It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Covering up the Ta Prohm Stegosaurus

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 02:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by mybigunit
Lets face it if it comes out we did live together that means we as humans are much older and that throws most religions out the door.


actually it's the complete opposite. If dinosaurs are proven to have lived with man. It supports religion. It would not mean that anything can be concluded as older or younger. Just that we coexisted.

[edit on 6/2/2008 by JPhish]




posted on Dec, 27 2008 @ 11:33 AM
link   
Behemoth = Elephant.
Leviathan = Whale

You guys are making the assumption that the pic shows a stegasaur when it looks very little like a stegasaur and a lot like an asiatic rhino.


The head looks almost exactly like a rhino and the only innacuracy is the thickness of the tail. The carver would have avoided carving an accurate thin tail due to the crumbly stones fragility but the tail proportions are still closer to those of a rhino than the tail of a stegasaur.

The only vaguely stegasaur like feature is the fan of scales which could just as easily be jungle foilage or stylised rays such as those that surround the carving or that surround portraits of chairman Mao or Hillary Clinton in posters



posted on Mar, 8 2009 @ 04:50 AM
link   
I have to say, if this shows that stegosaurs were around the same time as man, it wouldn't prove or disprove either religion or evolution.

Ever heard of the coelacanth?

BUT, if it turns out they were, I'd be very interested to hear. On the other hand maybe it's possible they came across dino bones and pieced them together to make this animal? Or maybe it's a mythological creature? Could even be a new species, if it doesn't turn out to be a rhino.

Good find.



posted on Mar, 26 2009 @ 02:24 PM
link   
You know, I haven't seen any dinosaurs running around lately but somehow we know what they look like.

Go figure.

If it is in fact a depiction of a stegosaurus, is it not possible that these older civilizations happened across a fossil and took liberty on what it looked like, just like we do, basing our predictions on what other known animals look like? I mean really, if you have the skeletal structure you have the basic body shape and could come up with a general idea of what it might look like. You might even be inclined to draw (carve) a picture to show someone what you had found.

No, that would be too simple an answer.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Bro, there aren't many differences between the newer and older drawings. Not enough to support your claim that it's a cover up, anyway.

Having said that, let me make sure that I understand the rest of what you're saying. You'll ignore the overwhelming evidence that tells us that dinosaurs were around millions of years before man, yet you'll accept ONE small carving of an animal that somewhat resembles a stegosaur, as well as a number of other animals, as absolute proof that man walked with dinosaurs? I don't get it! Where are all of the other carvings and drawings? Plenty of drawings of horses, antelope, elephants, etc., but no T-rex. I wonder why...

You say that there's a cover up. A cover up of what? Do you think that scientists actually believe that man walked with dinosaurs, but lie to the world in some conspiracy against God? You question their dating techniques, but do you actually have any idea how its done? Do you understand the science involved? I think you'd actually need an understanding of it before you can discount it. Doing otherwise means that you're relying solely on your faith, which begs the question: If your faith is so strong, why do you feel the need for 'proof' that man walked with dinosaurs? Why does the Creationist machine constantly seek evidence to confirm the creation story of the Bible, and why do they constantly seek to disprove accepted science? Are they seeking validation? Shouldn't their faith be enough? Let me ask you this: If evolution were true, would it disprove that the universe had a creator, or would it just disprove your idea of who that creator is?

Please know that I'm not knocking you for your beliefs; I honestly admire your convictions. However, I think that if you're trying to convince those who don't share your beliefs, you're going to need more proof than a tiny stone carving...

Have a nice day.



new topics

top topics
 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join