[_ Old Earth _] Man And Dinosaur

[Bronzesnake]

Evo, I chose to ignore the goofy rambling portion of your post...

The very circumstances from which the figures first appeared are cited as dubious.[2] Julsrud claims that he paid the farmers for every figure they brought him, which would have given the farmers motive to create their own figures and disguise them as ancient artifacts.

Oh ya those crooked Mexican farmers! Too much!

Julsrud was archaeologically astute he would have spotted brand new pieces immediately.
Also, you would have to explain how these “crooked†Mexican farmers knew exactly what dinosaurs looked like and how for example, they were able to create characteristics such as a rosetta pattern of the skin of a T-Rex years before anyone knew it to be fact!

Then there was the accurate representation of an “American dinosaur Brachiosaurus almost totally unknown at that time to the general publicâ€

“These fantastic dinosaur figurines threaten the orthodox concepts and time scales in many fields of studies. Dr. Ivan T. Sanderson was amazed in 1955 to find that there was an accurate representation of its American dinosaur Brachiosaurus almost totally unknown at that time to the general public. Sanderson wrote about this particular Dinosaur in the Julsrud collection. "This figurine is a very fine, jet-black, polished-looking ware. It is about a foot tall. The point is it is an absolutely perfect representation of Brachiosaurus, known only from East Africa and North America. There are a number of outlines of the skeletons in the standard literature but only one fleshed out reconstruction that I have ever seen. This is exactly like it."

So tell me please, how these poor Mexican farmers had so much detailed knowledge of all these different dinosaurs when many world experts didn’t know much of this information at that time?
This is extremely powerful corroboration for the authenticity of these pieces. Unless you have a reasonable explanation?

Read on it gets thicker...
There was an absolutely astonishing breathless moment as one object was unwrapped and there before us a virtually perfect representation of an Iguanodon. This was one of the first dinosaur skeletons discovered. The early concept of it's appearance was almost comical in the mid 1800's. By the turn of the century it had improved considerably but fell far short of what we now know. The figurine exhibits knowledge we have gained only in the last few years. No hoaxer could have made this model in the 1940's.

How could these people have known of such animals as these?...
Was there a precursor civilization at Acambaro during the Ice Age as geologists reckon time? In the collection are unmistakable representations of the one humped American camel of the Ice Age, Ice Age horses, as well as of animals resembling rhinoceroses of extinct species. There are many figurines of giant monkeys such as actually existed in South America in the Pleistocene.

During excavations among the figurines were found some teeth. These teeth were taken to Dr. George Gaylord Simpson in 1955, at that time America's leading paleontologist who worked at the American Museum of Natural History. He identified them as the teeth of Equus Conversidans Owen, an extinct horse of the Ice Age. In the Julsrud collection are two figurines of Equus Conversidans Owen. The image of the Ice Age horse is also engraved on ceramic pots in the collection.
Did these clever Mexican farmers also carve the teeth???

Here’s the reason for the disinformation campaign my friends...
The establishment scientists continued to act as if nothing of significance had happened in Acambaro that would threaten the evolutionary paradigm. Despite their efforts to downplay or explain away Julsrud's discoveries as that of an eccentric kook, the information was slowly leaking out to a wide audience that would take the Julsrud collection seriously and consider it a legitimate find.

William W. Russell, a Los Angeles newspaperman was soon on the scene. Russell himself photographed the excavations. Freshly dug pits produced objects, with roots entwining them.3 The objects must have been in the ground for many years for tree roots to grow around them at a depth of five or six feet beneath the earth. Russell reported that he judged from the evidence the objects to be very old.
Wow! How clever these poor farmers were to know that one day people would dig in these exact spots and discover these fake figures all intertwined in the roots and all...man they were smart!

According to Di Peso, the surface of the figures was practically brand new and they showed no characteristic evidence of having been in the ground for at least 1500 years. If they were authentic artifacts, they should be scratched and marred from the rocky soil, which is characteristic of artifacts found in that area of Mexico

.

Gee, you forgot to read the reast of the story...

He wanted to buy for his museum a certain amount of pieces of Tarascan origin."
Dipeso made ridiculous accusations against the locals, stating farmers had watched movies, read comics and researched books in the local library in order to come up with source material to make these figurines. Are you kidding me!!????

Francisco Aguitar Sanchaz, Superintendent of the National Irrigation Plant of Solis said, "That on the basis of four years intimate knowledge of the inhabitants of the entire area and of archaeological activity there, he could positively deny that there was any such ceramic production in the vicinity." The Municipal President of Acambaro, Juan Terrazaz Carranza, issued on July 23, 1952, an official statement No.1109 refuting Dipeso's allegation.

'This Presidency under my direction ordered that an investigation be carried out in this matter, and has arrived at the conclusion that in this municipal area there does not exist any persons who makes these kinds of objects."
There are many other problems associated with Dipeso's spurious allegations. He fails to mention that the ceramic artifacts of varying clay composition and styles had been individually and not mold-made. There were not only ceramic pieces but also stone pieces.

The ceramic collection has unsurpassed variety and beauty that has won the admiration of professional artists. No peasant family could possibly make thousands and thousands of non-duplicated sculptures with such skill and artistic finesse.

The famous Earle Stanley Gardner, whose detective mysteries became the basis for the famous Perry Mason television programs, was a forensic pathologist and attorney who served as district attorney for the city of Los Angeles for over 20. Mr. Gardner examined the collection and voiced the expert opinion of an experienced prosecuting attorney when he said that if a group of fakers had made all the pieces, their style would be recognizable on the whole collection.

"Every criminal, every criminal gang has its own method of operations. Police can often identify a criminal or gang from the method of a crime. It is obvious that no one individual or group could have made the pieces."

Charles Dipeso insisted in his insinuations that the collection was an elaborate hoax; the diggers making pits, burying the objects, and later digging them up. Dipeso finished his 1953 report with resounding confidence, "Our investigation proved conclusively that the figurines are not prehistoric and were not made by a superior prehistoric race that associated with dinosaurs."5

TO CONTINUE IN NEXT POST...

 

[Bronzesnake]

Much of Dipeso's report was absolutely unfounded or mere conjecture. What would be the motive for faking the objects? Economically, at 12 cents a figure, for a hoaxer to manufacture the objects, to say nothing of the additional costs to bury them and then dig them up again, Tinajero, a poor Mexican farmer, could never have afforded to make 33,500 figures under these circumstances.[/i]

The collection is not only skillfully made but contains dinosaur species that only a highly educated person who had burrowed deep into the recesses of paleontological literature could have known of the rare life forms. Odilon Tinajero had neither the artistic competence or educational background to perpetuate such a hoax. Tinajero left school in the fourth grade and could barely read or write.

Acambaro is a dry, arid, and relatively treeless area, yet all the ceramic objects had been baked in open fires. This would require many truckloads of firewood which is very expensive in Acambaro. It would have been consumed consistently. The smoke rising from the fire could not have possibly gone undetected by the entire community.

Professor Ramon Rivera of Acambaro High School's history faculty launched a month long investigation, interviewing people of all ages and occupations. Professor Rivera had a vast knowledge of the history of the area and close contacts with the inhabitants of Acambaro.

Rivera filed this report,
"The truth is that there is not the most remote idea suspicion of there having lived in Acambaro, or near or far from here, anyone who made in quantity or little by little such pieces. This fact has been investigated by all possible means, covering the time from more than a century ago up to now. There are old people living here who can still give details otherwise unrecorded from the date of the independence of this country."

Another consideration that is often ignored in the debate over the authenticity of the artifacts is that many of them are made of hard stones and not of ceramic. These stone objects show all the effects of erosion and the stone objects are of the same style as the ceramics and the erosion factor is almost impossible to fake.

Eventually, an eminent scholar arrived on the scene in Acambaro who would expose the contentions of Julsrud's opponents with a series of arguments and facts that would prove to be indisputable. In the summer of 1955 Charles Hapgood, the Professor of History and Anthropology at Keene State College of the University of New Hampshire, spent several months in Acambaro and conducted a very detailed investigation of the collection. Charles Hapgood had already distinguished himself as the author of a number of books including "Earth's Shifting Crust" (1958), "Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings" (1966), and "The Path of the Pole" (1970).

Hapgood excavated a number of sites that were on previously undisturbed ground and found many pieces of ceramic figurines of the "Julsrud" type. To eliminate any possibility of fraud that Tinajero or anyone else had manufactured the ceramics, Hapgood decided to excavate beneath a house that had been built in 1930, long before any artifacts were found on El Toro Hill. They found a house directly over the site owned by the chief of police, asked permission to dig beneath the floor of his house.

Permission was granted, and they dug a six-foot deep pit beneath the hard concrete floor of the living room, unearthing dozens of the controversial objects. Since the house had been built twenty five years before Julsrud arrived in Mexico, it exonerated Julsrud, eliminated the hoax theory and negated Dipeso's as well as Noquera's reports at all the important points.

I guess these clever Mexican farmers somehow lifted up the police chief's house while he was napping and dug a six foot deep hole to hide these fake dinosaurs and prayed that some fool would ask to dig there sine day right?

In 1968 Charles Hapgood returned to Acambaro accompanied by Earle Stanley Gardner of Perry Mason fame. Mr. Gardner was not only trained in criminology but was also an investigator of archaeological problems. He was supremely impressed with the vastness and the variety of the collection. It was quite clear that Mr. Gardner considered the fake theory completely false, outrageous and deceptive!
The radiocarbon 14 method of dating was still in its infancy, but Hapgood acquired specimens for C14 testing.6 Gardner and Andrew Young (inventor of the Bell Helicopter) financed the testing.

Hapgood submitted the samples to the Laboratory of Isotopes Inc. in New Jersey. The results were as follows:
The radiocarbon dates of up to 4,500 B.C for Carbon on the ceramics would make the collection the oldest in the Western Hemisphere.

In 1972, Arthur Young submitted two of the figurines to Dr. Froelich Rainey, the director of the Pennsylvania Museum for Thermoluminescent Dating. The Masca lab had obtained thermoluminescent dates of up to 2,700 B.C. In a letter dated September 13, 1972, addressed to Mr. Young, Dr Rainey said:
"...Now after we have had years of experimentation both here and at the lab at Oxford, we have no doubt about the dependability of the thermoluminescent method. We may have errors of up to 5-10% in absolute dating, but we are no longer concerned about unexpected bugs that might put the whole system in doubt. I should also point out, that we were so concerned about the extraordinarily ancient dates of these figures, that Mark Han in our lab made an average of 18 runs on each one of the four samples. Hence, there is a very substantial bit of research in these particular pieces... All in all the lab stands on these dates for the Julsrud material, whatever that means in terms of archeological dating in Mexico, or in terms of 'fakes verse's authentic' pieces."

Wow!
But hey, once these good honest folks discovered the figures were of dinosaurs, they went all goofy...I wonder why?
But when the lab at the University of Pennsylvania found out that dinosaurs were part of the collection, they retracted their thermoluminescent. They asserted that the ceramics gave off regenerated light signals and could be no more than 30 years old.
HOWEVER...
A thermoluminescent technician admitted that no other ceramics existed, in his experience, that produced regenerated light signals, and no other thermoluminescent dating of ceramics had ever been done by utilization of a regenerated light signal. In short, the testing was a hocus pocus, laboratory trick to avoid the obvious conclusion that dinosaurs and man lived together.

John Tierney determined to expose the University of Pennsylvania's shenanigans by testing with standard procedures. Tierney had two fragments of Julsrud type ceramics excavated at El Toro Mountain in Acambaro and in 1956, in Julsrud's presence, Tierney submitted these pieces to Dr. Victor J. Bortolet, Director of Research of Daybreak Nucleari Archaeometrics Laboratory Services for dating. Dr. Bortulot determined the pieces' upper limit of age to 2,000 years old, thus, invalidating the Masca report which claimed the objects were made thirty to one hundred years ago.7

John Tierney took a half dozen samples of Julsrud ceramics of different clay composition to a team at Ohio State University. The team of experts consisted of Dr. J.O. Everhart (Chairman of the Department of Ceramic Engineering) Dr Earle R Caley, (among the world's most respected archaeological chemist) and Dr Ernest G Ehlers (mineralogist in the geology department at Ohio State University). They reported that they could not believe the artifacts were made in modern times nor could they believe they were made by some amateur who tried to perpetuate a fraud. Upon my notifying them that they had authenticated Julsrud artifacts they lapsed into a profound and apparent permanent silence.
OK my good friends...we are left with a decision here.
We either accept the facts as they are no matter where they take us - after all; we all want the real truth right?
Or, we allow our presuppositions and assumptions blind us to the truth and go on feeling good about ourselves regardless of reality.

It’s true my friends. Man and dinosaurs walked side by side. The earth is not billions of years old and God is telling us how He did it in His book...all we need to do is accept the truth over our truth.

Bronzesnake

 

[Bronzesnake]

Baugh states that a spiral CAT scan was done on the "finger," and declares that "scientific analysis shows replaced bone, tissue, and ligaments. It has been identified as the fourth finger on a girl’s left hand."[2] The latter assertion is reminiscent of his overstated claims regarding supposed human footprints, where vague impressions disputed even by other creationists are declared by Baugh to be so clearly human one can identify whether they are male or female. In fact, there are no clear indications of bones, ligaments, or other specific structures in the CAT scans of the supposed finger. All that is visible are some ill-defined darker areas toward the center of the object. These are expected in any natural stone, due to the greater amount of material the radiation must pass through near the middle of the stone.

cross section
Cross section of the "finger" (photo link to http://www.biblebelieers.org website)
The lack of clear bones is also evident in the cross sections of the finger, which show some ill-defined concentric bands, but no distinct boundaries. The innermost, lighter-toned region (presumed to be a bone) also is oriented much closer to one side than the other, rather than being more centered as would be expected for a bone. Baugh and others[4] have claimed that the tiny dots represent bone pores, but they extend well beyond the area assumed to be bone, and thus seem to refute rather than support the bone contention. It seems more likely the tiny structures represent particles of contrasting sediment or microfossils (perhaps osctracodes and/or forams), but evidently the finger proponents have not done the rigorous microscopic work needed to conclusively identify them.

In short, the "finger" is no more a human finger than the "Old man of the mountain" is an old man.

The "Stegosaurus" on the Khmer stele isn't remotely like a Stegosaurus. It has some petals behind it that look like early conceptions paleontologists had of steosauri, but the plates were not arranged like that. The head of the beast on the carving is huge and heavy, unlike the tiny head of a real one. No thagomizer on the tail, either.

Barb Wrote - The "Stegosaurus" on the Khmer stele isn't remotely like a Stegosaurus
Ya ok... ;)
The link you gave doesn't work.
What's a steosauri?

Bronzesnake

 

[Barbarian]

The very circumstances from which the figures first appeared are cited as dubious.[2] Julsrud claims that he paid the farmers for every figure they brought him, which would have given the farmers motive to create their own figures and disguise them as ancient artifacts.

Oh ya those crooked Mexican farmers! Too much!

The Peruvian Ica stones turned out to be largely frauds. If gullible people will pay for carvings, other people will "find" them.

So tell me please, how these poor Mexican farmers had so much detailed knowledge of all these different dinosaurs when many world experts didn’t know much of this information at that time?

Maybe they went to the movies:

ca. 1912

No hoaxer could have made this model in the 1940's.

Surprise.

The famous Earle Stanley Gardner, whose detective mysteries became the basis for the famous Perry Mason television programs, was a forensic pathologist and attorney who served as district attorney for the city of Los Angeles for over 20. Mr. Gardner examined the collection and voiced the expert opinion of an experienced prosecuting attorney when he said that if a group of fakers had made all the pieces, their style would be recognizable on the whole collection.

So his argument is that it wouldn't be possible for a number of people to be doing it? Seriously?

 

[Barbarian]

Barb Wrote - The "Stegosaurus" on the Khmer stele isn't remotely like a Stegosaurus
Ya ok... ;)

You would think, if they had seen one, they would know what they look like.

What's a steosauri?

What's a martinus? ;)

 

[Bronzesnake]

The Peruvian Ica stones turned out to be largely frauds. If gullible people will pay for carvings, other people will "find" them.

Yup all discoveries are fakes! At 12 cents per??? Do the math.

Maybe they went to the movies:

Surprise.

So his argument is that it wouldn't be possible for a number of people to be doing it? Seriously?

You obviously can't be taken seriously Barb.
The facts are irrefutable my friend, so you can launch all the cute one liners you have in your arsenal of tricky denials in the face of devestating facts you want. The reality is that you know full well these figures are ligit and you can't handle it.
That's good enough for me brother. :P

John

John

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
The Peruvian Ica stones turned out to be largely frauds. If gullible people will pay for carvings, other people will "find" them.

Yup all discoveries are fakes! At 12 cents per??? Do the math.

In the past, a small number of engraved stones were uncovered in the context of archaeological excavations,[3] and some engraved stones may have been brought from Peru to Spain in the 16th century,[1] but the authentically old stones contained none of the controversial pictures of dinosaurs or human figures...In 1977, during the BBC documentary Pathway to the Gods, Uschuya produced a "genuine" Ica stone with a dentist's drill and claimed to have produced the patina by baking the stone in cow dung. The Ica stones achieved popular interest when Cabrera abandoned his medical career and opened a museum to feature several thousand of the stones in 1996.[1] That same year, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical analysis of the stones, and the newfound attention to the phenomenon prompted Peruvian authorities to arrest Uschuya, as Peruvian law prohibits the sales of archaeological discoveries. Uschuya recanted his claim that he had found them and instead admitted they were hoaxes, saying "Making these stones is easier than farming the land." He also said that he had not made all the stones. He was not punished, and continued to sell similar stones to tourists as trinkets.[2] The stones continued to be made and carved by other artists as forgeries of the original forgeries.[1]

In 1998, Spanish investigator Vicente Paris declared after four years of investigation using microphotographs that the stones were a hoax, citing traces of modern paints and abrasives in the engravings. Also, as most of the stones were found in rivers or other outdoor places, and not in ancient tombs, the crispness of the shallow engravings should be substantially eroded if the stones were of great age. Paris concluded that though it is impossible to say all the stones are frauds, all investigations have failed to demonstrate they are anything but modern.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ica_stones

(Bsnake asks how could modern people have known what dinosaurs were like)

Barbarian suggests:
Maybe they went to the movies:
(still from movie cartoon, showing accurate depiction of dinosaur from about 1916)

("Perry Mason" author argues they must be authentic because there is more than one style of carving)

So his argument is that it wouldn't be possible for a number of people to be doing it? Seriously?
The stones continued to be made and carved by other artists as forgeries of the original forgeries. - Ibid

You obviously can't be taken seriously Barb.

I guess everyone will have to look at the evidence and decide for themselves, um?

The facts are irrefutable my friend, so you can launch all the cute one liners you have in your arsenal of tricky denials in the face of devestating facts you want.

Ronald Reagan used to say "Facts are stupid things." But they are handy in an argument.

 

[lordkalvan]

Official World Site Malachite Man
(Malachite is a green mineral) http://www.bible.ca/tracks/malachite-man.htm
Skeletons of ten perfectly modern humans have been excavated from fifty eight feet down in the Dakota Sandstone, over an area spanning about 50 by 100 feet....

I find it almost unbelievable that you are attempting to pass this nonsense off credible evidence that Homo sapiens and dinosaurs co-existed. In the first place, the original bones were found by Lin Otinger after a bulldozer had removed around 15 (not 58) feet of overburden, uncovering and partially damaging the bones in question. Field Director of the Utah Statewide Archaeological Survey John Marwitt investigated the find and described the remains as 'resting in loose, poorly consolidated blowsand, in contrast to the consolidated, hard sandstone further from the bones'. He concluded that the bones were not fossilized, were 'essentially modern' and comprised intrusive burials some hundreds of years old. In the late 1980s the bones were C14 dated and yielded an age of 210 +/-70 years. Further investigation of later excavations returned C14 dates of 1450 +/-90 years and indicated the the site had been used extensively by Native Americans for at least several hundred years. The bones were never part of the Mesozoic, Dakota Sandstone host rock. For more details see http://paleo.cc/paluxy/moab-man.htm.

The evidence appears obvious that these 10 men, woman and children, were buried rapidly by some catastrophe, like a flood.

What evidence?

Articulated skeletons indicate rapid burial.

Articulated skeletons also indicate intentional interment.

Some propose to explain these bones by arguing that they were mining, when the mine collapsed.

However, the consensus amongst archaeologists is that they represent normal burials.

Another invalid explanation is that this is a mass grave and they were buried. This cannot be true because the living would have to dig a grave 50-100 feet deep through extremely hard sandstone layers.

As these alleged facts are quite at variance with the actual circumstances of the bones' location, it follows that it is a completely erroneous conclusion.

These humans appear to have been buried by the same catastrophe that buried dinosaurs in this continent spanning formation. Humans and dinosaurs must have lived at the same time!

A wholly unwarranted conclusion quite unsupported by the material facts of the case.

 

[lordkalvan]

Fossilized Hammer: (click the url for photos)
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/fossilized-hammer.htm
Found in a formation famous for its dinosaurs, supposed to be 140 million years old (lower cretaceous)....

If you have evidence that documents that the hammer was found in situ in such rocks, please present it. The formation in which dinosaur remains are found is not the same as the material in which the hammer was found, which was calcium carbonate. Other modern artifacts have been found encased in the same material, a process which can take place over as short a time as a few decades. Creationist sources cannot even agree on which geologic period the 'fossilized hammer' should be assigned to, which rather casts doubt on the reliability of accounts surrounding its original location.

 

[lordkalvan]

The only 'camp' that does not accept it is that which has a vested interest in denying it for reasons that have nothing to do with science. You may want to argue that the fossil evidence does not support the conclusions drawn from it, but you cannot argue that the evidence does not exist.

This kind of argument could be turned right around and aimed at evolutionists as well my friend.

Then please explain the scientific evidence that leads the creationist 'camp' to deny the existence of fossils that demonstrably support the tenets of evolutionary theory. It would also be helpful if you can explain why the scientific understanding that fossil evidence supports evolutionary theory is at fault.

I can and have made excellent arguments which prove there are absolutely no series of graduated transitional fossils on the entire planet which show even a single case of one distinct species slowly transitioning into a new, unique species.

There are a number of carefully chosen qualifiers surrounding this claim, but even so I am somewhat amazed that you can claim to have proved 'absolutely' that transitional fossils are illusory figments of the scientific imagination and yet not to have published these findings in the relevant journals.

When challenged to show such examples, faithful evolutionist believers will provide very nice examples of illustrations accompanied by long winded explanations about exactly how these graduated transitional series would look like if only there were any.

It would appear to be your argument, therefore, that fossils that are claimed to show transitional features actually display no such features at all, as you seem to be suggesting that the illustrations and explanations referred to are simply made up.

These explanations are cunning in that they appear to actually be referring to actual real life examples, which we all know is just not true.

And 'we all know' this how, exactly? Because Tiktaalik, Ardi, Eocetus and Archeopteryx actually display no transitional features at all, or because those supposed transitional features have been misidentified? Please explain.

Perhaps evolutionists cannot afford cameras, or photographers, and that would explain the total lack of photographical evidence to show such a graduated transitional series of evolution.

I have no idea what you are complaining about. Are you complaining that the fossil record is not complete? Why would you expect it to be? What do you regard as constituting a transitional feature and how would you go about determining whether it was such a feature or not? How 'graduated' does 'graduated' have to be to persuade you? Why would photographic evidence be more persuasive than arguments based on morphological and genetic evidence? Do you think you can look at a photograph of Pakicetus fossils and immediately determine that they display no transitional features at all?

Hey, keep on kneeling before the illustrated alter of wishful thinking and fertile imagination my friends, just don’t hammer us for kneeling before our creator God, who actually does exist.

Do you have photographic evidence?

Ever heard of Jesus?

Yes. Also Buddha, Mohammed, Guru Nanak, Lao-Tze and Zoroaster, amongst others. Do you have a point?

 

[lordkalvan]

Julsrud was archaeologically astute he would have spotted brand new pieces immediately.

What ground do you have for this claim? Julsrud was a hardware merchant; there is little to indicate that he carried out a methodical archaeological investigation of these allegedly important finds, but even by your own account simply paid farmers for whatever they brought him. The question of provenance immediately arises.

Also, you would have to explain how these “crooked†Mexican farmers knew exactly what dinosaurs looked like and how for example, they were able to create characteristics such as a rosetta pattern of the skin of a T-Rex years before anyone knew it to be fact!

Can you show us this accurately rendered representation of T-Rex skin?

Then there was the accurate representation of an “American dinosaur Brachiosaurus almost totally unknown at that time to the general publicâ€

Brachiosaurus was first discovered in 1900 by Elmer Riggs. Here's a link to a representation of Brachiosaurus dated to 1915: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19302/19 ... 9302-h.htm.

So tell me please, how these poor Mexican farmers had so much detailed knowledge of all these different dinosaurs when many world experts didn’t know much of this information at that time?

You might want to ask yourself why no dinosaur fossils (or other remains) have been found in the Acambaro region if the animals were so ubiquitous as suggested by the sheer quantity of alleged representations, why no other Mexican culture records the presence of these animals, and what caused all trace of these animals to utterly vanish some few thousand years ago or less?

 

[Bronzesnake]

In the past, a small number of engraved stones were uncovered in the context of archaeological excavations,[3] and some engraved stones may have been brought from Peru to Spain in the 16th century,[1] but the authentically old stones contained none of the controversial pictures of dinosaurs or human figures.

I'm sorry I thought we were talking about dinosaur figures from Mexico...I must be in the early stages of alzheimers!

Bronzesnake

 

[Bronzesnake]

I am really enjoying all this blatant denial my friends.
Please keep em comin! :P

Then please explain the scientific evidence that leads the creationist 'camp' to deny the existence of fossils that demonstrably support the tenets of evolutionary theory. It would also be helpful if you can explain why the scientific understanding that fossil evidence supports evolutionary theory is at fault.

Sooo, lemme get this straight - you want me to prove your religious beliefs?
If Darwinian evolution were reality then the great majority of fossils should show it but they don't.
So faithful religious evolutionists are forced to take their fairy tale arguments into the "what if" realms...(what if a whale’s penis gird used to be where legs were supported?) well, ok that’s a reasonable “what if†now show me the whale fossil that actually has legs? What’s that? Oh, I see it doesn’t really exist. If only our fellow Christians had this kind of blind faith!

Show me a series of graduated transitional fossils which show for example (I'll use one of your favourite religious icons) a wolf like animal actually transitioning over a long period of time in a step by step series of transitions into a whale. Ok, any series of graduated transitional fossils will do. Don’t you think it a wee bit suspicious that all this supposed evolution happened and yet not one single example of a series of g.t.f. survived?

I know what the response will be "do you actually think there is such a series of fossils to be found?" no "you won't be happy unless we show this series of transitions" true.
"Well there aren't any such examples anywhere on the planet in spite of the fact that these kinds of fossils should make up the huge majority of fossils" I know.
There are none because Darwinian evolution never happened...now live with it.
There comes a time in every person's life when they are forced to face reality - yes Virginia, Santa Clause is not real, and oh that Darwinian idea? Ya, that's also a pipe dream huffed on by people who can't bring themselves to believe in God because then they'd actually be accountable for their lives to a supernatural almighty being instead of themselves.

I also find it absurd when a religious evolutionists mocks the idea of this “invisible man up in the sky who created it all†when their own explanation is far more unlikely...nothing exploded (well it wasn’t actually an explosion) whatever...anyway this nothing exploded and all of a sudden there was everything! Wowee! That’s firkin amazing...really??? So who was there when it happened again?
Ok, I know no one was there...but please show me the scientific method in practice to corroborate these outlandish proclamations? What’s that? Oh I see. It’s impossible to corroborate this via the scientific method. So why is it being preached as though it were reality? It’s nothing more than a faith based religious organisation.

The fact is that if you are honest, you would admit that none of this evolutionary theology can be corroborated through the scientific method. It’s all based on presuppositions and assumption that cannot be tested in any lab. Funny isn’t it? This is the argument you good folks use to keep I.D. out of the classroom, and yet your faith based beliefs seem to be ok to preach.
Maybe you could explain why the evolutionists are so terrified of the very idea of I.D. being taught in our schools. After all, if it’s so foolish then surely it would benefit us all to get it out in our universities so the brightest minds can openly pick it apart right?

Do you not agree that our society is based on freedom of thought and speech? If you do then why all this communists like suppression? Evolution can’t be corroborated through the scientific method – creation can’t be corroborated through the scientific method.
You’re argument will be that evolution scientists don’t make assumptions about the past, but we both know that’s not true.
My rebuttal would be there are excellent creation scientists who don’t make assumptions about the past, and you will say that’s not true.
You will tell us the evolution scientists only study the fossils, the geology etc.
My rebuttal will be the creation scientists do the exact same thing.
What it boils down to is each camp starts out with their own biases, their own presuppositions and assumptions which simply cannot be backed up with any scientific method.

I assert that most creationists will openly admit this truth and most evolutionists will deny this truth, the reason being is they are absolutely terrified of free thought and freedom of speech in America and that should scare everyone.

Some of the icons of the evolutionary religion openly admit there are no series of graduated transitional fossils to be found - that's because it's true. You can’t bring yourselves to even consider the reason there are no series of g.t.f is that your faith based religion may be dead wrong. When we close ourselves to any possibility we leave ourselves in a position of ignorance and open ourselves to be destroyed by a surprise reality. How many murderers have got away with their crimes because some unthinkable possibility was ignored? Remember Pearl Harbour? Ya, no one would ever consider the Japanese would cross that vast ocean in huge aircraft carriers with deadly torpeado bombers that could launch their deadly payload in shallow water, so radar warnings were ignored and the Japanese sailed right upto the harbour boarders and set their killers free. Look how that worked out.

The Titanic was the unsinkable ship right? Did you know that they were so sure about the ships invulnerability that they only carried white flares? Not one single red flare was on board and there were ships in the vicinity that could have saved them if only there was one single red flare.
There wasn’t one single pair of binoculars in the crow’s nest. Think of how things would have been different if there was one single pair of binoculars on board. The crew was so sure of the ship that when it came time to take a water sample to test the temperature, they used the ships own water source because they couldn’t be bothered to take actual sea water samples. If they had have done their work, the ship would have changed course.

The point is that we should never, ever be so arrogant, and self assured to believe we know all the answers my friend.
If I am wrong, and evolution is fact in spite of the complete lack of any real empirical proof, then I have lost nothing and in fact, perhaps I have lived my life to help others where I may have been more self interested otherwise.
If you are wrong, well, you’ll have lost everything. Not only for your own life, but if you are teaching your children to believe God is a lie, then you may have condemned them as well.

I don’t base my belief on silliness my friend. I have actually taken my time and I have studied as much information as I possibly could have. I have looked at evolution, I have looked at other religions, I have studied prophecies, I have studied historical facts, I have studied archaeological facts, I have done my work because this is the most important issue in any person’s life – is there a God?
I found that the overwhelming evidence point directly at Jesus Christ.
The “evidence†for this Darwinian idea is seriously lacking and falls far short of my reasonable expectations if it were fact.
I could place my faith in it, but it would take much more faith to do that then it has for me to accept Jesus after all my years of study.
If you are wrong, and you are, then you are in serious danger of dooming yourself and possibly those who love and trust in you, so if I were you, I would take a long, hard look at all this evidence that I have mentioned and I wouldn’t be so sure of myself.

It’s obvious that you are intelligent, and you have a strong oral ability. It’s also obvious that you are passionate and have studied evolution. I wonder what would happen if you put the same passion and effort into searching out the facts about Jesus.
Your entire evolutionary religion is based on faith, and a few ambiguous structures on life forms that are in a perpetual state of stasis – whales have what you perceive as odd structures, which actually serve a real function, but somehow the evolutionists have taken such structures on as their best source for a dying religion in the face of the complete lack of any irrefutable evidence, I guess you have to sail on the boat that’s tied to the broken down dock of evolution right? – But as it goes, cats get pregnant and kittens are born - dogs get pregnant and dogs are born, etc, etc, etc...I guess this evolution of yours has stopped. Actually, it never started except in the fertile imaginations of good faithful folks such as yourselves...amen?

Bronzesnake

 

[Bronzesnake]

Here's more interesting facts my friends...
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro.htm#photo

The artifacts were accepted as genuine by the Federal Court of Mexico when they were used as prima facie evidence in the trial of Jaime Aquirre and Raul Hernandez. Jaime and Raul were sentenced to the Federal prison in Mexico City where they are still serving time. If Jaime and Raul had been peddling phony pottery, fakes of modern manufacture, they would not have been sentenced to prison. Furthermore, the fact that Jaime and Raul were sentenced for trading genuine artifacts should silence the critics who say that no other Julsrud type ceramic pieces have ever been found by others.

While in Acambaro the authors were introduced to Dr. J. Antonio Villia Hennejon who has a medical practice in Guadalajara and Acambaro, Mexico. Dr. Herrejon personally excavated ceramic artifacts on Bull Mountain and Goat Mountain from 1950 to 1955.

Dr. Herrejon insisted that the ground he dug in was hard packed with no loose soil. This was confirmed in personal conservation with other participants in such excavations who remain in Acambaro; i.e. Porfirio Martinez Espinoseo, who accompanied us to Goat mountain and showed us where in his youth he had excavated hundreds of ceramic artifacts. Twice Dr. Herrejon accompanied Julsrud on burros to an area below Goat Mountain, near a lake. There he said on terrain that was overgrown with grass and cactus, they dug up many ceramic pottery pieces including enough dinosaur figurines to fill two bags to be carried back on a burro.

Antonio Herrejon recalled that in the 1940's and early 1950's virtually nothing was known about dinosaurs in Mexico. They had no books, pamphlets, matchbox covers, movies or other information about dinosaurs. Herrejon postulated that the only dinosaur skeleton on display in Mexico in the 1940's was that of a brontosaurus at the Chupa railroad station in Mexico City.

The figurines he saw in the late 1940's and early 1950's were simply curious looking creatures that many years later were correctly identified as particular dinosaur species. Dr. Herrejon said that even most of the Brontosaurs looking dinosaurs did not look like a "typical" saurian dinosaur. We pressed him as to what he meant by "typical?" He replied, "they had spines all down their backs, little spines." We drew dinosaurs with conical dermal spines and Antonio pointed vigorously stating in Spanish, "That's it, That's it".

Dr. Herrejon unwittingly had helped to verify the authenticity of the Julsrud dinosaur figurines. No one knew in the 1940s, 50's, that some species of Saurian dinosaurs had dermal spines. They were perceived as represented on the Sinclair gasoline filling station signs. It was the work of Stephen Czerkas in a 1992 article that brought to light this aspect of dinosaur anatomy (Geology, V.20, No.12, 1992, p.1068-1070).

Dr. Herrejon was intimately aware of the details and of the immensity of the Julsrud collection (33,700 ceramic pieces). He said it was simply astonishing that not one piece was a duplicate of another. They were all individually distinct. Others who closely examined the collection have also observed this fact. Antonio commented, "If there was a fabrication who was its artist?" No single artist could make 33,700 figurines, all different in style. If there was a hoax then there must have been many artists. How could such a conspiracy be kept silent all these years? Surely someone would have known about such activities.

Dr. Swift inquired of Dr. Herrejon as to the condition of the artifacts when they were excavated. Antonio said that they were encrusted with dirt and other materials (patina). During Easter week of 1951 Antonio spent two days with Julsrud cleaning the dirt and patina off recently excavated ceramic pieces.

Herrejon and Julsrud did not realize that the absence of patina on the objects would later erupt into accusations that they could not be old or authentic. Julsrud ignorantly commenced the cleaning of all the artifacts back in the 1940's. The job was completed by Tinejero and his helpers.

However, there are many eyewitnesses who saw Julsrud's excavating of the ceramic pieces and confirm that the artifacts had patina and dirt on them.

In the process of handling of several hundred pieces of the Julsrud collection, the authors have observed pieces that still have dirt embedded in the crevices as well as some patina on the surface.

OK can anyone come up with a reasonable explanation of the figures that were dug up beneath the police chief’s house?
Did these scamming Mexican farmers cleverly burry those figures twenty five years prior hoping someone would someday dig them up so they could get their twelve cents apiece?
Be honest here. Just admit that you can’t explain it at least. To continue on denying these extremely solid facts makes you look desperate.
Bronzesnake

 

[Barbarian]

Hey, here's an even better-documented example, with pictures and eyewitness testimony:

Onyate Man:
http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.html

It has to be true; there's a web page on it. ;)

 

[Bronzesnake]

Hey, here's an even better-documented example, with pictures and eyewitness testimony:

Onyate Man:
http://www.nmsr.org/Archive.html

It has to be true; there's a web page on it. ;)

This is sweet! Much more devestating than I could ever have hoped for.
This tactic holds absolutly no water barb, and has only served to expose your despreation my brother.
This has nothing to do with the dinosaur figures from Mexico...you know this right?

Hey if I post a picture of a document written by Darwin stating that he renounced evolution and believes 100% in Y.E. creationism would that finally prove evolution to be the fraud that it actually is?

Thanks pal.

bronzesnake

 

[Barbarian]

This is sweet! Much more devestating than I could ever have hoped for.
This tactic holds absolutly no water barb,

And yet you endorsed one of these. So which is it? Notice that the fakery I presented has much more evidence going for it than the fakery you presented.

This has nothing to do with the dinosaur figures from Mexico...you know this right?

Hey, this is an actual dinosaur fossil. With a human fossil. Can't do better than that, right? And some guy on a web page has told us it can't be a fake. Just like yours.

Hey if I post a picture of a document written by Darwin stating that he renounced evolution and believes 100% in Y.E. creationism would that finally prove evolution to be the fraud that it actually is?

Does that suggest to you why the "ica stones" aren't taken seriously even by many creationists?

 

[Evointrinsic]

Hey if I post a picture of a document written by Darwin stating that he renounced evolution and believes 100% in Y.E. creationism would that finally prove evolution to be the fraud that it actually is?

Lol, yes... *sarcasm*

Just like if Newton and Einstein both "renounced" their theories of gravity, makes gravity a fraud. Your inability to understand how scientific theories, no matter how far fetched you believe they are, are all an attempt to explain a phenomenon that exists, is absolutely outstanding. <---- that's not a compliment.

What I find difficult to understand is how you have barely discussed any of these ridiculous claims about evolution (and the people who accept it) in my topic specifically about evolution? "Something tells me someone is a wee bit afraid..."
Go here for that topic

 

[lordkalvan]

I am really enjoying all this blatant denial my friends.
Please keep em comin!

I rather think you're interpreting reasoned counter-argument in a manner that best suits your presuppositions about what that counter-argument amounts to.

[quote:2sncdvzy]Then please explain the scientific evidence that leads the creationist 'camp' to deny the existence of fossils that demonstrably support the tenets of evolutionary theory. It would also be helpful if you can explain why the scientific understanding that fossil evidence supports evolutionary theory is at fault.

Sooo, lemme get this straight - you want me to prove your religious beliefs?[/quote:2sncdvzy]
Eh, no, what I would like you to do is what it says on the lid: please explain the scientific evidence that leads the creationist 'camp' to deny the existence of fossils that demonstrably support the tenets of evolutionary theory and also to please explain the scientific evidence that leads the creationist 'camp' to deny the existence of fossils that demonstrably support the tenets of evolutionary theory. I am not asking you to 'prove' anything, but rather to explain some of the ideas that underpin your statements (I will pass at this point on your baited question about evolutionary theory being of the same category of understanding as religious beliefs).

If Darwinian evolution were reality then the great majority of fossils should show it but they don't.

Why should they show 'it' and what is 'it'?

So faithful religious evolutionists are forced to take their fairy tale arguments into the "what if" realms...(what if a whale’s penis gird used to be where legs were supported?) well, ok that’s a reasonable “what if†now show me the whale fossil that actually has legs? What’s that? Oh, I see it doesn’t really exist. If only our fellow Christians had this kind of blind faith!

Your pelvic girdle is also a 'penis girder', acting as it does as the anchor point for the relevant muscles (as well as the muscles of your legs); structures serve more than one purpose (think of your mouth). I am continually amazed at the extent to which creationists opposed to evolution on nothing more than theological grounds will go to argue that something isn't what it is.

Here's a dolphin with vestigial hind limbs:

Source: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/do ... limbs.html

And examples of the pelvic bones of various whales:

Source: http://bergenmuseum.uib.no/fagsider/ost ... bekken.htm

And the ankle, foot and toe bones of Basilosaurus (an ancestral whale fossil):

Source: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~gingeric ... Whales.htm

You may also not be familiar with John Struthers' 1881 dissection of a Greenland Right Whale, showing the animal's pelvis and femur (http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/mpm/mpm_whale_limb.html), nor may you be aware of the evidence offered by whale embryology - although adult whales, porpoises and dolphins do not have hind legs, the features required to form these limbs appear in the developing embryo, but degenerate before birth. You may, as well, wish to reflect on the locomotory action of cetaceans, which mimics almost exactly the locomotory action of a range of land mammals:

Show me a series of graduated transitional fossils which show for example (I'll use one of your favourite religious icons) a wolf like animal actually transitioning over a long period of time in a step by step series of transitions into a whale. Ok, any series of graduated transitional fossils will do. Don’t you think it a wee bit suspicious that all this supposed evolution happened and yet not one single example of a series of g.t.f. survived?

What do you classify as 'a series of graduated transitional fossils'? Why do you suppose that those fossils which have been discovered tracing the evolutionary history of whales do not actually provide the evidence you are demanding?

I have snipped the remainder of your post as it does not address any of the points raised in my comments that it is supposedly responding to, offering instead an (albeit interesting) opinion piece, long on rhetoric but rather short on any supporting material relevant to the questions I asked. I hope you will forgive me for this, as I appreciate the effort you put into writing it.

 

[lordkalvan]

...Dipeso made ridiculous accusations against the locals, stating farmers had watched movies, read comics and researched books in the local library in order to come up with source material to make these figurines. Are you kidding me!!????...

Well, Di Peso was there, so why do you suppose the points he made were 'ridiculous'? Acambaro was (and is) a city, a major railway junction with yards and maintenance shops for the National Railways of Mexico. Are you saying that you find it incredible that, in the 1930s and '40s, such a municipality would not have had available, a library, comic books and a cinema? D.W. Griffith's Man's Genesis (1912) contains the first authenticated cinematographic depiction of a dinosaur; Conan Doyle's The Lost World, the first significant novel to feature dinosaurs, was published in 1912 (and made into a film by Willis O'Brien in 1925). The Mexican film industry began as early as 1896, although it took off significantly in the 1930s, with the first 'talkie' appearing in 1931.