Here's a few more images of the footprints from the Carboniferous Pennsylvania Sandstone in which the footprint set above were found.
Like dinosaur soft tissue, human footprints don't seem to be limited by supposed geologic age.
Mmmm
back when the dinosaur soft tissue story was broken in 2005, i predicted that that many more soft tissues would be found and that it wouldn't matter if it was supposedly "65 million" years old or "165 million" years old.
the prediction has proven true and dinosaur soft tissue is routinely now found regardless of supposed age.
this is easy to predict using a literal reading of genesis and accepting it as history.... .
Here's a few more images of the footprints from the Carboniferous Pennsylvania Sandstone in which the footprint set above were found.
Like dinosaur soft tissue, human footprints don't seem to be limited by supposed geologic age.
Mmmm
back when the dinosaur soft tissue story was broken in 2005, i predicted that that many more soft tissues would be found and that it wouldn't matter if it was supposedly "65 million" years old or "165 million" years old.
the prediction has proven true and dinosaur soft tissue is routinely now found regardless of supposed age.
this is easy to predict using a literal reading of genesis and accepting it as history.... .
It turns out that Human Footprints in the Carboniferous messes up the deep time for secularists as well:
Richard Dawkins said, authenticated evidence of humans in the Carboniferous would “blow the theory of evolution out of the water.” (Dawkins, Free Inquiry, vol. 21, no. 4, 2001.)
One such fossil footprint - pictured above - was discovered by the head of department at Berea college in Kentucky. It is of a human-like track left in sandstone of the Upper Carboniferous Period.
Numerous scientists have investigated these tracks and concluded that they are genuine (even going so far as to count the sand grains under magnification to ensure that it was compressed at the bottom rather than carved).
In Scientific American, geologist Albert G. Ingalls writes, “If man, or even his ape ancestors, or even that ape ancestor’s early mammalian ancestor, existed as far back as the Carboniferous Period in any shape, then the whole science of geology is so completely wrong that all the geologists will resign their jobs and take up truck driving.
"Hence, for the present at least, science rejects the attractive explanation that man made these mysterious prints in the mud of the Carboniferous with his feet.” Ingalls suggested that they were made by some unidentified amphibian.
But a human-sized Carboniferous amphibian is just about as problematic for evolutionary timetables as humans in that era!
Another example of "believe what I say, not what you see".
back when the dinosaur soft tissue story was broken in 2005, i predicted that that many more soft tissues would be found and that it wouldn't matter if it was supposedly "65 million" years old or "165 million" years old.
the prediction has proven true and dinosaur soft tissue is routinely now found regardless of supposed age.
this is easy to predict using a literal reading of genesis and accepting it as history.... .
Yes, some are real, the real ones depict fish and flowers
@Anony Mous: How could there not be controversy over something this big? It is interesting that so many professionals with careers and educations to defend believe the Ica stones with dinosaurs are real. Here's a list of Pro and Con arguments.
But, this is only a subset of historical global dinosaur art in general. Which itself is a subset of the available evidence for a young earth.
For Additional Information:
For Additional Information:
For Additional Information:
For Additional Information:
For Additional Information:
For Additional Information:
For Additional Information:
For Additional Information:
For Additional Information:
For Additional Information:
back when the dinosaur soft tissue story was broken in 2005, i predicted that that many more soft tissues would be found and that it wouldn't matter if it was supposedly "65 million" years old or "165 million" years old.
the prediction has proven true and dinosaur soft tissue is routinely now found regardless of supposed age.
this is easy to predict using a literal reading of genesis and accepting it as history.... .
The Ica Stones are interesting artifacts that fall under the umbrella of dinosaur art from all over the world, spanning millennia:
In 1966, Professor Cabrera received one such carved stone as a birthday present. In the same year, Santiago Agurto Calvo, an architect, carried out archaeological excavations in Ica. He repeatedly unearthed engraved stones. Calvo became convinced that the engravings originated from artists of pre-Inca times. He tried in vain to arouse the interest of mainstream archaeology for the mysterious finds.
Prof. Cabrera explaining his collection. (© Walter-Jörg Langbein)
Professor Cabrera continuously received engraved stones, especially from people who were grateful that he had helped them without asking payment for his services. Soon, the famous son of the town of Ica developed a genuine passion for collecting. Over the years, the hundreds of engraved drawings grew to thousands. Professor Javier Cabrera Darquea, who gave lectures at the Universidad Nacional San Luis Gonzaga soon realized that, aside from the plain, geometrical designs, the images depicted plants and animals from prehistoric times. There were clearly identifiable saurians that had been carved into the stone surfaces.
Some stones feature saurian-like creatures. (© Walter Langbein)
How were pre-Inca people supposed to have known what dinosaurs looked like?
back when the dinosaur soft tissue story was broken in 2005, i predicted that that many more soft tissues would be found and that it wouldn't matter if it was supposedly "65 million" years old or "165 million" years old.
the prediction has proven true and dinosaur soft tissue is routinely now found regardless of supposed age.
this is easy to predict using a literal reading of genesis and accepting it as history.... .
dragons are not real
Sure they are. Anyone, can view the head of this spectacular creature at the Children's Museum in Indianapolis
back when the dinosaur soft tissue story was broken in 2005, i predicted that that many more soft tissues would be found and that it wouldn't matter if it was supposedly "65 million" years old or "165 million" years old.
the prediction has proven true and dinosaur soft tissue is routinely now found regardless of supposed age.
this is easy to predict using a literal reading of genesis and accepting it as history.... .
How did the Inca stone artists know how to depict dermal patterns and cartridge frills that were unknown in the 1960's?
You believe that hundreds of dinosaur depictions from every corner of the globe over thousands of years were the result of ancient dinosaur bone excavations? Where is the evidence for this?
Without evidence, it's just another "Just So" story designed to save a paradigm in crisis. I do understand that paradigms are very hard to let go of once entrenched in specific world-views.
Notwithstanding, the description in Job 41 rules out Leviathan as a mythical creature. The passage describes where Leviathan lived (in the sea but sometimes on shore). It had armor scaling that was so tightly-knit that no air could pass between (capable of deflecting spears). It left luminescent wakes and had a mouth that was ringed with terrorizing teeth. We know from Psalm 104 that Leviathan “played around in ancient shipping lanes.” Few doubt the reality of the horse, ostrich, eagle, goat, and other animals that God described for Job along with Leviathan. The Bible places Leviathan in a realistic context.
So if Leviathan isn't a dinosaur, what is it.? While many extinct fossil candidates have been proposed over the years, Sarcosuchus or Spinosaurus known from fossils may fit. Sarcosuchus was massive (36–39 ft) that may have weighed up to nine tons and had a sail-like fin on its back. Its length surpassed even the Tyrannosaurus.
One possibility pointed out by Brian Thomas is a giant creature that was on display in ancient Rome. He wrote:
In his book The Authenticity of the Book of Jonah, historian Bill Cooper relayed a passage from Pliny the Elder’s Natural History: ‘The bones of this monster, to which Andromeda was said to have been exposed, were brought by Marcus Scaurus from Joppa in Judaea during his aedileship and shown at Rome among the rest of the amazing items displayed. The monster was over 40 feet long, and the height of its ribs was greater than that of Indian elephants, while its spine was 1-1/2 feet thick.’
The dragons of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth…. Every country had them in its mythology.” (Lindall, Carl, “Dragon,” The World Book Encyclopedia, vol. 5, 1996, p. 265-266.)
Funny how "every country" believed in dinosaurs (dragons) and came up with the same myth.
Secularists have way more faith than Christians. I certainly don't have that kind of faith.
back when the dinosaur soft tissue story was broken in 2005, i predicted that that many more soft tissues would be found and that it wouldn't matter if it was supposedly "65 million" years old or "165 million" years old.
the prediction has proven true and dinosaur soft tissue is routinely now found regardless of supposed age.
this is easy to predict using a literal reading of genesis and accepting it as history.... .
You believe that hundreds of dinosaur depictions from geographically diverse areas over thousands of years were the result of dinosaur bone excavations? Where is the evidence for this? Or, is this another "just so" propaganda story? How did the ancient artists know how to correctly draw dermal patters and cartridge frills that have only been recently been authenticated?
For example, Luis Chiappe and colleagues discussed certain sauropod dinosaur embryos found in South America: “The general skin pattern consists of round, non-overlapping, tubercle-like scales…A rosette pattern of scales is present in PVPH-130″ (Chiappe, et al., 1998, p. 259). Note the skin depictions above to the right. “Both taxa show a round pattern of small polygonal scales, which in some places is interrupted by larger oval tubercles surrounded by the small scales, resulting in rosette-like structures. …which also match the most common textures known in dinosaurs.” (Christiansen, and Tschopp, “Exceptional Stegosaur Integument Impressions from the Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation of Wyoming,” Swiss Journal of Geosciences 103:2, 2010.)
Other items of anatomical accuracy that attest to the authenticity of these Ica Stone depictions include the positioning of the tail and legs. Early critics said the Ica Stones were fakes, in part because their tails were almost all sticking out while walking. Paleontologists in the 1960s were confident that dinosaurs dragged their tails. The paleontologists were wrong and the Ica Stones were right. Scientists now believe dinosaurs held their massive tails off the ground while walking, because there are no drag marks on dinosaur trackways. The dinosaurs on the Ica Stones are accurately depicted standing upright, rather than with legs splayed out in a lizard-like position. The stylizing of animals depicted on the Ica Stones matches those found in the Nascan Lines (monkey with curled tail, hummingbird, and stylized dinosaur).
Many of the Ica Stones were been blackened so that the artistic etchings stand out. Undoubtedly, many fraudulent Ica Stones have been manufactured over the years to sell to tourists. But dinosaur stones were found in tomb excavations by experienced archaeologists. Moreover microscopic analysis of the patina (covering the stone surface), copper traces and oxidation in the etching grooves helps distinguish between the authentic and the recently forged artifacts. In 2015-2016 Genesis Park participated in research seeking a methodology to independently authenticate the Ica Stones. This resulted in an article published in a peer-reviewed creation science journal.
back when the dinosaur soft tissue story was broken in 2005, i predicted that that many more soft tissues would be found and that it wouldn't matter if it was supposedly "65 million" years old or "165 million" years old.
the prediction has proven true and dinosaur soft tissue is routinely now found regardless of supposed age.
this is easy to predict using a literal reading of genesis and accepting it as history.... .
there is no extant evidence that dinosaurs survived into the Roman or Greek times,
when history was pretty well described.
@Anony Mous
The artifact below is a Mesopotamian jasper cylinder seal from the Uruk Period (about 3500 BC). This object is currently housed at the Louvre. The animal is an artist’s conception of an Apatosaurus.
There are many striking similarities between these two depictions. The long neck, tail, legs and feet on the artifact clearly fit the sauropods better than any other type of animal.
The Palestrina Mosaic is another example. The mosaic was part of a Classical sanctuary-grotto in Palestrina, a town east of Ancient Rome, in central Italy.
back when the dinosaur soft tissue story was broken in 2005, i predicted that that many more soft tissues would be found and that it wouldn't matter if it was supposedly "65 million" years old or "165 million" years old.
the prediction has proven true and dinosaur soft tissue is routinely now found regardless of supposed age.
this is easy to predict using a literal reading of genesis and accepting it as history.... .
Anony Mous:
How does any of this prove the earth is 6000 years old?
That is a larger question. But much evidence supports a young earth. Man and dinosaur living on earth at the same times is a problem for secularists, not biblical literalists.
Bible does not mention dinosaurs.
From Got Questions:
The bible uses the Hebrew word tanniyn, which is translated a few different ways in our English Bibles. Sometimes it’s “sea monster,” and sometimes it’s “serpent.” It is most commonly translated “dragon” in the KJV. The tanniyn appears to have been some sort of giant reptile.
These creatures are mentioned nearly thirty times in the Old Testament (e.g., Psalm 74:13; Isaiah 27:1; Jeremiah 51:34) and were found both on land and in the water. Another Hebrew word, livyathan, transliterated leviathan, is used six times in Scripture (e.g., Job 41:1; Psalm 104:26) and refers to some type of large, fierce sea creature.
The description of leviathan in Job 41 gives the impression of a strong yet graceful, unstoppable creature against which weapons are unavailing: “Nothing on earth is its equal” (Job 41:33).
And, Behemoth has a tail as big as a a cedar tree:
“Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you;
He eats grass like an ox.
16 See now, his strength is in his hips,
And his power is in his stomach muscles.
17 He moves his tail like a cedar;
The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
18 His bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron.
19 He is the first of the ways of God;
Only He who made him can bring near His sword.
20 Surely the mountains yield food for him,
And all the beasts of the field play there.
21 He lies under the lotus trees,
In a covert of reeds and marsh. - Job 40
Nearly every ancient civilization has left some sort of art depicting giant reptilian creatures. Petroglyphs and clay figurines found in North America resemble modern depictions of dinosaurs. Rock carvings in South America depict images of creatures resembling Triceratops, Diplodocus, and Tyrannosaurus Rex. Roman mosaics, Mayan pottery, and Babylonian city walls all testify to man’s trans-cultural, geographically unbounded memories of these creatures.
GiddyUp!
back when the dinosaur soft tissue story was broken in 2005, i predicted that that many more soft tissues would be found and that it wouldn't matter if it was supposedly "65 million" years old or "165 million" years old.
the prediction has proven true and dinosaur soft tissue is routinely now found regardless of supposed age.
this is easy to predict using a literal reading of genesis and accepting it as history.... .
Peer Reviewed Papers on Soft Tissues From Dinosaurs & Other Animals (Some up to allegedly 530 MYO)
Since the mid-20th Century, there have been over 30 reports and peer reviewed papers on Dinosaur Soft Tissue (DST) and other "ancient" organic material from animals and organisms prior to Sweitzer's Dangerous Discovery.