U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Unexplained Mysteries and Paranormal
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-16-2017, 06:16 PM
 
Location: Heart of Dixie
11,499 posts, read 8,594,853 times
Reputation: 25632

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar View Post
For the sake of clarifying a little more...
My croc reference was to explain how man-made depictions of "dinosaur-like" creatures could easily come from seeing alligators and/or large salt water crocodiles, as these creatures have been around a lot longer than humans and have always coexisted with humans.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-16-2017, 10:34 PM
 
4,708 posts, read 7,222,573 times
Reputation: 2488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirt Grinder View Post
My croc reference was to explain how man-made depictions of "dinosaur-like" creatures could easily come from seeing alligators and/or large salt water crocodiles, as these creatures have been around a lot longer than humans and have always coexisted with humans.
Thanks DG. Yes, you're quite right. I was replying to Terryj's post and was simply expanding on it so there would be no mistaking the point, even though Terryj was aiming at showing a flaw in the OP's opinion. The problem is, and I think you would agree, that there are people who sometimes take certain bits and pieces without realizing there's a lot more to the story.

The OP apparently seems to think that dinosaurs and humans coexisted together and that there's ample evidence to support the notion. I think the OP sincerely believes it to be true. However, it also appears that the OP takes a literal religious view about it. In any case, as someone else wondered, I don't think the OP is intentionally trolling. I simply think the OP has seen certain things on the internet from supposedly religious science websites, and assumes that it must be true. I think it's worth mentioning that the subject has been discussed at length in several threads a good number of years ago, mostly in the Religion forum, when it was at that time known as the Religion and Philosophy forum.

One of those bits of "evidence" is the Ta Prohm carving which is in Cambodia. I would have to question whether the OP has ever actually spent any appreciable time in SE Asia. In any case, the websites, such as Bible.com, have gone to great lengths to supposedly support such claims as a way of attracting more followers along which come requests for generous donations. There are other websites, but they end up referring to Bible.com's photos and claims. The question then is whether or not the Ta Prohm carving actually depicts a dinosaur.

The column of the dino carving includes other animals that were and still are common in the area. There are animals carved above the dino carving and below it. The link shows all three animals. Click the pic to enlarge it for better detail.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/--ca4Z2Fiyw...Angkor+Wat.jpg

A photo with a good close-up shows that the animal in question has what appears to be a horn because its curved on both sides of the horn. It also looks like there's a second horn although it's very faint, possibly worn from weathering. The OP mentioned something about a neck. I'm not sure what that's about. Also, if you look at the feet of the animal, you'll find they appear to be hooves. The roundish or bulky body is also something that rang a bell for me. Keep in mind that the image is stylized. It's not a true representation although close enough to make it out. Link below shows the so-called steggy. Again click the pic for an enlargement.
http://www.asiaforjesus.org/wp-conte...0/dsc00057.jpg

In South and SE Asia, there is a wild form of cattle called "gaur". In some ways, they looks similar to water buffalo, although the gaur is a bit larger. The gaur is the largest bovine in the world, as far as I know. They stand taller than a man. It has a massive hump on it's back that looks similar to an American Bison. And the gaur have both horns and hooves, and a back that looks sort of arched or rounded.

There aren't as many gaur today as there was in the past, but there are still a good number of them around and are seen quite often. People long ago would have been quite familiar with the gaur. Note the hooves in the photos.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaur#Threats

gaur - Bing images

http://elelur.com/data_images/mammals/gaur/gaur-07.jpg

http://buzzfeed.altervista.org/wp-co...on-600x400.jpg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2017, 10:58 PM
 
Location: China
2,108 posts, read 2,548,304 times
Reputation: 1904
Mike555, Post # 45 I am sure you dont want anyone to run away with the idea that large elephants and hippos have large tails.

Quote:
The passage does not say that 'Behemoth' has a tail like a cedar as if referring to a massive tail. It says that he moves or bends his tail like a cedar. This is poetic and could simply be referring to the animal's tail moving in a way that resembles the branches of a cedar tree bending and swaying in the wind. This could very easily be referring to a hippo or an elephant.
Have you ever seen a hippo or an elephant with much of a tail? As far as I am aware, they have small tails which can hardly be poetically described as moving like a cedar branch ! A cow has probably got more of a cedar tail than either of these animals.

NightBazaar - On the carving, the tail is thick and extends down to the ground, not like a bovine tail. The legs are thick too and do not appear end with hooves. To my mind, the legs and feet look more like thick elephant legs and feet. Look at the way the back legs do not bend at 'the elbow' like the Gaur. The fins/scales down the back could be trees or anything in the background but they could also be the fins/scales along the ridge of the spine of the animal too. The 'horns' look to me more like the plate on the back of the head which some dinos have.

Last edited by ocpaul20; 01-16-2017 at 11:15 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2017, 12:21 AM
 
18,184 posts, read 13,894,334 times
Reputation: 5970
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
A Rhino's horn is on its nose. Not on the side of the head. Quite apart from what you think you see, the head on the carving bears no resemblance at all to the head of a Stegosaurus. It is far to massive and has the wrong shape.



PIS, many Bible commentators have commented on Job 40:15-24 without taking the animal that is described as being a dinosaur. The passage does not say that 'Behemoth' has a tail like a cedar as if referring to a massive tail. It says that he moves or bends his tail like a cedar. This is poetic and could simply be referring to the animal's tail moving in a way that resembles the branches of a cedar tree bending and swaying in the wind. This could very easily be referring to a hippo or an elephant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
Mike555, Post # 45 I am sure you dont want anyone to run away with the idea that large elephants and hippos have large tails.

Have you ever seen a hippo or an elephant with much of a tail? As far as I am aware, they have small tails which can hardly be poetically described as moving like a cedar branch ! A cow has probably got more of a cedar tail than either of these animals.
You obviously didn't understand what I said. Job 40:15-24 wasn't necessarily commenting on the size of the tail, but could simply be describing the movement of the tail of whatever animal is referred to as moving in a similar way as the branches of a cedar sway in the wind. What ever animal it was referring to, it absolutely was not referring to a dinosaur.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2017, 01:32 AM
 
Location: China
2,108 posts, read 2,548,304 times
Reputation: 1904
Quote:
You obviously didn't understand what I said. Job 40:15-24 wasn't necessarily commenting on the size of the tail, but could simply be describing the movement of the tail of whatever animal is referred to as moving in a similar way as the branches of a cedar sway in the wind. What ever animal it was referring to, it absolutely was not referring to a dinosaur.
I thought I did, however the poimnt I was making was that the tail of a hippo or elephant could not be described as moving like the branches of a cedar tree because there is so little tail it would be pathetic to liken it to a mighty cedar tree branch blowing in the wind - even poetically.

I was just commenting on the carved image as I saw it and pointing out the differences to a bovine - tail, legs, horns etc and similarities to elephants.

I have no idea whether the Bible was or not referring to a dinosaur, but I did read the article (both parts) and there were quite a few points made which seemed to me to be reasonable.

If I remember the article correctly, one point in particular mentioned the scales along the back were not 'discovered' until much later in history. Long after this carving had been done, which suggests it was either a fake young carving or an old carving by someone who knew what these dinosaurs looked like. They could only have done that if they had seen one. There were not enough large Steg fossils to really deduce the existence of the spinal scales up until 1990 sometime (I think). Even now there are not many Steg fossils, the spinal scales were 'discovered' from a piece of fossilized skin I think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2017, 09:03 AM
Status: "Retired and Happy" (set 21 days ago)
 
Location: Naperville, Illinois
3,164 posts, read 2,608,195 times
Reputation: 5396
Creationists like the OP are mostly fundamentalist Protestants, though there are also creationist moslems and Jews. They live in a theological hothouse that arose in panicked response to the threat of Darwin in the 19th century, and what they don't realize is that their arguments are based on a 19th century understanding of thermodynamics, and a 19th century understanding of the fossil record. As a consequence, their arguments and supposed "data" appear naive or quaint to someone grounded in contemporary scientific understandings of the world. They haven't had to keep up to date because being a closed community of like believers, they haven't had to.

They also don't understand that "Christian" doesn't mean "fundamentalist Protestant born after 1850". Until the 19th century most Christians understood the creation narratives in Genesis in symbolic terms rather than as literal interpretations of history; they were myth, but myth was understood to mean stories that revealed something true about the world and its existence (rather than the debased contemporary definition of myth as "untrue"). The fathers of the church going back to the early centuries of the first millennium had no problem with an evolutionary understanding of the world, and at least one of them (can't remember which - maybe Augustine) said that the literal understanding of the text of scripture was the simplest and most "primitive" way of reading them.

One of the fathers of the 20th century neo-darwinian synthesis (which brought genetics and natural selection together) was Theodosius Dobzhansky, who was an Eastern Orthodox Christian (my own tradition). He wrote these things in "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" (1973):

Quote:
I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way.
...
Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts.... the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.
Our contemporary, Kenneth Miller, is an evolutionary biologist and Roman Catholic who has systematically destroyed the claims of the creationist and intelligent design crowd. He wrote:

Quote:
I always reject the term ‘theistic evolutionist.’ I am a theist and an evolutionist, to be sure, but the combined term makes no sense to me. Never heard anyone described as a ‘theistic chemist,’ have you?
To the OP: read the following two books by Kenneth Miller, and decide for yourself whether he or your creationist sources speak the truth.

Miller, K.R. (2008) Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul

Miller, K.R. (1999) Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution

Sources:

Meet the Prizewinning Catholic Biologist Creationists Can
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nothin...t_of_Evolution

Last edited by Vasily; 01-17-2017 at 09:17 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2017, 09:19 AM
 
18,184 posts, read 13,894,334 times
Reputation: 5970
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocpaul20 View Post
I thought I did, however the poimnt I was making was that the tail of a hippo or elephant could not be described as moving like the branches of a cedar tree because there is so little tail it would be pathetic to liken it to a mighty cedar tree branch blowing in the wind - even poetically.

I was just commenting on the carved image as I saw it and pointing out the differences to a bovine - tail, legs, horns etc and similarities to elephants.

I have no idea whether the Bible was or not referring to a dinosaur, but I did read the article (both parts) and there were quite a few points made which seemed to me to be reasonable.

If I remember the article correctly, one point in particular mentioned the scales along the back were not 'discovered' until much later in history. Long after this carving had been done, which suggests it was either a fake young carving or an old carving by someone who knew what these dinosaurs looked like. They could only have done that if they had seen one. There were not enough large Steg fossils to really deduce the existence of the spinal scales up until 1990 sometime (I think). Even now there are not many Steg fossils, the spinal scales were 'discovered' from a piece of fossilized skin I think.
Actually, an elephant's tail can be fairly long. Observe the motion of the tail of the elephant in the two GIF's below.


gif of elephant moving tail - Bing images

And there are different species of Cedar trees which look quite different from each other. I think it's entirely possible that Job 40:15-24 could be poetically comparing the motion of an elephant's tail with the swaying of the branches of a Cedar tree.

Job 40:17 "He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are knit together.''

Well, it's just a thought.

Last edited by Mike555; 01-17-2017 at 09:30 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2017, 11:58 AM
Status: "the sun is not yellow, it's chicken" (set 14 hours ago)
 
Location: Bel Air, California
18,528 posts, read 17,979,726 times
Reputation: 27899
isn't the Flintstones based in some part on science? that family had a dinosaur as a pet I recall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2017, 12:03 PM
Status: "Semi-beneficent." (set 6 days ago)
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
19,901 posts, read 9,796,416 times
Reputation: 9420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghengis View Post
isn't the Flintstones based in some part on science? that family had a dinosaur as a pet I recall.
The Flintstones is as scientifically accurate as the bible.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2017, 09:49 PM
 
Location: China
2,108 posts, read 2,548,304 times
Reputation: 1904
Ok, so now they think it was possible that life existed BEFORE the current evolutionary period.

By studying the selenium oxidation signature in old rocks, it appears that there was a period where oxygen was abundant and when multicellular complex life could have developed.

Article here

Quote:
To figure this out, the team analysed traces of the chemical element selenium trapped in pieces of sedimentary shale dating back between 2.4 and 2 billion years ago.

They were looking to see if the selenium had been changed by the presence of oxygen, or oxidised - a reaction that leaves a signature in the ratio of selenium isotopes stored in the rocks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Unexplained Mysteries and Paranormal

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top