dinosaurs or dragons

[jasone]

I watched this documentary called dinosaurs or dragons. It was made by the young earth folks that say the earth is only 6000 years old. Now I am really dumb and I get around this by trying to memorize shit smart people have already figured out. I have been under the impression that there was this 65 million year gap between dinosaurs and man, but they showed many examples of cave drawings and statues that seemed to really look like dinosaurs.


can someone please offer me an explanation as to why there would be cave drawings by ancient man of dinosaurs?

[BERNIE MOSFET]

Here is a photograph of Greek pottery presumably depicting Theseus slaying a Minotaur, but clearly showing that minotaurs existed alongside humans. Note that minotaurs not only had the head of a bull, but also had a penis and breasts, legs like a grasshopper, and vicious attack birds flying from their crotches.




Seriously, what cave drawings with dinosaurs?

[jdgregory84]

Why do men draw pictures of dinosaurs now? Why do we draw pictures of UFO's? The story doesn't have to be true. What else were they gonna write on? Paper?

[jasone]

Well I am assuming that they weren't digging up their bones and rearranging them to figure out what they looked like. And I don't mean just like big creatures which could be anything. There were drawings of the goofy looking ones maybe the stegosauras or whatever the fuck it was called. With the weird plates all over it's back and the spikes on it's tail.

[Gargamel]

The half life of carbon-14 doesn't lie....
Tell the young Earth folks to keep smoking what they're smoking and leave us the hell alone...

[jdgregory84]

Well I am assuming that they weren't digging up their bones and rearranging them to figure out what they looked like. And I don't mean just like big creatures which could be anything. There were drawings of the goofy looking ones maybe the stegosauras or whatever the fuck it was called. With the weird plates all over it's back and the spikes on it's tail.

I'm gonna take a guess that not all dinosaur bones are found way underground.

[BERNIE MOSFET]

Jasone, honestly there are a number of petroglyphs that don't really seem to make sense. At the same time, there are no definitive answers about prehistory except that which we can surmise from what demonstrable, repeatable scientific knowledge we do have.

In short, we don't know, but from what we have studied, we make educated guesses.

Creationists like to point to the scientific community (usually but not exclusively those that subscribe to evolutionary theory) and say that we are constantly changing our story - and the truth is, we are. Rather than sticking to a single belief as creationists are required to do, those who practice pure science construct theories about how things were and are from what we can show to be true now, until something compelling comes along and suggests something different. Then it is back to the drawing board.

I think there is enough compelling evidence to strongly suggest that man did not coexist with dinosaurs, but you have to accept the same evidence that refutes creation (at least within the last 6000 years)to arrive at the former conclusion. If you don't believe that the earth is somewhere around 4.5 billion years old - based on the same body of scientific knowledge that corroborates all the other dates for the geological and fossil records - you have no choice but to entertain that dinosaurs must have coexisted with humans.

I say all that to get to this point, in an earnest answer to your question: it is entirely possible that the creatures depicted were imaginary, or that there is some other explanation that we cannot understand.

We have an intelligible written record that explains exactly what that illustration is on the pottery in the picture I posted. Without this, we could probably only guess. I don't think anyone (in modern society) really believes men with bull heads exist(ed). The difference between minotaurs and dinosaurs in this example is a fossil record that we can study in conjunction with the body of knowledge in all disciplines - unconstrained by the requirement to make what we understand about the world fit into a certain paradigm, except to apply new knowledge to existing theories to see if they support or refute them.

By the same token, the "dinosaurs" in those petroglyphs could simply be evidence that supports the creation paradigm only because there really isn't a way to prove what they are or are not. We like to "see" things that fit within our perception of the world - something akin to Rorschach inkblot tests. And when our perception is hard-bound as in creation, the tendency is to find evidence that supports it, and ignore evidence that does not.

All that said, it'd be damn cool if it was a dinosaur.

[jasone]

Jasone, honestly there are a number of petroglyphs that don't really seem to make sense. At the same time, there are no definitive answers about prehistory except that which we can surmise from what demonstrable, repeatable scientific knowledge we do have.

In short, we don't know, but from what we have studied, we make educated guesses.

Creationists like to point to the scientific community (usually but not exclusively those that subscribe to evolutionary theory) and say that we are constantly changing our story - and the truth is, we are. Rather than sticking to a single belief as creationists are required to do, those who practice pure science construct theories about how things were and are from what we can show to be true now, until something compelling comes along and suggests something different. Then it is back to the drawing board.

I think there is enough compelling evidence to strongly suggest that man did not coexist with dinosaurs, but you have to accept the same evidence that refutes creation (at least within the last 6000 years)to arrive at the former conclusion. If you don't believe that the earth is somewhere around 4.5 billion years old - based on the same body of scientific knowledge that corroborates all the other dates for the geological and fossil records - you have no choice but to entertain that dinosaurs must have coexisted with humans.

I say all that to get to this point, in an earnest answer to your question: it is entirely possible that the creatures depicted were imaginary, or that there is some other explanation that we cannot understand.

We have an intelligible written record that explains exactly what that illustration is on the pottery in the picture I posted. Without this, we could probably only guess. I don't think anyone (in modern society) really believes men with bull heads exist(ed). The difference between minotaurs and dinosaurs in this example is a fossil record that we can study in conjunction with the body of knowledge in all disciplines - unconstrained by the requirement to make what we understand about the world fit into a certain paradigm, except to apply new knowledge to existing theories to see if they support or refute them.

By the same token, the "dinosaurs" in those petroglyphs could simply be evidence that supports the creation paradigm only because there really isn't a way to prove what they are or are not. We like to "see" things that fit within our perception of the world - something akin to Rorschach inkblot tests. And when our perception is hard-bound as in creation, the tendency is to find evidence that supports it, and ignore evidence that does not.

All that said, it'd be damn cool if it was a dinosaur.

thanks,
great post

[dustin]

Jasone, honestly there are a number of petroglyphs that don't really seem to make sense. At the same time, there are no definitive answers about prehistory except that which we can surmise from what demonstrable, repeatable scientific knowledge we do have.

In short, we don't know, but from what we have studied, we make educated guesses.

Creationists like to point to the scientific community (usually but not exclusively those that subscribe to evolutionary theory) and say that we are constantly changing our story - and the truth is, we are. Rather than sticking to a single belief as creationists are required to do, those who practice pure science construct theories about how things were and are from what we can show to be true now, until something compelling comes along and suggests something different. Then it is back to the drawing board.

I think there is enough compelling evidence to strongly suggest that man did not coexist with dinosaurs, but you have to accept the same evidence that refutes creation (at least within the last 6000 years)to arrive at the former conclusion. If you don't believe that the earth is somewhere around 4.5 billion years old - based on the same body of scientific knowledge that corroborates all the other dates for the geological and fossil records - you have no choice but to entertain that dinosaurs must have coexisted with humans.

I say all that to get to this point, in an earnest answer to your question: it is entirely possible that the creatures depicted were imaginary, or that there is some other explanation that we cannot understand.

We have an intelligible written record that explains exactly what that illustration is on the pottery in the picture I posted. Without this, we could probably only guess. I don't think anyone (in modern society) really believes men with bull heads exist(ed). The difference between minotaurs and dinosaurs in this example is a fossil record that we can study in conjunction with the body of knowledge in all disciplines - unconstrained by the requirement to make what we understand about the world fit into a certain paradigm, except to apply new knowledge to existing theories to see if they support or refute them.

By the same token, the "dinosaurs" in those petroglyphs could simply be evidence that supports the creation paradigm only because there really isn't a way to prove what they are or are not. We like to "see" things that fit within our perception of the world - something akin to Rorschach inkblot tests. And when our perception is hard-bound as in creation, the tendency is to find evidence that supports it, and ignore evidence that does not.

All that said, it'd be damn cool if it was a dinosaur.

That's all fine and great but... I'm pretty sure that's a unicorn head, not a Minotaur. Everything else is hearsay.

[BERNIE MOSFET]

That's all fine and great but... I'm pretty sure that's a unicorn head, not a Minotaur. Everything else is hearsay.

I think you're right, every example I find shows a unicorn head!

[jasone]

this is the one that seemed odd.

[jdgregory84]

this is the one that seemed odd.

That is odd. Like I said though, I doubt all dinosaur bones have to be dug up from deep below the surface. Who knows how many bones were found and then the bones used as tools or for shelter or whatever? I'm not 6000+ years old so I don't know for sure obviously. I do know that man is where it is, because we're pretty damned innovative. I wouldn't be surprised if a shitload of bones were found in caves from dinosaurs trying to escape the supposed ash storm after the asteroid hit.

[BERNIE MOSFET]

this is the one that seemed odd.

I saw that too. Ta Prohm - the Cambodian Temple from the 12th Century, see this website

Here is a fairly balanced article you could read that might explain what it is: http://paleo.cc/paluxy/stegosaur-claim.htm note: some of the pictures on the article don't seem to be coming up, but they were there yesterday.

here is another article: http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4207


I suppose next you'll bring up the human and dinosaur footprints in Texas?

[SlowLX]

The Greeks used skulls of Mammoths like this one to prove that Cyclops existed, we now use those same skulls to prove that the Greeks were horrible at puzzles.

[Sean88gt]

I think the men of ancient Greece has needle dicks.