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.
I have read numerous links on the El Toro figurines, and from all that has been said of them, science fact, and not someones personal opinion is on their side. For it is (SCIENTIFIC LABS) that did the time testing that confirms their ancient ages. You come here and say I don't follow my own advice. Especially when I say personal opinions should never be a substitute for real science. Yet, I am not the one with the personal opinion here. I am the one that is pointing out the results that have come back from the (LABS) that tested the figurines. Your the one (IGNORING) their findings. Now can you dispute the dates that the labs have given us? And can you show us a real scientist who has refuted the results of those labs?
The only person you have brought to our attention to dispute the El Toro figurines was a man named Di Peso. And his comments were made a half a century ago. You do know, that science has progress since that time, don't you? And his arguements were disputed by others long ago. And the results of time testing on the figurines scientifically disputed his arguements as well. So now, your the one who is imbracing personal opinions over science. NOT ME.
Do you ever read the links people provide for you?
No of course you don't.
Let me say this once more and then I'm done. Regardless of how many times you believe these pieces have been 14C dated, it's a well known fact that the person who supposedly curates the materials has repeatedly refused to allow any independent testing on the figurines. However the circumstances surrounding the so called find, the physical state of the pieces, the lack of certain exterior chemical changes, and the lack of breakage with the exception of obvious intentional breakage, along with the fact that there has been a steadfast refusal to allow independent dating with methods, including 14C, which have greatly improved since the pieces were supposedly first tested, along wth the continued hemming and hawing regarding any sort of analysis of the pieces by experts in the field of ceramics and pottery, says way more to archaeologists and others in the scientific community than the one time inconclusive 14C dating to which you've attached yourself to with a vengence. Now, considering that these pottery pieces were not made from once living, organic material, I fail to see how 14C could have ever been indicated in this instance to begin with, so any 14C dates returned on these pieces could never have been trusted anyway.
Arguing with a fence post would be more productive and a hell of a lot less frustrating. Your precious attitude of studied ignorance is not only repetitious but cloying as well. Have a wonderful time mired down there in your little Plato's cave. Watching your own shadow on the wall must never get tiresome for you.
heee hee; I love a good documentary, nightBazzar! Can't rep you right now, but later!
Anyhow, Kele; so you have some real education in archeology, huh? Please, for our gathered and always interested audience, give us a quick summary on the utility of Carbon14 dating, as was done by C34's supposedly competant lab, on an inorganic rock artifact sample?
You see, he just won't listen to me, and keeps regurgitating his same tired and completely discredited line. Of course I know why, but perhaps he'll listen to you. He won't listen to PanTerra, who is a geologist, or me, who is a biologist/geologist. Perhaps you? I mean, three's a quorum, right?
It's quite predictable that he dismisses technical specialists here; because we're online, he thinks we're all as scientifically ill-educated as he has openly admitted to being. of course, Christian fundy webiste so-cvalled (but proven fraudulent or criminal) "scientists"? Those guys he does'nt even bother to check them out before quoting them. We do a qwuick check on google, and it ALWAYS comes up:
"John Smith, a well-known Creationist advocate, is under Federal indictment for tax evasion, willful mis-represenation, Internet fraud and gross mis-representation. His so-callled Doctorate is from a small, run-down shack on Church property in the tiny town of Kangaroo Droppings, Australia, where the local deacon fervently disavows all knowledge of, and respect for, the man!" And so on. Always. No longer surprising.
It's been suggested that he may well be one of those autobot robot websites that just continues to splurt out the same stuff no matter what you say. I certainly hope so, because if this is how a living breathing human thinks, one that might have some responsibility for the lives or happiness or, oh gawd, the education of others, we're in big trouble!
Because he cannot discern fact from BS, or, when presented with easily checked facts(via credible links) he doesn't read them, he dismisses them, and then reliably, moves on to re-gurgitate, again and again, the same stuff he scooped off the floor from his last splurt.....
Yum!
Do not dispair about his not ever acknowledging your clear and logical prior posts. Trust me, and the rest of us; we've been there with this guy for almost a year now. (Wait'll you hear his lines of reasoning for the literal Ark! It's quite amusing!) Oh, and don't expect him to answer questions that will box him into a corner. He's Teflon™ coated as regards logic. The only place he can debate is on-line, where he is not obligated to answer the questions, and we can't see his face and watch for his "bluff twitch".
Okay, a short synopsis of 14C dating and why ceramic pieces are not candidates for 14C dating....
Radiocarbon dating is a radiometric dating method that uses the naturally occurring radioisotope carbon-14 (14C) to determine the age of carbonaceous materials up to about 60,000 years. Uncalibrated radiocarbon ages are usually reported in radiocarbon years "Before Present" (BP), "Present" being defined as AD 1950. Such raw ages can be calibrated to give calendar dates.
One of the most frequent uses of radiocarbon dating is to estimate the age of organic remains from archaeological sites. When plants fix atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) into organic material during photosynthesis they incorporate a quantity of 14C that approximately matches the level of this isotope in the atmosphere (a small difference occurs because of isotope fractionation, but this is corrected after laboratory analysis). After plants die or they are consumed by other organisms (for example, by humans or other animals) the 14C fraction of this organic material declines at a fixed exponential rate due to the radioactive decay of 14C. Comparing the remaining 14C fraction of a sample to that expected from atmospheric 14C allows the age of the sample to be estimated.
As soon as a living organism dies, it stops taking in new carbon. The ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 at the moment of death is the same as every other living thing, but the carbon-14 decays and is not replaced. The carbon-14 decays with its half-life of 5,700 years, while the amount of carbon-12 remains constant in the sample. By looking at the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the sample and comparing it to the ratio in a living organism, it is possible to determine the age of a formerly living thing fairly precisely.
Since pottery and ceramics contain NO formerly living organisms, 14C dating is useless as a dating method unless the pieces have been burned to a crisp (at that point, the carbon from the burn event could be dated) and any and all dates returned via 14C dating would be highly suspect to say the least. There ARE other radioisotopic forms of dating that can determine the age of the pieces, but it would appear those have neither been allowed nor implemented by the curator of these so-called "antiquities."
How's that for a rudimentary lesson in C14 dating, rifleman?
The first lab that tested the El Toro figurines was sent by Charles Hapgood. The lab that did the test was "Laboratory of Isotopes Inc. in New Jersey. That lab stated the the dates returned were. Sample 1. 1640 BC, sample 2. 4530 BC, and third sample returned a date of 1110 BC.
The second Lab that tested them occured in 1972, and those samples were sent to Dr. Froelich Rainey, who was the director of the Pennsylvania Museum for Thermoluminescent Dating. It was Arthur Young who submitted two of the figurines. The thermoluminescent dates returned showed the samples to be 2700 BC. And a follow up letter was sent that confirmed that their dates could be no more off then 5 or 10 percent at the most.
The third group of scientist that considered them, was at the University of Pennsylvania's. It was there where Dr. J.O. Everhart who was the Chairman of the Department of Ceramic Engineering. Dr. Earle R Caley one of the most respected archaelolgical chemist, and Dr. Ehlers who was an Ohio State University mineralogist in their geology department. Everyone of those scientist stated they did not believe the figurines were made in modern times. Nor did they believe that the someone tried to prepetuate a fraud.
In 1997 a fourth look at the figurines was done by Neil Steede, who was the President of the Early Sites Research Society West and Mexican Epigraphic Society. Neil tried to debunk the figurines by having them time tested again. Yet the lab results shock his group when the human figure was dated to 4000 BP, and the Dinosaur figurine was dated to 1500 BP.
In 1997 a fifth look at the figurines was done by a Japanese company that was sponsored by Nissi. It was a a program for Japanese T.V. that spoke of the Acambaro figurines. The the Narrator opened up a book from Japan that showed a Sauraloplus osborni, he at the same time picked up one of the El Toro Figurines that was very similar to the one displayed in their book.
The only claim I believe here is false, is the claim you have made suggesting that only (ONE) lab tested them. And the result was inconclusive. This claim appears to have little to do with (REALITY).
The OP is " What Is The Christian View On The Dinosaur?", but the believers of the fairy tale of evolution do not want to know, and they do want to police the thoughts, even, of Christians -unless they can find professing but not possessing "Christ-ians" who have swallowed the bilge of Darwin, the reprobate [who had only a BA in Theology and who made up and told tales [lies] from his youth].
You can't repeat things you have never stated. There are no labs that did any scientific review and you know it. Your not going to repeat anything, except someones personal bias view.
Bias you say? Of course that's something you never think of doing, would you? Let's see, what sort of profound, non-biased proofs have you come up with?
- Dinosaurs in Cambodia
- Marco Polo's dinosaurs
- The El Toro figurines
- Oh yeah, Job's dinos
- Dino and human tracks together
I guess I was wrong. Nothing of someone else's personal biased views about those, is there? Sorry, but now you're just being lame. You need to lay off the DMT and try some fresh air for a change.
The OP is " What Is The Christian View On The Dinosaur?", but the believers of the fairy tale of evolution do not want to know, and they do want to police the thoughts, even, of Christians -unless they can find professing but not possessing "Christ-ians" who have swallowed the bilge of Darwin, the reprobate [who had only a BA in Theology and who made up and told tales [lies] from his youth].
You tell 'em YSM! What with the crystal sun orbiting around the Earth, 450' giants, half human/half lizard mutants, an' all that. That'll learn 'em!
The OP is " What Is The Christian View On The Dinosaur?", but the believers of the fairy tale of evolution do not want to know, and they do want to police the thoughts, even, of Christians -unless they can find professing but not possessing "Christ-ians" who have swallowed the bilge of Darwin, the reprobate [who had only a BA in Theology and who made up and told tales [lies] from his youth].
The Christian view
Quote:
The s8intcom Blogger Photo: Right; Hagen Renaker Miniature Ceramic Tyrannosaurus Figurine: [SIZE=2]$9.00[/SIZE] Left; Pre-Columbian T-rex (not what they call it) from the La Paz, Bolivia, National Archaeological Museum, proving for the One Millionth time* that man and dinosaur coexisted; [SIZE=2]PRICELESS ![/SIZE]
How to remain ignorant of truth about earth science:
Make sure you never read anything but the approved Darwinian myths.
Make sure you nave speak anything but the approved Darwinian myths.
Make sure you never hear anything but approved Darwinian myths.
Make sure you never look at anything but approved Darwinian myths.
How to show you are a fool:
Make sure to scoff and make wide mouths at anyone who looks at true history; speaks about true history from written records; or who has looked at evidences of true earth history and dino-dragon and beheme interaction -from the beginning
Isa 57:4 Against whom do ye sport yourselves? against whom make ye a wide mouth, [and] draw out the tongue? [are] ye not children of transgression, a seed of falsehood,
YSM you are something! Nobody with any sense pays attention to you inane posts!
I think you are a bit mixed up. Your post, above, is inane, as so many of your fellow posters' posts are, who follow the reprobate, uneducated in true science person, Charles Darwin.
And since you are paying attention to my posts, which have information relating to the OP, and you reply back with inane comments, then I suppose you are claiming to be senseless, yourself?
How to remain ignorant of truth about earth science:
Make sure you never read anything but the approved Darwinian myths.
Make sure you nave speak anything but the approved Darwinian myths.
Make sure you never hear anything but approved Darwinian myths.
Make sure you never look at anything but approved Darwinian myths.
How to show you are a fool:
Make sure to scoff and make wide mouths at anyone who looks at true history; speaks about true history from written records; or who has looked at evidences of true earth history and dino-dragon and beheme interaction -from the beginning
Isa 57:4 Against whom do ye sport yourselves? against whom make ye a wide mouth, [and] draw out the tongue? [are] ye not children of transgression, a seed of falsehood,
LOL...You sure don't like poor old Darwin do you.....What a lot of venom towards a man who died in 1882. I think you hate the man because it was him that set the ball in motion that totally disproves your creation myths.
Depending on the Ooparts site for information is pure folly, and regarding the bolded phrase of yours above....I totally agree with you.
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.
