Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Because creationists wish to interpret vague images as being those of dinosaurs does not constitute evidence that ancient humans had direct contact with living dinosaurs--it isn't even convincing evidence that the images alluded to are accurate representations of dinosaurs.

Setanta wrote:

Because creationists wish to interpret vague images as being those of dinosaurs does not constitute evidence that ancient humans had direct contact with living dinosaurs--it isn't even convincing evidence that the images alluded to are accurate representations of dinosaurs.

I agree. It's not conclusive.

But I find it very interesting that cultures all around the globe seem to have very similar representations of dino-like critters in their art and lore.

But I find it very interesting that cultures all around the globe seem to have very similar representations of dino-like critters in their art and lore.

But I find it very interesting that cultures all around the globe seem to have very similar representations of dino-like critters in their art and lore.

The current epistemological position that science takes, since the late 1920's, is you can NEVER know what is really going on behind the scenes. You can only correlate experiences and make predictions. I would never argue religion vs science. That's not what these treads are, in my opinion. They are arguing 4000+ year old science vs current science. And apparently the only way those on the side of 4000 year old science can do that is to lie about current science, which none seem to have taken the slightest effort to actually learn.

Unlike some others here I have nothing against religion per se.

real life wrote:

But I find it very interesting that cultures all around the globe seem to have very similar representations of dino-like critters in their art and lore.

Now you are saying yourself that the pictures are dino-like. They aren't perfect, or even excellent, reproductions. Having established that, maybe you'd like to revisit a point we argued many pages ago: That such likeness can be achieved by finding a dino-skeleton and using ones fantasy to reconstruct the animal.

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

The current epistemological position that science takes, since the late 1920's, is you can NEVER know what is really going on behind the scenes. You can only correlate experiences and make predictions. I would never argue religion vs science. That's not what these treads are, in my opinion. They are arguing 4000+ year old science vs current science. And apparently the only way those on the side of 4000 year old science can do that is to lie about current science, which none seem to have taken the slightest effort to actually learn.

Unlike some others here I have nothing against religion per se.

I agree. This is not about religion vs science.

... a thread by gunga for his dino proof. I pointed out what the depiction was and even gave him the NAME of the damn thing.

Some of them aren't as good (duh, you mean all artists haven't the same skill?), but are still dino-like.

Which I thought was the point of the post, that there is no SCIENTIFIC proof for a purely religious concept, which others have been trying to say there is on other threads. I though the original post meant to show the absurdity/futility of any attempt to do this. I may have misunderstood.

TheCorrectResponse wrote:

... a thread by gunga for his dino proof. I pointed out what the depiction was and even gave him the NAME of the damn thing.

The fact that the ancient culture was portraying what they considered to be a god doesn't address the question of where the image came from.

On what was it based?

Imagination, or something they saw?

If imagination, explain the strong similarities world wide.

real life wrote:

Some of them aren't as good (duh, you mean all artists haven't the same skill?), but are still dino-like.

Not dino-like enough to require a trained scientist and many years to make. Besides, your assertion that it takes a trained scientist years to reconstruct a body from a reasonably complete skeleton is supported yet by anything but your say-so. And rhetoric like "just silly" and "c'mon" adds no evidence whatsoever. Whom and what you consider silly is completely irrelevant to this discussion.