Stegosaur Stomps Darwin
Ted Holden
Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as in
the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological doctrine of
evolutionism.
http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
Enjoy.
Ted Holden
med...@bearfabrique.org
wf...@ptd.net
>
>Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as in
>the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological doctrine of
>evolutionism.
>
> http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
>
>Enjoy.
i suppose 'evolutionism' means something to someone. obviously to
holden it does.
it means nothing to science. we see evolution. its a fact. holden's
comment is irrelevant.
Faker
med...@fcc.net (Ted Holden) wrote:
>
> Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as in
> the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological doctrine of
> evolutionism.
>
> http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
>
> Enjoy.
>
> med...@bearfabrique.org
Ted Holden is right. This picture of an anchient Native American
drawing is conclusive proof of Dinosaur/Man coexistence:
http://coolspace.gsfc.nasa.gov/NASAMIKE/whatcool/dinodig/glyph/glyph4.jp
g
--
Faker
"This Snow Crash thing--is it a virus, a drug, or a religion?"
Jaunita shrugs. "What's the difference?"
Neal Stephenson, _Snow Crash_
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
lann...@my-deja.com
med...@fcc.net (Ted Holden) wrote:
>
> Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as in
> the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological doctrine of
> evolutionism.
>
> http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
>
> Enjoy.
>
> Ted Holden
> med...@bearfabrique.org
>
>
minute...BWAHAHAHAHAHA
--
Money talks and bullshit walks.
You celebrated the millennium a year early and now you have the stones to
complain that kids aren't learning math?
and...@my-deja.com
med...@fcc.net (Ted Holden) wrote:
>
> Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as in
> the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological doctrine of
> evolutionism.
>
> http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
>
> Enjoy.
I did enjoy reading this. So which is to believed -- the numerous
instances of relatively young drawings of dinos by ancient humans or
the isolated find of cave drawings that were allegedly dated by unknown
means to be 40,000 years old?
Andy
Faker
med...@fcc.net (Ted Holden) wrote:
>
> Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as in
> the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological doctrine of
> evolutionism.
>
> http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
>
> Enjoy.
>
> med...@bearfabrique.org
Ted Holden is right. This picture of an anchient Native American
drawing is conclusive proof of Dinosaur/Man coexistence:
http://coolspace.gsfc.nasa.gov/NASAMIKE/whatcool/dinodig/glyph/glyph4.jp
g
--
Faker
"This Snow Crash thing--is it a virus, a drug, or a religion?"
Jaunita Shrugs. "What's the difference?"
Neal Stephenson, _Snow Crash_
John Segerson
Ted Holden wrote:
>
> Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as in
> the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological doctrine of
> evolutionism.
>
> http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
>
Porcupine?
stev...@my-deja.com
>
> I did enjoy reading this. So which is to believed -- the numerous
> instances of relatively young drawings of dinos by ancient humans or
> the isolated find of cave drawings that were allegedly dated by
unknown
> means to be 40,000 years old?
>
> Andy
>
you, Andy. It would, of course, be most disconcerting if stegosaurs
were found to have coexisted with humans. It would no more discount
the extensive evidence (sedimentology, isochron dating, etc) that the
earth is very ancient, or that life on earth has evolved, that the
discovery of living coelancanths (note: coelancanths and stegosaurs
alike were large groups of similar genera, not single species). As for
the "dinosaur" paintings, I know neither that they are truly ancient
(nor do I know otherwise), nor that the creatures depicted in them were
actually dinosaurs. And neither do you.
>
>
-- Steven J.
sc...@home.com
>In article <39efb40b....@news.fcc.net>,
> med...@fcc.net (Ted Holden) wrote:
>>
>> Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as in
>> the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological doctrine of
>> evolutionism.
>>
>> http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
>>
>> Enjoy.
>
>I did enjoy reading this. So which is to believed -- the numerous
>instances of relatively young drawings of dinos by ancient humans or
>the isolated find of cave drawings that were allegedly dated by unknown
>means to be 40,000 years old?
>
>Andy
>
away by the Flood.
scott
WickedDyno
> In article <39efb40b....@news.fcc.net>,
> med...@fcc.net (Ted Holden) wrote:
> >
> > Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as in
> > the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological doctrine of
> > evolutionism.
> >
> > http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
> >
> > Enjoy.
>
> I did enjoy reading this. So which is to believed -- the numerous
> instances of relatively young drawings of dinos by ancient humans or
> the isolated find of cave drawings that were allegedly dated by unknown
> means to be 40,000 years old?
What "isolated find of cave drawings that were allegedly dated by unkown
means to be 40,00 years old"?
Incidentally, the appearance of what looks to us like dinosaurs in
paintings does not imply that dinosaurs lived recently. This is simple
to prove:
People draw unicorns. Unicorns do not exist.
Therefore, not everything that people draw exists.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
Charlie O'Keefe
>
> In article <39efb40b....@news.fcc.net>,
> med...@fcc.net (Ted Holden) wrote:
> >
> > Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as in
> > the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological doctrine of
> > evolutionism.
> >
> > http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
> >
> > Enjoy.
> >
> > med...@bearfabrique.org
>
> Ted Holden is right. This picture of an anchient Native American
> drawing is conclusive proof of Dinosaur/Man coexistence:
>
> http://coolspace.gsfc.nasa.gov/NASAMIKE/whatcool/dinodig/glyph/glyph4.jp
> g
>
> --
> Faker
>
> "This Snow Crash thing--is it a virus, a drug, or a religion?"
>
>
> Neal Stephenson, _Snow Crash_
Nice quote :-)
That's a good book.
Soro
WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote in message
news:amg39.REMOVETHIS-57...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
Kenneth
> Ted Holden wrote:
> >
> > Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as in
> > the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological doctrine of
> > evolutionism.
> >
> > http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
> >
>
> Porcupine?
That's what it looks like to me.
Matt Pillsbury
> Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as in
> the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological doctrine of
> evolutionism.
> http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
> Enjoy.
Enjoy? I'm laughing my ass off!
--
Matt Pillsbury <mtp [at] brsp [dot] net>
"i pulled off your wings/and i laughed..."
--deftones
Mark VandeWettering
>In article <39efb40b....@news.fcc.net>,
> med...@fcc.net (Ted Holden) wrote:
>>
>> the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological doctrine of
>> evolutionism.
>>
>> http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
>>
>> Enjoy.
>
>instances of relatively young drawings of dinos by ancient humans or
>the isolated find of cave drawings that were allegedly dated by unknown
>means to be 40,000 years old?
Oh man, just when you think it couldn't get more absurd...
When are you guys going to led Ed Conrad into your secret club?
Mark
>Andy
--
This signature has eight As, two Cs, three Ds, thirty Es, eight Fs, seven
Gs, nine Hs, fourteen Is, four Ks, two Ls, four Ms, nineteen Ns, thirteen Os,
two Ps, fifteen Rs, thirty one Ss, twenty four Ts, seven Us, six Vs, seven
Ws, two Xs, and four Ys. Mark VandeWettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org>
Stew Dean
meme pool:
<see earlier post>
>It looked more like a wolf or something with it's back up to me.......
>
Exactly.
Psuedo science happens when people start using subjective evidence as
any kind of 'proof'. In this case it could well be a angry wolf, the
findings are subjective.
Another example is the crank Ed Conrad claiming if something looked a
bit like something it was that thing and was proof (his 'squint and
you might see it skull' rock and anacdote about the pope in a mine are
two great examples of this.
Stewart Dean - ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
alife guide - http://www.webslave.dircon.co.uk/alife
Wade Hines
WickedDyno wrote:
>
> In article <8sod8c$7g1$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <39efb40b....@news.fcc.net>,
> > med...@fcc.net (Ted Holden) wrote:
> > >
> > > Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as in
> > > the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological doctrine of
> > > evolutionism.
> > >
> > > http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
> > >
> > > Enjoy.
> >
> > I did enjoy reading this. So which is to believed -- the numerous
> > instances of relatively young drawings of dinos by ancient humans or
> > the isolated find of cave drawings that were allegedly dated by unknown
> > means to be 40,000 years old?
>
> What "isolated find of cave drawings that were allegedly dated by unkown
> means to be 40,00 years old"?
>
> Incidentally, the appearance of what looks to us like dinosaurs in
> paintings does not imply that dinosaurs lived recently. This is simple
> to prove:
>
> People draw unicorns. Unicorns do not exist.
>
> Therefore, not everything that people draw exists.
But if people drew stegasourous without having seen a stegosaurous,
would that be an aesethic proof of evolution?
Andrew MacRae
writes:
|Ted Holden wrote:
|>
|> Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as in
|> the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological doctrine of
|> evolutionism.
|>
|> http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
|
The legs look rather long for a porcupine (porcupines are quite
low to the ground), but porcupine fits at least as well as a stegosaur
does, which is not to say the fit is especially good. A stegosaur does
not have "spines" on its back (the spikes are on the tail), it has big,
flat plates, and fewer than occur in these drawings. For example, compare
with:
http://photo2.si.edu/dino/stegos.gif
If the picture is of a stegosaur, it isn't a very good picture of
one. It also begs the question of where the stegosaur bones are in that
area, in sediments that do contain plenty of native tools and other
remains. How Ted gets the _Triceratops_ into the story in reference to
the "great spiked tail", I have no idea, because neither _Triceratops_,
nor any of its ceratopsian relatives, AFAIK, have spikes on their tails.
Hey, Ted! How about putting a picture of a stegosaur beside the
petroglyphs, or at least a URL to one, and letting people decide for
themselves?
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
Andrew MacRae
writes:
|Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as in
|the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological doctrine of
|evolutionism.
|
| http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
|
Are you sure it doesn't mean "banana", as in "trying to nail the
coffin lid shut with a banana"?
Ted, the picture isn't that convincing as a _Stegosaurus_, and
your explanation of it is even less convincing. Since when does
_Triceratops_ have spikes on its tail? Are you unfamiliar with the
occurrence of the plates on the back of _Stegosaurus_ rather than spikes?
The spikes, of which there are four, are only on the tip of the tail, and
there are fewer plates than there are spikes in these pictures. Even if
it was a genuine, near-modern _Stegosaurus_ encountered by native people,
how would that affect evolution? It would mean that _Stegosaurus_ didn't
happen to become extinct as far back as paleontologists thought. So what?
Is there some kind of evolutionary time limit on how long a species can
persist? Odds on persistence, yes, but a definite cut-off is something I
am not familiar with. And where are the _Stegosaur_ bones in Ontario,
Ted? Were they frollicking in the local lakes and regularly being seen by
native people, but they never left a preserved carcass? Bones of whales
and seals are found in sediments of the area of the former Champlain Sea.
Mastodon and all sorts of other fossil remains have been found in the
area, as well as human remains and tools. Where are the _Stegosaurus_
bones or tools made from them in the same sediments?
Somehow, I don't think you have clearly thought through either the
reliability of your interpretation of this evidence or its supposed
implications for evolution even if your interpretation were correct.
It is nice to see you participating again. I hope you aren't too
bothered by the critiques.
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
Nell P. Wright
>
>Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as in
>the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological doctrine of
>evolutionism.
>
> http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
>
>Enjoy.
Indeed. I wasn't aware that stegosaurs spent so much time lurking
about under water.
Nell P. Wright
>
>Ted Holden
>med...@bearfabrique.org
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
None of the paintings look enough like anything to believe that they
are anymore than beasts typical of Native American lore. We have
a local legend here in Ilini country of the Piasa Bird (pronounced
pie-a-saw):
http://www.altonweb.com/history/piasabird/index.html
Does this painting "prove" anything to creationists? What would
Dr. Rorschach think?
--
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
SIUE School of Engineering, Dept. of Computer Science
wa...@hoxnet.com
http://www.hoxnet.com
PGP Key ID 138BCEE1
Adam Marczyk
really did think Jehovah created the world in seven days and made Adam from
the earth... but now that you mention it, the story about Mirage being
rolled into a shape of a ball to create all the things of this world and men
being formed by the Great Spirit out of water and corn meal does seem much
more plausible.
--
When I am dreaming,
I don't know if I'm truly asleep, or if I'm awake.
When I get up,
I don't know if I'm truly awake, or if I'm still dreaming...
--Forest for the Trees, "Dream"
sto...@my-deja.com
[snipped discussion of cave drawings]
ted,
do you have any archives of your spifford the bat ascii
sigs, and if so, would you consider putting up a page
with them? they are legendary, and rightfully so.
since deja no longer makes older usenet articles available,
it is rare to actually see one these days.
michael
Faker
"Charlie O'Keefe" <thegrappler_die_@_spammers_usa.net> wrote:
> Faker wrote:
> >
> > --
> > Faker
> >
> > "This Snow Crash thing--is it a virus, a drug, or a religion?"
> >
> >
> > Neal Stephenson, _Snow Crash_
>
> Nice quote :-)
> That's a good book.
Thanks, i agree. It is a great book, but to me this quote’s meaning
transcends the replication-themed story. i chose this as my .sig
because it stands on its own as an abstruse hint at the vitalistic (and
almost biological) nature of belief systems.
At the risk of a degree of profundity, Juanita could have answered
differently. Had her hacker species' fixation on Boolean logic
prevailed, an annoyingly ambiguous and simple (but correct) "yes" might
have been returned. Or were she in a cryptic mood, she could have
responded numerically (e.g., “42"). Or she could have emulated that
most talented and prolific of Artful Dodgers, the famous lawyer,
leader, politician, playboy, statesman, smoker, and all-around Cool Guy
Bill Clinton, who once noted that "It depends on what your definition
of 'is' is."
(At least I had no misspellings in this previous .sig. i feel like i
have had my zipper down for months :)
--
Faker
"He's been a decent president, but _that_ deserves disbarment."
Alan Morgan
Adam Marczyk <bj9...@ANTISPAM.binghamton.edu> wrote:
>So this means all those Native American stories are right?
Only if they are painted on rocks.
Alan
Ted Holden
MacRae) wrote:
> Since when does triceratops_ have spikes on its tail?
Somehow I was remembering both stegosaur and triceratops with tail
spikes. Shows what old-age can do with your memory (politicians have
to use drugs as an excuse); I'll remove the reference to the
triceratops.
>The spikes, of which there are four, are only on the tip of the tail, and
>there are fewer plates than there are spikes in these pictures. Even if
>it was a genuine, near-modern _Stegosaurus_ encountered by native people,
>how would that affect evolution? It would mean that _Stegosaurus_ didn't
>happen to become extinct as far back as paleontologists thought. So what?
Again, I say, if American agriculture were to run the way American
science does for six months, we'd be eating grass. I try to adopt the
big picture view whenever possible. Most Indians view Mishipishu as a
a manitou or water spirit; Deloria's idea of viewing them as
stegasaurs is novel. It is therefore remarkable that the legends
describe all the basic elements of stegosaurs, including the sawtooth
back, the spiked tail, and the fact that the creature was large enough
to harm humans with its tail, and at least one of the petroglyphs is
fairly unmistakably a stegosaur. Moreover, the www page has links to
other sites which describe other evidence of dinosaurs within the age
of man. Putting dinosaurs within the age of man destroys the
credibility of the dating schemes which are essential to evolutionism.
Ted Holden
med...@bearfabrique.org
Jonathan Stone
Stew Dean <stew...@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>On 20 Oct 2000 00:43:37 -0400, "Soro" <So...@soro.com> added to the
>meme pool:
>
><see earlier post>
>
>>
>
>Psuedo science happens when people start using subjective evidence as
>any kind of 'proof'. In this case it could well be a angry wolf, the
>findings are subjective.
>
>Another example is the crank Ed Conrad claiming if something looked a
hah -- you mean just like you do, with biological organisms and "a-life"?
Ted Holden
>ted,
>
>do you have any archives of your spifford the bat ascii
>sigs, and if so, would you consider putting up a page
>with them? they are legendary, and rightfully so.
>since deja no longer makes older usenet articles available,
>it is rare to actually see one these days.
>michael
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The evolving bat (before he made it to perfected bathood, i.e. while
the picture which his imperfect echolocating system produced in his
brain was still 50% or thereabouts)...
. . . . Picture being stoned out of your mind on every hallucinatory
drug at the same time, and then trying to watch and make sense of the
very worst television broadcast you've ever seen, you know, the sort
of thing you see for about 20 seconds before the "Technical
Difficulties" screen comes up. That's all that that poor little
evolving bat ever knew of our world.
And yet, the brilliant Ediacara crew, along with their brilliant FAQ
system, would have you believe that this fatally afflicted little
creature prospered and thrived and survived for thousands of
generations, in such a state.
Whenever you see or hear somebody expounding upon evolution, or trying
to indoctrinate kids in the "fact" of evolution, think about this poor
little dinged-out bat flying around in circles, flying into walls,
trees, the ground, his mind trashed either because he met up with
Raoul Jose-Domingo Tokovar and they toked down a box of Columbian
spliffs, or (effectively the same thing) because he was trying to
EVOLVE echo-location, and was only 80% there...
Let's call this little bat "Splifford". Some years ago, somebody
rescued a little bear from a forest fire, and that little bear became
a metaphor for the national effort to preserve our forests from
careless acts and the tragedy of large-scale fires.
Similarly, Splifford should become a symbol of the national will to
save American culture, American society, and the youth of America from
the mind-destroying evil of corrupt ideological doctrines.
______
[ \ ^^^^^^^^^^ / ]
\ \ / /---
| \ \ / / |
_..-'( / _0 | 0_ \ )`-.._
./'. '||\\. / \ _ / \ .//||` .`\
'.|'.'||||\\|.. _______ / \__/ \__/ \ _____..|//||||`.`|.`
/'.||'.||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||.`||.`\.
Splifford the bat says: Always remember
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
. . , ,
____)/ \(____
_,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._
,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.
,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.
| | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |
,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
|/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
` ` V V ' '
Splifford the bat says: Always remember
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; especially on an evolutionist.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
. . , ,
____)/ \(____
_,--''''',-'/( )\`-.`````--._
,-' ,' | \ _ _ / | `-. `-.
,' / | `._ /\\ //\ _,' | \ `.
| | `. `-( ,\\_// )-' .' | |
,' _,----._ |_,----._\ ____`\o'_`o/'____ /_.----._ |_,----._ `.
|/' \' `\( \(_)/ )/' `/ `\|
` ` V V ' '
Splifford the bat says: Always remember
Evolutionism is to academia, what crack is to the ghetto.
Just say no to narcotic drugs, alcohol abuse, and corrupt ideological
doctrines.
Ted Holden
www.bearfabrique.org
Floyd
Ted Holden wrote:
> Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as in
> the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological doctrine of
> evolutionism.
>
> http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
>
> Enjoy.
>
Dating rock art is notoriously difficult. There is nothingpresented on
this site that suggests that the carvings pre-
date the modern reconstructions of dinosaurs, so AFAICT,
the three petroglyphs were carved last week.
Further, the article describes the animal in question as having
". . . red hair all over its body . . . and its body was shaped
like
that of a buffalo. It had one eye and in the middle of its
forehead was one horn...."
IOW, it is only one fragment of a description of an obviously
imaginary beast that bears any resemblance to a stegasaur.
Finally, even if dinosaurs had persisted into the current
geological era, this fact would not disprove evolution.
True, 65 million years or so is a rather long period of
"equilibrium" in a P.E. model, but it is not, in theory,
impossible.
Since stagosaurs didn't survive into the modern geologic
era, however, that point is purely academic.
-Floyd
ZenIsWhen
and if I showed you a picture of Darwin, driving a '57 'vette, you'd say our
dating methods for cars are all wrong - rather than the picture.
Faker
jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
> In article <39f114e6...@news.dircon.co.uk>,
> Stew Dean <stew...@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
> >On 20 Oct 2000 00:43:37 -0400, "Soro" <So...@soro.com> added to the
> >meme pool:
> >
> ><see earlier post>
> >
me.......
> >>
> >
> >Psuedo science happens when people start using subjective evidence as
> >any kind of 'proof'. In this case it could well be a angry wolf, the
> >findings are subjective.
> >
> >Another example is the crank Ed Conrad claiming if something looked a
> >bit like something it was that thing [...]
>
> hah -- you mean just like you do, with biological organisms and "a-
life"?
A-Life *is* life.
--
Faker
"This Snow Crash thing--is it a virus, a drug, or a religion?"
Juanita shrugs. "What's the difference?"
Neal Stephenson, _Snow Crash_
Ashland Henderson
--
http://maceanruig.homestead.com/index.html
"Ted Holden" <med...@fcc.net> wrote in message
news:39f0bf63....@news.fcc.net...
Actually, it wouldn't destroy the credibility of the dating schemes at all.
It would indicate that Stegosaurs simply lasted a lot longer than we
thought they had. Dating schemes, however, are based on hard physics
and a whole lot of work in geology.
That said, it's nice to see you back. The current run of creationist
types lacks the particular manic Holden touch.
Ashland Henderson
Sadly, the little bear worked to try and prevent all forest fires
which in the end caused much larger ones than would have
happened if he had just shut up about it.
> Similarly, Splifford should become a symbol of the national will to
> save American culture, American society, and the youth of America from
> the mind-destroying evil of corrupt ideological doctrines.
Unfortunately, just as the bear in the end did more harm than good,
the bat turned out to represent the mind-destroying evil corrupt
ideological doctrine of creationism merged in an unnatural union
with the equally mind-destroying but not quite as evil corrupt
doctrine of Velikofskiism. Kind of sad really.
ugly bat and stupid signatures snipped just for old-times sake.
David Iain Greig
>
>Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as in
>the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological doctrine of
>evolutionism.
>
> http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
>
>Enjoy.
Ted! Hope all is well, we miss you lots, the new people we got to
replace you aren't a BIT as clever as you. :P
--D.
Wade Hines
Ashland Henderson wrote:
>
> --
> http://maceanruig.homestead.com/index.html
>
> "Ted Holden" <med...@fcc.net> wrote in message
I think it would be a major problem.
To have Stegosaurs around for 60 odd million years but no trace of
them does not fit with the rest of the evidence. Populations that
are so very small just don't last. Populations that are larger leave
some sort of trace, especially when they are massive big boned types.
If the picture in question was credible as a stegosaurous, it would
be a giant question. That some can imagine it as a stegosaurous,
providing you ignore key features of the stegosaurous bespeaks of
moldy rye bread or perhaps peyote.
WickedDyno
Holden) wrote:
> On 20 Oct 2000 16:53:44 -0400, sto...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >ted,
> >
> >do you have any archives of your spifford the bat ascii
> >sigs, and if so, would you consider putting up a page
> >with them? they are legendary, and rightfully so.
> >since deja no longer makes older usenet articles available,
> >it is rare to actually see one these days.
> >michael
>
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> The evolving bat (before he made it to perfected bathood, i.e. while
> the picture which his imperfect echolocating system produced in his
> brain was still 50% or thereabouts)...
>
> . . . . Picture being stoned out of your mind on every hallucinatory
> drug at the same time, and then trying to watch and make sense of the
> very worst television broadcast you've ever seen, you know, the sort
> of thing you see for about 20 seconds before the "Technical
> Difficulties" screen comes up. That's all that that poor little
> evolving bat ever knew of our world.
Umm, are you aware that bats have these little things called EYES? Hmm?
That Megachiropterans, which use primarily visual cues to get around,
also use a primitive form of echolocation involving clicks of the tongue
rather than ultrasound? That blind humans have learned to use a very
primitive sort of echolocation to help them get around?
Your evocative language is completely misleading. If blind humans can
supplement their navigation with echolocation, bats can certainly
develop the ability to do so.
It is likely that a bat with an incompletely developed sense of
echolocation would be like a creature with an incompletely developed
sense of sight -- things would be fuzzy, but it would be better than
being totally blind.
<snip technically good but foolishly motivated ascii art, along with
nonsense>
clfr...@my-deja.com
med...@fcc.net (Ted Holden) wrote:
> Putting dinosaurs within the age of man destroys the
> credibility of the dating schemes which are essential
> to evolutionism.
Accepting this sort of evidence also destroys the
credibility of people because they now have to accept
everything from UFOs to whatever fantastical creatures
people claim to have seen.
Do you think future archaeologists from some other planet
will think we were in contact with a race of cartoon
characters because they happen to find Disney World?
--
Craig Franck
Dover, NH
wf...@ptd.net
>On 20 Oct 2000 14:06:27 -0400, mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca (Andrew
>MacRae) wrote:
>
>
>> Since when does triceratops_ have spikes on its tail?
>
>Somehow I was remembering both stegosaur and triceratops with tail
>spikes. Shows what old-age can do with your memory (politicians have
>to use drugs as an excuse); I'll remove the reference to the
>triceratops.
>
>>The spikes, of which there are four, are only on the tip of the tail, and
>>there are fewer plates than there are spikes in these pictures. Even if
>>it was a genuine, near-modern _Stegosaurus_ encountered by native people,
>>how would that affect evolution? It would mean that _Stegosaurus_ didn't
>>happen to become extinct as far back as paleontologists thought. So what?
>
>Again, I say, if American agriculture were to run the way American
>science does for six months, we'd be eating grass.
roger thinks american science is in bad shape???
whose science is better?
and...@my-deja.com
> > med...@fcc.net (Ted Holden) wrote:
> > >
> > > Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as
in
> > > the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological
doctrine
> of
> > > evolutionism.
> > >
> > > http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
> > >
> > > Enjoy.
> >
> > instances of relatively young drawings of dinos by ancient humans or
> > the isolated find of cave drawings that were allegedly dated by
> unknown
> > means to be 40,000 years old?
> >
> >
> The only one alleging that the paintings were dated by unknown means
is
> you, Andy. ...
Do tell us how the dating of the cave paintings widely publicized to be
40,000 years old was determined. (This was a big story a few years
ago, without full public disclosure of what actually was used for the
dating.)
In the Piltdown Man fraud, the dating was based not on the skull itself
(which would have demonstrated its youth), but on other debris found in
the vicinity (which, of course, is meaningless). That's a common
dating error made by evolutionists, and may be how the alleged 40,000-
year-old cave paintings were dated.
Andy
wf...@ptd.net
>
>In the Piltdown Man fraud, the dating was based not on the skull itself
>(which would have demonstrated its youth), but on other debris found in
>the vicinity (which, of course, is meaningless). That's a common
>dating error made by evolutionists, and may be how the alleged 40,000-
>year-old cave paintings were dated.
>
>Andy
>
if its so common one wonders why andy can only cite piltdown man as an
example.
Stew Dean
the meme pool:
>In article <8sqeo2$j0u$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
> jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
>> In article <39f114e6...@news.dircon.co.uk>,
>> Stew Dean <stew...@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >On 20 Oct 2000 00:43:37 -0400, "Soro" <So...@soro.com> added to the
>> >meme pool:
>> >
>> ><see earlier post>
>> >
>> >>It looked more like a wolf or something with it's back up to
>me.......
>> >>
>> >Exactly.
>> >
>> >Psuedo science happens when people start using subjective evidence as
>> >any kind of 'proof'. In this case it could well be a angry wolf, the
>> >findings are subjective.
>> >
>> >Another example is the crank Ed Conrad claiming if something looked a
>> >bit like something it was that thing [...]
>>
>> hah -- you mean just like you do, with biological organisms and "a-
>life"?
>
>A-Life *is* life.
But what is life?
Ted Holden
>Do tell us how the dating of the cave paintings widely publicized to be
>40,000 years old was determined. (This was a big story a few years
>ago, without full public disclosure of what actually was used for the
>dating.)
Not familiar with the story you refer to.
In the case of petroglyphs on rock walls, it might not be possible to
date anything reliably. Somebody would do up one of those and then,
every hundred years or so, if the petroglyph was meaningful or
important or anything like that, somebody would come along and redo
the paint. In the case of Mishipishu, as Vine Deloria notes, the
petroglyphs around lakes and water bodies appear to be a warning,
meaning something like:
One of these lives in this lake or this river. Be careful,
don't do anything to offend him or attract his attention
unduly!
That sort of a petroglyph would be important enough to get refurbished
from time to time.
Ted Holden
med...@bearfabrique.org
Bobby D. Bryant
> It looked more like a wolf or something with it's back up to me.......
It's actually a creationist detector. If you get my drift.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
p.s. - One may well wonder whether the artist (or the modern interpreter, as
the case may be) actually knew/knows what a stegosaurus' plates actually looked
like. Compare the petroglyphs,
http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html, with a museum skeleton,
http://photo2.si.edu/dino/stegos.gif. I science really so hard?
Bobby D. Bryant
> Ashland Henderson wrote:
>
> > Actually, it wouldn't destroy the credibility of the dating schemes at all.
> > It would indicate that Stegosaurs simply lasted a lot longer than we
> > thought they had. Dating schemes, however, are based on hard physics
> > and a whole lot of work in geology.
>
> I think it would be a major problem.
>
> To have Stegosaurs around for 60 odd million years but no trace of
> them does not fit with the rest of the evidence. Populations that
> are so very small just don't last. Populations that are larger leave
> some sort of trace, especially when they are massive big boned types.
I disagree. New dinosaurs are found all the time. Our bone collection is an
incredibly small sample of what was. I'm sure we are yet to discover some
remarkable needles in that haystack.
Granted, it would be a major *revolution*. But not a major *problem*. After
all, the dating methods can only tell us the age of the ones that have been
found. If we found living stegos we'd be surprised and delighted, but we
wouldn't need to conclude that the others we have found have suddenly been dead
any less long.
"Living fossils" have been found before, and will surely be found again, but it
doesn't seem to make much difference except to need to draw a few longer lines in
the schoolbook family tree charts.
> If the picture in question was credible as a stegosaurous, it would
> be a giant question. That some can imagine it as a stegosaurous,
> providing you ignore key features of the stegosaurous bespeaks of
> moldy rye bread or perhaps peyote.
I prefer to think of it as a pile of coprolites that haven't petrified yet.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Faker
stew...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (Stew Dean) wrote:
> On 20 Oct 2000 18:37:07 -0400, Faker <fak...@my-deja.com> added to
> the meme pool:
> >
>
> But what is life?
It is different things to different people. To some, it is elusive and
ethereal, its essence ineffable. Many see it as Yin and Yang,
encompassing the extremes of existence. To others, it simply signifies
relaxation and reading.
Personally, i don't often read it, but i used it for TP once (hey, i
was camping).
>
> Stewart Dean - ste...@webslave.dircon.co.uk
> alife guide - http://www.webslave.dircon.co.uk/alife
>
>
--
Faker
"This Snow Crash thing--is it a virus, a drug, or a religion?"
Juanita shrugs. "What's the difference?"
Neal Stephenson, _Snow Crash_
Stew Dean
the meme pool:
>In article <39f1ff56...@news.dircon.co.uk>,
> stew...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (Stew Dean) wrote:
>> On 20 Oct 2000 18:37:07 -0400, Faker <fak...@my-deja.com> added to
>> the meme pool:
>> >
>> >A-Life *is* life.
>>
>> But what is life?
>
>
>It is different things to different people. To some, it is elusive and
>ethereal, its essence ineffable. Many see it as Yin and Yang,
>encompassing the extremes of existence. To others, it simply signifies
>relaxation and reading.
>
Exactly. Currenlty life has many subjective meanings. This is why
those who follow a-life say it creates life like behavours because out
side of what is 'obvious' we don't have a universal definition of
life.
>Personally, i don't often read it, but i used it for TP once (hey, i
>was camping).
Sorry - what's TP?
Wade Hines
"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
> Wade Hines wrote:
> > Ashland Henderson wrote:
> > > Actually, it wouldn't destroy the credibility of the dating schemes at all.
> > > It would indicate that Stegosaurs simply lasted a lot longer than we
> > > thought they had. Dating schemes, however, are based on hard physics
> > > and a whole lot of work in geology.
> > I think it would be a major problem.
> > To have Stegosaurs around for 60 odd million years but no trace of
> > them does not fit with the rest of the evidence. Populations that
> > are so very small just don't last. Populations that are larger leave
> > some sort of trace, especially when they are massive big boned types.
> I disagree. New dinosaurs are found all the time. Our bone collection is an
> incredibly small sample of what was. I'm sure we are yet to discover some
> remarkable needles in that haystack.
That doesn't wash. Think about those "new" dinosaurs that are found all
the time. Are they unrelated to other dinosaurs with gapes of 150
million
years? Answer: No. We find something like a new relative of the T.rex
but
not something entirely unrelated to other finds.
Finding evidence of a live Stegosaurus from the last 40,000 years places
a huge gap in the fossil record. For such a big boned critter, it would
be grossly disproportionate from other gaps, about a 130 million year
gap.
> Granted, it would be a major *revolution*. But not a major *problem*. After
> all, the dating methods can only tell us the age of the ones that have been
> found. If we found living stegos we'd be surprised and delighted, but we
> wouldn't need to conclude that the others we have found have suddenly been dead
> any less long.
You ignore how complete the fossil record is. When holes are generally
large, another
large hole isn't a problem. If the average size of a hole is 10 units, a
hole
of 100 units draws attention as a minor problem, one of 500 units moreso
and one
of 5000 units says something is wrong. Finding a modern stegosaurus
would
be in the _very wrong_ category.
> "Living fossils" have been found before, and will surely be found again, but it
> doesn't seem to make much difference except to need to draw a few longer lines in
> the schoolbook family tree charts.
You aren't seeing the picture clearly. 50 years ago, it would have been
a
remarkable discovery throwing paleontology for a loop. Today it would
be well beyond revolutionary.
> > If the picture in question was credible as a stegosaurous, it would
> > be a giant question. That some can imagine it as a stegosaurous,
> > providing you ignore key features of the stegosaurous bespeaks of
> > moldy rye bread or perhaps peyote.
>
> I prefer to think of it as a pile of coprolites that haven't petrified yet.
I wasn't aware that crap has psychoactive effects.
Ashland Henderson
news:39F0ECFF...@rcn.com...
>
>
> Ashland Henderson wrote:
> >
> > "Ted Holden" <med...@fcc.net> wrote in message
> > news:39f0bf63....@news.fcc.net...
> > > MacRae) wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Since when does triceratops_ have spikes on its tail?
> > >
> > > Somehow I was remembering both stegosaur and triceratops with tail
> > > spikes. Shows what old-age can do with your memory (politicians have
> > > to use drugs as an excuse); I'll remove the reference to the
> > > triceratops.
> > >
> > > >The spikes, of which there are four, are only on the tip of the tail,
and
> > > >there are fewer plates than there are spikes in these pictures. Even
if
> > > >it was a genuine, near-modern _Stegosaurus_ encountered by native
people,
> > > >how would that affect evolution? It would mean that _Stegosaurus_
didn't
> > > >happen to become extinct as far back as paleontologists thought. So
> > what?
> > >
> > > Again, I say, if American agriculture were to run the way American
> > > big picture view whenever possible. Most Indians view Mishipishu as a
> > > a manitou or water spirit; Deloria's idea of viewing them as
> > > stegasaurs is novel. It is therefore remarkable that the legends
> > > describe all the basic elements of stegosaurs, including the sawtooth
> > > back, the spiked tail, and the fact that the creature was large enough
> > > to harm humans with its tail, and at least one of the petroglyphs is
> > > fairly unmistakably a stegosaur. Moreover, the www page has links to
> > > of man. Putting dinosaurs within the age of man destroys the
> > > credibility of the dating schemes which are essential to evolutionism.
> >
all.
> > It would indicate that Stegosaurs simply lasted a lot longer than we
> > thought they had. Dating schemes, however, are based on hard physics
> > and a whole lot of work in geology.
>
> I think it would be a major problem.
>
> To have Stegosaurs around for 60 odd million years but no trace of
> them does not fit with the rest of the evidence. Populations that
> are so very small just don't last. Populations that are larger leave
> some sort of trace, especially when they are massive big boned types.
>
> be a giant question. That some can imagine it as a stegosaurous,
> providing you ignore key features of the stegosaurous bespeaks of
> moldy rye bread or perhaps peyote.
It would be a problem to explain and I would certainly want to see
evidence of the 60 million years or so missing. It would not, however,
destroy the credibility of dating systems based on solid physics and
geology, which was the point I was trying to make.
J&S
>
> Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as in
> the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological doctrine of
> evolutionism.
>
> http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
>
> Enjoy.
>
> med...@bearfabrique.org
SILAS
Is it April 1st already?
Wade Hines
Ashland Henderson wrote:
> "Wade Hines" <wade....@rcn.com> wrote in message
> > Ashland Henderson wrote:
> > > Actually, it wouldn't destroy the credibility of the dating schemes at
> all.
> > > It would indicate that Stegosaurs simply lasted a lot longer than we
> > > thought they had. Dating schemes, however, are based on hard physics
> > > and a whole lot of work in geology.
> > I think it would be a major problem.
> > To have Stegosaurs around for 60 odd million years but no trace of
> > them does not fit with the rest of the evidence. Populations that
> > are so very small just don't last. Populations that are larger leave
> > some sort of trace, especially when they are massive big boned types.
> > If the picture in question was credible as a stegosaurous, it would
> > be a giant question. That some can imagine it as a stegosaurous,
> > providing you ignore key features of the stegosaurous bespeaks of
> > moldy rye bread or perhaps peyote.
> It would be a problem to explain and I would certainly want to see
> evidence of the 60 million years or so missing. It would not, however,
> destroy the credibility of dating systems based on solid physics and
> geology, which was the point I was trying to make.
Well yes and no. Part of the reason that the dating system is so
credible is that there really aren't any catestropically bad
datapoints. There are superficial anomolies like fresh lava rock
that dates to an ancient date but that requires ignoring basic
prerequisits of the dating methods.
But that sort of date would be just like finding a rock that floats
but has a density of 10g/cm^3. It wouldn't change everything we
know about gravity but ... then again ... it would because we "know"
that wouldn't be possible. Part of what we "know" about gravity
is that there aren't floating rocks. Part of what we "know" about
dating is that impossible dates don't occur.
WickedDyno
stew...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (Stew Dean) wrote:
> On 21 Oct 2000 05:20:09 -0400, Faker <fak...@my-deja.com> added to
> the meme pool:
>
> >In article <39f1ff56...@news.dircon.co.uk>,
> > stew...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (Stew Dean) wrote:
> >> On 20 Oct 2000 18:37:07 -0400, Faker <fak...@my-deja.com> added to
> >> the meme pool:
> >> >
> >> >A-Life *is* life.
> >>
> >> But what is life?
> >
> >
> >It is different things to different people. To some, it is elusive and
> >ethereal, its essence ineffable. Many see it as Yin and Yang,
> >encompassing the extremes of existence. To others, it simply signifies
> >relaxation and reading.
> >
> Exactly. Currenlty life has many subjective meanings. This is why
> those who follow a-life say it creates life like behavours because out
> side of what is 'obvious' we don't have a universal definition of
> life.
>
> >Personally, i don't often read it, but i used it for TP once (hey, i
> >was camping).
>
> Sorry - what's TP?
Toilet Paper. Think about it, you'll get it eventually.
Dick C.
>
>
>Again, I say, if American agriculture were to run the way American
>science does for six months, we'd be eating grass.
Actually, we do eat lots of grasses.
--
Dick #1349
People think that libraries are safe places, but they're not,
they have ideas.
email: dic...@uswest.net
Homepage http://www.users.uswest.net/~dickcr/
PZ Myers
foo.d...@uswest.net (Dick C.) wrote:
> med...@fcc.net (Ted Holden) wrote in
> <39f0bf63....@news.fcc.net>:
>
> >
> >
> >Again, I say, if American agriculture were to run the way
> >American science does for six months, we'd be eating grass.
>
> Actually, we do eat lots of grasses.
And we should be eating more.
--
PZ Myers
Jonathan Stone
>In article <8sqeo2$j0u$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
> jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
>> In article <39f114e6...@news.dircon.co.uk>,
>> Stew Dean <stew...@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>> >meme pool:
>> >
>> ><see earlier post>
>> >
>> >>It looked more like a wolf or something with it's back up to
>me.......
>> >>
>> >
>> >Psuedo science happens when people start using subjective evidence as
>> >any kind of 'proof'. In this case it could well be a angry wolf, the
>> >findings are subjective.
>> >
>> >Another example is the crank Ed Conrad claiming if something looked a
>> >bit like something it was that thing [...]
>>
>> hah -- you mean just like you do, with biological organisms and "a-
>life"?
>
>A-Life *is* life.
There's a long history of disagreemnt here. Standard scientific
epistemology says that a simulation is not the *same* as the thing
simulated, and one has to pay very careful attention to grounding the
simulation against hard data; otehrewise, you cannot know whether the
results of a simpuation run reflect the "real" system, or are merely
an artifact of the simulator.
Stew ignores all this. Stew has said many things aobut A-life, not
all of them coherent, nor even self-consistent. Stew appears to lack
the bbintellectual backround to recognise when he's contradicted
himself, as he has done, several times, discussing this issue with
myself and Marty Fouts.
Simulations of biological life are *not* biological life, no more than
a LALN or LLNL h-bomb code is a real nuclear weapon.
Faker
jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
> In article <8sqheh$vgm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Faker <faker42@my-
Good point. I agree that A-life simulations do not equal biological
life. However, i think that many of these programmed experiments
accurately reflect processes and properties inherent in biological
systems (organisms, populations, etc). IOW, they are about as life-like
as life itself. Though they and their world are necessarily much
simpler than reality, i think that these digital organisms are, in a
very real way, alive. (This is not true of all Alife programs; some
approximate wet life better than others).
i know that this means little without a definition of "life," and as
Stew pointed out in another post, there really isn't one. But some
simulations have "life-likeness" that approach that of biology so
closely that they can be said to exhibit life.
And, to me, life isn't limited to organisms and computer simulations.
If the basic generalization which can be made about living systems is
that their unit is the replicator, a broader category of "life"
results, and includes many phenomena which are not generally associated
with it (e.g., computer viruses, chain letters, and much more). Are
these life?
Well, they are life-like. It depends on where you draw the line.
Faker
A5CAD5.135...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
WickedDyno <amg39.RE...@cornell.edu.invalid> wrote:
> In article <39f3732e...@news.dircon.co.uk>,
> stew...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (Stew Dean) wrote:
>
> > the meme pool:
> >
> > >In article <39f1ff56...@news.dircon.co.uk>,
> > > stew...@webslave.dircon.co.uk (Stew Dean) wrote:
to
> > >> the meme pool:
> > >> >
> > >> >A-Life *is* life.
> > >>
> > >> But what is life?
> > >
> > >
> > >It is different things to different people. To some, it is elusive
and
> > >ethereal, its essence ineffable. Many see it as Yin and Yang,
> > >encompassing the extremes of existence. To others, it simply
signifies
> > >relaxation and reading.
> > >
> > Exactly. Currenlty life has many subjective meanings. This is why
> > those who follow a-life say it creates life like behavours because
out
> > side of what is 'obvious' we don't have a universal definition of
> > life.
> >
> > >Personally, i don't often read it, but i used it for TP once (hey,
i
> > >was camping).
> >
> > Sorry - what's TP?
>
> Toilet Paper. Think about it, you'll get it eventually.
Perhaps i over-estimated my humorousness at 4:20 yesterday morning. But
at least i wasn't compelled to share the ways in which life is like a
grapefruit.
>
> --
> | Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
> | SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
> | reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
> | to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
>
>
--
Stew Dean
Stone) added to the meme pool:
>In article <8sqheh$vgm$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Faker <fak...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>In article <8sqeo2$j0u$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU>,
>> jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone) wrote:
>>> In article <39f114e6...@news.dircon.co.uk>,
>>> Stew Dean <stew...@webslave.dircon.co.uk> wrote:
>>> >On 20 Oct 2000 00:43:37 -0400, "Soro" <So...@soro.com> added to the
>>> >meme pool:
>>> >
>>> ><see earlier post>
>>> >
>>> >>It looked more like a wolf or something with it's back up to
>>me.......
>>> >>
>>> >Exactly.
>>> >
>>> >Psuedo science happens when people start using subjective evidence as
>>> >any kind of 'proof'. In this case it could well be a angry wolf, the
>>> >findings are subjective.
>>> >
>>> >Another example is the crank Ed Conrad claiming if something looked a
>>> >bit like something it was that thing [...]
>>>
>>> hah -- you mean just like you do, with biological organisms and "a-
>>life"?
>>
>>A-Life *is* life.
>
>There's a long history of disagreemnt here. Standard scientific
>epistemology says that a simulation is not the *same* as the thing
>simulated, and one has to pay very careful attention to grounding the
>simulation against hard data; otehrewise, you cannot know whether the
>results of a simpuation run reflect the "real" system, or are merely
>an artifact of the simulator.
>
The thing being simulated is never the same as the real thing but, and
this is very very important, it can share the same properties. These
properties can be thought of as real given that they behave in the
same way. Life is a property not a thing.
>Stew ignores all this.
Nothing was ignored as I will explain.
>Simulations of biological life are *not* biological life, no more than
>a LALN or LLNL h-bomb code is a real nuclear weapon.
An nor did I ever say simulations of biological life are biological
life or the nuclear test simulations are real h-bombs that can blow up
real cities. I would have expected that to be understood by now. I
said it often enough.
I'll make the simple point I've made countless times which you simply
don't appear to understand.
If life is a system, just like evolution, then biological life is an
implimentation of that system. You can use evolution in a system and
it's real evolution - but it's not biological evolution. So it is with
life.
The confusion on your part is seperating the concept of life from the
only current implimentation we know of - biological life. Also to
remind you life is a sliding scale not an on off state so some systems
may be slightly alive, like a corporation or a weather system.
Once we fully understand the systems of life, not just the biological
implimentation, then if we create something that uses that system it
can be said to be alive. This is not simulation biological life but
using the same system to create a different kind of life.
You don't have to take my word. Many current books exist that go
through the achivements of science from Kepler through Maxwell and his
demon to Grand Unification to Chaos theory and Complex systems. If
you stopped your study before 1980 then you've got some catching up to
do.
Walter Bushell
> In article <8FD47BF7Adic...@207.225.159.7>,
> foo.d...@uswest.net (Dick C.) wrote:
>
> > med...@fcc.net (Ted Holden) wrote in
> > <39f0bf63....@news.fcc.net>:
> >f> > >
> > >
> > >Again, I say, if American agriculture were to run the way
> > >American science does for six months, we'd be eating grass.
> >
> > Actually, we do eat lots of grasses.
>
> And we should be eating more.
----> Nutritionally grains (and potatoes) are a disaster. Human health
declined with the adaption of grains. Much too high in carbohydrates
and low in everything else. Refined grains are even worst.
...
J&S
"Ashland Henderson" <macea...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:TN5I5.4043$1S5.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Snip of stuff to get tot he good part
It is therefore remarkable that the legends
> > describe all the basic elements of stegosaurs, including the sawtooth
> > back, the spiked tail, and the fact that the creature was large enough
> > to harm humans with its tail, and at least one of the petroglyphs is
> > fairly unmistakably a stegosaur
Actually that one looks an awful lot like Cecil the sea sick sea serpent
from the Beanie and Cecil cartoons!!! Wow, have they found any petroglyphs
of a kid in a beanie? Clampet a plagiarizer, who'd a thunk it? RAGGMOPP
ragmop!
People have throughout time drawn things from the imagination, if your
going to claim that these represent stegosaurs, yer gonna have to admit that
Zeus was real. And Athena and her giant gold statue and all that lot.
Again I ask, is it April 1st already?
SILAS
Henry Barwood
Ted Holden wrote:
>
> Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as in
> the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological doctrine of
> evolutionism.
>
> http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
>
> Enjoy.
No! Tell me it isn't so! Now we have all the major players back again.
Holden, Conrad, the Sinderbot, Nyikos. Plus, we now have Newbie and the
Schlaflybot (Rogerbot?) to play with.
So, you still seeing mysterious alien structures on Mars? I enjoyed the
documentary "Mission to Mars". You?
Barwood
Matt Silberstein
and...@my-deja.com:
[snip]
>Do tell us how the dating of the cave paintings widely publicized to be
>40,000 years old was determined. (This was a big story a few years
>ago, without full public disclosure of what actually was used for the
>dating.)
"Without full public disclosure" means that no one came over to Andy's
house and explained all the steps to him nor did anyone provide him
with URLs to all of the details nor did anyone put said URLs into his
bookmarks because Andy forgets a lot. You might have to read the
actual scientific articles and, horror of horrors, have some
background knowledge. For Andy, if the material does not exist on an
easy to find web page, then it is hidden.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM
Make me an angel that flies from Montgomery
Make me a poster of an old rodeo
Just give me one thing that I can hold on to
To believe in this living is just a hard way to go.
J.P.
PZ Myers
<hbar...@indiana.edu> wrote:
> Ted Holden wrote:
> >
> > Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as in
> > the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological doctrine of
> > evolutionism.
> >
> > http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
> >
> > Enjoy.
>
> No! Tell me it isn't so! Now we have all the major players back again.
> Holden, Conrad, the Sinderbot, Nyikos. Plus, we now have Newbie and the
> Schlaflybot (Rogerbot?) to play with.
Hasn't Nyikos found a new newsgroup to police? And I don't think Sinder
is back, is he?
>
> So, you still seeing mysterious alien structures on Mars? I enjoyed the
> documentary "Mission to Mars". You?
--
PZ Myers
Matt Silberstein
med...@fcc.net (Ted Holden):
>
>Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as in
>the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological doctrine of
>evolutionism.
>
> http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
Ted, don't you base some of your planetary history ideas on the notion
that no animals that big could survive with our current felt affects
of gravity? Can you explain the discrepancy to me?
Ken Cox
> Again, I say, if American agriculture were to run the way American
> science does for six months, we'd be eating grass.
We *do* eat grass. What do you think wheat, corn, rice, oats,
and so forth are?
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Nell P. Wright
PZ Myers <my...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <3994160F...@indiana.edu>, Henry Barwood
> <hbar...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> > Ted Holden wrote:
> > >
in
> > > the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological
doctrine of
> > > evolutionism.
> > >
> > > http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
> > >
> >
> > No! Tell me it isn't so! Now we have all the major players back
again.
> > Holden, Conrad, the Sinderbot, Nyikos. Plus, we now have Newbie and
the
> > Schlaflybot (Rogerbot?) to play with.
>
> Hasn't Nyikos found a new newsgroup to police?
Yep, he's over on soc.history.medieval now, providing a never-ending
source of "entertainment" for the regulars there.
>And I don't think Sinder
> is back, is he?
'Fraid so...someone breathed the word "Sinderbot" into the air, and
invoked him...
Nell
>
> >
> > So, you still seeing mysterious alien structures on Mars? I enjoyed
the
> > documentary "Mission to Mars". You?
>
> --
> PZ Myers
>
>
Henry Barwood
PZ Myers wrote:
> Hasn't Nyikos found a new newsgroup to police? And I don't think Sinder
> is back, is he?
Sadly, I've seen them both recently. Must be the nearness to the
coronation of Dubya.
Barwood
PZ Myers
<hbar...@indiana.edu> wrote:
Don't make me weep.
--
PZ Myers
Floyd
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <39efb40b....@news.fcc.net>,
> med...@fcc.net (Ted Holden) wrote:
> >
> > Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as in
> > the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological doctrine of
> > evolutionism.
> >
> > http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
> >
> > Enjoy.
>
> I did enjoy reading this. So which is to believed -- the numerous
> instances of relatively young drawings of dinos by ancient humans or
> the isolated find of cave drawings that were allegedly dated by unknown
> means to be 40,000 years old?
The paintings at Chauvet are by no means isolated. The dating method,for
your information, was AMS on charcoal used in the black pigment.
The same technique has been applied at Altamira and, IIRC, at Lascaux.
"Young drawings of dinos," particularly those discovered in recent
decades, have to be suspect, since illustrations of dinosaurs are readily
available in books. Copying a picture from a book is clearly not the
same as drawing from life. Unless the petroglyphs you refer to can
be demonstrated to be older than, say, 1850 or so, they are irrelevant,
since they may simply be recent copies of published illustrations.
In the case of the petroglyph Deloria mentions, the creature in
question doesn't look like an actual stegasaurus to me. If we take
Deloria at his word, it logically follows that the creature is NOT a
stegasaur. Observe:
Deloria states "Indians generfly speak with a precise and literal imagery."
and "...the reports are to be given literal credibility..."
In other words, we should take the stories at face value. (I don't
believe that's a wise approach, but I'll allow it for the sake of argument)
He then mentions the Sioux story of a creature that had ". . . red hair all
over its body . . . and its body was shaped like that of a buffalo. It had
one eye and in the middle of its forehead was one horn. Its backbone
was just like a cross- cut saw; it was flat and notched like a saw or
cogwheel."
The image at:
http://www.grendelcat.com/backgrounds/gallery/animalslide/Stegasaur001.htm
is a more or less accurate reconstruction of what a stegasaur may
actually have looked like. You will note that (A) it is not covered
in red hair. (B) its body was not shaped like a buffalo (for comparisson,
see images at http://www.88x31.com/frame/animals.htm). It had two
eyes (hard to see from this image) and it did not have a horn in the
middle of its forehead. IOW, if we are to take the story literally,
then we must conclude that the beastie in question was definitely
NOT a stegasaur, but some unknown form of mammal (since
it had hair). IOW, even if this beastie ever really existed (which
it almost certainly didn't) it still wouldn't have any impact on
evolution. IOW, you're just plain mistaken here. Try again?
-Floyd
Andrew MacRae
writes:
With that provision about inappropriate samples that violate the
basic prerequisites of the method, yes.
But nothing about radiometric dating methods would change if a
live _Stegosaurus_ turned up -- not a thing. It would mean the known
range of _Stegosaurus_ would be drastically revised, rather like the
situation when live coelacanths were found despite the last known fossil
examples occurring in rocks of the Cretaceous Period. Heh, but because
people are thoroughly confused about what that example means, Ted's
confusion about the significance of modern _Stegosaurus_ is
understandable.
|But that sort of date would be just like finding a rock that floats
|but has a density of 10g/cm^3. It wouldn't change everything we
|know about gravity but ... then again ... it would because we "know"
|that wouldn't be possible. Part of what we "know" about gravity
|is that there aren't floating rocks.
Uh, well, yes there are, such as pumice (lots of bubbles in it),
and it is at least theoretically possible (but probably impractical) to
carve a boat out of rock and make it float (thanks to displacement and all
that). But there aren't any ordinarily-shaped floating rocks with a bulk
density >1.0g/cm^3, yes. Okay, okay, not floating in fresh water on
Earth, anyway, and not suspended by surface tension (e.g., thin mica
sheets, which float fairly easily) [Darn pedants :-)]
|Part of what we "know" about
|dating is that impossible dates don't occur.
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
Andrew MacRae
writes:
|
|
|"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
|> Wade Hines wrote:
|
|> > > Actually, it wouldn't destroy the credibility of the dating schemes
at all.
|> > > It would indicate that Stegosaurs simply lasted a lot longer than
we
|> > > thought they had. Dating schemes, however, are based on hard
physics
|> > > and a whole lot of work in geology.
|
|> > I think it would be a major problem.
|
|> > To have Stegosaurs around for 60 odd million years but no trace of
|> > them does not fit with the rest of the evidence. Populations that
|> > are so very small just don't last. Populations that are larger leave
|> > some sort of trace, especially when they are massive big boned types.
|
|> is an incredibly small sample of what was. I'm sure we are yet to
|> discover some remarkable needles in that haystack.
|
|That doesn't wash. Think about those "new" dinosaurs that are found all
|the time. Are they unrelated to other dinosaurs with gapes of 150
|T.rex but not something entirely unrelated to other finds.
But it would not be unrelated. It would be related to
_Stegosaurus_ of the Jurassic, just as modern coelacanths are related to
those of the Cretaceous Period.
You have to remember that, more than any other fauna or flora any
time in geological history, the modern one is the best known -- by far.
We are talking orders of magnitude here in terms of the difference in
sampling. It is not that unusual for modern species to be the only ones
known, and then for some rare, exceptional fossil to turn up, although,
granted, these are usually in soft-bodied groups with even less
preservation potential than a herd of surviving _Stegosaurs_ would be
expected to have (e.g., the youngest fossil lamprey that are known are
from the Carboniferous Period, about 300 million years ago -- other than
that, nada).
|Finding evidence of a live Stegosaurus from the last 40,000 years places
|a huge gap in the fossil record. For such a big boned critter, it would
|be grossly disproportionate from other gaps, about a 130 million year
|gap.
There is another problem. As far as I can remember, most species
assigned to _Stegosaurus_, perhaps all, are Jurassic (I should check -
there might be some Early Cretaceous species). That means there are loads
of *other*, non-stegosaur dinosaurs that *are* found as fossils, but no
_Stegosaurus_, for a good portion or all of the Cretaceous Period.
|> Granted, it would be a major *revolution*. But not a major *problem*.
|> After all, the dating methods can only tell us the age of the ones that
|> have been found. If we found living stegos we'd be surprised and
|> delighted, but we wouldn't need to conclude that the others we have
|> found have suddenly been dead any less long.
Exactly. The dead fossils are the same as they ever were. It
changes nothing about them, except that they had descendants that
persisted longer than thought.
|You ignore how complete the fossil record is. When holes are generally
|large, another large hole isn't a problem. If the average size of a hole
|is 10 units, a hole of 100 units draws attention as a minor problem, one
|of 500 units moreso and one
|of 5000 units says something is wrong. Finding a modern stegosaurus
|would be in the _very wrong_ category.
Yeah, there is no getting around those statistics -- it is very
unlikely -- but if it turned up, the evidence would be honoured. Stranger
things have happened, although I can't offhand think of any this strange
(e.g., the classic coelacanth example does not involve such a long gap).
Even if it did turn up, it still would not affect the time scale, which
isn't primarily based upon dinosaurs anyway (too rare). They are just
more familiar to people.
|> "Living fossils" have been found before, and will surely be found
|> again, but it doesn't seem to make much difference except to need to
|> draw a few longer lines in the schoolbook family tree charts.
|
|You aren't seeing the picture clearly. 50 years ago, it would have been
|a remarkable discovery throwing paleontology for a loop. Today it would
|be well beyond revolutionary.
True, interpretations are more robust, because sampling has
inevitably improved, but it could still happen, even if it is vanishingly
and increasingly unlikely. All of this is just wild speculation until it
actually happens, and a few superficially, remotely similar pictures don't
cut it as the extraordinary evidence that such an interpretation would
demand. I also question the "revolutionary" nature of such a discovery.
Yeah, it would be a huge surprise, but turn timescales upside-down? No.
|> > If the picture in question was credible as a stegosaurous, it would
|> > be a giant question. That some can imagine it as a stegosaurous,
|> > providing you ignore key features of the stegosaurous bespeaks of
|> > moldy rye bread or perhaps peyote.
|>
|> I prefer to think of it as a pile of coprolites that haven't petrified
|> yet.
|
|I wasn't aware that crap has psychoactive effects.
Well, if the beastie in question had eaten plenty of strange
berries or mushrooms...
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
Keith Littleton
Ted Holden <med...@fcc.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 21 Oct 2000 02:12:17 GMT, zu...@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>>
>>>The Sioux have a tale about such a monster in the
>>>Missouri River. According to reports, the monster had
>>>was shaped like that of a buffalo. It had one eye and
>>>in the middle of its forehead was one horn. Its
>>>backbone was just like a cross- cut saw; it was
>>>that the dinosaur in question here must be a stegosaurus.
>>
>>Stegasauruses had one eye? Kind of hard to get that
>>little feature wrong if you happen to be living among
>>them. So much for "precise and literal imagery".
>>Or rather, for your attempt to portray these myths
>>as resembling fact in any way.
>
>The story obviously got embellished over a period of
>centuries, nonetheless the descriptions, including
>those such as Thor Conway notes, retain the vital
>traits of the saw-tooth back, the spiked tail,
>and the creature being large enough to use its tail
>as a weapon (no modern cat could harm a human with its
>tail) etc.
This hypothesis by Mr. Holden is quite imaginative, but
remains speculative in that he fails to provide any
physical evidence to back them up. The descriptions
and prehistoric art used by Ted Holden to formulate his
dinosaur hypothesis can be used to justify any number
of interpretations of which the dinosaur hypothesis
is just one. The striking part of his hypothesis is that
he provides absolutely no physical evidence that supports
his interpretations. Ted provides as much physical
evidence for her interpretations as the people who
interpret myth and legends prove the existence of
extraterrestrial visitors provide for their claims.
For example, Mr. Holden provides no instance of fresh
dinosaur bones having been found associated with artifacts
at an archaeological site. It is revealing that of the
many hundreds of archaeological sites that have been
excavated in that part of the United States, none have
been found to contain dinosaur bone either worked in a
fresh condition into a recognizable artifact or showing
signs of having been either cooked or butchered. All Mr.
Holden provides arm-wave and speculation based on rather
ambiguous descriptions that can be interpreted in any
number of ways. Just because Mr. Holden Rouster believes
her interpretation to be correct fails to make it correct.
The closest that Holden and his supporters have gotten to
such hard physical evidence that any dinosaur survived
into modern times was the remains of a basking shark that
they blindly claimed was a plesiosaur. For information
about this, a person can go read "Sea-monster or Shark?
An Analysis of a Supposed Plesiosaur Carcass Netted in
1977" by Glen
J. Kuban at
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/plesios.htm
This article was also published in "Reports of the
National Center for Science Education , May/June
1997, Vol. 17, No. 3, pp. 16-28." It was
published by the National Center for Science
Education at:
Also see "Plesiosaur or Basking Shark?"
http://www.darwin.ws/contradictions/shark.html
What Mr. Ted Holden overlooks is an abundance of hard
evidence that shows that ancient peoples were well aware
of the fossil bones of dinosaurs and large mammals and
that myths similar to the Mishipishu were their way of
explaining these fossils. Adrienne Mayor has been
researching the relation between fossils and myths of
giants and Mishipishu-like creatures has just published
a book on the subject, as well as numerous articles.
The book is the "The First Fossil Hunters." Some good
web pages about this book are:
THE FIRST FOSSIL HUNTERS
http://hometown.aol.com/afmayor/myhomepage/index.html
ADRIENNE MAYOR
http://homestead.deja.com/user.afmayor/resume.html
Greek Myths: Not Necessarily Mythical
http://www.ksda.com/news/greekmyths.html
In her book, Mrs. Mayor shows that the ancient Greeks
and Romans were well aware of the fossil bones of extinct
animals. She demonstrates that they collected the fossil
bones of large extinct mammals and even displayed them
in their temples and museums as the remains of extinct
life. These fossil bones were interpreted by the Greeks
and Romans in terms of their cultural traditions. As a
result, the very large and mysterious fossil bones
became evidence supporting existing myths and caused
the creation of new ones involving races of extinct
giants and beasts that lived and died in the exact
areas where these bones still can be found.
For example, there is:
Mayor, Adrienne (2000) The Monster of Troy Vase: The
Earliest Artistic Record of a Vertebrate Fossil
Discovery? Oxford Journal of Archaeology vol. 19,
no. 2.
In this article, Mrs. Mayor shows that the earliest known
illustration of the Homeric legend in which Heracles
rescues Hesione by slaying the Monster of Troy is of the
skull of a extinct giraffe. This illustration is painted
on a Corinthian vase which exhibits the skull of the
Monster of Troy that closely matches that of an extinct
giraffe. Here a fossil, which can be found in abundance
in the Greek Islands and the western coast of Turkey and
described in classical literature, serves as the evidence,
possibly even as the basis of the legend.
Another case is:
Mayor, Adrienne (1994) Guardians of the Gold. (fossil
origin of the griffin legend) Archaeology vol. 47, no. 6,
pp. 52-58 (Nov-Dec 1994)
In this article, Mrs. Mayor traces the concept of a
the griffin, which Aristeas in the 7th century wrote
as nesting on the ground and guarding deposits of gold
to observations of dinosaur skeletons found in the
gold-bearing sediments of Central Asia by Scythian
nomads. The Scythians did not see actual live griffins,
or dinosaurs, but postulated the existence of griffens
to explain the dinosaur skeletons they found in the
ground.
Finally, there is:
Mayor, Adrienne (2000b) A Time of Giants and Monsters:
Discoveries of Huge Bones in Antiquity Spawned
Imaginative Myths. Archaeology. vol. 53, no. 2,
pp. 58-61 (March-April 2000)
At http://www.archaeology.org/0003/abstracts/monsters.html ,
the abstract to this article reads in part:
"Ancient accounts of the bones of heroes like Ajax,
as well as giants and monsters from the remote past,
can be explained by the presence of the fossil
remains of mastodons, mammoths, giant giraffes,
rhinoceroses, cave bears and other large animals
found in the eastern Mediterranean region. Not
surprisingly, modern paleontology demonstrates
that prehistoric fossils exist in the very places
where myths about giant beings first arose."
A person has to wonder if the " Mishipishu" represents
an attempt of people not to describe living dinosaurs
for which physical evidence is lacking, but an attempt
explain the existence the large and impressive remains
of extinct fossil vertebrates. Ancient peoples
clearly knew about and incorporated the existence of
these remains into their mythology all over the world
as illustrated below.
Also a person can go to "FOSSIL LEGENDS IN AMERICA, 1540
to the PRESENT" at:
http://hometown.aol.com/afmayor/myhomepage/writing.html
This web page briefly presents the following documented
examples of where the fossils of large vertebrates created
the type of myths that Mr. Holden uses to argue for the
existence of recent dinosaurs. For example:
1. Aztecs told the Spanish explorer Bernardo Sahagun that
the bones of mammoths came from a race of giants and that
fossil footprints were the handprints of these giants;
2. Fossil bones found in the badlands of South Dakota
inspired the myths of Unktehi, a water monster of Sioux
legend. In fact, the Sioux made rock art, like that
interpreted by Mr. Ted Holden to be contemporaneous
dinosaurs, of Unktehi based on fossil bones. Thus, the
rock art suggested by Mr. Holden to be based upon
contemporaneous dinosaurs just as well could represent
Native American interpretations of what animals fossil
bones that they found belong to. In fact, the rock
art could be of dinosaurs, but derived the remains of
fossil dinosaurs not live ones. This is analogous to
the origin of Griffin myths discussed in "Guardians
of the Gold" by Mrs. Mayor. For further details, a
person can go to:
http://homestead.deja.com/user.afmayor/nativefossilmyths.html
3. The abundant bones of Pleistocene mammoths exposed by
the erosion of sea cliffs inspired legends of ancient
giants that had been expatriated by lightning in Peru.
Yours,
Keith Littleton
litt...@vnet.net
New Orleans, LA
"Another set of fool professors. Just intellectuals,
and you know what an intellectual is, don't you?
Someone educated beyond his intelligence."
-- Representative Henry Hyde speaking to the
U.S. Senate about evidence to be submitted
for Clinton's defense.
and...@my-deja.com
Floyd <far...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > In article <39efb40b....@news.fcc.net>,
> > med...@fcc.net (Ted Holden) wrote:
> > >
> > > Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as
in
> > > the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological
doctrine of
> > > evolutionism.
> > >
> > > http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
> > >
> > > Enjoy.
> >
> > I did enjoy reading this. So which is to believed -- the numerous
> > instances of relatively young drawings of dinos by ancient humans or
> > the isolated find of cave drawings that were allegedly dated by
unknown
> > means to be 40,000 years old?
>
> The paintings at Chauvet are by no means isolated. The dating
method,for
> your information, was AMS on charcoal used in the black pigment.
> The same technique has been applied at Altamira and, IIRC, at Lascaux.
Why do you think the age of the pigment is equal to the age of the
drawing? Couldn't an artist today use old pigment to draw something
today?
In the Piltdown Man case, the dating used other debris found with the
skull. I think the Mungo Man used a secondary dating technique as
well. None of this dates the subject matter itself.
> "Young drawings of dinos," particularly those discovered in recent
> decades, have to be suspect, since illustrations of dinosaurs are
readily
> available in books. Copying a picture from a book is clearly not the
> same as drawing from life. Unless the petroglyphs you refer to can
> be demonstrated to be older than, say, 1850 or so, they are
irrelevant,
> since they may simply be recent copies of published illustrations.
Well, do you think dating the pigment used would determine the date of
these drawings, as in the cases above cited by evolutionists?
Andy
GenNem
<snip>
> > The paintings at Chauvet are by no means isolated. The dating
> method,for
> > your information, was AMS on charcoal used in the black pigment.
> > The same technique has been applied at Altamira and, IIRC, at Lascaux.
>
> Why do you think the age of the pigment is equal to the age of the
> drawing? Couldn't an artist today use old pigment to draw something
> today?
<snip>
LMAO - So instead of grabbing some charcoal from the communal fire the
artist dug into his storehouse of 1000 year old vintage charcoal. Hmm, 20
000 BCE, now that was a very good year </snicker>
GenNem
nicho...@my-deja.com
> It is therefore remarkable that the legends
> describe all the basic elements of stegosaurs, including the sawtooth
> back, the spiked tail, and the fact that the creature was large enough
> to harm humans with its tail,
I believe all of those criteria apply equally well to a decent sized
iguana.
I don't think anyone but the most zealous anti-Darwinists could confuse
this with the 'final nail in the coffin.' Our ancesters have been
painting things on virtually every available surface for thousands and
thousands of years. The only people that know what these paintings
are, or why they were painted, are the people that painted them. And
they ain't talking. If you truly believe that this is, more or less,
concrete evidence of a stegaurus then I assume you also believe that
dragons were rampant in the middle ages? That the Mayan (I think)
paintings that people think look like space craft means we were visited
by aliens. Or that they were predicting the future, take your pick.
There are thousands of other things that can be inferred through
liberal interpretations of the art from the ancient past.
Louann Miller
MacRae) wrote:
>|that wouldn't be possible. Part of what we "know" about gravity
>|is that there aren't floating rocks.
> Uh, well, yes there are, such as pumice (lots of bubbles in it),
>and it is at least theoretically possible (but probably impractical) to
>carve a boat out of rock and make it float (thanks to displacement and all
>that).
Weren't some cheap-and-dirty cargo craft (i.e. Liberty Ships) made of
concrete during WWII? Concrete is just limestone that's been trained
to follow orders, imho.
Louann
Floyd
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <39F4784D...@u.washington.edu>,
> Floyd <far...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <39efb40b....@news.fcc.net>,
> > > med...@fcc.net (Ted Holden) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail", as
> in
> > > > the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead ideological
> doctrine of
> > > > evolutionism.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
> > > >
> > > > Enjoy.
> > >
> > > I did enjoy reading this. So which is to believed -- the numerous
> > > instances of relatively young drawings of dinos by ancient humans or
> > > the isolated find of cave drawings that were allegedly dated by
> unknown
> > > means to be 40,000 years old?
> >
> > The paintings at Chauvet are by no means isolated. The dating
> method,for
> > your information, was AMS on charcoal used in the black pigment.
> > The same technique has been applied at Altamira and, IIRC, at Lascaux.
>
> Why do you think the age of the pigment is equal to the age of the
> drawing? Couldn't an artist today use old pigment to draw something
> today?
Yes, I suppose so, but as GenNem suggests, that hardly seems likethe most
parsimonious explanation. This is particularly the case since
several examples of cave art, discovered at different times in different
places, all date to approximately the same age. If we had only a
single date, a high degree of caution would be warranted, but the
existence of multiple examples, all roughly contemporaneous, is
more parsimoniously explained by the hypothesis that they really
are the same age, 15-40,000 years old, than that they are all hoaxes.
Think about it. Lascaux, for example, was discovered in 1940, and
Altamira was discovered in 1879. The caves must have been painted
before then, since they've been under scrutiny evr since.
Radiocarbon dating wasn't developed until 1949, so the people
who discovered these caves had no way of knowing that old carbon
was different from young carbon. Therefore the caves were painted
before it was possible to determine the age of the carbon used in the
paintings.
If the painters were "faking" (either intentionally, or not) great age
for these paintings, we would expect to see a broad range of ages,
rather than the tight cluster that we actually see, since the painters
had no way to know the age of the carbon. (recent charcoal looks
pretty much the same as ancient charcoal, on the surface.) So if
the paintings were recent, we'd know because "old" and "young"
carbon would be randomly associated in caves, and the between-
cave date clustering would not exist either.
>
>
> In the Piltdown Man case, the dating used other debris found with the
> skull. I think the Mungo Man used a secondary dating technique as
> well. None of this dates the subject matter itself.
Yes, you'll recall that the Piltdown forgery was also "discovered"before
radiocarbon dating was developed, so of course it
was not dated using radiometric techniques. Given that the remains
were "found" in a disturbed context, the discoverers should have
been skeptical of dating by association. Unfortunately, the
Piltdown materials were kept away from direct analysis and
only plaster casts were made available to most researchers,
otherwise we'd have probably discovered the hoax earlier
than we did. As soon as the materials _were_ made available
to researchers, the hoax was discovered. This is evidence that
scientific analysis really does work.
>
>
> > "Young drawings of dinos," particularly those discovered in recent
> > decades, have to be suspect, since illustrations of dinosaurs are
> readily
> > available in books. Copying a picture from a book is clearly not the
> > same as drawing from life. Unless the petroglyphs you refer to can
> > be demonstrated to be older than, say, 1850 or so, they are
> irrelevant,
> > since they may simply be recent copies of published illustrations.
>
> Well, do you think dating the pigment used would determine the date of
> these drawings, as in the cases above cited by evolutionists?
Potentially. If the pigments were definitely found to be modern,we could
eliminate the possibility that they were painted in
prehistoric times. However, since the beastie in question isn't
a stegosaur in any case, but most likely a mythical "totem" animal
of some sort, the entire question is moot. It doesn't demonstrate
what Ted Holden said it demonstrates, so why bother arguing
about it? IOW, what's the point of trying to figure out the
date of the extinction of stegosaurs, based on a drawing
of an imaginary beast that is _not_ a stegosaur? Sounds
like a "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" type
of question to me, frankly. At best, a nice way to keep theologians
occupied while us scientists get on with our work! ;-)
-Floyd
Floyd
Louann Miller wrote:
Yep, and a great description of concrete, BTW ;-)There was one beached near my
house when I was young,
it was, IIRC, a refitted WWII vitage craft that had been
converted for dredging in S.F. Bay. Surprisingly, these
boats have quite a dedicated following. They tend to last,
too. I've heard that there's a ferrocement rowboat in
Holland that was built in 1848 and is still in use. Not sure
if that's true, but it's kind of cool if it is. The big problem
with concrete boats isn't displacement or seaworthiness,
but exfoliation from freeze/thaw cycles.
-Floyd
>
>
> Louann
Jonathan Stone
Louann Miller <loua...@yahoo.net> wrote:
>>and it is at least theoretically possible (but probably impractical) to
>>carve a boat out of rock and make it float (thanks to displacement and all
>>that).
>
>Weren't some cheap-and-dirty cargo craft (i.e. Liberty Ships) made of
>concrete during WWII? Concrete is just limestone that's been trained
>to follow orders, imho.
Nope. Liberty ships were all-welded steel, as opposed to riveted.
OTOH, ferro-concrete boats were a relatively popular pastime where I
grew up: families who otherwise couldnt afford a yacht would build
boxing for a hull, bend and tie their own reinforcing bars, pour
concrete, and outfit the hull.
Concrete is pretty strong stuff. Ferro-concrete boats are okay,
unless they run into a log. Once the concrete is punctured, they sink
really fast.
Concrete is also occasionally used to patch over rust spots in the
hulls or armour of warships (e.g., the Leander-class frigates the RNZN
ran to, and past, their service lives).
Matt Silberstein
<wade....@rcn.com>:
[snip]
>I wasn't aware that crap has psychoactive effects.
Under appropriate conditions piss does.
--
Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM LotL
Matt Silberstein
jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone):
[snip]
>Concrete is pretty strong stuff. Ferro-concrete boats are okay,
>unless they run into a log. Once the concrete is punctured, they sink
>really fast.
I have an image of people mixing concrete as the ship floods. And then
trying to patch the hole with the wet slurry. Probably not a good
idea.
[snip]
Mark VandeWettering
>In talk.origins I read <8t4itl$svp$1...@nntp.Stanford.EDU> from
>jona...@DSG.Stanford.EDU (Jonathan Stone):
>
>[snip]
>
>>Concrete is pretty strong stuff. Ferro-concrete boats are okay,
>>unless they run into a log. Once the concrete is punctured, they sink
>>really fast.
>
>I have an image of people mixing concrete as the ship floods. And then
>trying to patch the hole with the wet slurry. Probably not a good
>idea.
Concrete does set up under water.
Mark
>Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM LotL
--
This signature has eight As, two Cs, three Ds, thirty Es, eight Fs, seven
Gs, nine Hs, fourteen Is, four Ks, two Ls, four Ms, nineteen Ns, thirteen Os,
two Ps, fifteen Rs, thirty one Ss, twenty four Ts, seven Us, six Vs, seven
Ws, two Xs, and four Ys. Mark VandeWettering <ma...@telescopemaking.org>
Faker
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In talk.origins I read <39F19596...@rcn.com> from Wade Hines
> <wade....@rcn.com>:
>
> [snip]
>
> >I wasn't aware that crap has psychoactive effects.
>
> Under appropriate conditions piss does.
i assume you are referring to DMT:
But it exists in urine in such miniscule amounts that i doubt it could
cause hallucinations.
>
> --
> Matt Silberstein TBC HRL OMM LotL
>
> Make me an angel that flies from Montgomery
> Make me a poster of an old rodeo
> Just give me one thing that I can hold on to
> To believe in this living is just a hard way to go.
>
> J.P.
>
>
--
Faker
"This Snow Crash thing--is it a virus, a drug, or a religion?"
Juanita shrugs. "What's the difference?"
Neal Stephenson, _Snow Crash_
WickedDyno
> In article <39F4784D...@u.washington.edu>,
> Floyd <far...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > In article <39efb40b....@news.fcc.net>,
> > > med...@fcc.net (Ted Holden) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Mishipishu means "Water Panther". It Also means "final nail",
> > > > as in the final nail in the coffin of the brain-dead
> > > > ideological doctrine of evolutionism.
> > > >
> > > > http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
> > > >
> > > > Enjoy.
> > >
> > > I did enjoy reading this. So which is to believed -- the
> > > numerous instances of relatively young drawings of dinos by
> > > ancient humans or the isolated find of cave drawings that were
> > > allegedly dated by unknown means to be 40,000 years old?
> >
> > The paintings at Chauvet are by no means isolated. The dating
> > method,for your information, was AMS on charcoal used in the black
> > pigment. The same technique has been applied at Altamira and, IIRC,
> > at Lascaux.
>
> Why do you think the age of the pigment is equal to the age of the
> drawing? Couldn't an artist today use old pigment to draw something
> today?
Most pigments used by pre-technological peoples are relatively
short-lived organic compounds, derived from plants. They wouldn't have
lasted long enough for the difference to be greater than experimental
error.
> In the Piltdown Man case, the dating used other debris found with the
> skull. I think the Mungo Man used a secondary dating technique as
> well. None of this dates the subject matter itself.
Hence the uncertainty and controversy over the dating of Mungo.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <amg39(at)cornell.edu> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
Matt Silberstein
<fak...@my-deja.com>:
>In article <56dbvsslpom5u0ah9...@4ax.com>,
> Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> In talk.origins I read <39F19596...@rcn.com> from Wade Hines
>> <wade....@rcn.com>:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >I wasn't aware that crap has psychoactive effects.
>>
>> Under appropriate conditions piss does.
>
>i assume you are referring to DMT:
>
>http://deoxy.org/dmt.htm
>
>But it exists in urine in such miniscule amounts that i doubt it could
>cause hallucinations.
No. I am told that if you take Mescaline (I think Mescaline) that the
body does not actually do anything to the chemical and that you piss
it out. Supposedly you actually end up pissing out more than you took,
so you can re-use, so to speak, your piss. No, I have not tried this
nor do I know anyone who has. I read this in a book, so it was not my
leg being pulled. But I would not vouch for this as far as I can throw
the book I don't know the name of.
and...@my-deja.com
This raises doubts, of course. If these examples are just random
incidents of ancient drawings, as evolutionists claim, then the chances
of their having "approximately the same age" would be miniscule.
If they are fraud or reflect a common age for a common pigment (rather
than age of the drawing), then it is more likely for the ages to be
similar.
> > In the Piltdown Man case, the dating used other debris found with
the
> > skull. I think the Mungo Man used a secondary dating technique as
> > well. None of this dates the subject matter itself.
>
> Yes, you'll recall that the Piltdown forgery was
also "discovered"before
> radiocarbon dating was developed, so of course it
> was not dated using radiometric techniques. Given that the remains
> were "found" in a disturbed context, the discoverers should have
> been skeptical of dating by association. Unfortunately, the
> Piltdown materials were kept away from direct analysis and
> only plaster casts were made available to most researchers,
> otherwise we'd have probably discovered the hoax earlier
> than we did. As soon as the materials _were_ made available
> to researchers, the hoax was discovered. This is evidence that
> scientific analysis really does work.
So the Piltdown Man scientists prevented public scrutiny of their
evidence – which explains why it took 40 years to uncover the fraud.
Some things never change. Evolutionists similarly withhold evidence
from the public even now, and several in talk.origins try to defend the
practice. The concealment only protects errors and fraud, as it did
for the Piltdown Man.
Where can the public scrutinize the evidence underlying the dating
claims for the cave drawings or Mungo Man? The internet allows easy
posting of the evidence for these extraordinary claims so that the
public can uncover errors or worse.
My experience is that broad, independent scrutiny is the last thing
evolutionists want. Evolutionists don't even want an unmoderated
debate here to discuss these issues freely!
Would you support public disclosure of the evidence behind
extraordinary Mungo Man and cave drawing claims?
Andy
Keith Littleton
>"Bobby D. Bryant" wrote:
>>Wade Hines wrote:
>>>Ashland Henderson wrote:
>>>>Actually, it wouldn't destroy the credibility of the
>>>>dating schemes at all. It would indicate that Stegosaurs
>>>>simply lasted a lot longer than we thought they had. Dating
>>>>schemes, however, are based on hard physics and a
>>>>whole lot of work in geology.
.... text deleted ....
In this case, Ted Holden and Vine Deloria fail to
consider all of the possible hypotheses in their
interpretation of rock art as showing contemporaneous
dinosaurs in their web site at:
http://www.bearfabrique.org/Evolution/mishi/mishi.html
This hypothesis by Holden and Deloria is quite
imaginative, but remains speculative in that they fail
to provide any physical evidence to back them up. The
descriptions and prehistoric art used by Ted Holden to
formulate his dinosaur hypothesis can be used to justify
any number of interpretations of which the dinosaur
hypothesis is just one. The striking part of his
hypothesis is that he provides absolutely no physical
evidence that supports his interpretations. Ted provides
as much physical evidence for her interpretations as the
people who interpret myth and legends prove the existence
of extraterrestrial visitors provide for their claims.
For example, Mr. Holden provides no instance of fresh
dinosaur bones having been found associated with artifacts
at an archaeological site. It is revealing that of the
many hundreds of archaeological sites that have been
excavated in that part of the United States, none have
been found to contain dinosaur bone either worked in a
fresh condition into a recognizable artifact or showing
signs of having been either cooked or butchered. All Mr.
Holden provides arm-wave and speculation based on rather
ambiguous descriptions that can be interpreted in any
number of ways. Just because Mr. Holden and dr. Deloria
believe this interpretation to be correct fails to make
it correct.
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/plesios.htm
ADRIENNE MAYOR
http://homestead.deja.com/user.afmayor/resume.html
For example, there is:
Another case is:
Finally, there is:
Native American interpretations of the animals from fossil
bones that they found. In fact, some rock art could be
Andrew MacRae
No, it is the kind of consistency that does the opposite.
|If these examples are just random
|incidents of ancient drawings, as evolutionists claim, then the chances
|of their having "approximately the same age" would be miniscule.
Your comment doesn't make any sense. If thy were painted by
people of a particular culture over a particular period of time, and then
the practice was abandoned, then of course the measurements would tend to
cluster.
|If they are fraud or reflect a common age for a common pigment (rather
|than age of the drawing), then it is more likely for the ages to be
|similar.
In some cases, the charchoal pigments are derived from wood that
was burned right in the cave, and is still sitting there, or buried just
beneath the sediment surface on the floor of the cave. The possibility of
some kind of sophisticated forgery is always there and has to be assessed,
but it stretches plausibility if there is plenty of other evidence
available to demonstrate the occurrence is legitimate. Also, if the sites
were discovered even before radiocarbon methods were invented, it is
unlikely that a forger would be sophisticated enough to manufacture the
product in a way to make it pass a test that had not even been invented
yet. For example, why would they go to the trouble (if it was even
possible before radiocarbon methods were available) to find some
several-thousand-year-old wood, burn it to make charcoal, and then paint
with it?
As a point of information, Lascaux was discovered in 1940. C-14
dating methods weren't invented and published until about 1949.
|> > In the Piltdown Man case, the dating used other debris found with
|the
|> > skull. I think the Mungo Man used a secondary dating technique as
|> > well. None of this dates the subject matter itself.
|>
|> Yes, you'll recall that the Piltdown forgery was
|also "discovered"before
|> radiocarbon dating was developed, so of course it
|> was not dated using radiometric techniques. Given that the remains
|> were "found" in a disturbed context, the discoverers should have
|> been skeptical of dating by association. Unfortunately, the
|> Piltdown materials were kept away from direct analysis and
|> only plaster casts were made available to most researchers,
|> otherwise we'd have probably discovered the hoax earlier
|> than we did. As soon as the materials _were_ made available
|> to researchers, the hoax was discovered. This is evidence that
|> scientific analysis really does work.
|
|So the Piltdown Man scientists prevented public scrutiny of their
|evidence which explains why it took 40 years to uncover the fraud.
|Some things never change. Evolutionists similarly withhold evidence
|from the public even now,
Can you be more specific? Should specimens be put on display
outside somewhere? There are good, conservation-related reasons why rare
specimens are treated carefully, and there are practical, financial
reasons why every specimen stored in a museum is not on public display.
Many important ones, however, are on public display, and access to
material is usually possible when there are scientific questions about it.
I have examined plenty of original material that way myself. That
protection of rare and precious material can sometimes discourage answers
to scientific questions (like in the case of Piltdown) is unfortunate, but
it has to be balanced with the concern that if the material were not
protected, then there eventually would not be any of it left to examine.
The paintings at Lascaux are a good example, because they are so fragile.
Even bringing lights and people down into the caves promotes algae growth
and all sorts of other problems that, if done without any concern but
public access, would soon destroy them.
I'm not suggesting that people should be barred from access,
period, but there are ways to appreciate and understand the evidence
without the unfortunate side-effect of destroying it for future geneations
and whatever new techniques of study are invented in the future. At
Lascaux, for example, whole sections of the caves were reproduced so the
original could be kept intact. People can walk through the reproduction.
|and several in talk.origins try to defend the
|practice.
What do you want? The ability to take a pick axe to the paintings
in Lascaux in order to satisfy your curiosity and skepticism about them?
I know, you aren't talking about something so destructive, but in this
case, even shining a light on them or breathing on them or near them has a
significant potential for damage. Why should you have the priviledge of
doing that unless you have a specific scientific question in mind that can
*only* be addressed by going there and viewing and sampling them yourself,
rather than what has been done before? One thing is for certain -- nobody
is going to grant such a request until it is demonstrated that the data
already colleted is inadequate to answer the question you have in mind,
which would require you to become familiar with all that documentation
first.
|The concealment only protects errors and fraud, as it did
|for the Piltdown Man.
No. It protects a precious and fragile resource so that people
will be able to appreciate it *and* test for errors with new techniques in
the future too. If you are going to claim that there is some alterior,
nefarious motive for such protection, fine, compose whatever ridiculous
worry you like, but you must acknowledge that there are legitimate reasons
for protecting imporant material too.
|Where can the public scrutinize the evidence underlying the dating
|claims for the cave drawings or Mungo Man?
The same place scientists can: in the library, where the claims
and evidence are documented, or, if you are ambitious and thorough, at the
musuem or other institution that preserves the material, which would be
cited in that published work. Like I said, I have done that myself:
viewed original material stored in a museum. How? I asked for access,
and the question I had did not entail any destructive tests, so it was
granted.
|The internet allows easy
|posting of the evidence for these extraordinary claims so that the
|public can uncover errors or worse.
|
|My experience is that broad, independent scrutiny is the last thing
|evolutionists want.
Really? You must have a very odd experience.
Then what do scientists do all the time when they go about
publishing the evidence and interpretations so that other people can read
them, and then criticsing each other's interpretations? Why do they make
the effort to explain methods and data sources? For fun? No, so that
people can read it and set about independently testing it if they want.
|Evolutionists don't even want an unmoderated
|debate here to discuss these issues freely!
Anybody can post any opinion here that they like. Nothing
prevents them from doing so, barring technical problems. Nobody wants
anything but a free and open exchange of ideas here, and that is what
happens. That some people can not tell the difference between crosspost
limitations and content moderation is their problem. Nobody has
demonstrated that this prevents or discourages a free and open exchange of
ideas about origins.
|Would you support public disclosure of the evidence behind
|extraordinary Mungo Man and cave drawing claims?
Of course. But what is wrong with what is done already? Journals
that you can walk into a library and read aren't public enough? Museums
that archive specimens and samples aren't good enough? What do you
expect, that anybody off the street should be able to walk up to the
equivalent of the Mona Lisa any time they like and scrape off a few pieces
of paint for testing, just to satisfy their skepticism? If people provide
specific and legitimate research questions, they usually have enough
familiarity with the evidence collected so far to justify getting access
to the original material, but the material isn't handed out like popcorn
at a movie theatre for obvious, practical reasons of conservation.
Satisfying uninformed skepticism is not a worthwhile reason to expose rare
and delicate material to potential or inevitable damage. Satisfying
informed skepticism, or displaying material that is durable enough, is a
good reason.
The bottom line is, for many types of evidence, you can't just
say, "any access is justified", or you soon won't have anything left for
people *to* access. That would be just as irresponsible as not allowing
and encouraging access for the sake of answering the good, informed
scientific questions. The situation requires some kind of balance.
-Andrew
mac...@agc.bio._NOSPAM_.ns.ca
Floyd
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <39F59BC4...@u.washington.edu>,
> Floyd <far...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > > In article <39F4784D...@u.washington.edu>,
> > > Floyd <far...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > > > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > > > In article <39efb40b....@news.fcc.net>,
> > > > > med...@fcc.net (Ted Holden) wrote:
>
[snip earlier]
> > > Why do you think the age of the pigment is equal to the age of the
> > > drawing? Couldn't an artist today use old pigment to draw something
> > > today?
> >
> > Yes, I suppose so, but as GenNem suggests, that hardly seems like the
> most
> > parsimonious explanation. This is particularly the case since
> > several examples of cave art, discovered at different times in
> different
> > places, all date to approximately the same age. ...
>
> This raises doubts, of course. If these examples are just random
> incidents of ancient drawings, as evolutionists claim,
I'm not sure I follow you here. Who is claiming that these are"random"
incidents? They look decidedly non-random to me.
They first show up at about the same time anatomically modern
humans arrive in Europe, and they continue being produced for
at least the entire period where moderns and neandertals were
both inhabiting Europe. This automatically suggests, to me, that
the paintings may have, unintentionally, been operating as a "bet-
hedging" mechanism (/sensu/ Seger and Brockmann's 1987
"What is Bet-Hedging?"). If so, then they are decidedly NOT
"random" at all.
> then the chances
> of their having "approximately the same age" would be miniscule.
Again, I don't follow you. This is sort of like saying that the hemlinesof
two randomly drawn skirts at a fashion show shouldn't be the same
length (approximately). It ignores the fact that the people who did one
set of drawings were probably related to the people who did another,
as well as ignoring the fact that styles tend to have "lifespans."
An analogy is for me to assume that two "cubist" paintings are
roughly the same age, because the cubist style appeared, florished,
and then vanished. It's reasonable to assume that any painting
that fits the description of "cubist" most likely was painted during
the period when cubism was popular.
>
>
> If they are fraud or reflect a common age for a common pigment (rather
> than age of the drawing), then it is more likely for the ages to be
> similar.
>
Except, as I explained last time, _IF_ they were frauds, thenthe artists
would have had no way to know that the pigments
_were_ the same age, since they were painted before
radiocarbon techniques were developed. The odds against
forgers all getting a good cluster of dates from their carbon
are actually astronomical. Think about it, forger A decides
to fake a painting. He doesn't know that radiocarbon
techniques might some day be able to detect the forgery,
but lets assume, for the sake of argument, that he decides to
dig up some charcoal that's been buried for a long time
anyway (although there would be no reason for him to do
so, since he can't know that charcoal will eventually be
datable). He fakes his paintings and then keeps quiet
about it. Then forger B decides to do exactly the same
thing, and again, capriciously decides to use old charcoal.
What are the odds that forger B will get his charcoal from
a deposit that is approximately the same age as A's
charcoal?
You see, Andy, the only way your argument would
make sense is if the drawings were made _after_ the
discovery of radiocarbon dating. Since several of them
were discovered _before_ we could date them, they can't
have been _drawn_ after we could date them.
Further, the forgers, if they existed, would have had to
get dates on their charcoal before doing the paintings
at all. Since radiocarbon labs keep _very_ accurate
records, the forgers would have left a "paper trail"
of their actions. Still further, radiocarbon, and
particularly AMS, is a _very_ expensive technique.
Too expensive, IMHO, for anyone to decide to
use it as an integral part of a practical joke, unless
they were really rich.
Basically, Andy, the explanation that we have (that
the paintings really _are_ as old as they seem) is
a lot easier to believe than your forgery hypothesis.
> > > In the Piltdown Man case, the dating used other debris found with
> the
> > > skull. I think the Mungo Man used a secondary dating technique as
> > > well. None of this dates the subject matter itself.
> >
> > Yes, you'll recall that the Piltdown forgery was
> also "discovered"before
> > radiocarbon dating was developed, so of course it
> > was not dated using radiometric techniques. Given that the remains
> > were "found" in a disturbed context, the discoverers should have
> > been skeptical of dating by association. Unfortunately, the
> > Piltdown materials were kept away from direct analysis and
> > only plaster casts were made available to most researchers,
> > otherwise we'd have probably discovered the hoax earlier
> > than we did. As soon as the materials _were_ made available
> > to researchers, the hoax was discovered. This is evidence that
> > scientific analysis really does work.
>
> So the Piltdown Man scientists prevented public scrutiny of their
> evidence – which explains why it took 40 years to uncover the fraud.
Yes.
> Some things never change. Evolutionists similarly withhold evidence
> from the public even now,
Care to present any examples of this? I think we've beenextremely
forthcoming. Each new discovery is hyped in
the popular press (and sometimes we even get "caught
with our pants down," which suggests that we present
evidence sometimes before we really understand it
ourselves). Delays in publication happen, certainly,
in part because analysis can be a very time-consuming
process, in part because writing an article is also
time-consuming, and in part because peer review also
takes time for our colleagues to "check up on us" and
make certain that our discoveries actually are what we
think they are. So, yeah, sometimes full disclosure is
slower than we'd like, but I'm not aware of anyone
deliberately withholding evidence. If you are, please
provide an example.
> and several in talk.origins try to defend the
> practice.
Again, do you have examples of this? If so, pleasepresent them. Links to
the relevant posts would be
sufficient.
> The concealment only protects errors and fraud, as it did
> for the Piltdown Man.
If it's really happening, you may be right. Since I haven'tseen any
evidence that this happens, I'll withhold
judgement on the subject for the moment. You show me
that people are withholding evidence, and we'll see.
>
>
> Where can the public scrutinize the evidence underlying the dating
> claims for the cave drawings or Mungo Man?
The Age, Daily
Newshttp://www.theage.com.au/daily/990521/news/news20.htmlDBSHS Social
Sciences
http://decebayshs.qld.edu.au/ssmungo.htm
ABC (Australian)
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s27492.htm
A. N. U.
http://artalpha.anu.edu.au/web/arc/news/may99.htm#2
A.N.U. Update (May 2000)
http://car.anu.edu.au/maynewsfull.html
Discovering Archaeology (online ed.)
http://discoveringarcheology.com/0599toc/5randn2-australian.shtml
If you're interested in learning more about the dating techniques
themselves (U series and ESR) You can look at
http://goanna.mpi-hd.mpg.de/
Kevin Greene, at U. of Newcastle Upon Tyne has a great
chapter on dating methods in his book _Archaeology: an
introduction_ (1995);
http://www.staff.ncl.ac.uk/kevin.greene/wintro/chap4.htm
> The internet allows easy
> posting of the evidence for these extraordinary claims so that the
> public can uncover errors or worse.
I hope the above links help.
>
>
> My experience is that broad, independent scrutiny is the last thing
> evolutionists want.
Again, I'm not following you. This whole forum exists specificallyfor that
purpose, as do academic departments, museums, journals,
(many dedicated to non-professionals) and books. Your public
library will almost always have at least a few books on the topic,
unless people have removed them for political reasons.
> Evolutionists don't even want an unmoderated
> debate here to discuss these issues freely!
Here, I'm really not following you at all. The onlyso-called "moderation"
this forum has is that it
won't let people cross-post to more than 4 groups.
Free discussion of the issues is exactly what we're
doing right now! I think maybe you may be mis-
interpreting what the robo-moderator actually
does. It doesn't look at content (it can't, really,
it's not designed to) all it looks at is the number of
cross posts (ok, there are a few specific groups
that it won't let you cross post to, regardless of
number, but in general...) the whole reason for this,
AFAICT, is that a certain, specific poster was using
excessive cross posting as a way to harass undeserving,
innocent people.
>
>
> Would you support public disclosure of the evidence behind
> extraordinary Mungo Man and cave drawing claims?
Yes, I would. I do. The links I provided above mighthelp answer some of
your questions, I hope. I'll be happy
to try to answer any others that might arise. ESR dating, in
particular, is a pretty complicated subject, but I've done
a bit of study on it, so hopefully, if questions arise while
you're reading, I'll be able to answer them. Enjoy your
research!
-Floyd
Syvanen
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> In talk.origins I read <8t51em$u24$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> from Faker
> <fak...@my-deja.com>:
>
> >In article <56dbvsslpom5u0ah9...@4ax.com>,
> > Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> >> In talk.origins I read <39F19596...@rcn.com> from Wade Hines
> >> <wade....@rcn.com>:
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> >I wasn't aware that crap has psychoactive effects.
> >>
> >> Under appropriate conditions piss does.
> >
> >i assume you are referring to DMT:
> >
> >http://deoxy.org/dmt.htm
> >
> >But it exists in urine in such miniscule amounts that i doubt it
could
> >cause hallucinations.
>
> No. I am told that if you take Mescaline (I think Mescaline) that the
> body does not actually do anything to the chemical and that you piss
> it out. Supposedly you actually end up pissing out more than you took,
> so you can re-use, so to speak, your piss. No, I have not tried this
> nor do I know anyone who has. I read this in a book, so it was not my
> leg being pulled. But I would not vouch for this as far as I can throw
> the book I don't know the name of.
The story you are thinking of is eating the mushroom
Ammanita muscaria. This has a halucigen as well as some
other compounds that are toxic. The urine of a mammal that
has eaten the mushroom has the active muscarine, but the toxins
have been removed. Therefore, one can get high without the nausea if
they drink the piss.
Mike Syvanen
rich hammett
I even get the nausea _reading_ about it.
rich
> Mike Syvanen
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
-remove no from mail name and spam from domain to reply
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
\ Rich Hammett http://home.hiwaay.net/~rhammett
/ hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu
\ ..basketball [is] the paramount
/ synthesis in sport of intelligence, precision, courage,
\ audacity, anticipation, artifice, teamwork, elegance,
/ and grace. --Carl Sagan
wf...@ptd.net
>
>So the Piltdown Man scientists prevented public scrutiny of their
>evidence – which explains why it took 40 years to uncover the fraud.
>Some things never change. Evolutionists similarly withhold evidence
>from the public even now, and several in talk.origins try to defend the
>practice. The concealment only protects errors and fraud, as it did
>for the Piltdown Man.
andy thinks scientists, who work in a country where even the
president's sex life is public, can with hold evidence
neat trick!!
>
>
>My experience is that broad, independent scrutiny is the last thing
>evolutionists want. Evolutionists don't even want an unmoderated
>debate here to discuss these issues freely!
gee i guess thats why we have so many journals to publish our
findings...of course andy thinks the whole WORLD is against him
creationism is paranoia
Matt Silberstein
hammett <hnoa...@eng.spamauburn.edu>:
That is not the story I heard, but may well be the root.
>I even get the nausea _reading_ about it.
>
It gives me hallucinations, so that balances nicely.
Matt Silberstein
and...@my-deja.com:
[snip]
>Where can the public scrutinize the evidence underlying the dating
>claims for the cave drawings or Mungo Man?
Read the appropriate papers. Find the universities associated with the
players. Find their office hours. Visit.
>The internet allows easy
>posting of the evidence for these extraordinary claims so that the
>public can uncover errors or worse.
Name one fraud uncovered due to examination of evidence found on the
Internet.
[snip]
Ted Holden
wrote:
>For example, Mr. Holden provides no instance of fresh
>dinosaur bones having been found associated with artifacts
>at an archaeological site. It is revealing that of the
>many hundreds of archaeological sites that have been
>excavated in that part of the United States, none have
>been found to contain dinosaur bone either worked in a
>fresh condition into a recognizable artifact or showing
>signs of having been either cooked or butchered.
Several obvious kinds of replies, including:
1. Whenever actual evidence of the type described is actually
prsented, and this would include things like the Paluxy footprints, a
number of Ed Conrad's discoveries, or the Ica stones of South America
etc. are actually produced, "scientists" go out of their way to
villify and demonize the people involved, pretty much guaranteeing
that not too many people in any one generation and, particularly,
anybody whose livelihood is hostage to academic institutions, will
wish to be involved in bringing such discoveries to light.
2. Nonetheless, such finds are rare. There are reasons for this.
Humans are quasi-aquatic creatures which have always preferred to live
near water, and there is now a great deal more water on the Earth than
there was prior to the flood. The vast bulk of the remains of humans
who lived prior to the flood are beneath the waves.
The areas which we now inhabit would have been seen as plateaus prior
to the flood. Very ancient literature, such as the Midrashic sources
which Louis Ginzburg uses for his "Legends of the Jews"refer to
several kinds of things which are clearly dinosaurs, but it is also
clear that these things are being described as having been rare and
viewed as oddities at a time just prior to the flood. Likewise, in
all likelihood, the stegosaur, Mishipishu, would have been a rarity to
North American Indians 6,000 or 10,000 years ago. The real heyday of
dinosaurs was probably back 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 years ago, but
not seventy million. All of this would heavily mitigate against the
odds of human and dinosaur remains ever being found together. That's
aside from the fact that humans would always have had to regard
dinosaurs as dangerous and to be avoided if possible.
3. The "evidence" supporting the claims of 70 million years between
our age and that of dinosaurs amounts to axiomatics and circular
reasoning, and the assumption that nothing resembling a cosmic
disaster has ever occurred, or at least not any more recently than 70M
years ago.
4. The case of the stegosaur is not something in isolation, but part
of a big-picture view. Other evidence of dinosaurs in the age of man
is linked from the stegosaur page, most notably the report from the
Doheney expedition to Java Supai. That comes from the Peabody Museum
of American Ethnology at Harvard University, and not from the National
Enquirer.
5. Also available in articles in the section on Catastrophism and
Ancient Anomalies at my www system starting at www.bearfabrique.org,
is a straightforward demonstration that nothing heavier than 20,000
could stand or walk in our world as well as a total refutation of
Wayne Throop's lame attempt at a critique of this paper. There is
also a section which describes the temple stones at Baalbek Lebanon.
It turns out the largest dinosaurs required a 3/1 attenuation of
gravity in order to survive and it also turns out that the column
stones of Baalbek (carved by men and not by dinosaurs) would also
require an attenuation of gravity in order to be moved. The US Army
corps of engineers is on record to the effect that no MODERN
technology, much less any ancient technology, could move the heaviest
of those stones a single inch. The largest of them is about
100'x20'zx20'. In other words, the most major condition which was
different in the age of dinosaurs and which allowed them to exist,
persisted well into the age of man.
>All Mr. Holden provides arm-wave and speculation based on rather
>ambiguous descriptions that can be interpreted in any
>number of ways. Just because Mr. Holden believes
>her interpretation to be correct fails to make it correct.
That's "HIS " interpretation, to you...
>What Mr. Ted Holden overlooks is an abundance of hard
>evidence that shows that ancient peoples were well aware
>of the fossil bones of dinosaurs and large mammals and
>that myths similar to the Mishipishu were their way of
>explaining these fossils. Adrienne Mayor has been
>researching the relation between fossils and myths of
>giants and Mishipishu-like creatures has just published
>a book on the subject, as well as numerous articles.
Ancient Greeks may well have known of dinosaur bones but I think it's
a fairly safe bet that American Indian villages did not have
paleontology departments. Moreover, an Indian village paleontology
department, even had such a thing existed, would have had zero reason
to paint pictures of Mishipishu at river crossings and around lakes.
Deloria's interpretation of what we actually find simply makes a great
deal more sense: The petroglyphs were warnings, meaning
One of these lives in this lake, or this river: be careful!"
Like I say, that makes sense. No modern paleo dept puts pictures of
dinosaurs up at river crossings, and no ancient one would have had any
more of a reason to.
>In her book, Mrs. Mayor shows that the ancient Greeks
>and Romans were well aware of the fossil bones of extinct
>animals. She demonstrates that they collected the fossil
>bones of large extinct mammals and even displayed them
>in their temples and museums as the remains of extinct
>life.
You'd think you'd then read about such a practice in ancient
literature. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong but, to my knowledge,
you don't.
>In this article, Mrs. Mayor shows that the earliest known
>illustration of the Homeric legend in which Heracles
>rescues Hesione by slaying the Monster of Troy is of the
>skull of a extinct giraffe. This illustration is painted
>on a Corinthian vase which exhibits the skull of the
>Monster of Troy that closely matches that of an extinct
>giraffe. Here a fossil, which can be found in abundance
>in the Greek Islands and the western coast of Turkey and
>described in classical literature, serves as the evidence,
>possibly even as the basis of the legend.
The religions of ancient Greece and of Troy were astral, as were also
the basic themes of mythical heroes such as Heracles. Heracles as
well as the things he is supposed to have slain, were things seen in
the sky at the time. A book which will come a lot closer to
describing the reality of Greek myth for you will be found at:
http://www.knowledge.co.uk/xxx/cat/aeon/mars.htm
Ted Holden
med...@bearfabrique.org
Henry Barwood
Ted Holden wrote:
> Several obvious kinds of replies, including:
>
> 1. Whenever actual evidence of the type described is actually
> prsented, and this would include things like the Paluxy footprints, a
> number of Ed Conrad's discoveries, or the Ica stones of South America
> etc. are actually produced, "scientists" go out of their way to
> villify and demonize the people involved, pretty much guaranteeing
> that not too many people in any one generation and, particularly,
> anybody whose livelihood is hostage to academic institutions, will
> wish to be involved in bringing such discoveries to light.
I'm really forced to confess (the guilt is simply too much to bear) that
each evening we go out and bulldoze away vast accumulations of
commingled dinosaur and human bones. They fill all the sinkholes in the
karstic areas of Indiana. The glaciers missed a few and in order not to
create a huge panic at the Discovery Channel, we have been ordered by
the High Command to destroy this evidence at all costs. We were almost
caught last night when Al Bush showed up for a Klan rally and the light
from the burning cross glinted off the T-Rex teeth. Fortunately, they
didn't want to be seen either and both parties retreated without a shot
being fired.
I'm going to be immigrating to Cydonia in a few days and you will have
to reach me at the secret Mars base we have established there. Just send
your e-mails to:
Barwood
Ken Cox
> andysch wrote:
> In some cases, the charchoal pigments are derived from wood that
> was burned right in the cave, and is still sitting there, or buried just
> beneath the sediment surface on the floor of the cave. The possibility of
> some kind of sophisticated forgery is always there and has to be assessed,
> but it stretches plausibility if there is plenty of other evidence
> available to demonstrate the occurrence is legitimate.
What the dating of the pigments show is that if the paintings are
a forgery, they are an ancient one. Sort of like the possibility
that Homer's stories weren't composed by Homer, but by some other
ancient Greek of the same name. ;-)
> |Would you support public disclosure of the evidence behind
> |extraordinary Mungo Man and cave drawing claims?
>
> Of course. But what is wrong with what is done already?
No one has come over to Andy's house, tucked him into bed, and
read the journal articles to him.
--
Ken Cox k...@research.bell-labs.com
Keith Littleton
<med...@fcc.net>, like a wounded dinosaur, bellowed and roared:
>On 23 Oct 2000 22:02:26 -0400,
>Keith Littleton <litt...@vnet.net> wrote:
>>For example, Mr. Holden provides no instance of fresh
>>dinosaur bones having been found associated with artifacts
>>at an archaeological site. It is revealing that of the
>>many hundreds of archaeological sites that have been
>>excavated in that part of the United States, none have
>>been found to contain dinosaur bone either worked in a
>>fresh condition into a recognizable artifact or showing
>>signs of having been either cooked or butchered.
>
>Several obvious kinds of replies, including:
>
>1. Whenever actual evidence of the type described is
>actually prsented, and this would include things like
>the Paluxy footprints, a number of Ed Conrad's discoveries,
>or the Ica stones of South America etc. are actually
This is evidence? For example, the infamous Taylor trackway
in the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas. A discussion
of them can be found in The Taylor Site "Man Tracks"at:
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/tsite.htm .
Also, a person can go read:
Kuban, G. J. (1986) The Taylor Site "Man Tracks"
Origins Research. vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 2-10.
(Spring/Summer 1986)
Kuban, G. J. (1989) Retracking Those Incredible Man
Tracks NCSE Reports, vol. 9, no. 4, (Special Section)
" NCSE Reports" is published by the National Center
for Science Education, P.O. Box 9477 Berkeley,
CA 94709-0477. ( http://WWW.NatCenSciEd.org/ )
I suggest that Mr. "M@" and any lurkers go look at:
1. The Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/paluxy.htm
2. A Summary of the Paluxy "Man Track" Controversy
http://members.aol.com/Paluxy2/mantrack.htm
3. The Taylor Site "Man Tracks"
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/tsite.htm
4. Recommended Further Reading on Paluxy Controversy
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/moreref.htm
A few of the many references about the Paluxy tracks are:
Cole, John R. and Laurie R. Godfrey (eds.) (1985) The Paluxy
River Footprint Mystery -- Solved. Creation/Evolution
issue 5, no. 1. National Center for Science Education,
Berkeley, California. http://WWW.NatCenSciEd.org/
Cole, John R., and Pia Nicolini (1984) The Case of the Texas
Footprints. videotape. ISHI Films, P.O. Box 2367, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.
Hastings, Ronnie J. (1988) The Rise and Fall of the Paluxy
Mantracks. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith.
vol. 40, no. 3, pp. 144-155.
Kuban, Glen J. (1986a) The Taylor Site 'Man tracks'.
Origins Research. vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 7-10.
Kuban, Glen J. (1986b) Review of the ICR Impact Article
151. Origins Research. vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 11-13.
Kuban, Glen J. (1989) Color Distinctions and Other Curious
Features of Dinosaurs Tracks Near Glen Rose, Texas.
Dinosaur Tracks and Traces. D. D. Gillette and M. G.
Lockley, eds. Cambridge University Press, New York,
pp. 427-440.
Milne, David H. and Steven D. Schafersman (1983)
Dinosaur Tracks, Erosion Marks and Midnight Chisel
Work (But No Human Footprints) in The Cretaceous
Limestone of the Paluxy River Bed, Texas. Journal of
Geological Education. vol. 31, no. 2, pp. 111-123.
[ Keywords: Paluxy River, Dinosaur tracks, Fossil
Footprints, Glen Rose, Creationism, Ichnology. ]
1. The Taylor Site "Man Tracks"
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/tsite.htm
"Besides the metatarsal impression phenomena on the
Taylor Site, I have found that alleged "man tracks"
on other sites have involved other phenomena,
including natural irregularities of the rock surface;
severely eroded specimens of typical tridactyl tracks;
partial metatarsal impressions (interpreted by Carl
Baugh, a recent "man track" promoter, as human tracks
overlapping dinosaur tracks); indistinct oblong marks
associated with dinosaur trails (apparently indicating
a drag or swish mark of the dinosaur's tail, snout,
or digit); and outright contrivances. After over five
years of intensive research on this issue, I have
concluded that no genuine human tracks have ever
been found in the Paluxy Riverbed."
2. Retracking Those Incredible Man Tracks
http://members.aol.com/paluxy2/retrack.htm
"Morris' article is an unfortunate sign for young
earth creationism. It indicates an unwillingness
to fully abandon past claims (no matter how well-refuted),
and a return to the same kind of faulty research,
deficient documentation, and inaccurate reporting
that fostered the Paluxy mess in the first place.
Instead of helping to set the record straight on the
Paluxy issue, Morris' article undoubtedly will contribute
to the spread of new misinformation among creationists
and the public at large. Already some creationists are
calling for the film Footprints in Stone [15] to be
reinstated.[16] Evidently little if anything was
learned from past mistakes."
As for the Ica stones, there is a discussion of
these stones at:
http://skepdic.com/icastones.html
The town of Ica is a relatively small village that lies
about 300 kilometers from Lima. About twenty years ago, a
villager, a Mr. Bazilio, alleged to have found piles of
carved stones hidden in a large cave (caves?) at the end
of a long tunnel. He produced thousands of these carved
stones, which were called "Ica stones," that he sold to
tourists. A local dentist, Dr. Javier Cabrera Darquea,
bought thousands of the stones that the villager had for
sale and displays them in his Museo de Piedras Grabadas
(Engraved Stones Museum). Dr. Javier Cabrera Darquea
claims that these stones are thousands of years old and
represent evidence of a vanished advance civilization.
Eventually, these artifacts were investigated by the
Peruvian government. During the investigation, the
villager confessed that he had fabricating these stones
to sell to tourists and whoever wished to buy them. The
archaeologists from the Peruvian government satisfied
themselves that the stones were curios manufactured to
sell to tourists and not valuable antiquities.
Later, the British Broadcasting Corporation investigated
the Ica Stones for a episode of their "Horizon" series.
While in the town of Ica, Mr. Bazilio produced a carving
of a heart transplant for them in around an hour. He then
aged the Ica Stone by baking it in donkey dung. The BBC
people also showed Mr. Bazilio pictures of carvings from
the museum of Dr. Javier Cabrera from which Mr. Bazilio
identified many of his carvings. Mr. Bazilio also showed
the BBC people thank you note written and signed by the
owner of the museum for stones that Mr. Bazilio had
provided the museum.
Dr. Javier Cabrera presented the "Horizon" crew with an Ica
Stone that he "vouched for as being very old and genuine"
according to the "Horizon" crew. In London the Institute
for Geological Sciences examined the Ica Stone which showed
a carving of a dinosaur. They reported:
"...the sharp and relatively clean cut edges of the
grooves are notable, a feature which could not be
preserved for long under normal weathering conditions."
They also examined the desert varnish that colored the
Ica Stone. They found that the desert varnish which in
time should have covered the stones, in fact, did not. They
observed:
"...the grooves are seen to cut into this surface
layer, indicating a carving which post-dated the
development of the surface weathering."
A comparison by Institute for Geological Sciences of the
"genuine" Ica Stone with one recently carved by Mr. Bazilio
found them to be identical. The Institute for Geological
Sciences concluded:
"...the similarity of the 'old' and 'new' pebbles
petrographically, in surface rock powder and in
sharpness of grooving is evidence against any great
antiquity of the carving on the 'old' pebble."
The BBC people found other problems with the Ica Stones
that include:
1. The one and only source of these stones has been
Mr. Bazilio. Nobody else has found these stones in
situ. The cave where the stones were alleged to
have come from has never been either identified or
shown to anybody.
2. The stones first appeared at the time, about 25
years ago, that tourists started roaming through the
town of Ica looking for ancient ruins and artifacts.
3. The "varnish" that can be found sometime covering some
stones and grooves can be produced by any of a number
methods that the local people use to create an "antique"
finish on a stone artifact.
4. There is nothing on the stones that provides any
really new information or insight on the local prehistory
not already found in existent books.
5. The carving of dinosaurs, people and places, resemble
the drawings found in some Peruvian children's books.
Currently, Mr. Bazilio and his family make, by local
standards, a comfortable living selling Ica Stones to
tourists. Lately, other "artists" have started
carving their own Ica Stones and selling them to
tourists also. The mythology that has grown around
the Ica Stones provide the basis for a growing local
cottage industry catering to the tourist market.
Of course, there are the siderite nodules of Ed.
Conrad. This is what a fellow anti-creationist, Dr.
Kurt Wise thinks of them in a letter that he sent to
and was published in CREATION EX NIHILO, v.15, p.1:
"Dear Editor,
Regarding your Focus article, "Human Bones in Coal?"
(CEN 14(2):8). This Focus article is extracted
uncritically from a SCIENCE FRONTIERS article [a
clearing house of weird published pieces related to
science - Ed.], which in turn is based uncritically
upon a NEWSPAPER article.
The `human bones' to which the article refers are
probably a portion of the material collected by
newspaper man Ed Conrad of Shenandoah, Pennsylvania.
A few years ago Ed sent me about a dozen pieces that
he was convinced were `mammalian bone.' Sectioning and
microscopic analysis of the two specimens he claimed
to be the best among them revealed no evidence that
either was bone - or even that they were fossil material
of any sort. Internal structures were consistent with
inorganic precipitation processes, and chemical analysis
and external form were consistent with them merely being
iron siderite concretions. Such concretions are found
association with coals in many parts of the world.
Judging from the specimens that I was able to examine,
and pictures of others, the external form of the
specimens bear only superficial resemblances to
mammalian bone. Though I have not seen all of Conrad's
specimens, I suggest that his material be considered
with the greatest caution. It is very possible that
most, if not all, his material is inorganically
precipitated iron siderite nodules and not fossil material
at all
Kurt P. Wise, Ph.D., Prof. of Science, Bryan
College, Tennessee.
[We appreciate the comments of well-known creation
scientist Dr. Wise. Our Focus items are a round-up
of what has been reported - obviously we cannot check
the accuracy of all the original reports. - Editor,
CREATION EX NIHILO]"
Dr. Kurt Wise has all the reason in world to want that
the siderite nodules of Ed Conrad to want to be real
bones. But he examined them, and following his Christian
principles gave his honest opinion about them. More about
all of this, from ant-evolutionists, can be found at:
1. Comments and more pictures at:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Station/5253/conrad.htm.
2. Evaluation of these bones see
http://www.geo.ucalgary.ca/~macrae/t_origins/carbbones/carbbones.html.
>produced, "scientists" go out of their way to vilify
>and demonize the people involved, pretty much
>guaranteeing that not too many people in any one
>generation and, particularly, anybody whose livelihood
>is hostage to academic institutions, will wish to be
>Involved in bringing such discoveries to light.
I find it revealing that the person, along with Ed Conrad,
who uses vilification regularly in his replies to his
critics complain about them using it. More often than
not, what Ted and Ed both call "vilification" is actually
honest commentary on their claims. If a person has to
fabricate an excuse for not having any evidence, this is
the universal excuse for their not being any hard evidence
of matters ranging from flying saucers, bodies of Greys
killed in the Roswell crash, chemtrails, and other such
mythical matters. In this case, the lack of evidence
automatically becomes evidence of people suppressing it.
>2. Nonetheless, such finds are rare. There are
>reasons for this. Humans are quasi-aquatic creatures
>which have always preferred to live near water, and
>there is now a great deal more water on the Earth than
>there was prior to the flood. The vast bulk of the
>remains of humans who lived prior to the flood are
>beneath the waves. The areas which we now inhabit
>would have been seen as plateaus prior to the flood.
Unfortunately, a non-existent flood fails to explain
the lack of dinosaur fossils. More factually bankrupt
explanations to explain other factually bankrupt
explanations. What does this have to do with the lack
of dinosaurs fossils? Dinosaurs liked to live near
water just as much people lived away from it. People
and dinosaurs would have inhabited the so-called
"plateaus" as well as the coastal areas.
>Very ancient literature, such as the Midrashic sources
>which Louis Ginzburg uses for his "Legends of the Jews"
>refer to several kinds of things which are clearly
>dinosaurs,
Again, speculation based on mythic fiction. This is
like using "Lord of the Rings" to justify the hollow
Earth theory. Just because something is written as
text somewhere fails as proof that they existed at
all. Myth is not proof that something existed. Myths
can be used to formulate hypotheses about what might
have happened and existed in the past but cannot
prove it. It is obvious, except for the fraudulent,
hoaxes, and misidentified items cited above, Ted has
no hard evidence so he just makes up excuse after
excuse hoping people will not notice the lack of
hard evidence.
>but it is also clear that these things are being
>described as having been rare and viewed as oddities
>at a time just prior to the flood.
What Ted is saying here is that he has no hard for his
theories about dinosaurs. There is a period of 65 million
years for which no evidence of dinosaurs exists. This
says something about their likely non-existence.
>Likewise, in all likelihood, the stegosaur, Mishipishu,
>would have been a rarity to North American Indians
>6,000 or 10,000 years ago. The real heyday of dinosaurs
>was probably back 10,000 or 20,000 or 30,000 years
>ago, but not seventy million.
This pure speculation without any evidence to back it
up. If real heyday of the dinosaurs was 10,000 or 20,000
or 30,000 years ago, why are only the bones of mastodon,
mammoth, and other Pleistocene megafauna found in the
Peoria Loess, at big Bone Lick, and other Pleistocene
paleontological sites dating to that period? It is
remarkable that the bones of these animals are preserved
in profusion at many sites but not a dinosaur bone to
be found. Was this the dark side of the Pleistocene?
Segregation of dinosaurs from Pleistocene megafauna
with the prehistoric equivalent of Jim Crow legislation?
Were dinosaurs discriminated to extinction?
>All of this would heavily mitigate against the odds of
>human and dinosaur remains ever being found together.
>That's aside from the fact that humans would always
>have had to regard dinosaurs as dangerous and to be
>avoided if possible.
1. This doe not explain why dinosaur remains are not found
with Pleistocene megafauna.
2. There are a number of smaller, e.g. turkey-size,
dinosaurs. These would have made wonderful Bar-B-Qs
for prehistoric humans.
3. What evidence or proof does Ted have that that
"humans would always have had to regard dinosaurs as
dangerous and to be avoided if possible." Such
speculations are cheap and can be made about anything,
including Al Gore being a alien android. Real science
is and real respect comes from finding ways to test
hypotheses and validate them.
I end of part ! of 2 parts I
The remainder will be posted after I finish my I-129F
application for the K1 Visa of my Russian lady friend.
Tanya will kill me if she found me wasting time on this
malarkey instead working on her Visa application. :-)
Your,
bho...@diespammers.telnet.humboldt1.com
> On 20 Oct 2000 14:06:27 -0400, mac...@agc.bio_NOSPAM_.ns.ca (Andrew
> MacRae) wrote:
>>how would that affect evolution? It would mean that _Stegosaurus_ didn't
>>happen to become extinct as far back as paleontologists thought. So what?
> Again, I say, if American agriculture were to run the way American
> science does for six months, we'd be eating grass. I try to adopt the
> big picture view whenever possible.
Thank god. American agricultural science has done more for eating grass
in this world than any other institution. Without eating grass in the
form of the six cereal grains (wheat, oats, barley, rye, maize, and rice)
the world would starve in short order.
--
H. Brent Howatt |The deluded are always filled with absolutes
bho...@diespam.humboldt1.com |The rest of us have to live with ambiguity
PGP key by email or keyserver | _Aristoi_ Walter Jon Williams
=============================================================================