What of the dinosaurs?

[GodIsSalvation]

And here is another ancient Egyptian palette depiction of sauropods:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YmoztdZYP...ktzE/s1600/Dinosaurs_of_Egyptian_Pyramids.jpg

As we can see, the ancient Egyptians just like the ancient Romans and Greeks depict dinosaurs/dragons very much in their artwork thousands of years before the Old Earth Myth was ever created (1800s AD.) Next to ancient accounts of the worldwide Flood, dinosaurs living with man are one of the very few universalities of secular ancient cultures.

 

[Percepi]

And here is another ancient Egyptian palette depiction of sauropods:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YmoztdZYP...ktzE/s1600/Dinosaurs_of_Egyptian_Pyramids.jpg

As we can see, the ancient Egyptians just like the ancient Romans and Greeks depict dinosaurs/dragons very much in their artwork thousands of years before the Old Earth Myth was ever created (1800s AD.) Next to ancient accounts of the worldwide Flood, dinosaurs living with man are one of the very few universalities of secular ancient cultures.

The same exact criticisms I had for your last post also apply here:

There are several paleontological discoveries in Egypt, as there are all over the world. This itself does not prove dinosaurs existed alongside man, it only proves something's bones are in the ground.

Oh right, because you deny stratigraphy and accept the idea that multiple strata were planted by a universal flood. Of course, a universal flood wouldn't result in several different strata, it would result in a single stratum.



So far, you've only proven that you have no idea what a dinosaur is.



For example, the creatures depicted on this slab have long necks like sauropods. That's one similarity.

They also have curly tails, like saur...felines. Hmmm.

Well, the face is clearly that of a... feline. . . Huh.

Ah! The outer ears clearly proves it's... oh. Dinosaurs didn't have outer ears did they? They're sort of round like the ears of fe. . .

Well! It has a long neck. And if it has a long neck, then it must be a sauropod!

DOH!

Obviously, the Egyptian slab doesn't depict a giraffe. But if you're going to argue that it's a sauropod, then you'll be just as wrong as if you were to argue that it's a giraffe.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

Your criticisms do not apply because they are illogical. You show a picture of a giraffe and say the Narmer Palette does not depict a giraffe. Therefore it is illogical to say that because the dinosaurs on the Narmer Palette are not giraffes they are not dinosaurs. That is like me saying that because that picture of a giraffe does not depict a dinosaur it is not a giraffe.

Consider that we can trace back various hard evidences of dinosaurs alongside man throughout both time eras and geography from the Renaissance to the Ancientmost ages, from ancient Sumer to the Incan Empire with hard and tangible evidence. Compare this to the Old Earth Mythology that we can only trace back to unproven or disproven theories of the 1800s AD.

Let's examine more evidence, because there is a mountain of it:

http://cmods.org/images/m7egyptian.png

This is an ancient egyptian hieroglyph depicting a plesiosaur type animal.

 

[Percepi]

Your criticisms do not apply because they are illogical.

Oh?

You show a picture of a giraffe and say the Narmer Palette does not depict a giraffe.

But do you know why I said the Narmer Palette doesn't depict a giraffe?

Therefore it is illogical to say that because the dinosaurs on the Narmer Palette are not giraffes they are not dinosaurs.

I never said that. That was not the point I was making when I said the palette doesn't depict a giraffe.

There was only one similarity I could find between sauropods and the creatures on the palette. That similarity is the fact they have long necks. I sarcastically said "Well, if it has a long neck, it must be a sauropod." Then I showed you a picture of a giraffe to prove that just because something has a long neck doesn't mean it's a sauropod.

I then stated that to suggest the creatures are sauropods would be just as wrong as suggesting the creatures are giraffes. Not once did I say "They aren't giraffes, therefore they aren't sauropods."

Consider that we can trace back various hard evidences of dinosaurs alongside man throughout both time eras and geography from the Renaissance to the Ancientmost ages, from ancient Sumer to the Incan Empire with hard and tangible evidence.

Although art can verify certain claims, it isn't hard evidence.

Let's examine more evidence, because there is a mountain of it:

http://cmods.org/images/m7egyptian.png

This is an ancient egyptian hieroglyph depicting a plesiosaur type animal.

Is this the most detailed plesiosaur found in Egyptian art? Where's the tail? And more importantly, if a plesiosaur is being used in Egyptian hieroglyphics, shouldn't we expect to find other works of ancient Egyptian art depicting more detailed images of plesiosaurs? And if it's not a plesiosaur, then what is it?

It's a plucked bird.

There are more images here: Dinosaurs in Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs - Explained

The bird in the above image has a long neck, stubs for wings and legs, and a sliced open stomach. Look at the image below and tell me what you see.

This image is very similar to the one you posted, but with slightly more detail. You can see the beak of the bird as well as the sliced open stomach.

Looks a lot like the image you posted:

Let's examine more evidence, because there is a mountain of it:

So far you're 0-4. Each pillar of evidence you presented has been demolished.

The first image you posted showed a giant lizard like creature, as well as mythical creatures such as a sphinx.
The second and third image you posted were clearly felines with elongated necks.
The fourth image you posted, though it does look sort of like a plesiosaur, is actually a bird.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

In regards to the Narmer Palette these creatures are no depiction of a felines. The ancient Egyptians are particularly well known for their reverence of cats and we can observe many cat depictions in ancient egyptian artwork that are clearly cats. Thus the egyptians mistaking a dragon for a cat is highly unlikely. Given also the fact the Narmer Palette was commissioned by or for their king, great care would have been taken in the creation of the artifact. We can see in the other palette also these are clearly sauropod dragons, which are a common royal emblem in the ancient near east due to the royalty reverencing dragons for their size, ferocity, and grandeur.

As for the roman mosaics, your only claim that these are not dinosaurs is you simply saying "These are not dinosaurs." That is not much of a criticism and is easily debunked when clearly in the Palestrina mosaic we have comparison to a crocodile and a snake, and the dinosaur is clearly different than both. As for humanlike faces in the mosaic, this I think would be a product of your imagination for the lions in the picture are depicted as lions are typically depicted. The popular Sphynx by contrast is depicted in ancient artwork typically with a woman's face and breasts. And we can see as this mosaic also depicts humans that the depiction of the lions is not comparable to a human.

As for the Pompeii Mosaic, clearly to the far-right is a creature similar to the dimetrodon or other so-called sail-back dinosaurs. The creature to the far left is possibly a large lizard no longer existent, but it could still also plausibly be a dinosaur, and for little wonder, for the word dinosaur means literally "terrible lizard."

As for the plesiosaur hieroglyph we can see the plesiosaur picture lacks a beak, it has a reptilian snout, the elongated neck, and has hind flippers, not talons. Note also the lack of the incision makrk in the hieroglyph. The best way to tell this is not a bird is to compare this to the hieroglyph of the bird to the left, next to the dinosaur hieroglyph, and we can see a very clear distinction.

At any rate, let us keep examining the hard evidence. We shall switch cultures and time eras now and go to Sumeria, the first known human civilization after the Flood:

http://dl0.creation.com/articles/p063/c06303/Uruk.jpg

Here is a Sumerian cylinder excavated from Uruk/Erech, one of the most ancient cities in known history both biblically and secularly. As we can see this depiction is very similar to the Egyptian dragon depiction even in the stylized wrapping of the necks.

 

[Markum1972]

Haven't had time to read all of the posts but your question is one that I had many years ago.

I believe that every answer is within the scriptures although some may not be as easy to find.

Here are some interesting things I ran across that were relative to dinosaurs...

Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

I have heard many people say they believe that dinosaurs died during Noah's flood. This is because there is a lot of scientific evidence that would support that this could have been the cause of their extinction.

So many Christians have said (me as well at one time) that it must have been Noah's flood.

However, what if there was another flood before. I always thought that God created the heaven and earth in 6 days. However, it could be that he created them "in the beginning" and performed the other indicated tasks in 6 days.

This makes a lot of sense to me cause it would account for the time period that Lucifer had ruled over the earth before man.

So I wondered what Lucifer's dominion might have been like. Then I realized that he, Satan, appeared as a serpent (reptilian beast) in the garden of Eden. What if this was the twisted form him and his followers had been perverted to after the fall? After all, scripture does imply that the serpent had legs before he enticed Adam and Eve and he came from outside the garden. What else was outside the garden? Was it what God told Adam to conquer when saying "subdue the earth"?

Genesis 3:14 And the Lord God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:

Anyways, I never really studied it more than that but thought that was some interesting stuff.

Furthermore, don't let anyone tell you that dinosaurs are not mentioned in the bible. Not only are they mentioned, but they are classified as water, land, and air.

Here is a link to the scriptural references as well as other useful information. Enjoy!

Dinosaurs and the Bible

 

[Percepi]

In regards to the Narmer Palette these creatures are no depiction of a felines. The ancient Egyptians are particularly well known for their reverence of cats and we can observe many cat depictions in ancient egyptian artwork that are clearly cats. Thus the egyptians mistaking a dragon for a cat is highly unlikely.

1. The Egyptians did not mistake a dragon for a cat. In fact, it's obvious the drawing isn't supposed to be a dragon.
2. You're arguing that because Egyptians depicted normal cats, they wouldn't depict mythical versions of felines?

And you'll probably argue that Bastet isn't supposed to be a normal cat but a goddess. Well guess what, the creatures on the palette are obviously not supposed to be normal cats either.

Given also the fact the Narmer Palette was commissioned by or for their king, great care would have been taken in the creation of the artifact. We can see in the other palette also these are clearly sauropod dragons, which are a common royal emblem in the ancient near east due to the royalty reverencing dragons for their size, ferocity, and grandeur.

Clearly sauropod dragons? There is literally no such thing as dragons.
Do you mean sauropod dinosaurs? No, they don't look a thing like sauropods. They look like cats with elongated necks. Sauropods do not have wispy tails, cat faces, outer ears, or paws.

Seriously... I JUST explained this to you... TWICE.

As for the roman mosaics, your only claim that these are not dinosaurs is you simply saying "These are not dinosaurs."

Of course my argument was "These are not dinosaurs" because I know what a bloody dinosaur actually is! What was depicted was a giant lizardlike animal. Dinosaurs were NOT lizardlike! Dinosaurs do not crawl on their bellies! Of course, some ancient animals did - and a small group of them evolved into the lizards we know today.

EVEN THEN, you're completely ignoring the fact that many of the animals had features uncommon to the species they represented. In fact, some of the animals had human characteristics such as the SPHINX which had a lion's body and a HUMAN'S HEAD.

As for humanlike faces in the mosaic, this I think would be a product of your imagination for the lions in the picture are depicted as lions are typically depicted.

You clearly couldn't tell the Egyptian palettes referred to felins with cat-like attributes, so what do you know?

As for the Pompeii Mosaic, clearly to the far-right is a creature similar to the dimetrodon or other so-called sail-back dinosaurs. The creature to the far left is possibly a large lizard no longer existent, but it could still also plausibly be a dinosaur, and for little wonder, for the word dinosaur means literally "terrible lizard."

Yes, the word dinosaur does mean "terrible lizard". That's because early scientists believed dinosaurs to be reptiles. They were wrong.

I forgot about that bit of art that you posted and it's something I should look into. But the painting alone isn't enough evidence humans co-existed with what you think are dinosaurs. (You do not know what a dinosaur is as defined by its current classification.)

The painting would be wonderful evidence if we actually found remains of said species in the area where the paintings originated from.

As for the plesiosaur hieroglyph we can see the plesiosaur picture lacks a beak

No, it doesn't lack a beak. It's long and pointed.

it has a reptilian snout, the elongated neck, and has hind flippers, not talons.

I provided images of Egyptian paintings depicting what are clearly plucked birds drawn in a similar fashion...

What does it feel like to debate with you? Well, it feels like I'm fighting the Black Knight from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

"A scratch? Your arm's off!"
"No it isn't."

I have provided evidence in front of you where you can clearly see for yourself how the image you posted is similar to that of the plucked bird.

Note also the lack of the incision makrk in the hieroglyph. The best way to tell this is not a bird is to compare this to the hieroglyph of the bird to the left, next to the dinosaur hieroglyph, and we can see a very clear distinction.

It's not a falcon, it's a plucked bird.

At any rate, let us keep examining the hard evidence. We shall switch cultures and time eras now and go to Sumeria, the first known human civilization after the Flood:

http://dl0.creation.com/articles/p063/c06303/Uruk.jpg

1. No proof of a flood. Just "The Bible says a flood happened. So whether we have strata or not I'll say it happened either way."

2. They are mythical beasts.

Are you aware that ancient man was capable of creating works of fiction? Just because they depict a creature in art doesn't mean the creature is actually real.

If you want to prove dinosaurs and man co-existed, then you need to find art that looks almost exactly like dinosaurs.

Here is a Sumerian cylinder excavated from Uruk/Erech, one of the most ancient cities in known history both biblically and secularly. As we can see this depiction is very similar to the Egyptian dragon depiction even in the stylized wrapping of the necks.

Wrong yet again. You see creatures on four legs with long necks and assume the artists are referring to the same creature. But the Egyptian Palette was clearly a feline wheras the Sumerian image depicts a creature in which the body doesn't match that of either a feline or a sauropod. The body is entirely wrong - ESPECIALLY the tail! I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there's absolutely zero evidence the Sumerian creature even exists!

 

[Brainfreeze]

omniology.com
These all look like Dino's to me, and for it to be that long ago, with such accuracy, kind of hard to believe they didn't see them, themselves.

 

[Cycel]

And here is another ancient Egyptian palette depiction of sauropods:

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-YmoztdZYP...ktzE/s1600/Dinosaurs_of_Egyptian_Pyramids.jpg

It does not look like a sauropod; it's more like a Nile River soft shell turtle, which have quite long necks. Check out the following video as a demonstration:

Animal Planet Top 25: Fisherman hauls in giant Amazon predator - Bing Videos

The last time I checked a sauropod has an equally long neck. This turtle looking glyph has no tail, but it does have turtle-like legs. It cannot be a sauropod. Honestly, if this glyph appears once then it most likely appears many times. This is not a picture, my friend, it is a glyph representing a word. This is the ancient Egyptian language. Have you investigated to see what word the glyph represents???

 

[Cycel]

omniology.com
These all look like Dino's to me, and for it to be that long ago, with such accuracy, kind of hard to believe they didn't see them, themselves.

What do you know about these so-called burial stones? Yes, those are definitely depictions of triceratop and T-Rex, but the artistic representation of T-Rex appears based on the 1865 reconstruction of Joseph Leidy. In the 1970s Jack Horner had shown this model to be inaccurate. Whoever created these stones was working from an understanding of T-Rex that was current only since the late 1800s. These are not from antiquity. You may not be familiar enough with paleontology to recognize the art form, but I am. You have been duped.

 

[4enlightment]

Here's a site that show that man had co-existed with Dinosaurs.

Did Men and Dinosaurs live at the same time?

 

[Cycel]

Here's a site that show that man had co-existed with Dinosaurs.

Did Men and Dinosaurs live at the same time?

You need to be more critical of your sources. I require evidence that this carving is actually part of the temple. Can you show it to me in an archeological publication? Why are these images to be found only on creationist websites? Here's a point of criticism. The depiction of stegosaurus in this 'carving' resembles antiquated reconstructions from the 1800s to the late 1960s. Why is that?

Notice in the image above that the whole block containing the stegosaurus is a different colour than the other blocks of the temple. Somewhere there is another image of this fellow standing beside an unaltered view of the actual facade. The creationist website tries to argue the the photographer cleaned that one block prior to taking the image. Yeah, right! Why doesn't the creation website source the photo?

 

[Word_Swordsman]

Lol.

So anybody who doesn't agree with YOUR "Bible account of beginnings ought to not be allowed" you say?

It would appear you are desperately seeking affirmation and not information.

There are already websites where people like you can read nothing but YEC propaganda. These websites are frequently copy and pasted from and linked to in these forums.

And for an even better frontal lobotomy, you can watch Kent Hovind videos.

I have engaged in both Talk.origins and true.origins together since they began, finding it all too exhausting for someone operating private businesses. It is a constant back and forth battle zone between Christians and naturalists. I had to choose venues, focusing on the Bible discussions and live ministry away from the internet. I have no need of affirmation. But many visitors here will not find affirmation or truth-building from anyone promoting naturalistic evolution.
Letting people post any topic for that matter that attacks the Bible accounts, any of them, ought to be off limits. I have no problem with evolutionary opinion, or actual science being promoted as long as those comments respect the Bible as final authority within that thread. There might be a standing rule about that. I'll go check that out.

I have plenty of reason for that, having been involved in many of these sites, at all levels of operations. When left unregulated it is common for pro Bible comments to be buried daily by a team of promoters of propaganda that discourages true seekers of Bible knowledge. Once the group achieves dominance the owner is faced with steady loss of the original intended target membership, and whether to continue the time and expense of administering a site for the hijackers. I still smart from the days when you had to have your own servers, and tending to hourly moderator alerts night and day.

The civility problem is yet another issue that births over and over to establish guile between members here. That isn't a useful witness.

 

[Timeline]

Well this got derailed real fast.

Let's get back on track. Forget Kent Hovind and revisionist atheists and OJ Simpson. Let us examine some evidence.

Here is a link to a picture of the famous Palestrina Mosaic a 1st Century AD Roman artwork, and one of the oldest paintings still in existence.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Nile_Mosaic.jpg

If you click on the picture you can zoom into various parts of this artwork. To the mid-right of the picture is a depiction of a dinosaur in some water surrounded by people. Now many atheist revisionists attempt to beguile the public and say that "This is a crocodile." This explanation would seem plausible on the surface, however, if you look in the lowermost lefthand corner you can clearly see crocodiles depicted in the same picture and they are not the same as the dinosaur depicted in the picture. This is a fact atheist revisionists tend to omit. Thus we can tell by comparison the dinosaur/dragon in the Palestrina Mosaic is not at all a crocodile. Some might weakly attempt to say this creature is a snake, but again in the mosaic, to the top left corner you can clearly see a snake. It is simple to conclude the dinosaur in the mosaic is its own type of creature.

I noticed something interesting. Maybe I'm seeing it incorrectly, but at the top left hand of the picture there seems to be a very large snake. I just watched a show called Titanoboa about a snake they estimated being around 48 feet long. Of course they claimed that she was millions of years old. Anyway, the snake at the top left of this painting seems to be of comparable size.

Again, maybe I'm seeing something that isn't there.

 

[JackH]

I have no problem with evolutionary opinion, or actual science being promoted as long as those comments respect the Bible as final authority within that thread.

Ah yes, but then you have the issue of whose interpretation of the Bible is the final authority. Yours? Mine? The owner of this site? Why, we have individuals on this site who claim the KJV and the KJV ONLY is the final authority.

But getting back on the dinosaur track (and not the one where humans also walked), I have some questions for you on your post before this one. Coming soon.

 

[JackH]

T. Rex lived mostly where currently is Western North America. Migration of people from Asia into that area happened very recently in the human timeline, so if any connection of earliest N. Americans is made to drawings of dinosaurs or other records, that would at least verify coexistence of humans and dinosaurs where dinosaurs lived. That explains why nobody in the Middle East saw such a dinosaur, and inclusion of it in the Bible would have amounted to a fairy tale to early readers.

I doubt any dinosaurs would have survived in significant numbers during region-wide human food shortages after the flood, such animals making fine meals for very hungry folks.

Several questions for you pertaining to this post:

Right, we know T. rex lived in Montana and South Dakota, because that’s where most of the bones have been discovered.

Now, you say that the migration from Asia to North America happened very recently in the human timeline. What date, approximately, would you put to that migration?

Do you believe that there are Native American drawings and records that prove the coexistence of dinosaurs and humans? If so, please cite some of them.

You mention the Flood. And you believe it was global? What date, approximately, do you associate with said Flood?

 

[G4SDavid]

Evolution, like Zeus and these other "gods" is a myth and a religion, not science. There is no "missing link" In fact, the entire chain is missing

 

[Timeline]

Habakkuk 2:18
“What profit is the idol when its maker has carved it, Or an image, a teacher of falsehood? For its maker trusts in his own handiwork When he fashions speechless idols.

 

[Eva1218]

GOD created all things ALL. Animals were made look at Genesis 1:20-25 Colossians 1:16 John 1:3 The dinosaurs died during the flood thus this is why bones, fossils are found.. GOD will not have us ignorant HE reveals to us the scriptures say to ask, seek, and knock. Now keep in mind when dealing with an atheist they continue to refute Bible scripture yet even in their mind they can not prove that there is no GOD, they choose to believe in man who GOD has created. GOD has allowed those who want to be blind to be blind those who truly want to see their eyes will be opened. As a Christian we are not to prove GOD is we must live a life before them and share. They say the Bible is man made because GOD has Inspired men to write but they will not see that what they write come from GOD whether it is an experience, vision, dream Divine Revelation etc.. what helps me is that I ask them to help me see as they see then I ask questions to make them think on their belief there will Always be a flaw lol then wherever that occurs I show them scriptures regarding that. most Important Always Pray and ask GOD to Reveal and open their eyes in JESUS Name.
Matthew 16:13-17 Notice JESUS first let it be known HE is the SON of GOD then revelation came more clear to Peter who was pondering the thought which Peter stated that JESUS was not only the SON of GOD but the CHRIST SON of the Living GOD then JESUS made it known to Peter how he knew who JESUS is thus the Revelation came from the FATHER not himself meaning John :")

Blessings!!!!!!!

 

[Percepi]

omniology.com
These all look like Dino's to me, and for it to be that long ago, with such accuracy, kind of hard to believe they didn't see them, themselves.

As Cycel pointed out, these stones have already been proven to be frauds. If you'd like more information on how we know they're frauds, let me know and I'll dig the source up. Of course, I'd be surprised if you actually did this since nobody ever wants me to provide sources. They tend to post something else as if they were never wrong.

Here's a site that show that man had co-existed with Dinosaurs.

Did Men and Dinosaurs live at the same time?

I'll have to look into Cycel's post. But from what I can tell, the carving doesn't even depict a stegosaurus. Again, this is one of those images that do coincidentally look sort of like an incredibly poorly portrayed dinosaur. But if you know what a stegosaurus looks like, you'll know this depiction isn't of one. The head is way too big, it has two external ears, it's feet are plantigrade (needs to be digitigrade), its tail is again entirely wrong... This creature shares far more traits with the rhino than it does a stegosaurus (and even then it doesn't look much like anything we know of). So what about the plates on its back? Considering every other trait of the creature doesn't match a stegosaurus, it would be more logical to conclude they're likely part of the background design.

In the end though, we need to take a step back and look at it for what it is. It's an out of place portion of the temple that's incredibly poorly designed compared to the other carvings and it just doesn't resemble anything we know - not even a stegosaurus. Of course, if you found a stegosaurus in that area of Cambodia that has external ears or two horns facing upward, with consistent sized legs, then the art would help verify it's existence with man. But we don't have such fossils.

Again, as usual, one would expect other portions of the temple depicting stegosaurus as well if they lived alongside man. Why would they only briefly show a single stegosaurus while portraying other animals numerous times in their art?