I am in partial agreement here.
Why are we attempting to denigrate rather then prove?
If there is a case to be made, make it.
- Status
Why are we attempting to denigrate rather then prove?
If there is a case to be made, make it.
S
StAnastasia
Guest
You offer no explanation as to why you think the mosaic depicts a dinosaur.
A picture of a Dino-Santa is not ridicule; it’s just a cute picture. I like your Egypt mosaic, just as I like Dino-SAnta…
You’re the one who calls it a dinosaur. I see it as a river creature, perhaps a crocodile.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Fossils are dated, most often, by dating their matrix. That is, we do not find fossil scorpions lying about on the ground and pick them up, we find them embedded in rock of various kinds. That rock can be dated by chemical means. That tells us that what is in that rock (fossil) was present when the rock formed, by pressure or deposition, for instance.
If you take a jar of dry plaster and stick a toy car in it and then pour water into the jar so all the plaster gets soaked, after a while it will harden and dry with the toy car inside it. If you know the date the water was poured in, you also know that the car had to be there on that date or before, but it couldn’t have been put there after.
When an animal dies and is covered by mud, that mud can be covered by more and more deposits and the pressure will turn the mud into shale. That shale, under pressure for a long time, becomes slate or other types of rock. When we date the slate, we know that the remains of the animal in it (more or less mineralized) became part of the rock while it was still mud. The fossil is actually always older than the rock around it. (Except for volcanic remains.)
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Very crocodilian to me also.
Y
You
Guest
I don’t know of any way to date rock apart from radiometric dating of volcanic layers, which may or may not be interbedded in sedimentary rock. But in this thread I am ignoring radiometric dating.
If I put my neighbours pet in a tall container of mud and pressurized it for 1 year will I find any remains or trace of the neighbours pet. Fossils we are told are almost extraordinary productions but to go one step further and find the organic protein remains in a scorpions carapace after 400 million years is truly something else.
Y
You
Guest
Thats a fake.
It is a tripod machine and as we all know tripods are all fine and well until they try to walk, then they fall over. So obviously, this image depicted never happened.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Karl Vogt:“Just as liver secretes gall, so do our brains secrete thought”…
“themselves” ?
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
Radiometric dating is used also on metamorphic rock. Slate is an example of metamorphic rock. Ignoring radiometric dating in a thread where you insist there’s no proof of the age of fossils makes sense since that is the proof of the age of fossils most often.
Unfortunately, it brings you to incorrect personal conclusions.
P
petrel
Guest
Well we all see what we want to see don’t we, in order to justify our preconceived perceptions. I admit that I am not immune to these kinds of prejudices, so I showed the picture to my 12 year old son. I gave him no prompts and simply him asked him what the picture was of? And he said that it was a picture of men fighting a dinosaur.
I suggest that you do a survey of primary school children and they will give you an honest response untarnished by a need to justify their preconceptions.
I try harder than most to put aside prejudices and preconceived notions and to look at the evidence in an open an honest manner. Hence my conversion in middle age to the Catholic church from a lifetime of being protestant.
P
petrel
Guest
Here is another picture this time of stegosaurus in the jungles of Cambodia dating back to the 100’s AD at Ta Prohm.
http://ap.lanexdev.com/user_images/image/rr/2008/0803-3steg3.jpg
Here is the creationist site which I got this from.
apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=9&article=2416
Joseph Meert a young earth creationist skeptic does not claim this to be a fraud or a fake. His take on it is that this is not a picture of Stegasosaurus but is a picture of a wild boar.
Now that is denial at its boldest, one must take upon oneself the heights of imagination or the depths of delusion to conclude that this is a picture of a wild boar. So when looking at pictures of dinosaurs, one man sees a crocodile/leopard river creature, another man sees a wild boar. Why not just accept what is plainly set before us?
Y
You
Guest
The radiometric dates and ages of rock and structures are easily found, but it would be lazy just to accept them without thought. I would like to compare the rates of processes or whatever with the estimated radiometric age of the process. So since we apparently know the one I am now thinking about the other.
P
petrel
Guest
Radiometric dating is based on making comparisons with other rocks in which the age of the rock is already known. How do we know the age of the rock? Because of the fossil which we find in it. And how do we know the age of the fossil? By the radiometric reading of the rock in which it is embedded.
This is the kind of circular reasoning we see all the time in modern science.
The truth of what I say can readily be established by the logical observation that nobody existed to measure the radiometric reading of the rock when it was created. Therefore an arbitrary (“stab in the dark”) starting point must be selected. It follows therefore that if this original starting point was incorrect, based on a wrong premise, or erroneus that therefore all readings extrapolated from it must also likewise be erroneus.
Here’s a blog of a guy who sent Allosaurus bones off to the University of Arizona for radiometric dating and they came back rated at 16,000 years old. angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
What a joke. The system of radiometric dating has no credibility. It might have some limited application for articles of a few thousand years old, but to suggest that it could date articles of ten’s of millions of years of age is incredibly fanciful, verging on superstitious.
No doubt the University of Arizona is working on an excuse to discredit its own radiometric estimates as we speak.
I
inocente
Guest
It’s got nothing to do with preconceptions, and everything to do with not being taken for a ride. This may come as a surprise but if you see a dog’s face in a cloud, the dog’s not really there.
You want to see a dinosaur, so what is plainly set before you is a dinosaur because that’s what you want to see. But wild boar regularly walk over my hill farm and what is plainly set before me is a wild boar.
What right have you got to tell others what to see? The obvious thing to do, well it’s obvious to most people, is get past our own prejudices and ask what is likely, could it be something else, perhaps pure imagination, a Cambodian equivalent of Godzilla? Rather than just lazily accept the first thing that pops into our head, we do some research.
So: paste the image location into a search engine such as tineye.com/ to find all the websites showing the image, then look at some of them. In this case I clicked the first hit, paleo.cc/paluxy/stegosaur-claim.htm, which turned out to have a reasonable discussion of the claim that it’s a dinosaur. From this alone it seems to me that there’s no chance it’s a stegosaurus.
You can believe different, but don’t be surprised if others won’t accept your authority when you tell them to look at a tiny photo from the internet and believe the first thing that pops into your head.
If you look more closely at the supposed Nile mosaic of Palestrina image, you will see lettering across the top. I don’t understand Greek, but it is said to read “crocodile-leopard”. So the artist himself called it a crocodile-leopard, whatever you think is plainly set before you.
I
inocente
Guest
A bit of research might be called for, as whenever someone makes an ill-informed statement their credibility suffers.
P
petrel
Guest
You have made a good point incente, but your argument has a serious flaw. I am not arguing that ancient man cannot make up fictions and myths and make inscriptions of them. But what I would like to ask is, What are the odds of ancient man coming up with a myth which is so closely aligned to the reconstructions of modern scientists which are based on fossilised bones?
You know as well as I do that in a thousand years nobody will dig up a triffid war of the worlds thing. But imagine if they did. Would that not be evidence that the triffid was a real thing and not a myth?
If anything your line of reasoning should suggest powerfully that these creatures inscribed in ancient times were not myths at all but were real creatures.
P
petrel
Guest
It’s easy to make a bald claim that somebodies statement is ill-informed and lacking credibility. It takes effort and a certain fortitude of mind and conviction to actually explain how the statement is ill-informed and lacking in credibility.
Therefore I invite you to explain how the starting radiometric readings are derived.
P
petrel
Guest
Thanks for the tinyeye technology tip. Very interesting and useful.It’s got nothing to do with preconceptions, and everything to do with not being taken for a ride. This may come as a surprise but if you see a dog’s face in a cloud, the dog’s not really there.
You want to see a dinosaur, so what is plainly set before you is a dinosaur because that’s what you want to see. But wild boar regularly walk over my hill farm and what is plainly set before me is a wild boar.
What right have you got to tell others what to see? The obvious thing to do, well it’s obvious to most people, is get past our own prejudices and ask what is likely, could it be something else, perhaps pure imagination, a Cambodian equivalent of Godzilla? Rather than just lazily accept the first thing that pops into our head, we do some research.
So: paste the image location into a search engine such as tineye.com/ to find all the websites showing the image, then look at some of them. In this case I clicked the first hit, paleo.cc/paluxy/stegosaur-claim.htm, which turned out to have a reasonable discussion of the claim that it’s a dinosaur. From this alone it seems to me that there’s no chance it’s a stegosaurus.
You can believe different, but don’t be surprised if others won’t accept your authority when you tell them to look at a tiny photo from the internet and believe the first thing that pops into your head.
If you look more closely at the supposed Nile mosaic of Palestrina image, you will see lettering across the top. I don’t understand Greek, but it is said to read “crocodile-leopard”. So the artist himself called it a crocodile-leopard, whatever you think is plainly set before you.
Moreso than your additional statement that this is not a stegosaurus.
Here is a picture of a househttp://www.philanet.com/jai/house.jpg and here is a picture of a church http://www.frontiernet.net/~vcmuseum/Church.jpg
Some very confused people go to a place as shown in the first picture and believe in their hearts that they are going to a church. They call this a house-church or a small group.
So how do we know the difference between a house and a church? They both have four walls and a roof and a door. So what makes one a house and the other a church. Very interesting question which if required to be articulated would involve a complex response. And yet the human mind, being of such grand capability can tell the difference between a house and a church almost instantly without consciously working through all the complex criteria by which a house may be distinguished from a church. Even a small child of grade school age can perform this complex process of identification in an instant.
Yet very often we witness something which messes with this innate human capability. The scripture calls this something a “powerful delusion”. A powerful delusion can cause men to see a house and conclude it is a church. In the same way, a powerful delusion can cause a man to look at a picture of a stegosaurus and conclude that it is a wild boar.
Nor would I suggest that such a man was lieing. No, and this is the incredible thing about delusion, the man is not lieing. He sincerely believes that he is looking at a wild boar. It’s when we witness such things that we marvel not just at the human capability to distinguish one object from another but even more so we marvel at how incredibly susceptible the human mind is to abandon even the most straightforward of these capabilities in order to follow after a delusion.
P
petrel
Guest
Let’s play “One of these is not like the other”. This is a game pre-school children play. Surely we adults can handle it.
http://media3.picsearch.com/is?09S7m37yR3rkZV2wXdxWroOT8iDiSjaQsZKBTyPfgUQ
http://media5.picsearch.com/is?rBBdzhbhCrlYp3htnhczkiU8qCV3wX9Vo069HemX1gY
http://media5.picsearch.com/is?7CzWNDP2RF9kWvtBtmNx-irv3xmX7Psj0kLsLkvs85c
http://ap.lanexdev.com/user_images/image/rr/2008/0803-3steg3.jpg
http://media3.picsearch.com/is?09S7m37yR3rkZV2wXdxWroOT8iDiSjaQsZKBTyPfgUQ
http://media5.picsearch.com/is?rBBdzhbhCrlYp3htnhczkiU8qCV3wX9Vo069HemX1gY
http://media5.picsearch.com/is?7CzWNDP2RF9kWvtBtmNx-irv3xmX7Psj0kLsLkvs85c
http://ap.lanexdev.com/user_images/image/rr/2008/0803-3steg3.jpg
I
inocente
Guest
It doesn’t look anything like a dinosaur to me. Which species do you think it resembles, noting the long front legs?
The image you posted has a strong color cast, when cleaned up the creature is in the Nile just like a crocodile.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
That’s a detail from the full mosaic, all of which is stylized and imaginary.
- Status