What of the dinosaurs?

[ColinCat]

One Thing concerns me about these carvings and pictures of dinosaurs...

We don't really know what dinosaurs fully look like.. We can make a guess based on the bones and structures etc but we'll never know exactly.

Isn't it a coincidence that these carvings and pictures match up with exactly what we think they look like?

Same as when people describe alien encounters they always describe the aliens looking exactly the way 50s comic books popularised them.

 

[JackH]

Shouldn't you be asking whether if the archaeologist has their stories right.

It's all about the bones.

Show me the bones not some rocks or art that could be whatever or cartoon-like drawings.

Show me some dinosaur bones that are less than 6000 years old.

 

[4enlightment]

Even the website Answers in Genesis says the Ica Stones should not be used as "evidence" that humans and dinosaurs coexisted.

Of course, you could counter that with the fact that Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) has an Ica Stone so it must be real. Yes, he does have one. Dr. Dino is trying to trade it for a Get Out of Jail Free card.

Isn't it so funny that poor Inca Indians in the 1500's all through the South america can afford dentist drills, and pay their electric bill.

 

[4enlightment]

It's all about the bones.

Show me the bones not some rocks or art that could be whatever or cartoon-like drawings.

Show me some dinosaur bones that are less than 6000 years old.

The bones are shown in the website that I had posted with the pictures.

 

[4enlightment]

One Thing concerns me about these carvings and pictures of dinosaurs...

We don't really know what dinosaurs fully look like.. We can make a guess based on the bones and structures etc but we'll never know exactly.

Isn't it a coincidence that these carvings and pictures match up with exactly what we think they look like?

Same as when people describe alien encounters they always describe the aliens looking exactly the way 50s comic books popularised them.

Yes, and science hasn't gotten their story right at all. Some says that the T-Rex has feathers because of their scientific observation of the fossil's feet that resembles a feet of a bird. So it tell me that all of their theories are speculations.

 

[JackH]

The bones are shown in the website that I had posted with the pictures.

Please show me the exact picture you claim is a dinosaur bone that is less than 6000 years old.

A picture from a paleontology journal with an article explaining why it is less than 6000 years old would be good.

I won't hold my breath while I wait for you to find one of those.

 

[Cycel]

This one comes from the Dragon-Ishtar Gate which was supposedly created sometime during the Neo Babylonian time (same area as Sumer, or present day Iraq.) Obviously the fact it is called the dragon gate alone is good proofs of what this is.

I've heard it called the Ishtar Gate, but never the Dragon Gate. Perhaps I am not reading the same sources as you? When I did an Internet search using the term Dragon Gate I found nothing (except for some Chinese restaurants), but the term Ishtar Gate brings us right there. I suppose if you travel in certain circles that believe in dragons you might know it as the Dragon Gate, eh?

The mythological hybrid you have identified as a dragon was called Mušhuššu by the Babylonians. It was the sacred animal of the god Marduk and his son Nabi. If you are unfamiliar with mythological hybrids do a search on Wikipedia for Mythological Hybrids. These are “mythological creatures combining body parts of more than one real species.” This is not a dragon, GodIsSalvation. It has the head of a snake, the front legs and paws of a cat (probably a lion), and the hind legs and feet of a bird (possibly an eagle). It is a mishmash of the various body parts of extant animals.

Now, if you want to play at cryptozoology you could identify the torso and neck of the creature as belonging to a large animal called Sivatherium which is identified in science as belonging to the giraffe family. It ranged from Africa through the Middle East to India and is thought to have become extinct some 8,000 years ago, but who knows. It is known from rock paintings in the Sahara and perhaps a pocket of these creatures survived until historical times and served as the model for Mušhuššu. Oh, have you noticed that Sivatherium had horns on its head not totally dissimilar to those of Mušhuššu? Perhaps this observation completes the puzzle?

This gate was removed and is now supposed to be in Germany.

It is in a museum in Berlin, Germany.

And before anyone says it is a cat or whatever, one will note there are very distinct pictures of lions, aurochs, and such animals on the gate as well for you to compare.

So you think that because the lions and aurochs are portrayed accurately then the depiction of Mušhuššu must also be accurate. Well, I would say it is an accurate depiction Mušhuššu, the sacred animal of the gods Markuk and Nabi. The presence of Mušhuššu on the gate identifies the city as under the protection of Marduk, “the chief god of Babylon, who became lord of the gods of heaven and earth after conquering Tiamat, the monster of primeval chaos.” (ODE)

Any doubts?

 

[ColinCat]

Yes, and science hasn't gotten their story right at all. Some says that the T-Rex has feathers because of their scientific observation of the fossil's feet that resembles a feet of a bird. So it tell me that all of their theories are speculations.

So how come those carvings on that temple match our misconceptions of what dinosaurs look like?

 

[Cycel]

So how come those carvings on that temple match our misconceptions of what dinosaurs look like?

Hi ColinCat, notice also that the dinosaur carvings all seem to match the most popular four dinosaurs: T-Rex, Triceratops, Stegosaurus, and sauropods. They are never of unknown dinosaurs.

 

[ColinCat]

Hi ColinCat, notice also that the dinosaur carvings all seem to match the most popular four dinosaurs: T-Rex, Triceratops, Stegosaurus, and sauropods. They are never of unknown dinosaurs.

I wonder of there are any brontosaurus carvings on them stones or pillars...

 

[Cycel]

I wonder of there are any brontosaurus carvings on them stones or pillars...

LOL! That would be a good one. I'd love to see that.

 

[4enlightment]

Please show me the exact picture you claim is a dinosaur bone that is less than 6000 years old.

A picture from a paleontology journal with an article explaining why it is less than 6000 years old would be good.

I won't hold my breath while I wait for you to find one of those.

I had posted in another post about an certain scientist that is in the area of genetic engineering has said that carbon dating can only goes back so many thousands of years, and they has found in some fossil of bones that has a lot of amount of C-14 that proves that dinosaurs aren't that old as they said, because the claim of them existing be over millions of years, that there shouldn't be any carbon 14 left, but they found a huge amount and on some they'd found soft tissue.

<strong>[video=youtube_share;udkQwW6aLik]http://youtu.be/udkQwW6aLik[/video]

 

[GodIsSalvation]

I wonder of there are any brontosaurus carvings on them stones or pillars...

Heh, the brontosaurus never has existed in truth. Funny story behind that is the man that named the brontosaurus merely recovered an apatosaurus and named it a brontosaurus in order to try to pre-empt his paleontoligical rival from naming the creature.

Nevertheless, the cylinder from Uruk once again:

 

[4enlightment]

Heh, the brontosaurus never has existed in truth. Funny story behind that is the man that named the brontosaurus merely recovered an apatosaurus and named it a brontosaurus in order to try to pre-empt his paleontoligical rival from naming the creature.

Nevertheless, the cylinder from Uruk once again:

View attachment 90874

All the atheist and pagans are going to say that this is a hoax and or the images is of a turtle out of its shell. I noticed this one was dated 3000 BC.

 

[Cycel]

Yes, and science hasn't gotten their story right at all. Some says that the T-Rex has feathers because of their scientific observation of the fossil's feet that resembles a feet of a bird.

Oh, is that why?You need to look more carefully at the rational behind your claim. The first first T-Rex came to light in 1902, though I don't know if that included foot bones. Certainly when I was a kid the similarity to birds feet was well known, but no one suggested until recently that T-Rex had feathers. It's not for the reason you stated. I won't hand you the answer as you are probably not interested anyway, or you would already know it. The real explanation for the shift in thought is not hard to find.

 

[Cycel]

I had posted in another post about an certain scientist that is in the area of genetic engineering has said that carbon dating can only goes back so many thousands of years, and they has found in some fossil of bones that has a lot of amount of C-14 that proves that dinosaurs aren't that old as they said, because the claim of them existing be over millions of years, that there shouldn't be any carbon 14 left, but they found a huge amount and on some they'd found soft tissue.

I would like to know the identity of this "certain scientist". Also, can you link to a reputable scientific source that confirms the carbon 14 levels in this so-called dinosaur bone; and the bone is of what animal?

When submitting information that would overturn our understanding you need to provide corroborating details, in a convincing way.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Well I am about to head out for a bit, but before I do we shall jump cultures and time eras again, this time we go the ancient Americas thus showing the universality of the dragon/dinosaur even within cultures that had no contact with eachother.

Here we see a petroglyph of yet another sauropod made by the Anasazi:
http://ap.lanexdev.com/user_images/image/rr/2008/0803-9.jpg

 

[4enlightment]

Oh, is that why?You need to look more carefully at the rational behind your claim. The first first T-Rex came to light in 1902, though I don't know if that included foot bones. Certainly when I was a kid the similarity to birds feet was well known, but no one suggested until recently that T-Rex had feathers. It's not for the reason you stated. I won't hand you the answer as you are probably not interested anyway, or you would already know it. The real explanation for the shift in thought is not hard to find.

Paleontologists have long debated this. A string of studies in the past decade have pointed to the potential widespread presence of either feathers or fuzz-like proto-feathers in dinosaur species. In 2012, paleontologists found that a T. rex relative, Yutyrannus huali, had filamentous feathers. If a relative had feathers, why not the king of reptiles itself?
Until a specimen is found with preserved imprints of feathers, though, the jury is out. “We have some opportunity to know if they had feathers because we can find impressions,” says Matthew Carrano, curator of dinosaurs at the National Museum of Natural History. “But it’s highly unlikely that we will ever know its color or the texture of its skin.”
Some scientists have proposed methods of predicting dinosaur color based on the shapes of what they believe to be remains of structures that contain melanin, the pigment responsible for darker colors in modern animals. But other researchers suggest that the structures might instead be the remains of bacterial colonies. Evidence of T. rex skin—whether from impressions or preserved skin—would obviously shed light on the issue, but so far paleontologists haven’t had any luck there. Having darker colored skin certainly might have been an advantageous camouflage for T. rex as a predator.

Five Things We Don’t Know About Tyrannosaurus Rex | Science | Smithsonian

 

[4enlightment]

I would like to know the identity of this "certain scientist". Also, can you link to a reputable scientific source that confirms the carbon 14 levels in this so-called dinosaur bone; and the bone is of what animal?

When submitting information that would overturn our understanding you need to provide corroborating details, in a convincing way.

Bruce Malone

[video=youtube_share;-7t5RRq9Gzs]http://youtu.be/-7t5RRq9Gzs[/video]

 

[ColinCat]

Let's assume for now then that dinosaurs and humans co existed.

Aside from a few questionable carvings and pictures which are mainly found on creationist web sites... Why is there no other documented history on this? If people can draw these apparently accurate pictures, why is there no accurate description of them in any historical texts?