Be sure to check out more than just the YEC websites. There are some BioLogos posts here and here. Actually, there is a video to go with that second link.
Believe me, I completely understand the questioning of Wikipedia pages, but the depth and accuracy of information there far surpasses what I’ve read on many YEC websites.
@T_aquaticus
I hoped you would find that funny.
Anyway, about the “mystery cave.” I will not say whether the mystery cave exists or doesn’t but I must (sorry to say) shoot down your:
The Ica stones have been discovered by FAR more people than just Dr. Cabrera. In fact, many of them came to light due to the actions of the huaqueros or, tomb robbers. The Altacama desert is full of tombs, and that is where the stones came from, as they are the “Ica burial stones.”
Also, the Ica regional museum is (or was) in possession of many Ica stones (the collection of [wish I could remember the name definitively] the Soldi brothers) in the off-limits back room. Those stones certainly appear to be genuine, but…
More on this later as I sift through my (well-used, but in good condition) copy of Dr. Swift’s book.
How many of these tombs have been searched by actual archaeologists to verify their age? Do the stones from these burials also have dinosaurs on them?
I think it is obvious that Cabrera was a little too afraid that they were faked, which is why he never pushed to go to the sites where they were supposedly discovered. He bought all of them from locals. Any good archaeologist would require a visit to the site where they were found so that they could be put into context.
@T_aquaticus
I have a picture of one tomb in my book here, but I’ll see if I can find it online…
By the way, you’ve quote mined me here:[quote=“J.E.S, post:58, topic:36364”]
Behold: the infamous Wikapedia article. Again.
Wikipedia does not know everything.
I’ve talked about it in a post for @jammycakes already this very day.
People are so willing, relieved even, when the monolithic voice of wiki speaks in their favor.
Seriously, though if you want more refutations about specific things in the Wikipedia article, I’ll try to give them to the best of my ability.
[/quote]
@T_aquaticus
I don’ think you understand what “quote mining” is.
@T_aquaticus
If that’s the case: you’ve quoted me out of context.
What did I quote out of context?
@T_aquaticus
My sarcastic post.
(Note to self: sarcasm does not work in writing)
I didn’t quote anything from that post. I borrowed the sentence structure, but I didn’t attribute any words to you. If it was a quote mine it would have had a “–J.E.S” after it.
I’ll just let it drop.
According to whom, exactly?
I would think that the poster child of evolution would be the nested hierarchy, as it’s the only figure in Darwin’s Origin of Species.
Why would it be difficult to dig up some more, when you already implicitly claim to have enough evidence to come to a firm conclusion?
Sean Carroll (hope I spelled the last name correctly).
Because I have examples in my head, but (of course) I want to double check, and give some sources, which MAY be difficult to find. (Key word: MAY)
You can read the Carroll quote here, in context. Carroll describes trilobites and dinosaurs as inspiring students, not so much as the best examples of the evidence supporting evolution.
Dinosaurs and trilobites. Why did you exclude the latter?
He also writes,
Scientific Literacy is broader than just evolution. Evolution is perhaps the poster child for the acute problem that we have. But I think that it’s really hard for a student to grasp, and I think it’s really hard, I think for a citizen to grasp, when they are just getting the moving banner at the bottom of CNN – [like] “scientists say”, “this fossil means that” or “this gene discovery means that.” Those are just punchlines and don’t really understand the size of the entire enterprise or the cumulative knowledge that’s built up and how that’s tested and things. Now you could say – how do you convey all that? Practically speaking, I think part of the way you convey all that is that those who are communicating to the public, and I would say especially the media – have to have a better grasp of it.
-Sean B. Carroll, on scientific literacy
I think getting the scientific method, and knowledge of the scientific method across in the classroom is really more important than any particular science content.
-Sean B. Carroll, on teaching science
I can’t encourage anyone more strongly to read what the judge said about the intelligent design case in Dover… It’s a masterful opinion.
-Sean B. Carroll, on intelligent design in schools
Do you understand or reject the scientific method, Jonathan? Do you agree with the Dover decision?
Peace. Because the discussion is about dinosaurs. I meant (by having that up there) that as a concept, not necessarily a quote.
I think it may be more accurate to say dinosaurs are the poster children of paleontologists. They seem to get all the press. Pity the poor paleontologist that specializes in fossil worms.
One thing to mention is if Ica stones were an accurate portrayal of life a thousand or so years ago, we should have actual dino bones, not dino fossils to play with, probably some with spear heads lodged in their bones, and charred dino ribs around the old campfires.
But as others have pointed out, it’s not the poster child for the science. They are important in getting people, particularly children, interested.
So how about answering my questions? They would help everyone to answer the question you posed in the subject.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.