Dino drawing or mud stain: proof of creation?

[+DieChecker]

If you look at this animal the other way round, it looks like an ant-eater to me. Long nose... fluffy tail.... stubby legs. Stylized certainly, but aren't all the animals stylized to some degree? Look at the "person' pic next to this one. Very stylized.

[Erowin]

Hmm... the dinosaur is different from the image next to it. The man looks very faded and white- the 'dinosaur' looks relatively new, and almost completely unscratched or aged. I could easily see someone drawing it as a joke, trying to make a stylized dinosaur in the pre-history style of drawing. It's also in Utah, an extremely relgious state. Maybe someone drew it thinking it would disprove evolution or something?

[reggie2011]

there is more than just a painting that suggests that humans walked with dino's im fully convinced has anyone seen the embeded foot prints before this is irrfutable evedence

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

let me point out these tracks layed underneath tons of layers of bedrock before they were excavated ,one of the most unexplained mysterys known to man.

i think the evedence speaks for itself,most of us here relise what sceintists are like ,simply put if it dosnt fit into what they have on paper they "IGNORE IT"

Edited March 29, 2011 by reggie2011

[Internationalmanof mystery]

OK could it not have been a man walking by long fossilized dino tracks? And are you saying that scientists ignore more then creationists who base all of there beliefs off of a book written by my people the jews at a time where we thought that pig was an unholy animal because of diseases it had. These were not intelligent people Who made my basic belief system.

[Dougal]

there is more than just a painting that suggests that humans walked with dino's im fully convinced has anyone seen the embeded foot prints before this is irrfutable evedence

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

let me point out these tracks layed underneath tons of layers of bedrock before they were excavated ,one of the most unexplained mysterys known to man.

i think the evedence speaks for itself,most of us here relise what sceintists are like ,simply put if it dosnt fit into what they have on paper they "IGNORE IT"

Wait, did you even read that website before posting it?

[Mattshark]

Wait, did you even read that website before posting it?

[aquatus1]

i think the evedence speaks for itself,most of us here relise what sceintists are like ,simply put if it dosnt fit into what they have on paper they "IGNORE IT"

I tend to think that it isn't the claim that reduces the credibility of the subject so much as the presentation.

[FurthurBB]

there is more than just a painting that suggests that humans walked with dino's im fully convinced has anyone seen the embeded foot prints before this is irrfutable evedence

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

let me point out these tracks layed underneath tons of layers of bedrock before they were excavated ,one of the most unexplained mysterys known to man.

i think the evedence speaks for itself,most of us here relise what sceintists are like ,simply put if it dosnt fit into what they have on paper they "IGNORE IT"

Doesn't it bother you that it takes something false to give you confidence in your beliefs?

[Rehabinum]

So when prehistoric humans paint one painting that looks like a dinosaur (which probably is a snake if i read the text right), then people believe we have lived together with dinosaurs? But when the dozens of alien-like paintings made by prehistoric humans are shown, it is just imagination?

I won't even go into the subject (or speculation) of human and dinosaur living in the same time.

[Oniomancer]

http://www.accessgenealogy.com/book/index.cgi?folder=hopi-indians&next=7

The Great Plumed Serpent who appears in the mythology of many American tribes is the chief actor in the Palulukong ceremony, which is held in March. It is a serpent drama in which the sun also has high honor. The actors are masked, as the ceremony is under the control of the Kachinas, who are adept at theatrical performances when represented by the fertile-minded Hopi.

Then as the song grows louder the plumed snakes sway in time to the music, biting at each other and darting toward the actors. Suddenly they bend their heads down and sweep the imitation cornfield into a confused heap, then raise their wagging heads as before, and it is see i that the central serpent has udders and suckles the others.

[Doctor_Strangelove]

Stuff like this will make me wonder, that when western civilization falls and all scientific knowledge is lost, and humanity eventually rebuilds itself, will they use our depictions of dinosaurs as evidence that we walked beside dinosaurs?

[Abramelin]

So when prehistoric humans paint one painting that looks like a dinosaur (which probably is a snake if i read the text right), then people believe we have lived together with dinosaurs? But when the dozens of alien-like paintings made by prehistoric humans are shown, it is just imagination?

I won't even go into the subject (or speculation) of human and dinosaur living in the same time.

So you are able to recognize an alien when you see one??

LOL.

[+DieChecker]

there is more than just a painting that suggests that humans walked with dino's im fully convinced has anyone seen the embeded foot prints before this is irrfutable evedence

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

let me point out these tracks layed underneath tons of layers of bedrock before they were excavated ,one of the most unexplained mysterys known to man.

i think the evedence speaks for itself,most of us here relise what sceintists are like ,simply put if it dosnt fit into what they have on paper they "IGNORE IT"

The supposed human tracks have involved a variety of phenomena, including forms of elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks, erosional features, indistinct markings of uncertain origin, and a smaller number of doctored and carved specimens (most of the latter occurring on loose blocks of rock). A few individuals continue to promote the Paluxy "man tracks" or alleged human tracks in pre-Tertiary rocks from other localities, but such claims are not considered credible by either mainstream scientists or major creationist groups.

Dude, the site you linked to says expressly that only a few Fringe people believe in these tracks.

[DigitalDreamer]

Alot of religious idiots trying to prove that at one point ancient man had to run for his life to avoid being eaten by a Tyrannosaurus Rex

[paindeer]

dont know where that really clear picture of the rock came from but here is a much vaguer pic:

which image is more authentic, I dont know...I have come across several images and none of them seem to have the same coloring/hue.

however is if the picture looks like this one...how can anyone possibly draw any conclusions from it when I go crosseyed trying to make out anything?

I mean there is other stuff going on other than just the parts that are singled out as being part of a dino...but how can you so easily discount decide that this part looks like I dino...I'll ignore all the non dino bits that are touching and around it?

Edited March 30, 2011 by paindeer

[Rehabinum]

So you are able to recognize an alien when you see one??

LOL.

Not recognizing it would by definition be alien, right? Just pointing out that people see what they want to see.

Some see aliens, some see dinosaurs, but neither is a fact.

[Dakras]

Not another example of desperate creationists coming up with another ridiculous theory to justify there outmoded and unscientific beliefs.

I think the artists knew about the Loch Ness Monster! Isn't this as valid a statement as anything the creationists can say!?

Edited March 31, 2011 by Dakras

[WoIverine]

It looks like it's walking through water actually. See what looks like a wave in the background?

[+HerNibs]

According to this article - it's not what everyone thinks.

The researchers analyzed the four alleged dinosaur images with the naked eye and with binoculars and telephoto lenses while the pictures were illuminated by direct and indirect sunlight and when they were in shadow. [image of dinosaur petroglyph]

"Dinosaur 1, which I've nicknamed Sinclair because it looks like the Sinclair Gas logo, really does look like a dino when seen with the naked eye," Senter said. "But the archaeologists who did the subsequent fieldwork knew exactly what they were looking at when they came out to examine the figure. This just goes to show that a trained eye can often see what an untrained eye cannot."

The researchers found the "neck" and "head" of Dinosaur 1 are a composite of two separate petroglyphs, while the "legs" appear to just be stains.

"I wonder if, during the process of weathering, chemicals from the man-made, [etched] part dripped down to form the 'legs,'" Senter said. "Lots of mineral stains are all over the canyon that contains Kachina Bridge."

"Until our study, this was the best dinosaur petroglyph — that is, the hardest to argue about, because it looked so much like a dinosaur that there was no way to interpret it as anything else," Senter said. "The 'best' dinosaur is now extinct."

"The 'dinos' other than Sinclair do not look like dinos at all, even with the naked eye," Senter added. "It is difficult for me to understand how anyone saw dinosaurs in those figures." In fact, the researchers say the four Kachina "dinosaurs" are "illusions produced by pareidolia," the psychological phenomenon responsible for people seeing faces or animals in clouds and the man in the moon.

Nibs

[Wookietim]

before i read any of the other posts, let me guess someone will say it is a snake, or mud stain as implied in the story title. now i will read the other posts.

Has anyone considered that these types of cave paintings don't exactly have a lot in the way of scale? I mean, it might be a dinosaur... or it might be a stylized and simplistic drawing of a otter. After all, both have four legs, both have a tail, both have a neck that they can hold up... and without knowing that one is really big and one isn't I don't think it's really easy to distinguish between them.

I will also point out - when I was young (And I venture to guess that this applies to every single person n this board) my drawings of things like dogs, cows, and such looked an awful lot like dinosaurs... Mainly they all started with an oval for the body, four legs coming down and then a neck straight up in the air with a small head. Was I drawing a dinosaur or a cow?

And one other thing : How smart are paleontologists? I mean, in order to accept this as a drawing of a brontosaurus, we have to sort of accept that the guesses that paleontologists have made as to what they looked like are spot on - and that is something even they will not claim.

[Doctor_Strangelove]

I will also point out - when I was young (And I venture to guess that this applies to every single person n this board) my drawings of things like dogs, cows, and such looked an awful lot like dinosaurs... Mainly they all started with an oval for the body, four legs coming down and then a neck straight up in the air with a small head. Was I drawing a dinosaur or a cow?

You saying cavemen were a society of toddlers?

In reality, this is probably the most realistic off all the theories. Again, why do we assume primitive people were unquestionably excellent at depicting what they see around them?

[Wookietim]

You saying cavemen were a society of toddlers?

In reality, this is probably the most realistic off all the theories. Again, why do we assume primitive people were unquestionably excellent at depicting what they see around them?

No. But I am pointing out that their artistic skills (From the cave paintings I have seen) are not exactly the equivalent of the photo-realistic artists that came millenia later.

Actually, though, that does bring up a kind of off topic discussion (It might be better to create a new thread for this but I will ask it here anyway) : Why was this? Were primitive humans incapable of finely tuned artistic representation? Did our brains make some sort of jump between the time of cave paintings and the time of Da Vinci? It just occurred to me to think of that, since - let's face it - it's quite obvious that there is a level of artistic representation that is lacking in one and present in the other... and granted, a lot of that is just pure inborn talent... but then that would beg the question of how come none of the cave people painting on a wall were born with that talent?

[~TheBigK~]

I feel stupid, and kind of sad, that it is necessary to assert that man and dinosaurs never co-existed. It is like having to convince people that the earth is round, or that the earth revolves around the sun, or that astronauts actually went to the moon, or that ancient Egyptians (like the amer-indians after them) were perfectely able to put stones one on top of another in a pyramidal shape (not to lesson their great engineering achievement, but no extra-worldly explanations needed).

Is it just me, or are others also worried about what seems to be the increasing irrationality of the human species ?

Truer words have never been spoken.

Just so I'm getting this right, the picture on the left isn't the actual cave painting, but the one on the right is? Because the one on the right looks nothing like a dinosaur and hardly more than some squiggles.

[aquatus1]

Actually, though, that does bring up a kind of off topic discussion (It might be better to create a new thread for this but I will ask it here anyway) : Why was this? Were primitive humans incapable of finely tuned artistic representation? Did our brains make some sort of jump between the time of cave paintings and the time of Da Vinci? It just occurred to me to think of that, since - let's face it - it's quite obvious that there is a level of artistic representation that is lacking in one and present in the other... and granted, a lot of that is just pure inborn talent... but then that would beg the question of how come none of the cave people painting on a wall were born with that talent?

Drawing does seem to have the same sort of progression as technology. It took millenia to get from abstract cave paintings to early Egyptian side profiles with symbolistic representation. It took another several thousand years for the Egyptians to go from single profile to dynamic profile, in the form of simply putting one foot forward. We can go all the way to the Rennaissance before dynamics is improved upon dramatically, although the symbolistic approach remains. It isn't till the modern era that we get realism in our depictions.

Art evolves just like technology. It wasn't all there from year one.

[Wookietim]

Drawing does seem to have the same sort of progression as technology. It took millenia to get from abstract cave paintings to early Egyptian side profiles with symbolistic representation. It took another several thousand years for the Egyptians to go from single profile to dynamic profile, in the form of simply putting one foot forward. We can go all the way to the Rennaissance before dynamics is improved upon dramatically, although the symbolistic approach remains. It isn't till the modern era that we get realism in our depictions.

Art evolves just like technology. It wasn't all there from year one.

I just wonder why... Granted, I am not an artist (I can't even draw a straight line with the straight line tool in MS Paint) but it seems to me that art is not something that ought to progress like technology... After all, humans had roughly the same level of eyesight and hand coordination, so one would think that they ought to be capable of producing work better than that of a precocious child... and, well, they didn't.

But of course that requires me to assume that the eyesight and muscle control of these cave dwellers were comparable to our own which may very well not be the case. But then I saw a youtube video of an Elephant making a self portrait that looks more accomplished than some of the cave paintings I have seen so I am not really sure if fine muscle control and eyesight is that important...

None of this takes away from the sociological advance of humans figuring out that they could create art (Which is essentially a precursor to writing since it is a way of recording history externally). It's just a thing I noticed - I assume that these paintings weren't done by the newborns and children, so I wonder how come we haven't seen better representations is all... It tends to look like what I drew when I was 10...