The following is an ancient Amerindian Petroglyphs found at the Kachina Bridge in Natural Bridges National Monument, southeastern Utah. It is very faint, from being exposed on the rock face for a long time, but there is no doubt as to the authinticity of the petroglyphs themselves. Take a look at this first picture: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Now I don't need to tell you all what that looks like, do I? Here's a picture zoomed out, so you can get the context. The original image is in the center. Notice what is i to its left and up a bit: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Now if we zoom back in from a different angle, look what we find. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Is that enough yet? Don't worry, I'm just getting warmed up! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ~Caleb
lol Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Look closer. There's more than rocks to meet the eye. In case you honestly can't see it (which I can't imagine), look about one third of the way down from the top of the first picture, and just to the right of the center. You should see a light colored streak, this is the neck. Follow it to the right to firnd the head, and follow it down to the left to find the body. Once you find it in one picture, you'll know what to look for in the other two. ~Caleb
A comment Look at the face in the rock! Its Jesus! Haha No offence but I think what I am trying to say is all described in a Song by Denis Leary called . DL it and listen to it . There is a part in the song that has to deal with my first sentence
Fun, but the drawing itself is pretty crude--plus, the Bible never even stops to mention dinosaurs. It isn't of the Bible's concern. So what is the point of a crude drawing of a dinosaur?
1) "So what is the point of a crude drawing of a dinosaur?" Well, first, it obviously demonstrates that there was at least one dinosaur living at the same time as at least one ancient human. Apparently, the Indians that drew this picture had seen what they were depicting. That, while not proving Creation explicitly, kind of crumbles the evolutionist's mantra that humans and dinosaurs never lived at the same time (except in Jurrassic Parks 1,2, and 3 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ) 2) "plus, the Bible never even stops to mention dinosaurs." Read Job 40:15-24. It describes Behemoth. A large strong animal that some scholars think might refer to an elephant or a hippopatomus. But others disagree, and think that it is a sauropod because the description does <i>not</i> fit that of an elephant. The following is a breif survey of features: -herbivorous (eats grass like an ox) -strong, with muscular thighs and abdomen -tail moves like a cedar tree [in the wind I assume -- but elephants and hippos certainly don't have tails that are like trees!!!] -strong bones -lies in the shade, and in the reeds -lives in the woods near rivers -must be large because (poetically speaking) he "drinketh up a river" -and he is relatively impervious to man's attempts to capture him. The size and strength, and certainly the tail, seem to indicate a sauropod. Anyway, irregardless of whether or not the Bible mentions saurpods, a sketch of a saurpod made by ancient Indians certainly seems to suggest that, at least not all dinosaurs went extinct "millions" of years ago. ~Caleb
Man and dinosaur not living in the same time can only be view as man and dinosaur not dominating Earth at the same time. Even today there are still living dinosaur rumors, so while human is dominating Earth, some dinosaurs can still exist. But that does not rule out dinosaurs had reigned Earth for a long long time.
Makes sense, especially since Job is the oldest book in the Bible (and most unique in all of ancient history)
Let's not forget the living dino's We have a lot in Australia....salt water croc's.... and nearly all of our senior politicians. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Dino's in Austarila? Well crockadiles are reptiles and are not true dinosaures. Although they have been around since the dinos, and some how survived what ever happened to the world at those times, Great Flood, cosmic acident, etc. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Loone Aren't all dino's just reptiles from a certain period???? I'm really not clear on this so I guess I'm just asking what you see as the difference.
It's called the Mokele-M'bembe, from the jungles in the Congo. It is supposed to be a sauropod from the jungles of Congo. According to native pygmies, one was killed recently (within the last couple decades) at Lake Tele. Everyone who ate the meat died (many of food poisoning). It is described as being brown, grey, or reddish-brown, has a smooth skin, and, interestingly enough, spends alot of time in the water (just like the description in Job). The natives also say it is about 30 feet long, has a long neck and tail (although in all the accopunts I've read, the neck was mentioned more prominently than the tail) and that it is strictly herbiverous. The commonest interpretation of the name is "stopper of rivers" This again sounds like the animal described in Job. Many expeditions have gone in search of it. Most met with unsuccess, some have found three-toed footprints (instead of 5-toed that most mammels would have) at least one expeditioner reports having seen it (without a camera!), and I think there is even one picture from another expidition, but from what I hear, it is extremely grainy and definately inconclusive. Expeditions are still ongoing. On the side, it is a fact that hippos don't live in the swamp -- perhaps scared away by the Mokele-M'bembe? In fact, there is a whole field of study that looks for evidence of animals that have been previously unknown to science (or at least to modern zoology). This feild is called cryptozoology. They usually report various strange sightings from eyewitness accounts, but try to take a skeptical and scientific outlook. In other words, they try not to be too gulible. If you do a search on cryptozoology and mokele-mbembe on the internet, you should get some interesting reading. A good place to start might be: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Cavern/7270/mokele.html BTW, there are stories of a similar animal in South America, but they are less well known, and have less evidence to back them up. ~Caleb
Caleb Why would a hippo be scared of a plant eater. I've seen hippo's with 4 lion hanging off them and they didn't seem too phased by it...kind of shook 'em off like flies...so why would it be scared of something that wouldn't attack it???
Actually, many plant eaters can be agressive. For instance, I think a hippo is a plant eater, and you don't want to get to close, because they can be very aggresive. ALso, the Elephant will charge at you if you get to close. Also, Elephants are afraid of mice. Another example of incidences of creatures being afraid of one another. whether this backs up Calebs posts or not, I don't know, but this is nature.
Thanks. There's alot more to worry about then being eaten -- like being bit, or stepped on or thrashed around. Herbivores can sometimes be quite territorial. Anyway, the point is, these Indians drew these pictures on the rock long before the advent of paleontology nad movies such as Jurassic Park. Obviously there are only so many possibilities: 1) The petroglyphs are a fake. A: The petroglyphs are located and preserved in a National Park. No one doubts the authinticity of the petroglyphs to my knowledge. They appear side by side with other accepted petroglyphs, and have the same appearence. 2) The picture is a fake. A: I have seen this picture on at least two websites now, and one of them gave information about where this particular one could be found. If it were a fake, they wouldn't tell you were to find the real thing. 3) The Indians made up a fantasy-creature. A: Indians may have a rich mythological heritage, but consider that the picture occurs with other petroglyphs of known species. Besides, if it was made-up, why does it so closely resemble a known family of dinosaurs (the Sauropods) that it can be easily identified as such? 4) I'll skip wacko theories like visions of the past/future (parhaps an Indian's spirit guide brought him to a future theatre to see Jurassic Park?), aliens, evolutionary gene-memory ("...my great-great-great-great-......-anscestor was a tree shrew, and I remember he saw something that looked like this..."), and Indians who found a skeleton and were making a scientific reconstruction (fossils are too fragil, too rare, and are not easily identifiable as a once-living creature if you don't know what you're looking at) 5) Either the Indians saw one of these creatures, or had heard stories of people who had. A: Either way this implies that man and dinosaur lived at the same time, which obviously contradicts evolutionary propoganda the man and dino are seperated by over 60-million years. Could evolution be wrong? Other animals once thought extinct have been found. The most common example is the Ceolocanth, but there are several others -- for example, the "tuatara". It is a "lizard-like" creature (but biologicaly "non-lizard") that was thought long extinct (I would guess it was likely touted by evolutionists as a primitive reptilian form) until they discovered it is still well and alive in New Zealand. In light of the evidence, it seems that (5) is the likely answer, and that Evolutionists need to stop and take stock of what is going on here. Could a herd of dinosaurs survive in America for millions of years after the KT boundary? Wouldn't this leave some definitive trace in the record? Why hasn't it? On the other hand, if dinosaurs emerged Noah's Ark around ~4500 BC and had a hard time adjusting to the new climate, and then these Indians observed a small herd of them (and probably dying out) less than a thousand years later, wouldn't that make more sense, chronologically? ~Caleb
I thought I should mention that in Africa there are cave paintings of curiously-attired man-like figures that Ufologists like to call "spacemen". Either way, metallic armor is out because human technology hadn't reached metals, and the images seem unique when compared to artistic relics such as headdresses and masks. They have no archaeological precedent, and no real anthropological correspondence. Does this mean spacemen were around way back when, as well? Honestly, though, I'm not entirely sure what I'm looking at. I see the squiggly drawings, but the most sauropod-looking anything in any of those pictures does not look like a drawing; in these photos the two best candidates are a contour in the rock--or so it looks to me--or a rock sitting in front of it that is vaguely skull-shaped if you stretch your imagination. Maybe it's photo quality, but even in that case, I wonder if the conclusion drawn that such a scene is indicative of human-dinosaur cohabitation accounts for all of the factors in historical and anthropological possibility. But it's just a thought. Because what happens if we combine those "Spaceman" paintings with other African paintings appearing to be starmaps of objects not visible to the naked eye? (Objects later discovered by twentieth-century astronomers.) And what of later tales out of India of maharajas who flew away to the East in zeppelin-like airships with strange beings rarely seen? And what happens if we combine those with the idea of Nazca? 220 square miles of runway-looking designs on a high plateau ... by Sciforums' standards of evidence, I'm building a wonderful case for a majort EBE landing site in Peru and implications of human trade interaction. Nonetheless, I think we can all agree that the evidence creates a nice picture, but that the conclusion does not consider the full range of possibilities. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Actually, that's one area were I would have to disagree. I believe scientists will find that man knew of metals alot earlier. The Bible traces that knowledge back to before the flood. Although wether that particular tribe had retained the knowledge, I don't know. Anyway, its obvious your trying to dodge the issue. ~Caleb
And when they find you're right Caleb-- When they find that you're right, point it out. How am I dodging the issue when the best you can offer is: I believe scientists will find that man knew of metals alot earlier. Right. Okay, and I believe that the vibrations and harmonics described by Crowley and others will eventually prove to be true. Until then, I cannot assert that they are real without declaring such on faith. Among the points you're arguing against is the conclusion does not consider the full range of possibilities, which point you have demonstrated affirmatively. So in the future I would ask that before you offer a counterpoint, you get a clue what you're responding to. Please. It helps avoid such diversions as that last post of yours. Dodging the issue? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Actually, what about the hammer they found in Creataceous rock? It's head was made of a very curious iron-chloride alloy. And then there's the small silver-zinc vessal that they discovered in Massachusets rocks that are supposedly 600 million years old. And don't forget about the brass bell they actually found <i>inside</i> a coal-bed! For more on this, check out my thread "You want more evidence?..." So you see, there actualy <i>is</i> science behind what I'm stating. Besides the fact that scientists are always discovering these ancient peoples were smatter than they had previously thought. As two simple examples, Neanderthals are now known to have participated in cultural activities, and "stone-age" peoples are now known to have weaved clothes rather than worn skins (as seen on Nightline and stated in Scientific American). ~Caleb
