U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-09-2013, 11:11 PM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,849 posts, read 9,648,146 times
Reputation: 2393

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Colonial Girl View Post
Are you dissing Pliny again? He was well respected! Or do you mean Apollonius Rhodicus? Lesser known, but he did write about the flood and Deucalion and all.
Pliney also wrote about Hercules. Are we to accept that Hercules was real because a respected historian wrote about him? Both Pliny the Younger and his uncle Pliney the Elder wrote about 'the gods'. Are we to accept that gods exist because learned and respected men wrote about them thousands of years ago?

As for Apollonius Rhodicus writing about the flood, well I'd like to see some evidence of that. The best date we have for him is mid 3rd century BCE so how could he have written about the Biblical flood when the Bible wasn't written when Rhodicus was around?

Last edited by Rafius; 04-09-2013 at 11:28 PM..

 
Old 04-09-2013, 11:14 PM
 
Location: Southern California
25,348 posts, read 24,141,953 times
Reputation: 23746
It isn't plausible now, but it was at the time, when people didn't have the benefit of the scientific (most specifically, geologic and geographic, as well as zoology and other practical scientific concerns) knowledge we have now and when there was much more so-termed "magical thinking."

I firmly believe the story was made up to be believed as-is. It is only due to modern scrutiny that it has been proven false. I do not believe it was meant originally to be "allegorical". I think it was meant to be literal. I think saying it has always been allegorical is an apologetics view. It's back-peddling, big time.

ETA: Wow, that sounded so sophomoric now that I've gone back and read where this conversation has led. Sorry, folks.

Last edited by JerZ; 04-09-2013 at 11:25 PM..
 
Old 04-09-2013, 11:58 PM
 
15,287 posts, read 16,833,735 times
Reputation: 15019
The Acámbaro figurines | Bad Archaeology

Quote:
Even if they are genuine, there is debate about what they depict. None of the published examples really resembles any known dinosaur. Instead, it has been suggested that they are stylised representations of living reptiles of the region or are composite fantastical monsters.
Quote:
Excavation of the objects was observed by a trained archaeologist, Charles di Peso, who found that they were only retrieved from hollows in middens with loose black soil quite unlike the rest of the middens. He also recognised that their lack of patination and surface damage was quite unlike that of other materials recovered from the same middens; moreover, they were recovered whole, while other objects were broken. There is little doubt that the figurines are of recent date; thermoluminescent tests would be sufficient to establish their approximate date of manufacture and although dating was attempted in 1972 by Froelich Ramey of the Pennsylvania Museum, who obtained results suggesting that they were around 4500 years old. Subsequent tests in 1978 were unable to replicate these dates; indeed, they were unable to obtain any dates from the figurines, showing that they are of very recent manufacture. This does not prevent fringe writers from complaining that archaeologists have dismissed them as fakes without taking the trouble to examine them.
They are certainly an interesting hoax if not a particularly clever one

The Acambaro Figures - Famous Fakes and Frauds
 
Old 04-10-2013, 01:36 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,062,995 times
Reputation: 3717
Default The ongoing Acambara Scare & Loathing Tactic, Pt 2...

I knew I was forgetting a very critical component of review of these carvings from my posts and reactions a couple of years back: At the time we were in heated debate with the Chrisitan apologist who later died from, I believe, cancer. Who was he again?

Anyhow, he insisted that the Acambara artifacts were indeed valid and real, so I began back then to formally approach the town's official Deputy of Historical Finds & Archeology, and used my formal and accredited connections @ my Alma Mater in Vancouver, B.C. Canada to request a tiny sample of the carving pieces. The idea was to have them very accurately tested using a newly refined and highly accurate methodology I'd had some experience with in one of my post-grad research projects. Specifically, we only needed about 10 grams of material and could even return it unaltered if requested. I tried writing and e-mailing three of the University's formal fathers, incl. the mayor and two of her workers.

I received no answer whatsoever! "Very impolite!" I thought at first. Not even a polite denial of the possibility. They simply refused to answer, even though I received e-mail acknowledgements on each transmission. I had also provided all of my research team's impeccable scientific and professional credentials, plus those of my university (SFU in Burnaby, B.C.,) they are now well established as a geo-research specialty and applied problem-solving engineering school that works very effectively in research teams faced with special challenge situations! I'm v. proud to have been involved with and part-research associate both with and of them, for sure!.

My Alma Mater's impeccable credentials would have been of great import & value to SFU's critical resume had the Acambara artifacts proven to be on or near the age the town of Acambara had hoped for. But nope. After all, this is a major tourista trap, and they even sell tiny little pieces of the original artifact, so they like to assure the buyer. (*Riiigghhttt...)

Even after two repeat request cases (in the highly unlikely case that all the originals had somehow mysteriously gotten "lost"... ); they still patently refused to allow us access to even a tiny piece of these dino carvings, and therefore for us do a latest-technology X-Ray fluorescence artifact aging & dating test, which also turns out to be the best test for inorganic clay type substances. Too bad for them, but I got the very distinct feeling they had no real interest in having the real age determined and published... Hmmm...

And so, it's come around yet again, huh? As a desperation- driven party-line going-away present, all mis-quoted and with illiterate and mis-quoted lies about it's validity, or the credibility of any whipper-snapper new test researcher, who obviously doesn't know the truths behind God's Golden Arkista Fludd-Ah-Mighty!

Nowhere to ever be witnessed either! How quaint. How superficial. How... how.... dishonest! Well, that's hardly a surprise to any of us hard-working researchers down in some sandy, dusty pit, watching the earth's conscience wandering off right now...

As we've come to expect! God night, y'awl! Sweet dreams of your choice and import!
 
Old 04-10-2013, 05:32 AM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,427,722 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
I knew I was forgetting a very critical component of review of these carvings from my posts and reactions a couple of years back: At the time we were in heated debate with the Chrisitan apologist who later died from, I believe, cancer. Who was he again?

Anyhow, he insisted that the Acambara artifacts were indeed valid and real, so I began back then to formally approach the town's official Deputy of Historical Finds & Archeology, and used my formal and accredited connections @ my Alma Mater in Vancouver, B.C. Canada to request a tiny sample of the carving pieces. The idea was to have them very accurately tested using a newly refined and highly accurate methodology I'd had some experience with in one of my post-grad research projects. Specifically, we only needed about 10 grams of material and could even return it unaltered if requested. I tried writing and e-mailing three of the University's formal fathers, incl. the mayor and two of her workers.

I received no answer whatsoever! "Very impolite!" I thought at first. Not even a polite denial of the possibility. They simply refused to answer, even though I received e-mail acknowledgements on each transmission. I had also provided all of my research team's impeccable scientific and professional credentials, plus those of my university (SFU in Burnaby, B.C.,) they are now well established as a geo-research specialty and applied problem-solving engineering school that works very effectively in research teams faced with special challenge situations! I'm v. proud to have been involved with and part-research associate both with and of them, for sure!.

My Alma Mater's impeccable credentials would have been of great import & value to SFU's critical resume had the Acambara artifacts proven to be on or near the age the town of Acambara had hoped for. But nope. After all, this is a major tourista trap, and they even sell tiny little pieces of the original artifact, so they like to assure the buyer. (*Riiigghhttt...)

Even after two repeat request cases (in the highly unlikely case that all the originals had somehow mysteriously gotten "lost"... ); they still patently refused to allow us access to even a tiny piece of these dino carvings, and therefore for us do a latest-technology X-Ray fluorescence artifact aging & dating test, which also turns out to be the best test for inorganic clay type substances. Too bad for them, but I got the very distinct feeling they had no real interest in having the real age determined and published... Hmmm...

And so, it's come around yet again, huh? As a desperation- driven party-line going-away present, all mis-quoted and with illiterate and mis-quoted lies about it's validity, or the credibility of any whipper-snapper new test researcher, who obviously doesn't know the truths behind God's Golden Arkista Fludd-Ah-Mighty!

Nowhere to ever be witnessed either! How quaint. How superficial. How... how.... dishonest! Well, that's hardly a surprise to any of us hard-working researchers down in some sandy, dusty pit, watching the earth's conscience wandering off right now...

As we've come to expect! God night, y'awl! Sweet dreams of your choice and import!
Why would they allow you when all testing has already proven them to be thousands of years old? Besides, they knew you were an amateur.

Imagine all those great institutions who validated them as genuine. But you, yes you know better! Why with all your expertise (ahem) you know better than all them combined!
 
Old 04-10-2013, 05:36 AM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,427,722 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by sanspeur View Post
Whoa, chill out...This statement (They are accepted by no credible scholar of archaeology or paleontology, and many have questioned the motives of those who argue for their validity.) is not mine and it is a fact... Any (credible) scholar of archaeology or paleontology would be laughed out of his position if they accepted this nonsense as real....It is a well known hoax, and why you insist on believing it after all the evidence given you, shows that you prefer to remain ignorant of that fact...Willful ignorance is a lot worse than just not knowing something.
And yet you still have the problem of all those highly educated professionals at those universities proving them to be genuine.
 
Old 04-10-2013, 05:37 AM
 
795 posts, read 1,151,165 times
Reputation: 711
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius View Post
Pliney also wrote about Hercules. Are we to accept that Hercules was real because a respected historian wrote about him? Both Pliny the Younger and his uncle Pliney the Elder wrote about 'the gods'. Are we to accept that gods exist because learned and respected men wrote about them thousands of years ago?

As for Apollonius Rhodicus writing about the flood, well I'd like to see some evidence of that. The best date we have for him is mid 3rd century BCE so how could he have written about the Biblical flood when the Bible wasn't written when Rhodicus was around?
There's only one thing for it, we all have to convert to the real gods immediately.
 
Old 04-10-2013, 05:52 AM
 
Location: NW NJ & SE Oahu
4,335 posts, read 5,153,536 times
Reputation: 3863
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius View Post
Imagine all those great institutions who validated them as genuine.
Like you do?
 
Old 04-10-2013, 06:14 AM
 
Location: Valencia, Spain
13,849 posts, read 9,648,146 times
Reputation: 2393
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
I knew I was forgetting a very critical component of review of these carvings from my posts and reactions a couple of years back: At the time we were in heated debate with the Chrisitan apologist who later died from, I believe, cancer. Who was he again?
Campbell.
 
Old 04-10-2013, 09:55 AM
 
17,968 posts, read 12,427,722 times
Reputation: 989
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tantalust View Post
Like you do?
I didn't validate them. They did.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top