Cave paintings of dinosaurs?
Martin Kaletsch
Hello!
After asking the question on a german history newsgroup (which went nowhere)
I post it here.
Recently someone told me about a tv documentary he had seen on german tv
which featured dinosaurs or dinosaur-like creatures depicted in stone age
cave paintings. I laughed about this and he wouldn't (or couldn't) give me
any more details.
Now I'm left with my curiousity!
Does anybody here know about cave paintings which could be interpreted as
dinosaurs? I searched the web and the only thing I found was Cuozzos
Bernifal cave, which IMO is rather ridiculous. Are there any better
examples?
Just to make it clear: I know that homo never met any dinosaurs and am sure
this tv documentary was nothing but sensationalist crap, but after hearing
about it I just can't let it go, I want to know if there realy is some
misshapen bear on some cave wall which, in the right light, looks a bit
like a t-rex. ;-)
--
Martin Kaletsch
Geoff
news:vo3nu3-...@middgard.yggdrasil...
>
> Hello!
>
> After asking the question on a german history newsgroup (which went
> nowhere)
> I post it here.
>
> Recently someone told me about a tv documentary he had seen on german tv
> which featured dinosaurs or dinosaur-like creatures depicted in stone age
> cave paintings. I laughed about this and he wouldn't (or couldn't) give me
> any more details.
Right then you can probably be assured that he has an agenda.
> Now I'm left with my curiousity!
>
> Does anybody here know about cave paintings which could be interpreted as
> dinosaurs? I searched the web and the only thing I found was Cuozzos
> Bernifal cave, which IMO is rather ridiculous. Are there any better
> examples?
Here are some drawings that creationists allege are dinos. Pretty fawking
hilarious.
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm
> Just to make it clear: I know that homo never met any dinosaurs and am
> sure
> this tv documentary was nothing but sensationalist crap, but after hearing
> about it I just can't let it go, I want to know if there realy is some
> misshapen bear on some cave wall which, in the right light, looks a bit
> like a t-rex. ;-)
No there isn't. You can let it go.
Psycho Dave
allegedly depicts dinosaurs is:
(1) If it vaguely resembles a dinosaur, IT IS A DINOSAUR.
(2) If the artist was not a good artist, and drew a stick-figure of a
dog, IT IS A DINOSAUR.
(3) If a narual rock formation bears any resemblence to a dinosaur, IT
IS A MAN-MADE SCULPTURE OF A DINOSAUR.
(4) If a carving of a Rhino or Hippolooks close to a Dinosaur, take
some plasticine, and wedge it on the back of the sculpture, and make it
a Dinosaur.
(5) All Mythological beasts depicted in ancient art WERE REAL LIVING
CREATURES.
(6) Any stylized art that resembles a dinosaur, IS A DINOSAUR.
(7) Any piece of a large sculpture, which breaks off from the main
sculpture, and vaguely resembles any part of a dinosaur, IS A PART OF A
DINOSAUR.
(8) Whenever possible, draw your own dinosaur picture on top of a vague
rock formation, so that people will see the dinosaur, as opposed to the
rock formation.
(9) If the image of an animal is shown next to badly-drawn human forms,
and it's much larger than it is in reality, compared to the human
forms, then it was a depiction of reality, and the big animals is
actually a dinosaur. There's no possible way that the human figures
were drawn out of proportion by other artists at a later time, or that
the artist was simply bad with proportions!
(10) Any image of a giraffe, a snake, or a crocodile IS A DINOSAUR.
Nashton
In the evolutionists view of the world, anything in the fossil record
with 2 legs, is a transitional form between some imaginary "ape" and
modern day humans. Therefore, anything remotely resembling an ape or a
monkey is a REAL HUMAN ANCESTOR.
--
Nicolas
"And, heaving alljawbreakical expressions out of Sare Isaac's universal
of specious aristmystic unsaid, A is for Anna like L is for liv."
Finnegans Wake (293)
".... It means that all living things are the product of mindless
material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random
variation. So God is totally out of the picture, and humans (like
everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe.
Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that these claims go far
beyond the available evidence?" Phillip E.Johnson, The Church Of Darwin
Psycho Dave
Nashton wrote:
>
> In the evolutionists view of the world, anything in the fossil record
> with 2 legs, is a transitional form between some imaginary "ape" and
> modern day humans. Therefore, anything remotely resembling an ape or a
> monkey is a REAL HUMAN ANCESTOR.
>
> --
> Nicolas
>
Really? Can you provide a single example of this claim? For example,
most bids walk on 2 legs, have any evolutionists ever claimed that
birds were human ancestors?
I know you're working from a near total ignorance of anatomy,
paleontology, taxonomy, and other science disceplines. It's hard for
creationists to come up with real-world examples of their claims of
science, because they spend too much time in the fantasy world of
creationism.
Richard Forrest
Really? Care to back that up with evidence?
Or is this simply another example of you undermining your own cause
with a silly assertion which anyone with any knowledge of the subject
recognises as a such.
Perhaps you can provide a citation for Lepticidium being identified as
a transitional form between apes and humans.
Mind you, as humans are apes, I doubt that any scientist would make
such a fundamental error.
Turner
Nope, that's stretching it too far.
The difference between Dave's post and yours is that his is a
reasonable depiction of what many creationists actually do, yours
isn't.
Only someone like you would claim scientists say ostriches are
transitional between apes and humans.
Keep trying, eventually you might say something truthful.
Shane
Nah, the last big find with two legs was that of a fish. Tikalak or some
such name.
Nicky strikes out again.
Von R. Smith
Wow, anything with two legs! Man evolved from T-rex! Cool! I *knew*
we were more badass than those silly chimps! Oh, and we evolved from
Basilosaurus and Archaeopteryx, too!
> Therefore, anything remotely resembling an ape or a
> monkey is a REAL HUMAN ANCESTOR.
Well, for starters, we at very least can conclude that fossils are from
real creatures, and that they are likely to contain accurate
information about what those creatures may have been like, which is
more than one can say about *any* of the drawings shown in the link
above.
Why don't you do something that Ray Martinez has been unable to do, and
explain why Turkana boy isn't a transitional fossil?
Harry K
You forgot.
(11) Any image of a bird IS NOT A DINOSAUR.
Harry K
Darrell Stec
am Psycho Dave perhaps from psy...@weirdcrap.com wrote:
> The rules of creationists, when looking at human-created art which
> allegedly depicts dinosaurs is:
>
> (1) If it vaguely resembles a dinosaur, IT IS A DINOSAUR.
[snip rest of great guidelines]
>
Thanks for the list. It neatly sums up their approach to yet another of
their fallacies.
--
Later,
Darrell Stec dar...@neo.rr.com
Webpage Sorcery
http://webpagesorcery.com
We Put the Magic in Your Webpages
Ye Old One
this group when s/he wrote:
>In the evolutionists view of the world, anything in the fossil record
>with 2 legs, is a transitional form between some imaginary "ape" and
>modern day humans. Therefore, anything remotely resembling an ape or a
>monkey is a REAL HUMAN ANCESTOR.
Liar!
See, I told you, tell lies and you will be called on it.
--
Bob.
Mark Isaak
You left off one:
(11) If the figure is made of rock or drawn on rock, it must be tens of
thousands of years old, so it cannot be based on modern ideas of
dinosaurs. Carbon dating of the rock can confirm this.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Inez
This is another humorous example of how creationists will accept any
skimpy evidence that they can force to fit their view, and disregard
good evidence that opposes it.
The Egyptians often painted human figures with animal heads. Is this
strong evidence of the existence of Anubis? Or just animal-headed
human?
VoiceOfReason
Babble babble what? Do you have a specific item in mind, or is this
just general BS?
Roger Coppock
> Hello!
>
> After asking the question on a german history newsgroup (which went nowhere)
> I post it here.
>
> Recently someone told me about a tv documentary he had seen on german tv
> which featured dinosaurs or dinosaur-like creatures depicted in stone age
> cave paintings. I laughed about this and he wouldn't (or couldn't) give me
> any more details.
>
> Now I'm left with my curiousity!
An image of a dinosaur drawn by someone does
not mean that they have seen a living dinosaur.
Stone age people butchered animals frequently.
Therefore, they knew basic anatomy. What, then
would stop them from constructing the image
of a dinosaur from fossilized dinosaur bones and
drawing that image on their cave?
After all, our paleontology textbooks are full of
dinosaur pictures, but that does not mean that
the book's author has seen a living dinosaur.
Jim
news:1159275712.8...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> Nashton wrote:
>>
>> In the evolutionists view of the world, anything in the fossil record
>> with 2 legs, is a transitional form between some imaginary "ape" and
>> modern day humans. Therefore, anything remotely resembling an ape or a
>> monkey is a REAL HUMAN ANCESTOR.
>>
>> --
>> Nicolas
>>
>
> Really? Can you provide a single example of this claim? For example,
> most bids walk on 2 legs, have any evolutionists ever claimed that
> birds were human ancestors?
Actually, umm, yes. It does appear that humans and birds have a common
ancestor.
shipmodeler1
the planet. Even in that case, scientists only link fossils to early
human evolution based on particular shared traits, such as molars.
Gerry Murphy
"Inez" <savagem...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1159304064.4...@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Let's hear it for the Sun god, he really is a fun god! Ra, Ra, Ra! 8-}
( Oldie but goody.)
Geoff
news:YZgSg.15988$GY5....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
That doesn't mean that birds are our ancestors. Of course, this is all
ridiculous.
Inez
I'm fond of the Lightning Brothers myself.
Inez
There is a difference between "were ancestors" and "have a common
ancestor."
john.1...@gmail.com
I would refer you to _The First Fossil Hunters_ by Adrienne Mayor.
http://www.amazon.com/First-Fossil-Hunters-Paleontology-Times/dp/0691058636
She makes a good case that ancient peoples found fossils and tried to
interpret them
as best they could. Some of these were actually dinosaur fossils, but
in the Mediteranean
region, these were most likely mammal fossils.
-John
>
>
> --
> Martin Kaletsch
Quantum Leaper
"Turner" <joebob...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:1159280620.0...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
since they both stick their head in the sand.
The Enigmatic One
says...
>In the evolutionists view of the world, anything in the fossil record
>with 2 legs, is a transitional form between some imaginary "ape" and
>modern day humans. Therefore, anything remotely resembling an ape or a
>monkey is a REAL HUMAN ANCESTOR.
You're dumb.
-Tim
Martin Kaletsch
> "Martin Kaletsch" <man...@gmx.de> wrote in message
> news:vo3nu3-...@middgard.yggdrasil...
>> Recently someone told me about a tv documentary he had seen on german tv
>> which featured dinosaurs or dinosaur-like creatures depicted in stone age
>> cave paintings. I laughed about this and he wouldn't (or couldn't) give
>> me any more details.
>
> Right then you can probably be assured that he has an agenda.
No, he hasn't. He just is a rather optimistic person, I suppose and believes
that tv journalists wouldn't just make up something of that magnitude.
>> Does anybody here know about cave paintings which could be interpreted as
>> dinosaurs? I searched the web and the only thing I found was Cuozzos
>> Bernifal cave, which IMO is rather ridiculous. Are there any better
>> examples?
>
> Here are some drawings that creationists allege are dinos. Pretty fawking
> hilarious.
>
> http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm
Yeah, I allready found pages like that. The most interesting point her is,
that all these are artefakts from historic times, not the paleolithicum.
(The Bernifal rock being the only exception, but I don't see why that should
be anything else than a ... rock?)
Well, the conlusions seems to be that there are realy no cave paintings
which, even with a strong will to see it that way, depict dinosaur-like
creatures. Now I realy would get my hands on that documentary...
Just had a thought: Maybe that stuff was broadcasted an april 1st! ;-)
--
Martin Kaletsch