Richard Dawkins & Smash of Dinosaur / Human Footprints

Ica Stones Hoax

a reply to: cooperton

I want them to be real. I can't remember what I was watching, so I'll just stay out of the debate.

I believe men saw dinosaurs, whether the stones are real or forged. And I believe many dinosaurs could have become extinct in the distant past.

I am an old earth creationist.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
Ica Stones Hoax

I don't want to get into a debate where there is nothing but speculation, because that is all there is. I gave my speculation... and I think it is note-worthy that this guy gave up his career as a medical doctor for these stones.

"The stones are almost certainly modern, created by local villagers to sell to gullible tourists. "

I am almost certain about almost everything.

"The Ica stones reputedly give evidence for a highly advanced, very ancient civilization, but no other trace of such a civilization exists. The Nazca drawings are nearby..."

Almost certainly an oxymoron.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
Ica Stones Hoax

I don't want to get into a debate where there is nothing but speculation, because that is all there is.

I disagree that there is any speculation about the stones.

Two peasants from Callango, Basilio Uchuya and his wife, Irma Gutierrez de Aparcana, have admitted to carving the stones they sold to Cabrera, basing their designs on illustrations from comic books, school books, and magazines

Seems there is only wishful thinking from those who want these to be anything but a hoax.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

The Ica stones were never PROVEN to be a hoax, the state department was leaned on by some upset professor's and they passed there concern onto the peruvian authority's whom in turn leaned on the guy whom at first had claimed he had found them and was selling them in the village market (at the time not exactly a tourist hot spot) but then retracted his statement after being held in police custody? however one stone was apparently sent to Austria for testing by the guy whom first brought them to the world's attention after he had seen them and bought a few and the Argon/Krypton surface absorption isotoptic dating could not ascertain it's age only that it was over 50.000 years old.

Conveniently that is a the part most sceptics brush over and it is very hard to find that little snipped on the net, indeed I have failed as I was interested in the Ica stones for a while and have read about them in text book's before the net was common use.

Now like Carbon 13 dating Argon/Krypton dating relies on the radioactive decay of Isotopes but unlike Carbon 13 which is more accurate it is reliant on surface absrobtion of atmospheric gas' containing the isotopes and of course can be hindered by many different factors including relative exposure (in a cave less exposure) size of sample and of course contamination through exposure to fresh sources of atmospheric isotopes and background radiation, it is also far less accurate.

Sorry I can not find an article related to the dating which I read about decades ago but though they are probably fake they can not be clearly discounted as the initial confession was made under threat by the peruvian police at the behest (leaned on) of the US state department after certain US University academics apparently leaned on them.

originally posted by: bitsforbytes

Dragons

And? Which of those cultures had the exact same dragon myths? Because the link I'm reading says that they are all vastly different descriptions.

Written language is at least 5200 years old.

And humans have been on the planet 100,000 years. How long do you think we've been able to talk and communicate?

Other mythical creatures: giant humans.

Have you seen a basketball player?

Aren't dinosaurs reptiles? Aren't they giant in some cases? So there might be a possibility that early man didn't imagine them, yes?

Maybe if they dug up the fossils in the ground and somehow determined they were reptiles. Most dinosaurs weren't big.

Look I am not saying that what I have is earth shattering, I am just pointing out that there is a possibility that they weren't as invented as we are led to believe. Also, that you as much as me are representing beliefs both parties have no assurance of the exact truth since well we weren't there and we rely on what we can unearth.

Yes, there IS a possibility. There is always a possibility for something, but if the archaeological evidence doesn't match up then the possibility is very unlikely. We can trace these things through the fossil record. In order for dinosaurs to survive up until 500 - 6000 years ago, they'd have to have sustained a minimum viable population up until that length. Therefore, we'd be able to see fossils dating at LEAST back sometime during humans being on the planet. Again we've been on the planet 100,000 years. Our closest ancestors have been on the planet for longer, and we STILL don't have fossils of any of them being with dinosaurs.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes yes yes all settled science eh? LOL

Just pulling you leg there.

If you want to believe that I will never stop you...just know it is a belief.

a reply to: bitsforbytes

It's not belief. It's accepting the possibility with the most likely outcome given the evidence at hand.

a reply to: PickledOnion

Evil - Lucion?

Blimey.

Applying this guys simple rhyming logic, that must mean Cree - ation is the real God then? Were a Native American tribe, the Cree, responsible for existence then?

That guy seems to have the IQ of a 12 year old. He even knocks 'all these 'isms' that Dawkins has..but of course forgot his own little 'Ism' that he childishly speaks of...creationism.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: PickledOnion

Evil - Lucion?

Blimey.

Creation as described in Genesis, and then endorsed in John 1 (and Hinduism), involves a Conscious entity creating through words. From our current limited perspective, it can be made analogous to the way our dreams work; the dream world is dictated by our thoughts and words. Therefore if words/consciousness are the cornerstone of creation, then words would manifest themselves into various patterns that indicate certain things if someone has a keen enough eye for them.

For example: Santa Claus, is Satan's Clause.... to blind the kids from Christ by bombarding them with material gifts. This is also why curse words are "bad", you are not only cursing the external target, but also your self.

I guess you believe in curses, bad luck and magic?

You don't think all you said in last post is childish?

a reply to: cooperton

Lol you are propagating the false myth that Santa as an anagram for Satan was actually done on purpose.

SANTA CLAUS

The name Santa Claus evolved from Nick’s Dutch nickname, Sinter Klaas, a shortened form of Sint Nikolaas (Dutch for Saint Nicholas). In 1804, John Pintard, a member of the New York Historical Society, distributed woodcuts of St. Nicholas at the society’s annual meeting. The background of the engraving contains now-familiar Santa images including stockings filled with toys and fruit hung over a fireplace. In 1809, Washington Irving helped to popularize the Sinter Klaas stories when he referred to St. Nicholas as the patron saint of New York in his book, The History of New York. As his prominence grew, Sinter Klaas was described as everything from a “rascal” with a blue three-cornered hat, red waistcoat, and yellow stockings to a man wearing a broad-brimmed hat and a “huge pair of Flemish trunk hose.”

The fact that you ares disrespecting a saint from your own religion by promoting this falsehood is some rather sweet irony.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

Lol you are propagating the false myth that Santa as an anagram for Satan was actually done on purpose.

SANTA CLAUS

The name Santa Claus evolved from Nick’s Dutch nickname, Sinter Klaas, a shortened form of Sint Nikolaas (Dutch for Saint Nicholas). In 1804, John Pintard, a member of the New York Historical Society, distributed woodcuts of St. Nicholas at the society’s annual meeting. The background of the engraving contains now-familiar Santa images including stockings filled with toys and fruit hung over a fireplace. In 1809, Washington Irving helped to popularize the Sinter Klaas stories when he referred to St. Nicholas as the patron saint of New York in his book, The History of New York. As his prominence grew, Sinter Klaas was described as everything from a “rascal” with a blue three-cornered hat, red waistcoat, and yellow stockings to a man wearing a broad-brimmed hat and a “huge pair of Flemish trunk hose.”

The fact that you ares disrespecting a saint from your own religion by promoting this falsehood is some rather sweet irony.

Saint Nicholas would be disgusted if he saw how we celebrate Christmas. Anyone analyzing the on-goings of the Christmas season will see clearly that it was hijacked by malevolence. Santa is closer to satan than it is to sinter.

originally posted by: SuperFrog
I guess you believe in curses, bad luck and magic?

You don't think all you said in last post is childish?

If you're stuck in a material reductionist viewpoint you will remain ignorant. Read and consider this: Plato's Cave Allegory

originally posted by: cooperton
Saint Nicholas would be disgusted if he saw how we celebrate Christmas. Anyone analyzing the on-goings of the Christmas season will see clearly that it was hijacked by malevolence. Santa is closer to satan than it is to sinter.

Maybe. But that doesn't change the fact that the origin of the name "Santa Claus" was DEFINITELY derived from his name. You are basically saying, "Well there's a coincidence, therefore its true." Never mind that Satan is a Hebrew word for "adversary" and Santa is slurred pronunciation of Sinter.

If you're stuck in a material reductionist viewpoint you will remain ignorant. Read and consider this: Plato's Cave Allegory

I think you are the last person who should be trying to instruct people on Plato's Cave Allegory. I'm not entirely sure you understand it correctly yourself.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

I think you are the last person who should be trying to instruct people on Plato's Cave Allegory. I'm not entirely sure you understand it correctly yourself.

I did not give my interpretation on the Allegory, but here goes:

The world of sense is the material world, the world outside is the world of forms (spirit). If anyone comes with knowledge of the spirit and tells it to the cave-dwellers they will think they are out of their wits, because they can not see beyond their self-induced material restraints.

When a great philosopher will come from the light teaching the cave-dwellers the absolute truth of spirit, the cave-dwellers will be enraged and put the great philosopher to death. Sounds familiar eh?

a reply to: cooperton

Yea, that's wrong. The cave allegory is all about people's limited worldview causing them to not being able to see the universe in the correct perspective. Someone leaves the cave, sees the larger world for what it is and the people who remained in the cave lynch him when he returns. It has nothing to do with materialism versus spiritualism.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: cooperton

Yea, that's wrong. The cave allegory is all about people's limited worldview causing them to not being able to see the universe in the correct perspective. Someone leaves the cave, sees the larger world for what it is and the people who remained in the cave lynch him when he returns. It has nothing to do with materialism versus spiritualism.

Do you know what the world of forms is, according to Plato? He even is referring to this allegory as the ascent of the soul... To say there is no spiritual aspect to this allegory is the material reductionist way of thinking. And not even so, because he quite literally states this is the ascent of the soul, so even a material reductionist should be able to grasp that fact.

Ironically, your interpretation of the allegory is fulfilling the allegory.

originally posted by: cooperton
Do you know what the world of forms is, according to Plato? He even is referring to this allegory as the ascent of the soul... To say there is no spiritual aspect to this allegory is the material reductionist way of thinking. And not even so, because he quite literally states this is the ascent of the soul, so even a material reductionist should be able to grasp that fact.

Ironically, your interpretation of the allegory is fulfilling the allegory.

Only irony I see here is your missuse of allegory of cave.

It compares the effect of education and the lack of it on our nature.

It seems to me that you read ancient philosophers literately as well...

Since when shadows are spirits??

Did he post the photoshopped picture of the Civil war Pteranadon yet and claim it's proof of dinosaurs and man walking together?

a reply to: cooperton

If you want to believe that there is nothing I can to do or say to change your mind. I'm not really about to argue philosophy with you. I can point you in the right direction, but only you can actually educate yourself.

To be honest, you really shouldn't have even brought it up. It doesn't further your point any, and to us it makes you look silly for misusing the allegory like you did.