History Reveals Dinosaurs

[Jfrsmth]

Is it at all possible to have an adult discussion about the following:

"Dinosaurs are often portrayed as having lived in a time before man. However, the available evidence shows that man and dinosaur coexisted.

Legends of dragons are found among most people groups. For example, there are the stories of Bel and the dragon, the Kulta of Australian aborigines, St. George and the dragon, and of course many Chinese legends. Often, the anatomical descriptions given are consistent, even though they come from separate continents and various times. These depictions match what we know from the fossil evidence of certain dinosaurs. Thus, dinosaurs are known directly from their fossils, and indirectly from cave drawings, tapestries, textiles, figurines, carvings, bas reliefs, and many oral and written eyewitness accounts, most of which are quite old."

http://www.icr.org/men-dinosaurs/

It appears that this is a repeat question, but I'd like to start with a clean slate if possible.

 

[essentialsaltes]

"However, the available evidence shows that man and dinosaur coexisted."

Then why does the text change immediately to dragons? And not to evidence of dragons, but legends of dragons?

The standard European heraldic dragon has four legs and two wings.

No dinosaur had six limbs. How does this match the fossil evidence of dinosaurs at even the basic level of counting the number of limbs?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, it is simply not possible to have an adult discussion about this topic. One might as well ask if we can have an adult conversation about the Tooth Fairy.

 

[46AND2]

Is it at all possible to have an adult discussion about the following:

"Dinosaurs are often portrayed as having lived in a time before man. However, the available evidence shows that man and dinosaur coexisted.

Legends of dragons are found among most people groups. For example, there are the stories of Bel and the dragon, the Kulta of Australian aborigines, St. George and the dragon, and of course many Chinese legends. Often, the anatomical descriptions given are consistent, even though they come from separate continents and various times. These depictions match what we know from the fossil evidence of certain dinosaurs. Thus, dinosaurs are known directly from their fossils, and indirectly from cave drawings, tapestries, textiles, figurines, carvings, bas reliefs, and many oral and written eyewitness accounts, most of which are quite old."

http://www.icr.org/men-dinosaurs/

It appears that this is a repeat question, but I'd like to start with a clean slate if possible.

You might as well just discuss the geochronological dating methods, as that is what this conversation will ALWAYS boil down to.

YEC have ancient legends of creatures (through word and art) which may or may not be mythical, embellished, hoaxes, etc., which usually only superficially resemble dinosaurs.

Scientists have actual real data measuring the accumulation of radioactive decay, which YEC have ALL failed to adequately rebut.

 

[46AND2]

dp

 

[Goonie]

Is it at all possible to have an adult discussion about the following:

"Dinosaurs are often portrayed as having lived in a time before man. However, the available evidence shows that man and dinosaur coexisted.

Legends of dragons are found among most people groups. For example, there are the stories of Bel and the dragon, the Kulta of Australian aborigines, St. George and the dragon, and of course many Chinese legends. Often, the anatomical descriptions given are consistent, even though they come from separate continents and various times. These depictions match what we know from the fossil evidence of certain dinosaurs. Thus, dinosaurs are known directly from their fossils, and indirectly from cave drawings, tapestries, textiles, figurines, carvings, bas reliefs, and many oral and written eyewitness accounts, most of which are quite old."

http://www.icr.org/men-dinosaurs/

It appears that this is a repeat question, but I'd like to start with a clean slate if possible.

Promises to be a silly/interesting thread.

A theory worthy of Inspector Clouseau

 

[The Cadet]

Is it at all possible to have an adult discussion about the following:

"Dinosaurs are often portrayed as having lived in a time before man. However, the available evidence shows that man and dinosaur coexisted.

It's right up there with an adult conversation about the type of cheese they used to build the moon, but sure, why not?

They didn't. Fossilized dinosaur remains are never found more recently than 60,000,000 years ago. Doesn't it seem odd to you that we have quite a lot of fossil dinosaurs riiiight up until around the KT boundary, and then we never find any trace of them any more?

Legends of dragons are found among most people groups. For example, there are the stories of Bel and the dragon, the Kulta of Australian aborigines, St. George and the dragon, and of course many Chinese legends. Often, the anatomical descriptions given are consistent, even though they come from separate continents and various times.

Not only are these legends (meaning: not verified or true in any sense), but the dragons described are not constant. Asian dragons are far more akin to serpents than the beastlike dragons of European lore. But dragons are not dinosaurs. None of the creatures described by draconic legend resemble dinosaurs in the best of times. Above all, the problem of how to fit 6 limbs onto a tetrapod rears its ugly head - this simply does not happen. Dragons belong in the same category as angels and bird-mammal hybrids: animals which, according to everything we know about biology cannot exist. And of course, dragons are not the only widely-shared mythos that is demonstrably flawed - many cultures believed in a worldwide flood that never happened.

The fact that an ostensibly "serious" group like the Institute of Creation Research would put dross like this up for everyone to see it shows just how intellectually bankrupt creationism is.

 

[Jfrsmth]

 

[Jfrsmth]

You might as well just discuss the geochronological dating methods, as that is what this conversation will ALWAYS boil down to.

No, let's discuss dinosaurs in history, not "prehistoric" times.

 

[Jfrsmth]

A theory worthy of Inspector Clouseau

Thanks! I try not to take myself too seriously.

 

[46AND2]

No, let's discuss dinosaurs in history, not "prehistoric" times.

Rather difficult to do if your opponents know that there were no dinosaurs in historic times. No picture, carving, or lyric is going to trump the scientific data.

Even if a piece of art does depict a relatively accurate portrait of what we think dinosaurs looked like, it doesn't mean that the artist saw such a creature in real life. People have been finding dinosaur FOSSILS for a long time...

 

[46AND2]

Thanks! I try not to take myself too seriously.

Right off the bat, I can tell you that the last picture you posted is an Inca Stone--an admitted hoax.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Carvings in stones (one of which has been proven to be fake) and a very blurry and obscure Native American petroglyph?
Very impressive evidence(!).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Right off the bat, I can tell you that the last picture you posted is an Inca Stone--an admitted hoax.

Gah, you beat me to it. And you even remember the name of it too.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Fossilized dinosaur remains are never found more recently than 60,000,000 years ago. Doesn't it seem odd to you that we have quite a lot of fossil dinosaurs riiiight up until around the KT boundary, and then we never find any trace of them any more?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Do you have a link to when this happened? Or even a proper website article on it? A very clearly doctored and out of context newspaper article and single photo don't make for much evidence.

 

[Goonie]

Right off the bat, I can tell you that the last picture you posted is an Inca Stone--an admitted hoax.

Yep. Ica stones to be predantic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ica_stones
They were faked by Javier Cabrera Darquea.

 

[46AND2]

Basking shark.

 

[46AND2]

Yep. Ica stones to be predantic.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ica_stones
They were faked by Javier Cabrera Darquea.

Pedantic? lol

 

[Jfrsmth]

Carvings in stones (one of which has been proven to be fake) and a very blurry and obscure Native American petroglyph?
Very impressive evidence(!).

Where did they get the images of creatures that we see in the fossil record?