Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Dinos and Humans hand in hand
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 16 of 55 (252988)
10-19-2005 9:29 AM


Ica Stones are a bunch of BS
The Ica stones featured on the site are a disproven hoax. Those who mentioned the fact that they look like cartoons are right! A bunch of natives created the stones by copying pictures form comics and coloring books. It was a hoax in which the perpetrators fully admitied in their participation.
The fact that this site cites the Ica Stones as "evidence", discredits the site greatly.
Ica Stones - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.com
The Ica stone craze began in 1996 with Dr. Javier Cabrera Darquea, a Peruvian physician who allegedly abandoned a career in medicine in Lima to open up the Museo de Piedras Grabadas (Engraved Stones Museum) in Ica. There he displays his collection of several thousand stones. Dr. Cabrera claims that a farmer found the stones in a cave. The farmer was arrested for selling the stones to tourists. He told the police that he didn't really find them in a cave, but that he made them himself. Other modern Ica artists, however, continue to carve stones and sell forgeries of the farmer's forgeries. In 1975, Basilio Uchuya and Irma Gutierrez de Aparcana claimed that they sold Cabrera stones they'd graved themselves and that they'd chosen their subject matter by copying from "comic books, school books, and magazines" (Polidoro 2002).

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by arachnophilia, posted 10-19-2005 6:27 PM Yaro has not replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 17 of 55 (252997)
10-19-2005 9:44 AM


Baskin Shark remains, AGAIN
http://s8int.com/dino1.html
Here we see the famous Baskin shark incident which was layed to rest years ago:
Zuiyo-maru carcass Plesiosaur or Basking Shark?
In order to cling to the plesiosaur/tetrapod belief, and in an attempt to ignore the strong evidence for a basking shark, some argue that plesiosaurs may also have had horny fin fibres in their flippers consisting of elastoidin, and that the carcass belongs to an as yet unidentified living species of plesiosaur, i.e. with fewer neck vertebrae. But amino acid analysis and morphological analysis of the fibres match basking shark elastoidin. The fact that decomposing basking sharks, which match the Zuiyo-maru carcass in many details, are commonly washed up on the New Zealand coastland strengthens the case for the shark identity of the Zuiyo-maru carcass find.12

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 18 of 55 (253016)
10-19-2005 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by randman
10-19-2005 12:25 AM


Where Fraud should be suspected.
In the case of the Anasazi Drawing, which is the one I'm most familar with, the claim is not that the drawing is fraudulent but that the authors of the articles are frauds or at least wilfully deceiving themselves.
The drawing appears to be a very common motif that I personally have seen many times while wandering around the Southwest. Time, ligting, weathering and frankly, the guy that touched up the photo turned a comon serpent glyph into a mockery of a dinosaur.
I don't doubt that the glyph exists and that it's probably from the Anasazi. It's the total dishonesty or gulibility of those trying to make it into a dinsosaur that is questioned.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 10-19-2005 12:25 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by randman, posted 10-20-2005 2:17 AM jar has replied

  
Yaro
Member (Idle past 6496 days)
Posts: 1797
Joined: 07-12-2003


Message 19 of 55 (253019)
10-19-2005 10:52 AM


Head Binding misrepresented
Randman's site makes a big deal about these skulls being evidence of giants or something. That's a load of crap too. It's a known fact that ancient Aztec/Maya/Olmec culture practiced Head binding.
http://www.halfmoon.org/beauty.html
I also have a national geographic which discusses the practice. I learned this crap back in grade school, saw many similar skull pictures to the one on that website.
It's a wonder these people don't do a bit more research.
This message has been edited by Yaro, 10-19-2005 10:53 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Nuggin, posted 10-19-2005 11:07 AM Yaro has not replied
 Message 21 by Omnivorous, posted 10-19-2005 3:41 PM Yaro has not replied
 Message 27 by randman, posted 10-20-2005 2:19 AM Yaro has not replied

  
Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2493 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 20 of 55 (253024)
10-19-2005 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Yaro
10-19-2005 10:52 AM


Re: Head Binding misrepresented
Also the Inca, and with good reason.
If you are in control of the biggest empire in the world and you don't look any different than your subjects what's to stop them from pretending to be you?
You can't, at age 26, suddenly decide to fake it and be Inca if you've got a round head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Yaro, posted 10-19-2005 10:52 AM Yaro has not replied

  
Omnivorous
Member
Posts: 3978
From: Adirondackia
Joined: 07-21-2005
Member Rating: 7.3


Message 21 of 55 (253102)
10-19-2005 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Yaro
10-19-2005 10:52 AM


Exciting new market
Nice pic and link, Yaro.
I have some prints of 19th century spirit photographs that randman would love to see, I bet! And those faerie photos that entranced so many folks (including some famously brilliant ones) around that time...the possibilities!
Excuse me for addressing the balance of this post to randman:
Greeting r-man...thought I'd better get that in before your eccentric orbit pulls you away again.
That Anasazi "dinosaur" is so lame...I mean, really...I e-mailed a copy to my 7 year old grand-daughter, and she says she can do better. She can, too.
Even the Flintstones had more accurate stuff--Dino ran pretty good and with his tail up, if I recall correctly. Funny an eyewitness couldn't get that right.
By the way, rejecting an obviously manipulated representation upon viewing it does not constitute a priori rejection. Now, if you reject my spirit photographs without seeing them, THAT would be a priori. I say they prove the existence of haints, and the faerie pix prove the correctness of pagan beliefs (they're too sexy for angels). Oh, sure, some folks say they were faked--but those people are part of a century-long conspiracy of intellectual fraud involving many thousands of people--what else could they say?
Randman, where is the great welter of skepticism you bring to ToE? Or do you feel that a few cookie crumbs of lies and distortions are okay if they lead to the gingerbread house of truth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Yaro, posted 10-19-2005 10:52 AM Yaro has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 55 (253106)
10-19-2005 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by randman
10-19-2005 12:25 AM


quote:
Simply claiming they must be forgeries is not an argument, but that seems to be what you guys are doing here.
Ha ha ha ha. This coming from a guy who thinks he's making an argument when he simply keeps repeating over and over that there should be many, many more fossils than we actually see.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 10-19-2005 12:25 AM randman has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 23 of 55 (253146)
10-19-2005 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by randman
10-19-2005 12:25 AM


Simply claiming they must be forgeries is not an argument, but that seems to be what you guys are doing here.
Then it is simple: prove that they are NOT forgeries.
If they are real artifacts\items\etc then it should be possible.
AND if you cannot prove they are NOT forgeries then you HAVE to admit the possibility: belief alone is not enough.
This is skepticism.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 10-19-2005 12:25 AM randman has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 24 of 55 (253170)
10-19-2005 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Yaro
10-19-2005 9:29 AM


Re: Ica Stones are a bunch of BS
Those who mentioned the fact that they look like cartoons are right!
i was actually kind of comparing the anasazi drawing to the ica stones -- they contain the same kind of dinosaur depiction very standard up until the modern revolution of paleontological thought.
in fact, one of them looks exactly like the blanket i slept under for my entire childhood.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Yaro, posted 10-19-2005 9:29 AM Yaro has not replied

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 25 of 55 (253184)
10-19-2005 7:07 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by randman
10-19-2005 12:25 AM


The pics certainly look like dinosaurs. Sure, some are blurry. Some may even be forgeries, but the fact is there are depictions here that look just like dinosaurs along with written accounts
I offer here photographic proof that Odin the Allfather tagged along on my last family outing to celebrate the 61st birthday of my father. I apologize for the blurriness of the photo, the sheer might radiating from Odin the Allfather is very hard to capture. While he is hiding in the back there you can see that he is missing an eye, as well one of his ravens (I'm not sure if it's Hugin or Munin) is perched on his throne ready to deliver knowledge to him. These elements are in total accordance to the historical accounts so there should be no doubt as to his identity.

If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by randman, posted 10-19-2005 12:25 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 26 of 55 (253255)
10-20-2005 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by jar
10-19-2005 10:30 AM


Re: Where Fraud should be suspected.
jar, it looks like a dinosaur. Take some time to view a number of photos. It's pretty clear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 10-19-2005 10:30 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by jar, posted 10-20-2005 10:08 AM randman has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 27 of 55 (253256)
10-20-2005 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Yaro
10-19-2005 10:52 AM


Re: Head Binding misrepresented
The claim is the mishaped heads they show are warped in a way that mere head-shaping would not do.
The site has some bogus stuff, but it's not all bogus. It just throws out all sorts of anamolous info. On some of the skulls, I think they are correct in stating they exhibit some traits inconsistent with head shaping.
Also, on the issue of giants, there is quite a lot of evidence giants did exist. Perhaps you are just unaware of the evidence?
Evos call them more primitive hominids, but they have been found with tools fitted to their size so they seem to just be a giant form of "people" in layman's terms.
This message has been edited by randman, 10-20-2005 02:27 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Yaro, posted 10-19-2005 10:52 AM Yaro has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Parasomnium, posted 10-20-2005 2:45 AM randman has replied

  
Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 28 of 55 (253258)
10-20-2005 2:45 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by randman
10-20-2005 2:19 AM


Bogus detection 101
randman writes:
The site has some bogus stuff, but it's not all bogus.
The problem with this is twofold:
1. The site presents it all as non-bogus. So, either the makers of the site do not know they are presenting bogus, in which case they are not much of an authority on the subject matter, or they do know, in which case they are not to be trusted. Either way, the site loses its credibility.
2. How do we know which is the bogus info and which isn't? The site doesn't tell us. Can we know it from somewhere else? Or can we just pick and choose the parts that suit us?
I think you've shot yourself in the foot with this link.

"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." - Richard Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by randman, posted 10-20-2005 2:19 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by randman, posted 10-20-2005 2:55 AM Parasomnium has not replied

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 29 of 55 (253260)
10-20-2005 2:55 AM
Reply to: Message 28 by Parasomnium
10-20-2005 2:45 AM


Re: Bogus detection 101
Well, if you only took that attitude with your science textbooks as they presented ToE, I don't think we'd be arguing today parasomnium, but hey, PhD written textbooks teaching evolution can contain all sorts of errors, such as Haeckel's drawings which they presented for decades or Neanderthal as excessively ape-like or human gill slits, etc... and yet you guys go to bat defending the ideas they present (ToE).
At least this site does not purport to be a textbook, and is not paid for with my tax dollars. It has some interesting stuff. If you don't like it, and think it lacks credibility, please know it has about as much credibility with me as most evos. That's not saying much, I know, but I tend to think I can view facts independently of the site/person presenting them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Parasomnium, posted 10-20-2005 2:45 AM Parasomnium has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by arachnophilia, posted 10-20-2005 3:44 AM randman has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 30 of 55 (253263)
10-20-2005 3:44 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by randman
10-20-2005 2:55 AM


Re: Bogus detection 101
Well, if you only took that attitude with your science textbooks as they presented ToE, I don't think we'd be arguing today parasomnium
i'm sorry. well documented and supported scientific theory, analyzed and contributed to by millions of scientists... vs. a bunch of forgeries, pseudoscience, and people who can't even read the bible right.
people DO look at the ToE skeptically -- and it's held up. perhaps you should take that attitude with creationism.
but hey, PhD written textbooks teaching evolution can contain all sorts of errors, such as Haeckel's drawings which they presented for decades or Neanderthal as excessively ape-like or human gill slits, etc... and yet you guys go to bat defending the ideas they present (ToE).
you've been corrected on haeckel a number of times. but i'll use my sauropod example from earlier in the thread.
do you know how hard it was for me to find a picture of anatomically correct apatosaurus for that first post? you wouldn't believe me if i told you that post, with the three pictures, took on the order of 3 hours to write, mostly looking through jut plain awful pictures. heck, the bad ones were pretty hard to find too.
most pictures look kinda like this:
it's not quite wrong, but it's not right, either. it's somewhere between dragging its tail, and using it as a balance. its back still curves in the same way, which is wrong.
now, the new school of the warm-blooded dinosaur has been around a while. the way we look at dinosaurs is fundamentally different now than it was when this particular stereotype was drawn up. some of the new depictions are absolutely stunning.
look at the date. 1997. it shouldn't be wrong, that's pretty recent. it's even after they figured out that brontosaurus had the wrong head, and didn't really exist, in the 70's. yet i'm sure you've heard the name of the non-exist dino, "brontosaurus" haven't you?
paleontology had a lot of mixups and misidentifications in its early days. it's taken us a while to sort some of them out. and traditions hold fast -- everybody loved their brontosaurus toys as a child. what the heck kind of name is apatosaurus ajax anyways? it looks like a diplodocus now, and that's boring.
these errors are repeated for the same reason you're repeating errors, and people report errors about the bible. people just don't know any better. (also, i haven't seen any ape-like (or dark skinned) neanderthals or human embryos with gills for years. but i HAVE seen some brontosaurs.)
At least this site does not purport to be a textbook, and is not paid for with my tax dollars.
it's selling you on the idea that collection of hoodwinks and forgers and ignorant can challenge a standing and well supported scientific theory on the basis of a few painted rocks of questionable authenticity.
If you don't like it, and think it lacks credibility, please know it has about as much credibility with me as most evos. That's not saying much, I know, but I tend to think I can view facts independently of the site/person presenting them.
mm hmm. go look up that book i mentioned in the other thread, or one from the same section of the library. look over the REAL data for a while.
do fakes and deceptions happen there too? yes, they do. allow me to tell you an anecdote. there was this guy i used to be friends a few years back, paleo nut. he might as well have been pro. guy had a hadrosaur leg in his living room, and a significant percentage of the world's dinosaur embryos in his garage (6 tarbosaur eggs, all with babies).
he showed his protoceratops once. i said it looked like a nice fossil. he agreed, and then pointed out exactly how it knew it was a fake. "look," he said, "the metacarpals are out of proportion, and made of the wrong mineral. that's half the selling point -- and they're from a different specimen. look at the marks here and here and here. this whole leg's not even fossilized bone. i tell you, that's the last time i buy anything from the chinese, this is the third forgery they've sold me." or something to that extent.
i've been looking at dinosaurs and dinosaur skeletons idly for a long time. and i'm an artist used to looking at detail. i might have figured it out in a while, but i certainly didn't notice from a cursory glance. apparently, there is a large black market for fossils in china, and people "alter" them to increase their value.
and to the trained eye they are easy to pick out. the trained eye spots the difference between actual fossil and reconstruction in an instant. the people who ACTUALLY know what they're looking for view most everything as total skeptics, and when something shows all the signs of being bogus, it probably is.
but you, the random and anonymous creatonist pundit on the web, are not familiar with all of the intricacies of actual paleontology. you're not even familiar with the pictures in books. you can sit there and feel all safe in your ignorance of the area. yeah, you don't find evolution in the fossil record to be credible.
...but what the hell do you know?

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by randman, posted 10-20-2005 2:55 AM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024