What does this mean?

[Neopergoss]

I know, see how long it took before evolution was generally accepted. The scientific community is sceptical yes, but with enough evidence people will get there. It only shows that once convinced, the idea is all the more solid.

But I don't see how you can confound that with creationist wishful thinking. They keep rehashing the same old few examples that were debunked. It doesn't even make sense. How do you get a human footprint on a trilobite? We were marine animals? Controversial, and it's still evolution.

The issue with the trilobite pic is that trilobites were supposed to have gone extinct ~ 500 million years ago and humans came on the scene ~ 200,000 years ago.  Scientifically speaking if a human were stepping on a live trilobite and then the footprint became fossilized then the timing of atleast 1 or these 2 events is incorrect.

How do you know it's not just a foot-shaped rock?

[QuantumT]

The issue with the trilobite pic is that trilobites were supposed to have gone extinct ~ 500 million years ago and humans came on the scene ~ 200,000 years ago.  Scientifically speaking if a human were stepping on a live trilobite and then the footprint became fossilized then the timing of atleast 1 or these 2 events is incorrect.

The much bigger issue is that humans breath air. How did a presumably air-breathing human manage to make an impression on the seabed?

[Daytripper]

I am well aware of that, but all your examples are controversial. Sorry to react like that, but creationists do not have a good record. Just read some of their articles. They are intellectually dishonest and using pseudo science. If you have a different opinion and you have something good... I say fine. But if a source twists everything to fit the outcome anyway, don't expect me to take their word for it.

btw, how can a footprint of 500 mya prove anything? I thought the fossil record and the dating was unreliable. Hehehe. You can't take it all.

Sorry for the rant.

Day

[Neopergoss]

I wonder if jmdt is just trying to ruffle our feathers.

[Ekki]

I wonder if jmdt is just trying to ruffle our feathers.

He's trying to make us think outside of the box, IMO... Why do you think that this has anything to do with Creacionism? It can have like a million different logical explanations, and you keep refusing the Creacionist one. Thinking science is the only way is the same dogma as believing in Creacionism, but only with better arguments.
Just see all the possibilities.

    I was gonna say the same.  The majority of stegosaurus fossils have been found in the western US around Colorado and Wyoming.  Also a large number on Madagasgar.  None found in cambodia though.

That's actually evidence AGAINST it being a stegosaurus. If there were stegosauruses living in Cambodia as recently as 900 years ago, then why are there no remains of any kind whatsoever?

Exactly

It's said that we (humans) only found a little amount of all the dinosaurs' fossiles, so not finding a fossile that might exist (I still think they don't) just mean that we didn't found it.

but which one does it look more like? If you say the head has a rhino horn on it, I say it has a stega spike. Which one is more reasonable if you saw the 3 pictures with no knowledge of the subject? It looks more like an imitation of a stega with a fat head. Of course, if they found a skeleton of the rhino then some of those look like there are spikes.

If you ask me, I'd still say it looks more like a rhino in front of bushes, with a tail. Honestly, which is more reasonable? A stegosaurus or a rhino? Is that a serious question?

Being logical, it looks more like anyone...  that doesn't look like any rhino, and the stegosaur is very improbable, although it looks scarily similar. That doesn't mean any reason is impossible.

I don't believe that stegosaurs existed along with humans, but I neither believe this is only a Creacionist theory, I just think outside of the box, there must be a logical explanation (being a rhino doesn't sound logical to me, at all).

[Neopergoss]

I wonder if jmdt is just trying to ruffle our feathers.

He's trying to make us think outside of the box, IMO... Why do you think that this has anything to do with Creacionism? It can have like a million different logical explanations, and you keep refusing the Creacionist one. Thinking science is the only way is the same dogma as believing in Creacionism, but only with better arguments.
Just see all the possibilities.

Well this happens to be a common piece of "evidence" commonly cited by Creationists to confirm their belief that dinosaurs and humans existed side by side despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. In fact, the other pictures are also commonly cited by Creationists. Coincidence? Not likely.

It is fun to think of what might be, I'll give you that. But I'm sorry, this is just not very convincing, to the extent that I question whether jmdt himself puts any real stock in any of it.

[Ekki]

I wonder if jmdt is just trying to ruffle our feathers.

He's trying to make us think outside of the box, IMO... Why do you think that this has anything to do with Creacionism? It can have like a million different logical explanations, and you keep refusing the Creacionist one. Thinking science is the only way is the same dogma as believing in Creacionism, but only with better arguments.
Just see all the possibilities.

Well this happens to be a common piece of "evidence" commonly cited by Creationists to confirm their belief that dinosaurs and humans existed side by side despite overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. In fact, the other pictures are also commonly cited by Creationists. Coincidence? Not likely.

It is fun to think of what might be, I'll give you that. But I'm sorry, this is just not very convincing, to the extent that I question whether jmdt himself puts any real stock in any of it.

It's not a coincidence. But I doubt you think this is fake or that it has zero relevance just because some Creacionists used it as an argument. The fact that jmdt used a picture found in a Creacionist's site doesn't mean that it has no logical explanation neither that it's fake.
It's a drawing in a wall, I mean, they drew something. We're (at least I am) wondering about that. There are lots of possibilities, but just saying that it's "not convincing" proves that you are just discarding evidence because someone else used it to help a theory in the one you don't believe.
And I guess jmdt is interested in having some logical explanation... But maybe he just did it for the lolz.

[Chemist]

  I do wonder how many people would be willing to believe that dinosaurs were still around nine hundred years ago based entirely on an ambiguous carving. People have also interpreted descriptions of some ancient god's chariot as being a description of an UFO - and if you read it right... it IS. If you ask me that's far from being convincing evidence, and even further from it being conclusive. Especially since the carving in our case could easily represent something else. By the way is that a humongous snake I see winding around the "stegosaurus" or is it a regular snake winding around a lizard on a rocky surface? Not very photorealistic, these carvings.

  The other two are likely to be fakes (you've heard why they're fishy), but even if they weren't none of the three "pieces of evidence" actually oppose evolution. (Which does make it sound (assuming this isn't a joke) like the OP's simply been against evolution in the first place.) You've heard of  how fishermen have found a living fossil, a deep sea denizen that had been thought to be extinct for millions of years? Yet even though we thought those fish had gone extinct a long time ago when they actually hadn't, that doesn't change how nor when they had evolved.

  And while we're discussing fossils - evolution proposes that fossils would be ordered in the fossil record in a certain "sequence" : you can't possibly find a fossil of a creature that would exist before its evolutionary ancestors. Meanwhile creationism proposes that all animals should be found throughout the entire fossil record (since the beginning). Hence a single out of sequence fossil (e.g. a hundred million year old modern mammal such as, but not limited to, a cow, bear, elephant or human, or a hundred million year old fossil of ANY bird) would turn evolution on its head while providing evidence for creationism. Care to guess how many such fossils have been discovered so far? So what does that tell us?

[Boingo]

I'm only going to seriously comment on the rhino vs stegosaurus carving.  To me, I thought it looked like a rhino right away, with the exception of the long tail.  I wondered if there was a species of rhino that had a large tail that has since gone extinct (or still exists but is incredibly rare.)  The ornamentation over its back could be plates, but could also be a lot of things like vegetation or just other ornamentation.  So, not real convincing to me, but an interesting photo nonetheless.

As for the rest (and now for the non-serious comments): who says the sandal prints are human?  Couldn't extraterrestrials also have worn sandals on their many excursions to our fair planet?  After all, going barefoot in the Cretaceous period was just asking for hookworm.

[Daxx]

I'm really disappointed in you jmdt. I thought you'd be smarter than this.

Before anyone asks, all these artifacs have been tested to gurantee their authenticity.

By whom? Whose word are you taking for this? I ask because it's pretty easy to doubt the authenticity of most if not all of these with just some cursory research, so it looks like you're just taking some internet crank's claims at face value without bothering to try to question them.