Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, but in Tom/C34's case, this drawing would have to be modified. You'd have to replace the dead horse with a pile of ice and old basalt, and toss in a fake wooden beam, and you'd then expect the "beast" to get up, shake itself off, and head on home, where "home" is 6800 miles, and two oceans, away. All with no food or water.
And all while fighting off the starving T-Rexs....... I agree: good grief.
fundies certainly have had an action packed 6000 years.
All that I can find is some work done by Neal Stedy who could not confirm the authenticity of the figurines and. so, of course, his findings have been dismissed by the believers as in the pay of the Mexican governments. On the other hand, a creationists coming back swaering that its al true is given the fullest support.
There are some doubst about these dates.
"Three radiocarbon tests were performed by Isotopes Incorporated of New Jersey resulting in dates of 1640 BC, 4530 BC and 1110 BC. Eighteen samples were subjected to thermoluminescent testing by the University of Pennsylvania, all of which gave dates of approximately 2500 BC"
4,000 BC through to 1,110 BC is a wide range of dates for artefacts all supposedly from the same excavation area. And these ceramics shouldn't give C14 dates as they are not organic. What organic samples were provided and where did it come from? Why did the samples give a wide range of dates? if organic material from all over was sent in claimed to be from the same site, wouldn't that explain the discrepancy?
Fantasia with its celebrated dinosaur trek sequence is 1940s. Its ingenuous to suggest that it was completely unknown. And my point remains unaswered: if the El Toro figurines are genuine and there were dinosaurs around at the time, where are their remains? And why just dinosaurs? Why not mammoths, giant sloths and sabre tooth tigers? They were around in South america, didn't they surviven? Why aren't they in the collection of figurines?
Now, that's off because I though the only tactile evidence was a chunk of petrified wood. Wood or rock? Make up your mind. And I recall that Ararat is not the highest mountain in the area. Unless you reduce the area to exclude all the higher mountains. And of course the sightings come from form there because that's where the believers, trusting in the name, go and look. And yet from our last thread, I recall that the sites were all over, and one on a completely different mountain!
The Bible does not tell the truth, that has been demonstarted as regards the Gospels, but of course, that is just reignored and the ol claim of Bible reliability is made.
As I say, I await results. What I fully expect though is that further investigation will find less and less until, like the notorious boat shaped outcrop, believers are pointing to iron ore and pebbles as proof of an ark with iron nails and ballast. And you will be suddenly announcing a whole newly identified site as Proof of the Ark. 'Why won't we believe!?'
You thought the only tactile evidence was a chunk of petrified wood? You don't watch the news much I take it. I believe the real Ark, was found just in recent times high up on Mt. Ararat. And we are not worried about other high mountains. Because the Bible stated the Ark landed on the highest mountain,on the (MOUNTAINS OF ARARAT). Which again, is Mt. Ararat. Numerous rock formations some have claimed to be the Ark of Noah. Yet they are all in the wrong place, and they are rock formations. The recent discovery is at the right altitude, right mountain, and I personally believe it is the Ark of Noah. Right now they have entered no less then seven rooms of the Ark. We are not looking a pebbles as proof. Please get up to speed here. Link below may be of some help.
[quote=AREQUIPA;14239923][quote=Campbell34;14239880]The El Toro figurines don't look convincing? Where is your scientific review? The figurines continue to pass all time testing done on them. Is science only considered by you guys, when it supports your view? The only time anyone from your side even considered the figuriens, was way back in the early 1950s before such testing was done.
Quote:
Scientific review? You'd dismiss it even if if there was one. But I'm asking you to use your own eyes...no, take those rose - window coloured glasses off first. From what I have read there is no testing done on them. It would be nice if there was. I know that there is some chap supposed to have accepted an ancient date for them, but he certainly hasn't confirmed nor denied it.
But that's not the point. The point is that, if there were dinosaurs coexisting with men in relatively recent times, where are the remains? Amongst all the Peruvian human and animal remains there is not one bit of Prerodactyl skin or Titanothere tusk. And yes, the figures look like they were copied from a kid's cartoon - book.
I don't doubt that you could search a lot of other mountains and find some rock formations that could be filmed with a fuzzy camera and claimed as an ark. We need a lot more. And why is Ararat the 'right' location? Just because it's called Ararat? If the Ark lodged on the first mountain to appear, there are much higher ones.
And an Ark and even a flood would not destroy evolution any more than if the ark of the covenant was discovered or pharoh's charit weels found in the Red sea. That might go some way way to validating the Bible (hasn't happened yet) but to argue like John and Mary
'See, we know that's true, so all the rest must be true too'. is not good logic or science. It's only the Creationist take that the Bible must be taken literally that is supposed to discredit evolution and even then, you have to take the literalism as extending to a short creation time of ten thousand years or so.
Your claim that an Ark would discredit evolution only shows your poor reasoning as well as poor science. As for me, I await some proper proof with interest. So far the sites (all heavily religion -biased) focus on presenting their own believers as 'experts' and insisting that we should take their poorly supported claims on trust.
Which scientific review are you speaking about? The one that a single believer in evolution did in 1953. That was the one where he confirmed the figurines were ancient while he was in Mexico, but then changed his mind when his plane landed in the states. Is that the review you are talking about?
The Ark would destroy evolution, because it would expose how wrong scientist have been about the Bible, and it's accuracy. Again, there is no fuzzy cameras taking the latest pictures of the Ark. Clearly we are seeing wooden rooms below the ice. Denial time is over. And when I told you folks there was wood on Mt. Ararat, some claimed it was just pillar lava. Pillar Lava, does not form manmade rooms.
As previously noted, they will only get proper credible funding if they present a project proposal that meets international standards for description, methods and reporting. No-one will want to participate if this is not a credible and well-documented effort. To do so and then be "sunk" by low standards and reporting would do them no good, and gthey'd simply be wasting scarce project support funds. This is no longer the free-flying '90s or early 2000s. And so far, that's not been provided to anyone.
This video clearly shows the inside of "something", but not necessarily an/the Ark, which was previously claimed to have been broken into three parts, would have remained in this condition, complete with straw, for over 2500 years. The video spends at least 60% of its time showing hiking, and hugs all round in the snow, and then panting & coughing Chinese folks struggling around inside an ice cave. To then conclude that this is The Ark from that alone? Really? I can go take some low-light video pics in my barn this evening, and let a chicken run by in the shadows and then claim it's a tiny dinosaur inside The Ark. Convincing? Of course it is!
Absent a credible expedition, with credible documented photos (not this highly amateurish presentation), this will, like their last effort, simply die on the vine.
This still does not address all the other reasons an Ark is impossible. some here still ignore all those requirements. Naturally.
BTW, the points made above about the absolutely missing skeletal remains for dinos, mammoths, sabre-toothed tigers, pterodactyls, brontosaurs (hard to miss that one...) also address the credibility argument. But apparently that stuff's meant to be ignored or denied. If this Ark is in such well-preserved condition, complete with left-over hay, after 2500 years, why not a few dino bones and frozen, intact remains complete with DNA, somewhere on this earth? (and not just one lone find in Montana, Tom. As well, that one dates to what was it? 65 M years of age. Sorry. No sale there. We should find thousands of them, even with some still alive.)
(Why, you ask? Well.... because they went extinct millions of years earlier. No... say it isn't so!)
Well, so be it. We'll see where this one leads. But when it fails, as I predict, what can we then expect? Another absolute Ark "find" a few months or a year later? Somewhere else? Of course.
I still have a hard time believing that (probably) otherwise intelligent adults will look at a picture of the inside of a wooden structure and be so willing to accept that it is THE ark.I guess PT Barnum was right.
I still have a hard time believing that (probably) otherwise intelligent adults will look at a picture of the inside of a wooden structure and be so willing to accept that it is THE ark.I guess PT Barnum was right.
I could say the same about the theory of evolution. How intelligent adults came to observe primates and thought, yeah, we came from them.
You thought the only tactile evidence was a chunk of petrified wood? You don't watch the news much I take it. I believe the real Ark, was found just in recent times high up on Mt. Ararat. And we are not worried about other high mountains. Because the Bible stated the Ark landed on the highest mountain,on the (MOUNTAINS OF ARARAT). Which again, is Mt. Ararat. Numerous rock formations some have claimed to be the Ark of Noah. Yet they are all in the wrong place, and they are rock formations. The recent discovery is at the right altitude, right mountain, and I personally believe it is the Ark of Noah. Right now they have entered no less then seven rooms of the Ark. We are not looking a pebbles as proof. Please get up to speed here. Link below may be of some help.
That link brought up nothing but an ad. for 'The dark side of hollywood'.
No, I am not inclined to spend a lot of time getting up to speed on Arkeology. The truth will out in the end, but so far there is nothing but chunks of petrified wood, claims about wood that is not petrified, claims of wooden pens which when described sounded like a cave with walls of decaying rock.
And pictures of snow - cliffs with fuzzy if not composite images of who knows what.
The other Arks which were claimed to be equally 'clear' (Pratchett made a nice comment - people who say 'clearly' often mean it ain't clear at all) are all in the wrong place. Because this is in the 'right place'? Circular argument?
But enough of poking fun. When the Ark is properly investigated and verified and shown to be nothing else than a whacking great boat dated back to 9,000 BC (+/-4,000 years) then I'll take notice. So far, I'm just hearing a lot of very partial Ark enthusiasts demanding acceptance of some very doubtful claims. And that includes you, too, my dear chap.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-22-2010 at 03:17 AM..
The El Toro figurines don't look convincing? Where is your scientific review? The figurines continue to pass all time testing done on them. Is science only considered by you guys, when it supports your view? The only time anyone from your side even considered the figuriens, was way back in the early 1950s before such testing was done.
Which scientific review are you speaking about?
Oh dear. The one YOU demanded that I produce. "The El Toro figurines don't look convincing? Where is your scientific review?" Please remember what YOU wrote even if you can't remember what I wrote.
The more you say, the more doubtful this testing looks. I mentioned that C14 testing produced disturbingly discrepant dates and ceramics don't C14 test anyway.
Quote:
The one that a single believer in evolution did in 1953. That was the one where he confirmed the figurines were ancient while he was in Mexico, but then changed his mind when his plane landed in the states. Is that the review you are talking about?
That's the one that seems the only definite one and it's not too definite in any case. I'll copy my comments on this from a previous post.
"I've been looking at the Ica Stones and the El Toro/Acabara (the same place?) figurines.
There are a lot of very detailed accounts of the discovery and the testing of these objects, and [you] a few pages ago gave details of tests carried out on the figures. It bothers me that I can't find any comments of Neil Steede for example who:
"... tried to debunk the figurines by having them time tested again. Yet the lab results shock his group when the human figure was dated to 4000 BP, and the Dinosaur figurine was dated to 1500 BP."
Apart from the poor grammar and 'BP' (does that mean BC?) it's all a bit vague about the circumstances. I can only find the story repeated from one Creationist site to the other, but Stede himself says nothing about it.
As I have mentioned, It is even more of a problem that there are no organic remains of dinosaurs with men. The figurines, quite apart from claims of looking exactly right, sometimes don't look anything near right.
One looks like a snake with a dragon-ridge on its back and just two legs. But If I were a dinosaur-with-man enthusiast, I'd probably say it was an attempt at Gigantosarus.
Quote:
The Ark would destroy evolution, because it would expose how wrong scientist have been about the Bible, and it's accuracy. Again, there is no fuzzy cameras taking the latest pictures of the Ark. Clearly we are seeing wooden rooms below the ice. Denial time is over. And when I told you folks there was wood on Mt. Ararat, some claimed it was just pillar lava. Pillar Lava, does not form manmade rooms.
Then manmade rooms is what they can't be. Look, no -one is able to say definitely what's up there. And your remark "The Ark would destroy evolution, because it would expose how wrong scientist have been about the Bible" is very poor logic. You may as well say that, if the Exodus was found mentioned in the Amarna tablets, that would disprove evolution. No that's just a trick to say that if ONE science criticism about the Bible can be disproved, then that disproves every science criticism.
Everything on its merits. Even if we did find organic remains of dinosaurs in a Mocha or Lambayeque cemetary, that would only set us looking for late survivals of another range of living fossils. It would do nothing to overturn the piles of interlocking evidence for evolution.
But there is nothing substantial to support the Dinosaurs and man theory. Just over-excited claims of Believers. The footprints are misinterpreted if not misrepresented, the Polystrates prove nothing, the Ark, Undersea cities and the Peruvian tourist stuff have not yet passed muster. Denial time is not the case, proof, rather than claim, time is the case.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 05-22-2010 at 03:21 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
