The Dreaded Dinosaurs Debate

[Calminian]

Well here is a thought as I mentioned before, lets say for a second that yes it was based upon a stegasauroid, *not stegasaurus*.

The plates are about right and their positions, but there are obvious problems, lack of tail spikes, and wrong head along with horns there. What it looks to me like is take a stegasauroid with the end of the tail missing, no head, just the bones of the body, maybe one of the tail spikes found nearby or a couple of them, no animal they would have known have spikes on it's tail, but might think it had some on the head, given the size of the body they found they would have likly thought it have a bigger head, so they gave it a bigger head with a the spikes. And here we have the bones of a great beast they found and turned into a god or such.

I still don't see the horns of the head, but maybe I haven't looked close enough. But at least you're not jumping on the rhino angle.

But to your point, I think you're making the mistake of assuming the artist directly viewed this creature. It could have been legend passed down over centuries. Have you ever seen other ancient depictions of other real animals like elephants and giraffes? They get all kinds of the details wrong, not because they drawing wasn't based on a real animal, but because they had insufficient data.

What's remarkable about this, if indeed it's not a hoax, is that Stegosaur, and like dinosaurs, are the only creatures with plats like this. It's so unique, it's hard to imaging where else the idea would have come from.

I actually saw an ancient depiction of an elephant but the artist gave it hoofed legs like from a horse. But it was unmistakably an elephant due to it's unique nose. He must have had insufficient data, probably not viewing the animal first hand, but hearing descriptions from others. Yet even with the faulty details, there's no question where the idea came from.

Now as far as the artist coming across actual dinosaur bones, do you realize all that goes into excavating fossils? It's simply not a viable explanation.

 

[matthewgar]

I still don't see the horns of the head, but maybe I haven't looked close enough. But at least you're not jumping on the rhino angle.

But to your point, I think you're making the mistake of assuming the artist directly viewed this creature. It could have been legend passed down over centuries. Have you ever seen other ancient depictions of other real animals like elephants and giraffes? They get all kinds of the details wrong, not because they drawing wasn't based on a real animal, but because they had insufficient data.

What's remarkable about this, if indeed it's not a hoax, is that Stegosaur, and like dinosaurs, are the only creatures with plats like this. It's so unique, it's hard to imaging where else the idea would have come from.

I actually saw an ancient depiction of an elephant but the artist gave it hoofed legs like from a horse. But it was unmistakably an elephant due to it's unique nose. He must have had insufficient data, probably not viewing the animal first hand, but hearing descriptions from others. Yet even with the faulty details, there's no question where the idea came from.

Now as far as the artist coming across actual dinosaur bones, do you realize all that goes into excavating fossils? It's simply not a viable explanation.

One word :> Icheosaurus.

 

[matthewgar]

Oh and this seeems to be about the closest stegasaurus to that one that I can find.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Wuerhosaurus.jpg

Trouble is it's a chinese species.

 

[Calminian]

Keep squirming, guys. I'm enjoying this.

 

[Willtor]

I never said it was critical this was a Stegosaurus. I was merely marveling at how you guys jumped at the Rhino alternative. From the beginning I said I would be very open to other explanations for this carving. It may be hoax as some other drawings have proven to be. It could be some other mythological creature, though I don't know of any like that. But I'm very open.

It was just very telling how all you guys jumped on the Rhino bandwagon so quickly without a second thought. You have to be just a little embarrassed.

You do seem to be back-peddling a bit now, saying you don't care. That's a good start. You'd be better off to just laugh off your temporary insanity and admit that you emotionally gravitated toward any anti-YEC explanation available. That would restore credibility. All of is have our moments.

What, in particular, do you perceive as being anti-YEC about saying that it isn't a stegosaurus?

Re: back-peddling -- Mallon said it looked like a rhino to him. I said it looked like a hippo to me. Some people thought it looked like a stegosaurus. You think it looks like a mythological creature. I don't see in the history of this thread what you see. Will you specify the posts that cause you to draw these conclusions?

 

[Orogeny]

It seems that Calminian is the only person injecting emotion into this discussion, although he continues to accuse others of irrational emotion. Those arguing for a non-stegosaurian origin for this carving are doing so calmly and rationally, while Calminian has provided no points of logic or evidence outside of 'look at them platy things y'all!'.

Calminian: Contain yourself. Sarcasm and unfounded accusatory posts are no way to present a convincing argument. Your attitude is a turn-off, even to those who are inclined to agree with you.

I particularly like Matt's hypothesis about an exhumed skeleton. Calminian, it is not unreasonable to think that a stegosaurus carcass could be exposed, at least partially, in an outcrop that ancient people would have had access to. There are terrigenous Mesozoic units exposed extensively in many places around the world. It would also be a fairly simple task to excavate the beast.

 

[Mallon]

I particularly like Matt's hypothesis about an exhumed skeleton. Calminian, it is not unreasonable to think that a stegosaurus carcass could be exposed, at least partially, in an outcrop that ancient people would have had access to. There are terrigenous Mesozoic units exposed extensively in many places around the world. It would also be a fairly simple task to excavate the beast.

It's actually believed by some that myths about the griffin originate from partially exposed Protoceratops skeletons from Kazakhstan. So the idea isn't without merit.

 

[Calminian]

It seems that Calminian is the only person injecting emotion into this discussion, although he continues to accuse others of irrational emotion.

I think I'm injecting emotion stirring comments, and I am definitely doing that purposefully. I'm trying to move people into seeing just how biased they've become. But I'm also pointing out that emotion is at the root of bias.

So you cold say I'm provoking the acknowledgement of thoughts based on emotion rather than sound fair reasoning.

Now mind you, I'm only doing that in specific areas, such as the rhino bandwagon, which seems to be fizzling out quickly. But the sarcasm display at that time was very appropriate, in my view.

But yea, I'm am admittedly provoking emotion with my statements—injecting it if you will. And I think it's worked positively to a degree.

Those arguing for a non-stegosaurian origin for this carving are doing so calmly and rationally, while Calminian has provided no points of logic or evidence outside of 'look at them platy things y'all!'

Calminian: Contain yourself. Sarcasm and unfounded accusatory posts are no way to present a convincing argument. Your attitude is a turn-off, even to those who are inclined to agree with you.

Well, now you're being just hypersensitive and accusatory yourself. What can I say? Now you've become what you've accused me of. Let's hope we can be civil from this point.

I particularly like Matt's hypothesis about an exhumed skeleton. Calminian, it is not unreasonable to think that a stegosaurus carcass could be exposed, at least partially, in an outcrop that ancient people would have had access to. There are terrigenous Mesozoic units exposed extensively in many places around the world. It would also be a fairly simple task to excavate the beast.

I would say it is not impossible, but would stop short of saying it's reasonable and would add it's very unlikely. The idea that these peoples would have excavated enough of a stegosaurus like creature to put that picture together is much harder for me to believe than the simple explanation that man and dinos lived together once at the same time. These are not simple puzzles to piece together.

And if something was excavated successfully, I would think there would be some record of it, some story, something. Much easier to just believe this simple explanation, someone saw it or heard from someone else that saw it, and then carved it to the best of their knowledge.

Another simple explanation would be, it was a hoax, carved in modern times, made to look ancient.

 

[matthewgar]

I think I'm injecting emotion stirring comments, and I am definitely doing that purposefully. I'm trying to move people into seeing just how biased they've become. But I'm also pointing out that emotion is at the root of bias.

So you cold say I'm provoking the acknowledgement of thoughts based on emotion rather than sound fair reasoning.

Now mind you, I'm only doing that in specific areas, such as the rhino bandwagon, which seems to be fizzling out quickly. But the sarcasm display at that time was very appropriate, in my view.

But yea, I'm am admittedly provoking emotion with my statements—injecting it if you will. And I think it's worked positively to a degree.



Well, now you're being just hypersensitive and accusatory yourself. What can I say? Now you've become what you've accused me of. Let's hope we can be civil from this point.



I would say it is not impossible, but would stop short of saying it's reasonable and would add it's very unlikely. The idea that these peoples would have excavated enough of a stegosaurus like creature to put that picture together is much harder for me to believe than the simple explanation that man and dinos lived together once at the same time. These are not simple puzzles to piece together.

And if something was excavated successfully, I would think there would be some record of it, some story, something. Much easier to just believe this simple explanation, someone saw it or heard from someone else that saw it, and then carved it to the best of their knowledge.

Another simple explanation would be, it was a hoax, carved in modern times, made to look ancient.

Well it's beleived that these may be where many of the various stories come from finding the bones of unusual things. Lets take the feathered serpent, perhaps finding remains of a feathered dinosaur but just the neck might look like a feathered serpent if they are noticable.

http://www.boingboing.net/07-06-07_0716.jpg

Here is the rest of it, the one above looks somewhat simular to the first, but it's more bear like.

Below is a third one with something simular to the plates, but this time along the belly *least as best as I can tell the position of the legs don't make much sense. You got the "head" raised, but the tail and leg at the bottom are down, not completly sure whatis going on there. make of it what you want, and if humans lived with dinosaurs why wouldn't there be stories oif them all around the world? More then just a few vague myths?

Also why couldn't it be a rhinocerous The hornplacement seems vaugly weird, but Cambodia where these are found is right near India. It just looks like to me not enough real evidence, it doesn't look like one, and so on. Perhaps it was stories of rhinocerous's that got embellished.

Were talking 8th to 14th centueary here if there were dinosaurs roaming around to be spotted like this it be mentioned elsewhere.

 

[Orogeny]

I think I'm injecting emotion stirring comments, and I am definitely doing that purposefully. I'm trying to move people into seeing just how biased they've become. But I'm also pointing out that emotion is at the root of bias.

Oh ok, so you're steering the conversation away from logic and reason on purpose. I guess I'd try that too if I had no real arguments for my case.

So you cold say I'm provoking the acknowledgement of thoughts based on emotion rather than sound fair reasoning.

Yet you've been given an ample dose of reason from several posters. It appears that everyone here is trying to be reasonable save you.

Now mind you, I'm only doing that in specific areas, such as the rhino bandwagon, which seems to be fizzling out quickly. But the sarcasm display at that time was very appropriate, in my view.

I'm not sure there ever WAS a bandwagon. Remind me, which posters said that this thing is a rhino?

But yea, I'm am admittedly provoking emotion with my statements—injecting it if you will. And I think it's worked positively to a degree.

At least you're honest about your dishonesty.

Well, now you're being just hypersensitive and accusatory yourself. What can I say? Now you've become what you've accused me of. Let's hope we can be civil from this point.

Hypersensitive, huh? Why don't we break down my post in search of sensitivity and emotion?

Those arguing for a non-stegosaurian origin for this carving are doing so calmly and rationally
Observation.

while Calminian has provided no points of logic or evidence outside of 'look at them platy things y'all!'
Fact.

Calminian: Contain yourself.
Sage advice.

Sarcasm and unfounded accusatory posts are no way to present a convincing argument.

Fact.
Your attitude is a turn-off, even to those who are inclined to agree with you
Fact.

See any emotional descriptors in there? Words like 'embarrassed' or 'insanity'? Or phrases like 'you guys have lost your minds' or 'Keep squirming'? I don't.

I would say it is not impossible, but would stop short of saying it's reasonable and would add it's very unlikely.

Explain, in logical detail please, why it is unlikely that ancient man could happen upon a fossil, dig it out of the ground, and attempt to reconstruct it.

The idea that these peoples would have excavated enough of a stegosaurus like creature to put that picture together is much harder for me to believe than the simple explanation that man and dinos lived together once at the same time.

You have a hard time believing that men could dig pieces of a skeleton out of the ground and put it back together, but you have no problem rejecting all of geology, biology, and archaeology in favor of a completely unbacked assertion? No wonder you're trying so hard to derail the conversation.

By the way, thanks for the new signature.

These are not simple puzzles to piece together.

Then again, they're really not that hard for someone with a basic understanding of animalian anatomy.

And if something was excavated successfully, I would think there would be some record of it, some story, something.

There is. There's a carving.

Much easier to just believe this simple explanation, someone saw it or heard from someone else that saw it, and then carved it to the best of their knowledge.

Explanation 1: Dinosaurs lived contemporaneously with man, although we have no positive evidence of such cohabitation, and oodles of evidence to the contrary.
Explanation 2: Humans found a fossilized skeleton and made an inference as to what the beast would look like had it fleshy bits, just as some humans do every single day today.

You're right! Choosing the reasonable one is easy!

Another simple explanation would be, it was a hoax, carved in modern times, made to look ancient.

But it's much easier to believe that man and dinos lived together once at the same time, right?

 

[shernren]

I think I'm injecting emotion stirring comments, and I am definitely doing that purposefully. I'm trying to move people into seeing just how biased they've become. But I'm also pointing out that emotion is at the root of bias.

Good on you to man up about being emotional and deliberately making fact-free posts about TEs being insane. It's ok, Calminian, admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery. ^^

Personally, my money is on it being a chameleon: NeuroLogica Blog » Ancient Cambodian Stegosaurus?

 

[Willtor]

Well it's beleived that these may be where many of the various stories come from finding the bones of unusual things. Lets take the feathered serpent, perhaps finding remains of a feathered dinosaur but just the neck might look like a feathered serpent if they are noticable.

http://www.boingboing.net/07-06-07_0716.jpg

Here is the rest of it, the one above looks somewhat simular to the first, but it's more bear like.

Below is a third one with something simular to the plates, but this time along the belly *least as best as I can tell the position of the legs don't make much sense. You got the "head" raised, but the tail and leg at the bottom are down, not completly sure whatis going on there. make of it what you want, and if humans lived with dinosaurs why wouldn't there be stories oif them all around the world? More then just a few vague myths?

Also why couldn't it be a rhinocerous The hornplacement seems vaugly weird, but Cambodia where these are found is right near India. It just looks like to me not enough real evidence, it doesn't look like one, and so on. Perhaps it was stories of rhinocerous's that got embellished.

Were talking 8th to 14th centueary here if there were dinosaurs roaming around to be spotted like this it be mentioned elsewhere.

It's more certain than that. We know that the ancient Greeks assembled the bones of mammoths as though they were giants. Less certain, but still reasonable, is that the myth of the cyclops may have come from the skull of an elephant.

 

[Papias]

It must be a tuatara, it's got things on its back!

For all his bluster and emotion, Cal's whole argument rests on his own misinterpretation of those decorative tabs as actual things on the animal's back. Chosen out of literally hundreds of fanciful drawings there at Ankor, and thousands world wide. The thousands of other dinosaurs not only were never depicted by those an Ankor, but worldwide as well. But I guess that's easier for him imagine than the idea that the decorative tabs are... well.... decorative tabs....

That's all of his argument - just the idea that the decorative tabs are back protrusions. To support it as a stegosaurus, he has to ignore nearly every other feature of the carving (the missing neck, head shape, head horn, legs, tail size, lack of tail spikes, and so on).

Cal, you did notice that the decorative tabs are on the outside of the circle too, right? Does that make the circle itself a stegopython?

Cal, is this conclusive proof that people lived with stegopythons? Is that the most believable conclusion?

Papias

 

[Calminian]

Also why couldn't it be a rhinocerous The hornplacement seems vaugly weird, but Cambodia where these are found is right near India. It just looks like to me not enough real evidence, it doesn't look like one, and so on. Perhaps it was stories of rhinocerous's that got embellished.

And we're back to rhinos. You're officially a nutburger.

Were talking 8th to 14th centueary here if there were dinosaurs roaming around to be spotted like this it be mentioned elsewhere.

Which is why I believe it's a carving of an animal seen by humans and passed down through the centuries. Even so, the likeness of a Stego-type dino is uncanny.

 

[Calminian]

For all his bluster and emotion, Cal's whole argument rests on his own misinterpretation of those decorative tabs as actual things on the animal's back. Chosen out of literally hundreds of fanciful drawings there at Ankor, and thousands world wide. The thousands of other dinosaurs not only were never depicted by those an Ankor, but worldwide as well. But I guess that's easier for him imagine than the idea that the decorative tabs are... well.... decorative tabs....

That's all of his argument - just the idea that the decorative tabs are back protrusions. To support it as a stegosaurus, he has to ignore nearly every other feature of the carving (the missing neck, head shape, head horn, legs, tail size, lack of tail spikes, and so on).

Cal, you did notice that the decorative tabs are on the outside of the circle too, right? Does that make the circle itself a stegopython?

Cal, is this conclusive proof that people lived with stegopythons? Is that the most believable conclusion?

Papias

And this form a guy who claimed "it's closest to something like a rhinoceros."

This thread is classic.

 

[Mallon]

Maybe it's time to stop feeding the troll, folks.

 

[Papias]

Mallon wrote:

Maybe it's time to stop feeding the troll, folks.

Seems like it.

 

[Calminian]

That's going to be tough, guys. You've already feed me red meat—rhino meat to be precise.

Until one of you can stand up and admit you goofed and emotion got the best of you, well, I'm going to have to have some fun with you. I just can't resist.

But I do have a lot of respect for people that can humble themselves after they step in it.

 

[Willtor]

It must be a tuatara, it's got things on its back!

...

NSFW!!!

 

[sublime911]

Most likely not. A global flood will not create only one layer of sediments.

Yes it would. And there is no possible way the earth could be repopulated that fast. Also, how do you explain dinosaur nests that remain in tact?