the Angkor Wat carving cannot possibly be a rhinoceros because it looks 'nothing at all similar to' the photos of the rhinos that you posted? Seems like you're making my argument for me.

 

[lordkalvan]

So, you don't like the stegnocerus?
....

Forget the stegoceros. Tell me what these are.

You tell me what you think they are first, explain what leads you to the conclusions you reach and then show that the depictions you have posted are properly dated to the origin you claim, rather than being anachronisms or hoaxes, and cannot be either representations of mythical animals (unless you want to argue that depictions of centaurs, satyrs, griffins and echidna also represent real animals) or the artist's best attempt at portraying whatever real animal he was trying to (what are those birds to the right of the alleged dinosaur in the first picture, for example?).

 

[Sparkey]

Apparently some believe that 1,000 words are worth more than a picture. Maybe the million monkeys typing randomly on a million typewriters can help?

 

[Ashua]

Yes, really.

And the spinal plates are 'obvious' how? Please explain what leads you to conclude that these are a representation of a double-row of spinal plates on the back of the animal depicted, rather than a stylized range of mountains or leafery behind the animal shown.

If you are trying to argue that the image in question is a rather crude representation of whatever animal it may be depicting, then you are right.

Neither is it a stegosaurus. You focus on what you think identifies it as a stegosaurus and simply ignore the attributes that suggest it isn't.

My 'agenda' is to point out that what you assert to be an unequivocal identification is no such thing and that other understandings are at least as plausible as your own and a good deal more likely given the weight of evidence attesting to the fact that stegosaurus did not roam Cambodia 1,000 years ago.

By this argument it is also 'clearly not' a stegosaurus, so your assertion remains unsupported. The ears and horn are at least as 'conclusive' that the animal is a rhino.

Here's a somewhat clearer photo than the one you posted which shows the rhino-like features of the head more clearly than the rather less distinct one that your source chose to display:

Check out those ears and the horn. How similar is this to the picture of stegosaurus you posted?

Maybe you should read around and find out about the 19th century development of our understanding of the processes that shaped the surface of Earth. Simply put, by observation and analysis the early geologists determined that the processes involved in the formation of the structures they were looking at could not have occurred in anything less than timescales that made biblically-derived ages of Earth nonsensical.

And for dating based on determinations of how long the processes involved in its formation would require. Those processes required great lengths of time.

Quite an accomplishment to poison two wells in so brief a sentence.

What you may or may not find 'fishy' does not count for very much unless you can explain why you find it 'fishy' and what better alternative you can offer that has a less piscine aroma about it. Your belief that 'deep time' derives from relative dating is quite mistaken; it derives from observations concerning the processes that led to the formations being analysed.

Fanciful conclusions about what animals may or may not be depicted in allegedly ancient representations do not need to be refuted: the requirement to provide substance to extraordinary claims rests on those making them; you cannot simply post a picture of a representation, assert it is extinct animal X and then demand that you be told what other animal it is if it isn't the animal you assert it to be. You have not even established that the representations are authentic (i.e. reliably dated to the origin claimed), that they are intended to depict 'real' animals at all or that, if they are, they happen to be the ones that you claim they are.

I notice you have responded to none of the other points I raised concerning the identification of the Angkor Wat 'stegosaurus'. Your claim still seems to rest on little more than 'looks like a stegosaurus to me, therefore is a stegosaurus'.

Think what you want. I refuse to respond to multi-quoted posts. I said the same thing in another thread and I'm not changing my policy because you "think" I have no answer. One more time: TELL ME without breaking it up into a thousand fragments what your "points" are and I will answer them. Notice how my replies are always chunks of text and not 50 quotes with a couple sentences to go with each one? When I change subjects I leave a space between paragraphs. I'm not going to play the html code quote game.

And you have pretty much thrown out every excuse for the most recent images. lizards and crocodilians and "mythological creatures" despite the plesiosaur looking exactly as it should and despite the cave art brontosaurus/brachiosaurus. you will probably say it is a giraffe or something, but of course thats a joke. giraffes have more of an incline to the shoulders in profile. Its ridiculous I even have to pre-empt this because you will say anything and everything to deny these images even when they are anatomically dead on and not at all vague. Throw a bunch of images of dinosaurs and animals together in a line up along with the ones I showed you and any 5 year old can tell you which is which.

 

[lordkalvan]

Apparently some believe that 1,000 words are worth more than a picture. Maybe the million monkeys typing randomly on a million typewriters can help?

Hmmm, this must mean something, but I wonder what it can be?

 

[jasoncran]

Hmmm, this must mean something, but I wonder what it can be?

this site is brought to you by evolution, its whats for lunch.

 

[lordkalvan]

Think what you want. I refuse to respond to multi-quoted posts. I said the same thing in another thread and I'm not changing my policy because you "think" I have no answer. One more time: TELL ME without breaking it up into a thousand fragments what your "points" are and I will answer them. Notice how my replies are always chunks of text and not 50 quotes with a couple sentences to go with each one? When I change subjects I leave a space between paragraphs. I'm not going to play the html code quote game.

And you have pretty much thrown out every excuse for the most recent images. lizards and crocodilians and "mythological creatures" despite the plesiosaur looking exactly as it should and despite the cave art brontosaurus/brachiosaurus. you will probably say it is a giraffe or something, but of course thats a joke. giraffes have more of an incline to the shoulders in profile. Its ridiculous I even have to pre-empt this because you will say anything and everything to deny these images even when they are anatomically dead on and not at all vague. Throw a bunch of images of dinosaurs and animals together in a line up along with the ones I showed you and any 5 year old can tell you which is which.

I am afraid that you do not get to dictate the style in which others reply to your unsupported assertions, 'looks-like' generalizations and assumptions about what certain images must depict. If you can't and won't reply to specific arguments directed towards particular assertions or claims you have made (which is the point of quoting a particular point and then offering the critique specific to it), it remains the case that the conclusion will be that this is because you can't. I have made my points as reasonably and clearly as I can, if you can't be bothered to take the time to respond to those points, then I really don't know why you make the effort to post at all.

You have offered no support for any of your claims and posted pictures that amount to little more than the unsupported assertion that because something looks something like a particular extinct animal to you, then that is just what it must be. You have provided neither context nor supporting argument for any of the representations you have posted, other than to claim that because you interpret such-and-such features of the Angkor Wat carving as being similar to those of stegosaurus (and apparently to some variety of the beast that is as yet neither known nor discovered), while ignoring those features which clearly point away from stegosaurus and towards another animal, then stegosaurus is just what it must be. This is demonstrated nonsense and quite risible.

You then demand that I tell you what a series of other pictures represent if they don't represent the dinosaurs you believe they do, asking me to do so devoid of any supporting argument from yourself as to what the pictures represent and absent any evidence at all as to the authenticity of their origin. Let me spell it out for you, whatever else the pictures represent, assuming they are genuine and not anachronisms or deliberate hoaxes, then they do not represent any species of dinosaur co-existing with humans, because there is a complete absence of any plausible evidence other than a series of 'looks-like' claims based on these pictures that dinosaurs co-existed with human beings. No matter how much you may wave your hands around and say that any interpretation other than the one that you like is 'a joke', I will simply mention that the only point of hilarity here is your clinging to the idea that these 'images' are 'anatomically dead on'.

If your critical skills are on a par with the five-year old's that you offer in support of your claims (as they appear to be from this argument), then it is no wonder that you so readily accept the rather silly claims associated with these depictions.

 

[Ashua]

I am afraid that you do not get to dictate the style in which others reply to your unsupported assertions, 'looks-like' generalizations and assumptions about what certain images must depict. If you can't and won't reply to specific arguments directed towards particular assertions or claims you have made (which is the point of quoting a particular point and then offering the critique specific to it), it remains the case that the conclusion will be that this is because you can't. I have made my points as reasonably and clearly as I can, if you can't be bothered to take the time to respond to those points, then I really don't know why you make the effort to post at all.

You have offered no support for any of your claims and posted pictures that amount to little more than the unsupported assertion that because something looks something like a particular extinct animal to you, then that is just what it must be. You have provided neither context nor supporting argument for any of the representations you have posted, other than to claim that because you interpret such-and-such features of the Angkor Wat carving as being similar to those of stegosaurus (and apparently to some variety of the beast that is as yet neither known nor discovered), while ignoring those features which clearly point away from stegosaurus and towards another animal, then stegosaurus is just what it must be. This is demonstrated nonsense and quite risible.

You then demand that I tell you what a series of other pictures represent if they don't represent the dinosaurs you believe they do, asking me to do so devoid of any supporting argument from yourself as to what the pictures represent and absent any evidence at all as to the authenticity of their origin. Let me spell it out for you, whatever else the pictures represent, assuming they are genuine and not anachronisms or deliberate hoaxes, then they do not represent any species of dinosaur co-existing with humans, because there is a complete absence of any plausible evidence other than a series of 'looks-like' claims based on these pictures that dinosaurs co-existed with human beings. No matter how much you may wave your hands around and say that any interpretation other than the one that you like is 'a joke', I will simply mention that the only point of hilarity here is your clinging to the idea that these 'images' are 'anatomically dead on'.

If your critical skills are on a par with the five-year old's that you offer in support of your claims (as they appear to be from this argument), then it is no wonder that you so readily accept the rather silly claims associated with these depictions.

It would appear that I have dictated it by your compliance. However, as it was a request and not a demand. It wasn't about "power" or anything. You would do well to remember that you also do not get to dictate my method of response to your lackluster "points".

As for your "points" that I will not reply to, I am asking you now for the third and final time to post them here. I saw nothing in your previous posts unless I missed something that says anything at all. From what I can recall your argument exclusively revolves around ad hominemism and telling me that we cannot go by the sense of sight. WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE TO SUGGEST IT IS NOT A DINOSAUR? All I recall you saying was is that it is a rhinoceros. I have told you why that is wrong. You refuse to admit it isn't a rhinoceros. The tail the back plates and so fourth. But whatever. If you have any direct analysis of the images to eliminate the possibility of dinosaur let's hear it. I honestly do not know what you are talking about when you say I ignore your points. I asked you to show me WHAT I WAS IGNORING. So do so. Then I will reply to them specifically.

Oh and about the 5 year old analogy. If you cannot grasp the reasoning behind it, no wonder you strain at a knat whilst swallowing a camel whole.
Come to think of it, is the point you are referring to that the back plates are really a decoration? If so, then wouldn't that make you guilty of making claims unsubstantiated. WHY is it a decoration and not a back plate? If you are making that claim, defend it. Otherwise I have no idea what special point you are referring to when you say I am ignoring them. Mountains in the back ground really? Do you know how silly that sounds? How many "mountains" are there? Is there even a place on earth with that many mountains visible from one location? Much less equally proportioned and rounded and uniform like that. Leaves? lol okay. What evidence do you have for those claims? Lol. check out that last mountain in the background behind the "tail". That mountain is growing horizontally. That's pretty intense.

 

[lordkalvan]

It would appear that I have dictated it by your compliance.

If you wish to believe this, please feel free to do so.

However, as it was a request and not a demand. It wasn't about "power" or anything.

Really? This read pretty much as an emphatic demand to me and nothing at all like 'a request':

'Think what you want. I refuse to respond to multi-quoted posts. I said the same thing in another thread and I'm not changing my policy because you "think" I have no answer. One more time: TELL ME without breaking it up into a thousand fragments what your "points" are and I will answer them.'

You even shout at me to make sure I understand and comply with it. I will continue to reply to your comments in a format that I am most comfortable with and in a style that seems appropriate to your particular arguments. If you don't like it, that's your problem not mine.

You would do well to remember that you also do not get to dictate my method of response to your lackluster "points".

I do not feel strongly about how you reply at all. It remains the case, however, that if you don't answer or comment on specific points that are relevant to your various assertions then the immediate conclusion is that it is either because you can't or because you can't be bothered. This is one reason why I do break up my own responses - as far as possible, it makes sure that I respond to each of the arguments you have made directly and appropriately and don't miss anything.

As for your "points" that I will not reply to, I am asking you now for the third and final time to post them here.

They remain unanswered in the appropriate parts of my replies. If you are too lazy to have made the effort to read and respond to them in the first place, why do you suppose I should make the effort to repost something you can read no more than a page before this one?

I saw nothing in your previous posts unless I missed something that says anything at all.

Well, here's a couple to show that yes, you 'missed something':

'Check out those ears and the horn. How similar is this to the picture of stegosaurus you posted?'

and:

'I see the features you describe as horns as ears surrounding a central horn. Why not argue that thye [sic] are three horns on a triceratops and the 'plates' are background mountains? So as you can see, we already have three possible interpretations of this 'stegosaurus' carving.'

From what I can recall your argument exclusively revolves around ad hominemism and telling me that we cannot go by the sense of sight.

Exclusively? I rather think not. What I have said is that relying on interpretations of visual images as to whose origins you have presented little or no evidence and coming to the conclusion as a result of this visual inspection and absent any other evidence at that 'looks like to me' must mean 'is the same as' is an argument lacking any critical acuity at all. You quite failed to answer my point about the pronghorn antelope in this respect. To develop the argument further, as far as the Angkor Wat carving is concerned, stegosaurus fossils have been found in western North America, western Europe, southern India, China, and southern Africa, but none in south-east Asia, so on what grounds do you suppose that whoever carved the alleged stegosaurus at Angkor Wat may have seen on?

WHAT EVIDENCE DO YOU HAVE TO SUGGEST IT IS NOT A DINOSAUR?

There you go shouting again. I don't need to present any evidence at all as it is your extraordinary claim that it is and that it supports the idea that humans and dinosaurs co-existed; it remains your responsibility to support that extraordinary claim. However, the most compelling evidence contrary your assertion is that the assertion depends entirely on a particular interpretation of a crudely depicted image, an interpretation that further depends on identifying those features that confirm the identification to be what you want them to be and ignores or handwaves away those features that are demonstrably incompatible with the animal being the dinosaur it is claimed to be.

All I recall you saying was is that it is a rhinoceros.

Nope, I said that to me it could equally easily be identified as a rhinoceros because there were at least as many 'obvious' features that appear anatomically similar to a rhino as there are similar to a stegosaurus. I also mentioned that you could as plausibly identify it as a triceratops as a stegosaurus. My rhino interpretation at least has the merit of being supported by the fact that the animal is indigenous to south-east Asia and lived there at the time the carving is supposed to have been made.

I have told you why that is wrong.

And your reasons seem to be to criticize my interpretation without applying the same reasoning to your own, perfectly demonstrated by the point you made when you posted the two canine images.

You refuse to admit it isn't a rhinoceros.

Nope, what I refuse to admit is that your interpretation of the carving as a stegosaurus carries any conviction at all. What I point out is that the carving can at least as plausibly be interpreted as a rhino as a stegosaurus, and that there is other evidence to support the former idea but not the latter. For all I know, the animal could be something else completely; I have no more idea of the intentions of the sculptor than you do. One thing I am certain of, though, and that is reaching a definitive conclusion as to what the animal is based on this relatively crude piece of artwork alone is quite fatuous.

The tail the back plates and so fourth. But whatever.

'But whatever' encompassing what, exactly? The horn, the ears, the absent thagomizer?

If you have any direct analysis of the images to eliminate the possibility of dinosaur let's hear it.

Are you talking about the other images you posted, or just the Angkor Wat image? I have explained by doubts concerning the stegosaurus claims and I have explained why I am not going to respond individually to a list of pictures presented without any supporting argument at all.

I honestly do not know what you are talking about when you say I ignore your points. I asked you to show me WHAT I WAS IGNORING. So do so. Then I will reply to them specifically.

Well, you could make a start by responding to the specific points in this post.

Oh and about the 5 year old analogy. If you cannot grasp the reasoning behind it, no wonder you strain at a knat whilst swallowing a camel whole.

There's reasoning behind it? So is the argument now to be not just 'if it looks like X to me, then it must be X', but 'if it looks like X to a five-year old, then it must be X'?

Come to think of it, is the point you are referring to that the back plates are really a decoration? If so, then wouldn't that make you guilty of making claims unsubstantiated.

I don't know what the 'back plates' are meant to be absolutely, I am not privy to the sculptor's intentions. Nor, for that matter, am I privy to any information that tells me that the carving is genuinely dated to when it is supposed to be. What information do you have that it is neither an anachronism nor a deliberate hoax?

WHY is it a decoration and not a back plate? If you are making that claim, defend it.

I have given you reasons why the 'back plate' could be considered separate from the animal; if you don't accept them as plausible, that is up to you. Maybe it is a 'back plate' on an imaginary animal? I don't know. But what I do know is that you lack any substantive reason to identify the animal as a stegosaurus beyond wishful thinking.

Otherwise I have no idea what special point you are referring to when you say I am ignoring them. Mountains in the back ground really? Do you know how silly that sounds? How many "mountains" are there? Is there even a place on earth with that many mountains visible from one location? Much less equally proportioned and rounded and uniform like that.

First of all, this is a relatively crude, small carving; what do you expect a representation of mountain to look like? Secondly, it doesn't sound any sillier to me than asserting that the features are 'back plates' on a stegosaurus; again, at least it has the plausibility of there actually being mountains in Cambodia - and maybe they're just hills. Thirdly, your fourth question is simply absurd; I live in the French Pyrenees, I can take you to places where you can see twice as many mountains as represented by this carving. And here's a photo of some mountains in Cambodia; you don't need to stretch your imagination too far to see some similarity between this image and the features in the carving:

As to your last point, this is a relatively crude piece of sculpture constrained by the format in which it is presented, it is clearly not a faithfully accurate reproduction of an actual scene as it would have been viewed by the artist.

An accurate representation of Leaves? lol okay. What evidence do you have for those claims? Lol. check out that last mountain in the background behind the "tail". That mountain is growing horizontally. That's pretty intense.

It's a small, physically constrained carving; it's not a one-to-one depiction of reality. Get real.

 

[Ashua]

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.

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?

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

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?

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? 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.

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.

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.

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? 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.