Dinosaurs and man coexisting

[magnifier661]

I know the source is from a creationist, so many may be turned off; but some of these ancient art is uncanny.

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-art.htm

I'm curious on both sides on this ancient art. Some of the are really accurate.

 

[donkiez]

Dinosaurs is such an ambiguous term. We coexist with alligators right now.

 

[magnifier661]

Dinosaurs is such an ambiguous term. We coexist with alligators right now.

True, but some art is pretty particular to a stegosaurus in Asia. The temple was dated back thousands of years ago.

Not trying to go creationist here. You should look at the pictures. It wasn't an alligator or snake. These were actual dinosaurs we know today

 

[speeds]

The carvings themselves are very interesting. The temples aren't all that old, however. We're talking about something built beginning in the 12th, I think. The implication from the site is that the carver is an eye witness to a stegosaurus in the 12th Century?

 

[magnifier661]

The carvings themselves are very interesting. The temples aren't all that old, however. We're talking about something built beginning in the 12th, I think. The implication from the site is that the carver is an eye witness to a stegosaurus in the 12th Century?

Well the unusual circumstance that even in the 12th century, there wasn't a stegosaurus fossil already learned about.

 

[magnifier661]

Reason why I brought this up is I'm watching ancient aliens and they talked about this shit. When I searched, most were from creationists

 

[speeds]

Seems plausible that the plates are in the background and meant to represent something else. The lack of tail spikes and the huge head (stegosaur had tiny heads) suggests that it isn't based off one.

 

[speeds]

For reference:

 

[magnifier661]

Seems plausible that the plates are in the background and meant to represent something else. The lack of tail spikes and the huge head (stegosaur had tiny heads) suggests that it isn't based off one.

What about this one?

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dino-art-wall-etchings-grand-canyon.jpg

 

[julius]

I think if there were dinosaurs on the planet not even 1000 years ago, we'd have far more evidence. it's not like they were small.

 

[magnifier661]

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/peru-tomb-rock-art-man-riding-triceratops.jpg

 

[magnifier661]

I think if there were dinosaurs on the planet not even 1000 years ago, we'd have far more evidence. it's not like they were small.

There was a T. Rex fossil that still had red blood cells in the marrow. If that's true; carbon couldn't have existed longer than 20k years ago

 

[speeds]

I dunno. The squiggly drawing could be a dinosaur I guess.

 

[magnifier661]

I dunno.

Me neither

 

[Denny Crane]

Dinosaurs disappeared 65 million years ago. Man is maybe 200,000 years on the planet.

Do the math.

 

[speeds]

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/peru-tomb-rock-art-man-riding-triceratops.jpg

Triceratops didn't have plates. Looks like a rhino with pointy ears?

 

[Denny Crane]

Triceratops didn't have plates. Looks like a rhino with pointy ears?

The fish with fingers above it makes the case for Evolution. FTW!

 

[magnifier661]

Dinosaurs disappeared 65 million years ago. Man is maybe 200,000 years on the planet.

Do the math.

You like science and seem pretty on point. The T. Rex fossil with red blood cells is impossible; even if it was in ice. Soft tissue cannot be preserved for 60+ millions of years

 

[julius]

btw mags, read this:

http://www.stupiddinosaurlies.org/the-stegosaurus-carving-that-isn-t

 

[magnifier661]

The fish with fingers above it makes the case for Evolution. FTW!

This isn't creation vs fucking evolution Denny. The link may get you all defensive or shit. Obviously your stubbornness is getting the better of you.

 

[julius]

There was a T. Rex fossil that still had red blood cells in the marrow. If that's true; carbon couldn't have existed longer than 20k years ago

Link?

 

[Denny Crane]

You like science and seem pretty on point. The T. Rex fossil with red blood cells is impossible; even if it was in ice. Soft tissue cannot be preserved for 60+ millions of years

Yes it can. Obviously.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=blood-from-stone

 

[speeds]

You like science and seem pretty on point. The T. Rex fossil with red blood cells is impossible; even if it was in ice. Soft tissue cannot be preserved for 60+ millions of years

Schweitzer's discovery has been under scrutiny.

 

[speeds]

btw mags, read this:

http://www.stupiddinosaurlies.org/the-stegosaurus-carving-that-isn-t

Looks plausible but the tail isn't quite right. The carver gave his image a thick one.

 

[speeds]

Link?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1685849/

 

[julius]

Looks plausible but the tail isn't quite right. The carver gave his image a thick one.

far more plausible than it being a dinosaur.

 

[magnifier661]

Yes it can. Obviously.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=blood-from-stone

Yes because they found a fossil with it? Oh wow good one Denny! Lol

Or maybe the theory is still correct and the T. Rex was around 200,000 years ago.

Are you saying carbon dating is wrong? The entire premise of this dating is based on carbon 15 decomposes; while 14 stays the same.

 

[magnifier661]

Schweitzer's discovery has been under scrutiny.

What do you mean? That the cells aren't from the T. Rex or that she implanted the cells?

I would like to read the scrutiny.

 

[speeds]

far more plausible than it being a dinosaur.

Based on how many hours it would take to chip that image into the stone you've gotta think the artist would try hard to get it right. Maybe a wispy tail would be hard to do without it cracking as he dug around it?

 

[santeesioux]

Seems legit.