@T_aquaticus
Have you even read my posts regarding the hoaxer’s testimonies???!
I have seen your attempts to explain away the evidence, yes.
I’ll have to comment that this statement is totally false, in my opinion. It is the propaganda spread by conspiracy buffs worldwide in one way or another about whatever topic they are trying to promote and profit from, be it aliens, JFK assassination theory, cancer cures, Bibfoot or whatever. There is no “Academy” that controls things, and science is a field that if you do discover something real that is a game changer, you are praised and rewarded. A documented recent dinosaur bone or real proof of existence would make you rich and famous.
4 Likes
@jpm
Oh that that were true!
You are somewhat correct, though. It is not that the what you call “science” covers up things, they just choose not to report about them (thus people don’t hear about them).
Yeah I have seen this stuff before. Some of the most hilarious content is the completely ignorant misrepresentation of Chinese dragons, claiming jade depictions of dragons actually show Protoceratops. The people viewing these photos of jade dragons clearly have absolutely no idea that the parts which they think are solid plates, are actually intended to be hair. They don’t know this because they’re looking at an artifact of which they are culturally ignorant. And this one is hysterical; they show a Protoceratops with a very large overhanging beak pointing down, and then show beneath it a jade dragon (complete with hair, not solid plate), with a snout pointing up, not down!
And what do they carefully omit to mention? No dinosaur remains contemporary with humans, have ever been found in China. Ever. This could not possibly the case if all these artists and sculptors were supposedly rendering “dino-dragons” from real life. I went to the “Paleontological Evidence” section of their site, and found exactly the same thing; no examples whatsoever of any dinosaur remains found during the same era as humans. And they cite Moab Man, oh dear.
Like I said, I want to see at least the same level of evidence for the co-existence of woolly mammoths and humans. Where is it?
2 Likes
@Jonathan_Burke
Maybe we’ll find some dinosaur bones in the tomb of the Yellow Emperor when we are permitted to open it…? And besides, the carvings could have been made from a description given by someone else, not necessarily the eyewitness.
How many times do you have to hear about Alchemists “making gold out of lead” before you realize that it just can’t be done?
1 Like
@gbrooks9
It was a noble endeavor…that sadly came to not. Platinum has been converted to gold, but I think you can see the flaw in that…
1 Like
What don’t they report?
To me, the biggest problem is things get reported in the popular press that are either untrue or have glaring errors. Sometimes even “science” plants stories to increase the visibility or market value of a product or institution (though it is really not science, but business)
@J.E.S, you seem to have a healthy appetite and desire to learn. Work on learning the basics of science and how things work, so that you can make wise informed judgements of what is true or not. Otherwise, you will be tossed by the wind in whatever direction it blows. Have a blessed day!
1 Like
First I would not suscribe to the term “evolutionary creationism” but instead “Trinitarian Evolution” by which the evolution of all life happened, with some freedom and randomness, from the divine love of Father, Son and Holy Spirit and in accord with a shared will to bring forth life that would culminate in the evolution of rational creatures such as ourselves.
Second the dinosaurs (which were many species) were just part of the branches of a varied fanning our of life with all its unique and divinely loved existence. But the tragedy of their mass extinction millions of years ago led to an opening up of the further evolution of the earliest mammals that had already evolved.
Thirdly it is widely held that they shared strong genetic links with birds and so all the wonderful birds we see today are the only living and surving representatives of what dinosaurs had been.
Lastly dinosaurs existed milliions of years before the existence of the earliest humans, so they would nevr have existed at the same time.
This may be true for subjects such as the multiverse or the implications and meaning of quantum mechanics, but it is not true for the ages of rock strata and where we do or do not find dinosaur fossils. Or are you able to explain exactly how dating methods specifically extend beyond the realm of mathematics, measurement, testable predictions and reproducibility?
You are welcome to discuss any of their articles that are relevant to this thread’s subject here, or to start up separate threads to discuss those that are not. Regardless, they will be evaluated first and foremost on whether or not they get their facts straight, not on whether they upset anyone’s paradigm.
No, we write off claims of evidence that have not been subjected to any form of quality control whatsoever. Or assertions that claim to be evidence but are not.
You keep harping on about this Wikipedia article but you have not highlighted a single claim that it makes that you can demonstrate to be incorrect.
And just how often do you think that this happens? How does this compare to the millions of peer reviewed papers undergirding the scientific consensus? How much money do you think is being spent on such cover-ups and discarded research?
Jonathan, before you can complain about people rejecting your claims out of hand you must address the issue of quality control. Every single objection you have seen on this thread boils down to that one issue. Only when you provide evidence that matches the level of rigour seen in evolutionary science can you start to complain about it being dismissed because of presupposition and worldview.
3 Likes
Jonathan, is your accusation of “very low esteem for the Bible” directed at anyone in particular? There are a great many of us here on the forums that hold the Bible in VERY HIGH esteem. Personally, that’s what bothers me most about young-earth creationism – the attempts to rigidly adhere to one interpretation of Genesis discredits the beautiful truth of the Bible when it contradicts what scientific discovery has made plainly evident.
I imagine a good many of us are familiar with the passage of Job describing the behemoth. I would agree that the English translation of Job does indeed seem to indicate a sauropod – but the English translation can certainly be misleading. Biblical scholars tend to think the behemoth is not a sauropod, and even AiG and CMI admit that there is no reliable evidence of humans and dinosaurs living together. If you want to read more about other Christian views of behemoth, check out a Christianity Today article here, or another article, more focused “what was behomoth?” here.
I’m not trying to “steal your thunder” before you present it, but if your iceberg of evidence on human/dinosaur cohabitation is built on behemoth and leviathin, you’ll find that most of us will rely more heavily on scientific evidence than on conjecture.
2 Likes
@cosmicscotus makes a good and clear point. If all the dinosaur bones that have ever been found (excluding Birds!) were found below the “K-T” boundary, and all the large mammals including humans have been found above the K-T boundary, it means that 100% of all the dinosaurs discovered (100% beneath K-T) drowned before 100% of the larger mammals (100% above K-T) drowned. Do you really think things happened that way, @J.E.S ?
In other words, even the huge Brachiosaurus, or the robust Dino-period marine reptiles, drowned well before any of the mammals started drowning. Contemplating how this could have happened in any flood scenario may be a better use of your time than looking at carvings of dinosaurs on rocks of unknown origins.
NOTE: “K is … the traditional abbreviation for the Cretaceous period, and T is the abbreviation for the Tertiary period. So the K-T boundary is the point in between the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods. Geologists have dated this period to about 65.5 million years ago.”
2nd Note: I think you may see that 65.5 million can be variously rounded … to either be 65 million years ago or 66 million years ago!
You have a point. I will here review the Wikipedia article, and write my critiques here as I read.
He initially purchased more than 300 from two brothers, Carlos and Pablo Soldi, who also collected pre-Incan artifacts, who claimed they had unsuccessfully attempted to interest archaeologists in them.
True. After their death, I believe that the Soldi brother’s large collection ended up in the storage room of the Ica regional museum (I’ll fact-check that assertion in a moment).
In 1973, during an interview with Erich von Däniken, Uschuya stated he had faked the stones that he had sold.[3] In 1975 Uschuya and another farmer named Irma Gutierrez de Aparcana confirmed that they had forged the stones they gave to Cabrera by copying the images from comic books, text books and magazines.[2] Later, Uschuya recanted the forging story during an interview with a German journalist, saying that he had claimed they were a hoax to avoid imprisonment for selling archaeological artifacts. In 1977, during the BBC documentary Pathway to the Gods, Uschuya produced an Ica stone with a dentist’s drill and claimed to have produced a fake patina by baking the stone in cow dung.[3] That same year, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical analysis of Cabrera’s stones, and the new-found attention to the phenomenon prompted Peruvian authorities to arrest Uschuya, as Peruvian law prohibits the sale of archaeological discoveries. Uschuya recanted his claim that he had found them and instead admitted they were hoaxes, saying “Making these stones is easier than farming the land.”
I hope that this entire snippet shows you the good reasons Basilio Uschuya had to lie. I would also be interested in knowing if baking a stone in cow dung actually makes patina believable enough to fool scientists.
In the end, not too impressed. They gave no evidence for the stones being fake other than that the supposed forgers admitted that they were. Now I can better understand why @T_aquaticus is constantly trumpeting this, and @gbrooks9 utilizes the circular reasoning of “since dinosaurs died out millions of years before humans came on the scene then, if we find evidence that dinosaurs and humans lived together, the evidence must be fake since dinosaurs died out millions of years ago.”
Not impressed. Case is still open as far as I’m concerned!
I still wish that some scientific organizations that you actually consider credible would do some tests on the Ica stones…However, I would be very surprised if they wouldn’t just blow them off right away. To be honest, though, I would like to get to the bottom of the whole Ica Stones thing, and (if I’m wrong) I want to be corrected as quickly as possible.
@jammycakes
That’s a pretty big piece of evidence which you hand wave away.
The other problem you have is that you have no evidence that these stones are legit. You are the one claiming that these are from Peruvian cultures thousands of years ago. The burden of proof lies with you to prove it.
@T_aquaticus
If I ever achieve the capacity to do so, I shall endeavor to prove it. If new clues come to light, I’ll try to let you all know.
I suppose some of you may. How much of scripture do you actually think is true, as it is written? And I would really like an honest answer here other than “our interpretations differ.” When I have a higher percentage of the answers I seek, I may change my judgement made in the above quotation. I mean, one can say that he holds the Bible in high esteem, and may think the opposite (even without knowing it).
If scientific discovery had made evolution plainly evident, the BioLogos forum would not be here today (neither would AIG, ICR, CMI etc.).
P.S: [quote=“cwhenderson, post:193, topic:36364”]
Personally, that’s what bothers me most about young-earth creationism – the attempts to rigidly adhere to one interpretation of Genesis discredits the beautiful truth of the Bible when it contradicts what scientific discovery has made plainly evident.
[/quote]
Personally, that’s what bothers me about EC. It just THROWS OUT (or “reinterprets” to use the euphemism) so much of the Bible. When all’s said and done, Christ may never have risen from the dead, by your numbers. He has to be in the tomb for a few billion more years. I don’t think he’s even been there a day yet.
With all of the reinterpreting done in EC, what’s left?
(Now, a quick disclaimer: If I have neglected to speak the truth in love, or have offended anyone, I sincerely apologize. But I do hope that you all see the points that I am trying to make.)
Jonathan, an admission of forgery is a deal-breaker. It can only be overturned by incontrovertible documentary evidence to the contrary. Anyone who thinks otherwise is, quite frankly, living in la-la land…
Jonathan, @gbrooks9’s line is simply that if you want to overturn a scientific theory, your evidence must, at an absolute minimum, match the quality of the evidence supporting that theory. There is nothing whatsoever that is circular about that.
Jonathan, there is a very good reason why they don’t. Scientific tests cost money. No bean counter in any university or any research council is going to sign off funding for any research project that involves performing tests on artefacts which have been admitted to be fake by the people who faked them.
Look, if humans and dinosaurs really had coexisted in the past, there would be much more evidence for that than just a few fake stones and highly ambiguous drawings. We would, at the very minimum, expect to find sequenceable dinosaur DNA somewhere. Where is it?
1 Like