Your wish is my command, @jammycakes!
No fair! The forgers got to copy from comic books, etc.
1 Like
@beaglelady
I would be very interested to see some 1960’s comic books with pictures of saltasaurus in them (or a lot of the other dinosaurs and creatures on the stones).
Comic books were just one of their sources. But you haven’t shown a stone with an unambiguous picture of saltasaurus on it. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Here is a link to a site explaining what you are seeing. AIt has a link to the original paper abstract:
Sort of tired of chasing my tail on this, will leave it to you, Jonathan.
2 Likes
I’ve already asked @jammycakes what else it could be, and he pretty much answered: “saltasaurus, just it can’t be saltasaurus.”
@beaglelady
I would also be interested to see the school books they used.
@jpm
This guy is awfully friendly to Christianity…(nay! I jest.) By the way, I mean the guy who wrote the article on the other end of the link.
That article is rather earthy and harsh ( better to look at the original paper) but while I do not agree with his language and so forth, it does serve as an example of how Some positions reflect on Christianity, holding it up to ridicule. Certainly, as Christians we are to expect our views to be challenged and put in a negative light, but we should be certain that it is for those reasons that are right and good.
3 Likes
No, Jonathan, I did NOT pretty much answer “saltasaurus, just it can’t be saltasaurus.”
I did not admit that your interpretation was correct but hand-wave it away all the same. On the contrary, I highlighted specific errors and fallacies that showed that it was demonstrably incorrect. A “generic, non-specific sauropod” is NOT an admission that it was a saltasaurus.
Please, get your facts straight.
2 Likes
Here’s the original paper for reference so you don’t have to read the blog post.
@jammycakes
It is a far worse explanation, however. And a couple of your reasons for it NOT being saltasaurus were not really valid in the first place…
Exactly what is worse about it? And exactly which of my reasons are invalid, and in what way?
I’ll try to find a better picture of the stone so we can get a better look at saltasaurus’s legs.
Again, I’ll try to find a better picture.
Now we get to the invalid reasons.
1.You do not know that saltasaurus did not have circles on it’s belly (neither does the artist who painted the modern saltasaurus picture. We don’t know TOO MUCH about dinosaur skin.)
2.Perhaps it could have?
Here is what is worse about it:
If it is a generic sauropod picture (like the one above it on the SAME STONE) is, why did they put the cross-hatched pattern (that looks like saltasaurus’s armor) on it? Why did they shape it’s head the way they did (instead of shaping it in the more generic Brachiosaurus etc. head shape?) It’s head does look a lot like the saltasaurus head in the picture.
Just something rather funny:
This discussion has put BioLogos on the map when it comes to certain Google Ica stones queries!
.You’ll have to ask them.
Granted, but this proves nothing.
Oh come on. The cross-hatch does not look even remotely like the saltasaurus’s armour. The saltasaurus’s armour had protrusions from it, which are not depicted by the cross-hatch. In any case, you haven’t explained why the drawing’s back has a much more pronounced dome shape, nor have you explained why the shell/armour has a straight base rather than a contoured one.
What do you mean the Brachiosaurus had the more generic head shape? The drawing on the stone looks like the most generic one of the lot. It is simpler in form.
My whole point is that the drawing is far too stylised to be able to identify it as a specific species of dinosaur. Your claim that it can only depict a saltasaurus is simply not realistic.
2 Likes