This is something I've been meaning to look into and post for some time. If there are cave paintings or any other drawings/artefacts of dinosaurs, then we can clearly conclude that dinosaurs and man were contemporary.

'Either these are fake, or they were made by men who lived at the same time dinosaurs did - just as the Bible describes. ' (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dinocarving.html)

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dinocarving.html

Okay, the first one is debatable (especially because it was discovered in America), perhaps even laughable, yet 'The petroglyphs were made by the Anasazi who lived there from 400 to 1800 AD. The picture is covered by heavy desert varnish, which forms naturally over time, and cannot be replicated (fraudulently).' And even though there is little documented evidence of the occupation of Northern America, it doesn't mean it wasn't occupied! And the others drawings/artefacts on the link page...?

A-theism seems to conclude that any evidence of this nature must be fake, and that dinosaurs lives millions or billions of years before man. Crap! :)

let's throw away all the scientific evidence, because these few pictures are much more convincing!

(1) I've seen Einstein in the texturing on my wall; I've seen Mark Twain in bad repair on a restroom wall.
(2) I find it quite interesting that the only attention being given this is by Creationists, and the only authority they're pointing back to is a Creationist. What I'm wondering is where's the peer review? Cuozzo's site provides some peer review of other claims he's made, but there's nothing available at present.

Beyond that, it's a compelling issue, but not nearly as definitive as some seem to think.

Okay, originally this post was to stop there, but I just wanted to point out that the claim that the dinosaurs are shown in "full form" and not skeletal form actually has nothing to do with anything. (Click here (http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/dinocarving.html) - the author has specifically prohibited the copying of text without permission, and I don't feel like emailing the author, so y'all can click.

Because I'm not about to accept that the stylized designs drawn on the creatures actually represent real textures; the stylizations are similar to others in ancient America.

And while anyone is at that page, could someone please tell me what is allegedly depicted in the first of the two "Nasca" images from the Cabrera find?

And the bit about chickens ... when were chickens domesticated? In Egypt, domestic chickens arrived during the New Kingdom (http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/timelines/topics/domesticated_animals.htm).

If there wasn't so much offbeat humor at those links, I might be able to take them more seriously.

Very convincing proof, Mucker, because as we all know artists can only paint that which is real and never ever paint fantastical imaginings. What I find most astonishing is that people reject the existence of fairies and dragons and such despite the overwhelming evidence that artists must have seen such creatures in order to paint pictures of them:

http://palettesofvision.com/Medieval_Paintings/page9.html

http://palettesofvision.com/Mystical/Fantasy15.html

~Raithere

Those look pretty dang fraudulent to me... the one with the three-quarter shot of the triceratops at the bottom (the brown rock with the many dinosaurs) looks particularly fake, since Inca art is not generally known for its great use of perspective...

Yeah as far as I know perspective wasn't really developed until the Renaissance. Call me crazy but I think that if dinasaurs were around during the Renaissance we would have known about it.

Also, the bluish picture of the triceratops is b.s. I went through my dinosaur craze as a little kid so I know a thing or two about t-tops. First off, they were herbivors--no pointy teeth. I also don't believe that they had very long or noticeable tails, if that is indeed a tail and not another appendage. The other blue stone before it has pictures that could be of any reptillian, I mean, come on the Incas lived in a rainforest, there were reptiles galore there. The first one doesn't have a clear enough image and the second one is just a picture of a bare rock.

I've always found it wild to see cave paintings of guys bringing down mammoth's or battling various extinct creatures, but, dinosaurs? Come on. How does dinosauria disappear for sixty five million years and then return, without the aid of InGen?

We would have found the evidence by now. We've found lots of other stuff (hasn't anyone seen Walking with Prehistoric Beasts?)--giant armadillos, giant sloths, giant elk, I mean, crazy shit. But never a dinosaur.

How do you know those drawings were not done recently?

Oh,The picture is covered by heavy desert varnish

So with the heavy covering it is possible that it is not a dinasaur depicted there.

As to the others, how do you know they were not drawn yesterday? Radio-carbon dating? Where are the bones? No one has yet found a dinasaur bone, just fossils, right? It takes a very long time to form a fossil.

"Sometime in the late 1940s, Waldemar Julsrud, a German living in the small Mexican town of Acambaro, stumbled upon a strange clay figurine protruding from the earth. Within days, a barrow-load of similar clay sculptures was delivered to him by a man who was recovering dozens of them from the excavation of his basement nearby. Subsequent testing suggests they were made between 3,500-6,400 years before the present but correspond to no known ancient culture. This heresy is made worse by the strangeness of the figures, many showing humans co-existing with huge lizards and Godzilla-like dinosaurs...."

For decades, the Museum of Anthropology in Mexico has had a hard time with artists that "enhance" archeological pieces in order to make them "one of a kind". Some pieces have been discovered to be ancient originals that were later carved in modern times. Those rare pieces are really 3,000 years old, but someone had the inspired idea of adding "improvements" in order to get a better price for them.

ok so we can't prove the reptilian artifacts are real......and we can't prove creationism either......so where does that leave us all....a big fat "Don't know"......so how does this disprove atheist thought...it doesn't. How does it prove creationist thought....it doesn't ( not that I am an atheist mind you)

The universe could very well have been created well before the bible was even thought of. Does any of this prove the bible true ( I am assuming that the impied time scale is aboutt 5000 years BC)...no it doesn't



Has any one ever said that reptilian artifacts have to exist to disprove creationism or the existance of God?

something i found very interesting, although a little old on the news side of things
the valley of the phairos (spelling?)
was reported to be dated by using historical weather forcasting by assumed effect of wind
HOWEVER
what was updated, was that some scientists know believe that it is actualy corroded by water and has changed the date by placing it backwards by an aditional 2000 years
as a possiblity
most fascinating i thought
certainly makes the bible look rather silly in that context i must admit (as many seem to interpret it{all 15 or so revisions[translational losses not mentioned]translations not included})

Originally posted by Quantum Quack
...Has any one ever said that reptilian artifacts have to exist to disprove creationism or the existance of God?

Not in this thread, so far. Mucker just mentioned that atheists would not want to believe in the legitimacy of these archaeological pieces. However, you don't have to be an atheist to realize these pieces are probably fake.

Ya, they look like they came from a museum gift shop.

Talking about creationism... check this short story by Asimov, it's great:

http://www.rdrop.com/~jimka/text/creation.html