Man and dinosaurs, when did we first know about them?

jmc007

jmc007

jmc007

Soldato
Joined
6 Mar 2009
Posts
4,925
Location
In training.
If we discovered about dinosaurs for the first time in the nineteenth century, by the discovery of fossilized bones, then what are these etchings on the side of Bishop Richard Bell of Carlisle's tomb from 1496?

http://storiesfromthediogenesclub.blogspot.co.uk/2007/07/strange-beasts-on-bishop-bells-tomb.html

Pics and more at the link above.

Also a two minute video showing evidence of humans knowledge and interaction with dinosaurs around the world in cave drawings/paintings and stone carvings.
Skip the first minute.

 
Last edited:
3p19.jpg
 
jmc007 said:
If we discovered about dinosaurs for the first time in the nineteenth century, by the discovery of fossilized bones, then what are these etchings on the side of Bishop Richard Bell of Carlisle's tomb from 1496?

http://storiesfromthediogenesclub.blogspot.co.uk/2007/07/strange-beasts-on-bishop-bells-tomb.html

Pics and more at the link above.

Also a two minute video showing evidence of humans knowledge and interaction with dinosaurs around the world in cave drawings/paintings and stone carvings.
Skip the first minute.

[youtube/youtube]
Click to expand...



Except you are wrong with the first premise, humans have been finding dinosaur bones for thousands of years. People believed them were ancient remains of dragons, or giant lizards - which is pretty accurate really. The earliest documented discoveries in the UK were in 1686, but that was using scientific methodology. People were discovering fossils in the UK long before that, anyone in the Jurassic coast (devon-dorset) would find fossils daily on the beach etc. and assumed they were remains of ancient animals killed in a giant flood, possibly the biblical flood. They were well aware that such fossilised shells were from animals that didn't apear to live in that region anymore but that fact wasn't too important to most people back then.
 
another issue with this, of the many, is that if they were only a couple of thousand years old they would find un-fossilized remains... because, ya know, i hear it takes a while to fossilize something; they only find millions of years old fossilized bones. Someone's, admittedly similar, cave paintings and sculptures aren't evidence, they're art. Also, we have had the written word for as long, why isn't a 10 foot tall ravenous lizard documented anywhere? I'm sure that sort of thing would peak a persons interest.

This is infantile.

B@
 
Last edited:
Doofer, love the dinosaur card. xD

D.P. said:
Except you are wrong with the first premise, humans have been finding dinosaur bones for thousands of years. People believed them were ancient remains of dragons, or giant lizards - which is pretty accurate really. The earliest documented discoveries in the UK were in 1686, but that was using scientific methodology. People were discovering fossils in the UK long before that, anyone in the Jurassic coast (devon-dorset) would find fossils daily on the beach etc. and assumed they were remains of ancient animals killed in a giant flood, possibly the biblical flood. They were well aware that such fossilised shells were from animals that didn't apear to live in that region anymore but that fact wasn't too important to most people back then.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily wrong, in fact far from it as that is the perceived idea nowadays. Check wikipedia.
Also they were thought to be human bones, take Robert Plot in 1676, the curator of an English museum, described and drew a thigh bone that he believed belonged to a giant man. Though that is another "huge" subject.

How did the tomb engravings have such accurate depictations of a dinosaur, i.e. what looks like Diplodocus surely no one had put together a full skeleton of said found fossils?
 
jmc007 said:
How did the tomb engravings have such accurate depictations of a dinosaur, i.e. what looks like Diplodocus surely no one had put together a full skeleton of said found fossils?
Click to expand...

They don't. They depict a lion fighting a dragon (the lion is Christ, the dragon is Satan) but many years of wear have worn away some of the details. What you do then is take really bad photographs with overexposed flash and you can say "They closely resemble dinosaurs, creation must be true!!"
 
RDM said:
They don't. They depict a lion fighting a dragon (the lion is Christ, the dragon is Satan) but many years of wear have worn away some of the details. What you do then is take really bad photographs with overexposed flash and you can say "They closely resemble dinosaurs, creation must be true!!"
Click to expand...

I can see the lion, fighting the dragon you describe, yet still that "dragon" looks uncannily like what we would call today, a Diplodous; or a dinosaur of that kind.
 
doofer said:
http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/8385/3p19.jpg[img][/QUOTE]

"And o, Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth, but the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus with a splinter in his paw. And o, the disciples did run a-shrieking 'What a big lizard, Lord.' But Jesus was unafraid, and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus' paw, and the big lizard became his friend. And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a Loch for oh so many years, inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat families and their fat dollar bills. And O Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you, Lord."
Click to expand...
 
Theophany said:
"And o, Jesus and the disciples walked to Nazareth, but the trail was blocked by a giant brontosaurus with a splinter in his paw. And o, the disciples did run a-shrieking 'What a big lizard, Lord.' But Jesus was unafraid, and he took the splinter from the brontosaurus' paw, and the big lizard became his friend. And Jesus sent him to Scotland where he lived in a Loch for oh so many years, inviting thousands of American tourists to bring their fat families and their fat dollar bills. And O Scotland did praise the Lord. Thank you, Lord."
Click to expand...

I think you may have censored this a little ;) Love the guy though.
 
I'd be wary of direct inferences from evidence like that anyhow - its not that unlikely for someone to take an example of an existing animal use a bit of creativity to draw a mythical monster that happens to resemble a dinosaur.
 
Rroff said:
I'd be wary of direct inferences from evidence like that anyhow - its not that unlikely for someone to take an example of an existing animal use a bit of creativity to draw a mythical monster that happens to resemble a dinosaur.
Click to expand...

Fair do's. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom