Young Earth Stuff

[juantoo3]

BTW, it may be more effective if you pointed out how I abused terms rather than a Potemkin polemic. What I try to do is point out how "truth" and "knowledge" and "all" are terms that are not really very condusive to communication (since none of the three can be shown to be absolute). You could have simply pointed out that "I do not want to waste valuable interfaith space on what the scientific community considers baseless pseudo-science" and "us (grown up, scientifically knowledgeable persons)" is a pretty pompus way to express the fact that I value science more than emotion and is not really condusive to communication.

I think in large part we are in agreement. Forgive me for not realizing that simply pointing out a statement is pompous is sufficient in your case...I've tried that tack before with others with less than desireable results.

 

[radarmark]

No prob'. It would have been. I take a similar tack all the time.

 

[IowaGuy]

Reality is. We all exist within reality. Where we get *lost* for lack of a better term is our perception of that reality...your perception is going to be different from mine. Can't be helped, it's simply the way it is, we all have differing perceptions of reality. The reality that is, is objective reality. Each of our perceptions of reality are subjective, and each of our perceptions of reality are incomplete.

So, would you agree with the statement: "absolute truth doesn't exist" ?

The basis of religion has been with humanity since the dawn of reason, possibly before. It is only later that religion has become systematized and legalized and promulgated as a means of establishing cohesive social units, creating an "us" with the motive of defense against "them."

Yes, I agree, religion is a "cultural universal" throughout human history. So why, out of the hundreds if not thousands of historical religions, do you, Juantoo, choose Christianity? Were you born into Christianity?

The Meso-American cultures were certainly a step or two (or more) up the socio-evolutionary ladder from a hunter-gatherer society, judging by the architecture, building of pyramids, written language, mathematics and such. They may well have had the luxury of time to do something like a dig if they had reason.

Therefore, the Mesoamerica artifacts representing dinosaurs could have been created from their knowledge of dinosaur skeletons.

 

[juantoo3]

So, would you agree with the statement: "absolute truth doesn't exist" ?

I'm not sure how, if existence is absolute truth...

Allow me to state another way, "reality doesn't exist," or does it? For me, reality does exist. We may not be able to fully grasp, understand or explain it, but that does not preclude reality from existence.

Yes, I agree, religion is a "cultural universal" throughout human history. So why, out of the hundreds if not thousands of historical religions, do you, Juantoo, choose Christianity? Were you born into Christianity?

Yes, it is the religion I was raised in, it is the presiding religion of my culture, and I am familiar and comfortable with its tenets and teachings. It would be a bit strange, don't you think, to be an animist when and during the time my parents raised me as a Christian? I have said here in times past, that were I to change coats it would be either to Judaism, or Shamanism.

Therefore, the Mesoamerica artifacts representing dinosaurs could have been created from their knowledge of dinosaur skeletons.

"Could be" and "are" are quite different things. When I see the dino skeleton in question, then I will jump on that bandwagon. There may well be dino finds in Mexico, I'm not familiar with any. Are you? Right now that is purely speculation and hearsay without even circumstantial corroboration.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I googled
First horned dinosaur from Mexico: Plant-eater had largest horns of any dinosaur

A new species of horned dinosaur unearthed in Mexico has larger horns that any other species -- up to 4 feet long -- and has given scientists fresh insights into the ancient history of western North America, according to a research team led by paleontologists from the Utah Museum of Natural History at the University of Utah.

 

[radarmark]

I believe the claim that a pre-Columbian mesoamerican fossil is required to proove that the dinosaur glyphs. First of all, trade and myth-sharing were quite widespead in the pre-Columbian Americas. Second of all, one need only go to the Petrified Forest or to Dinosaur National Monument to see how wide spread accessable wild fossils are. Third of all, the early Anglo accounts of both sites show that nearly complete remains were just laying out in the open.

I can find references for the first and third points, if you would like. The second point can only be experienced in a visit.

"reality doesn't exist" does not entail "absolute truth doesn't exist"; and vice versa. One may believe reality exists and absolute tuth does not (a common disease among scientists). One can also believe in absolute truth without believeing in reality (as commonly used, an objective, physical reality); this is a common trait of solopsists and extreme idealists.

Panta Rhei!
(Everything Flows!)

 

[juantoo3]

I believe the claim that a pre-Columbian mesoamerican fossil is required to proove that the dinosaur glyphs. First of all, trade and myth-sharing were quite widespead in the pre-Columbian Americas. Second of all, one need only go to the Petrified Forest or to Dinosaur National Monument to see how wide spread accessable wild fossils are. Third of all, the early Anglo accounts of both sites show that nearly complete remains were just laying out in the open.

I can find references for the first and third points, if you would like. The second point can only be experienced in a visit.

I would very much enjoy seeing such references. I did visit the Petrified Forest as a very young child, but aside from the souvenir of petrified wood I'm afraid my memories of that place are scant. I have been to Glen Rose, TX, however, as recently as 1999, and did a little research of my own.

"reality doesn't exist" does not entail "absolute truth doesn't exist"; and vice versa. One may believe reality exists and absolute tuth does not (a common disease among scientists). One can also believe in absolute truth without believeing in reality (as commonly used, an objective, physical reality); this is a common trait of solopsists and extreme idealists.

If, as I stated earlier *for me, in my mind,* reality=truth, then if truth does not exist neither does reality. Therefore, if for someone else reality exists but truth does not, then clearly what is meant by the term "truth" is not the same thing as what I define by that term.

I understand the divorce within science from the term, "truth" is far too often brandished as a religious label, and since science wishes to distance from religion it finds all manner of justification to do so in even the minute points such as definitions of words.

Therefore it begs the question, what is actually meant or intended by the term "truth" in science if it is neither reality nor a religious affirmation? Is it merely some vague ideological concept in order to readily dismiss? Is 1+1=2 true (truth), or not?

I would like to believe my argument is not reductio ad absurdum.

 

[juantoo3]

I googled
First horned dinosaur from Mexico: Plant-eater had largest horns of any dinosaur

Thank you, Tea!

I see the state where that was found is about 100 miles or so into Mexico on a line from San Antonio to Dallas, which would put it more or less inline with the findings at Glen Rose, TX. That would be pretty much far NE Mexico.

Interesting article.

"We know very little about the dinosaurs of Mexico, and this find increases immeasurably our knowledge of the dinosaurs living in Mexico during the Late Cretaceous," said Mark Loewen, a paleontologist with the Utah Museum of Natural History and lead author of the study.

In many ways, the Late Cretaceous is the best-understood time during the Age of Dinosaurs, thanks in large part to more than 120 years of dinosaur hunting in Canada, Montana, New Mexico and the Dakotas. Recent work has revealed new dinosaurs living at the same time in Utah, New Mexico and Texas, yet the dinosaurs from Mexico have remained virtually unknown.

The rocks in which Coahuilaceratops was found also contain large fossil deposits of jumbled duck-bill dinosaur skeletons. These sites appear to represent mass death events, perhaps associated with storms such as hurricanes that occur in the region today.

(*Possibly...wouldn't large dinos weather a hurricane better than other critters? I am thinking it may have more likely been a tsunami type event, afterall, the geology was different, no doubt including the El Nino / La Nina phenomenon we are only now beginning to understand)

By far the most obvious characteristic of Coahuilaceratops is its massive pair of horns, one above each eye. While the researchers lack a complete horn, they estimate from fossils they excavated that the horns were 3 feet to 4 feet long, Loewen said.

Rarity, and incompleteness. If the researchers were not already familiar with this type, it would be hard to guess, no? Case in point to demonstrate...one of the early T-rex finds (I forget now which or where, New York museum perhaps?) had its tail deliberately broken in order to force the skeleton to stand upright and be bipedal as we understand it...and that was the image we had of T-rex for many years. As more finds came to light, it was finally determined that T-rex was more birdlike in its posture, which is the image we are gaining of this example. So without already intimate familiarity, how would a people imagine a creature they had never before seen, even with an incomplete fossil skeleton? Even the modern Paleo guys have to draw inferences from multiple finds to draw conclusions to fill in the blank of missing pieces.

Loewen explained that Coahuilaceratops represents the first occurrence of an identifiable species of horned dinosaur in southern Mexico. "The horned dinosaurs are an extraordinary example of vertebrate evolution," he said. They evolved and diversified on Laramidia along a thin strip of land that stretched from Alaska to Mexico. "Finding this horned dinosaur so far south in Mexico offers us a different picture of what the ancestors of Triceratops were like."

I am thinking perhaps I misunderstood this at first, because it threw me. Google maps clearly placed the indicated site as extreme NE Mexico, not southern Mexico. Possibly a misprint by the interviewer (as if that never happens )?

In addition to Coahuilaceratops, the research team found remains of two other horned dinosaurs, which are less well understood. "We need more material to figure out what these other horned dinosaurs looked like," Getty said.

The latest expedition also recovered remains of two duck-bill dinosaurs, as well as the remains of carnivores, including large tyrannosaurs (smaller, older relatives of T. rex) and more diminutive Velociraptor-like predators armed with sickle-claws on their feet.

Together with an abundance of fossilized bones, researchers discovered the largest assemblage of dinosaur trackways known from Mexico, an extensive area crisscrossed with the tracks of different kinds of dinosaurs. In all, the emerging picture shows a diverse group of dinosaurian herbivores and carnivores, perhaps representing a previously unknown assemblage of species.

Again, consistent with Glen Rose.

Few North American dinosaurs from this time period are known outside of the Drumheller region of Alberta. Eberth explained that researchers now have two points of comparison to examine not only different dinosaurs, but also different environments and ecologies.

This of course does not preclude dinos from other periods...the T-rex Sue was found in Wyoming as I recall. But T-rex was a different epoch than Triceratops and cousins.

•Coahuilaceratops is the first horned dinosaur (ceratopsid) and only the fourth dinosaur species from Mexico to be named and described in scientific literature.
•Coahuilaceratops represents the southernmost occurrence of a ceratopsid dinosaur.

Intriguing, but hardly conclusive.

I had a thought to expand on my earlier comment about hurricanes, in that the time is quite close geologically speaking to the major extinction usually given as +/- 65 million ya, *and* quite close in proximity to the Yucatan Meteor strike given as (one of?) the cause(s) of that extinction event. No doubt such would cause a huge tsunami event in that area of Mexico. The find of snails with the fossils in the area not only notes the proximity to water, but that the carcasses were actually in the water.

 

[radarmark]

juantoo 3. Okay, by scientific method (used in philosophy as well, where this rap comes from). For a statement to be true it must correspond to some state-of-affairs reality. Here "correspond" is a matter of interpretation, use your own definition (that makes it the most general argument). "State-of-affairs" is some physical or mental or spiritual event or actual occasion (notice I am defining more than the merely physical to exist).

Statement A is true if B, the event it refers to, actually exists. So the proposition (or statement) that "1+1=2" is true because the mental event it refers to is actual (the obstensive definition of arithmetic) or because putting two individual seeds next to each other by a matter of abstraction one can "see" that relationship (if you want a physical definition, but notice it still takes thinking).

A similar arguement holds for statements like "I believe the world to be spheroid". Here we are talking about the truth status of a mental event (my belief). Finally, the same holds for "I have experienced G!d", only this time we move to a spiritual event.

The problem with "Truth" is not a matter of this relationship (the thrth status of an event), but rather the proposition one is looking to test. When one says "all swans are white" or "the word of G!d is the Bible" or "other minds do not exist" one is making a claim with "no fuzz" or uncertainty. Those kind of statements are almost always factually incorrect, hence false (the exceptions are statements of deductive logic, arithmetic, and obstensive definition, as far as I can comprehend).

So to really communicate testible assertions (statements) one must qualify them: "with the exception of the Australian species, all swans are white", "since I have no direct observations into other minds, I have no proof they exist", "one of the ways G!d has communicated to humankind is the Bible".

This is a habit of physicists, since all discussion of the quantum assumes qualification of potential (probability or possibility) existence (or measurement) and since all forms of General Relativity (I abuse this term by including theories like string theory or MOND or quantum loop gravity or Whteheadian Relativity, which can be used instead of the Einsteinian-based General Relativity) use the form "it could be that".

So we are left with a conundrum. The way most people (even physicists in their everyday lives) communicate propositions leads to statements that are not and cannot be "absolutely, 100% true". For my part I let this pass if a spiritual truth is being discussed (talking with other Native Americans I know that their language or culture qualifies statements automatically so that they might as well say "in my mythology" or "to my heart").

However, I do demand (for the sake of clear and testible communication) that if statements are made about physical or mental events they be "fuzz free" (qualified). Otherwise, IMHO, I know no way to test the truth function of the proposition and am left with the choice of saying "that is meaningless" ("mental masturbation" as some would have it) or "that is false" (incorrect, unverifiable, or under certain conditions).

Did that help at all? If not, check out Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) or Truth[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy], including all the "click-able" references at the bottom.

I will look up both the early Anglo descriptions referenced (will try toi find web-based citations for you). May have to contact the Gears (a couple of authors whose broad experience in Native Nation archeology I use every one and awhile).

Panta Rhei!
(Everything Flows!)

 

[juantoo3]

•Coahuilaceratops represents the southernmost occurrence of a ceratopsid dinosaur.

This does raise an interesting observation, when taking into account the Ica stones of Peru. Where would they have gotten the idea of a Tri-tops or related cousin from?

Yes, I understand trade and communication among aboriginal tribes, but hear me out.

In Meso-America, the Azteca dominated Central America, and they were quite militant, domineering and imperialistic. Tales of the exploits are extant, and point to the sacrifice of (some of) the conquered victims, having their hearts removed still beating to offer to the Aztec god(s).

With that in mind...it would seem geography would be the least consideration impeding commerce and trade between North and South America for the most part until the Spanish Conquest. So if no Triceratops are known in South America, trade between the Peruvian Ica and any of the tribes of North America that may have (I still don't know of any, just allowing for the moment the possibility) would have of necessity been by sea or with the Azteca as a central mediary...both of which would seem to present complications at best, and make the venture impossible at worst. So either we have Balsawood rafts sailing the coastline, or we have some kind of truce in Central America that would allow aboriginal commerce between tribes all the way from Canada (the most likely place to find a Tri-top specimen) to Peru (since none to this point are known). As I understand the matter (cursory), Native American tribes throughout both Continents did not have commercial caravans like those that travelled between Asia and Europe, trade was considerably more intimate and "small scale" for lack of a better term...I am open to correction, but that is my understanding, that there was nothing to compare to the Silk Road that travelled the length of the Americas.

Right now I'm just thinking in print, but there are considerable hurdles to overcome in order to make this thing fly...otherwise the Peruvian natives are essentially landlocked and isolated and still managed to independently verify the Tri-tops...*without* anything like a complete fossil skeleton.

 

[juantoo3]

Statement A is true if B, the event it refers to, actually exists. So the proposition (or statement) that "1+1=2" is true because the mental event it refers to is actual (the obstensive definition of arithmetic) or because putting two individual seeds next to each other by a matter of abstraction one can "see" that relationship (if you want a physical definition, but notice it still takes thinking).

That has long been a sticking point in the attempt to distinguish humanity from other animals, and for some time the ability to think was held out to that extent...even though we now know that some other animals can indeed reason through a problem, so thinking of itself is not a line of demarcation between humans and animals. That said, (disqualifiers out of the way), it is pretty clear that humans reason and "think" to a much greater extent and deeper level than other animals. Thinking is the foundation of reason and rationality, both of which require *and* influence perception.

So while I suppose you had to say what you did, on the other hand shouldn't it be somewhat of a given?

Put another way...not to seem insensitive, but a brain-damaged person may exist, but without the ability to reason then any ideation of truth (or any other ideation for that matter) would seem irrelevent to that person. That would not preclude reality from existing outside of that person, even though their ability to perceive that reality and reason about that reality would be necessarily confined or even abrogated. The truth of reality would continue regardless of the ability (or inability) to perceive it.

So we are left with a conundrum. The way most people (even physicists in their everyday lives) communicate propositions leads to statements that are not and cannot be "absolutely, 100% true". For my part I let this pass if a spiritual truth is being discussed (talking with other Native Americans I know that their language or culture qualifies statements automatically so that they might as well say "in my mythology" or "to my heart").

However, I do demand (for the sake of clear and testible communication) that if statements are made about physical or mental events they be "fuzz free" (qualified). Otherwise, IMHO, I know no way to test the truth function of the proposition and am left with the choice of saying "that is meaningless" ("mental masturbation" as some would have it) or "that is false" (incorrect, unverifiable, or under certain conditions).

Did that help at all?

I think for the most part we are in agreement. In my experience though, what I find typically here at this forum, is someone (speaking in the name of science, typically atheist) who will speak informally, and then when challenged back himself up formally, then return immediately to informality...as if somehow justified. So forgive me but, I will remain a bit sceptical in part because of my experience here, and in part because that is just me.

I will look up both the early Anglo descriptions referenced (will try toi find web-based citations for you). May have to contact the Gears (a couple of authors whose broad experience in Native Nation archeology I use every one and awhile).

I look forward to seeing this.

 

[IowaGuy]

This does raise an interesting observation, when taking into account the Ica stones of Peru. Where would they have gotten the idea of a Tri-tops or related cousin from? ... otherwise the Peruvian natives are essentially landlocked and isolated and still managed to independently verify the Tri-tops...*without* anything like a complete fossil skeleton.

Juantoo - how do you think those peoples got to "Peru" in the first place? Could they have carried this tri-tops knowledge/legend with them from somewhere else with skeleton evidence? i.e. North America?

How long do you think a "legend" sticks with a peoples? i.e. how long do you think Judiasm existed before it was written down? How long do you think those "Peruvian natives" and their long line of ancestors had an oral tradition?

 

[juantoo3]

Juantoo - how do you think those peoples got to "Peru" in the first place? Could they have carried this tri-tops knowledge/legend with them from somewhere else with skeleton evidence? i.e. North America?

How long do you think a "legend" sticks with a peoples? i.e. how long do you think Judiasm existed before it was written down? How long do you think those "Peruvian natives" and their long line of ancestors had an oral tradition?

Perhaps.

One must admit that in order for that to happen, the "legend" would have had to travel a very long time indeed, across how many generations not to mention how much distance...without *any* distortion. I know the aboriginal storytellers pride themselves on their memory and particularly remembering their oral histories, but that would be quite a feat to pull off if the legend travelled by land...presuming of course, that such a legend *actually* exists.

I mean look at all of the various ways Jesus, or Mary, or Moses, or the serpent are portrayed in artwork around the various cultures in which these persons are depicted. Outside of being recognizably human in the cases of Jesus, Mary and Moses, there is a wide variety of how these persons are depicted. And the serpent has been presented in so many different ways that range from semi-human to reptilian and a broad range of variations in between.

With that in mind, it is more than remarkable if aboriginal peoples were able to pull it off, to transfer a "legend" as you put it, wholesale and essentially unchanged. Of course, I'm still waiting for the Northern version of that legend to show itself.

 

[IowaGuy]

With that in mind, it is more than remarkable if aboriginal peoples were able to pull it off, to transfer a "legend" as you put it, wholesale and essentially unchanged. Of course, I'm still waiting for the Northern version of that legend to show itself.

How do you think the "Peruvian natives" learned of the tri-tops if no tri-tops skeletons have been found in South America? Of course, assuming that the artifact you reference is genuine.

 

[juantoo3]

How do you think the "Peruvian natives" learned of the tri-tops if no tri-tops skeletons have been found in South America? Of course, assuming that the artifact you reference is genuine.

Besides the missing elements of your conjecture for the Americas, we haven't gotten to Cambodia or the Fertile Crescent yet.

What if your conjecture *doesn't* cover all the bases? How do *you* cover Nessie, or Ogopogo, or Mkele Mbembe?

 

[IowaGuy]

One must admit that in order for that to happen, the "legend" would have had to travel a very long time indeed, across how many generations not to mention how much distance...without *any* distortion.

Wouldn't this line of logic actually favor the theory of primitive humans knowing of the existence of dinosaurs via fossil accounts of dinosaurs (more recent) rather than humans living at the same time as dinosaurs (more distant)? i.e. "old earth" over "young earth"?

 

[IowaGuy]

Besides the missing elements of your conjecture for the Americas, we haven't gotten to Cambodia or the Fertile Crescent yet.

What if your conjecture *doesn't* cover all the bases? How do *you* cover Nessie, or Ogopogo, or Mkele Mbembe?

Nessie, Ogopogo, Mkele Mbembe = same as dragons, bigfoot, minotaurs, angels, devils, etc. No concrete proof of any of them. How do I "cover" them? Humans have quite an imagination, as anyone with a young child can attest. For example, just look at all the different human creation stories for different cultures throughout time.

 

[radarmark]

First, images: For Hell's Creek Montana

http://proctormuseum.us/Montana/Hell%20Creek%20Formation/~4-19%20Hadrosaurus%20L0750%20500dpi%20Aug'06.jpg

For Bighorn Montana

http://www.detectingdesign.com/images/FossilRecord/agraveyard1.jpg

For Dinosaur National Monument (DNM)

http://nature.nps.gov/Geology/paleontology/pub/fossil_conference_6/Scott5.tif.JPG


For Petrified Forest National Park (PFNP)

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-0IvLCLqDCFU/TcdmBG8TCII/AAAAAAAABAc/a18eDnxswgU/s1600/IMG_0434.JPG

Realize this last one is of a large mandible just breaking the surface in 2009. Any rains scree bones down the sides of the washes or completely uncover something like this, so the archeologists remove them at this stage in the PFNP. BTW, fossil nests comp[lete with eggs are clerly visible in places.

Now, if you look up "fossil bones" "in situ" and any of these sites, you will get many more images.

Now the proof. http://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/bitstream/10088/16065/1/USNMP-81_2941_1932.pdf will give you the story of Earl Douglass (the guy in the picture at DNM). His find was on the surface per the reference. If you look at the pics of the park, you will see a 60 degree or so cliff of solidified clay which is "the quarry". Only called that because the fossils are taken from there. The cliff face looked just like it did in the picture when raw and untouched. Associated with DNM are petrogyphs that show continuous occupation for over 10,000 years.

At
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/museum/news/news_briefs/ucmphist.pdf you will find the story of Anne Alenander and Charles Camp in developing PFNP. The results of their work, the geology, the accessibility of the fossils and the reason for the early removal are covered in the following references. Oh, petroglyphs at PFNP also indicate continual occupation for over 10,000 years.
http://nmnaturalhistory.org/assets/files/Bulletins/DawnAgeDinos/dawn_4_murry.pdf
JV Rumery - 1980 - repository.azgs.az.gov
http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/asu/f/Heckert_A_2002_21_Revised_Upper_Triassic.pdf
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/FAE/Therrien_and_Fastovsky_2000.pdf
http://chinleana.fieldofscience.com/2011/05/april-fieldwork-2011-petrified-forest.html


Oh, and http://www.detectingdesign.com/fossilrecord.html has a couple of pretty nifty shots of "in situ" whale fossils in the Sahara and in the "white bone caves" of Mongolia. Pretty complete skeletons.

My point. North America (at at least four locations) has nearly complete fossil skeletons of dinosaurs at the surface. Two of these locations (and since the other two are a little more hospitable in terms of weather, probably them, also) have been inhabited by Nations of the Turlte Island for over 10,0000 years.

To believe that the natives of the Americas did not have access to and were not able to understand what these bones meant (real, real big reptiles) is just simply (IMHO) a post-Columbian cultural trait. Therefore, if those artifacts that you posted are real, the above is a very likely explanation that does not take man-dinosaur coexistence seriously and does not underestimate the abstractions made by those who built the Lake Titicaca ruins and the Mesoamerican pyramids.

Panta Rhei!

Everything Flows!

 

[juantoo3]

Nessie, Ogopogo, Mkele Mbembe = same as dragons,

Correct...dinosaurs are synonymous with dragons in the various legends and mythologies.

bigfoot, minotaurs, angels, devils, etc. No concrete proof of any of them. How do I "cover" them? Humans have quite an imagination, as anyone with a young child can attest. For example, just look at all the different human creation stories for different cultures throughout time.

Now, now...who is asking to believe in a speculated "legend" while now chiding for various acknowledged legends? Picking and choosing our Native American and other aboriginal dragon legends are we, allowing speculated (fanciful, imaginary) legends when it suits and denying those legends that are acknowledged to exist when it suits? Either legends are suitable circumstantial evidence...or they are not. If they are not suitable circumstantial evidence, then we still have a quandary over how the heck Peruvian indians learned of Tri-tops. If we allow legends, then Ogopogo/Chessie, Nessie and Mkele Mbembe are acceptable considerations. Can't have it both ways. (Or you can, but it would be intellectually dishonest)

 

[juantoo3]

Wouldn't this line of logic actually favor the theory of primitive humans knowing of the existence of dinosaurs via fossil accounts of dinosaurs (more recent) rather than humans living at the same time as dinosaurs (more distant)? i.e. "old earth" over "young earth"?

Well, I'm still waiting to see your evidence. Speculation doesn't count.