ARCHIVE - An honest question....

Mr. Ben

New member
The image below is from Peru and dated around 1500.

Knight has attached this image:

Actually those rocks date to around the late 1970's, early 1980's, and they're obviously made in the traditional way (with carbide hacksaw blades).

These stones come up pretty frequently on creationists sites, and the creationists are often suprised that they are complete frauds.

http://skepdic.com/icastones.html
 

KurtPh

New member
Originally posted by Knight
Kurt this is one of those frustrating conversations.

What would be the harm in admitting that the images on the cylinder look remarkably like dinosaurs?[/B]

I'm being quite honest with you. I don't see it as looking like a dinosaur at all. Perhaps we're both have different criteria in our evaluation. When I look at the picture of those creatures, I see characteristics which are mammal rather than reptile.

Its not like the admission would prove young earth creationism or anything.

You're right, it wouldn't. That's not the reason why I say that those creatures look like giraffs.


Several animals thought to have been extinct have been found very much alive. Isn’t it possible that certain creatures that are now extinct were still alive in the recent past?

Right on both counts. There have been a number of animals, fish, reptiles, etc which have been found which were unknown to us before. There have been some creatures found which we believed to have died off millions of years ago. I'm willing to look at evidence which proports to show the existence of dinosaurs, but extrordinary claims do require extrodinary evidence, and thus far that's been lacking. Many of the pictures are so fuzzy you can't make hide nor tail of them, and some are clear forgeries (as admitted by many of the forgers themselves). Ancient art, while providing interesting food for thought, is not evidence that such huge creatures walked with man. Personally, I would like very much if dinosaurs were alive and if credible evidence is presented, I'll support it 100%. Still, there's nothing wrong with being a skeptic when.


It wasn’t that long ago I was an atheist myself debating Christians but I cannot imagine being so far gone into my position that I couldn’t have said "wow, that is weird, it does look an awful lot like some sort of dinosaur".


But this really has nothing to do with atheism or theism. To my eye, they really don't look like dinosaurs. Honestly. In fact, when I looked at them, I wondered how you could make such a leap. I saw hooves and body types which are inconsistent with dinosaur images. That's what I looked at.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
OK, Kurt what ever you say.

I think you are being a tad bit dishonest.

I showed the picture to several people today, just to see what they would say ( just to make sure I am not going crazy). And every single one of them said it looked like some sort of dinosaur except one that said it looked like a dragon. Oh well, I realize that is simply anecdotal evidence but I am now beginning to wonder about the giraffes you have seen in your lifetime.

It doesn't look EXACTLY like a dinosaur but it sure looks allot more like a dinosaur than a giraffe!
 

Mr. Ben

New member
I would be suprised that out of the many hundreds of thousands of images that humans have made over the millenia, that none of them in any way resembled anything like a dinosaur.

The fact that we finally have at least one that could pass as a dinosaur is pretty much within what would be expected of mere chance.

The Ica stones, on the other hand, show men with triceratops, men with brachiosaurs, and men with stegosaurs. Those are pretty particular dinosaurs, and this is one of the reasons why fraud was suspected, and fraud was eventually uncovered.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Mr. Ben, I became suspicious of the stones as well when I began to read about them myself.

Have you ever heard of the The Acambaro, Mexico, Figurines?

They might be the same type of deal I haven’t been able to discern yet.
 

Mr. Ben

New member
P.S. The Romans new what real crocodiles looked like as seen in the same mosaic. As seen here.

The image makes just as bad a crocodile as it does a dinosaur. No dinosaurs or crocodiles have legs like that, OR a head like that.

I think you're reading too much into a particularly bad rendition by a poor artist of a crocodile.
 

KurtPh

New member
Originally posted by Knight
OK, Kurt what ever you say.

I think you are being a tad bit dishonest.[/B]

Well now, I've told you what I honestly think. If you decide not to believe me, then that's your issue. As a general rule, however, I really don't care being called a liar. I know this isn't necessarily what you intended, but I have to say that it was not appreciated.


I showed the picture to several people today, just to see what they would say ( just to make sure I am not going crazy). And every single one of them said it looked like some sort of dinosaur except one that said it looked like a dragon. Oh well, I realize that is simply anecdotal evidence but I am now beginning to wonder about the giraffes you have seen in your lifetime.

I likely have seen more living giraffes then you've seen living dinosaurs.


It doesn't look
EXACTLY like a dinosaur but it sure looks allot more like a dinosaur than a giraffe!

And I never said that the creatures looked EXACTLY like giraffes. I said, based on what I know of the culture and their trade relations, a giraffe would be a likely candidate.

I looked again, and I just don't see it. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to sit here and lie.
 
Last edited:

Mr. Ben

New member
I was really stumped by the stones the first time I saw them. The one I saw showed a little guy riding what was obviously a triceratops. I thought that that particular stone could be simply a coincidence, but then the guys showed me several more. That's when I began to suspect foul play. The other stones were obviously dinosaurs, and some of them had outdated poses for them from old dinosaur books.

That's when I found the origin of the Ica stones, and the shenanigans the discoverer had been up to.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Originally posted by Mr. Ben
I was really stumped by the stones the first time I saw them. The one I saw showed a little guy riding what was obviously a triceratops. I thought that that particular stone could be simply a coincidence, but then the guys showed me several more. That's when I began to suspect foul play. The other stones were obviously dinosaurs, and some of them had outdated poses for them from old dinosaur books.

That's when I found the origin of the Ica stones, and the shenanigans the discoverer had been up to.
OK, I think I agree with ya on the ICA stones....

What about the Mesopotamiam Cylinder Seal from approximately 3300 B.C. This is the one Kurt says looks like a Giraffe.
 

Mr. Ben

New member
They look sort of like dragons and griffins to me. They could be dinosaurs, or they could be dragons, or they could be hydras or something else.

I've never seen a dinosaur's tail curl up like a monkey's before.

This is typical of the kind of imagery that really doesn't show much of anythign other than a coincidental and partial resemblance to something we know about today. Nothing more than what we should find by random chance.

It certainly kind of looks like a dinosaur except for the tail and the head.. but I suppose there are many other vases that kind of look like dinosaurs, and kind of look like whatever. Erik Von Daniken found lots of pictures he thought looked like space-men and space-craft, and airplanes. It is easy to see what we want to see in some types of abstract pictures.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Ben says….
They look sort of like dragons and griffins to me. They could be dinosaurs, or they could be dragons, or they could be hydras or something else.

I've never seen a dinosaur's tail curl up like a monkey's before.
Oh, no doubt that they are stylized that’s for sure! After all I doubt dinosaurs curled around each other like that ;)

So what do you make of images of dragons? Many of them look very much like a dinosaur of some type. What do you think (in your opinion) was the origin of these types of images?
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
And Ben, maybe you missed my question because these posts are flying fast and furious but have you ever heard of the The Dinosaur Figurines Of Acambaro, Mexico? There are about 33,000 of them. Maybe they are fakes like the ICA stones I haven’t had time to look into it very well yet.

I attached an image of some Acambaro, Mexico figurines.
 

Mr. Ben

New member
Many of them look very much like a dinosaur of some type. What do you think (in your opinion) was the origin of these types of images?

Who knows. Possibly imagination, possibly stylized renderings of something else, possibly nothing in particular.. whim. I'd be suprised if after examining thousands upon thousands of these ancient images, we wouldn't find any images that would partially resemble something like a dinosaur. If you look through the same set of pictues, you'll probably find some that look like airplanes, computers, figher jets, etc. from a certain angle or perspective.

There's nothing unusual about this. There is only so many ways of drawing quadrapedal animals, and a few of them, especially the abstract or the poorly rendered ones, are going to inevitably look like dinosaurs occasionally.

I can tell you with great certainty that there has never been any dinosaur fossils found that do not show great antiquity, and are not buried in the Cretaceous, Jurassic, or Triassic layers in the geologic strata. That means that dinosaurs have never been found anywhere near modern animal life, only with other dinosaurs and fossils of small primitive mammals that lived during that period.
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
Ben, Thanks!

Although we disagree, I appreciate your rational answers and responses.

I will try to give you some other items to look at in the near future as my time permits!
 

Nathon Detroit

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
MrReality, you are not being very rational.

The images I have displayed may not look EXACTLY like dinosaurs, I have admitted that already.

But this topic is interesting for the following reasons:

Modern man did not discover dinosaur fossils until the 1800's yet there are these images created well before that time that have some striking similarities to how WE modern humans visualize dinosaurs.

This presents an interesting dilemma because according to many scientists, men and dinosaurs existed in DRASTICALLY different time frames separated by millions of years. The time frame difference should not allow even the "passing down" of legends of dinosaurs or giant reptiles. So why would we find these images that look so very similar to what we call dinosaurs?

Furthermore, keep in mind when stating "oh those look nothing like dinosaurs" that even the images that we see today of dinosaurs are only estimations of what dinosaurs looked like since no actual pictures exist. In other words, you cannot boldly claim that we know EXACTLY what dinosaurs looked like because we don't.
 

MrReality

BANNED
Banned
But they don't look anything like dinosaurs. I asked you before what species of dinosaur you think these creatures look like but you failed to respond. So what kind of dinosaur do you think they look like? Please be rational when you respond.
 

juliod

New member
Come on , Knight. The ball is in your court. Those images really do not look anything like dinosaurs. Or to be fair, they look about as much like dinosaurs as any child's drawing of Barney.

So what dinosaur do you think they look like?

DanZ
 
Top