Hastur

http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

1. A number of these drawings look more like camels or giraffes than dinosaurs.

2. I always assume that any creationist site I visit is lying through its teeth. This assumption has served me well in the past.

Can anyone here offer an educated critique of the page?

Thanks!

Meatros

I don't think I could give a very good educated critique of the archeology history of what's on the page, but from a layman's glance I see no creatures on that page that couldn't be some sort of already existing animal. I think it's rather sad to tell the truth, a case of wishful thinking with an post-hoc explanation.

I'm not up on the latest dino research, but hasn't it been suggested that they had feathers or some such skin? If this is the case, then none of the creatures could be eye-witnessed dinosaurs.

If I were you I'd also point out what ancient mariners thought were sea monsters. They look similar to dinosaurs, and we know now that they were octopuses, sharks, etc.

Jack the Bodiless

It's also worth pointing out that many ancient peoples could have found out about dinosaurs exactly the same way that we did: by finding their fossils.

It's very likely that Chinese legends about dragons arose from dinosaur fossils. In backward areas of China, even today, dinosaur fossils are called "dragon bones" and ground up for use in Chinese traditional medicines.

KC

Hamlet: Do you see yonder cloud that's almost in shape of a camel?
Polonius: By the mass, and 'tis like a camel, indeed.
Hamlet: Methinks it is like a weasel.
Polonius: It is backed like a weasel.
Hamlet: Or like a whale?
Polonius: Very like a whale.

William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act III, Scene II


KC

ps418

None of them are convincing dinos, though some of them do look a little bit like plesiosaurs. As Jack pointed out, bones are weathering out of the ground today, and they were weathering out of the ground in the BC as well, and could easily have given rise to tales of long-necked beasts. In the same way, it has been suggested that fossils of Deinotherium gave rise to the myth of the cyclops: Deinotherium fossils: basis for cyclops myth?

However, I am pretty sure that Winged-Human-Lions were pretty common in ancient Mesopotamia, and that winged snakes were pretty common in south america at one point.



Patrick

Minnesota

Although I find creationist claims to be absoulte hogwash, the picture below does give one pause.



And the following really does resemble a plesiosaur.

Dr.GH

I'll be impressed when the crationists find fosils of centaurs, hippogrifs, unicorns, nyads, ....

I ordered the rock art book by Fran Barns. My bet is that they are either a crank, or they have been misqouted in the typical YEC fashion. As the source for the "rock art expert" Barns is from an Answers in Genesis "research article" I am confident that it is a phony (one way or another).

The lead photo from Buried Alive would serve as a good example for a Rorschach test.

Nic Tamzek

Yeah, most of those dinos are entirely unconvincing.

The plesiosaur painting is apparently Australian aboriginal art, but no date is given (they reference a 1988 CEN Technical Journal). So without further details the possibility that someone showed someone a western plesiosaur painting which inspired the painting is possible. It would be interesting to find out more though (does it look to anyone else like the critter in the painting has a beak?).

(And, I swear I recently saw an actual fossil of a mini-plesiosaur, like, 6-9 inches long; the shortest referenced plesiosaur I found on the web is 2 meters; perhaps I saw a baby or something? It was at this guy's house who collects fossils.)


The mesopotamian seal with the apatosaurs (apatosaureses?) is interesting. Weird heads though. And what are those flying critters?

Arikay

I dont know about most of them, but yeah, dont believe a word they say. Its amazing how they can word stuff just right to give you half of the facts.

The two that I do know about the Ica stones and the Clay dinos, are fakes. Too bad they didnt show the Ica stone that depicts a t-rex like creature standing upright, with its tail draging, the assumed position of the t-rex for a good part of the 21st century.

The Ica stones were carved by a man who wanted something to sell to tourists. He aged them in dung to make them appear old and then scratched out the work on them. All of this was trully exposed when a BBC team went and watched him make one.

The Clay dinos were also fakes made for tourists. This is where their info gets funny, as they mention 2 people had been arrested for "selling" them, but they forgot to mention it was for making fakes and falsly selling them as real. Then they also mention there were attempts to date them, but never give us the results. I dont know much about figuring dating, but what I read mentioned that they still had water in them, and that dating put them as modern creations.

MrDarwin

It would be interesting to see how the author labels the figure of the Mesopotamian "Apatosaurus". Unfortunately, my library does not have a copy of this book. Anybody else care to look it up? (BTW the author's name is spelled "Moortgat", not "Moortgart"--typical sloppy creationist "scholarship", probably lifted wholesale from somebody else.)