Dinosaur Carvings in Temples

[jedidia]

I'm great busy lately, but one of my creationist brothers threw a lousy video at my face today, for which I found some material a bit more neutral after some searching, but still not very informative (still more informative than the video I got to see, which was propaganda, which is why I don't post it here in the first place).

so, take a look:

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/dino-cambodia/

What do you guys think about it?

edit: darn, I misspelled the title!!

 

[Urwumpe]

I think, the real question is more: Are we the only ones to find dinosaur fossiles?

 

[jedidia]

Yeah, I asked myself that question sometimes. Still, a fossile to reproduce such an image... You'd have to find a whole skeleton. :dry:

 

[Urwumpe]

Yeah, I asked myself that question sometimes. Still, a fossile to reproduce such an image... You'd have to find a whole skeleton. :dry:

Yeah, but it is not like you need a large vivid imagination or scientific skills to get such a image. Also, I don't yet know if the image is as old as claimed. Restorators are known to have some fun and insert some art of their own in places, where the original is unknown.

 

[cjp]

I always wondered where people in Europe and China got their "dragon" idea from. While a dragon is a mythological animal, it is very similar to what some dinosaurs look like. But this is all a bit speculation of course...

 

[SiberianTiger]

I always wondered where people in Europe and China got their "dragon" idea from. While a dragon is a mythological animal, it is very similar to what some dinosaurs look like. But this is all a bit speculation of course...

Findings of dinosaur fossils are known to be abundant in Mongolia. I read an arcaeologist's book who made several expeditions to Mongolia: the local people called the fossils Loony Yass, which means just that: "Dragon's Bones" in their language.

 

[jedidia]

That's interesting. What other historical evidence is there for early Fossil-findings? (e.g. notes in some historical documents, chronicals etc...)

 

[JamesG]

I saw a program on one of the smart channels (Discover, History, or Nat. Geo) that speculated that the greek myths of the gods and titans (demigods) got their origin from their finding fossilized mega fauna remains.

The people of the ancient world were very familiar with the anatomy of animals and even people. Most people knew how to and had to butcher their own food. So they could definitely put two and two together and realize that the bones buried in rock used to be living animals. The difference is the inference they made vs. our modern understanding. They embedded them into their mythos and legend. When a farmer would dig up the bones of a mammoth or other large animal, because of the nature of the find (the size and the minieralized heaviness of the bones) the were presumed to be supernatural and the custom was to rebury them as if they were a war hero or even a god.
When later generations happened across these burials, they were seen as proof of the existence of these supernatural beings.

 

[jedidia]

That sounds very plausible... Allthough I wouldn't have expected them to re-burry them. An article about this would sure be interesting, but I couldn't find any as of yet...

 

[David]

Are we even sure that this stonecarving is actually a depiction of a dinosaur? Except for the apparent back-plates, it really doesn't seem to resemble a stegosaurus (wrong head and legs/stature, no tail-spikes), and the neck collar-thingie resembles that of a tricerotops. It occurs to me that what is depicted, may be either a product of the stonecarver's imagination, or perhaps a hybrid of stegosaurus and tricerotops, which would perhaps suggest a finding of combined fossil remnants from these two animals, and the interpretation, thereof.

Anyway, in the absence of its being, reliably, a depiction of an actual dinosaur, I don't suppose that one can conclude that it further implies a dinosaur that was contemporaneous with the stonecarver.

I suppose that it could, conceivably, be a depiction of some ancient animal that was contemporaneous with the stonecarver, but not necessarily a dinosaur.

 

[n122vu]

This brings to mind a theory, more of a passing thought, that I had recently.

It has been speculated in recent scientific circles that the dinosaurs were killed off by diseases spread by insects. While I find this fascinating, another possibility crossed my mind. What if man killed off the dinosaurs?

Let's just say (and this is just my imagination, don't take this rambling too seriously), but let's just say that some time in the future we discover a way to make time travel possible. What better scientific expedition than to go back in time millions of years and see dinosaurs first-hand. But, something goes wrong, and once the expedition arrives, the time machine no longer works. (Great Scott!) The scientists, spending more time than they intended in the past, unknowingly introduce into the dinosaurs' environment bacteria and microbes that are all but harmless to modern mammals and humans. Much like the Native American population had not been exposed to the illnesses brought by colonists, so would the dinosaurs be vulnerable to modern microbes and thus fall prey to them. Can you imagine how the scientist(s) would feel? And they would know what archaeological evidence modern scientists would find, so they would do everything they could to hide their presence and influence so that we would never know the truth.

One could argue that this might explain some findings of supposed human footprints together with dinosaur remains, but this is another theory in itself with very little merit.

Just a possible explanation of the "dinosaurs with man" theory. Again, don't take me too seriously.

 

[Urwumpe]

One could argue that this might explain some findings of supposed human footprints together with dinosaur remains, but this is another theory in itself with very little merit.

I would not trust the findings too much...

Just a possible explanation of the "dinosaurs with man" theory. Again, don't take me too seriously.

Yeah, never ever

 

[jedidia]

This brings to mind a theory, more of a passing thought, that I had recently.

This sure is the coolest theory I heard in a long time! :speakcool:

I'll open up a webpage to spread the word, so it will be known to all mankind for all future that they MUST NOT send back scientists in time to study dinosaurs! :rofl:

 

[JamesG]

Except that would create a paradox if the only way that humans evolved was because a time traveling meddler went back and left some bugs behind that killed off the dinosaurs.

 

[jedidia]

Doc: "Don't... or you'll provoke a giant paradox!"
Marty: "You mean one of those things destroying the universe??"

 

[pattersoncr]

Let's just say (and this is just my imagination, don't take this rambling too seriously), but let's just say that some time in the future we discover a way to make time travel possible. What better scientific expedition than to go back in time millions of years and see dinosaurs first-hand. But, something goes wrong, and once the expedition arrives, the time machine no longer works. (Great Scott!) The scientists, spending more time than they intended in the past, unknowingly introduce into the dinosaurs' environment bacteria and microbes that are all but harmless to modern mammals and humans. Much like the Native American population had not been exposed to the illnesses brought by colonists, so would the dinosaurs be vulnerable to modern microbes and thus fall prey to them. Can you imagine how the scientist(s) would feel? And they would know what archaeological evidence modern scientists would find, so they would do everything they could to hide their presence and influence so that we would never know the truth.

Maybe one of them would step on a bug and it would completely alter the future. The next thing we knew we'd all have long forked tongues and it would rain donuts.

 

[stjimmy225]

i think we could make a cartoon out of that