Christian-Forum.net > Dinosaurs And Man Coexisted

THE SEVEN THUNDERS

Jun 24 2008, 08:49 PM

QUOTE (Romans 14 @ Jun 24 2008, 06:28 PM)

QUOTE ('seven thunder')

Here are some images of ancient Inca rock carvings depicting a man riding a triceratops and another flying on the back of a pterodactyl... (Also, it is clear evidence that humans and dinosaurs were contemporaneous, evidence which is in opposition to the Evolutionary Model that separates the two by 65 millions years... hence, Evolution is FALSE; it never happened; it is severe misinterpretation of the data and thus is misconjecture.)

Supposing for the sake of argument that these artifacts were genuine, why would we think these depicted reality? Would you also accept other ancient depictions of giant jaguars and humans with various kinds of heads were also real? Would you accept that depictions of Icarus flying with his wings of was were genuine?

Humans have a long history of creating fantastic art which combines aspects of reality into unreal combinations. In addition, drawings could have been based on fossils, not on live animals.

In a court of law, which would be considered more reliable evidence?

A: A painting or scultpure showing the depiction of a crime (especially one done by the relative of the victime who would like to believe they know who the perpetrator is).

B: Actual physical evidence from the crime scene that can be documented to be from the scene.

Allowing this type of fantastical artistic evidence to trump volumes of actual physical evidence does not seem to me be a very fair or objective process of judgment.

Secondly, there is some question as to the authenticity of these particular artifacts. See http://www.geocities.com/athens/agora/3958...ly/weekly56.htm and
http://www.pseudoarchaeology.org/b03-ross.html

for example.

Like the Paluxey footprints, we again have another situation where at least a number of aspects can be shown to amount to a hoax.

There is ALWAYS the element of "hoax" introduced into the mix by the opposition in a desperate attempt to erode the Christian Worldview, to muddy up the waters and discredit the evidence against the Evolutionary Model; this counter-strategy is relentless on all levels and from all angles, pure dishonesty.

In addition to these rock carvings, there are also sculpted clay artifacts retrieved from Peruvian Andes caves depicting living dinosaurs at play (not dead fossilized bones). Dinosaur fossils were not excavated from the Earth until the Antiquarian Age of the Industrial Revolution, so the notion that primitive people knew of fossilized dinosaurs is in error.

You can think whatever you want, but rational discernment can easily separate what is "myth" and what is "real"; it's a rudimentary process. Frankly, you're over-complicating the issue.

-7

Romans 14

Jun 24 2008, 11:03 PM

QUOTE (THE SEVEN THUNDERS @ Jun 24 2008, 07:49 PM)

QUOTE (Romans 14 @ Jun 24 2008, 06:28 PM)

QUOTE ('seven thunder')

Here are some images of ancient Inca rock carvings depicting a man riding a triceratops and another flying on the back of a pterodactyl... (Also, it is clear evidence that humans and dinosaurs were contemporaneous, evidence which is in opposition to the Evolutionary Model that separates the two by 65 millions years... hence, Evolution is FALSE; it never happened; it is severe misinterpretation of the data and thus is misconjecture.)

Supposing for the sake of argument that these artifacts were genuine, why would we think these depicted reality? Would you also accept other ancient depictions of giant jaguars and humans with various kinds of heads were also real? Would you accept that depictions of Icarus flying with his wings of was were genuine?

Humans have a long history of creating fantastic art which combines aspects of reality into unreal combinations. In addition, drawings could have been based on fossils, not on live animals.

In a court of law, which would be considered more reliable evidence?

A: A painting or scultpure showing the depiction of a crime (especially one done by the relative of the victime who would like to believe they know who the perpetrator is).

B: Actual physical evidence from the crime scene that can be documented to be from the scene.

Allowing this type of fantastical artistic evidence to trump volumes of actual physical evidence does not seem to me be a very fair or objective process of judgment.

Secondly, there is some question as to the authenticity of these particular artifacts. See http://www.geocities.com/athens/agora/3958...ly/weekly56.htm and
http://www.pseudoarchaeology.org/b03-ross.html

for example.

Like the Paluxey footprints, we again have another situation where at least a number of aspects can be shown to amount to a hoax.

There is ALWAYS the element of "hoax" introduced into the mix by the opposition in a desperate attempt to erode the Christian Worldview, to muddy up the waters and discredit the evidence against the Evolutionary Model; this counter-strategy is relentless on all levels and from all angles, pure dishonesty.

In addition to these rock carvings, there are also sculpted clay artifacts retrieved from Peruvian Andes caves depicting living dinosaurs at play (not dead fossilized bones). Dinosaur fossils were not excavated from the Earth until the Antiquarian Age of the Industrial Revolution, so the notion that primitive people knew of fossilized dinosaurs is in error.

You can think whatever you want, but rational discernment can easily separate what is "myth" and what is "real"; it's a rudimentary process. Frankly, you're over-complicating the issue.

-7

So far, the only information regarding which artifacts were hoaxes were the Peruvian ones.' Unlike standard archaeological practice, the site where these came from has not been identified, and the artifacts do not seem to have been linked with precise layers or locations within the site. This occasionally happens with artifacts, but is usually a mistake or an accident when it does, or it shows that amateurs and not scientists were involved.

However, as I stated before, even if these are genuine, they are very very far from clearcut proof that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

As far as fossils of dinosaurs never being unearthed until the industrial age, my understanding is that this is not the case. Ancient Romans, for example, had run across some fossils. However, it is a long time since I have researched that, so I will double check to see if my recollection is correct.

Finally, the bottom line is that if dinosaurs and humans coexisted, we should find actual bonafide examples of fossils in the same layers.

We simply do not, except where there is evidence that the layers have been disturbed, etc.

QUOTE

There is ALWAYS the element of "hoax" introduced into the mix by the opposition in a desperate attempt to erode the Christian Worldview, to muddy up the waters and discredit the evidence against the Evolutionary Model; this counter-strategy is relentless on all levels and from all angles, pure dishonesty.

This is not an Christian versus non-Christian world view question, in my view. We are both Christians and we are on opposite sides of this issue.

The issue includes theological differences, including intrepretive questions, as well as attitudes towards science.

It is ironic that you accuse evolutionists of always crying hoax and being dishonest. I have spent a lot of time examining both scientific claims and creationist claims. I would not want to categorize such diverse groups in broad brush strokes. However, I could certainly document more instances of dishonesty, refusal to consider evidence, blatant bias, and poor thinking in the creationist camp than in the scientific. It is not the world view that is the problem, it is the manner of seeking the truth that is the problem. Too many professional creationists do not care about the truth. They only care about persuading and indoctrinating people into their viewpoint.

Now, there are those among scientists who do this (e.g. Richard Dawkins) but they are much much fewer percentage wise, and their efforts and attitudes are tangential to the actual science, not central to it, as is the case with creationism.

NIGHTMARE

Jun 25 2008, 01:40 AM

QUOTE (Neal @ Jun 24 2008, 05:30 PM)

Romans_14, believe me, if the folks at Christian-forum.net saw a painting in a cave of a man next to a dinosaur, they'll believe it's proof that man and dinosaurs co-existed.

probley,,,,just ask yourself how old do you believe man is???

THE SEVEN THUNDERS

Jun 25 2008, 10:58 AM

QUOTE (Romans 14 @ Jun 25 2008, 12:03 AM)

QUOTE (THE SEVEN THUNDERS @ Jun 24 2008, 07:49 PM)

QUOTE (Romans 14 @ Jun 24 2008, 06:28 PM)

QUOTE ('seven thunder')

Here are some images of ancient Inca rock carvings depicting a man riding a triceratops and another flying on the back of a pterodactyl... (Also, it is clear evidence that humans and dinosaurs were contemporaneous, evidence which is in opposition to the Evolutionary Model that separates the two by 65 millions years... hence, Evolution is FALSE; it never happened; it is severe misinterpretation of the data and thus is misconjecture.)

Supposing for the sake of argument that these artifacts were genuine, why would we think these depicted reality? Would you also accept other ancient depictions of giant jaguars and humans with various kinds of heads were also real? Would you accept that depictions of Icarus flying with his wings of was were genuine?

Humans have a long history of creating fantastic art which combines aspects of reality into unreal combinations. In addition, drawings could have been based on fossils, not on live animals.

In a court of law, which would be considered more reliable evidence?

A: A painting or scultpure showing the depiction of a crime (especially one done by the relative of the victime who would like to believe they know who the perpetrator is).

B: Actual physical evidence from the crime scene that can be documented to be from the scene.

Allowing this type of fantastical artistic evidence to trump volumes of actual physical evidence does not seem to me be a very fair or objective process of judgment.

Secondly, there is some question as to the authenticity of these particular artifacts. See http://www.geocities.com/athens/agora/3958...ly/weekly56.htm and
http://www.pseudoarchaeology.org/b03-ross.html

for example.

Like the Paluxey footprints, we again have another situation where at least a number of aspects can be shown to amount to a hoax.

There is ALWAYS the element of "hoax" introduced into the mix by the opposition in a desperate attempt to erode the Christian Worldview, to muddy up the waters and discredit the evidence against the Evolutionary Model; this counter-strategy is relentless on all levels and from all angles, pure dishonesty.

In addition to these rock carvings, there are also sculpted clay artifacts retrieved from Peruvian Andes caves depicting living dinosaurs at play (not dead fossilized bones). Dinosaur fossils were not excavated from the Earth until the Antiquarian Age of the Industrial Revolution, so the notion that primitive people knew of fossilized dinosaurs is in error.

You can think whatever you want, but rational discernment can easily separate what is "myth" and what is "real"; it's a rudimentary process. Frankly, you're over-complicating the issue.

-7

So far, the only information regarding which artifacts were hoaxes were the Peruvian ones.' Unlike standard archaeological practice, the site where these came from has not been identified, and the artifacts do not seem to have been linked with precise layers or locations within the site. This occasionally happens with artifacts, but is usually a mistake or an accident when it does, or it shows that amateurs and not scientists were involved.

However, as I stated before, even if these are genuine, they are very very far from clearcut proof that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

As far as fossils of dinosaurs never being unearthed until the industrial age, my understanding is that this is not the case. Ancient Romans, for example, had run across some fossils. However, it is a long time since I have researched that, so I will double check to see if my recollection is correct.

Finally, the bottom line is that if dinosaurs and humans coexisted, we should find actual bonafide examples of fossils in the same layers.

We simply do not, except where there is evidence that the layers have been disturbed, etc.

QUOTE

There is ALWAYS the element of "hoax" introduced into the mix by the opposition in a desperate attempt to erode the Christian Worldview, to muddy up the waters and discredit the evidence against the Evolutionary Model; this counter-strategy is relentless on all levels and from all angles, pure dishonesty.

This is not an Christian versus non-Christian world view question, in my view. We are both Christians and we are on opposite sides of this issue.

The issue includes theological differences, including intrepretive questions, as well as attitudes towards science.

It is ironic that you accuse evolutionists of always crying hoax and being dishonest. I have spent a lot of time examining both scientific claims and creationist claims. I would not want to categorize such diverse groups in broad brush strokes. However, I could certainly document more instances of dishonesty, refusal to consider evidence, blatant bias, and poor thinking in the creationist camp than in the scientific. It is not the world view that is the problem, it is the manner of seeking the truth that is the problem. Too many professional creationists do not care about the truth. They only care about persuading and indoctrinating people into their viewpoint.

Now, there are those among scientists who do this (e.g. Richard Dawkins) but they are much much fewer percentage wise, and their efforts and attitudes are tangential to the actual science, not central to it, as is the case with creationism.

Your case is very well presented; I'm impressed. But how do you know human and dinosaur fossils haven't been found in unison? How do you know that the Evolutionary biased paleontologists haven't concealed this because it runs contrary to their theory? The fact is no one knows what secrecy has been concealed.

You should read Thompson and Cremo's book, "FORBIDDEN ARCHEAOLOGY," where discoveries of technological artifacts have been unearthed from strata 300 million to 1 billion years old from the Geological Column in an age when we are lead to believe that only dinosaurs roamed the Earth, defying the Evolutionary Model.

-7

Romans 14

Jun 25 2008, 11:20 AM

QUOTE ('seven thunders')

Your case is very well presented; I'm impressed. But how do you know human and dinosaur fossils haven't been found in unison? How do you know that the Evolutionary biased paleontologists haven't concealed this because it runs contrary to their theory? The fact is no one knows what secrecy has been concealed.

I find accusations of deliberate deception and secrecy to be without any foundation. The scientific community is way too large and way too contentious to pull off this kind of conspiracy. To my mind, it is incumbent on those making this accusation to provide some proof and documentation for this.

QUOTE

You should read Thompson and Cremo's book, "FORBIDDEN ARCHEAOLOGY," where discoveries of technological artifacts have been unearthed from strata 300 million to 1 billion years old from the Geological Column in an age when we are lead to believe that only dinosaurs roamed the Earth, defying the Evolutionary Model.

I'll check it out.

Romans 14

Jun 25 2008, 11:29 AM

You can read reviews of the Forbidden Archaeology book at amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/08921...nDateDescending

Here is one sample.

QUOTE

Since the Authors, Cremo and Thompson, gathered, compiled and analyzed such a large quantity of material from many diverse sources, I was initially excited about the book. However, as I read their book and referred back to some of the primary sources cited, I found that, at best, material was frequently taken out of context, , or, worse, the Authors ignored critical, supplemental material.
For example, the Authors make early reference to the distal end of a humerus (KNM-KP 271) that was recovered from the west side of Lake Turkana in Kenya, at the Kanapoi site. The Authors went on to quote from Henry McHenry's early work that the Kanapoi humerus was "barely distinguishable from the modern Homo," thereby suggesting that modern humans were at least 4 million years old. However, other researchers (Patterson and Howells ) in addition to McHenery note that "it is difficult to identify the family from the distal end of the humerus [alone]," and that, in general, scientists are not able to distinguish between human and chimp populations based the humerus alone. Subsequent research (prior to the release of the Author's book) by Meave Leakey has shown that the remains in question belong to Australopithecus anamensis not Homo sapiens.

While the above is but one example, I found that as I read further into Forbidden Archeology, I frequently had to go back to the original citations in order to get a "true," "uncolored" view of what information was actually presented in the primary sources.

Given the fact that both of the Authors are members of the Krishna Bhaktivendanta Institute "that studies the relationship between modern science and the world view expressed in the Vedic literature," one begins to suspect the authors might have an agenda that "colors" the findings presented in their book.

The more I read, the more it became obvious to me that Forbidden Archeology serves better as a bibliography than as Johnson suggests a "complete review of the scientific evidence concerning human origins."

also

QUOTE

By S. Somashekhar (Overland Park, KS) - See all my reviews

A misadventure triggered by a wrong motive.

The goal of the author is to align human history to the stories presented by a Hindu Text (from the religious organization to which the author is affiliated) - religious stories about humans existing on this planet for millions and millions of years. The intended takeaway of this book is, our history as we know it is incorrect wherever it contradicts the holy book. The reason for this startling conclusion: all scientists around the world are in a deep conspiracy together to suppress truth and propogate falsities. Since the author has no background in science, he has no trouble taking this position on scientists.

If you are looking for fantasy, this can be a nice read. Else, give it a miss.

Obviously reviews need to be taken with a grain of salt and one should consider the book, and especially its references, for oneself. However, even a cursory perusal of the reviews gives me reason for caution. Certainly one can find hominid bones that are several millions of years old. Whether they qualify as 'modern humans' is an entirely different matter.

THE SEVEN THUNDERS

Jun 25 2008, 11:51 AM

QUOTE (Romans 14 @ Jun 25 2008, 12:29 PM)

You can read reviews of the Forbidden Archaeology book at amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/08921...nDateDescending

Here is one sample.

QUOTE

Since the Authors, Cremo and Thompson, gathered, compiled and analyzed such a large quantity of material from many diverse sources, I was initially excited about the book. However, as I read their book and referred back to some of the primary sources cited, I found that, at best, material was frequently taken out of context, , or, worse, the Authors ignored critical, supplemental material.
For example, the Authors make early reference to the distal end of a humerus (KNM-KP 271) that was recovered from the west side of Lake Turkana in Kenya, at the Kanapoi site. The Authors went on to quote from Henry McHenry's early work that the Kanapoi humerus was "barely distinguishable from the modern Homo," thereby suggesting that modern humans were at least 4 million years old. However, other researchers (Patterson and Howells ) in addition to McHenery note that "it is difficult to identify the family from the distal end of the humerus [alone]," and that, in general, scientists are not able to distinguish between human and chimp populations based the humerus alone. Subsequent research (prior to the release of the Author's book) by Meave Leakey has shown that the remains in question belong to Australopithecus anamensis not Homo sapiens.

While the above is but one example, I found that as I read further into Forbidden Archeology, I frequently had to go back to the original citations in order to get a "true," "uncolored" view of what information was actually presented in the primary sources.

Given the fact that both of the Authors are members of the Krishna Bhaktivendanta Institute "that studies the relationship between modern science and the world view expressed in the Vedic literature," one begins to suspect the authors might have an agenda that "colors" the findings presented in their book.

The more I read, the more it became obvious to me that Forbidden Archeology serves better as a bibliography than as Johnson suggests a "complete review of the scientific evidence concerning human origins."

also

QUOTE

By S. Somashekhar (Overland Park, KS) - See all my reviews

A misadventure triggered by a wrong motive.

The goal of the author is to align human history to the stories presented by a Hindu Text (from the religious organization to which the author is affiliated) - religious stories about humans existing on this planet for millions and millions of years. The intended takeaway of this book is, our history as we know it is incorrect wherever it contradicts the holy book. The reason for this startling conclusion: all scientists around the world are in a deep conspiracy together to suppress truth and propogate falsities. Since the author has no background in science, he has no trouble taking this position on scientists.

If you are looking for fantasy, this can be a nice read. Else, give it a miss.

Obviously reviews need to be taken with a grain of salt and one should consider the book, and especially its references, for oneself. However, even a cursory perusal of the reviews gives me reason for caution. Certainly one can find hominid bones that are several millions of years old. Whether they qualify as 'modern humans' is an entirely different matter.

REALLY... you need to READ the book YOURSELF. I have. Your mouth will drop to the ground.

Reviews are to be taken with a grain of salt due to the reviewers' personal and subjective bias and hidden motives.

It is always best to do the work yourself and make your own judgment.

-7

Neal

Jun 25 2008, 12:02 PM

QUOTE (NIGHTMARE @ Jun 25 2008, 01:40 AM)

probley,,,,just ask yourself how old do you believe man is???

The oldest men came born from the 1890s.

June 20, 2008 - the top 10 oldest men in the world.

11.Tomoji Tanabe (September 18, 1895) [112 years 276 days].
20.Henry Allingham (June 6, 1896) [112 years 14 days] {tied}.
21.George Rene Francis (June 6, 1896) [112 years 14 days] {tied}.
26.Walter Breuning (September 21, 1896) [111 years 273 days].
28.Augusto Moreira de Oliveira (October 6, 1896) [111 years 258 days].
30.Walter Seward (October 13, 1896) [111 years 251 days].
46.Jiroemon Kimura (April 19, 1897) [111 years 62 days].
53.Kiyoshi Igarashi (August 2, 1897) [110 years 323 days] {tied}.
54.Aarne Arvonen (August 2, 1897) [110 years 323 days] {tied}.
56.Masatake Igarashi (August 20, 1897) [110 years 305 days]

Note that I didn't list the ranks 1. 2. - 10. just so I could show the human rank including women.

QUOTE (NIGHTMARE @ Jun 25 2008, 01:40 AM)

probley,,,,just ask yourself how old do you believe man is???

Depends on the man..

Neal C.

Neal

Jun 25 2008, 03:29 PM

QUOTE (Romans 14 @ Jun 17 2008, 11:35 AM)

In addition, one could consider how the religious text and science compare on other issues. For example, 600 years ago, Christians commonly interpreted their Bibles to indicate that the earth was fixed and immovable. When Copernicus suggested otherwise, he was criticized by Martin Luther, John Calvin, and most other early non-Catholic leaders, and eventually (some 70 years or so after Copernicus' publication) that Catholics also declared the Copernican system un-Biblical.

Now, if one goes back and looks at the passages in Psalms, Joshua, etc., that indicate that the earth is 'fixed and immovable' and that the sun journeys through the heavens 'like a groom' running his race, and that the heavens are like a dome (see Genesis), it is easy to see why early Protestants were deeply skeptical of Copernicus. Reading these passages literally, one would be hard-pressed to come to any other conclusion. We only interpret these passages differently because of our modern scientific viewpoint of the universe and the solar system within it.

Given this history, I do not see why we as Christians should insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis. We know such literal interpretations have proved to be wrong in the past.

We also know the Bible, including Jesus himself, often uses figurative language that could be taken literally but is not intended as such. Consider John Chapter 6, where Jesus talks about the need for people to 'eat his flesh and drink his blood.' The crowd, based on their Jewish world view, took him literally and even some of his disciples could not accept this teaching. Only his closest disciples were 'clued in' that he was not talking literally at all. Rather, he said that his words were spiritual and that the flesh counts for nothing.

I don't think God is at all worried about what we think about biology. However, he is interested in us being honest, and I think it is pretty clear He thinks spiritual matters are more important than the material.

In addition, now our current argument in the forums is that, because Genesis said God made man in 1 blood, that that is proof that all humans have the same blood type.

I wonder how many people in Christian-forum actually might believe that humans have blood type, or are all the same.

And how many are willing to have a blood transfusion over what science would say is a "different blood type" than the 1 it says you have.

Neal C.

whirlwind

Jun 25 2008, 03:40 PM

QUOTE (Neal @ Jun 25 2008, 03:29 PM)

QUOTE (Romans 14 @ Jun 17 2008, 11:35 AM)

In addition, one could consider how the religious text and science compare on other issues. For example, 600 years ago, Christians commonly interpreted their Bibles to indicate that the earth was fixed and immovable. When Copernicus suggested otherwise, he was criticized by Martin Luther, John Calvin, and most other early non-Catholic leaders, and eventually (some 70 years or so after Copernicus' publication) that Catholics also declared the Copernican system un-Biblical.

Now, if one goes back and looks at the passages in Psalms, Joshua, etc., that indicate that the earth is 'fixed and immovable' and that the sun journeys through the heavens 'like a groom' running his race, and that the heavens are like a dome (see Genesis), it is easy to see why early Protestants were deeply skeptical of Copernicus. Reading these passages literally, one would be hard-pressed to come to any other conclusion. We only interpret these passages differently because of our modern scientific viewpoint of the universe and the solar system within it.

Given this history, I do not see why we as Christians should insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis. We know such literal interpretations have proved to be wrong in the past.

We also know the Bible, including Jesus himself, often uses figurative language that could be taken literally but is not intended as such. Consider John Chapter 6, where Jesus talks about the need for people to 'eat his flesh and drink his blood.' The crowd, based on their Jewish world view, took him literally and even some of his disciples could not accept this teaching. Only his closest disciples were 'clued in' that he was not talking literally at all. Rather, he said that his words were spiritual and that the flesh counts for nothing.

I don't think God is at all worried about what we think about biology. However, he is interested in us being honest, and I think it is pretty clear He thinks spiritual matters are more important than the material.

In addition, now our current argument in the forums is that, because Genesis said God made man in 1 blood, that that is proof that all humans have the same blood type.

I wonder how many people in Christian-forum actually might believe that humans have blood type, or are all the same.

And how many are willing to have a blood transfusion over what science would say is a "different blood type" than the 1 it says you have.

Neal C.

Acts 17:26 And hath made of ONE BLOOD all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

The word "blood" was not in the texts and should be omitted. The "One" probably means clay....we are all made of clay.

Romans 14

Jun 25 2008, 03:53 PM

QUOTE (THE SEVEN THUNDERS @ Jun 25 2008, 11:51 AM)

QUOTE (Romans 14 @ Jun 25 2008, 12:29 PM)

You can read reviews of the Forbidden Archaeology book at amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/08921...nDateDescending

Here is one sample.

QUOTE

Since the Authors, Cremo and Thompson, gathered, compiled and analyzed such a large quantity of material from many diverse sources, I was initially excited about the book. However, as I read their book and

.....

The more I read, the more it became obvious to me that Forbidden Archeology serves better as a bibliography than as Johnson suggests a "complete review of the scientific evidence concerning human origins."

also

QUOTE

By S. Somashekhar (Overland Park, KS) - See all my reviews

.....

If you are looking for fantasy, this can be a nice read. Else, give it a miss.

Obviously reviews need to be taken with a grain of salt and one should consider the book, and especially its references, for oneself. However, even a cursory perusal of the reviews gives me reason for caution. Certainly one can find hominid bones that are several millions of years old. Whether they qualify as 'modern humans' is an entirely different matter.

REALLY... you need to READ the book YOURSELF. I have. Your mouth will drop to the ground.

Reviews are to be taken with a grain of salt due to the reviewers' personal and subjective bias and hidden motives.

It is always best to do the work yourself and make your own judgment.

-7

Yes, ideally one would read everything oneself.

Yes, I have already acknowledged reviews are not the best source of objective information about a book.

However, I think it is fair to expect the book to show it has some value before one takes time to read it.

To that end, I did visit the author's website. Here are some excerpts from http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/.

QUOTE ('Cremo')

What does Krishna mean by the beginning of creation? According to the Puranas (Vedic histories), there have been innumerable creations in the course of cyclical time. The basic unit of Vedic cyclical time is the day of Brahma, which lasts 4.32 billion years. The day of Brahma (also called a kalpa) is followed by a night of Brahma, also lasting 4.32 billion years. The cycle of days and nights of Brahma toes on for Brahma's lifetime of one hundred years (36,000 nights), equivalent to 311.04 trillion of our human years. During the day of Brahma, life, including human life, is manifest. During the night of Brahma, life is not manifest.

"The time concept of modern archeology, and modern anthropology in general, resembles the general cosmological-historical time concept of Europe's Judeo-Christian culture. Differing from the cyclical cosmological-historical time concepts of the early Greeks in Europe, and the Indians and others in Asia, the Judeo-Christian cosmological-historical time concept is linear and progressive.

"Hindu historical literatures, particularly the Puranas and Itihasas, place human existence in the context of repeating time cycles called yugas and kalpas, lasting hundreds of millions of years. During this entire time, according to the Puranic accounts, humans coexisted with creatures in some ways resembling the earlier toolmaking hominids of modern evolutionary accounts."

Now, Cremo's interesting ideas about time scales aside, let's look at some of the artifacts he describes on his website.

THere is the South African Grooved Sphere which Cremo claims was found in sedimentary deposits of roughly 2.8 billions years of age. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/spheres.html has one discussion of these claims. I would recommend reading the whole article, however, here are some exceptionally relevant excerpts.

QUOTE

However, the claim that sedimentation formed the pryrophyllite is incorrect and significantly misrepresents the facts. Although either clays or volcanic ash accumulated 2.8 billion years ago along with numerous lava flows to create the Syferfontein Formation, metamorphism later altered the sediments to form pyrophyllite from either clays or volcanic ashes. The pyrophyllite is a mineral created by metamorphism at moderate temperature and burial depths of over several kilometers. Such metamorphism has significantly altered the original clays or volcanic ashes into greenschist grade metamorphics. As a result, the original sedimentary and igneous structures of these rocks have been, except locally, totally obliterated. Any primary concretions within both the sediments and volcanic rocks would also have been obliterated at this degree of metamorphism (Chopin and Schreyer 1983, Jackson 1992).

In other words, the material may have originally been laid down 2.8 million years ago, but since then the rocks have undergone metaphorphism. It is not likely any such grooved spheres, were they deposited 2.8 billion years ago, would have survived this metaphorphis process. In fact:

QUOTE

Forbidden Archeology further claimed that the spheres have a fibrous structure with an inside shell around it that is so hard that it cannot be scratched by steel.

By corresponding by e-mail with rockhounds who have collected these spheres and geologists at the University of the Witwatersrand, Wits, South Africa and at the pyrophyllite mine in Ottosdal, West Transvaal it was determined that the mystery spheres consist of pyrite and goethite. These spheres consist of goethite within the near-surface, weathered pyrophyllite and consist of pyrite in the unweathered pyrophyllite. The pyrite spheres are metamorphic nodules that formed during the alteration of either clay or volcanic ash to pyrophyllite by metamorphism. The goethite spheres are pyrite nodules altered by weathering near the ground surface. These spheres are identical to the ones shown in The Mysterious Origins of Man, but they are much softer than claimed in Forbidden Archeology. Furthermore, there is a lack of any evidence for the existence of the solid blue metal spheres described in the World Weekly News. However, a tabloid newspaper infamous for its fictionalized news is unlikely to have presented such information correctly.

Because the rocks are of metaphorphic origin, the grooves, if they are actually man-made, could not have been there when the sediments were laid down, but must have been either a result of the natural metamorphic process, or carved into the spheres after this process, or more likely, after they were excavated.

The talkorigins article concludes.

QUOTE

As far as can be determined at this time, the spheres consist of pyrite nodules of metamorphic origin and goethite nodules formed by the weathering of the pyrite. Since the nodules are metamorphic in origin and, thus, formed by metamorphism while the enclosing strata were buried under kilometers of rock, the grooves, if artificial, had to have been cut after they had collected from the pyrophyllite during quarrying operations. As a result, the grooves are far less than 2.8 billions old. The nodules are clearly of natural origin and less than 2.8 billion years old.

Thus, the actual spherical nodules themselves are less than 2.8 billion years old, perhaps much younger, and the grooves are even younger than that, unless they are a naturally occuring feature, which actually has not been ruled out.

On the FOrbidden Archaeology site, there is also mention of a coin alleged to be of ancient origin. Again, Cremo seems to have jumped to conclusions, taking dubious eye-witness evidence as irrefutable truth and ignoring any other possible explanations other than the one he wished to believe.

http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts/peoria.php

QUOTE

During the drilling for an artesian well at Lawn Ridge, 31 km (20 miles) north of Peoria (Illinois, USA), in August 1870, one of the workmen, Jacob W Moffitt (1841-1922) of Chillicothe, discovered a coin-like object when the bit had reached a depth of about 35 m (114 feet, or 42.5 m according to another version of the story). The object was made from an indeterminate copper alloy, about the size and thickness of an American quarter dollar of that period and was decorated on both sides. On one side there were two human figures, one large and one small; the larger is wearing a headdress. This is usually described as a crowned woman holding a crowned child, but the sketch does not bear this out. The other side apparently depicted a central crouching animal with long, pointed ears, large eyes and mouth, claw-like arms and a long tail, frayed at the tip, with a horse below it and to the left. Around the edges of the ‘medallion’ were obscure hieroglyphs. It was of uniform thickness and appeared to have cut edges.

According to an account by Professor Alexander Winchell (1824-1891, State Geologist for Michigan) in his book Sparks from a Geologist’s Hammer, he received a statement from another eye-witness, W H Wilmot, dated December 4, 1871, of the deposits and depths of materials made during the boring. The numismatist William Ewing Dubois (1810-1881) gave a report to the American Philosophical Society, in which he suggested that it had passed through a rolling mill, the edges showing evidence for machining. The figures appeared to have been etched with acid.

Professor Winchell presented the object to a meeting of the Geological Section of the American Association at its meeting in Buffalo (New York, USA) in 1876. One participant, a J R Lesley, suggested that the artefact was a practical joke and that it might have been dropped into a hole by a passing French or Spanish explorer centuries earlier. He also suggested that the figures on either side of the object represented the astrological signs of Pisces and Leo, and claimed to find the date 1572 in the symbols. Winchell was adamant that the symbols were indecipherable in terms of any known script and that the practical joke hypothesis failed on the grounds that no-one could have dropped an object into a hole in the expectation that someone several hundred years later would happen to drill at that precise spot. He was convinced the coin had been in the deposit at a depth of 35 m before its discovery and had not fallen into a hole.

It is difficult to know what to make of this curious object when we have only descriptions and an inadequate sketch. It was clearly not a coin of recent date, but there are problems in accepting it as being ancient or pre-Columbian in date. There are good reasons for this. Firstly, coinage is an historically specific development, beginning in the first millennium BCE in the eastern mediterranean region: all coins and coin-like medallions derive from these original models. Secondly, copper alloy production was unknown in pre-Columbian North America. If it was not a hoax, which is possible, it may have been a curio or souvenir of nineteenth-century date.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This page was last updated on 7 May 2007
Written by Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews

As a final example, Cremo mentions a skeleton found by Hans Reck around 1913 in his Ancient Skulls and Bones Section. It is claimed this is a modern skeleton but over 1 million years old.

However:

QUOTE ('bad archaeology site')

The difficulty with accepting Reck’s skeleton as being a million years old (as some creationists have claimed) is that his work was done without any appreciation of archaeological stratigraphy. Although the deposit from which the skeleton was recovered was of that sort of age, it was not clear to Reck if the burial was intrusive (in other words, deposited more recently by digging a grave into that particular geological stratum). Indeed, geological analysis of the material surrounding the skeleton showed it to contain red pebbles and limestone chips derived from higher (i.e. later) strata than that in which the skeleton was thought to have lain. This makes it certain that it was intrusive, in other words, in a grave cut down from a higher layer. As early as 1932, Leakey’s work there showed that this has to be the most economical explanation; had there been anatomically modern humans at this date in the gorge, we would expect to find other remains in contemporary strata, and as we do not, we must question Reck’s original judgement. In fact, even Reck later came to agree that the skeleton was of a recently buried human (most estimates now put it at around 20,000 years old). The ever-useful TalkOrigins website contains a useful (and fully annotated) rebuttal of the claims.

At this point, I don't see that Cremo's Forbidden Archaeology is worth spending time on.

THE SEVEN THUNDERS

Jun 25 2008, 04:23 PM

QUOTE (Romans 14 @ Jun 25 2008, 04:53 PM)

QUOTE (THE SEVEN THUNDERS @ Jun 25 2008, 11:51 AM)

QUOTE (Romans 14 @ Jun 25 2008, 12:29 PM)

You can read reviews of the Forbidden Archaeology book at amazon.com

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/08921...nDateDescending

Here is one sample.

QUOTE

Since the Authors, Cremo and Thompson, gathered, compiled and analyzed such a large quantity of material from many diverse sources, I was initially excited about the book. However, as I read their book and

.....

The more I read, the more it became obvious to me that Forbidden Archeology serves better as a bibliography than as Johnson suggests a "complete review of the scientific evidence concerning human origins."

also

QUOTE

By S. Somashekhar (Overland Park, KS) - See all my reviews

.....

If you are looking for fantasy, this can be a nice read. Else, give it a miss.

Obviously reviews need to be taken with a grain of salt and one should consider the book, and especially its references, for oneself. However, even a cursory perusal of the reviews gives me reason for caution. Certainly one can find hominid bones that are several millions of years old. Whether they qualify as 'modern humans' is an entirely different matter.

REALLY... you need to READ the book YOURSELF. I have. Your mouth will drop to the ground.

Reviews are to be taken with a grain of salt due to the reviewers' personal and subjective bias and hidden motives.

It is always best to do the work yourself and make your own judgment.

-7

Yes, ideally one would read everything oneself.

Yes, I have already acknowledged reviews are not the best source of objective information about a book.

However, I think it is fair to expect the book to show it has some value before one takes time to read it.

To that end, I did visit the author's website. Here are some excerpts from http://www.forbiddenarcheology.com/.

QUOTE ('Cremo')

What does Krishna mean by the beginning of creation? According to the Puranas (Vedic histories), there have been innumerable creations in the course of cyclical time. The basic unit of Vedic cyclical time is the day of Brahma, which lasts 4.32 billion years. The day of Brahma (also called a kalpa) is followed by a night of Brahma, also lasting 4.32 billion years. The cycle of days and nights of Brahma toes on for Brahma's lifetime of one hundred years (36,000 nights), equivalent to 311.04 trillion of our human years. During the day of Brahma, life, including human life, is manifest. During the night of Brahma, life is not manifest.

"The time concept of modern archeology, and modern anthropology in general, resembles the general cosmological-historical time concept of Europe's Judeo-Christian culture. Differing from the cyclical cosmological-historical time concepts of the early Greeks in Europe, and the Indians and others in Asia, the Judeo-Christian cosmological-historical time concept is linear and progressive.

"Hindu historical literatures, particularly the Puranas and Itihasas, place human existence in the context of repeating time cycles called yugas and kalpas, lasting hundreds of millions of years. During this entire time, according to the Puranic accounts, humans coexisted with creatures in some ways resembling the earlier toolmaking hominids of modern evolutionary accounts."

Now, Cremo's interesting ideas about time scales aside, let's look at some of the artifacts he describes on his website.

THere is the South African Grooved Sphere which Cremo claims was found in sedimentary deposits of roughly 2.8 billions years of age. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/spheres.html has one discussion of these claims. I would recommend reading the whole article, however, here are some exceptionally relevant excerpts.

QUOTE

However, the claim that sedimentation formed the pryrophyllite is incorrect and significantly misrepresents the facts. Although either clays or volcanic ash accumulated 2.8 billion years ago along with numerous lava flows to create the Syferfontein Formation, metamorphism later altered the sediments to form pyrophyllite from either clays or volcanic ashes. The pyrophyllite is a mineral created by metamorphism at moderate temperature and burial depths of over several kilometers. Such metamorphism has significantly altered the original clays or volcanic ashes into greenschist grade metamorphics. As a result, the original sedimentary and igneous structures of these rocks have been, except locally, totally obliterated. Any primary concretions within both the sediments and volcanic rocks would also have been obliterated at this degree of metamorphism (Chopin and Schreyer 1983, Jackson 1992).

In other words, the material may have originally been laid down 2.8 million years ago, but since then the rocks have undergone metaphorphism. It is not likely any such grooved spheres, were they deposited 2.8 billion years ago, would have survived this metaphorphis process. In fact:

QUOTE

Forbidden Archeology further claimed that the spheres have a fibrous structure with an inside shell around it that is so hard that it cannot be scratched by steel.

By corresponding by e-mail with rockhounds who have collected these spheres and geologists at the University of the Witwatersrand, Wits, South Africa and at the pyrophyllite mine in Ottosdal, West Transvaal it was determined that the mystery spheres consist of pyrite and goethite. These spheres consist of goethite within the near-surface, weathered pyrophyllite and consist of pyrite in the unweathered pyrophyllite. The pyrite spheres are metamorphic nodules that formed during the alteration of either clay or volcanic ash to pyrophyllite by metamorphism. The goethite spheres are pyrite nodules altered by weathering near the ground surface. These spheres are identical to the ones shown in The Mysterious Origins of Man, but they are much softer than claimed in Forbidden Archeology. Furthermore, there is a lack of any evidence for the existence of the solid blue metal spheres described in the World Weekly News. However, a tabloid newspaper infamous for its fictionalized news is unlikely to have presented such information correctly.

Because the rocks are of metaphorphic origin, the grooves, if they are actually man-made, could not have been there when the sediments were laid down, but must have been either a result of the natural metamorphic process, or carved into the spheres after this process, or more likely, after they were excavated.

The talkorigins article concludes.

QUOTE

As far as can be determined at this time, the spheres consist of pyrite nodules of metamorphic origin and goethite nodules formed by the weathering of the pyrite. Since the nodules are metamorphic in origin and, thus, formed by metamorphism while the enclosing strata were buried under kilometers of rock, the grooves, if artificial, had to have been cut after they had collected from the pyrophyllite during quarrying operations. As a result, the grooves are far less than 2.8 billions old. The nodules are clearly of natural origin and less than 2.8 billion years old.

Thus, the actual spherical nodules themselves are less than 2.8 billion years old, perhaps much younger, and the grooves are even younger than that, unless they are a naturally occuring feature, which actually has not been ruled out.

On the FOrbidden Archaeology site, there is also mention of a coin alleged to be of ancient origin. Again, Cremo seems to have jumped to conclusions, taking dubious eye-witness evidence as irrefutable truth and ignoring any other possible explanations other than the one he wished to believe.

http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts/peoria.php

QUOTE

During the drilling for an artesian well at Lawn Ridge, 31 km (20 miles) north of Peoria (Illinois, USA), in August 1870, one of the workmen, Jacob W Moffitt (1841-1922) of Chillicothe, discovered a coin-like object when the bit had reached a depth of about 35 m (114 feet, or 42.5 m according to another version of the story). The object was made from an indeterminate copper alloy, about the size and thickness of an American quarter dollar of that period and was decorated on both sides. On one side there were two human figures, one large and one small; the larger is wearing a headdress. This is usually described as a crowned woman holding a crowned child, but the sketch does not bear this out. The other side apparently depicted a central crouching animal with long, pointed ears, large eyes and mouth, claw-like arms and a long tail, frayed at the tip, with a horse below it and to the left. Around the edges of the ‘medallion’ were obscure hieroglyphs. It was of uniform thickness and appeared to have cut edges.

According to an account by Professor Alexander Winchell (1824-1891, State Geologist for Michigan) in his book Sparks from a Geologist’s Hammer, he received a statement from another eye-witness, W H Wilmot, dated December 4, 1871, of the deposits and depths of materials made during the boring. The numismatist William Ewing Dubois (1810-1881) gave a report to the American Philosophical Society, in which he suggested that it had passed through a rolling mill, the edges showing evidence for machining. The figures appeared to have been etched with acid.

Professor Winchell presented the object to a meeting of the Geological Section of the American Association at its meeting in Buffalo (New York, USA) in 1876. One participant, a J R Lesley, suggested that the artefact was a practical joke and that it might have been dropped into a hole by a passing French or Spanish explorer centuries earlier. He also suggested that the figures on either side of the object represented the astrological signs of Pisces and Leo, and claimed to find the date 1572 in the symbols. Winchell was adamant that the symbols were indecipherable in terms of any known script and that the practical joke hypothesis failed on the grounds that no-one could have dropped an object into a hole in the expectation that someone several hundred years later would happen to drill at that precise spot. He was convinced the coin had been in the deposit at a depth of 35 m before its discovery and had not fallen into a hole.

It is difficult to know what to make of this curious object when we have only descriptions and an inadequate sketch. It was clearly not a coin of recent date, but there are problems in accepting it as being ancient or pre-Columbian in date. There are good reasons for this. Firstly, coinage is an historically specific development, beginning in the first millennium BCE in the eastern mediterranean region: all coins and coin-like medallions derive from these original models. Secondly, copper alloy production was unknown in pre-Columbian North America. If it was not a hoax, which is possible, it may have been a curio or souvenir of nineteenth-century date.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This page was last updated on 7 May 2007
Written by Keith Fitzpatrick-Matthews

As a final example, Cremo mentions a skeleton found by Hans Reck around 1913 in his Ancient Skulls and Bones Section. It is claimed this is a modern skeleton but over 1 million years old.

However:

QUOTE ('bad archaeology site')

The difficulty with accepting Reck’s skeleton as being a million years old (as some creationists have claimed) is that his work was done without any appreciation of archaeological stratigraphy. Although the deposit from which the skeleton was recovered was of that sort of age, it was not clear to Reck if the burial was intrusive (in other words, deposited more recently by digging a grave into that particular geological stratum). Indeed, geological analysis of the material surrounding the skeleton showed it to contain red pebbles and limestone chips derived from higher (i.e. later) strata than that in which the skeleton was thought to have lain. This makes it certain that it was intrusive, in other words, in a grave cut down from a higher layer. As early as 1932, Leakey’s work there showed that this has to be the most economical explanation; had there been anatomically modern humans at this date in the gorge, we would expect to find other remains in contemporary strata, and as we do not, we must question Reck’s original judgement. In fact, even Reck later came to agree that the skeleton was of a recently buried human (most estimates now put it at around 20,000 years old). The ever-useful TalkOrigins website contains a useful (and fully annotated) rebuttal of the claims.

At this point, I don't see that Cremo's Forbidden Archaeology is worth spending time on.

You're entiled to your own view, and likewise.

Romans 14

Jun 26 2008, 02:09 PM

QUOTE (THE SEVEN THUNDERS @ Jun 24 2008, 08:49 PM)

QUOTE (Romans 14 @ Jun 24 2008, 06:28 PM)

QUOTE ('seven thunder')

Here are some images of ancient Inca rock carvings depicting a man riding a triceratops and another flying on the back of a pterodactyl... (Also, it is clear evidence that humans and dinosaurs were contemporaneous, evidence which is in opposition to the Evolutionary Model that separates the two by 65 millions years... hence, Evolution is FALSE; it never happened; it is severe misinterpretation of the data and thus is misconjecture.)

Supposing for the sake of argument that these artifacts were genuine, why would we think these depicted reality? Would you also accept other ancient depictions of giant jaguars and humans with various kinds of heads were also real? Would you accept that depictions of Icarus flying with his wings of was were genuine?

Humans have a long history of creating fantastic art which combines aspects of reality into unreal combinations. In addition, drawings could have been based on fossils, not on live animals.

In a court of law, which would be considered more reliable evidence?

A: A painting or scultpure showing the depiction of a crime (especially one done by the relative of the victime who would like to believe they know who the perpetrator is).

B: Actual physical evidence from the crime scene that can be documented to be from the scene.

Allowing this type of fantastical artistic evidence to trump volumes of actual physical evidence does not seem to me be a very fair or objective process of judgment.

Secondly, there is some question as to the authenticity of these particular artifacts. See http://www.geocities.com/athens/agora/3958...ly/weekly56.htm and
http://www.pseudoarchaeology.org/b03-ross.html

for example.

Like the Paluxey footprints, we again have another situation where at least a number of aspects can be shown to amount to a hoax.

There is ALWAYS the element of "hoax" introduced into the mix by the opposition in a desperate attempt to erode the Christian Worldview, to muddy up the waters and discredit the evidence against the Evolutionary Model; this counter-strategy is relentless on all levels and from all angles, pure dishonesty.

In addition to these rock carvings, there are also sculpted clay artifacts retrieved from Peruvian Andes caves depicting living dinosaurs at play (not dead fossilized bones). Dinosaur fossils were not excavated from the Earth until the Antiquarian Age of the Industrial Revolution, so the notion that primitive people knew of fossilized dinosaurs is in error.

You can think whatever you want, but rational discernment can easily separate what is "myth" and what is "real"; it's a rudimentary process. Frankly, you're over-complicating the issue.

-7

Going back to the issue of when fossils were first discovered, it does appear ancient greeks and romans were aware of large extinct species.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/6811.html

QUOTE ('Adrienne Mayor in her book the First Fossil Hunters')

Griffins, Centaurs, Cyclopes, and Giants--these fabulous creatures of classical mythology continue to live in the modern imagination through the vivid accounts that have come down to us from the ancient Greeks and Romans. But what if these beings were more than merely fictions? What if monstrous creatures once roamed the earth in the very places where their legends first arose? This is the arresting and original thesis that Adrienne Mayor explores in The First Fossil Hunters. Through careful research and meticulous documentation, she convincingly shows that many of the giants and monsters of myth did have a basis in fact--in the enormous bones of long-extinct species that were once abundant in the lands of the Greeks and Romans.

As Mayor shows, the Greeks and Romans were well aware that a different breed of creatures once inhabited their lands. They frequently encountered the fossilized bones of these primeval beings, and they developed sophisticated concepts to explain the fossil evidence, concepts that were expressed in mythological stories. The legend of the gold-guarding griffin, for example, sprang from tales first told by Scythian gold-miners, who, passing through the Gobi Desert at the foot of the Altai Mountains, encountered the skeletons of Protoceratops and other dinosaurs that littered the ground.

Like their modern counterparts, the ancient fossil hunters collected and measured impressive petrified remains and displayed them in temples and museums; they attempted to reconstruct the appearance of these prehistoric creatures and to explain their extinction. Long thought to be fantasy, the remarkably detailed and perceptive Greek and Roman accounts of giant bone finds were actually based on solid paleontological facts. By reading these neglected narratives for the first time in the light of modern scientific discoveries, Adrienne Mayor illuminates a lost world of ancient paleontology. As Peter Dodson writes in his Foreword, "Paleontologists, classicists, and historians as well as natural history buffs will read this book with the greatest of delight--surprises abound."

Yes, we probably will continue to disagree about this. However, not every opinion is equally valid. Opinions for which there is evidence are more likely to be true than those for which there is no evidence, or for which evidence exists that the opinion is false. My view is that it does not do the reputation of Christians and Christianity any good to buy into claims which are so easily shown to be false or lacking in evidence.

Southernguy

Aug 1 2008, 02:24 AM

Yes, the Ancients believed that the fossils of Dinosaurs and other prehistoric beasties were the remains of their legendary heroes, such as Heracles, the Titans, etc.

One cannot give a scrawl on a wall that could have been drawn 5 minutes ago as much weight in an arguement than an entire planet's worth of evidence showing that first primitive fish and bugs existed, then larger animals like Dinosaurs, then much later the ancestors of humans.
(I'm a Christian that believes in Dinos, Big Bang, and Evolution, by the way.)

Romans 14

Aug 4 2008, 02:04 PM

QUOTE (Southernguy @ Aug 1 2008, 02:24 AM)

Yes, the Ancients believed that the fossils of Dinosaurs and other prehistoric beasties were the remains of their legendary heroes, such as Heracles, the Titans, etc.

One cannot give a scrawl on a wall that could have been drawn 5 minutes ago as much weight in an arguement than an entire planet's worth of evidence showing that first primitive fish and bugs existed, then larger animals like Dinosaurs, then much later the ancestors of humans.
(I'm a Christian that believes in Dinos, Big Bang, and Evolution, by the way.)

Welcome to the forum southernguy.

I, like you, am a Christian who accepts the scientific evidence for dinosaurs (and that they existed long before humans came on the scene), the Big Bang, and evolution. As you say, there is an entire planet full of evidence for the first and third of these, and a reasonable amount of cosmological evidence for the Big Bang.

On debate sites like this one, I typically take issue with both extremes on the evolution question. Some of our fellow Christians, I think, interpret the Bible more literally than is warranted with respect to evolution, and worse, insist that those of us who don't accept their opinions are 'less Christian' than they are. On the other side are atheists who think that because the evidence for evolution is so clear cut, it must mean that God does not exist. They like to pretend that the extremists among the theists represent all theists. Both sides seem intent on creating conflict by pushing everyone into one or the other of these extreme camps.

I, for one, don't buy into this false dichotomy, especially since it means redefining Christianity in an extremely narrow way which I don't think is justified either Biblically or scientifically.

Neal

Aug 4 2008, 04:11 PM

Therefore you rock.

Romans 14

Aug 4 2008, 11:20 PM

QUOTE (Neal @ Aug 4 2008, 04:11 PM)

Therefore you rock.

You are very kind!

Godsword

Aug 5 2008, 10:55 AM

Evolution is the biggest lie ever foisted upon an unsuspecting and uninformed public. And the "Big Bang" is a near second.

QUOTE

Romans 14: Given this history, I do not see why we as Christians should insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis. We know such literal interpretations have proved to be wrong in the past.

Context. The passages you cited as incorrectly having once been read literally all have different contexts that the Creation account in Genesis, and even I, when I was a hard-core atheist, could tell the difference. Context determines if a passage is intended as literal, as historical, as poetry, as metaphor, and the like. The Genesis Creation account has all the ear-marks of a passage which was intended literally.

Neal

Aug 5 2008, 01:51 PM

QUOTE (Godsword @ Aug 5 2008, 10:55 AM)

The Genesis Creation account has all the ear-marks of a passage which was intended literally.[/size][/font]

Uh, do you even know why Genesis was written?

Godsword

Aug 5 2008, 02:15 PM

QUOTE

Me: The Genesis Creation account has all the ear-marks of a passage which was intended literally.

Neal: Uh, do you even know why Genesis was written?

Certainly, but I think the relevant question is, "Do you know why the Genesis Creation account was written?"

Neal

Aug 5 2008, 02:16 PM

To justify the Jews getting kicked out of Israel from Nebuchadnezzar after Cyrus the Great gave them their land back?

Godsword

Aug 5 2008, 02:29 PM

QUOTE

Me: Certainly, but I think the relevant question is, "Do you know why the Genesis Creation account was written?"

Neal: To justify the Jews getting kicked out of Israel from Nebuchadnezzar after Cyrus the Great gave them their land back?

You're kidding, right?

Romans 14

Aug 5 2008, 04:14 PM

QUOTE (Godsword @ Aug 5 2008, 09:55 AM)

Evolution is the biggest lie ever foisted upon an unsuspecting and uninformed public. And the "Big Bang" is a near second.

QUOTE

Romans 14: Given this history, I do not see why we as Christians should insist on a literal interpretation of Genesis. We know such literal interpretations have proved to be wrong in the past.

Context. The passages you cited as incorrectly having once been read literally all have different contexts that the Creation account in Genesis, and even I, when I was a hard-core atheist, could tell the difference.

I am not incorrect in asserting that the passages in Psalms, for example, discussing the immovability of the earth were once read literally. Martin Luther took them literally. So did John Calvin. If it was so easy to tell the difference, how come they got it wrong?

If you really think it is so easy, then explain whether or not the so-called Messianic Psalms should be taken literally or not and why? Also, explain, if it is so obvious what verses are literal and which are not, how the Jews and early followers of Jesus, including his disciples, got them so wrong. They expected Jesus to become an earthly king because that is how they read the Psalms and prophecies. Obviously they got it wrong, and part of the reason they got it wrong is they took it too literally.

Look at Psalm 22. The very first verse is quoted by Jesus on the cross.

How can you tell which verses should be taken literally and which figuratively? Is not even the figurative language commonly taken to refer to a literal crucifixion?

QUOTE

1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from the words of my groaning?
2 O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, and am not silent.

3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the praise of Israel. [a]

4 In you our fathers put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.

5 They cried to you and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not disappointed.

6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by men and despised by the people.

7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads:

8 "He trusts in the LORD;
let the LORD rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him."

9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you
even at my mother's breast.

10 From birth I was cast upon you;
from my mother's womb you have been my God.

11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.

12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.

13 Roaring lions tearing their prey
open their mouths wide against me.

14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted away within me.

15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me [b] in the dust of death.

16 Dogs have surrounded me;
a band of evil men has encircled me,
they have pierced [c] my hands and my feet.

17 I can count all my bones;
people stare and gloat over me.

18 They divide my garments among them
and cast lots for my clothing.

19 But you, O LORD, be not far off;
O my Strength, come quickly to help me.

20 Deliver my life from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.

21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save [d] me from the horns of the wild oxen.

22 I will declare your name to my brothers;
in the congregation I will praise you.

23 You who fear the LORD, praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!

24 For he has not despised or disdained
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.

25 From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
before those who fear you [e] will I fulfill my vows.

26 The poor will eat and be satisfied;
they who seek the LORD will praise him—
may your hearts live forever!

27 All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the LORD,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him,

28 for dominion belongs to the LORD
and he rules over the nations.

29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before him—
those who cannot keep themselves alive.

30 Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.

31 They will proclaim his righteousness
to a people yet unborn—
for he has done it.

Now, as Christians, part of our context in interpreting Psalm 22 is nowhere in the Psalm itself. It has to do with later events, and our understanding of those events. We impose our experiences and viewpoint onto our understanding of this verse. If we ONLY looked at this Psalm and ONLY considered its own textual context, we would not likely interpret this Psalm as Messianic. Certainly the Jews do not interpret this verse as having anything to do with Jesus, but rather as having to do with David or with more general circumstances of being in peril.

Similarly, the reason we interpret verses relating to the fixety of the earth differently than Martin Luther has nothing to do with the immediate context of these verses, but everything to do with the different background knowledge we bring. We have hundreds of years of scientific knowledge that he did not, and that is why we look at some passages as figurative when he looked at them as literal. It is all very well to criticize Luther and say "well, he should have understood that those verses were figurative" but this is really cheating. There is no reason to believe that, were we in his shoes, that we would not have come to the very same conclusions he did.

QUOTE

Context determines if a passage is intended as literal, as historical, as poetry, as metaphor, and the like. The Genesis Creation account has all the ear-marks of a passage which was intended literally.

I agree context is important. I disagree with your analysis of the context for the Genesis creation account and subsequent narratives. The first two chapters of Genesis bear many hallmarks of allegorical writing. The very names Adam and Eve given in Genesis have figurative meanings. There is a talking snake. Chapter 1 depicts God as referring to evening and morning before the objects that define evening and morning existed. There is no indication of any eye-witnesses to these events other than the characters involved. In fact, there would be no conscious eye-witnesses of the creation of Eve, never mind all the creation events that happened before Adam. God is depicted as less than omniscient and in more anthropromorphic fashion in his dealings with Adam and Eve in chapter 2. Even in chapter 1, we see that God needs to "rest" from "all his work." Why would an all-powerful creator need to rest?

And finally, God describes creating man "in our image". What literal meaning can this have from a physical standpoint? Does God have a nose and two eyes that he used to model our nose and eyes? Does God have knees, and private parts, and facial hair?

In addition, if they are to be taken literally, then the obvious meaning of chapter 1, verses 6-8, using the most literal translation, is that the sky is a solid dome. Are you going to tell me I should take the "six days" literally, but then not take "the firmament" literally?

And again, in Chapter 1, God gives Adam and Eve "every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. " But in Chapter 2, " 8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food." So in chapter 1, man has all the plants in the world to choose from, but in chapter 2, he is placed in the garden and is to eat of the fruit of the garden.

If these stories are to be taken literally, why the inconsistency? If this is "history", why two histories?

Godsword

Aug 5 2008, 06:46 PM

Romans14,

I only have time right now to address a select few of your comments/points. So that's all I will address in this post.

QUOTE

I agree context is important. I disagree with your analysis of the context for the Genesis creation account and subsequent narratives. The first two chapters of Genesis bear many hallmarks of allegorical writing. The very names Adam and Eve given in Genesis have figurative meanings.

By that reasoning, practically ALL Biblical characters are merely allegorical, and not historical.

QUOTE

There is a talking snake.

So? If the Egyptian magicians can turn their wooden rods into living serpents, as Moses did (via God's power and authority), what's so hard to believe about creatures originally being able to communicate by language? Dolphins, apes, and even dogs have at least rudimentary language capabilities (though apparently not verbal); the Bible says the serpent was the "most subtle", or "most wise", or "most cunning" of the creatures in the Garden. And, God "opened the mouth" of Balaam's donkey, so she could actually speak to him (the angel who appeared to Balaam confirmed that she had spoken to him). Do you deny the miraculous and supernatural?

QUOTE

Chapter 1 depicts God as referring to evening and morning before the objects that define evening and morning existed.

No, because the Earth is the primary "definer" of what is "evening and morning" upon the Earth, and it was in existence when God first made reference to evening and morning. It surprises me that people can be so lazy in their thinking that they don't realize that all that was required for "evening and morning" upon the Earth was the Earth itself in rotation AND a source of light some distance from the Earth. In Revelation, we read that, in the future, there will be no need for the Sun or Moon, as God Himself will provide our light. It doesn't say that there won't be a Sun or Moon, but simply that there won't be a need for either (perhaps it only refers to the Sun, but the point remains). Likewise at the beginning - God manifested part of His glory while involved in the Creation of the Earth, in the form of brilliant light; and, as the Earth rotated, while God apparently remained "fixed" in space, there was "evening and morning" upon the Earth.

QUOTE

There is no indication of any eye-witnesses to these events other than the characters involved.

So?

QUOTE

In fact, there would be no conscious eye-witnesses of the creation of Eve, never mind all the creation events that happened before Adam.

Other than God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and quite probably the angels. Other than all of these, yes, you have some sort of point, I think maybe.

QUOTE

God is depicted as less than omniscient and in more anthropromorphic fashion in his dealings with Adam and Eve in chapter 2.

Really? You mean when He asks Adam and Eve where they are, and then upon "finding" them asks Adam who told him he was naked? Have you not read the story of the "Road to Emmaus" in Luke, where Jesus meets two disciples walking from Jerusalem to Emmaus and asks them what sort of conversation they are having as they "walk and are sad"? They respond by asking Jesus (Whom they do not recognize) if He is the only one who is not aware of the things that had recently happened in Jerusalem to Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus responds, in what I imagine you would describe as a "less than omniscient" way: " 'What things?' " I hope you can see my point.

QUOTE

Even in chapter 1, we see that God needs to "rest" from "all his work." Why would an all-powerful creator need to rest?

You mean Genesis 2, not Genesis 1. But even then, nothing in Genesis 2 (or Genesis 1) says or indicates that God NEEDED to rest, as though He was tired. Have you not read where Jesus says that the Sabbath was created for man, and not man for the Sabbath? Doesn't that give you even a bit of a clue that perhaps God rested on the Seventh Day in order to establish a pattern for man?

QUOTE

And finally, God describes creating man "in our image". What literal meaning can this have from a physical standpoint? Does God have a nose and two eyes that he used to model our nose and eyes? Does God have knees, and private parts, and facial hair?

Tell me - Is Jesus seated at the right hand of the Father? What does Jesus look like? Does Jesus have a nose, two eyes, knees, private parts, and facial hair? In the Old Testament, isn't God (apparently God the Father) described as having human features (white hair, seated on a throne, etc.)? Why it is so hard for some to conceive of God having an actual form? Is Jesus limited in His divinity by His still-human form? If not, why would God the Father be limited in His divinity by having a human-like form (though one that is not physical)? And please don't argue that because God is "spirit", He cannot have a form - being a "spirit" simply means He does not have a physical body. Angels are "spirits", yet they are ALWAYS presented as having a form, generally human (though not always [for example, the "four living creatures", and the cherubim, and the like]).

Southernguy

Aug 6 2008, 12:52 AM

God snaps his fingers, and says "Let's create something big here." The Big Bang occurs, creating the universe.
Next, he manipulates the matter created by the Bang to form planets, stars, moons, blackholes, etc. After doing that for a while, and creating countless galaxies(his second could be a trillion years to us), God begins shaping a tiny, sterile ball of rock to sustain life as we know it today by creating water, heat to sustain early life, and the microbial life needed to stabilize the atmosphere.
He molds the primitive life created like a potter at the kiln, crafting them into more and more advanced creatures while vegetation spreads across the earth. His actions become the basis for which natural processes go on Earth. After making everything else, Homo Saipians eventually forms, and shortly afterward wipes out Homo Erectus, Neanderthals and the other varieties of humans.
At least, that's how I believe it went.

Godsword

Aug 6 2008, 07:54 PM

SouthernGuy,

QUOTE

God snaps his fingers, and says "Let's create something big here." The Big Bang occurs, creating the universe.

Oh, I see. God "snaps His fingers" to create the Universe (in a milli-milli-milli-...second starting the "explosion" that started the whole she-bang), but twiddles His thumbs while allowing creatures to develop and suffer and die, multiplied millions of times, until "proto-humans" arose? Now, why on Earth would God use such a wasteful, cruel, and inefficient process as Evolution to create life, let alone man in His image? Would it have been beyond God's ability to create life the way the Genesis Creation account describes?

Southernguy

Aug 6 2008, 09:41 PM

Who says he twiddled his thumbs? I think he guided it. Besides, the balance of predators, prey, niches, overpopulaiton, etc is clearly part of our world today. And God has ordered genocides and wars in the past, so natural selection isn't that big of a jump.

Godsword

Aug 6 2008, 10:31 PM

SouthernGuy,

QUOTE

Who says he twiddled his thumbs?

Well, compared with "snapping His fingers" and jump-starting the Creation of the Universe in milli-milli-....well, you get the idea...seconds, His supposed use of Evolution to create life would have been like "twiddling His thumbs", and whistling.

QUOTE

I think he guided it.

"Lion, tear apart that defenseless lamb! Yes, yes, that's it!!" ("And God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.")

QUOTE

Besides, the balance of predators, prey, niches, overpopulation, etc. is clearly part of our world today.

The natural world is cursed because of Adam and Eve's sin.

QUOTE

And God has ordered genocides and wars in the past, so natural selection isn't that big of a jump.

You are not seeing the very important and clear distinction - namely, that the former happened AFTER the Fall, but Evolution requires/implies cruel suffering and death PRIOR TO the Fall. One is after sin entered the world, the other extends to before. The Bible says that suffering and death are the RESULT of sin. Do you see your predicament?

zeetz

Aug 7 2008, 12:49 AM

Hi!

I would like to add a video here about Ben Stein's recent move, EXPELLED.
It is very good and thought provoking, about Darwinism vs Creation...

Please take a look?

EXPELLED by Ben Stein

Respectfully submitted by zeetz

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE (Godsword @ Aug 6 2008, 09:31 PM)

SouthernGuy,

QUOTE

Who says he twiddled his thumbs?

Well, compared with "snapping His fingers" and jump-starting the Creation of the Universe in milli-milli-....well, you get the idea...seconds, His supposed use of Evolution to create life would have been like "twiddling His thumbs", and whistling.

QUOTE

I think he guided it.

"Lion, tear apart that defenseless lamb! Yes, yes, that's it!!" ("And God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.")

QUOTE

Besides, the balance of predators, prey, niches, overpopulation, etc. is clearly part of our world today.

The natural world is cursed because of Adam and Eve's sin.

QUOTE

And God has ordered genocides and wars in the past, so natural selection isn't that big of a jump.

You are not seeing the very important and clear distinction - namely, that the former happened AFTER the Fall, but Evolution requires/implies cruel suffering and death PRIOR TO the Fall. One is after sin entered the world, the other extends to before. The Bible says that suffering and death are the RESULT of sin. Do you see your predicament?

Southernguy

Aug 7 2008, 12:54 AM

I don't see why the sins of man would extend to animals. Many species are quite clearly designed for predation. For example, a jaguar has immense speed, agility, large teeth, and rather sharp claws for hunting fast moving animals like deer, which use their speed and acute sense of smell and hearing to detect predators.

Godsword

Aug 7 2008, 05:14 AM

zeetz,

Thanks for posting that. I saw the movie when it was in theatres, and am still amazed at the knee-jerk reaction to it by many atheists and Evolutionists.

Romans 14

Aug 7 2008, 10:38 AM

QUOTE (zeetz @ Aug 7 2008, 12:49 AM)

Hi!

I would like to add a video here about Ben Stein's recent move, EXPELLED.
It is very good and thought provoking, about Darwinism vs Creation...

Please take a look?

EXPELLED by Ben Stein

Respectfully submitted by zeetz

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

QUOTE (Godsword @ Aug 6 2008, 09:31 PM)

SouthernGuy,

QUOTE

Who says he twiddled his thumbs?

Well, compared with "snapping His fingers" and jump-starting the Creation of the Universe in milli-milli-....well, you get the idea...seconds, His supposed use of Evolution to create life would have been like "twiddling His thumbs", and whistling.

QUOTE

I think he guided it.

"Lion, tear apart that defenseless lamb! Yes, yes, that's it!!" ("And God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.")

QUOTE

Besides, the balance of predators, prey, niches, overpopulation, etc. is clearly part of our world today.

The natural world is cursed because of Adam and Eve's sin.

QUOTE

And God has ordered genocides and wars in the past, so natural selection isn't that big of a jump.

You are not seeing the very important and clear distinction - namely, that the former happened AFTER the Fall, but Evolution requires/implies cruel suffering and death PRIOR TO the Fall. One is after sin entered the world, the other extends to before. The Bible says that suffering and death are the RESULT of sin. Do you see your predicament?

I would have to disagree. After researching some of the claims made in the film, I can only conclude that Stein is being deliberately dishonest, and so are some of the people who claim to have been "expelled."

For one, the very first person on the "expelled" list, Dr. Richard Sternberg, really has nothing to complain about. Stein would have you believe that Sternberg lost his job, and lost his office space at the Smithsonian. Neither of these is true. Dr. Sternberg never lost his research position at the Smithsonian, and in fact, was reappointed in 2006 to another 3 year term. This was 2 years after the controversy regarding the Meyer article erupted. He never lost his office space, but rather, was asked to move to another office as parter of a larger office reorganization. He was not singled out, as he was not the only person who had to move offices. He has never been denied access to the Smithsonians collections of artifacts, despite contentions that he had abused this privelage by keeping artifacts in his office, and bringing in artifacts from other institutions. The Smithsonian obviously wants to insure that artifacts are not lost or mixed up with other artifacts.

The rest of the film proceeds in a similar vein. Stein deliberately twists evidences, uses selective quoting, ignores the existence of evidence that shows his claims are false, and of course, constantly mocks scientists and science. His movie is not a documentary, but rather is propoganda, and rather blatant and poor propoganda at that.

And no, this is not a 'knee jerk' reaction by an evolutionists or an atheist, but a conclusion reached by a born again Christian based on viewing the entire film and doing a number of hours of research on the film and its claims.

I would suggest others who view this film in a positive light do more than accept Stein's work uncritically. You could start by going to http://www.expelledexposed.com/. From here, you can link to a number of other sources, including the actual documentation of Congressman Mark Souder's investigation of the Sternberg situation. If you read the actual evidence you will see that, contrary to Souder's claims, Sternberg was not persecuted nor was Souder's investigation 'stone-walled.' The Smithsonians made dozens of e-mails and documents available to Souder. About the only claim that Sternberg can make that is actually substantiated by any evidence is that some people at the Smithsonian and elsewhere in the scientific community were upset at his actions as editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. So what.

Frankly, given Sternberg's actions, the board of the that journal and others had every right to be upset. In addition, having people disagree with your actions is not 'being expelled.' Sternberg and Stein are just whining and trying to paint themselves as victims when no actual victimization can be documented. Nada.

Godsword

Aug 7 2008, 06:30 PM

Romans14,

When I have more time, I will thoroughly research the evidence, and not only from the sources you cite. I was involved in a discussion board dedicated to the Evolution/Creation debate back at the time the Sternberg case occurred and came to light, and some of those on that board had "inside" information (many were professors and PhD scientists). From my recollection, it was ABSOLUTELY clear that Sternberg had been harassed, at best. But I will double-check the relevant evidence (perhaps including going through the thread archives of that site I mentioned ["Access Research Network" - arn.org]). It will take me a few days, maybe a week, before I will post here about the movie again.

zeetz

Aug 7 2008, 07:00 PM

I never knew any of this happened. I would be most interested in the results of any research you do on this Godsword.

And Romans 14, I thank you for your comments and opinion also! This is all extremely interesting to me...I appreciate everyone's input here, because it is objective, investigative, and obviously very sincere.

And I also really do appreciate the mature exchanges between the participants. A polite and civil exchange of thoughts, opinions, and observances.
This is so refreshing to me.
I look forward to future offerings from you two! Maybe I can learn something new!

Thank you so much!
zeetz

QUOTE (Godsword @ Aug 7 2008, 05:30 PM)

Romans14,

When I have more time, I will thoroughly research the evidence, and not only from the sources you cite. I was involved in a discussion board dedicated to the Evolution/Creation debate back at the time the Sternberg case occurred and came to light, and some of those on that board had "inside" information (many were professors and PhD scientists). From my recollection, it was ABSOLUTELY clear that Sternberg had been harassed, at best. But I will double-check the relevant evidence (perhaps including going through the thread archives of that site I mentioned ["Access Research Network" - arn.org]). It will take me a few days, maybe a week, before I will post here about the movie again.

Godsword

Aug 10 2008, 06:04 AM

Well, for some reason my computer viruses (it's like having multiple plagues running around on my computer) won't let me access "Access Research Network", which is both ironic and very frustrating at the same time. I hope there's a way around this (maybe trying various "routes" to get at "arn.org"), but I haven't found one yet. So, it may take me more time than I'd hoped to research the issues.

In the meantime, I think we should start a new thread, devoted to "Expelled" (The Movie), in which we can discuss the various things Romans14 raised regarding the movie, especially Richard Sternberg's case. So, I have started a new thread titled, surprisingly enough, "Expelled - The Movie", in this section, and copied-and pasted zeetz's, Romans14's, and my posts here which deal with the movie and Sternberg.

TheSerpent

Aug 22 2008, 06:14 PM

Radiometric dating indicates dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that homo sapiens appeared about 130,000 years ago. The two timelines do not overlap. Even taking into account the +/- error rate of radiocarbon & radiometric dating the two timelines do not come close to overlapping.

Vissarion

Sep 12 2008, 07:31 PM

Oh boy, this truly is a ride in the fun-house of the traveling circus of mindboggling apologetics.

All of you fine people have seen the skeletons of these magnificent reptilian predators in our museums.

Consider, as if for the first time, the possibility of Homo Sapiens sharing a habitat with these murderous creatures, like T Rex, and surviving it.

To all of you who think this a plausible scenario I double dare you to take a trip to Grizzly country and try to make nice with these carnivores.

Me thinks you will be reluctant to take up this challenge.

Do I really need to say more?

Is there a limit to the mind-shattering nonsense that is posted here?

V.