Does that mean you have no idea what you labelled that file on your computer "biggererlion"? I thought perhaps it was some sort of dinosaur that coexisted with men. Sorry but I'm not up on all these pet theories you guys have. So is that a picture a lion or a bronotsaurus?
ARCHIVE - An honest question....
- Thread starter muldoon
- Start date
Oh so you want to get back to the question instead of trading insults… very big of you.
Look it’s this simple, when I look at the picture on the cylinder I think it looks roughly like what we think an Apatosaurus would look like. At least an artistically rendered version of one.
The question, as asked by Knight, is; if it is a dinosaur what does this mean? Anything? Nothing? What?
Look it’s this simple, when I look at the picture on the cylinder I think it looks roughly like what we think an Apatosaurus would look like. At least an artistically rendered version of one.
The question, as asked by Knight, is; if it is a dinosaur what does this mean? Anything? Nothing? What?
Glad to see you've finally met your match and are actually interested in the topic. I'll ask again, why do you think this looks like a brontosaurus? Yes I know it has a long neck but what else makes you think that the artist was drawing a dinosaur, or perhaps is it just wishful thinking on your part?
Mr. Ben
New member
I think it "kinda" looks like a brontosaurus too. Inevitably some imagery somewhere is going to look like a brontosaurus regardless. Human artists have drawn decorative four footed creatures, even poorly rendered ones, on perhaps millions of vases. If we examine enough of them, we will eventually find "one" or even "two" that looks like what we want and need it to look like. I don't think I need to explain how wishful thinking enteres into this, or how special selection of a tiny tiny set of quasi-evidence that might seem like it supports an extraordinary notion if you look at it right doesn't quite equal a vast set of refuting evidence.
Rest assured that if Brontosauruses really were contemporary with human beings, we would have more than one or two poorly rendered abstract images that would record his presence. Not only that, but we would have non-fossilized bones in beds with contemporarly mammals, at least once. Unfortunately the distance separating modern mammals and the youngest dinosaurs are the Paleocene, Eocene, Oligocene, Miocene, Pleistocene, and Holocene. That's a large number of fossil beds, each showing lots of new and different extinct mamallian species (100% fossilized), with no dinosaurs to be found at all. Only Holocene fossils are not fossilized, and we have plenty of them, but no dinosaurs at all in any of them.
If the dinosaurs were contemporary with modern flora or fauna, they were hiding extrememly well, which would be rather difficult for 40 meter long beasts.
Now, have we had enough of this wishful thinking nonsense yet?
KurtPh
New member
Re: I know you are...but what am I?
Re: I know you are...but what am I?
I don't beileve I did insult you. You are starting to act like a petulent child. The "discussion" has degenerated mainly because I don't see what you or Knight want me to see.
True. And I said what it might have been. Whether it is a giraffe or not is perhaps subject to debate, and I'm very willing to believe that it is not a giraffe at all, but perhaps a composite animal which includes the features of several animals. Sort of like the sphinx or chimera.
Why do you insist on pursuing this argument. If all long necked creatures looked like dinosaurs, then I would agree that these creatures look like a dinosaur. We know that's not the case. When you look at the picture, at least when I do, I see mammalian characteristics, but nothing that looks even remotely like a dinosaur.
I have. Over, and over again. I truely, honestly, beileve that these creatures do not look like dinosaurs. At all. Not a bit.
Now, perhaps you could look at the creatures again and tell me, besides the fact that they have long necks, why I should change my opinion?
Re: I know you are...but what am I?
I don't beileve I did insult you. You are starting to act like a petulent child. The "discussion" has degenerated mainly because I don't see what you or Knight want me to see.
True. And I said what it might have been. Whether it is a giraffe or not is perhaps subject to debate, and I'm very willing to believe that it is not a giraffe at all, but perhaps a composite animal which includes the features of several animals. Sort of like the sphinx or chimera.
Why do you insist on pursuing this argument. If all long necked creatures looked like dinosaurs, then I would agree that these creatures look like a dinosaur. We know that's not the case. When you look at the picture, at least when I do, I see mammalian characteristics, but nothing that looks even remotely like a dinosaur.
I have. Over, and over again. I truely, honestly, beileve that these creatures do not look like dinosaurs. At all. Not a bit.
Now, perhaps you could look at the creatures again and tell me, besides the fact that they have long necks, why I should change my opinion?
theophilus
Well-known member
A Rendition -
A Rendition -
There is an artist's rendition of a brontosaurus in the Google image search (on the first page).
I tried to post it here but the html tags didn't work and I don't know how to insert an image into a document from my hard drive.
Sorry.
your humble servant.
A Rendition -
There is an artist's rendition of a brontosaurus in the Google image search (on the first page).
I tried to post it here but the html tags didn't work and I don't know how to insert an image into a document from my hard drive.
Sorry.
your humble servant.
Last edited:
So, does anyone know anything about the Acambaro figurines? There are approximately 33,000 of them and they are dated (800 B.C. to 200 A.D.) found near Acambaro, Guanajuato, Mexico.
I have attached an image below, as you can see it looks just like a Giraffe
I have attached an image below, as you can see it looks just like a Giraffe
Try this: http://www.ntskeptics.org/1999/1999october/october1999.htm
Hey Knight, maybe next you can bring up those mysterious Bible codes, or the wood from Noah's ark that was found a few years ago, or the pillar of salt near the dead sea that has been proven to be Lot's wife, or better yet how about that hole that was dug to hell in Siberia - Boy the evidence is just overwhleming isn't it?!!!!
Hey Knight, maybe next you can bring up those mysterious Bible codes, or the wood from Noah's ark that was found a few years ago, or the pillar of salt near the dead sea that has been proven to be Lot's wife, or better yet how about that hole that was dug to hell in Siberia - Boy the evidence is just overwhleming isn't it?!!!!
Mr. Unreality your link didn’t dispute the authenticity of these figures. It basically said the figures may indeed be real but maybe they are not dipictions of dinosaurs.
Maybe they are giraffes???
Your article stated..
Maybe they are giraffes???
Your article stated..
So …. Just by chance we have figures that look like dinosaurs do you agree that is the origin of these figures?
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro.htm#initial
Yep, real acurate depictions of dinosaurs alright, just look for yourself. (and based on the web address I'm assuming that these are the BEST examples out of the 33,000 they could find!)
I especially like the ones with 2 legs or the long lizard with wings. The tall skinny standings ones kind of crack me up as well.
Out of the 33,000, looks like you've got the one that looks closest to a dinosaur and it still doesn't quite get it right (pretty skinny - done from eye witnesses you say?) Does the anatomy of these match the real anatomy (and not a comic book rendition) of the dinosaurs we find? No.
Now of course in addition to the approx 10% of these that could possibly be imagined to be dinosaurs, there is the 90% that show unidentfiable monsters, demons, hominids, and gods.
I guess to you creationist types, we should just identify the things in this 90% as "yet unidentified kinds".
Should we start looking for Griffins, Cyclops, Unicorns and Hydras? This at best is at best a coincidence, at worst a hoax.
Yep, real acurate depictions of dinosaurs alright, just look for yourself. (and based on the web address I'm assuming that these are the BEST examples out of the 33,000 they could find!)
I especially like the ones with 2 legs or the long lizard with wings. The tall skinny standings ones kind of crack me up as well.
Out of the 33,000, looks like you've got the one that looks closest to a dinosaur and it still doesn't quite get it right (pretty skinny - done from eye witnesses you say?) Does the anatomy of these match the real anatomy (and not a comic book rendition) of the dinosaurs we find? No.
Now of course in addition to the approx 10% of these that could possibly be imagined to be dinosaurs, there is the 90% that show unidentfiable monsters, demons, hominids, and gods.
I guess to you creationist types, we should just identify the things in this 90% as "yet unidentified kinds".
Should we start looking for Griffins, Cyclops, Unicorns and Hydras? This at best is at best a coincidence, at worst a hoax.
Last edited:
Notto, you can brush the topic off to "coincidence" if you like, that’s fine with me. I simply find this a very interesting topic. Are the figures a hoax? I am not sure, I am skeptical myself!
Keep in mind these figures are only one of hundreds of examples of creatures drawn, sculpted or described from ancient times that look very much like what we think dinosaurs looked like, isn’t that a bid odd?
Keep in mind these figures are only one of hundreds of examples of creatures drawn, sculpted or described from ancient times that look very much like what we think dinosaurs looked like, isn’t that a bid odd?
Mr. Unreality what would be the harm in making a rational, meaningful post?
Let me ask you this….
Do you think the figurines are actually old as dated yet look the way they do (like dinosaurs) by coincidence?
or….
The dating of the figurines was faulty?
And there are thousands of examples of drawing, sculptures, or descriptions of COMPLETELY MADE UP ANIMALS AND GODS. Some of the examples look like what we might think aliens look like as well. Do you think that these show that aliens visited us during our history?
If you trust the depictions of dinosaurs during these times as "real", why don't you consider their pictures of gods as real as the descriptions in the bible?
WHY HAVEN'T WE FOUND ONE DINOSAUR BONE IN ANY HUMAN SETTLEMENT?
The examples you give show men killing dinosaurs, men riding dinosaurs, men LIVING WITH dinosaurs, but then they just took all those bones that are lying around and buried them where we would find them with no human remains and no signs of human contact? Why didn't they do the same with sheep bones, cow bones, deer bones, fish bones, and chicken bones?
You may be skeptical, but you are obviously not skeptical enough.
(I have a real jackalope and a real mermaid skeleton for sale - interested?)
Last edited:
Mr. Unreality… I have read literally dozens of your posts and they are all the same. You post nothing but short meaningless comments with no real substance. One of TheologyOnLine’s commandments is…
And your posts are a perfect examples of being "unnecessarily disruptive". Please attempt to add value to the debate as opposed to wasting disk space as you are doing currently.
Notto writes…
You continue…
You continue…
That is a good point. However, that is why I like to take all of these evidences case by case and ponder their origins.
You continue…
Well, most depiction’s of gods are all based on things we know to exist with additions or modifications, likewise the unicorn, griffin etc. are based on already existing animals with slight variations. I find it odd that the ancients could create dinosaur looking images strictly by chance.
You continue…
We really haven’t found that many types of animal bones in any human settlement so I do not find that to be a very convincing argument.
Care to back that up?
This is incorrect. This is actually a very active part of archeology and the animal bones that are found tell us a lot about how a people traveled, farmed, traded, and lived.
http://www-dateline.ucdavis.edu/072001/DL_dnarevise.html
"Kemp is eyeing the study of ancient animal bones found in human camps. The ideas is to track human migrations by looking at DNA from animals that travel with humans."
http://www.arctictravel.com/chapters/archeol2page.html
"These people wore skin clothing and made tools from bones, antlers, ivory, skins and rocks. They travelled mostly by foot, although they did have a few dogs and a small single-person boat similar to a qajaq (kayak). All animals except the massive bowhead whales were hunted."
http://www.sfu.ca/archaeology/museum/ask/wonder.htm
Clues can be artifacts like stone or bone tools, pottery, or elaborate ornaments. They can be features, like house mounds, hearths, storage pits and depressions, or burials.
Even the smallest stone flake, or fragment of animal bone can help tell the archaeologist more about how people lived in the past.
STILLL NO DINOSAUR BONES!! Not even a fragment!
Notto, I didn’t say we had NEVER found animal bones in human settlements, I said we hadn’t found that many TYPES of animal bones comparatively in human settlements. Imagine how many animals there are, now think of all the types of bones that have been found in human settlements. That number would only represent a tiny fraction of the different types of animals in the world.
But we can find the types of animal bones in and around the area people lived if they hunted, wrestled, and saw them. Dinosaur bones are not found in the same burial condition, location, or weathered condition as the animals these people hunted, cohabitated with, and saw on a day to day basis.
We don't find dinosaur bones even remotely close to any archeological dig that is concerned about uncovering human settlement. We do find the bones of other animals that lived at the time.
When we find mammal bones, we don't find dinosaur bones.
Except in the rare case of finding transitional finds, but this is the exception and is easily shown as such because we don't find mammal fossils older (or deeper) than the find and we see dinosaur fossils become unfindable in newer (or shallower) digs.
Please give one example if you can of mammal, human, and dinosaur bones that have been found in the same condition, same location, and same preservation state. Bet you can't.
If you would like, I can show you plenty of examples of mammals and human fossils found in the same condition, same location, and same preseravation state. Well, that's easy, because we're mammals!
What I can't do is show you human remains with Dragons, Gargoyles, Gryphons, Merfolk, Phoenix or Unicorns.
Last edited: