Where Do Dinosaurs Fit Into Evolutionary Creationism?

J.E.S:
I’ll make sure to tell you if Mr. Woetzel finds anything. It doesn’t surprise me that the bones aren’t buried with humans…but hey, there are a lot of undiscovered tombs out there!

I’m sure that J.E.S has a rationalization for such inaction…

It appears that you are misunderstanding the meaning of the phrase “explain away” in this context. It doesn’t simply mean “to argue against the proposition” or merely to disagree. The phrase refers to the casual dismissal of contrary evidence and/or the all-too-easy and unlikely salvaging of an unsupported idea.

What do you think of what I wrote about the assignment of burden of proof? Why do you so easily accept bold claims about items of unknown provenance for which people have admitted their role in fraud and forgery? Do you reject all contrary evidence? How does a scientist or humanities scholar evaluate evidence.

Do you understand why several commenters observed that your article and its citations were assertions rather than evidence?

I have a neighbor who claims to have seen an extraterrestrial UFO. He asked my opinion of his claims, so I told him that I could certainly agree with the UFO part of his story (by definition) but I didn’t understand why he thought it was the product of aliens from elsewhere in the universe. He told me, “The rate of flight speed and the quick turns were beyond the capability of human technology. That proves that they represent alien technology.” This was a reminder to me that some English speakers use words like “proof” and “prove” very differently than most mathematicians and scientists.

If it is true that this often occurs, you should have no trouble providing 5 such cases.

And you realize that science is about evidence and testing one’s own hypotheses, not arguments from authority, correct?

Here is one of the best articles a simple google returned (I also like a lot of other stuff on the geochristian site, good to look around.)

@J.E.S

If you want to establish that you have a case as to why the Ica stones really do depict ancient drawings of dinosaurs, please can you post a list of stones depicting dinosaurs that have been found and documented by mainstream archaeologists, together with links to the articles in the peer reviewed scientific journals in which they are documented. The links in question should point to abstracts on the websites of major, reputable publishers such as JSTOR, Springer, Elseiver, Researchgate, Nature.com, or other sites of a similar calibre. Please also post photographs showing exactly what they depict as well.

Anything else is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

more difficult to explain away is this pre-fall stegosaurus, which was hunted to extinction by vegetarian T. Rex.

Perhaps that was a little too sarcastic. I do appreciate that when you believe something is true, whether it be evolution, rock carvings, or essential oils, we get our egos and sense of self a bit intertwined and it can be difficult to see things objectively. Again, we have to go back to look at supporting evidence, consistency with known facts and information, opinions of learned and trusted sources.

It is really not that much different than how we understand scripture. We look at context, consistency with other scripture, and how others with training have studied it and interpreted it. As I quoted Paul before, we are exhorted to be discerning in our spiritual lives, so why should we not also be so in our secular pursuits.

I thought they were found in Peru, in the Ica province. Hence their name. The driest desert in the world (i.e., lowest rain levels) is the Atacama Desert in Chile. Or has climate changed revised the world’s record for deserts? (I hadn’t thought about that before but it sounds possible.)

Rain is not the only source for erosion. Various natural processes cause erosion, such as wind, sunlight exposure, chemical reactions (such as routine oxidation over time), and even animal movements. The term erosion covers far greater ground than you are presuming.

Anyway, why would there be large dinosaurs living in a desert? Or are you saying that that desert was tropical and only recently became a desert? (Considering the climate patterns which produced that desert–a result of the obstructive mountains shielding that area from rain clouds—that would be a very bold claim.) Or are you assuming that the culture which produced the Ica stones lived in the desert even though the dinosaurs lived elsewhere?

I’m still unclear how you know that the “dinosaur” drawings couldn’t be based on mythical stories about monsters? (However, one of the stones I recall seeing looks more like a kid’s drawing of Barney the Purple Dinosaur.) Of course, for the moment I’m simply temporarily assuming that the stones are indeed from an ancient culture, even though the weight of the evidence defies that idea.

P.S. I keep recalling a fun cartoon from long ago—which only has humorous reference to our present topic— where it shows scientists examining petroglyphs in some cave. They posit very sophisticated theories about the meanings of the drawings and the profound worldviews they represented. And they try to decipher the meaning of the strange symbols next to the drawings. Then the final frame is introduced with the caption, “Meanwhile, a flashback to the same cave over 50,000 years ago…” One little caveman kid says to the other while all of the adults are sleeping around the campfire, “I can draw a monster far scarier than your monster! Watch me. And these little marks are the sticks the monsters eat for food!” (As I said, it has nothing to do with Ica stones but the cartoon keeps coming to mind.)

One thing is for sure: This thread has been a very active one. Already nearly 150 comments posted! Dinosaurs and mysteries tend to get attention from us humans.

@Socratic.Fanatic
THANK YOU FOR POSTING THIS!
I have just figured out my mistake! The Ica stones were found in Peru’s ALTACAMA desert. The ALTACAMA and ATACAMA deserts may be different??? I always assumed it was a misspelling on someone’s part…

I am demonstrating that they are hoaxes. You are simply ignoring the evidence that they are hoaxes.

@jpm

The reason I am on this debate forum is in an effort to find the truth (and this is the reason why anyone should be on a debate forum). So far, participation in BioLogos has led me to think more, and it has revealed some problems with my worldview (almost every worldview has problems, and saying otherwise displays ignorance).

@T_aquaticus

authentic.
However, in all seriousness, your going to have to go farther than you have already to prove to me that they are hoaxes. Why, you haven’t as much as showed me a PICTURE of the alleged sandpaper marks. If I can gather (with your help) enough evidence to establish that ALL the Ica stones are fake in a better way than to simply say they are fake, or to simply say that they are this or are that, or have this or have that, then I will admit that I am wrong, and will take the Ica Stones article down from my website. Note however, that you must provide very adequate evidence! If I am unconvinced by said evidence, I recommend that we put the Ica Stones conversation on the shelf for now, and I will re-open it in a forum specifically for discussion of the stones AFTER I have further investigated the matter!

Have you considered that you have the burden of proof backwards?

I could similarly say “If I can gather (with your help) enough evidence to establish that _all UFO alien abduction reports are fake in a better way than to simply say they are fake, or to simply say that they are this or are that, or have this or have that, then I will admit that I am wrong, and will take the UFO alien abduction article down from my website.” Why not start from the standpoint of skepticism, which is how scientists approach their hypothesis?

Again, it is a burden of proof issue. Your default assumption is backwards.

Anyway, I do wish you well as you continue your research!

3 Likes

Here is a 32,000-year-old statue of a man’s body with a lion’s head.

There are many other examples of accurately depicted “fantastic creatures” like these in ancient art. On the basis of the art alone, we might conclude that such things actually existed, once upon a time. Luckily, we have other sources of evidence …

Has it ever occurred to you that a veritable mountain of evidence could be mounted against the stones, but very few reputable researchers can be bothered to take the time to refute something self-evidently incorrect?

@J.E.S,

If humans and dinosaurs co-existed, we would also find:

A) lions and T-Rexes co-existing;
B) giant plant-eating dinosaurs and giraffes co-existing;
C) Whales and Dino-period Marine Reptilies would be co-existing;
D) Egyptian pyramid builders would have used Brachiosaurs to help build those giant structures (the global flood doesn’t arrive until sometime in the 5th Dynasty);

.
.
.

E) and the incredibly traumatizing Terror Birds that would have torn the arriving proto-Native-Americans to pieces!


.
.
.

P.S.@J.E.S, I made the dinosaur/step pyramid image just for you!

3 Likes

Why are you insisting that we need to assume the Ica stones are genuine unless proven otherwise? The fact that they were admitted to be hoaxes is reason enough that the burden of proof should be the other way round.

There’s something that you need to grasp here – and it’s something that I repeatedly see YECs fail to understand – and that is that science has stringent standards of quality control. Insistence on documentation, lab notes, peer review, reproducibility and scientific scepticism is not just a matter of trying to “explain away evidence”; it is a matter of ensuring that anything that gets accepted as evidence meets these stringent standards.

The fact of the matter is that the evidence for an ancient earth, and the extinction of the dinosaurs 66 million years ago, comes from numerous peer reviewed papers that meet these standards. The Ica stones do not meet any identifiable standards of quality control whatsoever.

Thank you.

I would really encourage you to read Dr. Swift’s book “Secrets of the Ica Stones and Nazca Lines.” Dr. Swift started, as you said, from the position of a skeptic, but upon extensively studying the stones, he deemed them authentic. I got my copy on Amazon, so you may be able to find a copy there too.
@Socratic.Fanatic

Why are they “self-evidently incorrect”?

Note that these are real creatures that ancient humans were familiar with…as dinosaurs must have been to the creators of the Ica Stones. However, one slight error in that it can’t possibly be 32,000 years old (:wink:_). @Jay313

@gbrooks9

Yes! We would find all of those things (maybe with the exception of D). I don’t see the point…

We would find that too (although I think people sometimes overestimate the abilities of these “primordial predators.” (Nice alliteration, not necessarily that I think the’re primordial).

Thank you. I like it very much. Only a couple slight problems…(well, maybe a few)…

@jammycakes

Or maybe they did not fit well enough at all into the accepted paradigm of history, little to do with science (which is why I placed this topic in “general discussion.” There is no history category.)

Last I heard, it was 65? Or maybe that’s just another example of the ever-changing views of science (as opposed to theology, which is based on the unchanging Word Of God, but that’s a bit off topic).

Jonathan, you may be interested in reading this web page - IBSS - Other Views - Dr. Dennis Swift. It was written by Dr. Stephen Myers for the Institute for Biblical and Scientific Studies. The noteworthy message here is that even this highly conservative Christian group doubts the veracity of the human/dinosaur cohabitation claims.

@cwhenderson
Thanks for sharing! I that one is worth a more thorough read tomorrow…
At least I was pleased that they admitted to some of the stones being real. I also would like to know which ones were fake. Actually, when I first visited the Genesis Park article, at a glance, I couldn’t tell the Basilio stone from a genuine Ica Stone (although something about it didn’t look right…) It would be interesting to run a test…say, set out about 20 stones (some genuine and some known Basilio stones) and have random, un-invested people secretly write down which ones they think are genuine, and which they think are fake (after being briefed on some of the more obvious differences so as not to have their choices be totally subjective).