romans eaten by dinosaurs

No no no no!!!

It was not Dinosaurs it was Reptillians.

The might of the Roman Army humbled by a species extinct 65 million years before Rome existed.

I can see it now the Romans advancing on its enemy in the good old Testudo.

I would have thought that the existence of such creatures at the time would have been recorded by these people. Why, I reckon they would have even named an attack formation after it...I mean the humble tortoise got one named after it didn't it?

"Centurion advance on the Carthaginians in a Velociraptor formation"

"Ave, Tribune, but wouldn't the Diplodocus be more suitable?"

Originally posted by centurion1211

All right, how about this for a source?

Dinosaurs and Ancient man

Thought provoking to say the least, if true.

Thought provoking indeed. This link contains a lovely collection of artifacts which should be clicked on by everyone even vaguely interested in this discussion. Thanks for this, centurion1211.

two thumbs up

Originally posted by masqua

Originally posted by centurion1211
All right, how about this for a source?
Dinosaurs and Ancient man
Thought provoking to say the least, if true.

Thought provoking indeed. two thumbs up

Actually if you go back to our expert in the matter Byrd, she already debunked that source.

Read her posts.

Originally posted by marg6043

Actually if you go back to our expert in the matter Byrd, she already debunked that source.

Read her posts.

I did read her posts, but I must have missed where she debunked those artifacts. Keyhole actually brought that site up on page 3 and I think it's a very nice compilation of such monsters and condusive to speculation, which is what I said in my previous post.

In particular, I would like to see how Byrd could debunk Mishipizhiw/Misshipeshu, (various spellings) which appears as rock paintings in numerous spots around the Great Lakes basin. It is the one mythical, horned lizard-like sea serpent representation I am most familiar with and is included in that link.

I don't know about you but taking into consideration that is creationist in base and that comes from a place that is trying to prove the age of the earth and that man cohabited with dinosaurs I will say that actually makes the bible a lie about the timing of man and dinosaurs.

Perhaps man kind was not 6 thousand years old but rather has been around playing in tar pits for over 30 million years.

evidence that the Bible is God’s Word I found that in the same link so I will remind skeptical of the Genesis Park put together assemble of artifacts proving that dinoasours were Noahs son's pets .

Their theme

The purpose of Genesis Park is to present in a graphical, easily accessible manner the evidence that dinosaurs and man were created together and have co-existed throughout history. This site stands in opposition to those darwinists who claim, "Dinosaurs...are the poster children of evolution." (Carroll, Sean, Endless Forms Most Beautiful, 2005, p. 295.) Genesis Park questions the evolutionary illusions surrounding the dinosaurs and approaches the subject of origins with a literal adherence to the scriptures and an emphasis on creation demonstrating God’s power. "Have you not known? have you not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, faints not, neither is weary? there is no searching of His understanding." (Isaiah 40:28)

Interesting.

[edit on 30-10-2006 by marg6043]

It could be a civilisation well before the Romans, even well before the great flood when the pre-summerian civilisation were wiped out. Take a look at this :
www.world-mysteries.com...

Ah, I see where we are getting mixed up, Marg. You see, I really didn't care about the website at all...what I care about are the artifacts themselves which are pictured there.

The owners of that website did not make up those artifacts, they only put a bunch of pictures on a couple of pages and then went 'bla bla bla' about them.

To tell the truth, I wouldn't even bother reading their pronouncements...it's those artifacts that are intriguing!

Mishipeshu is listed there and I know that's got absolutely nothing to do with Genesis, unless someone, like Byrd for example, says they were painted on the rocks after the missionaries told the Cree that's what the Devil looks like and then they painted it in Agawa.

But I doubt that anyone could prove it.

Originally posted by masqua
Ah, I see where we are getting mixed up, Marg. You see, I really didn't care about the website at all...what I care about are the artifacts themselves which are pictured there.

The owners of that website did not make up those artifacts, they only put a bunch of pictures on a couple of pages and then went 'bla bla bla' about them.

The artifacts are intriguing and I would love to see the evidence of some surviving types of dinosaurs in our human time.

Because I know some of the animals my have survived but only smaller animals.

And perhaps sea monsters.

Originally posted by masqua
Thought provoking indeed. This link contains a lovely collection of artifacts which should be clicked on by everyone even vaguely interested in this discussion. Thanks for this, centurion1211.

two thumbs up

And thank you for the kudos. And just to clarify, my point was the actual artifacts in the photos (hoping they were not photoshopped) on that website.

All those people from different places and times carving and drawing creatures we think we just recently discovered.

Actually the stone paintings of South American were debunked by the same people that actually were paid to produce them.

Los dinosaurios de Acámbaro Julsrud Walden archeological finds was found out to be a fraud.

Originally posted by centurion1211The items showing stegosaurus' are pretty interesting. How would ancient man even guess at what that creature looked like?

They're neat, but, excluding the ones where the image itself is questionable, they seem to be reasonable for an ancient person to think of. They knew about big crocodiles, they knew about big monitor lizards, and they knew about big pythons, I don't see why they'd've had to have seen a dinosaur in order to make those images. Most of those images end up not even looking especially dinosaur like. An interesting one is this one:
(from another source)
It shows a white monstrous head coming out of a cave and a person fighting it. I have seen images of that vase before, it was the cover of a book by Adrienne Mayor, the first fossil hunters.
The long and the short of it is that the ancients would've came across fossils of ancient creatures, weathering out of the rock, then as people do today. This can provide a further explanation of some of the more bizzare stories from the myths
Such as the idea that man came across mammoth bones, and figured, they were giant one eyed cyclopes:
[img]http://www.mjourney.com/news/News_from_Greece/images/story.elephant.skull.jpg[img]


The book is interesting and also notes occasions where the ancients built cult-shrines to, say, the ancient hero of their city, usually containing their shoulder bones or leg bones, and in areas that happened to have deposits of large prehistoric mammals with similar looking bones to man.

atmg
I can see it now the Romans advancing on its enemy in the good old Testudo

sty
romans? not necessary

It could be a civilisation well before the Romans

Our information is pretty plainly saying that the armour was distinctively roman, not pre-roman of any kind. And, of course, there is no actual citation of where, when, or by whom, this supposed find occured, so its all academic at this point.

I really didn't care about the website at all...what I care about are the artifacts themselves which are pictured there

The problem is that the website is presenting them poorly. Take the vase that I noted above, they show it suggestively, but not in any detail.Clearly, its not a monster attacking that person, its a representation, accurate even in terms of the details on the joints and holes and gaps in the head, of a skeleton/fossil eroding out of a cliff.
SOme of the other items on the page also are far too imaginatively drawn in by other sources, such as the supposed 'rock paintings and carvings' of the dinosaurs... i just don't see it, they've only drawn it in because they want to see it (whoever made the original image that is).
Other items are just big fish, or slightly strange animals. They're also claiming that the detials of some of the images are accurately like dinosaurs and extinct organisms, but they simply aren't. One picture absurdly shows a bunch of villagers bemoaning that fire breathing dragons have destroyed their town, as they fly off into the distance. Does anyone actually beleive that that is a real event, and that the drawing is an eyewitness account?
Some of the objects are also known to be fake, such as the ica stones.
So part of the problem there is definitly the source, its not provided by people trying ot take an objective look, its from people that want to convince themselves or others that these things existed alongside man, because their 'theology
requires it. That doesn't mean that we should reject the information there out of hand, but we should be aware.

If someone found genuine evidence of dinosaurs living into modern times. Or even to within the last 20 million years, say, then it'd be front page news around the world ...... Or at least, front page of all the science magazines. And the discoverer would be famous, with a book contract and guaranteed research grants for the rest of his career (so no chances of any palaeontological cover up )

Originally posted by hippieman69
antartica as in that time
was inhabited by app 6 ft raptors

"Walking with dinosaurs" talked about the Antarctic dinosaurs.

the romans brought them up from the antartic
and the mediterannien by archeopterex

No way. I don't know who came up with that, but he probably commandeered all the beer in town and drank it before he made up that bit. He's the same kind of person who insists that all the legends are true (but only those that support HIS view) -- and that all the records (nonfiction) and literature of the civilization really don't exist.

They've got records of what was bought and who brought what for the circuses and the armies.

you can see in myths bird wings resembling them (archeopterex) and of monsters resembling the raptors and such

BeerForBrains tried unloading that one on you? It's time to hit the Discovery Channel for a year or so!

I know your drinking buddies are great guys, but I think they slept through all their classes!

Originally posted by masqua
Thought provoking indeed. This link contains a lovely collection of artifacts which should be clicked on by everyone even vaguely interested in this discussion. Thanks for this, centurion1211.

Actually, it's a pretty lame source. The page is on a Creationist website that's well known for making up things. They clearly have no clue about Greek art and don't believe that people in ancient times can write fiction or draw fictional monsters. This creates some problems for them, but they gloss over that (pictures of humans with deer heads and other things.)

Some of them have been debunked (the hoaxers confessed.)

Yes, odd animals survive in the wilds, but the ones that remain unknown for a long time are small. Not brontosaurus sized.

Did you read any of the posts after the one you quoted? It usually helps to do so, as your comment was already posted previously and discussed.

But to save you some reading, the website wasn't the point of my post. It was the art and artifacts themselves that I was interested in. I don't give a rats rear end about creationist philosophy, but for some reason some ancient people decide to draw and carve what look like dinosaurs.

Sometimes it pays to read and think a little deeper ...

[edit on 10/31/2006 by centurion1211]

The intersting thing about the drawings is that they don't really specifically resemble dinosaurs. Most of them are little more than oversized lizards.

We don't see any, for example, of them with feathers. Things like the Ica stones, which the site cites, actually started out with representations of dinosaurs as the general public understood them. As time went on, and public perceptions started to change, the dinosaurs on teh ica stones became more detailed and more in keeping with the public understanding.
And, also, its unrealistic to think that these stones survived, but that all the fossils, from 65 million years ago to just before the modern era, have dissapeared (besides the fact that the hoaxers behind the ICa stones admited to it).

The legitimate artifacts, on their own, are interesting and provacative, definitly.

What the creationist side is not showing is . . . that many pictures depicted on the vases with dinosaurs also depict half humans and half animals also.

Funny I wonder what will that means.

I never cease to be amazed by how superior and condescending the evolutionists are. Even when no one is touting the creationist doctrine they pound away at it, tirelessly attacking that which they perceive to be their adversary. It's amazing how similar the two are; creationism and secular humanisim. Both have every tenet of a religion. A theory (or doctrine) of origin, of morality, of a higher power, and of destiny (or eternity). Both seem so very sure that they could not possibly be wrong, even though science is only our best guess based on what we believe to be true at the moment, according to our very limited perceptions, and creationism is admittedly based on faith while claiming some scientific proof. Believe whatever lets you sleep well. The simple fact is that we can't know with any certainty. Every scientific discovery raises at least two questions, and always will. Spiritual beliefs can have a connection to the intellect, but are essentially seperate.

As to the question of how late large reptiles (or dinosaurs if you demand a difference) existed, I would just apply a little logic. People get eaten by large retiles today, we know larger reptiles existed in the past, therefore people certainly got eaten by large reptiles in the past. Why is any particular instance a big deal? Do people make up creatures out of whole cloth and spend long hours commiting them to works of art or history today? Why do we think they did in the past? Sci-Fi movies not withstanding, I think we over estimate man's myth creating propensity. Lots of ancient texts that are called mythical use symbolism liberally, but are relating a true story. I think people tend to record what they have experienced, rather than just making stuff up. It seems to me that modern man is quite conceited and tends to underestimate our ancestors. I don't see that human nature has changed a bit thoughout history. People still mistake their tiny knowlege for wisdom.

The truest wisdom is the knowledge of one's ignorance.

Romans may have been fairly bureaucratic, but I doubt they would stop to fill out the paperwork before getting eaten by a dinosaur in Russia.

Of course if a Roman had stumbled upon an unattended Time Machine, and hit the wrong buttons.... well, it would make a good plot for a cheesy movie anyway.

I'd eat a dinosaur given the chance. hell yeah! I want no turkey give me dinosaur!

and maybe an alien or two for good measure.