What of the dinosaurs?

[4enlightment]

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?

I'm so sorry, I didn't know that Wiki's sites belong to them creationist.


[h=3]Cylinder seals[edit][/h]

Cylinder seal of Uruk displaying a confronted-lioness motif sometimes described as a "serpopard" - 3000 BC - Louvre​

Examples of confronted animals exist on Cylinder seals from Mesopotamia. Deities, or heroes grasping lionesses, cattle, griffins, or other imaginary creatures are sometimes found.
Many cylinder seals involving confronted goats surrounding a central Tree of life on a 'cone' or 'mountain' platform share one common theme. Others may be thought of as deities holding the animals under their control.
Because cylinder seals are numerous and also come from pre-historical periods, back to the fourth or fifth millenniums, themes are varied. Another Tree of life type of confronted animals cylinder seal has a "hero grasping water buffalo" and a "bull-man grasping lions", each between the animals; again, the central figure is the "Tree-of-Life" that often is interpreted as representing a goddess.
Confronted animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And yes people does know how to draw, but do you think that it is coincidence that someone had created an image of a being that hasn't been discovered? Maybe they were an advance civilization that had their own set of archaeologist that discovered before we had discovered them, like how Columbus discovered the new world.

 

[Cycel]

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.

This image is certainly interesting. I would like to see the comments of an archeologist who specializes in this material. As with the so-called dragons on the Ishtar Gate, history often gives a different explanation. The dragons are representations of Mušhuššu, the sacred animal of Marduk, and marks the city as being under that god's protection. These sauropod-like images might mean something quite different to an historian or archeologist. It seems that creationists spend their time scouring the Web for images of dinosaur like creatures on ancient artifacts and then present them as evidence of dinosaurs existing along side people, and they do so without any understanding of the material they are putting forward.

I am curious. Answers in Genesis states the Flood occurred in 2348 BC. That would place this artifact at a date some 650 years prior to the Flood. Was it recovered from beneath significant flood deposits? Do you know? Have you tried to find out?

 

[4enlightment]

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?

And another thing, maybe why it isn't mentioned in history books, it is maybe they doesn't want it to be known that their theory on evolution to be a book of non factual events, and do you know how much that it'll cost to re-written history? Lucky Darwin didn't recant on his theory of evolution or it will cost millions of dollars, and lucky the sphinx was never underwater.

 

[ColinCat]

And another thing, maybe why it isn't mentioned in history books, it is maybe they doesn't want it to be known that their theory on evolution to be a book of non factual events, and do you know how much that it'll cost to re-written history? Lucky Darwin didn't recant on his theory of evolution or it will cost millions of dollars, and lucky the sphinx was never underwater.

Of course.. it's a massive conspiracy

 

[4enlightment]

This image is certainly interesting. I would like to see the comments of an archeologist who specializes in this material. As with the so-called dragons on the Ishtar Gate, history often gives a different explanation. The dragons are representations of Mušhuššu, the sacred animal of Marduk, and marks the city as being under that god's protection. These sauropod-like images might mean something quite different to an historian or archeologist. It seems that creationists spend their time scouring the Web for images of dinosaur like creatures on ancient artifacts and then present them as evidence of dinosaurs existing along side people, and they do so without any understanding of the material they are putting forward.

I am curious. Answers in Genesis states the Flood occurred in 2348 BC. That would place this artifact at a date some 650 years prior to the Flood. Was it recovered from beneath significant flood deposits? Do you know? Have you tried to find out?

I'd noticed that in this site that I had posted, that the Mesopotamia had created images of certain people that had dominion over certain creatures. Maybe they had looked up to these mighty ones during their time.

Confronted animals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[4enlightment]

It does says in the scriptures that their were giants in those times, but some think it was referring to giant people, but then it goes on and says that their were man of renown, mighty men, and which they must of had been mighty in some area like controlling certain mighty creatures, like Samson was. And so these people were looking up to them, but still they had fallen into the Mesopotamian ways, but they were mighty than them as Samson was considered mighty to the Philistines.

2 Samuel 1:25 “How the mighty have fallen in battle! Jonathan lies slain on your heights.

 

[4enlightment]

Mesopotamian Monsters in Paris - creation.com

 

[ColinCat]

Mesopotamian Monsters in Paris - creation.com

Another creationist website?

 

[4enlightment]

[video=youtube_share;X4FOsxvCOc4]http://youtu.be/X4FOsxvCOc4[/video]

 

[4enlightment]

Another creationist website?

Someone has to unveil what has been hidden from others.

 

[4enlightment]

The Loch Ness Monster is a cryptid, a creature whose existence has been suggested but has not been discovered or documented by the scientific community.[SUP][3][/SUP] It is reputedly a large unknown animal that inhabits Loch Ness in the Scottish Highlands. It is similar to other supposed lake monsters in Scotland and elsewhere, though its description varies from one account to the next. Popularinterest and belief in the animal's existence has varied since it was first brought to the world's attention in 1933. Evidence of its existence is anecdotal, with minimal and much-disputed photographic material and sonar readings.
The most common speculation among believers is that the creature represents a line of long-surviving plesiosaurs.[SUP][4][/SUP] The scientific community regards the Loch Ness Monster as a modern-day myth, and explains sightings as including misidentifications of more mundane objects, outright hoaxes, and wishful thinking.[SUP][5][/SUP] Despite this, it remains one of the most famous examples ofcryptozoology. The legendary monster has been affectionately referred to by the nickname Nessie[SUP][/SUP] (Scottish Gaelic: Niseag)[SUP][6][/SUP]since the 1940s.[SUP][7]

[/SUP]
[TABLE="class: infobox, width: 22"]
Loch Ness Monster[TR]
[TH="colspan: 2, align: center"](Nessie, Niseag, "Nessiteras rhombopteryx")[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 2, align: center"]

The "Surgeon's Photograph" (now known to be a hoax)
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Grouping[/TH]
[TD]Cryptid[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Sub grouping[/TH]
[TD]Lake monster[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]First reported[/TH]
[TD]565 (retrospectively),[SUP][a][/SUP]
1802 (chronologically)[SUP][2][/SUP][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Last reported[/TH]
[TD]2014[SUP][citation needed][/SUP][/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Country[/TH]
[TD]Scotland[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Region[/TH]
[TD]Loch Ness[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH]Habitat[/TH]
[TD]Water[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[ColinCat]

Someone has to unveil what has been hidden from others.

Why is no one outside of your faith taking any notice of this apparently game changing evidence?

 

[4enlightment]

[video=youtube_share;hxdqvUDIscw]http://youtu.be/hxdqvUDIscw[/video]

 

[JesusIsAll]

The Loch Ness Monster is a cryptid, a creature whose existence has been suggested but has not been discovered or documented by the scientific community.[SUP][3][/SUP] It is reputedly a large unknown animal that inhabits Loch Ness in the Scottish Highlands. It is similar to other supposed lake monsters in Scotland and elsewhere, though its description varies from one account to the next. Popularinterest and belief in the animal's existence has varied since it was first brought to the world's attention in 1933. Evidence of its existence is anecdotal, with minimal and much-disputed photographic material and sonar readings.

Never got around to it, but I really need to do a Bible study, with regards to verses addressing Biblical tourism promotion. Roswell, New Mexico has similar issues, which I understand involve some "gray area."

 

[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.

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?

The remainder of the blurb you posted did not bare on the topic at hand. The theropod, Yutyrannus huali, is a tyrannosaurus relative as pointed out in the article that has now been shown to be covered with feathers that are up to almost 8 inches in length. The diagram below shows the size and just how much this animals resembles the T-rex. If it has feathers, and it does, then why not T-rex?

While there is no direct evidence for Tyrannosaurus rex having had feathers, many scientists now consider it likely that T. rex had feathers on at least parts of its body, due to their presence in related species of similar size. Dr. Mark Norell of the American Museum of Natural History summarized the balance of evidence by stating that: “we have as much evidence that T. rex was feathered, at least during some stage of its life, as we do that australopithecines like Lucy had hair.”

A question to you might be, just why are you so opposed to T-rex having feathers?

 

[Cycel]

4enlightenment, you do realize that the images you posted of the Kraken and others, are fictional?

 

[Bride]

It's an interesting debate but don't get caught up in it. I think our priorities should be winning souls to Christ and not so much trying to prove who's right and wrong about the age of the earth.

Agree. It makes not one whit of dif. I'd fellowship someone who believed in a literal seven 24 hour days of creation, as long as they didn't go around broadcasting it, but instead spent their time telling others about the Word of God.

 

[Bride]

The dinosaurs lived millions and millions of years ago, long before apes appeared. Praise Jesus!

 

[Billyd]

It's an interesting debate but don't get caught up in it. I think our priorities should be winning souls to Christ and not so much trying to prove who's right and wrong about the age of the earth.

I agree. I can't believe that I have sit here and read this whole thread. If as much energy spent on arguing creationism were spent on the obeying Matthew 28:19-20, we would have a growing Christian population rather than a shrinking one. MHO.

 

[Cycel]

This image is certainly interesting. I would like to see the comments of an archeologist who specializes in this material. As with the so-called dragons on the Ishtar Gate, history often gives a different explanation. The dragons are representations of Mušhuššu, the sacred animal of Marduk, and marks the city as being under that god's protection. These sauropod-like images might mean something quite different to an historian or archeologist. It seems that creationists spend their time scouring the Web for images of dinosaur like creatures on ancient artifacts and then present them as evidence of dinosaurs existing along side people, and they do so without any understanding of the material they are putting forward.

I am curious. Answers in Genesis states the Flood occurred in 2348 BC. That would place this artifact at a date some 650 years prior to the Flood. Was it recovered from beneath significant flood deposits? Do you know? Have you tried to find out?

I'd noticed that in this site that I had posted, that the Mesopotamia had created images of certain people that had dominion over certain creatures. Maybe they had looked up to these mighty ones during their time.

I don't believe you responded to anything I said.

On the matter of the sauropod-like creatures on the Egyptian seal, I believe I've solved the matter. They are stylized lions, not dinosaurs. You will see the same motif on the pottery depicted below, but in much finer detail.

Now, they no longer look like dinosaurs. Note that the Egyptians are known for creating fanciful creatures and animal-human gods. My question here is: Why don't creation web sites show such images as this piece of pottery? Answer: It would undermine their claim that the other image is that of a dinosaur.