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.
The last review of the El Toro figurines by your people was done in 1953. Is that what you call fully documented? And even when numerous others followed up on the nonsense of those findings, you ignored them. !953. Nothing like cutting edge science rifleman.LOL
And the Delk print was never scientifically debunked, they simply denied it. What lab did they do the testing on it rifleman? Can you give us a name? Or do you consider personal opinions from one's armchair a fully documented scientific review?
Wrong.
Read the link, folks, and see for yourselves how Tom tries to out-yowl the truth. He'll just keep on denying it. (That part's also proven). It's been thoroughly and completely debunked on purely scientific grounds.
And again: there's that pesky admission by Delk to his own grand-daughter that he carved it. After owning this startling carving for over 8 years, and desperate for funds after he fell and hurt himself, he oddly sold it to the always desperate and snaky witch-doctor Carl Baugh, owner of The Creation Museum, himself an indicted and convicted piker. Need more?
(BTW, the foot imprint morphology is also proven wrong. What a joke! If you're going to try to carve a fake footprint, at least get the morphology close to a real foot! As well, it's a lone human print in an area of literally tens of thousands of dinosaur prints. Not a single other human print in the entire valley.. Again, dear readers, all you have to do is read my link. Then send tom here your opinion of his ongoing bluffage)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
The last test was not on inorganic clay. It was on a dinosaur figurine made of fired ceramics.
Wrong. So now "Fired clay" is not inorganic*? Tom, your vast ignorance is showing yet again. Please: dress properly and cover it up! You're frightening the horses!
(* "organic": of living origins, like a plant or animal that naturally took up Carbon14 & C14 in a known ratio. Not, I repeat, fired clay. Sheesh!)
And it was tested in the year 1997.
Link?Actually, last time you claimed it, it was in 1967, and it was improperly done X-Ray fluorescence. Go ahead, Tom, debate me on that technique, why don't you?
The test date revealed the age of the figurines to be 1500 years before present. The 1953 account came from one bias believer of evolution who was talking out of both sides of his mouth.
And he was a Christian? How unusual, huh?
While in Mexico he said the collection was ancient, yet when he got back to the states he said they were fakes.
Well, no science is necessary when someone admits they were part of the hoax, now is there? When the murderer confesses, why do any more forensics?
Is that the kind of science you imbrace?
Nope, not me. You perhaps, as you've shown above.
It's not the figurines that are trash, it is this kind of voodoo science.
You got it: voodoo science, but on your side. Actually, the Paluxy Valley footprint carver and his family admitted they were fakes as well. And, as you well know, Acambara City has turned my university down to obtain even a sample Ica figurine chip, and yet they sell them, identical ones, in the village market. So someone carved a sorta-kinda-Barney dino shape after being shown a picture of one. So what?
Next, I took your advice and applied to the "team" going to Ararat. Predictably, they would not provide me with any documentation, mission statement, budgetary or research outline, NADA. But, they want me to pay my own way to a PR announcement in Turkey, and then they'll review my CV and "project suitability" Not likely.
But... why don't you go, Tom? Imagine the glory and talking engagements when they come back with proof of The Ark? Why, even the pope will want to see you!
____________________________________
Of course, It's hardly relevant anyhow. All rational evidence, masses of it, versus your lone Ica carvings, (GORE™ quote:"scientists are finding them all over the world!") prove the dinos were long gone even when early proto-man arrived. You say they were here 1500 years ago, and yet, unlike wholly mammoths, whose actual, frozen hair-on, grass in stomach, 12,000 to 18,000 year old remains we regularly find in Alaska and Russia, along with spears in their sides, we NEVER find ANY dinosaur bones alongside human artifacts. We've NEVER found a scales-on dino remnant. Just a lot of very old bones and fossils.
As well, if only 1500 years ago, where did they go? (We know where the mammoths and saber-toothed tigers went. We have those remnants and dating) You've also claimed they're still here, of course. Where? Up on Ararat, waiting for the next sailing?
(Oh and and of course, modern 21st century (not 19th, or even 20th) isotopic and other dating techniques, last carelessly and incorrectly "debunked" by another Christian fraud & known plagiarist ,"Dr." Burdick, in 1945 (woo-hoo!!) have shown all dino fossils and bones to be well over 50 million to 200 million years old.)
PS: Don't bother to mis-quote Dr. Mary Schweitzer's 2006 Montana claim either, because even she, an honest Christian, has distanced herself from what she's classifies as nutball, loonoid claims of dino DNA (she didn't find any of that either, despite your claim otherwise), or even remnant dino soft tissue (even that has yet to be confirmed by her. At last review, it was determined to probably be the result of the effect of strong acids & other reagents on bone, but then you know that, and chose to selectively ignore).
Oh, and she also dated the source bones as 65 million years old. You also chose to selectively ignore that part, but then you over-exaggerate, and downright fabricate (GORE™ again...) her other preliminary findings. Very convincing to be sure.
____________________________________________
Summary of your pithy but vacant and prevaricatious comeback?
It has been explained to you multiple times, Campbell, that carbon dating cannot be performed on inorganic clay. The 1953 is sufficient to expose the figurines as trash.
Not to mention that figurines supposedly buried in soil thousands of years do not come out of that experience looking all smooth and shiny.
Yes, the Bible did say it was there, however you have failed to mention that historically a number of others have seen it there as well. Such as Georgie Hagopian from 1908, and a Kurdish farmer named Resit in 1948, George Green in 1953, Ed Davis in the 1940s, and now six more people who have actually been inside of it, and are going back again. What you must believe, is that everyone from the Bible, to this very day are lying to you. Your going to have to add a few more names to your repeat list.LOL
A Kurdish farmer?That you believe anyone who says they saw it is the flaw in your thinking.Critical examination of such claims seems to be beyond you.Your claims have as much validity as my claiming my neighbor Bob has been there and didn't see any ark,so none exists.
6 people may have been inside something,but there is ZERO proof they were inside the ark.That you are continually fooled by photos that could have been taken anywhere is your problem,along with your complete inability to examine evidence critically.
The last test was not on inorganic clay. It was on a dinosaur figurine made of fired ceramics. And it was tested in the year 1997. The test date revealed the age of the figurines to be 1500 years before present. The 1953 account came from one bias believer of evolution who was talking out of both sides of his mouth. While in Mexico he said the collection was ancient, yet when he got back to the states he said they were fakes. Is that the kind of science you imbrace? It's not the figurines that are trash, it is this kind of voodoo science.
Does the fact that the guy who supposedly found these has admitted they were fakes and it was all a hoax mean nothing to you?
The last review of the El Toro figurines by your people was done in 1953. Is that what you call fully documented? And even when numerous others followed up on the nonsense of those findings, you ignored them. !953. Nothing like cutting edge science rifleman.LOL
And the Delk print was never scientifically debunked, they simply denied it. What lab did they do the testing on it rifleman? Can you give us a name? Or do you consider personal opinions from one's armchair a fully documented scientific review?
The Delk track http://salon.glenrose.net/default.as...=plink&id=7951
Turns out that Zana Douglas, daughter of Weldon Eakin, and granddaughter of the George Adams family of Glen Rose KNOWS of at least one fake that was buried when she was a little girl; and Bud Kennedy of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram wrote about it.
......a granddaughter from the family that discovered the famous Glen Rose Trackway of fossilized dinosaur footprints says to hold the sermons: It’s probably a fake.
"My grandfather was a very good sculptor," said Zana Douglas, from the Adams family that found many of Glen Rose’s real dinosaur tracks about a century ago.
During the 1930s and the Depression, Glen Rose residents made money by distilling moonshine and selling dinosaur fossils. Each fossil brought $15 to $30. When the supply ran low, George Adams just carved more, some with human footprints thrown in....
....
"My dad [Weldon Eakin] and my grandfather decided one day — I don’t know if it was to make money, or what — to start carving man tracks alongside the dinosaur tracks," said Douglas, 67 and now living near Houston.
They poured acid to make the fossils look like aged limestone, she said. They showed one "all over town" until they heard that a researcher from the Smithsonian Institution wanted to see the track.
"That worried my grandfather because he didn’t want anybody ever passing it off as real," she said. "So he and Daddy took it out and buried it."
Let's see,the figurines discoverer admitted they were fakes.The Delk track family admits they made the tracks to sell to tourists for money to supplement their moonshine bidnez.Yeah,we REALLY need to do some serious research on these 2 "artifacts".LOL!
The link,btw,is not from some anti creation atheist site.It is merely the local countywide web newsletter for the county in which the Delk track was supposedly found.I assure you,living not far from there and passing through Glen Rose often,that the majority of the residents of GR are from a suitably conservative Christian background.This is merely a local paper telling an amusing story that all the locals have known about for years.
Last edited by lifertexan; 06-02-2010 at 07:38 AM..
The Olive tree is resistan to drought, disease, and is fire-resistant and can live for a very long time. And it would be natural for such a tree to survive the flood.
...but what it doesn't like old son is....water. Anything more than 40 inches in a YEAR and you've lost 'em. The area where I live is a huge producer of olives. Olive trees and commercial olive plantations are as numerous as weeds here yet you won't find one, not one, that is watered artificially. I assure you that if any of those trees were submerged under salt water for nearly a year, they wouldn't be producing any more leaves for birds to take back to 'ol Noah.
...but what it doesn't like old son is....water. The area where I live is a huge producer of olives. Olive trees and commercial olive plantations are as numerous as weeds here yet you won't find one, not one, that is watered artificially. I assure you that if any of those trees were submerged under salt water for nearly a year, they wouldn't be producing any more leaves for birds to take back to 'ol Noah.
The truth lurketh in the dark corners of your mind!
Harrumphh... This is just NOT scientific enough, lifer! Not enough big words for Tom.
As for submerged olive trees surviving, and as a sole source of food for 800 million starving and offloaded organisms, including Koalas, don't worry; Tom will never address the complete kill-off of all known global vegetation, even the seaweed.
(PS: Tom, ever notice how marine seaweed does not grow up into river estuaries? Nor do you find starfish or lobsters up there. Hmmm... sounds like a good science project, huh? Drop a live lobster into your bathtub and fill''r up. Then later, when it dies, you can eat it! Ain't science fun?
Or how barnacles all die and fall off when a boat moves into even slightly less saline water? They're all intolerant of salinity changes.)
So... imagine dumping 10X the known volume of the oceans, as fresh water, into those oceans. Any changes in salinity? ("Nahhh" sez Tom the biochemist...). How's about when that now-dilute saline water floods and invades all the fresh water rivers and lakes? Oh, and covers all living vegetation with >5 miles of high-pressure water! Even our best submarines can't go much below 1500 feet before, "Pop" goes the titanium hull.. But them rhubarb & tomato plants @ 26,000 feet down, with no light, warmth or water? For 18+ months? Heck, it's "no problemo!" for Tom, the marine engineer!
Do Arkists & literalist fundies actually take notice of anything in the natural world? Apparently not.
What categorical nonsense! Posted by cowards unwilling to answer even the simplest honest questions.
If the olive leaf was found at the very top of Mt. Ararat, and the Ark landed (near the top of Mt. Ararat). Why would you then believe the Ark would have to be raised up above where the dove orginally found the olive leaf? Your arguement makes no sense. Mt. Ararat rises almost 17,000 feet above sea level. With waters slowly receding and the Ark landing near 14,000 feet. Such plant groweth would be possible. Thus you would have the Ark landing near the top of Mt. Ararat, and the dove removing the olive leaf from the very top of the mountian before the Ark actually landed.
I might point out here that it was 135 days from the time the Bible stated the waters of the flood began to abate and the dove retrieved the olive leaf. It was at least 54 days since dry ground appeared. And this gave the olive time to produce leaves. The Olive tree is native to the Mediterranean and considered one of earths most hardy trees. Its root system is very robust and capable of regenerating the tree even if the above-ground structure is destroyed. The Olive tree is resistan to drought, disease, and is fire-resistant and can live for a very long time. And it would be natural for such a tree to survive the flood.
Follow along now. No it would not be natural for an olive tree to survive and sprout at the top of Mt. Ararat. Sorry, it is your argument that makes no sense. It is your argument that would require that somehow, the Ark would have to find a way to get back to the top of Mt. Ararat after the water subsided to levels below the foothills. There are no olive trees on the top of Mt. Ararat, they would only be as high as the foothills. We are told the water receeded rapidly enough, it didn't just evaporate. Also if there were trees of all types just floating around, what would have prevented the raven from bringing back an olive branch since there were so many available just for the plucking, especially with all the mats of vegetation floating around that the YECs say existed and resulted in coal - remember it was freshly plucked, these words have meaning. Evidently, none were to be had at the time the raven was out reconnoitering. So what doesn't make sense is having the Ark landing on the top of Mt Ararat. That is you argument. So how do you get the ark to the top of Mt Ararat, after waters receded enough to expose the foothills where olive trees were allowed to resprout and were available for the plucking. That is your argument and it doesn't make sense. Therefore, no ark on top of Mt Ararat. The devil is in the details of the story. So I asked the question, how do you get the ark to the top of Mt Ararat, after water receeded enough to expose the foot hills? Obviously you can't. It is an absurd argument. It is a conundrum.
Is Campbell the only one that doesn't understand this?
Last edited by PanTerra; 06-02-2010 at 10:04 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.
Alternate short version:
