Richard Dawkins & Smash of Dinosaur / Human Footprints

originally posted by: cooperton
...Not that bad for tracing the lineage of humankind.

Well, that, of course, assumes that either lineage is "the lineage of humankind." I submit that it is not.

Adaptation. Notice how white the people are in the extreme north regions of the globe? Less sunlight requires less melanin, and thus results in lighter skin: Map of Skin Pigments. Japheth, One of Noah's sons, migrated north through the Caucus mountains, thus giving rise to the "Caucasian".

Don't forget that lighter eye colors are actually the result of less pigmentation in the iris, causing light to refract differently which gives the illusion of the color of lighter-eyed irises. Seems logical that this adaptation would affect the eyes as well as the skin.

I'm not certain how accurate it is, but I read that it only takes a few generations for a family's skin color to start changing when relocated from, say, Norway, to Ecuador. It seems to me that it would take a bit longer, but maybe that was just talking about the beginnings of noticeable changes.

a reply to: SuperFrog

Just wondering, how did you manage in the same post to clearly contradict yourself.

Wonder no longer SF, i didn't contradict myself afaik...please clarify where you think i have done?

As far as unicorns go...it might surprise you to know, there is a condition called cornu cutaneum, that causes Human beings (some) to actually grow horns on their heads, sometimes on their forehead...in some cases they appear to be the quintessential image of a classical devil or demon from Medieval artworks and descriptions.

Unicorns, or at least the mythical creatures of lore, may well turn out to be ordinary equines afflicted with similar conditions, and so the myth grew out of ignorance of the condition...likewise, the myth of demons and or devils may well have sprouted (no pun) from Human beings being afflicted with it.

Ergo...Medieval people were a wholly ignorant bunch...an excavation of ore, or coal or just about anything that chanced upon a fossilised Dinosaur would most probably be attributed to demonic creatures or 'Dragons', which as you point out, have been in lore in many parts of the world for a long time. Chinese dragons for example are another potential origin for European myths of the same type, after perhaps the Chinese discovered their own massive reptile bones and mixed superstition with imagination and came up with 'Dragons'.

a reply to: MysterX

Well as long as you acknowledge that the myths arose out of animals that were already dead and not animals that lived and breathed alongside humans I can see your reasoning as valid.

a reply to: MysterX

As far as I know, there is no link or any evidence between dragon stories and archaeological findings of dinosaurs bones.

Our ancestors were very creative, and if you look Egyptian, Greek or Roman mythology, you find out that we can't link those stories with something in nature... they were full of superstition, magic, wonders...

This dragon-dinosaurs link mainly points to answer in genesis site and disinformation from there... in short, Creationism garbage... sorry, without evidence - not buying...

Show me evidence that clearly links story about dragon with archaeological find of dinosaurs and I'll believe it.

How old are dragon stories???

"God" made it all and "the Devil" does all the bad stuff.

-retards collective

a reply to: PickledOnion

Dawkins is too busy to destroy footprints, with all the tweets and his upcoming TED talk titled 'The god delusion and why you should still be talking about it after all these years.'

Huh...TED talk titled-try repeating that three times as fast as you can.

a reply to: SuperFrog


Actually, there is quite a lot of evidence

Adrienne Mayors book is a good read on the subject

press.princeton.edu...

The point is that humans on different continents with different backgrounds, cultures, customs, diets, languages all came up with the same story, the same myth, the same imaginary creature as per your line of thinking.

Which cultures have the exact same myths?

Dragons

I am sorry, they weren't only imagining things back then either. Think about it, do you really think they could just waste paper and ink as they pleased and make up stories about fake giant reptiles flying and eating humans. They wouldn't use precious paper and ink to record reality instead ? They mostly lived till age 30 maybe 40, they would spend it recording nonsense on hard to come by items? I will spend my short life time making stories about giant serpents and make sure everybody remembers them.

Wow, you have a warped perception of things back then. First off, the average life expectancy was only so low because the infant mortality rate was so high. Just because the average life expectancy was 30 years old doesn't mean that people didn't live past 30 or 40.

Okay that was unreasonable on my part.

Second, stories started out being oral in nature. They were only committed to paper when writing techniques were invented. What's this wasting paper nonsense when the stories themselves existed before writing was invented?

Written language is at least 5200 years old.

So many different cultures on different continents all had the same imaginary creature? Really? You can believe what you want I suppose, as long as you know it is a belief.

Which "same imaginary creature" are you referring to? The dragon? The one I've already talked about how it was different depending on the culture? If you are going to accept that "dragon" is an exact enough description to argue for exact sameness, then you might as well just say giant reptile. Well reptile isn't a species. It's a Class. To think that early humans wouldn't be able to imagine giant reptiles is just silly.

Other mythical creatures: giant humans.

Aren't dinosaurs reptiles? Aren't they giant in some cases? So there might be a possibility that early man didn't imagine them, yes?

Look I am not saying that what I have is earth shattering, I am just pointing out that there is a possibility that they weren't as invented as we are led to believe. Also, that you as much as me are representing beliefs both parties have no assurance of the exact truth since well we weren't there and we rely on what we can unearth.

a reply to: SuperFrog

If unproven theory is an oxymoron, then you need to tell the Darwinian evolutionist, age of the universe scientists, geological column believers, and extinction event scientists who claim no dinosaurs survived to walk alongside man despite the archeological evidence, to stop using the term theory when they have literally no proof but instead have relied on a rather vivid imagination.

Because I am not the moron in this Oxymoron.

The religion of pseudo science has a strong grip on it's followers.

Why exactly do I or anyone have to believe dinosaurs went extinct before man evolved/created? No one can prove they did not continue to exist after a known extinction event.

This is why it's called the religion of pseudo science, because you feel the need to convince others that what you can't prove has to be right.

a reply to: SuperFrog

Actually the ancient Greek Mythology is all related to religious philosophy, but has been grossly misinterpreted. All one has to do is read and understand Plato to figure this out.

Greek Mythology is similar to Hinduism and Hinduism is likely one of the sources of the mythology. One creator God and lessor god's/angels responsible for the everyday activities.

And many Greek God's represent the archetypes of man and have nothing to do with actual heavenly gods.

The hydra, the cyclops and the Sirens in Odysseus are all religious references. And metaphorically they make since.

a reply to: SuperFrog

Giant serpent Egypt 3500 years old

Chinese dragons 4000 BC or 6000 years old.

When did this story migrate to Africa?

I was trying to find a link for an American myth on these, but I can't find one right now.

originally posted by: olaru12
a reply to: PickledOnion

Wouldn't you think there would be more evidence of man in association with dinosaurs in other places besides Texas?

Wouldn't you think their would be more evidence of ANYTHING in association to ANYTHING in other places besides Texas?

Sick of having to rely on bought and paid for science and the religions that take care of the others.

Never mind

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

Let's put it this way. Dinosaur teeth can pierce other dinosaur skin (because that is how predators work). Dinosaur teeth aren't as sharp as a sword. Therefore, there doesn't exist dinosaur skin that is impenetrable by a sword.

In what imaginary world does this story make sense ?

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Just to ask Krazysh0t. ...why do you stoop to reasoning with logic? I do the same and we both know it's futile...yet we persist...

What logic ?

The logic that says the science used here is sound on these topics?

The same kind of blind faith present in all religions?

Some of you are just as gullible and stone age thinking as those bible people you wail about.

a reply to: Isurrender73

Thanks!

But, the Ica stones link actually states in the second paragraph that they were faked:

From the 1960s Javier Cabrera Darquea collected and popularized the stones, obtaining many of them from a farmer named Basilio Uschuya. Uschuya, after claiming them to be real ancient artifacts, admitted to creating the carvings he had sold and said he produced a patina by baking the stone in cow dung.

Your second link, is not usable as it gives no date. Sorry, I know you were trying to help, but thanks anyways.

a reply to: bitsforbytes

Oops. I didn't even read it. I heard about them several years ago and thought those were both real and cool. I wanted them to be real.

I hate fake archaeology. Thanks for ruining my happiness. Lol

a reply to: Isurrender73

Don`t give up so easily Isurrender73.

originally posted by: bitsforbytes
a reply to: Isurrender73

Don`t give up so easily Isurrender73.

Sweet, I can believe in Native American Dinosaurs again. Lol

Nice find, my happiness returns.

originally posted by: Isurrender73
a reply to: bitsforbytes

Oops. I didn't even read it. I heard about them several years ago and thought those were both real and cool. I wanted them to be real.

I hate fake archaeology. Thanks for ruining my happiness. Lol

If you read into it, it seems like these stones were genuine. Obviously Wikipedia is going to conclude "they are a hoax, dinosaurs are hundreds of millions of years old". Apparently he claimed they were fake so he would avoid getting arrested for selling archaeological findings. But the guy who found these stones quit his medical career and devoted his life to this stuff... doesn't sound like a hoax to me. From the stones Cabrera concluded:

"that man is at least 405 million years old"

Obviously the more intuitive conclusion is, dinosaurs are not 100's of millions of years old.