[_ Old Earth _] Man And Dinosaur

[Ashua]

They are as 'plausible' as they can be verified to be. Elements of Caesar's Gallic Wars can be more or less verified by other evidence, but parts of it are self-aggrandizing propaganda served up for political purposes and domestic consumption in Rome. Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae has a smattering of historicity about it that can be substantiated by other means, but large parts of it are made up nonsense designed to legitimize and glorify the Norman monarchy of England.

All evidence has to be considered on its own merits and to the extent that it can be authenticated and verified. The Hitler Diaries attest to the fact that even professional historians can lack necessary caution and skepticism about the provenance of documentary material.

What I mean is that there will always be uncertainty within literary description. The word "dinosaur" was only coined in the 19th century, so no ancient is going to use it. "looks like" applies to descriptive writing too. "Looks like" he is describing this and that. So, I don't see how any literary source could possibly persuade you when it boils down to "looks like" minus the first hand vision.

I do not 'reject images': what I do is question their context, their provenance and the subjective interpretations that are made of them. Many of the images you have posted are of doubtful provenance (the Acambaro Figurines and the Ica Stones, for example), the context of none of them is described and the only grounds for the conclusion offered (that they offer evidence of humans and dinosaurs co-existing) depend on 'looks like' = 'the same as', virtually no contextual explanation and a complete absence of provenance. It is not a question of there being a requirement for absence of doubt, but rather that the images offered are for so many reasons inherently dubious in the first place.

I said that you reject the images "which"; that is to say, those in question. Why is it doubtful? What about the tile mosaic or the aboriginal work? The tile mosaic is a famous piece of art. The provenance is known.

There is ample evidence that many herbviorous dinosaurs were herd animals. Even absent this evidence the dynamics of feeding habits and predator/prey relationships amongst larger animals would lead to this conclusion.

Such evidence as? And even present that evidence, I don't think people would really 'need' to kill multiple larger dinosaurs. Not if one suffices.

This paragraph seems riddled with assumptions. Not all smaller dinosaurs would be any more fierce or dangerous than wild boar; not all dinosaurs would have been any more agile than antelope. The complete absence of any dinosaur remains from human middens and campsites, of dinosaur bones made into artifacts (a common practice in respect of other animals' bones) is persuasive indirect evidence that humans and dinosaurs did not co-exist.

I meant the small carniviorous ones. "most" probably were. paleontology is filled with assumptions.

So what this boils down to is that you know nothing about the techniques, you do not have the time to learn about them, but you are fairly convinced that they are of dubious value? Right.

The techniques you brought up most recently? nope. I was silent on those in lull of working knowledge of them. When did I attack them? I plead the fifth because I am not at this present time fit to address them.

 

[Ashua]

It's instructive that you appear to regard questions directed towards adding depth to your unsupported assertions, reasoned criticism of your subjective interpretations and the considered opinion of a professional palaeontologist with relevant local experience as nothing more than 'counter speculation'.

I'm afraid your link didn't work. However, I note that the source would appear to be entirely relevant and that there is nothing in the text that provides either robust provenance or any conclusion based on anything much more than looks like therefore is. Any site that uncritically offers the Acambaro Figurines, the Ica Stones and the Angkor Wat 'stegosaurus' as evidence of human and dinosaur co-existence should be approached with a great deal of skepticality.

Class in 15 minutes. You said the link didnt work. Did you find the article yourself? You reject everything on that site because of preconceived bias towards a selection of the evidence. So because you decide that some images are "dubious" they must all be dubious by association? You asked me a few times about dating of the artifacts and so on. The article mentions dates for some of them. I wasnt about to manually edit the picture post to distribute the details where they belong.

If you didnt see it because of bad link paste this into the browser:

genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

g2g

 

[lordkalvan]

What I mean is that there will always be uncertainty within literary description. The word "dinosaur" was only coined in the 19th century, so no ancient is going to use it. "looks like" applies to descriptive writing too. "Looks like" he is describing this and that. So, I don't see how any literary source could possibly persuade you when it boils down to "looks like" minus the first hand vision.

The point is not whether such literary or artistic descriptions would persuade me, but whether there is any convincing reason to conclude that they represent what it is alleged they represent (i.e. human/dinosaur co-existence) in the face of overwhelming physical evidence that no such co-existence took place. As the only supporting argument for the idea that they do provide such counter-evidence depends wholly on a looks like (or reads like) means is the same as opinion offered largely by commentators with a vested interest in interpreting this material to validate the idea in the first place, you will understand my skepticism about these claims.

I said that you reject the images "which"; that is to say, those in question. Why is it doubtful? What about the tile mosaic or the aboriginal work? The tile mosaic is a famous piece of art. The provenance is known.

I don't reject the images; I question the basis of the interpretations made and the motives of those making them. I have explained exactly why the Angkor Wat 'stegosaurus' is doubtful and the grounds for approaching claims about what it represents with a healthy dose of suspicion. If you want to discuss the Nilotic mosaics (of which I think there were two), I am happy to do so and will take their provenance as a given, i.e. they were made sometime around 100 BC when such scenes were fashionably chic in Rome). Perhaps you would like to make your case. As far as I can see this seems to amount to little more than the Angkor Wat 'stegosaurus' argument turned on its head and offered without a shred of insight into the self-contradictory nature of doing so: the Angkor Wat carving is a stegosaurus because of features which appear stegosaurus-like (despite the features which are not very stegosaurus-like at all), while the Nilotic mosaics are dinosaurs because of features which do not appear sufficiently crocodile-like (despite the features which are quite crocodile-like). If you can explain what evidence leads you to suppose that these are neither just an artist's poor grasp of what a crocodile looks like based on second- or third-hand descriptions, or mythical creatures, then I would be happy to listen. Perhaps you can also explain what the birds are in the Dionysus mosaic and what you make of the various other beasts depicted in the Palestrina mosaic, but conveniently omitted from the sample illustration?

Such evidence as? And even present that evidence, I don't think people would really 'need' to kill multiple larger dinosaurs. Not if one suffices.

I am not sure that this is a meaningful bone of contention. Large herbivores tend to feed in herds or large family groups because the more members of a group there are, the more likely is that a predator will be spotted before it can attack, the less likely it is that any given member of the group will fall prey to the predator, and the greater the protection offered to juveniles.

I meant the small carniviorous ones. "most" probably were. paleontology is filled with assumptions.

Also with evidence-based reasoning. None of that evidence supports the idea that humans and dinosaurs co-existed and, indeed, much of it contradicts the idea outright.

The techniques you brought up most recently? nope. I was silent on those in lull of working knowledge of them. When did I attack them? I plead the fifth because I am not at this present time fit to address them.

You argued that palaeo-chronological evidence was suspect because of its circular nature. This argument seemed wholly without any reasoned argument to support it and smacked of an a priori opinion, neither of which impressions you have done anything to dispel.

 

[lordkalvan]

Class in 15 minutes. You said the link didnt work. Did you find the article yourself? You reject everything on that site because of preconceived bias towards a selection of the evidence. So because you decide that some images are "dubious" they must all be dubious by association? You asked me a few times about dating of the artifacts and so on. The article mentions dates for some of them. I wasnt about to manually edit the picture post to distribute the details where they belong.

If you didnt see it because of bad link paste this into the browser:

genesispark.com/genpark/ancient/ancient.htm

g2g

Thanks for that. Yes, I did find the site by the 'indirect' route. I do not reject everything on the site: what I said was that any site which uncritically offers the three examples I quoted as robust evidence of human/dinosaur co-existence should be approached with a high degree of skeptical caution. I do not have a 'preconceived bias' against the Acambaro Figurines and the Ica Stones; I have an opinion concerning their dubiety for sound reasons, some of which you can read in the discussion with Bronzesnake earlier in this thread. Does anyone have any news of Bronzesnake, by the way? I hope his health problems are being dealt with successfully.

 

[Ashua]

The point is not whether such literary or artistic descriptions would persuade me, but whether there is any convincing reason to conclude that they represent what it is alleged they represent (i.e. human/dinosaur co-existence) in the face of overwhelming physical evidence that no such co-existence took place. As the only supporting argument for the idea that they do provide such counter-evidence depends wholly on a looks like (or reads like) means is the same as opinion offered largely by commentators with a vested interest in interpreting this material to validate the idea in the first place, you will understand my skepticism about these claims.

I don't know where you stand on E.T.'s and the whole "ancient navigator" theory. I have said before I am agnostic towards aliens. I do not lean towards either side of the fence. Have you seen the hieroglyphics which "look like" various aircraft? (helicopters, flying saucers, planes/shuttles, etc.) Or perhaps that golden South American artifact which would appear to be some sort of animal, except it has the unique feature of movable wings which are exactly how air plane wings look and work --not at all consistent with any natural animal.

In my "agnostic" mind on this matter, I am not convinced this is proof for alien visitors or a testament to "lost technology" which is only recently rediscovered, or time travel, or anything else. I am also not willing to rule it out as it MAY be evidence towards that end. (aside from the notion of backward time travel), the jury of my mind is hung. The point of telling you this is, even when we do not believe something is so, we should still not be so fast to rule "looks like" evidence out. I am not saying you should accept those images, UMA's, etc. as proof of modern dinosaurs, no more than I accept "looks like" ancient astronaut evidence as proof of ancient astronaut theory, but as potential evidence which may possibly point to it. You seem like a fairly reasonable person in these respects; but is there any part of you that thinks "perhaps dinosaurs lived in the human era" whatsoever? Even a shred of possibility?

I don't reject the images; I question the basis of the interpretations made and the motives of those making them. I have explained exactly why the Angkor Wat 'stegosaurus' is doubtful and the grounds for approaching claims about what it represents with a healthy dose of suspicion. If you want to discuss the Nilotic mosaics (of which I think there were two), I am happy to do so and will take their provenance as a given, i.e. they were made sometime around 100 BC when such scenes were fashionably chic in Rome). Perhaps you would like to make your case. As far as I can see this seems to amount to little more than the Angkor Wat 'stegosaurus' argument turned on its head and offered without a shred of insight into the self-contradictory nature of doing so:

You offered an alternative interpretation for Angkor Wat creature. Your interpretation is not conclusive, and neither is mine. Also, I said I thought it was possibly a stegosaurid or similar animal; not what we commonly think of as a stegosaurus (Colorado variety). What sort of insight or elaboration are you requesting? I'm afraid I am not quite sure what you are looking for in my postulation of any given artifact.

the Angkor Wat carving is a stegosaurus because of features which appear stegosaurus-like (despite the features which are not very stegosaurus-like at all), while the Nilotic mosaics are dinosaurs because of features which do not appear sufficiently crocodile-like (despite the features which are quite crocodile-like). If you can explain what evidence leads you to suppose that these are neither just an artist's poor grasp of what a crocodile looks like based on second- or third-hand descriptions, or mythical creatures, then I would be happy to listen. Perhaps you can also explain what the birds are in the Dionysus mosaic and what you make of the various other beasts depicted in the Palestrina mosaic, but conveniently omitted from the sample illustration?

Not sure which image(s) on the Dionysus mosaic you are referring to. I did a quick Google search and saw what "look like" angels or Cherubs or Icarus and Daedalus or whatever. I don't know if you meant this? I saw other very detailed images of birds too. I am not an ornithologist, so I can't identify the specific variety of the ones I saw, but I can tell you one thing --they are birds. You could say I am not a paleontologist either, but not knowing the difference between a blue jay and a cardinal is not the same as knowing a rhinoceros from a big lizard. If there is something particular you'd like me to talk about, please show me a specific image.

Concerning the Nile mosaic:

Right click, view image to blow it up to a visible size. After this, you can click on it for additional enlargement.

The alleged dinosaurs are on the middle-right side of the mosaic. You asked me how do I know this isn't just a really bad attempt at alligator anatomy. The artist of this piece would probably be insulted. I could go on about the neck and proportional size and other details, but I am going to make eliminating this claim much easier. Look at the bottom left corner of the mosaic and you will see the artist's effort at portraying a crocodillian. Vastly different.

Among other things, sense you asked, I see humans, and birds, and lions, cheetahs, boars, a hippopotamus, a camel, horse, giraffe, crabs, very very large tenticals which look like that of an octopus, other large mammals, possibly rinoceros (but possibly not), and what also "looks like" a few now-extinct mammals of the boar family, what also appears to be a very hairy hominid sitting down, and one or two things I just don't know what to make of.

I did a quick search because I was trying to think of some possible details to elaborate on the fauna, and I found this web page. It is much shorter than the other and examines various animals in the mosaic and presents possible matches. Please give it a look.

s8int.com/phile/dinolit57.html

The aboriginal (alleged) plesiosauir was featured in CEN Technical Journal, Vol.12, No. 3, 1998, p. 345. i don't know if that is acceptable or not to legitimize the image as genuine aboriginal art.

I am not sure that this is a meaningful bone of contention. Large herbivores tend to feed in herds or large family groups because the more members of a group there are, the more likely is that a predator will be spotted before it can attack, the less likely it is that any given member of the group will fall prey to the predator, and the greater the protection offered to juveniles.

Also with evidence-based reasoning. None of that evidence supports the idea that humans and dinosaurs co-existed and, indeed, much of it contradicts the idea outright.

You argued that palaeo-chronological evidence was suspect because of its circular nature. This argument seemed wholly without any reasoned argument to support it and smacked of an a priori opinion, neither of which impressions you have done anything to dispel.

"Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first."

O'Rourke. J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy." American Journal of Science, Vol. 276 (January 1976), p.54

Rourke goes on to say:

"The charge of circular reasoning in stratigraphy can be handled in several ways. It can be ignored, as not the proper concern of the public. It can be denied, by calling down the Law of Evolution. It can be admitted as a common practice... Or it can be avoided, by pragmatic reasoning."

O'Rourke. J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy." American Journal of Science, Vol. 276 (January 1976), p.54

Whenever evidence like the London hammer artifact which popped up in Lower Cretaceous strata, they conveniently find ways to dismiss it. "This wasn't recorded in situ" and so on. Being that I am an archaeology student, I understand full well the importance of provenience and jotting down even the most menial, seemingly irrelevant detail; but because someone wanted to be sloppy or in this case, (I believe) an accidental find, they are automatically declared false. Those who found the hammer know where it was. I am not asking you to go into the details of this find. There is no need.



"Eighty to eighty-five percent of Earth's land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods appearin in 'correct' consecutive order. It becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods."

Dr. John Woodmorappe, geologist "The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geologic Column" CRSQ Vol. 18 No. 1 June 1981. pp. 46-71.

 

[lordkalvan]

I don't know where you stand on E.T.'s and the whole "ancient navigator" theory. I have said before I am agnostic towards aliens. I do not lean towards either side of the fence. Have you seen the hieroglyphics which "look like" various aircraft? (helicopters, flying saucers, planes/shuttles, etc.) Or perhaps that golden South American artifact which would appear to be some sort of animal, except it has the unique feature of movable wings which are exactly how air plane wings look and work --not at all consistent with any natural animal.

I have seen photographs of the hieroglyphics you refer to. Again, they appear to be presented out of context and to depend on making them fit what the observer wants them to fit. What would a Victorian observer have made of them? Would s/he have interpreted them as representing some familiar contemporary artifact as well? Would they have been correct so to do? If no, why not? The same questions apply to the interpretations you refer to above, which retrofit a design that had a completely different meaning to the one you propose and is identified as a modern artifact because, well, it looks like that modern artifact to me. I am afraid I do not know the South American artifact you refer to. Because something is 'not at all consistent with any natural animal' does not immediately imply that it represents a modern artifact; perhaps it represents a mythological animal?

In my "agnostic" mind on this matter, I am not convinced this is proof for alien visitors or a testament to "lost technology" which is only recently rediscovered, or time travel, or anything else. I am also not willing to rule it out as it MAY be evidence towards that end. (aside from the notion of backward time travel), the jury of my mind is hung. The point of telling you this is, even when we do not believe something is so, we should still not be so fast to rule "looks like" evidence out. I am not saying you should accept those images, UMA's, etc. as proof of modern dinosaurs, no more than I accept "looks like" ancient astronaut evidence as proof of ancient astronaut theory, but as potential evidence which may possibly point to it.

Yes, and so we look for additional, non-subjective evidence that may either validate or falsify the hypothesis. All the 'dinosaur' evidence points to the conclusion that if the representations in question are authentic (i.e. reliably dated to a time before dinosaurs were discovered, described and entered popular culture as iconic images) then the identification of them is entirely subjective and lacks any basis other than looks like means is the same as driven by a generous helping of confirmation bias.

You seem like a fairly reasonable person in these respects; but is there any part of you that thinks "perhaps dinosaurs lived in the human era" whatsoever? Even a shred of possibility?

Anything is possible, but the evidence supporting the idea seems dubious at best and the weight of evidence counting against it by contrast appears overwhelming.

You offered an alternative interpretation for Angkor Wat creature. Your interpretation is not conclusive, and neither is mine. Also, I said I thought it was possibly a stegosaurid or similar animal; not what we commonly think of as a stegosaurus (Colorado variety). What sort of insight or elaboration are you requesting? I'm afraid I am not quite sure what you are looking for in my postulation of any given artifact.

If it’s not a stegosaurus, but something like a stegosaurus, what something do you have in mind and what evidence supports your nterpretation? My interpretation at least has the merit of identifying an animal known to be indigenous to the region.

Not sure which image(s) on the Dionysus mosaic you are referring to. I did a quick Google search and saw what "look like" angels or Cherubs or Icarus and Daedalus or whatever. I don't know if you meant this? I saw other very detailed images of birds too. I am not an ornithologist, so I can't identify the specific variety of the ones I saw, but I can tell you one thing --they are birds. You could say I am not a paleontologist either, but not knowing the difference between a blue jay and a cardinal is not the same as knowing a rhinoceros from a big lizard. If there is something particular you'd like me to talk about, please show me a specific image.

I was referring to the two birds to the right of the ‘crocodilian’. If you don’t have enough information and knowledge to identify these birds, what information and knowledge leads you to suppose that the other animal is not simply an artist’s rendition of an exotic animal he has never himself seen. i.e. a crocodile (or perhaps some other beast)?

Concerning the Nile mosaic:

The alleged dinosaurs are on the middle-right side of the mosaic. You asked me how do I know this isn't just a really bad attempt at alligator anatomy. The artist of this piece would probably be insulted. I could go on about the neck and proportional size and other details, but I am going to make eliminating this claim much easier. Look at the bottom left corner of the mosaic and you will see the artist's effort at portraying a crocodillian. Vastly different.

This is the kind of argument I am looking for and strengthens your case. I understand the Greek name of the creature depicted refers to a crocodile-leopard. Other names for other animals depicted in the mosaic include the ant-lion, the carnivorous buffalo and the horned boar. Some of the depictions seem reasonably accurate of other named animals, others less so. I doubt you identify any of these weird creatures as dinosaurs or as depictions of animals that actually existed. So are they imaginary, mythical or the artist’s best depiction of something he has heard described but never seen or just copied from a different source? In which case, why single out the crocodile-leopard as evidence of a dinosaur?

Among other things, sense you asked, I see humans, and birds, and lions, cheetahs, boars, a hippopotamus, a camel, horse, giraffe, crabs, very very large tenticals which look like that of an octopus, other large mammals, possibly rinoceros (but possibly not), and what also "looks like" a few now-extinct mammals of the boar family, what also appears to be a very hairy hominid sitting down, and one or two things I just don't know what to make of.

And I see no reason to make anything more of the crocodile-leopard than these other strange beasts.

I did a quick search because I was trying to think of some possible details to elaborate on the fauna, and I found this web page. It is much shorter than the other and examines various animals in the mosaic and presents possible matches. Please give it a look.

s8int.com/phile/dinolit57.html

This site seems to offer subjective interpretations as a substitute for evidence. Given the rather garbled accounts of the history of our understanding of Neanderthals and Cro-Magnon, I see no reason to credit the author with a greater understanding of the material s/he tries to validate by offering a travesty of a reasoned argument concerning Neanderthals and Cro-Magnons.

The aboriginal (alleged) plesiosauir was featured in CEN Technical Journal, Vol.12, No. 3, 1998, p. 345. i don't know if that is acceptable or not to legitimize the image as genuine aboriginal art.

How do I know? What does the article offer by way of authenticating the image as non-anachronistic?

I will answer your comments on RM dating later.

 

[lordkalvan]

"Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first."

O'Rourke. J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy." American Journal of Science, Vol. 276 (January 1976), p.54

Who is J.E. O’Rourke and why should I be swayed by his opinion on this at all? I am also interested in the context of the quoted sentence as well. Is it saying what you imagine it is saying? Did you read the article yourself and understand that O’Rourke was arguing against the value of all radiometric dating techniques, or did you find it quotemined on a creationist website?

Rourke goes on to say:

"The charge of circular reasoning in stratigraphy can be handled in several ways. It can be ignored, as not the proper concern of the public. It can be denied, by calling down the Law of Evolution. It can be admitted as a common practice... Or it can be avoided, by pragmatic reasoning."

O'Rourke. J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy." American Journal of Science, Vol. 276 (January 1976), p.54

Are you sure that O’Rourke is not simply setting the scene with some rhetorical statements that he intends to address in the rest of his article? Absent answers to these questions and other questions that result from the quotations (why would radiometric dating ‘not have been feasible if the geologic column had not be erected first’ and what exactly does O’Rourke mean by ‘erected’, for example), an immediate response seems unproductive.

Whenever evidence like the London hammer artifact which popped up in Lower Cretaceous strata, they conveniently find ways to dismiss it. "This wasn't recorded in situ" and so on. Being that I am an archaeology student, I understand full well the importance of provenience and jotting down even the most menial, seemingly irrelevant detail; but because someone wanted to be sloppy or in this case, (I believe) an accidental find, they are automatically declared false. Those who found the hammer know where it was. I am not asking you to go into the details of this find. There is no need.

The need to ‘go into’ these ‘details’ not being necessary presumably because that would uncover uncomfortable facts such as that the creationist sources who push this artifact (including the widely discredited Carl Baugh) cannot even agree on which conventional geologic period the rocks in which it was supposedly found belong to (Baugh has offered the Ordovician, Lang the Silurian and Mackay variously - depending on the article he references it in - the Pennsylvanian or the Devonian, or even the Ordovician, Silurian and Devonsian simultaneously). Unfortunately, if you cite an object like this to support a belief about the age of Earth (or whatever) you need to do more than simply present the claim and handwave away any comments as unneeded: lacking both documentation that the hammer was embedded in the rocks claimed (whichever geological period they may have belonged to) and independent scientific evidence as to the age of the hammer, sceptics, geologists and palaeontologists have every reason to dismiss the circumstances surrounding this artifact as dubious and the artifact as of no scientific relevance.

"Eighty to eighty-five percent of Earth's land surface does not have even 3 geologic periods appearin in 'correct' consecutive order. It becomes an overall exercise of gargantuan special pleading and imagination for the evolutionary-uniformitarian paradigm to maintain that there ever were geologic periods."

Dr. John Woodmorappe, geologist "The Essential Non-Existence of the Evolutionary Uniformitarian Geologic Column" CRSQ Vol. 18 No. 1 June 1981. pp. 46-71.

I have no idea what the intent of this quotation is. Even accepting Woodmorappe’s figures, what are we to make of the fact that (presumably) 15-20% of Earth’s surface does have more than ‘3 geologic periods appearin[g] in ‘correct’ consecutive order’? Do you and Woodmorappe imagine that Earth’s surface is a non-dynamic, unchanging medium in which everything remains exactly as it was when first formed?

 

[Ashua]

I have seen photographs of the hieroglyphics you refer to. Again, they appear to be presented out of context and to depend on making them fit what the observer wants them to fit. What would a Victorian observer have made of them? Would s/he have interpreted them as representing some familiar contemporary artifact as well? Would they have been correct so to do? If no, why not? The same questions apply to the interpretations you refer to above, which retrofit a design that had a completely different meaning to the one you propose and is identified as a modern artifact because, well, it looks like that modern artifact to me. I am afraid I do not know the South American artifact you refer to. Because something is 'not at all consistent with any natural animal' does not immediately imply that it represents a modern artifact; perhaps it represents a mythological animal?

You can find information about it by googling "Pre-Colombian jet"

If it’s not a stegosaurus, but something like a stegosaurus, what something do you have in mind and what evidence supports your nterpretation? My interpretation at least has the merit of identifying an animal known to be indigenous to the region.

I have already stated that it could be a stegosaurid --of the immediate family of the Colorado variation, or a similar dinosaur. There are incomplete skeletons of some of this family and some are only known by little more than fragments of remains. Science has conceptualized a host of early hominids by calling on presumption from remnants of some remains, why the double standard?

I was referring to the two birds to the right of the ‘crocodilian’. If you don’t have enough information and knowledge to identify these birds, what information and knowledge leads you to suppose that the other animal is not simply an artist’s rendition of an exotic animal he has never himself seen. i.e. a crocodile (or perhaps some other beast)?

You told me the birds were in the Dionysus mosaic.

(image only partial)

The mosaic with the crocodillian was the "Nile Mosaic of Palestrina" I looked again, and I see absolutely no birds in the vicinity of the crocodile in the bottom left corner of the Nile mosaic. I do not see at all what you are referring to. If you mean the birds that are slightly right and a ways above them, past the skiff/ship, then these could be geese or swan. Possibly both sense there are a few birds there. I'm more convinced of swan though. The one has a black spot where it's beak ends. This is consistent with swan.

I have to ask you, from an anthropological perspective: Where do you suppose these dragon myths (and other 'mythological' creatures) come from? Why is it such a big coincidence that some of these artists create things strikingly similar to what we know existed? It is quite amazing that these people up and created creatures which coincidentally bear such a semblance even in artwork which we know is made by someone possessing great skill.

This is the kind of argument I am looking for and strengthens your case. I understand the Greek name of the creature depicted refers to a crocodile-leopard. Other names for other animals depicted in the mosaic include the ant-lion, the carnivorous buffalo and the horned boar. Some of the depictions seem reasonably accurate of other named animals, others less so. I doubt you identify any of these weird creatures as dinosaurs or as depictions of animals that actually existed. So are they imaginary, mythical or the artist’s best depiction of something he has heard described but never seen or just copied from a different source? In which case, why single out the crocodile-leopard as evidence of a dinosaur?

I don't know what the labels say above each depiction. I don't know about the greek names of these things. Names really dont carry a lot of weight. For instance, we have a "tiger shark" in English, but I seriously doubt the Greeks called it by a name that would translate into "tiger shark". I'm not sure I am understanding this segment correctly. Are you saying the various boars, crocs, lions, horses, and so on in that painting never existed? A good amount of those animals "look" close enough to what is alive today. The second portion of them "look" like now extinct variations of their respective "families".

Is the "crocodile-leopard" given for a title to what I am alleging portrays a dinosaur, or is the crocodile-leopard named fro the actual. crocodile in the bottom left corner? In the case of the former, the name in and of itself means nothing as we have "panda bears" which are not bears, and "tiger sharks" which are not tigers and "cat fish" which are no part cat. In the case that you meant the later, I was not using the crocodile to prove my allegation of the greater creature being a dinosaur; only that it was used to dismiss your theory that it may have been a poorly drawn alligator (because an accurately drawn crocodile was drawn in the same image, we can eliminate that theory by virtue of cross reference. Kind of like checking for signature forgeries. You can compare the artist's skill by comparing it with another, so we can know the artist was not trying to draw a crocodile in the mid right because we see how he draws them in the bottom left.)


edit:

Correction. I know what you meant now. I had to go back and read my original comment to see what you were talking about in your breakdown. I am still not sure if the "crocodile-leopard" is referring to what I am calling a dinosaur or if it is given for a name to the obvious crocodile. It is referring to the "dinosaur", correct?

 

[Ashua]

Who is J.E. O’Rourke and why should I be swayed by his opinion on this at all? I am also interested in the context of the quoted sentence as well. Is it saying what you imagine it is saying? Did you read the article yourself and understand that O’Rourke was arguing against the value of all radiometric dating techniques, or did you find it quotemined on a creationist website?

ajsonline.org/cgi/reprint/276/1/47

Sorry, you're forced to "pay" for it.

Here is an extensive PDF in which people people, in a seemingly academic manner address various evolution/geologic points. This was prepared for university professors, evidently. i have certainly not read it all, but if you type in O'rourke in the search field, you will get to where this particular thing is mentioned.

etd.lib.ttu.edu/theses/available/etd-07012010-31295010054079/unrestricted/31295010054079.pdf

Are you sure that O’Rourke is not simply setting the scene with some rhetorical statements that he intends to address in the rest of his article? Absent answers to these questions and other questions that result from the quotations (why would radiometric dating ‘not have been feasible if the geologic column had not be erected first’ and what exactly does O’Rourke mean by ‘erected’, for example), an immediate response seems unproductive.

by erected he probably failed to use the superior word for this case, "established" He is saying that if the concept of the geologic column was not already established, there would be no base line for radio carbon dating. I am much more disturbed by the other quote, to be honest. How he prescribes the address of circular reasoning in that he basically plays the politician card and evades the question. It is evident that the context of the question is sound by the very fact that he is addressing claims of circular reasoning. The claim came up and was hot even back when this article was written, and the best he can give is that? I do apologize for not being able to supply you with the entire article (I don't see any reason in paying the publisher for it)
I wish google would hurry up with their virtual library project :/

Here is another:

"The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. This is supposed to be hard-headed pragmatism." O'Rourke--American Journal of Science 276:47-55

I have no idea what the intent of this quotation is. Even accepting Woodmorappe’s figures, what are we to make of the fact that (presumably) 15-20% of Earth’s surface does have more than ‘3 geologic periods appearin[g] in ‘correct’ consecutive order’? Do you and Woodmorappe imagine that Earth’s surface is a non-dynamic, unchanging medium in which everything remains exactly as it was when first formed?

Speaking for myself? absolutely not. Even in the Bible, the newly formed earth had a "firmament" dome-like canvas of "water" suspended in the atmosphere before Noah's flood. This is one of the things which may affect C-14 levels and a reason why "uniformitarianism" of this planet's history cannot be taken at face value.

 

[lordkalvan]

You can find information about it by googling "Pre-Colombian jet"

Looks to me like a classic case of seeing something that you want to see. This could as easily be a piece of abstract design as anything else. Maybe it's someone’s idea of a bee or another insect. Other than a coincidence of shape, there is no reason to suppose that this artifact represents an aircraft.

I have already stated that it could be a stegosaurid --of the immediate family of the Colorado variation, or a similar dinosaur. There are incomplete skeletons of some of this family and some are only known by little more than fragments of remains. Science has conceptualized a host of early hominids by calling on presumption from remnants of some remains, why the double standard?

Forensic palaeontology is not based on drawing conclusions from subjective opinions about what a particular carving may represent, but on observed, measured and analysed data. We can tell whether a primate was more or less likely to walk upright by the shape of its pelvis, for example. Your ‘identification’ of the Angkor Wat ‘stegosaurus’ as something related to stegosaurid seems to result solely from your realization that it cannot reasonably be identified as a stegosaurus. You have quite failed to comment on Buffetaut’s observations regarding this carving; he clearly regards this as some sort of cobbled-together anachronism. Do you regard his assessment as worthless?

You told me the birds were in the Dionysus mosaic.

The mosaic with the crocodillian was the "Nile Mosaic of Palestrina" I looked again, and I see absolutely no birds in the vicinity of the crocodile in the bottom left corner of the Nile mosaic. I do not see at all what you are referring to. If you mean the birds that are slightly right and a ways above them, past the skiff/ship, then these could be geese or swan. Possibly both sense there are a few birds there. I'm more convinced of swan though. The one has a black spot where it's beak ends. This is consistent with swan.

We are clearly talking about different things: probably my fault. I am referring to the 14th individual image in your post #82, labelled Fig. 6: Nilotic scene incorporated in the Dionysus flood mosaic at Sepphoris.

I have to ask you, from an anthropological perspective: Where do you suppose these dragon myths (and other 'mythological' creatures) come from? Why is it such a big coincidence that some of these artists create things strikingly similar to what we know existed? It is quite amazing that these people up and created creatures which coincidentally bear such a semblance even in artwork which we know is made by someone possessing great skill.

Origin of Dragons? Perhaps large, fierce reptiles such as the saltwater crocodile that was indigenous to ancient China. European dragon images seem to originate in a heady blend of cultural influences, including serpentine Greek beasts and Near East imaginings. Why do you suppose dragons should be any more likely to represent actually existing animals than, say, centaurs, harpies and giant rocs? The ‘striking similarity’ exists in the eye of the beholder: we see what we want to see; artistic renderings subjectively retrofitted to match something that you have no idea whether or not the artist had any intention of depicting is not evidential.

I don't know what the labels say above each depiction. I don't know about the greek names of these things. Names really dont carry a lot of weight. For instance, we have a "tiger shark" in English, but I seriously doubt the Greeks called it by a name that would translate into "tiger shark". I'm not sure I am understanding this segment correctly. Are you saying the various boars, crocs, lions, horses, and so on in that painting never existed? A good amount of those animals "look" close enough to what is alive today. The second portion of them "look" like now extinct variations of their respective "families".

Is the "crocodile-leopard" given for a title to what I am alleging portrays a dinosaur, or is the crocodile-leopard named fro the actual. crocodile in the bottom left corner? In the case of the former, the name in and of itself means nothing as we have "panda bears" which are not bears, and "tiger sharks" which are not tigers and "cat fish" which are no part cat. In the case that you meant the later, I was not using the crocodile to prove my allegation of the greater creature being a dinosaur; only that it was used to dismiss your theory that it may have been a poorly drawn alligator (because an accurately drawn crocodile was drawn in the same image, we can eliminate that theory by virtue of cross reference. Kind of like checking for signature forgeries. You can compare the artist's skill by comparing it with another, so we can know the artist was not trying to draw a crocodile in the mid right because we see how he draws them in the bottom left.)

edit:

Correction. I know what you meant now. I had to go back and read my original comment to see what you were talking about in your breakdown. I am still not sure if the "crocodile-leopard" is referring to what I am calling a dinosaur or if it is given for a name to the obvious crocodile. It is referring to the "dinosaur", correct?

‘Crocodile-leopard’ is the name given to the alleged ‘dinosaur’. The other names I referenced are appended to other beasts in the mosaic. The names you refer to (tiger shark, catfish, etc) do in fact mean something as they are based on identifying characteristics of the animal. I have already acknowledged the soundness of your point regarding the fact that this depiction does not represent a crocodile; however, I think you have a long way to go before you can assert with any confidence that it represents some sort of dinosaur. The ant-lion, horned boar and carnivorous buffalo are all imaginary or mistaken identifications and consequently imaginatively rendered representations. On these grounds alone, I see no reason to regard the crocodile-leopard as something different from these other curious beasts.

 

[lordkalvan]

Sorry, you're forced to "pay" for it.

Here is an extensive PDF in which people people, in a seemingly academic manner address various evolution/geologic points. This was prepared for university professors, evidently. i have certainly not read it all, but if you type in O'rourke in the search field, you will get to where this particular thing is mentioned.

This still doesn't tell me who O'Rourke is, why his opinion should be considered persuasive or what the intent of his quoted selections are. I notice from your linked PDF that the person quoting O'Rourke doesn't even do so from a primary source, but rather from The Quote Book (whatever that may be). Given the circumstances of the paper referencing O'Rourke, you will forgive me if I still remain suspicious that this represents nothing more than a
series of quotemines. Given that you have clearly not read the original paper, have no idea who O'Rourke is or what his intentions in writing the paper were, the value of quoting him out of context from a paper expressly intended to puff the idea of a supernatural (Christian) creation does not seem very convincing.

by erected he probably failed to use the superior word for this case, "established" He is saying that if the concept of the geologic column was not already established, there would be no base line for radio carbon dating. I am much more disturbed by the other quote, to be honest. How he prescribes the address of circular reasoning in that he basically plays the politician card and evades the question. It is evident that the context of the question is sound by the very fact that he is addressing claims of circular reasoning. The claim came up and was hot even back when this article was written, and the best he can give is that? I do apologize for not being able to supply you with the entire article (I don't see any reason in paying the publisher for it)

So really you have no idea what he meant by 'erected' at all and are just speculating? How you know that he 'evades the question' he poses when you have neither read the original article and nor has the person who quotes O'Rourke, I have no idea.

I wish google would hurry up with their virtual library project :/

Me, too. ;-)

Here is another:

See my comments above. Quoting O'Rourke out of context and in ignorance of either who he is or what the intent of his paper was scarcely adds credibility to the argument you are making.

Speaking for myself? absolutely not. Even in the Bible, the newly formed earth had a "firmament" dome-like canvas of "water" suspended in the atmosphere before Noah's flood. This is one of the things which may affect C-14 levels and a reason why "uniformitarianism" of this planet's history cannot be taken at face value.

And you know this reflects some sort of reality how exactly and supported by what evidence?

 

[Sparkey]

Sparrow visits the room, "Pardon my interjection and please continue the discussion, gentlemen. I had a question."

How many dinosaur fossils have we found so far (total) worldwide? It's my impression that there aren't that many - on the order of hundreds maybe? I mean real dinosaur fossils. 1200? Are they mostly one-bone fossils? Maybe I'm wrong. It could happen.

~Sparrow

 

[lordkalvan]

Sparrow visits the room, "Pardon my interjection and please continue the discussion, gentlemen. I had a question."

How many dinosaur fossils have we found so far (total) worldwide? It's my impression that there aren't that many - on the order of hundreds maybe? I mean real dinosaur fossils. 1200? Are they mostly one-bone fossils? Maybe I'm wrong. It could happen.

~Sparrow

Not all. Glad of the question:

There are currently about 3,000 so-called "full" dinosaur specimens—complete or near-complete skeletons or just a complete or near-complete skull—in museums around the United States. Scientists estimate that there are at least triple this number as yet uncollected around the globe. It's hard to say how long it will take to track these down. But currently we're discovering new full specimens at a rate of about 14 per year. If we continue at that pace, it's safe to say we won't run out soon. (This rate is historically high—between 1970 and 1990, the rate was only six per year.) Pinning down the exact number of all uncollected fossils—not just complete specimens but bits and pieces like individual teeth or stray tail bones—is nearly impossible, but the figure is certainly in the millions.

Source: Will we ever run out of dinosaur bones? - By Kim Gittleson - Slate Magazine

 

[Sparkey]

Thanks, I've searched and found the article you mentioned in "Slate". Sometimes our links aren't as clickable as we would like. I posed the question here before I googled but afterward went to Scholastic.com

Here's another P.O.V. ---> http:// www2. scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4738 <---- of course "Scholastic.com" isn't the bible (lol).

~Sparrow

PS - for those interested here's the link LK posted: http:// www. slate.com/id/2226513/
(and for an ADMIN the "bad" CF.NET redirect)
http://www.christianforums.net/redirect-to/?redirect=http://www.slate.com/id/2226513/

 

[Ashua]

Thanks, I've searched and found the article you mentioned in "Slate". Sometimes our links aren't as clickable as we would like. I posed the question here before I googled but afterward went to Scholastic.com

Here's another P.O.V. ---> http:// www2. scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4738 <---- of course "Scholastic.com" isn't the bible (lol).

~Sparrow

PS - for those interested here's the link LK posted: http:// www. slate.com/id/2226513/
(and for an ADMIN the "bad" CF.NET redirect)
Will we ever run out of dinosaur bones? - By Kim Gittleson - Slate Magazine

Lol. Your link doesnt work because this forum never allows links to function for some reason, but I found this.. (I dont know if its the same as you linked me"

The following questions were answered by dinosaur expert Don Lessem, paleontologist Tim Rowe, and paleontologist Bill Hammer.

....................
..............
..............

Q: How do you know in which period certain dinosaurs lived?

A: Usually you can tell the time when the dinosaur lived by the age of the rock it is in. You tell the rock's age by small fossils of plants and little animals that we already know the age of, or by chemical testing if it is volcanic rock. Sometimes we can tell the age of the rock and the fossils in it within 100,000 years of the actual time, even if it happened 300 million years ago. (Don Lessem)

Paste this into your browsers: (the 2 is part of the URL)

2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=4738


I appreciated that. Lol.

The rocks date the fossils and index fossils date the rocks. Brilliant.

 

[Ashua]

This still doesn't tell me who O'Rourke is, why his opinion should be considered persuasive or what the intent of his quoted selections are. I notice from your linked PDF that the person quoting O'Rourke doesn't even do so from a primary source, but rather from The Quote Book (whatever that may be). Given the circumstances of the paper referencing O'Rourke, you will forgive me if I still remain suspicious that this represents nothing more than a
series of quotemines. Given that you have clearly not read the original paper, have no idea who O'Rourke is or what his intentions in writing the paper were, the value of quoting him out of context from a paper expressly intended to puff the idea of a supernatural (Christian) creation does not seem very convincing.

By virtue of me providing you with a pay link to his article on the website of the peer reviewed American Journal of Science, which prides itself with the moniker "An international Earth-Space Journal", combined with the fact that this author has extensive work on the topic of stratigraphy, it would be pertinent for O'rouke to be a geologist to affect their employ.

scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ajsonline.org%2Fcgi%2Fcontent%2Fabstract%2F260%2F4%2F294

This is a search for his personal work. If you wish to be even more exhaustive in your demands to know exactly who this fellow is, in that you want me to supply you with his dissertation and affiliated schools and so fourth, I cannot unless I purchase that article, which I will not. Any reasonable person would look at the sources of these references and conclude that this man was highly accredited within his field. O'rouke doesn't matter really. The link sparrowhawke provided piles on the evidence which proports the case that geologists and paleontologists abide by this same standard of circular reasoning. (albeit in this case, without the arrogance that O'Rouke put off)

So really you have no idea what he meant by 'erected' at all and are just speculating? How you know that he 'evades the question' he poses when you have neither read the original article and nor has the person who quotes O'Rourke, I have no idea.

I humbly consider myself to be proficient in the art of context reading. When the man said erected in that sentence, it was evident that he could have used the word "established", or the term "set up". For all I know, he wasn't as strong in the language department as he would have liked to have been; and you know that pedantic science journals would never allow for simple language. "erected" is more pedantic language than "set up". Of course this italicized selection of the current paragraph is speculative, but what isn't?

See my comments above. Quoting O'Rourke out of context and in ignorance of either who he is or what the intent of his paper was scarcely adds credibility to the argument you are making.

And you know this reflects some sort of reality how exactly and supported by what evidence?

This argument is obsolete. Notwithstanding the ability to interpret the paragraph for what it says, you are banking on some drastic contextual ratification to contrast the solid paragraph. An argument of speculation in itself. It is obsolete because, as evidenced by the link of Sparrowhawke, scientists still make this claim. You can see the entire context of that for free, if you wish. Not one, not two, but three ph.d's wrote that web page. You would think one of them would have corrected it if that isn't precisely worded in a way that is acceptable to themselves and untold scores of peers who would have also caught it?

My anthropology books are really bad about scholarly circle jerking. I cannot tell you how many times the text digresses from teaching the subject to say "Special thanks to Dr. A.P. Circlejerkington, Ph.D of Pedantology, Ivy League, U.S.A. for reviewing this article."

 

[Sparkey]

I like Lessem. Impeccable credentials. Even when we try and plant a 'naysayer' and think about how he could be criticized, I can not believe he purposefully lies. Especially not to children.

"Dino Don" Lessem (born 1951) is a writer of more than 50 Popular Science books who specializes in dinosaurs. His works include many children's books on Dinosaurs. He was the founder of the Dinosaur Society and the Jurassic Foundation, which have raised millions for dinosaur research. In recognition of these efforts, the Prosauropod dinosaur Lessemsaurus is named after him.

 

[lordkalvan]

....The rocks date the fossils and index fossils date the rocks. Brilliant.

Do you understand what is meant by 'index fossils' and do you understand how RM dating has helped confirm the conclusions drawn from these index fossils? If an archaeologist finds human remains buried with pottery known to have been produced by a particular culture at a particular point in its history, is that archaeologist justified in attributing those human remains to no earlier than (and most likely contemporary with) the period when that pottery was being manufactured? In other words, do you dismiss stratigraphy as readily as you dismiss index fossils and, if not, why not?

 

[Ashua]

Do you understand what is meant by 'index fossils' and do you understand how RM dating has helped confirm the conclusions drawn from these index fossils? If an archaeologist finds human remains buried with pottery known to have been produced by a particular culture at a particular point in its history, is that archaeologist justified in attributing those human remains to no earlier than (and most likely contemporary with) the period when that pottery was being manufactured? In other words, do you dismiss stratigraphy as readily as you dismiss index fossils and, if not, why not?

Archaeologists actually dismiss finds that are out of the "proper" sequence. My textbook teaches that they require a standard of frequency to establish where say, a clovis point belongs. If a folsom point is found in the clovis level, they will dismiss it as the result of floralturbation, or cryoturbation, faunalturbation, graviturbation, tampering, mistake, or some other reason.

I do not outright reject the law of superposition or seriation. I reject the notion of forming index fossils/artifacts as a method of dating rock, while dating the objects found within the rock, by the rock. Seriation is a great deductive tool; hence the "index" is useful and usually accurate in terms of relative dating. While I do not believe they should be trigger happy when it comes to dismissing things that are rare finds in places where they "ought not be", these aren't a "major" problem.

 

[lordkalvan]

By virtue of me providing you with a pay link to his article on the website of the peer reviewed American Journal of Science, which prides itself with the moniker "An international Earth-Space Journal", combined with the fact that this author has extensive work on the topic of stratigraphy, it would be pertinent for O'rouke to be a geologist to affect their employ.

scholar.google.com/scholar?q=related:http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ajsonline.org%2Fcgi%2Fcontent%2Fabstract%2F260%2F4%2F294

This is a search for his personal work. If you wish to be even more exhaustive in your demands to know exactly who this fellow is, in that you want me to supply you with his dissertation and affiliated schools and so fourth, I cannot unless I purchase that article, which I will not. Any reasonable person would look at the sources of these references and conclude that this man was highly accredited within his field.

So from going to not knowing who O'Rourke is, nor why his opinions should be credited, never having read the paper in question, having derived your quotations from a source that has never read the paper either, having no idea whether the statements made were simply rhetorical devices or not, you are happy from a limited list of articles to conclude that s/he is 'highly accredited' and your understanding of what s/he intended to say in respect of the third-hand references you offered is what you assert it to be?

O'rouke doesn't matter really.

Which, of course, is why you quoted O'Rourke in the first place? I thought O'Rourke was 'highly accredited' and whatever s/he was saying was worth quoting in order to make your point?

The link sparrowhawke provided piles on the evidence which proports the case that geologists and paleontologists abide by this same standard of circular reasoning. (albeit in this case, without the arrogance that O'Rouke put off)

Except that it's not circular reasoning. If certain fossils occur only in certain strata, what do you conclude when other fossils are also found in those strata? Is your conclusion valid? If yes, why; if no, why not? What do you conclude from the fact that many strata are not dated from fossils at all, but relatively by position and absolutely by RM dating?

I humbly consider myself to be proficient in the art of context reading. When the man said erected in that sentence, it was evident that he could have used the word "established", or the term "set up". For all I know, he wasn't as strong in the language department as he would have liked to have been; and you know that pedantic science journals would never allow for simple language. "erected" is more pedantic language than "set up". Of course this italicized selection of the current paragraph is speculative, but what isn't?

So please explain how your understanding is 'evident' and how you know from the limited context of this third-hand quote that by using 'erected' O'Rourke didn't simply mean the natural processes that brought about what we refer to as the geologic column as in the sense of 'erect' meaning to bring about or to cause to come into existence?

This argument is obsolete. Notwithstanding the ability to interpret the paragraph for what it says, you are banking on some drastic contextual ratification to contrast the solid paragraph. An argument of speculation in itself. It is obsolete because, as evidenced by the link of Sparrowhawke, scientists still make this claim. You can see the entire context of that for free, if you wish. Not one, not two, but three ph.d's wrote that web page. You would think one of them would have corrected it if that isn't precisely worded in a way that is acceptable to themselves and untold scores of peers who would have also caught it?

What argument is 'obsolete' and why? That you don't know who O'Rourke is and have never read the paper that you are quoting or that you have presented no evidence for your speculations concerning legendary global floods and atmospheric C14 levels? And if you believe that the interesting article linked by Sparrow in some way demonstrates the validity of your 'circular reasoning' argument, then you are reading into it a great deal more than happens to be there. The dinosaur fossils referred to in your highlighted quotation are not index fossils.

My anthropology books are really bad about scholarly circle jerking. I cannot tell you how many times the text digresses from teaching the subject to say "Special thanks to Dr. A.P. Circlejerkington, Ph.D of Pedantology, Ivy League, U.S.A. for reviewing this article."

Oh dear, so someone writing in a particular field of knowledge actually asks someone else who is professionally skilled in that field to review their work before publication is 'circle jerking'? Tell me, does the process of peer review mean nothing to you? Do you think it is a waste of time? And would you rather than your anthropology classes were taught by the groundsman at your college?