Dinosaurs and man coexisting

[magnifier661]

You're basing your conclusions of the assumption that the carving was intended to look like a triceratops, discounting the very real likelihood of a coincidental resemblance.

There isn't a conclusion on my part actually. I am debating on the possibility.

This seems pretty coincidental though.

 

[magnifier661]

See what you did where? You are speaking gibberish. And for the record a clay pot is not a "fossil."

Show me a dinosaur bone that has either been absolute or relative dated to a time coterminous with human beings and we'll talk, but everything you've posted fails to meet a scientific standard of evidence.

Yeah so true. Its more probably that a civilization that lived thousands of years ago, guess the animal so accurately. Forgot.... My mistake

 

[crandc]

That carving resembles a tricerotops? Looks more like a rhinceros to me. Or do you want to pretend it's a rhinosaurus and just like a dinosaur?

So, a biblical literalist sees a representation of cave drawing in an uncertain state of preservations, says it "looks like" a stegosaurus or a tricerotops (whatever "looks like" means), concludes that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, the universe is 5000 years old, and Genesis is literally true based on his interpretation of a drawing! Mags, do you really truly consider that nonsense the equivalent of science based on testing, peer review, DNA analysis, carbon dating, etc etc etc etc? We often disagree but I did have a better impression of your brains than that!

 

[magnifier661]

That carving resembles a tricerotops? Looks more like a rhinceros to me. Or do you want to pretend it's a rhinosaurus and just like a dinosaur?

So, a biblical literalist sees a representation of cave drawing in an uncertain state of preservations, says it "looks like" a stegosaurus or a tricerotops (whatever "looks like" means), concludes that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, the universe is 5000 years old, and Genesis is literally true based on his interpretation of a drawing! Mags, do you really truly consider that nonsense the equivalent of science based on testing, peer review, DNA analysis, carbon dating, etc etc etc etc? We often disagree but I did have a better impression of your brains than that!

LMAO @ you.


Is this better? Go ahead and guess other animals that they look like! Hahaha

Also, I find it funny that you are taking this to some young earth bullshit argument; which I have clearly said I don't believe. But if it makes you feel better, go for it pappy

 

[Denny Crane]

You are aware that the radioactive breakdown of soft tissue cannot survive longer than 200k years right?

You're aware that you don't know what you're talking about?

Wherever they dig into the ground, the deeper they dig, the farther back in time they go. There are no human remains and dinosaur remains at the same depth.

And that's just one of numerous other ways they can tell the dates involved.

 

[Nikolokolus]

LMAO @ you.


Is this better? Go ahead and guess other animals that they look like! Hahaha

Also, I find it funny that you are taking this to some young earth bullshit argument; which I have clearly said I don't believe. But if it makes you feel better, go for it pappy

I'm going to use Occam's razor here. The most logical conclusion I can draw about that pot is that it's a fraud.

Where was it found, by whom and in what context.

EDIT: I say this knowing absolutely nothing about it.

 

[magnifier661]

You're aware that you don't know what you're talking about?

Wherever they dig into the ground, the deeper they dig, the farther back in time they go. There are no human remains and dinosaur remains at the same depth.

And that's just one of numerous other ways they can tell the dates involved.

Yes because an earthquake couldn't open the ground and cause sediments to fall to areas in which the age of the dirt is 65 million years old. Okay spock

 

[Eastoff]

LMAO @ you.


Is this better? Go ahead and guess other animals that they look like! Hahaha

Also, I find it funny that you are taking this to some young earth bullshit argument; which I have clearly said I don't believe. But if it makes you feel better, go for it pappy

This is very different than the carving. The pottery could simply be modern fakes. Is there a "timestamp" so to speak, of when it was made?

 

[Nikolokolus]

Yes because an earthquake couldn't open the ground and cause sediments to fall to areas in which the age of the dirt is 65 million years old. Okay spock

Except that the ancient rock and "newer" material would be dissimilar and that fault layer would be completely distinct.

To answer your question, No it couldn't.

 

[Denny Crane]

I'm going to use Occam's razor here. The most logical conclusion I can draw about that pot is that it's a fraud.

Where was it found, by whom and in what context.

EDIT: I say this knowing absolutely nothing about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ica_stones

In 1973 during an interview with Erich von Däniken, Uschuya stated he had faked the stones that he had sold.[3] In 1975 Uschuya and another farmer named Irma Gutierrez de Aparcana confirmed that they had forged the stones they gave to Cabrera by copying the images from comic books, text books and magazines.[2] Later Uschuya recanted the forging story during an interview with a German journalist, saying that he had claimed they were a hoax to avoid imprisonment for selling archaeological artifacts. In 1977, during the BBC documentary Pathway to the Gods, Uschuya produced an Ica stone with a dentist's drill and claimed to have produced the patina by baking the stone in cow dung.[3] That same year, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical analysis of Cabrera's stones, and the newfound attention to the phenomenon prompted Peruvian authorities to arrest Uschuya, as Peruvian law prohibits the sale of archaeological discoveries. Uschuya recanted his claim that he had found them and instead admitted they were hoaxes, saying "Making these stones is easier than farming the land." He engraved the stones using images in books and magazines as examples and knives, chisels and a dental drill.[6] He also said that he had not made all the stones. He was not punished, and continued to sell similar stones to tourists as trinkets.[3] The stones continued to be made and carved by other artists as forgeries of the original forgeries.[2]

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes because an earthquake couldn't open the ground and cause sediments to fall to areas in which the age of the dirt is 65 million years old. Okay spock

Earthquake everywhere in the world where they dig?

What a stretch.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

I'm going to use Occam's razor here. The most logical conclusion I can draw about that pot is that it's a fraud.

Where was it found, by whom and in what context.

EDIT: I say this knowing absolutely nothing about it.

My first thought as well.

 

[Nikolokolus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ica_stones

In 1973 during an interview with Erich von Däniken, Uschuya stated he had faked the stones that he had sold.[3] In 1975 Uschuya and another farmer named Irma Gutierrez de Aparcana confirmed that they had forged the stones they gave to Cabrera by copying the images from comic books, text books and magazines.[2] Later Uschuya recanted the forging story during an interview with a German journalist, saying that he had claimed they were a hoax to avoid imprisonment for selling archaeological artifacts. In 1977, during the BBC documentary Pathway to the Gods, Uschuya produced an Ica stone with a dentist's drill and claimed to have produced the patina by baking the stone in cow dung.[3] That same year, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical analysis of Cabrera's stones, and the newfound attention to the phenomenon prompted Peruvian authorities to arrest Uschuya, as Peruvian law prohibits the sale of archaeological discoveries. Uschuya recanted his claim that he had found them and instead admitted they were hoaxes, saying "Making these stones is easier than farming the land." He engraved the stones using images in books and magazines as examples and knives, chisels and a dental drill.[6] He also said that he had not made all the stones. He was not punished, and continued to sell similar stones to tourists as trinkets.[3] The stones continued to be made and carved by other artists as forgeries of the original forgeries.[2]

This is why logic is so awesome at explaining most things.

 

[Denny Crane]

This is why logic is so awesome at explaining most things.

Logic is a thing of beauty when you see it.

 

[magnifier661]

I'm going to use Occam's razor here. The most logical conclusion I can draw about that pot is that it's a fraud.

Where was it found, by whom and in what context.

EDIT: I say this knowing absolutely nothing about it.

Could be quite possible, but I suggest you read the report on this link. Even this "theist" was skeptic about this finding.

http://s8int.com/dinolit25.html

This analysis revealed three important facts: a) The engraved stones have a higher specific gravity than common river rocks found in riverbeds and beaches, which I had guessed as soon as I first held one in my hand;

b) The engravings are old, to judge by the coating of natural oxidation that covers the incisions as well as the stones themselves; and

c) The stones were engraved not long before being deposited in the spots where they were found, to judge by the absence of wear on the edges of the incisions, which means that the stones were not engraved for utilitarian or even artistic purposes, but rather to be deposited in a safe place - for some unknown reason.

One year before, Santiago Agurto Calvo had published the results of a petrological analysis of the engraved stones in his collection. These results were part of the newspaper article mentioned earlier, in which he discussed the discovery of engraved stones in the Ocucaje zone.

Specifically, the article dealt with some specimens that he had purchased in 1962 from huaqueros which, according to him, contained "unidentifiable things, insects, fish, birds, cats, fabulous creatures and human beings, sometimes apart and other times shown together in elaborate and fantastic compositions".

He had entrusted the analysis to the mining Faculty of the Universidad Nacional de Ingeneira and it had been performed by two engineers, Fernando de las Casas and Cesar Sotillo.

Since the analysis I had commissioned promised that the preliminary study would be followed up by a closer examination in the laboratories of the Universidad Nacional de Ingeneira de Peru and the University of Bonn, I decided to compare the analysis of my stones with that of the stones of Agurto. The analysis of Agurto's stones read:

All the stones are highly carbonized andesites, despite their coloration and texture, which suggest a different nature.

The stones come from lava flows dating from the Mesozoic era, characteristic of the zone where they were found. The surface has weathered, and feldspar has been turned into clay, weakening the surface and forming a kind of shell around the interior of the stones.

This shell measures an average of grade 3 on the Mohs scale (which measures the comparative capacity of a substance to scratch another or be scratched by another) and up to 4 1/2 in the part not so affected by weathering.

The stones can be worked with any hard material such as bone, shell, obsidian, etc., and naturally, by any prehispanic metal implement.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Mags, Denny just provided a pretty clear signal that those stones are fakes. Read above.

 

[magnifier661]

Mags, Denny just provided a pretty clear signal that those stones are fakes. Read above.

Oh I read it. I can agree that it was a hoax.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Oh I read it. I can agree that it was a hoax.

So why are you throwing that shit out there and asking us to consider it? If you want to deal in facts I'm more than happy to discuss something, but offering up fraudulent artifacts and using that as the parts of the foundation of your argument isn't going to cut it.

 

[magnifier661]

So why are you throwing that shit out there and asking us to consider it? If you want to deal in facts I'm more than happy to discuss something, but offering up fraudulent artifacts and using that as the parts of the foundation of your argument isn't going to cut it.

Well because I knew you would chime in.

 

[Denny Crane]

Could be quite possible, but I suggest you read the report on this link. Even this "theist" was skeptic about this finding.

http://s8int.com/dinolit25.html

This analysis revealed three important facts: a) The engraved stones have a higher specific gravity than common river rocks found in riverbeds and beaches, which I had guessed as soon as I first held one in my hand;

b) The engravings are old, to judge by the coating of natural oxidation that covers the incisions as well as the stones themselves; and

c) The stones were engraved not long before being deposited in the spots where they were found, to judge by the absence of wear on the edges of the incisions, which means that the stones were not engraved for utilitarian or even artistic purposes, but rather to be deposited in a safe place - for some unknown reason.

One year before, Santiago Agurto Calvo had published the results of a petrological analysis of the engraved stones in his collection. These results were part of the newspaper article mentioned earlier, in which he discussed the discovery of engraved stones in the Ocucaje zone.

Specifically, the article dealt with some specimens that he had purchased in 1962 from huaqueros which, according to him, contained "unidentifiable things, insects, fish, birds, cats, fabulous creatures and human beings, sometimes apart and other times shown together in elaborate and fantastic compositions".

He had entrusted the analysis to the mining Faculty of the Universidad Nacional de Ingeneira and it had been performed by two engineers, Fernando de las Casas and Cesar Sotillo.

Since the analysis I had commissioned promised that the preliminary study would be followed up by a closer examination in the laboratories of the Universidad Nacional de Ingeneira de Peru and the University of Bonn, I decided to compare the analysis of my stones with that of the stones of Agurto. The analysis of Agurto's stones read:

All the stones are highly carbonized andesites, despite their coloration and texture, which suggest a different nature.

The stones come from lava flows dating from the Mesozoic era, characteristic of the zone where they were found. The surface has weathered, and feldspar has been turned into clay, weakening the surface and forming a kind of shell around the interior of the stones.

This shell measures an average of grade 3 on the Mohs scale (which measures the comparative capacity of a substance to scratch another or be scratched by another) and up to 4 1/2 in the part not so affected by weathering.

The stones can be worked with any hard material such as bone, shell, obsidian, etc., and naturally, by any prehispanic metal implement.

 

[magnifier661]

But we are descendant from Aliens!!!! Haven't you seen Prometheus?

 

[Nikolokolus]

Well because I knew you would chime in.

Do you want to have a good faith discussion or be a troll?

 

[magnifier661]

Do you want to have a good faith discussion or be a troll?

I want to have a good faith discussion. Sorry....

 

[Nikolokolus]

So I have to ask, do you really believe any of this bullshit or did you just post this topic to get a reaction?

 

[magnifier661]

Earthquake everywhere in the world where they dig?

What a stretch.

Well Denny, you believe in nature right? Did you know the earth has an earthquake every 11 seconds? Yeah what a reach; since you have 65 million years of 11 second earthquakes. How dare you question naturalists!!!!!

 

[magnifier661]

So I have to ask, do you really believe any of this bullshit or did you just post this topic to get a reaction?

Do I really believe this bullshit? No.... But I discuss not to troll. I like discussing every possibility. Don't you, or would you rather stick with the "Spock" approach?

 

[Nikolokolus]

Well Denny, you believe in nature right? Did you know the earth has an earthquake every 11 seconds? Yeah what a reach; since you have 65 million years of 11 second earthquakes. How dare you question naturalists!!!!!

Mags, please go take an online course in geology.

 

[magnifier661]

Mags, please go take an online course in geology.

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/savageearth/earthquakes/

Am I wrong? Why you ask me to take a geology course. You can age rock, but just because something is buried in a area where the rock is x million years old, doesn't mean its that old. Mega Volcanos, Earthquakes. Fuck man, the land mass moved in great proportions. See how africa and Europe fit nicely with the eastern part of the Americas.

 

[Nikolokolus]

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/savageearth/earthquakes/

Am I wrong? Why you ask me to take a geology course. You can age rock, but just because something is buried in a area where the rock is x million years old, doesn't mean its that old. Mega Volcanos, Earthquakes. Fuck man, the land mass moved in great proportions. See how africa and Europe fit nicely with the eastern part of the Americas.

How can I explain this in the simplest terms? Yes folding, faulting and eruptions occur, but if any new material is introduced into a fault and then converted into rock over time, it would be geologically distinct from the older rock. A layer of sandstone or limestone (sedimentary rock) wedged between a layer of andesite or basalt will be starkly different and would be huge clue to a geologist that the two layers are from different epochs.

 

[e_blazer]

What the heck? Is this thread still going on? I mean, have you not seen the "Flintstones"? Hello...