[_ Old Earth _] Man And Dinosaur

[lordkalvan]

All I have to add to your latest post is that the "context" itself is being challenged in this instance.

But the context is being challenged without any supporting argument as to why it should be. I know I keep laboring this point, but you have established neither the dating of the artifacts in question nor that the most plausible interpretation of them is that they represent the animals you say.

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

Well, first of all the kinds of dinosaurs we are discussing became extinct over a prolonged interval of time some 65 MYA, scarcely 'billions'. Secondly, if you positing the survival of small pockets of animals in remote places, I think you need to reflect on what you are suggesting and doing some background research on minimum viable populations for a breeding group of animals. Thirdly, reflect on all the unknown species that have been discovered in the the last two centuries and how much larger than any of those are the creatures you are talking about. Fourthly, consider the complete absence of any recent remains of these beasts and the fact that despite all the alleged rumours and investigations carried out, no trace of living dinosaurs has ever been found. Then muse on what is the most parsimonious explanation for these various facts.

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

Well, it's not impossible that purple unicorns live in some remote corner of darkest Africa, but there is no evidence to support the idea that they do. For all practical purposes, I am more than confident about tying my colours to the conclusion that dinosaurs of the types we are discussing most certainly did not live in remote areas in limited numbers only a few centuries ago.

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

The alternative explanations include the eminently plausible and as yet unaddressed possibilities that either the artifacts do not represent dinosaurs at all or that they are anachronisms interpolated into the relevant record at a later date. Regardless of your well-poisoning comment about palaeochronological data, it remains the case that, regardless of the accuracy of that data, no human remains have ever been found fossilized in the same strata as dinosaur remains; that, indeed, no fossil rabbits have been discovered in the Precambrian.

 

[lordkalvan]

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

My only comment is that while the detail of radiometric dating may be debated, the inferences to be drawn from those dating methodologies are unequivocally conclusive and there is no reason beyond the theological to call them seriously into question.

 

[Ashua]

But the context is being challenged without any supporting argument as to why it should be. I know I keep laboring this point, but you have established neither the dating of the artifacts in question nor that the most plausible interpretation of them is that they represent the animals you say.

I would love to date them. Unfortunately that is just something that is out of my hands. I could find some dates online concerning them, but I don't know that you would accept their sources unless I found it on a "credible" site, and I feel there is bias keeping those off anyways.

Well, first of all the kinds of dinosaurs we are discussing became extinct over a prolonged interval of time some 65 MYA, scarcely 'billions'. Secondly, if you positing the survival of small pockets of animals in remote places, I think you need to reflect on what you are suggesting and doing some background research on minimum viable populations for a breeding group of animals. Thirdly, reflect on all the unknown species that have been discovered in the the last two centuries and how much larger than any of those are the creatures you are talking about. Fourthly, consider the complete absence of any recent remains of these beasts and the fact that despite all the alleged rumours and investigations carried out, no trace of living dinosaurs has ever been found. Then muse on what is the most parsimonious explanation for these various facts.

Yeah, I knew it was millions. I was just being sloppy. The "breeding population" point isn't really measurable because how could we know the true population of something that has been extinct for 500 1,000 4,000 years? (arbitrary numbers) I could show you pictures of 10+ species right now that are now wiped out witin the last 120 years. Whether or not we have accurate data on their populations I dont know. If there were 10 species that perished in the 1700's, I dont think we would have real data on those either.

I believe "most" "dinosaurs" were actually fairly small to moderately sized creatures. Sort of like how we have many fish, crustaceans, dolphins, mollusks, and so on in the sea and then we have whales. The small ones were small and the big ones were big. Dinosaurs such as plesiosaur were aquatic. If they died in the water, their bones would be picked apart by aquatic scavengers and dispersed all over the seafloor. Really, the same applies to land scavengers.

A probable reason we don't often find fossils of younger (besides equilibrium skew) dinosaurs is because you need some combination of soil coverage, dispensation of water, or ideal temperature, lack of oxygen, and other rare conditions. We have U.S. presidents who are more or less dust right now. I think they recently did "maintenance" on the grave of Andrew Jackson and his wife. Yeah, he's mostly dust now. Fossils are very rare. As I said earlier and I'll go with your slightly larger number that there are only a few thousand recovered dinosaur "skeletons" to account for "millions" of years. I can think of an event that would surely aid in sudden and mass fossilization of a population, but not going into it here.

Well, it's not impossible that purple unicorns live in some remote corner of darkest Africa, but there is no evidence to support the idea that they do. For all practical purposes, I am more than confident about tying my colours to the conclusion that dinosaurs of the types we are discussing most certainly did not live in remote areas in limited numbers only a few centuries ago.

Nope. Nothing to add to this. I think most unicorn myths are products of translation or bad description of things such as rhinoceros (ironic, eh?) or aurochs, but yeah. Arguments from silence are hard to disprove.

The alternative explanations include the eminently plausible and as yet unaddressed possibilities that either the artifacts do not represent dinosaurs at all or that they are anachronisms interpolated into the relevant record at a later date. Regardless of your well-poisoning comment about palaeochronological data, it remains the case that, regardless of the accuracy of that data, no human remains have ever been found fossilized in the same strata as dinosaur remains; that, indeed, no fossil rabbits have been discovered in the Precambrian.

Too bad the precambrian isnt a nice consistent uniform thing. also, see above concerning the rarity of the fossil phenomenon.

 

[lordkalvan]

I would love to date them. Unfortunately that is just something that is out of my hands. I could find some dates online concerning them, but I don't know that you would accept their sources unless I found it on a "credible" site, and I feel there is bias keeping those off anyways.

Any date is at least a starting point. I'm not quite sure what you mean about the sources for those dates and the credibility associated with them. I am also unclear as to what you are referring to when you speak of 'bias' keeping them off. What 'bias' keeping them off what?

Yeah, I knew it was millions. I was just being sloppy.

Okay, sorry for picking you up on that then.

The "breeding population" point isn't really measurable because how could we know the true population of something that has been extinct for 500 1,000 4,000 years? (arbitrary numbers) I could show you pictures of 10+ species right now that are now wiped out witin the last 120 years. Whether or not we have accurate data on their populations I dont know. If there were 10 species that perished in the 1700's, I dont think we would have real data on those either.

I think you're right. However, I was talking about minimum viable populations required to sustain a genetically healthy population and to offer a reasonable probability of species survival. This suggests that the numbers of these large animals required for the population to survive into the last few hundred years would be high enough that they could not remain hidden and their existence would be common knowledge - as the existence of elephants, rhinos and giant pandas has not remained hidden. Stegosaurus itself was as big as a bus, although the smaller Kentrosaurus was about half this size.

I believe "most" "dinosaurs" were actually fairly small to moderately sized creatures. Sort of like how we have many fish, crustaceans, dolphins, mollusks, and so on in the sea and then we have whales. The small ones were small and the big ones were big. Dinosaurs such as plesiosaur were aquatic. If they died in the water, their bones would be picked apart by aquatic scavengers and dispersed all over the seafloor. Really, the same applies to land scavengers.

Many were, but none of those appear to feature in the representations offered. And if there were the myriads of smaller animals that their size suggests, then the absence of knowledge of them amongst pre-19th Century civilizations seems remarkable.

A probable reason we don't often find fossils of younger (besides equilibrium skew) dinosaurs is because you need some combination of soil coverage, dispensation of water, or ideal temperature, lack of oxygen, and other rare conditions. We have U.S. presidents who are more or less dust right now. I think they recently did "maintenance" on the grave of Andrew Jackson and his wife. Yeah, he's mostly dust now. Fossils are very rare. As I said earlier and I'll go with your slightly larger number that there are only a few thousand recovered dinosaur "skeletons" to account for "millions" of years.

When I referred to the lack of remains, I wasn't referring to fossils, but to actual bones and other material that turns up regularly in prehistoric (and historic) middens, campsites and so on.

I can think of an event that would surely aid in sudden and mass fossilization of a population, but not going into it here.

So could the 19th century clergymen (and other) geologists who went searching for evidence of it and came to the conclusion (reluctantly in some cases) that no such evidence existed.

Nope. Nothing to add to this. I think most unicorn myths are products of translation or bad description of things such as rhinoceros (ironic, eh?) or aurochs, but yeah. Arguments from silence are hard to disprove.

Heh heh. Yes, I agree that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

Too bad the precambrian isnt a nice consistent uniform thing. also, see above concerning the rarity of the fossil phenomenon.

Still no human remains found with dinosaur remains, however; still no Precambrian bunnies.

 

[Ashua]

Any date is at least a starting point. I'm not quite sure what you mean about the sources for those dates and the credibility associated with them. I am also unclear as to what you are referring to when you speak of 'bias' keeping them off. What 'bias' keeping them off what?

Imagine you are a tenured and research funded scientist and you have some sort of extreme evidence that may suggest that the status quo held by all of academia is possibly subject to error. Do you publish it to scorn of your contemporaries and suicide to your career?

I think you're right. However, I was talking about minimum viable populations required to sustain a genetically healthy population and to offer a reasonable probability of species survival. This suggests that the numbers of these large animals required for the population to survive into the last few hundred years would be high enough that they could not remain hidden and their existence would be common knowledge - as the existence of elephants, rhinos and giant pandas has not remained hidden. Stegosaurus itself was as big as a bus, although the smaller Kentrosaurus was about half this size.

Many were, but none of those appear to feature in the representations offered. And if there were the myriads of smaller animals that their size suggests, then the absence of knowledge of them amongst pre-19th Century civilizations seems remarkable.

The world was great wilderness as recent as 100 years ago. There were huge stretches of land without people around. Also, as I said, there ARE historical writings and signs which "can" be interpreted as the ancients having contact with the dinosaurs. In addition to the human documents which were intentionally destroyed by burnings and sieges, paper, parchment, papyrus, vellum, and just about any canvas used for record keeping short of stone would have decayed by nature.

When you talk about maintaining an healthy population.. I assume you are referring to the problems associated with inbreeding? Are you sure that all animals have the same rates of complication due to interbreeding? Aren't reptiles more adapt to that sort of biological hurdle? Even humans in undisputed history have began tribes through inbreeding. That is how cities and nations came to be in the past 3-4 thousand years. small bands interbreeding and multiplying. Narrowly selected gene pools as you know are also why we have so many dog variations. We really dont even know the mating habits of dinosaurs. Which ones were "pack" animals and which flew solo until mating season.

When I referred to the lack of remains, I wasn't referring to fossils, but to actual bones and other material that turns up regularly in prehistoric (and historic) middens, campsites and so on.

Again, bones untreated become dust in a few centuries unless they fossilize. Scavengers and weathering also destroy them. If my dog gets a hold of a bone then that bone becomes nothing real fast. If humans preyed on dinosaurs regularly, you would expect to find some kill sites and bones within their middens; but why would people regularly take on something like that when it would be much easier to attack large mammalian herbivores and game? Even the docile dinosaurs would have been impractical to bring down, harder to break through the body cavity, clean, dismember, and so on and also probably less "good to eat" as well.

Still no human remains found with dinosaur remains, however; still no Precambrian bunnies.

Actually, I have heard there have been human remains found in the same layers before on occasion. I forget what excuse is offered for this.

In lull of my failed memory on details, consider the Paluxy river area where the dinosaur foot prints are found. They found human foot prints right there with them in the "creataceous layer."

Let me ask you this: inconsistency aside, can you tell me how each layer in the time scale is defined? Can you tell me what decides where the jurassic ends and the creataceous begins? What draws up the boarder? So if the Jurassic begins at X depth in Montana and it begins at Y depth in China, why is that? Does it have to do with what fauna are found?

 

[lordkalvan]

Imagine you are a tenured and research funded scientist and you have some sort of extreme evidence that may suggest that the status quo held by all of academia is possibly subject to error. Do you publish it to scorn of your contemporaries and suicide to your career?

I would publish and await peer review and my Nobel Prize. I see no evidence that such gagging takes place and wonder why you imagine scientific understanding makes any progress at all. Do you suppose that all scientists are pusillanimous cowards unwilling to risk anything at all?

The world was great wilderness as recent as 100 years ago. There were huge stretches of land without people around. Also, as I said, there ARE historical writings and signs which "can" be interpreted as the ancients having contact with the dinosaurs. In addition to the human documents which were intentionally destroyed by burnings and sieges, paper, parchment, papyrus, vellum, and just about any canvas used for record keeping short of stone would have decayed by nature.

This seems to be an assertion unsupported by very much evidence. Amongst the written evidence that has survived the ravages of time that you mention, there is ample material that references the knowledge of animals whose contemporary existence with humans is unequivocally attested to by a great deal of physical evidence as well. It is strange that the only animals whose presence is not so physically attested to and yet whose alleged artistic representation appears to be just about global (South American, Roman, Aboriginal Australian, etc) are amongst the largest to have lived on Earth.

When you talk about maintaining an healthy population.. I assume you are referring to the problems associated with inbreeding? Are you sure that all animals have the same rates of complication due to interbreeding? Aren't reptiles more adapt to that sort of biological hurdle? Even humans in undisputed history have began tribes through inbreeding. That is how cities and nations came to be in the past 3-4 thousand years. small bands interbreeding and multiplying. Narrowly selected gene pools as you know are also why we have so many dog variations. We really dont even know the mating habits of dinosaurs. Which ones were "pack" animals and which flew solo until mating season.

The problems associated with inbreeding amongst a small population are only part of the equation. The more significant part is the simple fact that small numbers offer little or no protection against the many threats that can overwhelm a tiny group of isolated survivors - from predation, through natural disasters (drought, volcanic eruptions, climate change, etc) to disease and infertility. The relevant Wiki article cites an average MVP of 500-1000 individuals for terrestrial vertebrates, ignoring the impact of inbreeding and genetic variation; a meta-analysis of the relevant literature puts the figure as high as 4,000 individuals (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_viable_population).

Again, bones untreated become dust in a few centuries unless they fossilize. Scavengers and weathering also destroy them. If my dog gets a hold of a bone then that bone becomes nothing real fast. If humans preyed on dinosaurs regularly, you would expect to find some kill sites and bones within their middens; but why would people regularly take on something like that when it would be much easier to attack large mammalian herbivores and game? Even the docile dinosaurs would have been impractical to bring down, harder to break through the body cavity, clean, dismember, and so on and also probably less "good to eat" as well.

Food is food. You have already pointed out that in your opinion most dinosaurs were smaller than the ones allegedly depicted in the artistic representations posted, so how much harder to kill do you suppose these would have been than an armadillo, for example? The Sioux often hunted buffalo by herding them over cliffs, where they fell to their deaths. Prehistoric humans hunted the mammoth, the mastodon and the sabre-toothed tigers amongst many other far from docile prey; you should check out research into the effects of human predation on the North American megafauna. What's 'good to eat' is often culturally driven and reptiles are a source of protein amongst many peoples.

Actually, I have heard there have been human remains found in the same layers before on occasion. I forget what excuse is offered for this.

Anecdotes and hearsay alone are not evidential.

In lull of my failed memory on details, consider the Paluxy river area where the dinosaur foot prints are found. They found human foot prints right there with them in the "creataceous layer."

Answers In Genesis regards this 'evidence' as quite dubious and Carl Baugh as entirely unreliable.

Let me ask you this: inconsistency aside, can you tell me how each layer in the time scale is defined? Can you tell me what decides where the jurassic ends and the creataceous begins? What draws up the boarder? So if the Jurassic begins at X depth in Montana and it begins at Y depth in China, why is that? Does it have to do with what fauna are found?

I am no expert on the subject. Early work, to quote the the Wiki article, was carried out by

'Geologists and paleontologists [who] constructed the geologic table based on the relative positions of different strata and fossils, and estimated the time scales based on studying rates of various kinds of weathering, erosion, sedimentation, and lithification.'

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_time_scale#Terminology

Radiometric dating techniques brought a great deal more precision to the science. Magnetostratigraphy is also used to date strata. The geologic age of strata is not determined by depth alone as strata are often affected by the dynamic processes of the Earth: erosion, local earthquakes, the rise and fall of land- and sea-levels, etc. The Purbeck Limestone Group, for example, which can be seen at the surface at many sites in southern England is reliably dated to the Cretaceous.

 

[Ashua]

Just to let you know I've been busy these past 2 or 3 days and probably will be for about the same number more. I'll reply when I finish this time consuming project I am on.

 

[lordkalvan]

Just to let you know I've been busy these past 2 or 3 days and probably will be for about the same number more. I'll reply when I finish this time consuming project I am on.

Thanks for the heads up on that. I fully understand that folk have commitments beyond posting on these boards. Happy New Year to you and everyone else posting here.

 

[Deavonreye]

And a happy new year to you too, lordkalvan. . . . . .and others.

 

[lordkalvan]

And a happy new year to you too, lordkalvan. . . . . .and others.

Thanks. Off to hospital for a few days tomorrow, so won't be posting in that time. Best wishes to all for 2011.

 

[jasoncran]

Thanks. Off to hospital for a few days tomorrow, so won't be posting in that time. Best wishes to all for 2011.

lord, i ask that you heal him or his family and work this out for him. amen.

 

[Deavonreye]

Thanks. Off to hospital for a few days tomorrow, so won't be posting in that time. Best wishes to all for 2011.

Best wishes!

 

[lordkalvan]

lord, i ask that you heal him or his family and work this out for him. amen.

Thanks for that, Jason. Thanks to you, too, Deavon. It's only a health problem indirectly and more in the way of precautionary engineering ;-).

 

[Ashua]

I would publish and await peer review and my Nobel Prize. I see no evidence that such gagging takes place and wonder why you imagine scientific understanding makes any progress at all. Do you suppose that all scientists are pusillanimous cowards unwilling to risk anything at all?

I think that most would be very afraid to come out and put their reputation on the line for a "small" bit of evidence that may say something contradictory to the mountain of the establishment. Not that I say it is a mountain of proper interpretation, only that it would be an uneven proportion to stack a small possible evidence such as the image of angkor wat against the status quo of the geologic record. I see it more of a jigsaw puzzle in terms of the value of any one image I posted. Alone it isn't enough to question or overturn the consensus, but the more that turn up, combined with other things pertaining to possible evidence would have an accumulative effect when considering these things.

If I could create the perfect hoax that would be so convincing that dinosaurs really did exist in the past 6,000 years that no one for eternity would catch on to, I would not do it. I do not delight in deception. I only ask that people honestly re-examine what is held as true. Even in things of no religious consequence.

This seems to be an assertion unsupported by very much evidence. Amongst the written evidence that has survived the ravages of time that you mention, there is ample material that references the knowledge of animals whose contemporary existence with humans is unequivocally attested to by a great deal of physical evidence as well. It is strange that the only animals whose presence is not so physically attested to and yet whose alleged artistic representation appears to be just about global (South American, Roman, Aboriginal Australian, etc) are amongst the largest to have lived on Earth.

I agree. It is a statement which concedes that there is a lack of evidence. In addition to the "possibility" of written records, the traditions around the world of arcane creatures, the writings of those like herodotus (which you rejected) and josephus, homer, and others... There are UMA's (Unidentified Mysterious Animal.) In places such as the Congo, the tribes people testify to actually SEEING a creature which they refer to as Mokèlé-mbèmbé They were shown images of various things and I forget if it was plesiosaur or brontosaurus... but when they saw it they immediately (and more than a couple) said it was Mokèlé-mbèmbé. The word Mokèlé-mbèmbé means "One who stops the flow of rivers" They think it is a god. There was a westerner who saw it once and tried to approach it, but the people restrained him and said he may not approach, but that if Mokèlé-mbèmbé chooses, HE may approach him. Loch Ness Monster, Nahuelito, Ogopogo.... The list goes on. Not saying all of these claims are conceived in truth, but they warrant consideration.

The problems associated with inbreeding amongst a small population are only part of the equation. The more significant part is the simple fact that small numbers offer little or no protection against the many threats that can overwhelm a tiny group of isolated survivors - from predation, through natural disasters (drought, volcanic eruptions, climate change, etc) to disease and infertility. The relevant Wiki article cites an average MVP of 500-1000 individuals for terrestrial vertebrates, ignoring the impact of inbreeding and genetic variation; a meta-analysis of the relevant literature puts the figure as high as 4,000 individuals (source: Minimum viable population - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

Yes, and their numbers have dwindled to nothing (or near noting) today which is consistent with what you said. Also, a thing to consider (especially in remote areas where man does not inhabit) many creatures have no natural predator. Most UMA's and sightings and so fourth alleging dinosaurs seem to describe large herbivores. I just do not see wolve's or bears taking on a brontosaurus or triceratops as they did buffalo. In fact, I bet one fell swipe of the tail would be a potent defense. Anyways, I'm not convinced that dinosaurs would have much in the way of natural predators apart from other dinosaurs and humans --and even they would seldom bother with the larger ones. You won't accept the source, because it is the Bible, but in Job when he talks about leviathan and behemoth and elsewhere Tannin... The descriptions. It says that the spears of men were like stubble and could not penetrate the beast and that it was just too terrible to attempt to overcome.

I am just asking if you know, because I do not... How common were carnivore/omnivores in ratio to herbivore dinosaurs?

Food is food. You have already pointed out that in your opinion most dinosaurs were smaller than the ones allegedly depicted in the artistic representations posted, so how much harder to kill do you suppose these would have been than an armadillo, for example? The Sioux often hunted buffalo by herding them over cliffs, where they fell to their deaths. Prehistoric humans hunted the mammoth, the mastodon and the sabre-toothed tigers amongst many other far from docile prey; you should check out research into the effects of human predation on the North American megafauna. What's 'good to eat' is often culturally driven and reptiles are a source of protein amongst many peoples.

Yup. Food is food. Although it is not my "opinion" that most dinosaurs were small. i remember being taught that. There were very small carnivorous dinosaurs, probably very agile too. Those miniature raptor-like ones... I wouldn't want to go up against one armed with nothing but an atlatl and a chert hand axe...

Mammoths were probably slaughtered similar to how buffalo were slaughtered. They would surely be fierce things to bring down, but I don't think their defensive style would be anything at all like that of the smaller, vicious reptilians. The smilodons, however would have been difficult to take down --but they were mammals.. They were fast and all, but not geared in the same way as a "raptor". The smaller herbivore dinosaurs would have been easy targets. I do not know how many small dinosaurs were indigenous to a given location or how many small docile ones were either. Dinosaur eggs would have surely been an easy target as well for any kind of predator.

Radiometric dating techniques brought a great deal more precision to the science. Magnetostratigraphy is also used to date strata. The geologic age of strata is not determined by depth alone as strata are often affected by the dynamic processes of the Earth: erosion, local earthquakes, the rise and fall of land- and sea-levels, etc. The Purbeck Limestone Group, for example, which can be seen at the surface at many sites in southern England is reliably dated to the Cretaceous.

I do not know how these techniques work, so I am unable to comment until I understand the underlying mechanics behind them.

 

[lordkalvan]

Thanks for your reply. I hope to be able to respond to all of your points appropriately.

I think that most would be very afraid to come out and put their reputation on the line for a "small" bit of evidence that may say something contradictory to the mountain of the establishment. Not that I say it is a mountain of proper interpretation, only that it would be an uneven proportion to stack a small possible evidence such as the image of angkor wat against the status quo of the geologic record.

And yet all you can offer is what amounts to nothing more than an unsupported slander tarring the entire scientific community with the same brush. Again I wonder what evidence supports your opinion and why you imagine any scientific progress takes place at all? The evidence you present in respect of the Angkor Wat 'stegosaurus' is clearly no evidence at all and is at the very best problematic. It has not been offered as a serious 'small possible evidence ... against the status quo of the geologic record' because it lacks any robustness as evidence at all.

I see it more of a jigsaw puzzle in terms of the value of any one image I posted. Alone it isn't enough to question or overturn the consensus, but the more that turn up, combined with other things pertaining to possible evidence would have an accumulative effect when considering these things.

Which is why each of these alleged representations has to be judged on the basis of its provenance, its context and the reasonable of the interpretations made as to what it actually represents. I return (yet again) to the pronghorn antelope which, despite not being an antelope at all, was identified from living examples of the beast as an antelope simply because to those Europeans who first encountered it it looked so similar to Old World antelopes that that was what it 'obviously' was.

If I could create the perfect hoax that would be so convincing that dinosaurs really did exist in the past 6,000 years that no one for eternity would catch on to, I would not do it. I do not delight in deception. I only ask that people honestly re-examine what is held as true. Even in things of no religious consequence.

I am not sure what relevance your first statement has; your individual probity says nothing at all about the honesty of others lacking your moral standards. The best evidence that can be offered to challenge the existing model is at best dubious; any scientist who had robust evidence that that model was wrong would be guaranteed fame, fortune and a Nobel Prize. Eric Buffetaut believes the 'stegosaurus' to be a recent fake for the reasons offered; regardless of his expert opinion, however, an 'honest re-examination' of the testable evidence regarding the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs still offers no convincing reason for concluding that subjective interpretations of what these many depictions allegedly represent present any challenge to the existing understanding of either the geologic column or the disappearance of dinosaurs from evolutionary history tens of millions of years before the emergence of sapient primates.

I agree. It is a statement which concedes that there is a lack of evidence.

And yet you offer this subjective, generally unverified material as sufficiently substantial to bring into question the overwhelming weight of observable, measurable and testable evidence that contributes to our understanding that dinosaurs and humans did not co-exist and that dinosaurs became extinct tens of millions of years ago. In the absence of any other robust evidence at all to support this questioning, I can only wonder why?

In addition to the "possibility" of written records, the traditions around the world of arcane creatures, the writings of those like herodotus (which you rejected) and josephus, homer, and others...

I did not ‘reject’ Herodotus. I simply asked whether you regarded posting his and Josephus’s ‘respected’ accounts to be a waste of time because you know that those accounts are not wholly reliable, as in Herodotus's description of a tribe of headless, chest-faced African or Indian humans?

There are UMA's (Unidentified Mysterious Animal.) In places such as the Congo, the tribes people testify to actually SEEING a creature which they refer to as Mokèlé-mbèmbé They were shown images of various things and I forget if it was plesiosaur or brontosaurus... but when they saw it they immediately (and more than a couple) said it was Mokèlé-mbèmbé. The word Mokèlé-mbèmbé means "One who stops the flow of rivers" They think it is a god. There was a westerner who saw it once and tried to approach it, but the people restrained him and said he may not approach, but that if Mokèlé-mbèmbé chooses, HE may approach him. Loch Ness Monster, Nahuelito, Ogopogo.... The list goes on. Not saying all of these claims are conceived in truth, but they warrant consideration.

Legend, rumour, yarn-spinning and anecdote are not evidential. Despite numerous expeditions in search of Mokèlé-mbèmbé, no meaningful evidence has ever been provided, although claims that films and photographs have been taken always seem to be accompanied by coincidental excuses about forgetting to remove lens caps, film being spoiled by the tropical heat and so on. On the other hand, one of these expeditions discovered a new subspecies of monkey that it wasn’t even looking for, which rather makes you think about how few of these alleged dinosaurs there must be and how they managed to sustain a viable breeding population for the last 200+ years. As local descriptions of Mokèlé-mbèmbé sometimes say it is a living creature and other times say it is a spirit, this scarcely looks like persuasive evidence that this unidentified beast (if it exists at all) is a surviving dinosaur.

Yes, and their numbers have dwindled to nothing (or near noting) today which is consistent with what you said. Also, a thing to consider (especially in remote areas where man does not inhabit) many creatures have no natural predator. Most UMA's and sightings and so fourth alleging dinosaurs seem to describe large herbivores. I just do not see wolve's or bears taking on a brontosaurus or triceratops as they did buffalo. In fact, I bet one fell swipe of the tail would be a potent defense. Anyways, I'm not convinced that dinosaurs would have much in the way of natural predators apart from other dinosaurs and humans --and even they would seldom bother with the larger ones.

Predation is a minor part of the equation. In order to sustain a population sufficient to leave still living specimens of the beasts in question, it is near impossible that animals of the size you are proposing could have failed to leave unmistakable physical evidence of there existence. No such evidence exists that I am aware of and the parsimonious explanation must be that supposing they did is no more than a speculative fantasy on the lines of Conan Doyle’s fiction about The Lost World.

(continued below)....

 

[lordkalvan]

(continued from above)....

You won't accept the source, because it is the Bible, but in Job when he talks about leviathan and behemoth and elsewhere Tannin... The descriptions. It says that the spears of men were like stubble and could not penetrate the beast and that it was just too terrible to attempt to overcome.

I won’t accept what? That these make the descriptions you refer to persuasive evidence that dinosaurs and human beings co-existed? As you have offered no plausible reason why I should, I don’t know why you expect anything otherwise.

I am just asking if you know, because I do not... How common were carnivore/omnivores in ratio to herbivore dinosaurs?

There is extensive literature by palaeontologists about this subject. It is certain that most dinosaurs were herbivores, but the exact ratio of herbivores to carnivores cannot be determined. A rough guide suggests that food available to herbivores is 5-20 times greater than that available to carnivores. A figure of 5 carnibvores to 16 herbivores has been noted in one study (http://www.pnas.org/content/98/25/14518.full.pdf).

Yup. Food is food. Although it is not my "opinion" that most dinosaurs were small. i remember being taught that. There were very small carnivorous dinosaurs, probably very agile too. Those miniature raptor-like ones... I wouldn't want to go up against one armed with nothing but an atlatl and a chert hand axe...

Sorry, when I referred to this being your opinion, I didn’t mean to imply that it was something you had just made up, just that you had put this forward and wondered how you thought this would have made them more (or less) difficult for hypothetically co-existing humans to hunt and kill.

Mammoths were probably slaughtered similar to how buffalo were slaughtered. They would surely be fierce things to bring down, but I don't think their defensive style would be anything at all like that of the smaller, vicious reptilians. The smilodons, however would have been difficult to take down --but they were mammals.. They were fast and all, but not geared in the same way as a "raptor". The smaller herbivore dinosaurs would have been easy targets. I do not know how many small dinosaurs were indigenous to a given location or how many small docile ones were either. Dinosaur eggs would have surely been an easy target as well for any kind of predator.

I agree with you about the ways mammoths and mastodons were probably hunted. I believe there is evidence also that they would be driven into swamps and killed with poisoned projectiles, spears, large stones, etc. The fact that large animals such as these could be killed again gives weight to the idea that if humans and dinosaurs co-existed, their should be evidence amongst both the remains of dinosaurs slaughtered in the hunt and in the rubbish-tips and around the camp-sites of the hunters. Evidence for the ways in which mastodons were hunted in swamps comes from analysis of the remains that shows they were frequently skinned in situ and butchered from the knees up (i.e. to wherever the level of the swamp came – source: Ancient Big Game Hunting).

I do not know how these techniques work, so I am unable to comment until I understand the underlying mechanics behind them.

And yet despite this admitted ignorance of such methodologies you were quite willing to offer the comment that ‘Citing paleo-chronological context in this discussion is like having an accused suspect testify as a witness against another defendant.’ Maybe you should learn ‘how these techniques work’ before so readily offering an opinion about their findings that amounts to nothing more than an insight into your a priori conclusions as to their value

 

[Ashua]

(continued from above)....


I won’t accept what? That these make the descriptions you refer to persuasive evidence that dinosaurs and human beings co-existed? As you have offered no plausible reason why I should, I don’t know why you expect anything otherwise.

I don't suppose -any- documents (being written accounts and subject to interpretation) count as "plausible" to you. Could any historical document contain any language or description sufficient on a literary level to which you would be convinced? You reject images which say more than any combination of letters ever will. When it comes down to writing, there is ample room to cry "inconclusive". I could look at a picture of someone like George Washington, describe the man's physical features in writing, withholding his name; and no one would ever picture George Washington. Words are feeble when you demand "definitive" identification beyond any desperate semblance of an agonal gasp of doubt.

There is extensive literature by palaeontologists about this subject. It is certain that most dinosaurs were herbivores, but the exact ratio of herbivores to carnivores cannot be determined. A rough guide suggests that food available to herbivores is 5-20 times greater than that available to carnivores. A figure of 5 carnibvores to 16 herbivores has been noted in one study (http://www.pnas.org/content/98/25/14518.full.pdf).

Thank you very much. I wasn't entirely optimistic that you would be able to offer me a ratio, but you did, even if it isn't universal. I suspected it would be slanted toward herbivore population.

Sorry, when I referred to this being your opinion, I didn’t mean to imply that it was something you had just made up, just that you had put this forward and wondered how you thought this would have made them more (or less) difficult for hypothetically co-existing humans to hunt and kill.

The reason I postulate them as being more difficult to bring down is that by observing modern reptiles and how they move... It would seem they are far more agile than mammals. We have lizards which can run on water. As light as they may be, that still takes immense speed. Snakes strike at a great speed. Snakes are handicapped by virtue of their design, but the quick twitch muscle movement of reptiles is something that would arm dinosaurs well. You can have the last word on this particular argument.

I agree with you about the ways mammoths and mastodons were probably hunted. I believe there is evidence also that they would be driven into swamps and killed with poisoned projectiles, spears, large stones, etc. The fact that large animals such as these could be killed again gives weight to the idea that if humans and dinosaurs co-existed, their should be evidence amongst both the remains of dinosaurs slaughtered in the hunt and in the rubbish-tips and around the camp-sites of the hunters. Evidence for the ways in which mastodons were hunted in swamps comes from analysis of the remains that shows they were frequently skinned in situ and butchered from the knees up (i.e. to wherever the level of the swamp came – source: Ancient Big Game Hunting).

Fossils are rare. I believe you supplied a number of 3,000 plus or minus? Anyways, when you consider the scope of history and how the number of elements within a species alive at a given moment of time is much much much greater than "3,000", then we can safely and statistically "know" that what we happen to find is not all that there was. Of those 3,000 or so that we found, statistically, we "know" there are more causes of death besides humans. That means dinosaurs killing dinosaurs, famine killing dinosaurs, disease killing dinosaurs, the elements killing dinosaurs, other predators killing dinosaurs, "freak accidents" killing dinosaurs (such as quicksand or tar pits), Hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, tsunamis, *ahem* floods... Yes, if humans were big on hunting dinosaurs it is reasonable to expect kill sights and or bone fragments in middens.

However, what we have are bones in the ground. How do you know that the lone dinosaur found in the earth is indeed the kill sight? How can you assume that most dinosaurs were pack animals? How many snakes or lizards do you see in packs? When was the last time You saw a school or turtles crossing the road as you do geese? There is the occasional alligator spotting in retention ponds within sub divisions. More often than not are reptiles solo except for mating.

As for middens... Why would you bother lugging something like that off to your "camp" (that is, those which were not nomadic anyways) Yeah, I did say there MAY have been more of a market for smaller ones, but again, those vicious smaller ones would probably be more fierce than the larger docile ones. Those smaller ones may have even been worse than some of the larger aggressive ones because larger ones would be slower and less agile and easier targets. This is just postulating. I have no more to support it than you have to discredit it.

Anyways, if your nomadic tribe is 200 heads strong, if you take down a triceratops or a brachiosaurus or something.. You kill it, carve it up, distribute the flesh and leave it... scavengers take over from there and you move on. The bones are stripped of all soft tissue and begin to fossilize.

90 miles away some Tyrannosaurus kills a Hylaeosaurus for it's feed; but not before suffering a fairly mild piercing wound in the process. A few days later, an infection sets in and before long the Tyrannosaurus "bites the dust". Scavangers and decay does it's work and before long it too begins to fossilize.

I understand there should be tool marks on the butchered fossils, (whether or not there are dismissed marks I don't know), but if something with that much meat was killed, it might just decay and become unsuitable before they get to it all; and move on to the next hunt.

3,000 finds. and as Spike TV says, "1,000 ways to die." Statistically, who knows what proportion of human killed dinosaurs should constitute the 3,000 finds --if humans indeed did kill them.

And yet despite this admitted ignorance of such methodologies you were quite willing to offer the comment that ‘Citing paleo-chronological context in this discussion is like having an accused suspect testify as a witness against another defendant.’ Maybe you should learn ‘how these techniques work’ before so readily offering an opinion about their findings that amounts to nothing more than an insight into your a priori conclusions as to their value

There are over 40 different radiometric dating techniques alone. I apologize for not spending my time learning the detailed mechanics of each one. I commented on the billions of years attributed in the 19th century when all they had is a relative dating system. I commented on C14 and K-AR. I did not comment on your most recent method. I do not know how that works. I would have to learn how it works in theory and all the variables and every little detail about it before I could comment. The semester just started, combined with other interests, I can't find time to research every thing.

 

[Ashua]

Thanks for your reply. I hope to be able to respond to all of your points appropriately.

And yet all you can offer is what amounts to nothing more than an unsupported slander tarring the entire scientific community with the same brush. Again I wonder what evidence supports your opinion and why you imagine any scientific progress takes place at all? The evidence you present in respect of the Angkor Wat 'stegosaurus' is clearly no evidence at all and is at the very best problematic. It has not been offered as a serious 'small possible evidence ... against the status quo of the geologic record' because it lacks any robustness as evidence at all.

Which is why each of these alleged representations has to be judged on the basis of its provenance, its context and the reasonable of the interpretations made as to what it actually represents. I return (yet again) to the pronghorn antelope which, despite not being an antelope at all, was identified from living examples of the beast as an antelope simply because to those Europeans who first encountered it it looked so similar to Old World antelopes that that was what it 'obviously' was.

I am not sure what relevance your first statement has; your individual probity says nothing at all about the honesty of others lacking your moral standards. The best evidence that can be offered to challenge the existing model is at best dubious; any scientist who had robust evidence that that model was wrong would be guaranteed fame, fortune and a Nobel Prize. Eric Buffetaut believes the 'stegosaurus' to be a recent fake for the reasons offered; regardless of his expert opinion, however, an 'honest re-examination' of the testable evidence regarding the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs still offers no convincing reason for concluding that subjective interpretations of what these many depictions allegedly represent present any challenge to the existing understanding of either the geologic column or the disappearance of dinosaurs from evolutionary history tens of millions of years before the emergence of sapient primates.

And yet you offer this subjective, generally unverified material as sufficiently substantial to bring into question the overwhelming weight of observable, measurable and testable evidence that contributes to our understanding that dinosaurs and humans did not co-exist and that dinosaurs became extinct tens of millions of years ago. In the absence of any other robust evidence at all to support this questioning, I can only wonder why?

I did not ‘reject’ Herodotus. I simply asked whether you regarded posting his and Josephus’s ‘respected’ accounts to be a waste of time because you know that those accounts are not wholly reliable, as in Herodotus's description of a tribe of headless, chest-faced African or Indian humans?

Legend, rumour, yarn-spinning and anecdote are not evidential. Despite numerous expeditions in search of Mokèlé-mbèmbé, no meaningful evidence has ever been provided, although claims that films and photographs have been taken always seem to be accompanied by coincidental excuses about forgetting to remove lens caps, film being spoiled by the tropical heat and so on. On the other hand, one of these expeditions discovered a new subspecies of monkey that it wasn’t even looking for, which rather makes you think about how few of these alleged dinosaurs there must be and how they managed to sustain a viable breeding population for the last 200+ years. As local descriptions of Mokèlé-mbèmbé sometimes say it is a living creature and other times say it is a spirit, this scarcely looks like persuasive evidence that this unidentified beast (if it exists at all) is a surviving dinosaur.

Predation is a minor part of the equation. In order to sustain a population sufficient to leave still living specimens of the beasts in question, it is near impossible that animals of the size you are proposing could have failed to leave unmistakable physical evidence of there existence. No such evidence exists that I am aware of and the parsimonious explanation must be that supposing they did is no more than a speculative fantasy on the lines of Conan Doyle’s fiction about The Lost World.

(continued below)....

There is nothing you said here to combat my speculation except counter speculation.


The following is support information to the pictures I posted of various artifacts which hopefully will answer some of the questions you had about them. The source is irrelevant because there is in-text citation.

Ancient Dinosaur Depictions

 

[lordkalvan]

I don't suppose -any- documents (being written accounts and subject to interpretation) count as "plausible" to you.

They are as 'plausible' as they can be verified to be. Elements of Caesar's Gallic Wars can be more or less verified by other evidence, but parts of it are self-aggrandizing propaganda served up for political purposes and domestic consumption in Rome. Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae has a smattering of historicity about it that can be substantiated by other means, but large parts of it are made up nonsense designed to legitimize and glorify the Norman monarchy of England.

Could any historical document contain any language or description sufficient on a literary level to which you would be convinced?

All evidence has to be considered on its own merits and to the extent that it can be authenticated and verified. The Hitler Diaries attest to the fact that even professional historians can lack necessary caution and skepticism about the provenance of documentary material.

You reject images which say more than any combination of letters ever will. When it comes down to writing, there is ample room to cry "inconclusive". I could look at a picture of someone like George Washington, describe the man's physical features in writing, withholding his name; and no one would ever picture George Washington. Words are feeble when you demand "definitive" identification beyond any desperate semblance of an agonal gasp of doubt.

I do not 'reject images': what I do is question their context, their provenance and the subjective interpretations that are made of them. Many of the images you have posted are of doubtful provenance (the Acambaro Figurines and the Ica Stones, for example), the context of none of them is described and the only grounds for the conclusion offered (that they offer evidence of humans and dinosaurs co-existing) depend on 'looks like' = 'the same as', virtually no contextual explanation and a complete absence of provenance. It is not a question of there being a requirement for absence of doubt, but rather that the images offered are for so many reasons inherently dubious in the first place.

Thank you very much. I wasn't entirely optimistic that you would be able to offer me a ratio, but you did, even if it isn't universal. I suspected it would be slanted toward herbivore population.

You're welcome. I think different studies return different ratios, but the general pattern remains the same: herbivores always outnumber carnivores.

The reason I postulate them as being more difficult to bring down is that by observing modern reptiles and how they move... It would seem they are far more agile than mammals. We have lizards which can run on water. As light as they may be, that still takes immense speed. Snakes strike at a great speed. Snakes are handicapped by virtue of their design, but the quick twitch muscle movement of reptiles is something that would arm dinosaurs well. You can have the last word on this particular argument.

I don't disagree that some animals are more difficult to bring down than others. The same would apply to dinosaurs. However, we know that humans hunted both relatively slow-moving, docile animals and more agile, aggressive ones.

Fossils are rare. I believe you supplied a number of 3,000 plus or minus? Anyways, when you consider the scope of history and how the number of elements within a species alive at a given moment of time is much much much greater than "3,000", then we can safely and statistically "know" that what we happen to find is not all that there was. Of those 3,000 or so that we found, statistically, we "know" there are more causes of death besides humans. That means dinosaurs killing dinosaurs, famine killing dinosaurs, disease killing dinosaurs, the elements killing dinosaurs, other predators killing dinosaurs, "freak accidents" killing dinosaurs (such as quicksand or tar pits), Hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, tsunamis, *ahem* floods... Yes, if humans were big on hunting dinosaurs it is reasonable to expect kill sights and or bone fragments in middens.

The figure of 3,000 referred to near complete skeletons and skulls; the number of fossil dinosaur remains is much higher. Apart from midden and campsite evidence, we would also expect to see evidence of humans and dinosaurs fossilized in the same strata.

However, what we have are bones in the ground. How do you know that the lone dinosaur found in the earth is indeed the kill sight? How can you assume that most dinosaurs were pack animals? How many snakes or lizards do you see in packs? When was the last time You saw a school or turtles crossing the road as you do geese? There is the occasional alligator spotting in retention ponds within sub divisions. More often than not are reptiles solo except for mating.

There is ample evidence that many herbviorous dinosaurs were herd animals. Even absent this evidence the dynamics of feeding habits and predator/prey relationships amongst larger animals would lead to this conclusion.

As for middens... Why would you bother lugging something like that off to your "camp" (that is, those which were not nomadic anyways) Yeah, I did say there MAY have been more of a market for smaller ones, but again, those vicious smaller ones would probably be more fierce than the larger docile ones. Those smaller ones may have even been worse than some of the larger aggressive ones because larger ones would be slower and less agile and easier targets. This is just postulating. I have no more to support it than you have to discredit it.

This paragraph seems riddled with assumptions. Not all smaller dinosaurs would be any more fierce or dangerous than wild boar; not all dinosaurs would have been any more agile than antelope. The complete absence of any dinosaur remains from human middens and campsites, of dinosaur bones made into artifacts (a common practice in respect of other animals' bones) is persuasive indirect evidence that humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist.

Anyways, if your nomadic tribe is 200 heads strong, if you take down a triceratops or a brachiosaurus or something.. You kill it, carve it up, distribute the flesh and leave it... scavengers take over from there and you move on. The bones are stripped of all soft tissue and begin to fossilize.

Fossilization generally only occurs in the event of rapid burial. Bones are useful in and of themselves, big bones even more so.

90 miles away some Tyrannosaurus kills a Hylaeosaurus for it's feed; but not before suffering a fairly mild piercing wound in the process. A few days later, an infection sets in and before long the Tyrannosaurus "bites the dust". Scavangers and decay does it's work and before long it too begins to fossilize.

I don't know what point you are making here.

I understand there should be tool marks on the butchered fossils, (whether or not there are dismissed marks I don't know), but if something with that much meat was killed, it might just decay and become unsuitable before they get to it all; and move on to the next hunt.

Why do you suppose such marks would be dismissed? Hide can also show evidence of missile and projectile wounds.

3,000 finds. and as Spike TV says, "1,000 ways to die." Statistically, who knows what proportion of human killed dinosaurs should constitute the 3,000 finds --if humans indeed did kill them.

You are using the 3,000 fossil remains out of context. However, all the evidence available suggests that the number of such human interventions would be precisely zero.

There are over 40 different radiometric dating techniques alone. I apologize for not spending my time learning the detailed mechanics of each one. I commented on the billions of years attributed in the 19th century when all they had is a relative dating system. I commented on C14 and K-AR. I did not comment on your most recent method. I do not know how that works. I would have to learn how it works in theory and all the variables and every little detail about it before I could comment. The semester just started, combined with other interests, I can't find time to research every thing.

So what this boils down to is that you know nothing about the techniques, you do not have the time to learn about them, but you are fairly convinced that they are of dubious value? Right.

 

[lordkalvan]

There is nothing you said here to combat my speculation except counter speculation.

It's instructive that you appear to regard questions directed towards adding depth to your unsupported assertions, reasoned criticism of your subjective interpretations and the considered opinion of a professional palaeontologist with relevant local experience as nothing more than 'counter speculation'.

The following is support information to the pictures I posted of various artifacts which hopefully will answer some of the questions you had about them. The source is irrelevant because there is in-text citation.

Ancient Dinosaur Depictions

I'm afraid your link didn't work. However, I note that the source would appear to be entirely relevant and that there is nothing in the text that provides either robust provenance or any conclusion based on anything much more than looks like therefore is. Any site that uncritically offers the Acambaro Figurines, the Ica Stones and the Angkor Wat 'stegosaurus' as evidence of human and dinosaur co-existence should be approached with a great deal of skepticality.