Human Footprints in Ancient Geological Layers

looks like a Stegosaur engraved on temple in Cambodia

www.ancient-origins.net... iQLWIjS1RCylNlY8-ri0MvQ7xOS6oGH0

let me guess; fake / been debunked

a reply to: TzarChasm

That's a great idea. I will do that today.

a reply to: ElGoobero

Maybe you should read the science of geology to find out how it's done. You can go to any university online, look up the physics or geology department and start there. That's what smart person would do. Are you smart?

originally posted by: ElGoobero
looks like a Stegosaur engraved on temple in Cambodia

www.ancient-origins.net... iQLWIjS1RCylNlY8-ri0MvQ7xOS6oGH0

let me guess; fake / been debunked

Correct (have a gold star!)

alisonincambodia.wordpress.com...

www.smithsonianmag.com...

originally posted by: AndyMayhew


Hence, we occasionally discover fossilised "soft tissue" - which, contrary to what some disingenuous (or simply ignorant) people will tell you, does not mean it's actually still soft (or suitable for carbon dating).

Lol what? They found collagen that was still stretchy. It must contain carbon, since soft tissues contain an abundance of carbon.

originally posted by: ElGoobero
looks like a Stegosaur engraved on temple in Cambodia

www.ancient-origins.net... iQLWIjS1RCylNlY8-ri0MvQ7xOS6oGH0

let me guess; fake / been debunked

Yeah their knee-jerk deboonking has a lot of work ahead:

Found in China, where protoceratops was known to exist:



Saurolophus was known to live in Asia,, surely enough an ancient Saurolophus artifact was found in China:


Brachiosaurus roamed North America in the past, and the natives depicted it:


Granby Idol


Utah


Utah


Amazon


Stegosaur fossils have been found in Europe, and this ancient artifact was uncovered after a landslide:





It's time we start admitting that dinosaurs existed in a more recent past.

a reply to: cooperton

It's time we start admitting that dinosaurs existed in a more recent past.

That's fair. But still has nothing to do with creationism. Unless you want to change the forum you chose to put this topic in.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

That's fair. But still has nothing to do with creationism. Unless you want to change the forum you chose to put this topic in.

It would drastically change our origins, which is the first word of the topic.

a reply to: cooperton

Would it though? It affects the timeline, but not the trajectory. Life still begins at the prokaryotic stage and proceeds from that point.

a reply to: cooperton

Yall get that posting the same thing over and over does not make it so? Or do you subscribe to the big lie fallacy?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

That's fair. But still has nothing to do with creationism. Unless you want to change the forum you chose to put this topic in.

It would drastically change our origins, which is the first word of the topic.

Why did your god create these creatures? Why are they not mentioned in any religious text? Why were they not on the ark? How does it change our origins?

you've all seen the megalithic structures built out of 16 ton stones, right?

why would you build a fortification out of 16 ton stones?
because there was something outside that could move a 15 ton stone.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

That's fair. But still has nothing to do with creationism. Unless you want to change the forum you chose to put this topic in.

It would drastically change our origins, which is the first word of the topic.

Why did your god create these creatures? Why were they not on the ark? How does it change our origins?

Why do humans create. Why do we invent, make things, push the limits of our understanding?

Why are they not mentioned in any religious text?

Who says they aren't?

Why were they not on the ark?

Who says they weren't?

How does it change our origins?

It doesn't.
We were created.

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Why did your god create these creatures? Why are they not mentioned in any religious text?

They are mentioned in the Bible:

Job 40:15-23
“Lo, I pray thee, Behemoth, that I made with thee: Grass as an ox he eateth.
Lo, I pray thee, his power [is] in his loins, And his strength in the muscles of his belly. He doth bend his tail as a cedar, The sinews of his thighs are wrapped together, His bones [are] tubes of brass, His bones [are] as a bar of iron. He [is] a beginning of the ways of God, His Maker bringeth nigh his sword; For food do mountains bear for him, And all the beasts of the field play there… Lo, a flood oppresseth -- he doth not haste, He is confident though Jordan Doth come forth unto his mouth.”

This shows Behemoth was an Herbivore, had a tail the size of a large tree, and was very large in general. There is only one kind of animal like this in the history of the world.. the sauropod. Titanosaur fossils, which is a type of sauropod, has been found in the middle east where Job would have observed it.

There are other examples as well. The misnomer when looking back into history is the fact that dinosaur wasn't a word until 1841. Prior to 1841 all references to dinosaurs would have had unique names such as "Behemoth", or more generically they were called 'large lizards' (which is the etymology of dragon).

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: cooperton

Yall get that posting the same thing over and over does not make it so? Or do you subscribe to the big lie fallacy?

Well you have yet to come up with a proper explanation of why dinosaurs have been depicted all throughout the world. So as long as you all continue to say show the evidence, I will show the evidence. These human footprints in limestone and sandstone are another nail in the coffin for evolutionary theory

a reply to: Quadrivium

Why do humans create. Why do we invent, make things, push the limits of our understanding?

Fear, pride, exploitation, profit.

a reply to: cooperton

Well you have yet to come up with a proper explanation of why dinosaurs have been depicted all throughout the world. So as long as you all continue to say show the evidence, I will show the evidence. These human footprints in limestone and sandstone are another nail in the coffin for evolutionary theory

But that's still very puzzling, how you seem to think that "dinosaurs coexisted with humans" is the same thing as "humans were created from mud and soul breathed into them from an alien who invented the earth and the sun it orbits". These are two very different ideas you're attempting to falsely conflate.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew

originally posted by: ElGoobero
looks like a Stegosaur engraved on temple in Cambodia

www.ancient-origins.net... iQLWIjS1RCylNlY8-ri0MvQ7xOS6oGH0

let me guess; fake / been debunked

Correct (have a gold star!)

alisonincambodia.wordpress.com...

www.smithsonianmag.com...

not to drift topic but these articles don't debunk anything. the first is a snarky girl that dismisses it as a pangolin (possible, sure, but looks more Stegosaurian to me). second refers to vague rumors of fake carvings and quotes Carl Sagan 'he says dinosaurs died out a zillion years ago so it can't be real so there'.

it's POSSIBLE this is a rhino circled by leaves, but I wouldn't put $ on that guess.

a reply to: cooperton

And we are back to this.

YOU
HAVE
TO
PROVE
THOSE
ARE
DINOSAURS

When you can do that, lets consider the stuff you post as potential evidence.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Fear, pride, exploitation, profit.

So why are homo-sapiens the only ones to show such a need?
Out of all the diversity we see on our little blue marble, we show the need to Create.
Not solely for survival but because we can.

It amazes me how many of you are quick to judgement when you think someones else's evidence is fake yet turn a blind eye to the hoaxes and fraud perpetuated by those in your own religion.
From out of date lies in text books indoctrinating children to out right forgeries.

Science is Science.
WE (biased, faulty, sinful humans) intemperate science.
If our understanding is limited, we have a limited interpretation.
If our understanding is biased, we have a biased interpretation.
If our understanding is faulty, we have a faulty interpretation.

To be honest I have had very few conversations with people I would actually consider Atheist, all of which believe in biological evolution.
Many that consider themselves Atheist aren't. How can you be an atheist while showing anger toward that in which you claim not to believe?
A true atheist wouldn't care what others believed. They wouldn't seem to be so angry at the very God they say they don't believe in.

I will leave you with:
Biased understanding is not true understanding. It is only bias, a way for you to try and prove, to yourself and others, that you are justified in your faith and beliefs.
This goes for so called biological evolutionary atheist that can not see their view is a form of religion, a faith based belief system.
Creationist, for the most part, understand their bias comes from their beliefs and their faith.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: TzarChasm

Fear, pride, exploitation, profit.

So why are homo-sapiens the only ones to show such a need?
Out of all the diversity we see on our little blue marble, we show the need to Create.
Not solely for survival but because we can.

We're the only species who has ever needed to use precious metals as currency, convert that currency into cute little paper symbols, build an industry around it and use it to trap society in a wage based system of servitude and class inequality. We also created heroin, nuclear warfare, transgender politics and Twitter. Making things because you're bored and want to add extra steps to the human experience isn't exactly ingenious or evidence of some ancient cosmic wisdom.

This goes for so called biological evolutionary atheist that can not see their view is a form of religion, a faith based belief system.
Creationist, for the most part, understand their bias comes from their beliefs and their faith.

Which is fine as opinions go, your experiences are your own and there's no tool in my arsen that would reverse your position. However (at risk of sounding like a broken record) there's still an incongruent gap between the "out of place" human traces and the hypothesis of creationism. The timeline of human evolution may need remodeling but ultimately there's no substance pointing adamantly to supernatural influence.