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.
Here in Africa we have bushman paintings that all have exaggerated penis size - by exaggerated I mean like a horse.
Are we now to assume that the bushmen of yore here in Africa were substantially more endowed than men are today. By that same assertion would we assume that the equivalent on the female was also much "deeper" (for lack of a better word)
This is what you are asking the scientific to accept in lieu of multiple other dinosaur fossils which contradict your figurines.
The multiple other dinosaur fossils do not contradict the figurines, and why would you believe they do?
Some of the dinosaur figurines, were of yet unknown dinosaurs, which were later discovered after the El Toro collection was unearth. In the collection was found one humped American camel from the Ice Age, horses from the Ice Age. There was a duck billed Trachodon, Gorgosaurus, horned Monoclonius, Ornitholestes, Titanosaurus, Triceratops, Stegosaurus Palococincus, Diplodicus, Podokosaurus, Struthiomimos, Plesiosaur, Leviathan, Maiasura, Rhamphorynchus, Iguanodon, Brachiosaurus, Pteranodon, Dimetrodon, Ichtyornis, Tyrannosaurus Rex, Rhynococephalia. It's one thing for bushman in Africa to expand on a body part, yet it is another thing to see hundreds of dinosaurs that accuratly depict extinct dinosaurs.
One of the early arguements trying to debunk the collection was made in the 1950s by Dr. Herrejon. He stated that the Brontosaurs in the El Toro collection was not your typical dinosaur, because it had spines all down it's back. You see, back in the early 1950s, they did not know that some Saurian dinosaurs had dermal spines. Even I can recall seeing those Sinclair gasoline filling station signs showing the Sinclair dinosaur, and of course, it did not have spines, because that discovery had not been made yet.
Often the road that leads to truth, is the road least traveled. And usually you will walk that road alone. I'm just asking todays science to consider what has been found, and do an honest review of the collection.
When did I dispute the King David thing...Yes there are some historical facts in the bible, but that does not make the myths and tall tales in the bible true.
People often say the Bible is a Book filled with myths, and some of those people use to say that King David, and Israels two Kingdoms were also myths. Of course, time now has proven them wrong. I'm aware you believe in David. What I am trying to point out, is that as new historical discovery occurs, we will find that the Biblical Text will only be confirmed. And this conformation will only show others that the Bible is not only a Book that accurately speaks of the past, but is also a Book that accurately fortells of future events to come.
Well you know, with the figuriens there are names of people you could really contact, and there would be an end game.
Evolution is more based on blind faith, especially taking into consideration there is no real evidence.
Depends on one's definition of "real evidence". If you only understood what Evolutionary Science meant, perhaps you'd stop doubting it.
How do species adapt and then record those constant and ongoing adaptations into a different category of organism or functionality? We have shown exactly how in the lab, most recently by Lenski etallast August 2008, but the Christian deflection is "Oh yeah, well that was only in bacteria. That doesn't count!"
It counted when you argue about anti-biotics, slime molds, etc. Bacteria are species, Tom. Sadly for you. You, with your kinderkarten knowledge of science and biology, think that only big animals like hippos and tigers and coyotes are "species".
I'll tell you one thing here for sure, Tom:
If your side ever did anything to Lenski's levels of credibility, elegance in design and documented reproducability and incontrovertibility, you'd be dancing on the stars over it. There'd be a dozen new web-sites proclaiming it as "The God's Proven Truth!"
And yet, since it was done by biologist/geneticists, you automatically dismiss it.
Without, I'll note, even reading the laymen's summaries of it that abounded last fall in places like Scientific American, Reader's Digest, etc.
By your own admission, Tom, you have absolutely no understanding of Evolution, and yet you resolutely fight, deny and argue against it. What, exactly, is the "it" that you argue against? You actually can't tell us that, can you? You don't even know what you are arguing about! Fricking amazing!
How does that work, exactly? Hmmm.. But that fact certainly helps YOUR credibility, right?
Thats why I always ask for those transionals that everyone in the science field could agree on are real transionals. And guess what, I'm still waiting.
Of course you are, even though I and san and Seeker and others have all provided you with pictures and references which you then choose to completely ignore. I don't mean that you look, consider, argue with facts or theory, and then reject.
Nope! You just outright ignore it all. It's one of your sad little strategies, and you think you win by it.
But, sadly for you, we're just here to amuse ourselves playing with your endlessly stubborn mind.
This is not a debate. It's a debacle.
The people who made those figurines died off thousands (or tens...) of years ago, and that is why no one has ever step forward and claimed they made them. Actually, it would of taken a small army to produce so many, and at a high cost. (Just like the cute stuff coming out of China today! Same quality, same general age and authenticity) And not one of the figurines are the same, everyone was individually made. (Good observation, Tom! You're finally getting it! In rural Mexico back then, they didn't have the mass-production factories they now have in China , so it was all done around the family kitchen table with a big communal bowl of clay! All the exact same color, BTW! Same color when fired, despite being aged in differing soils over thousands of years, also! Same identical external texture. Same general agiing condition. Interesting, huh?)
And they have been time tested, and confirmed to be ancient. (By some, but refuted by others. But then, as I said, you just reliably dismiss or ignore that info)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontanaGuy
Campbell34 wrote:
As far as these figurines (you spelled it wrong) are concerned you need to consider the fact that serious scientists with financial backing from major universities and other prestigious organizations are expected to be involved with actual scientific questions that are worthy of the talent and money that is going into a particular project. You can't expect professionals who are spending their careers in the pursuit of knowledge to take a little time off to debunk something that was published in a tabloid newspaper at the supermarket. The business with the dinosaur figurines is laughable on the face of it and not worthy of spending ten cents on. There is intense competition in the scientific community and no one wants to be associated with anything that would make them look foolish. You've been taken in by a scam.
So well said, Montana, I can only repeat and highlight it for the more honest readers here. Tom here does provide us a good "foil" for getting out the truth though, wouldn't you say? It's so easy....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campbell34
Well first I would say, why would dinosaurs fossils have to be found in the area where they found the figurines?
Because you say they were simply reproducing what they saw in real life, Tom. See it, model it. Get it?
Since there were no co-existing dinos these play-dough toys are bogus (free-ranging dinos in any case would have ripped apart those hapless peasants in days, BTW, but then, you'd not understand normal predator-prey relationships either...)
And because this is such a hot topic, then that should be reason enough for todays science to get involved and put this matter to rest once and for all. And let the chips fall where they will. Science will go to the other side of the earth to consider lesser finds, why not the figurines of El Toro Mountain?
Hardly. WE no longer bother to investigate a lot of things we all know to be fact, Tom, just to pester irrational & scientifically illiterate Creationist loon-cranks. WE have far more important things to do on the other side of the earth, and at any rate, the mayor of this Mexican town won't release anything. If you can get him to do so, since I'm sorta "connected" at SFU in Canada, I'll have my friends do a circa-2009 X-Ray fluorescence analysis (material content), followed by an isotopic tracing map and a laser-thermoluminescence reading (cross-check on actual age, to within 100 yrs).
I'll even pay if you promise to believe the results and post your apologies. or, I'll happily post mine. Because while my answers will likely expose a hoax, even if these are truly old artifacts, that alone does not in any way dis-prove evolutionary adaptation. Thatcan't be disproved because it's a proven fact. Like light, gravity, a round Earth, and warm beer.
Of course, you won't like or accept the answers, so I'll not expect anything else on the topic from you.
But at least, I've offered. "Ante up or shut up", as they say in Vegas!
PS & BTW: A quick sampling of the credibility of your usual AiG YEC sources:
Answers in Genesis: cut & pasted this very morning:
"According to the Bible, the Ark had three decks (floors). It is not difficult to show that there was plenty of room for 16,000 animals (the maximum number of animals on the Ark, if the most liberal approach to counting animals is applied). This took care of the required number of animal species on the planet that Noah had to care for during the great flood."
From known animal counts from global ecologists: this is not fantasy; these are actual counts, and don't even include the plants that would have been required for food or even for plant ecology replacement.
Quick alternate actual scientific site; also cut & pasted this very morning:
"The estimated number of animals on our planet falls somewhere in the vast range of 3-30 million species (Erwin 1983, Wolosz 1988)."
(PPS: You want to refute this accurate number, Tom? Do you? I said, loudly,soz to get an actual answer: DO YOU?)
Now, that's only a "species" type list. Noah had to have at least two of each on board, by any even basic reproductive logic requirement. right, Tom? According to the silly fable-myth-allegory? RIGHT? We can't hear you, Tom.
.
So, we had to have an ark capable of holding, oh let's just say, mimimally, 70 million animals? (plus food for 18 mo.!!!)
Yep. That's likely, ain't it Tom? You can tell me: thats logical, ain't it? You being the logical type and all. Go ahead: DM me your anweer, soz not to embarrass yourself in public any more.
BTW: Knowledgeable field ecologists will tell you that species usually go exinct when the minimum threshold number is reached. It's way more than TWO, Tom. Otherwise why would California be so concerned about Condor numbers going below 50? Ditto for cheetahs, rhinos, etc. Two don't cut it, Tom old boy. Two won't ever cut it, less'n you have a maximum safety reproductive safety facility, veterinary med school nearby etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. no losses to disease, etc.
But you wouldn't know this, would you, Tom? So you blithely charge ever onwards towards the cliff. Bonsai!
Geeezzz. Such a mental travesty here!
Last edited by rifleman; 03-29-2009 at 03:09 PM..
Reason: honesty & reality
so... without my usual long novellas, here it is once again. go ahead, Tom... knock yorself out. no confusion here, just simple pictures. you remember? like in Sunday School.
(BTW: as usual, my highlights are in blue, underlined)
BTW, Tom, these aren't imaginary fantasies. These are found, documented and preserved fossils.
And on and on we could go, here in our free Sunday School for Open Minds...
Some related quotes to flavor our fun afternoon....
"Most people would sooner die than think; in fact, they do so."
- Bertrand Russell
"One large difference between science and religion is this:
In science, if the facts don't fit the theory, the theory is tossed out.
In religion, if the facts don't fit the theory, the facts are tossed out."
"Believing is easier than thinking; that's why there will always be more believers than than thinkers."
"Yet, when we examine the fossil record, we find a distribution that matches the predictions of evolution, not one of the countless distributions that would not. Creationist spokesmen are forced to seize upon any ad hoc explanation they can think of to explain this; for instance, that Noah's Flood somehow sorted the fossils into exactly the pattern expected and predicted by the logic of evolutionary process, or that God, for some strange reason, decided to create life over the course of aeons in a sequence matching the exact predictions of evolution. (In either case, God presumably did not care that the resultant fossil patterns would cause us to be deceived).
Surely it is more sensible simply to conclude that evolution has occurred."
(rflmn's editorial note: Well, surely, Mr. author, let's not ask for sensibility here...)
"A second prediction of evolution is that the fossil record should yield neatly arranged transitional forms.
Evolution does not require the fossil record to yield transitional forms as plentiful as the stars, since the conditions of fossilization are severe, and some organisms fossilize less easily than others, but one would reasonably become suspicious if, after more than a century of work, paleontologists had not discovered any transitional forms at all.
A complete absence of transitional forms, in fact, is precisely what creationists should expect.
Paleontology, however, has yielded plentiful transitional forms, of which a mere handful is listed or shown here."
...or, this classic bit of logical thinking (in this instance I'm serious...):
Patterns in Genetic Material
Had God created life through means other than evolution, He could have used the faintest whisper of His boundless power to endow each kind of creature with a different form of genetic material, or a completely different genetic code. But all life forms on Earth use DNA and RNA as genetic material, with a code that admits of only very rare and insignificant alterations, which is what one would expect had all life evolved from a common ancestor."
Science takes such logical observations and provable stuff, and then speculates about what then might result. We then go look, and what do we consistently find, Tom?
For one thing, lots of transitional forms. Invisible to your mind, I know, but not to me or the vast majority of rational Earthlings like us.
BTW, This information I found in less than 2-3 minutes on the 'Net is a micro-nano-sliver-particle of the vast and rapidly growing body of factual, cross-checked available, documented and accredited MODERN evidence that we use, but that Campbell34 and his steadfastly stubborn ilk refuse to accept or even open a link on. What, instead, do they do?
(We can resume practicing this little ditty verse again next Sunday if you need the practice...)
I will admit: we do not yet have a picture of a pre-ape, leading to an ape, then a chimp, ditto an early hominid, then a lesser small-brained stubbornid and then finally a modern YEC believer. That transitional form still eludes us, but given the vast circumstantial evidence right now, right here in front of us on C-D, hey, how far away can it all be?
Tom, old buddy, I'd give up on yah if'n it wasn't just SOOO Darned Easy and fascinatingly amusing to blow up your, ... well we can't really call them arguments now can we, but you know what I mean...
Reading your's and DoTL's and a few others' posts has also effectively turned my briefly religious young son sooo completely against Christianity, I must offer up my heartfelt thanks to you'all for that!
So well said, Montana, I can only repeat and highlight it for the more honest readers here. Tom here does provide us a good "foil" for getting out the truth though, wouldn't you say? It's so easy....
Hardly. WE no longer bother to investigate a lot of things we all know to be fact, Tom, just to pester irrational & scientifically illiterate Creationist loon-cranks. WE have far more important things to do on the other side of the earth, and at any rate, the mayor of this Mexican town won't release anything. If you can get him to do so, since I'm sorta "connected" at SFU in Canada, I'll have my friends do a circa-2009 X-Ray fluorescence analysis (material content), followed by an isotopic tracing map and a laser-thermoluminescence reading (cross-check on actual age, to within 100 yrs).
I'll even pay if you promise to believe the results and post your apologies. or, I'll happily post mine. Because while my answers will likely expose a hoax, even if these are truly old artifacts, that alone does not in any way dis-prove evolutionary adaptation. Thatcan't be disproved because it's a proven fact. Like light, gravity, a round Earth, and warm beer.
Of course, you won't like or accept the answers, so I'll not expect anything else on the topic from you.
But at least, I've offered. "Ante up or shut up", as they say in Vegas!
PS & BTW: A quick sampling of the credibility of your usual AiG YEC sources:
Answers in Genesis: cut & pasted this very morning:
"According to the Bible, the Ark had three decks (floors). It is not difficult to show that there was plenty of room for 16,000 animals (the maximum number of animals on the Ark, if the most liberal approach to counting animals is applied). This took care of the required number of animal species on the planet that Noah had to care for during the great flood."
From known animal counts from global ecologists: this is not fantasy; these are actual counts, and don't even include the plants that would have been required for food or even for plant ecology replacement.
Quick alternate actual scientific site; also cut & pasted this very morning:
"The estimated number of animals on our planet falls somewhere in the vast range of 3-30 million species (Erwin 1983, Wolosz 1988)."
(PPS: You want to refute this accurate number, Tom? Do you? I said, loudly,soz to get an actual answer: DO YOU?)
Now, that's only a "species" type list. Noah had to have at least two of each on board, by any even basic reproductive logic requirement. right, Tom? According to the silly fable-myth-allegory? RIGHT? We can't hear you, Tom.
.
So, we had to have an ark capable of holding, oh let's just say, mimimally, 70 million animals? (plus food for 18 mo.!!!)
Yep. That's likely, ain't it Tom? You can tell me: thats logical, ain't it? You being the logical type and all. Go ahead: DM me your anweer, soz not to embarrass yourself in public any more.
BTW: Knowledgeable field ecologists will tell you that species usually go exinct when the minimum threshold number is reached. It's way more than TWO, Tom. Otherwise why would California be so concerned about Condor numbers going below 50? Ditto for cheetahs, rhinos, etc. Two don't cut it, Tom old boy. Two won't ever cut it, less'n you have a maximum safety reproductive safety facility, veterinary med school nearby etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. no losses to disease, etc.
But you wouldn't know this, would you, Tom? So you blithely charge ever onwards towards the cliff. Bonsai!
Geeezzz. Such a mental travesty here!
I believe man has always been man, and at no time did they come from another species. I do not believe that they came from some past primitive life form. I believe that evolution occurs to a degree. How tall we are can be changed by diet, and skin color can be changed by the climate we find ourselves in. Yet, that is about it, and not much more.
riflemen, the El Toro collection, has been tested four times now, and each test shows ancient. How many times will they have to be tested until you agree with the results? And your right, science no longer does investigate things, especially if the finding could put another nail in the coffin of evolution. So I guess you have fully embraced the science of ASSUMPTIONS. And of course, that is your main evidence for the Theory of Evolution. And that is why you can not produce transionals that would be the slam dunk for evolution.
The travesty occurs, when you ignore hard evidence, and embrace assumptions. And there is more hard evidence out there then the figurines of El Toro Mountain.
riflemen, the El Toro collection, has been tested four times now, and each test shows ancient. How many times will they have to be tested until you agree with the results? And your right, science no longer does investigate things, especially if the finding could put another nail in the coffin of evolution. So I guess you have fully embraced the science of ASSUMPTIONS. And of course, that is your main evidence for the Theory of Evolution. And that is why you can not produce transionals that would be the slam dunk for evolution.
Your questions weren't directed to me but I'd like to make a few comments. The promotion of creationism, particularly in America, has become a small industry which has persuaded probably millions of people to ridicule scientific inquiry and anything that might be at odds with the literal interpretation of Genesis. This has undermined the education of our children to a certain extent because the influence of parents who can't accept the reality of evolution are trying to perpetuate their ideas to their own children. Also, creationists try to take over the majority of local school boards to force schools to accept their agenda. And of course the countless number of creationist websites that come up with the most ridiculous explanations to try to explain away evolution have resulted in a massive amount of information that is being presented to the public as a supposedly legitimate alternative to evolution. This entire enterprise is so large that it has persuaded a great many people to abandon rational thinking altogether and to believe that scientists are engaged in a massive fraud. Millions of people have been led to believe that science is a sham and that some creationism website can give you the lowdown on what's really true. I think it's very sad that we're living in the twentyfirst century and that we're even having this conversation.
Dr. Victor J. Bortolet, Director of Research of Daybreak Nucleari Archaeometrics Laboratory Services for dating, and Dr. Bortulot determined that pieces from the El Toro Mountain collection upper age limit were 2,000 years old.
You mean THIS Dr. Victor Bortolet?
Quote:
A few years ago, Bortolot Daybreak, a Connecticut firm that specializes in the authentication of ancient objects, was asked by a New York City African art dealer to examine some Nigerian ceramic sculptures. Victor Bortolot, a scientist and the owner of the company, found the objects to be made mostly of new materials, but the dealer blacked out the negative determination, then sold the items as antiques. Later, he was indicted, jailed and released on bail, and then skipped town.
Dr. Victor J. Bortolet, Director of Research of Daybreak Nucleari Archaeometrics Laboratory Services for dating, and Dr. Bortulot determined that pieces from the El Toro Mountain collection upper age limit were 2,000 years old.
Also a team of experts from Ohio State University that consisted of Dr. J.O. Everhart who was the Chairman of the Department of Ceramic Engineering, Dr. Earle R. Caley who was among one of the worlds most respected archaeological chemist, and Dr. Ernest G. Ehlers, who was the mineralogist in the geology department at Ohio State University also believed the artifacts were of ancient orgin, and the collection was not part of any perpetuated fraud.
.
Apart from Dr Bortolet who was convicted of fraud, do you have any LIVE scientists? The rest of the scientists you list are all dead, so they can't refute what Creationist sites are claiming in their name. And I can't find ANY mention of any of these scientists in relation to this Collection, apart from Creationist sites.
My whole point is that we, as human beings, agree that it is immoral and wrong to murder human beings. If we evolved, then evolution must account for that.
Two points here actually, at what point does killing another human being become murder. I do not agree that it is always wrong to kill another human being. Mankind has a long history of warfare, apparently a whole lot of other people do not consider this to be murder. States put certain members of their population to death on an irregularly regular basis, ergo, the states of this country do not all agree that the mere killing of another human does not necessarily infer murder. Most people will agree that killing another human for sport or amusement is probably wrong, both laws and morality also evolve.
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.
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.
YEC Credibility: ZERO. Proved. Again.
Colors for a Sunday Afternoon.....
