User:Sterile/ASKdinodomestication

Jesus and dinosaurs
This may not be entirely relevant to the subject of this article, but I've seen several pictures on the Internet that depict Jesus riding on dinosaurs. Are these genuine young earth creationist pictures or parody? --OscarJ 20:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh! Poe's law strikes at its heart! User 11speak to me 22:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't seen the pictures, but they would be parody. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 01:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you believe that dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time as humans, how can you be so sure? –rpehtalk 22:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sure of what exactly? (A) That the pictures are parody?  (B) That Jesus would not have ridden dinosaurs?  (C) Something else?  I was answering (A), and my reasons would be that (i) in over 30 years of experience with creationism, I've never seen such pictures, (ii) there's no hint that Jesus ever rode anything other than a donkey, and (iii) I'm not aware of any reports of dinosaurs being ridden, except perhaps from China where the emperor apparently had tamed, or at least captive, dinosaurs, although I don't recall them being for riding.  Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 01:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sterile 02:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're going to run with an idea as silly as humans and dinosaurs co-existing then why couldn't Jebus have ridden them? Your points don't make much sense either. There are no pictures of many biblical events but that doesn't seem to stop you accepting them as true; there's no hint that he didn't; there's a picture so there's a report right there. –rpehtalk 06:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * How is the idea silly? It's only silly within your worldview; it's not inherently silly.
 * I'm not saying that Jesus couldn't have ridden them; I'm saying that it seems quite unlikely given the available knowledge.
 * There are no pictures of many biblical events but that doesn't seem to stop you accepting them as true;... So?  I'm not saying that I don't believe it because there's no pictures.  I'm saying it because there's not even a hint of it being so.  (My reference to having seen no pictures, in case you read it out of context, was to no pictures being produced by creationists, and therefore the one(s) referred to probably being parody.  Sterile's link bears that out.)
 * ...there's no hint that he didn't; there's a picture so there's a report right there. Are you so stupid as to think that I would treat a colouring-book drawing—even if not parody—as evidence that Jesus rode dinosaurs?  Stop wasting my time.
 * Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 08:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC)Judging from some of the comments here, I fear I may have been misunderstood. I wasn't suggesting that these pictures date from the time of Jesus. It's quite obvious that they're modern. What I was wondering was, whether they were produced by young earth creationists as illustrations or by anti-creationists to ridicule YEC. I now understand that it's the latter. If you want to see the pictures, just type Jesus dinosaur in Google images. --OscarJ 08:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I would imagine that any picture of Jesus on a dinosaur, whether produced by a YEC, an atheist, a Buddhist or anyone else, would be humorous in intent. I mean, no one disputes that hippopotamuses existed in the time of Jesus, but nobody would seriously draw a picture of Jesus on a hippo.--CPalmer 10:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * CPalmer, that's a very flawed analogy because there is no advantage to riding a Hippo. Dinosaurs were tall, fast, and powerful. If dinosaurs could be domesticated (which many exhibits at the Creation Museum would lead me to believe that they could), there would be great advantages to travel by dinosaur. Your and Mr. Rayment's dismissal of the idea seems to be hasty and short-sighted, to say the least. Open your mind up a little. Would you at least admit that it's possible? SallyM 20:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't consider the hippo analogy all that flawed. My impression is that people rode animals in biblical times not to get somewhere quickly, but because they had difficulty walking or other non-speed reasons.  Most mentions of riding animals (from memory) is of riding donkeys or asses.  Similarly, I get the impression that a fair bit of the use of such animals was for carrying loads, not people.  So an animal that could carry a heavy load would probably be preferred over one that was fast.
 * As for dinosaur domesication and the creation museum is concerned, are such exhibits of dinosaurs prior to the Fall, or later?
 * ...Mr. Rayment's dismissal of the idea ... Would you at least admit that it's possible? What is there about "I'm not saying that Jesus couldn't have ridden them; I'm saying that it seems quite unlikely given the available knowledge." that indicates that I'm dismissing the possibility of the idea?  Perhaps instead of me opening my mind you should open your eyes and properly read the comments that you are replying to.
 * Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 00:35, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that animals which could carry a heavy load may be preferred over something fast, which is why they probably used dinosaurs! And I do think the power of dinosaurs was likely harnessed to create many of the works in the world, post-noahic deluge. It'd be like storing bulldozers in the space of an egg on the ark! If I were Noah, I'd have stocked up, and I think it's likely he did, given the success of humankind in a near-post-apocalyptic world. SallyM 04:38, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. So you argue for them riding dinosaurs because they were fast, and when I point out that they were probably more interested in carrying loads than in speed, you switch to arguing that they would have used dinosaurs for load-carrying.  This seems very much like arging anything that seems reasonable at the time rather than a properly-thought-out argument.  And in all that, you ignore—or at least fail to acknowledge—the other counter-arguments I make.  Now if you were arguing that someone, at some time since the flood, may have used domesticated dinosaurs for something, I wouldn't bother disagreeing, as you might well be correct.  But that wasn't the argument.  The argument was about whether Jesus (a particular person) rode (a particular action) dinosaurs.  That is the question that was put, and that is what I was answering.  Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 06:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Mr. Rayment...If they wanted something fast, ride a dinosaur. If they wanted something powerful, use a dinosaur, if they wanted something fast and powerful...use a dinosaur. This seems very much like you being adversarial and closed-minded. What I ignored were your acrid remarks in response to my good faith suggestion of opening your mind. Smaller-breed (as in not a T-rex), domesticated dinosaurs would have been perfectly suited for, say, ownership by carpenters. If my dad owned a dinosaur, I would have ridden it, or at least tried. Nonetheless, you're not a very pleasant man, Mr. Rayment. I don't think this place is for me. SallyM 13:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Sally, I'm sorry you seem to have got off on the wrong foot here. Perhaps you could channel your enthusiasm into contributing to articles on dinosaurs here, instead of this increasingly directionless discussion? This site is at its best when acting as an, not a dino-riding forum.--CPalmer 14:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * CPalmer, thanks for your suggestion. I don't know much about dinosaurs because I refuse to believe most of what is written about them, but I am interested in learning more. Can you point me to resources for information on dinosaurs that is in line with the Biblical world view? SallyM 14:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems very much like you being adversarial and closed-minded. Your very first post on this site included the comment "Your and Mr. Rayment's dismissal of the idea seems to be hasty and short-sighted, to say the least. Open your mind up a little."  That seems very much like you being adverserial.
 * What I ignored were your acrid remarks in response to my good faith suggestion of opening your mind. You also "ignored", or failed to note, that my comments were not a "dismissal", and that I had allowed for the possibility.  And telling someone that they should "open their mind" implies that you think they have it closed, which is basically an insult, and is rarely done in "good faith".
 * As for your comments about dinosaurs, you admit to not knowing much about them, we in fact don't know much at all about their behaviours, temperament, etc., and yet you seem to have a fair bit of certainty about their suitability for riding, etc.
 * Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 15:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, Mr. Rayment, I am no longer interested in reading or replying to your comments, at least until your attitude changes. Thank you. SallyM 15:58, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't know of any online dinosaur resources at all, as I'm not very interested in paleontology. If you can find any good ones, you'd be very welcome to contribute to the articles here.
 * However, I doubt there is any evidence at all that dinosaurs were ever domesticated - if you want to speculate further about that, perhaps a Flintstones appreciation forum would be more suitable!--CPalmer 16:01, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside from the glossing over that AiG and CMI give the subject, I haven't found any good ones either. If I do, I will be sure to share them here. I'm not sure what evidence you'd expect to find of the domestication of dinosaurs. How are the remains of a tame dinosaur different from a wild one? Getting back to the original topic, "Are pictures of Jesus riding a dinosaur parody?"... Both CMI and AiG agree that the dinosaurs coexisted with man after the Flood, which is a logical conclusion. I don't think anyone here disputes the potential utility of dinosaurs. They would have been quite an asset, worthy of great care to preserve, at least until the advent of machinery and other technology that would make them obsolete, which could have easily lasted to the time of Jesus. I don't know how someone like Mr. Rayment could conclude that the pictures were parody. I've also seen pictures depicting Jesus holding small dinosaurs. I believe that they are not parody and may very well accurately reflect a Biblical world view. SallyM 18:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * SallyM, I have avoided engaging you in discussion as frankly your posts look like trolling to me. Well I guess I have taken the bait.  You are a guest in Mr Rayment's house.  You entered with an insult (and one that rang like parody to those with any CP or RW background, but you may not have known that) and then complained about your host's attitude.  Hint, phrases like "someone like Mr Rayment" are dismissive and don't help.  As to not knowing how someone could conclude that such pictures were parody, all you had to do was read the explanation.  You may disagree with it, but claiming to not know about it seems like even more bait. BradleyF (LowKey) 21:31, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * BradleyF, you and Phil seem to be kindred spirits. Hence, please continue to avoid engaging me in discussion until you change your attitude. Thanks. SallyM 22:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't engaging you in discussion. I will continue to point out the hypocrisy of your attitude, though.  To start with, as the newest editor here, you have two chances of successfully dictating who can talk to whom.  That stunt doesn't work on any wiki that I know of.  BradleyF (LowKey) 02:16, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * "[You] have avoided engaging [me] in discussion", but have also "taken the bait", so I'm sure you can see how I was confused about whether or not you were "engaging [me] in discussion." BradleyF, you have continued to be uncivil in the complete absence of assuming good faith. I don't know what wikis you frequent, but where I come from, that is grounds to be coldly rebuffed and blindly ignored, which I will continue to do until you change your tune. SallyM 14:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone here disputes the potential utility of dinosaurs. I'm afraid I do. I don't know of any reptiles that have been successfully put to work, so I don't see why dinosaurs should be any different. Alternatively, I've heard that some dinosaurs are physiologically more similar to large birds. Well, again, I've never heard of anyone riding an ostrich, despite their undeniable speed, so I don't see why it should have been any more possible to ride a dinosaur.
 * I'm sorry, but I personally find this whole subject inherently comical because of its sheer incongruity, so it's hard for me to believe that the pictures could have been created with anything other than humorous intent.--CPalmer 09:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's nothing to be sorry about, CPalmer. As a Biblical literalist, I'm used to having my beliefs laughed at. I agree that there are no useful reptiles out there today, but none of them have tails like cedar trees, do they (Job 40:17)? Those kinds of dinosaurs could have easily been interchangeable with elephants. You've really never heard of anyone riding an ostrich? I don't know, maybe you'll think this is parody also :)
 * There's only one way to know that these pictures are parody, which would be to find the author and ask them. Personally, since it is a given that dinosaurs and man coexisted for thousands of years, I believe that dinosaurs were ridden and that Jesus very well could have ridden one. And he definitely could have held one. Thanks for being so cordial and civil. SallyM 14:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the fab ostrich pic - you live and learn.--CPalmer 15:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The picture doesn't really change much. Even though someone, somewhere, has ridden an ostrich doesn't mean that it is a commonly-used method of transport.  And even if it is commonly used in some culture(s), it doesn't mean that other cultures do also.  The point made below about alligator wrestling is similar:  just because some people do it doesn't mean that such activity is widespread.  Applying this to dinosaurs, even if someone somewhere has ridden a dinosaur (and I'm not rejecting that possibility at all), it doesn't mean that it was normally done, and even if some culture(s) did so, it doesn't mean that people in the middle east did.  Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 00:27, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Another strand of the same conversation

 * How is the idea silly? Because you have to ignore almost every piece of evidence in the fields of astronomy, biology, physics, geology, and half a dozen others. You have to be utterly gullible and credulous to give it even five minutes' thought. You're treating the collected witterings of several bronze age nomadic tribes as infallible, and you call me stupid? If this really is your worldview and you aren't really the deepest-cover parodist ever to connect to the Internet, I pity you in your total idiocy. –rpehtalk 17:00, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Almost every piece of evidence in astronomy is inconsistent with dinosaurs co-existing with humans? And you wonder if I an a parodist???
 * What you've done is hurl a load of rhetoric at me, but given me nothing of substance. You see the Bible as "the collected witterings (sic) of several bronze age nomadic tribes", while I see it as God's revelation.  So as I said, you think I'm silly because of our different views; you've (again) based your argument on your views rather than facts, of which your post was free.  Please give me one testable, reproducible fact from astronomy that is inconsistent with the idea of humans co-existing with dinosaurs.  If you fail to do that, or alternatively to take back your claims, any further posts you make in this discussion are likely to be deleted as time-wasting trolling.
 * Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 20:05, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * NB: Rpeh did reply, saying that he couldn't be bothered producing such evidence. As he failed to substantiate (or retract) his claims, his post was deleted as promised.  Ironically, he also said that he "joined this site because it looked like a place where a decent debate would take place. It isn't.".  The reason there is no decent debate (in this case) is because Rpeh couldn't "be bothered" having one!  So he criticises the site for his own failure!  Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 00:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Astronomy, in and of itself, does not disprove that humans coexisted with dinosaurs. Perhaps what Rpeh meant was the it disproves Young Earth creationism, because of speed-of-light and all that jazz.  Also, deleting comments is probably not a good idea.  Soon, you'll be saying something like "Rpeh (what a ridiculous username)  I've looked over your contributions and found them excessive evolutionary chatter.  If you continue to persist with silly edit patterns, you will be blocked for violation of 90/10.  Godspeed." or something like that.  While your comments were somewhat founded, deleting comments and then blaming the other party for lack of good debate does seem to be at least a little strange.  The EmperorRise, my apprentice 02:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I guess the "damned if you don't" option was available. Every post rpeh's in this discussion completely missed the point (the question of whether such drawings likely to be parody or the work of YECs), and the assertions were growing sillier.  Rpeh was not challenged for talk:article balance, or an evolutionary viewpoint, but for a nonsense assertion. BradleyF (LowKey) 02:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What I was trying to say is that Phil will become just as authoritarian as CP if he begins to edit other's comments for any reason short of, say, profanity. It's a slippery slope from that to rangeblocks.  The EmperorRise, my apprentice 02:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Jesus obviously didn't ride e.g. T Rex 'cause by that time they'd stopped using their big teeth to crack coconuts and had become carnivorous and therefore rather dangerous to bring int populated areas. Now Brontosaurus? That's a whole different story - apparently the Chinese were familiar with them and it's only a few thousand miles away. User 11speak to me 02:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * BRONTOSAURUSES NEVER EXISTED TOAST MS. WILSON!!!! You should get your knowledge of paleontology straight before criticizing Phil's.  The EmperorRise, my apprentice 02:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * When I was a girl, Brontosauri had (hee hee) existed. This modren renaming isn't in my belief system so I tend to ignore it. User 11speak to me 02:51, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: Rpleh above describes the Bible as having been written by Bronze Age people. I am fed up with reading this, so can I just clear the matter up once and for all. The term "Bronze Age" describes a prehistoric (ie pre-writing) period, so if people are writing things down they are by definition NOT Bronze Age, whatever else they might or might not be.--CPalmer 09:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Although it was thought that writing was a "later" development, the supposed origin of writing has been progressively pushed back, and it is now believed/accepted that people could write in the so-called bronze age. Of course the Bible was written over a period of about 1600 years (assuming that Moses wrote Genesis from scratch, which may not have been the case) up to the first century AD, so to caricature it as "bronze age" is inaccurate anyway.  Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 11:26, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting link! Of course, most of the anti-Christians who use the 'Bronze Age' slur probably also subscribe to recent Bible scholarhship theories which place the Torah much later than Moses' time, so it's a classic case of trying to have it both ways.--CPalmer 13:02, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * True! Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Having read dome of the comments here I started thinking. Which species of dinosaur would be most appropriate for riding? Obviously the really big ones would be too difficult and something like T Rex would probably be too fierce.  Any dinosaur experts ready to suggest a few species?--Bob M 15:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that temperament would be a big factor, and we don't know much about about dinosaurs' behaviour. For recreational purposes, I would say the bigger the better - perhaps a brachiosaurus?--CPalmer 15:46, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Which types of fossils are found in the general area of the Middle East? That seems like a good way to narrow down the search for a "rideable" dinosaur. -- Edgerunner76 16:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be worth noting the shenanigans that alligator wrestlers can get away with. Especially considering that many of these dinosaurs were herbivores. If you can "ride"/wrestle a vicious, carnivorous alligator, I'm sure you could eventually manage to hop on a dinosaur. SallyM 18:22, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Having read some the comments here I started thinking. Which species of dinosaur would be the most appropriate for making delicious sausages? Obviously the really big ones would be too difficult to process efficiently and something like T Rex would probably take unkindly to someone with sausages on the mind. Any dinosaur experts ready to suggest a few species for making really delicious sausages out of? Teh Terrible Asp 02:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Continuing this line of nonsense, if the evolutionists are right about dinosaur-bird evolution, we could have had KFD instead of KFC. Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 05:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong track on domestication
Wouldn't dinosaur domestication be more likely to be analogous to cattle, chickens, and turkeys (foodsource) rather than to horses, donkeys, and mules (transportation/beast of burden)? -- Edgerunner76 16:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, Edgerunner76. Are elephants, which are still used by indigenous peoples as beasts of burden, really domesticated? SallyM 18:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * SallyW, yes, I think they are. There's a third general use for domesticated animals, and that is for circuses/entertainment.  Perhaps the brutal pre-Christian Romans even staged T. rex/triceratops duels in their stadia?  As far as the timeline, I would imagine hunting them for food would come first, followed by capturing young ones and raising them for food, and perhaps breeding/training for docility.  Then would perhaps come domestication for utility - riding, carrying burdens, and even, perhaps (this is a long shot) using the larger ones in war (imagine a full grown trike battering down the armoured door of a walled city!).  Lastly would come relatively non-utilitarian uses, such as training for entertainment (circuses) and even companionship (as we use dogs and cats nowadays).  However, my dinosaurology is too weak to suggest possible species or kinds for each of these uses.  18:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I have eaten alligator, tastes a bit like chicken. And I forgot a usage that could come early on (from wild dinos) - killing them for something other than meat, like using their hides for clothing (or armour?), their horns, their "plates" (stegosaurus) and bones for building materials, etc.  18:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting ideas, Human! I think you've got a good point about elephant domestication. SallyM 18:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was coming at this from the suitability as mounts argument from above. That's why I thought domestication might be more likely from a foodsource persepctive. -- Edgerunner76 19:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * So that's dinosaurs as beasts of burden and dinosaurs as food animals. Presumably there were dinosaurs as pets as well. How strange that such a useful group of animals all went extinct.  There must be an explanation.--Bob M 22:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've thought about this too. One theory I have is that when there were times of famine, these great creatures were unfortunately eaten. They also probably needed too much to eat to live. It's also a good explanation of why we don't find dinosaur skeletons with humans: imagine how much nutritious marrow was in the bones. They could have also made bone meal or tools from the leftovers. SallyM 22:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * An interesting explanation, but it's really local. I'm not sure it explains why dinosaurs went extinct on a global basis.  I have another theory.
 * We know that dinosaurs were on the ark because the bible says that all animals were on board. We also know that most other animals managed to subsequently distribute themselves globally from the middle east by dint of heroic efforts. Consider the three-toed-sloth inching its way across the treeless muddy plains to South America, or the Koala Bear using a corridor of now-extinct eucalyptus trees to cross the sea to Australia.
 * We have no reason to assume that the dinosaurs would have been any less able to repeat these feats and repopulate the world after the flood. Yet we don't find them anywhere.  If they had managed a global redistribution then they should have been immune from any local catastrophe.
 * It seems to me the solution is that they never left the area of the Ark. Why not?  The answer is - predators.
 * If there were only two kinds of every animal on the ark (or even seven) then any single animal killed by a predator would probably have rendered that species extinct. There are many predators and some of the need to eat several times a week.  So everything fits nicely into place if the predators only ate dinosaurs!
 * One could even speculate that Noah took a somewhat ruthless decision and actually fed the dinosaurs to the predators. At least this would have given the rest of the herbivores a chance to escape before the predators came after them.
 * My theory solves a big problem with the flood story and explains the present absence of the dinosaurs. I feel should be given wide distribution.--Bob M 07:54, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One word: omelette. The dinos, which were taken on board as eggs for efficiency, got mixed up with the victuals in the pantry.  20:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Another possibility
Something that nobody has considered to this point is that there has been several other localised catastrophic events. Is it not possible that after the flood when all the animals were moving to their current locations, such as most marsupials going to Australia and no placental mammals, all the dinosaurs made the mistake of going to Atlantis? π 04:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Dinosaurs in history
I'm not sure how much I should dignify the discussion above which has so many evolutionists pretending that they accept that dinosaurs and humans lived together, but thought that perhaps I should briefly list some of the available evidence to put things in perspective.

Evidence of dinosaur and human co-habitation comes to us in several forms:
 * Biblical
 * Biblical evidence is scant. According to the biblical account, dinosaurs and humans must have co-existed, but it gives almost no details on the dinosaurs themselves, how they interacted, or etc.  So we won't learn much there about that aspect.
 * Having said that, however, there is one specific mention which does give more information. It is of behemoth (Job 40:15-24).  This gives some information about this particular very large dinosaur, which ate grass and was very powerful, to the point that humans were apparently incapable of capturing it.
 * We can also deduce form the biblical account (and the fact that the fossil record shows that they existed at the time of the flood) that dinosaurs were included in the ark's cargo, which means that they existed post-flood. Indeed, the account in Job is post-flood.  However, how well they survived, how long they survived, and other similar matters are largely unknown.  (Job probably lived very soon after the flood, so dinosaurs surviving in the middle east until his time doesn't tell us much.)


 * Fossil evidence
 * Most fossil evidence of dinosaurs would be of dinosaurs which perished in the flood, so tells us little about post-flood dinosaurs. Some fossil evidence would be post-flood, but I don't know which ones are post-flood and therefore what we know from the fossils about post-flood dinosaurs.


 * Pictures
 * There are carvings and cave paintings which appear to be of dinosaurs, but most of these simply picture dinosaurs, not scenes showing dinosaur/human interaction, so they don't tell us much about that either.


 * Written descriptions
 * Written descriptions are probably the most useful information. Such descriptions don't call them "dinosaurs", a word coined in 1841, but instead refer to them as dragons or other names.  Here are a couple of examples:
 * A small frail dragon was killed by a farmer in Italy on 13th May, 1572.
 * There are many accounts of dragons from China. That reference says that dragons were used on occasions to pull chariots.  This implies ceremonial use rather than use in battle.  It also mentions people raising dinosaurs, but doesn't say what they were raised for, although it also mentions them being used in Chinese medicine (of course!).
 * That site has other accounts also. Apart from the Chinese references, most of them seem to indicate that the dragons were creatures to be feared or which caused trouble; mention of any sort of domestication or use is rare.

Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 01:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * If I recall correctly Leonardo (whose studies were observational rather than experimental) described the behaviour of certain dragons, specifically how they killed elephants. This is a pretty good indicator that in his day one could speak of living dragons and expect to be taken seriously.  I wouldn't say much beyond that regarding the credibility of Leonardo's descriptions (he also described his observation of the changing shapes of lunar clouds). BradleyF (LowKey) 01:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a description in Pliny the Elder's Natural History (available here) about a struggle between a dragon and an elephant but it appears to be talking about large constrictor snakes, rather than dinosaurs:

"Africa produces elephants, beyond the deserts of the Syrtes, and in Mauritania; they are found also in the countries of the Æthiopians and the Troglodytæ as mentioned above. But it is India that produces the largest, as well as the dragon, which is perpetually at war with the elephant, and is itself of so enormous a size, as easily to envelope the elephants with its folds, and encircle them in its coils. The contest is equally fatal to both; the elephant, vanquished, falls to the earth, and by its weight, crushes the dragon which is entwined around it. Book VIII, chapter 11." --OscarJ 08:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * PJR states:That reference says that dragons were used on occasions to pull chariots. This implies ceremonial use rather than use in battle. It also mentions people raising dinosaurs, but doesn't say what they were raised for, although it also mentions them being used in Chinese medicine (of course!)
 * Hey that's a really convincing site, and when they say "dragons" they must have meant dinosaurs. Do we have any idea of the species of the dinosaur in those cases?--Bob M 10:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * (Ignoring the pretence of belief...) This one is pretty obvious.  Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:08, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Philip, love your example... just to note stegos have only been found in North America, did not have ears as shown in the carving and the lack tail spikes when the dorsal plates (assumed although those plates could be embellishment like most of the other are found at angkor) are shown tend to make the carving a little off from the real thing. Might this be a carving of an indian rhino? I believe the bigger question we should address is the multiheaded nagas carved at angkor, they were carved therefore they exist! All kidding aside, humans are known to embellish their art and history to add to the excitment. Sailors told stories of mermaids, which later turned out to be seals and other sea mammals. Knights told stories of dragons, just something to think about, if we have weavings from that period of knights killing dragons and skulls of other beasts from kills why do we not have a dragon skull somewhere?--Timsh 15:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm totally convinced by that. It looks nothing like a wild boar or hippopotamus or anything like that.  It could only be a dinosaur.  Yes, utterly convincing. And as Timsh says - what about the mermaids?  I guess they were dinosaurs too.--Bob M 15:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Mr. Rayment on this one. Cave paintings are more logically explained by dinosaurs and man coexisting than by ancient peoples discovering fossils or simply exaggerating. Likewise for the ancient writings. SallyM 17:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * ...just to note stegos have only been found in North America... First, that's an argument from silence.  There's been many fossils known from some parts of the world later found in other parts.  Second, it's not true.  Stegosaurus fossils have also been discovered in Portugal, China, southern Africa, southern India, and footprints in Australia.
 * ... did not have ears as shown in the carving ... They didn't? How do we know?  From a quick search, it seems that the only fossils we have are of skeletons (plus the aforementioned footprints), so we would have no evidence of what their ears were like.
 * ...the lack tail spikes ... Granted, that is a difference, but perhaps there was a variety without tail spikes. It still fits a stegosaur better than any other known creature.
 * Might this be a carving of an indian rhino? With plates?  If you think this could be a rhino despite the plates, why not think it could be a stegosaur despite the lack of tail spikes?
 * ...humans are known to embellish their art and history to add to the excitment. True, but that doesn't explain an "embellishment" that so remarkably coincides with a known creature.
 * Knights told stories of dragons, just something to think about,... Yes, and just like the mermaids were embellished, not imaginary, the dragon stories are likely based on something, and the something that fits the best is dinosaurs.
 * ...if we have weavings from that period of knights killing dragons and skulls of other beasts from kills why do we not have a dragon skull somewhere? Do we have that many skulls of other kills?  And why particularly skulls?  Why not, say, pictures?  Oh yes, we do.
 * A question to you, Timsh: if it wasn't for believing that stegosaurs died out millions of years ago, would you have any real difficulty believing that this is a picture of a stegosaur?
 * As for the attempts at Poe's Law, it's not working.
 * Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 22:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course it's a stegasaur. Don't listen to these people who say it could be almost anything.  "Stegasaur" is the first thought that would come to any independent observer's eye.Bob M 23:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Philip, perhaps I was incorrect about "only in North America", however your websites offered nothing other than a statement without a source. Not exactly proof. Perhaps you could find something about a fossil find somewhere other than North America. As for ears, while soft tissue does not fossilize well, it does fossilize. There are skin fossils for the stego at the Smithsonian in DC. We know that it was thick and rough in texture. Perhaps there was a variety without tail spikes, or perhaps it was a rhino. I disagree with your statement that it fits a stegosaur better than any known creature. For example the tail of a stego did not drag as shown in the carving. We know this due to the fossils, showing muscle attachment and range of motion with the joints. There is nothing showing the gullet of the stego in the carving which was very pronounced. Now with all of these differences if we compare the carving to the indian rhino you will see much more similarities. Furthermore the embellishments I spoke of, the plates behind the animal, are also found around other animals on similar carvings at Angkor. My 2 year old son draws pictures all of the time, many of them look like animals that I know he has not seen. Perhaps dragon stories are based on what people feared in the past coupled with what they may have seen during travels? If I lived in the UK and only saw lizards while in the middle east, you bet I could embellish a story about a giant lizard who breathed fire (since lizards were from hot areas). I say skulls because they are the easiest to identify but any bone would do. Yes, we do have bones from other animals killed during this period which were kept by the families of past knights. Wolves and boars are the most common however a dragon bone would be prized beyond all of these. The reason why not pictures is that you are basing your claim on second hand information, a very bad practice. By having the bone you have first hand knowledge. You know what there are pictures all over india of a person with 8 arms, should we believe this as well? Many indian do. If I did not know that the stegos died out millions of years ago would I have any difficulty in believing this picture? To be honest, I would since I see a four legged creature without any clear identifiers, and before you say the plates let me point out something. If you look at the rest of the pictures on that same column you will see that each creature is set on a background of some sort. Those backgrounds are not just flat either, they have breaks and different features to them. While each creature is centered in the carving the backgrounds show for all the rest except this one, unless the plates are the background for the picture. Which would also place the animal in the correct perspective compared to the other images. Now Philip, why did you not answer my question about the Nagas? They are carved all over Angkor Wat, why should we believe this one picture to be a stego and not some imaginary animal but yet believe the Nagas to be imaginary?--Timsh 16:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In common with most creationists I know next to nothing about palaeontology, but I know that it is a picture of a stegosaurs because some webiste says so. Please do not try to confuse the issue with so called "rational" arguments from people who know what they re talking bout. --Bob M 18:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Timsh, the first web-site had links throughout it, including one for the reference to Australian footprints. Also, have a look at wp:Stegosaurus which mentions the recent find in Portugal.
 * I realise that soft tissue does fossilise, but questioned whether we do have fossils of the ears of stegosaurs. A quick search suggested only skeletal remains.  You mention skin, but don't mention ears, so I think my point stands.
 * I don't give much weight to your comments about the dragging tail, although that may be due to my ignorance. But I say this because scientists have changed their mind (or been wrong) before about how dinosaurs (and other creatures) stood or behaved.
 * Your remaining points about the carving are ones to consider, but given that I've seen other drawings which scientists have identified with known creatures, but which drawing are nowhere near as clear as this carving, I still think there is more going for this being a stegosaur than not.
 * Your argument about skulls is an argument from silence. You have a point about other bones being souvenired, but it's not a strong point.
 * The eight-armed person and nagas are different matters; with the stegosaur we are identifying the carving with a known creature. We don't know of eight-armed people or multi-headed snakes (the odd mutation excepted) to identify those drawings with.
 * Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Come on Chaps and Chapesses!
This is the biggest load of rubbish ever. Dinos died out about 65 million years ago (except for the birds?), stop baiting the creationists. User 11speak to me 16:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I, for one, have been convinced by PJR's photos and links. How could you argue with them?--Bob M 16:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * User 11speak to me 16:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If creationists were (say) black or homosexual, you'd all be liable to prosecution for excessive mickey-taking. User 11speak to me 18:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Being black is an ideology?--Bob M 19:09, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is Creationism (How do I stop myself from omitting the "a" & the "o" from that word?)? I thought it was an aberration delusion. User 11speak to me 19:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is that you are born black. It's not a choice. Imagining that black people are somehow worthy of ridicule because their skin happens to be different colour is, quite rightly, regarded as despicable. But belief systems are things which people hold by choice - OK they may have been born into them, but that are capable of changing them and should be open to logic.  Furthermore there is nothing intrinsically wrong in being black, but believing that the world is 6,000 years old involves the deliberate ignoring of vast quantities of knowledge.  So there really is no comparison.
 * Being black is not a choice, does not involve denying evidence and there is nothing wrong with being black. Being a creationist on the other hand ...--Bob M 19:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I was merely trying to show how picking on these poor creationists was unfair on account of their being born with an intelligence gene or some such lack. The poor dears can't help being whacky - it's part of their make up. Replace "Black" with Muslim or Hindu if you must. User 11speak to me 19:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The thing is that you are born black. It's not a choice. I notice that she said "black or homosexual", and you've responded to the "black" part with an argument which doesn't apply to the "homosexual" part.
 * ...believing that the world is 6,000 years old involves the deliberate ignoring of vast quantities of knowledge [and] denying evidence... Absolute rubbish, and I challenge you to produce any such evidence which is denied. And Theresa, your last comments are equally as offensive, not to mention unsupportable and in denial of the evidence.
 * Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 23:02, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't reply to the homosexual part because, while it seems certain that some people have a genetic predisposition to homosexuality, the case is not so clear cut as with skin colour.
 * As to the evidence of what is denied by YECs, - I would suggest almost the entire body of scientific knowledge.--Bob M 15:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no good evidence of a genetic predisposition to homosexuality. It's just like creationism in that sense (of being a choice).  (And if you want to quibble, some people have proposed that religious beliefs have a genetic basis.)
 * Your reply about evidence is utter rubbish. It's clear that you have no sensible answer.
 * Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I said the entire body of scientific knowledge. That may have been an exaggeration.  Let's see.  Biology is generally based on evolution so all of that is out. Astronomy and cosmology are out with the starlight problem.  Probably relativity as well. Obviously geology can't fit in.  Ancient history and certainly pre-history have to go. Probably a lot of other stuff to.  So I'll change that to "a considerable body of scientific knowledge." I would be interesting to try to put a percentage on it.--Bob M 12:34, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That may have been an exaggeration. No, what you've changed it to is a huge exaggeration; what you said originally bears no resemblance to reality.
 * Biology is generally based on evolution so all of that is out Nonsense.  Biology is based on observations of how living things work.  Yes, evolution has wormed its way into biology, but the vast majority would still be observational science which creationists (including biologists whom I know) have no problem with.
 * Astronomy and cosmology are out with the starlight problem. Cosmology perhaps, but not astronomy, again mostly to do with observation.
 * Probably relativity as well. So you really have no idea, do you?  A couple of creationist solutions to the starlight problem involve relativity, again something that we know (has been confirmed) by observation.
 * Obviously geology can't fit in. Not obvious at all.  To the extent that geology is about observation (studying and describing rock formations, etc.) and not story-telling about how old they are, creationists have no problem with that either.
 * Ancient history and certainly pre-history have to go. Yes, most of pre-history, given that history started at creation, but why ancient history?  What problem do you think creationists have with the Roman Empire?  Or the Vikings?  Or etc.?  Yes, there is some disagreement with some dates, but ancient middle-east history has hugely confirmed the accuracy of the Bible.
 * So I'll change that to "a considerable body of scientific knowledge." However, what remains is not scientific knowledge, but ideology masquerading as knowledge.  Fossils exist, but evolutionists and creationists have different interpretations of those facts.  That is, it's not the knowledge that is rejected, but the interpretation.  Creationists have no problem with the study of things (empirical science), but with the stories about how they came to be (claims about (pre)history).  So what's left that creationists disagree with?  Somewhere about nothing.
 * Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 13:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Philip, sorry but my honest opinion of you and everyone who believes that the Earth is approx 6000 years old and that man and dinosaurs coexisted is short of a tile in their roof. Not even mentioning the beardy guy in the sky and his "Book". Bye (I suspect) User 11speak to me 23:13, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's your opinion. But (a) that doesn't mean that you have to express an offensive opinion, and (b) your opinion is based on your prejudices, not on facts.  Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 01:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You aren't amenable to reason so maybe you'll realise that my offensiveness (which I admit to) is the only way to penetrate that hidebound skin that you and yours have donned to keep out the real world. All SCIENTIFIC facts agree with me! User 11speak to me 01:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that offensiveness will get you anywhere, and that reason won't, when I keep rejecting your offensiveness and asking for reason? As for all scientific facts agreeing with you, what's the point of saying that without producing some as examples?  Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 03:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Examples! Don't be silly! Open any text book on Biology, Archaeology or Paleontology not to mention Cosmology, Relativity or Chemistry even; or consult any professional (underline PROFESSIONAL) in these fields. You make me despair for the Human Race! If it were down to you and your like we'd be still in the 17th century and being told what and how to think by the local parish priest! I give up: totally. There is no "God", there was no 6000 year ago "Creation", Jesus of Nazareth was the equivalent of Che Guevara. That's it. User 11speak to me 17:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Astonishing that a man of even meager intelligence would credit such a troubled source as the Bible over the inspiring revelations of science in the 19th and 20th centuries. I want to poke my eyes out when I read this website. Teh Terrible Asp 20:01, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Theresa, your answer regarding examples is elephant-hurling, a debate tactic with no logical basis. Like Bob above, it shows that you have no good answer.  As for consulting professionals, I know of several who are creationists, so can I consult them?  The rest of your post was just more irrational rhetoric.
 * Asp, your response was also bereft of substance and was merely abusive rhetoric. I think I see a pattern here: anti-creationists are so convinced of their own intellectual superiority that they don't see the need to actually defend their views, and prefer instead to hurl insults.
 * Philip J. Raymentdiscuss 02:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

PHILIP, YOU'RE A TOTAL [deleted]!! I SURRENDER TO YOUR FORCED IGNORANCE. User 11speak to me 03:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)