Viceroy63 wrote:The word Theory means Theory and not fact. No matter how badly Darwinist may want it to mean so or how often they use the word fact instead of theory.
Dawkins is ... well Dawkins. He does not represent every scientist who believes in evolution. He is also deliberately using the English language in a sloppy way because he is countering the sloppy way to consider a "theory" as something vague and unproven. So let's consider the legal definition of the terms.
You must determine the facts in this case based solely on the evidence or those inferences which can be reasonably drawn from the evidence.
Direct evidence is the communication of a fact by witnesses who testify that they obtained knowledge of such a fact through one of their five senses.
Circumstantial evidence is evidence that tends to prove a fact in issue by proof of other facts from which the fact may be inferred.
So is evolution a "fact?" It's still hard to say that. Evolution is supported by the facts that are derived from evidence, direct and circumstantial.
The question is similar to the the question of whether a person is guilty or innocent is a "fact." No, but it is supported on facts.
Neoteny wrote:And.. again, no other theory has been presented that better answers the data we have. This is significant. Its one thing to say that evolution might not be true.. fine, few will disagree. But for it to matter, you have to present a competing theory that equally answers ALL the evidence. Just saying "we cannot fully prove evolution right now" isn't enough.
no... of course you don't need to. Providing an alternate theory / hypothesis / conjecture / whatever u wanna call it only matters if you want to get someone to accept that another specific view is more likely. It's not needed to show the existing theory (evolution) isn't as solid as is currently thought by most people, and they shouldn't be so sure that it's necessarily correct.
I didn't actually write that. It was written by PLAYER during the first five pages of this thread. I just reposted it as evidence that Viceroy is a liar, like so many creationists. He said this:
Viceroy63 wrote:Player; Not one issue from the OP was ever addressed here in this thread! How then can you make a statement like that? And I dare you to show me where rather than just to say so!
Here are more people who specifically addressed points made in the OP. This doesn't include all the others who addressed individual issues without megaposts (like a couple of my responses).
Metsfanmax wrote:
Viceroy63 wrote:[15] This foundationless theory of evolution is what is being taught as "fact" in children schools and Universities in the United States and around the world. And many so called "intellectual" people buy it with out ever really questioning the Theory. They simply accept it as fact. The fact is that if you don't accept this theory as fact, then you are looked down upon by the majority of the intellectual world as being ignorant of the so called facts of the so called "truth of evolution" or are just plain stupid. You take your pick.
No one who is being careful with their terminology claims that the theory of evolution is a "fact." (Sometimes people describe the theory of evolution as a fact, but they are not using that word in the sense that it is an objectively measurable quantity, they are using it in the sense that few or zero respected biologists disagree with it.) The theory of evolution is a scientific theory (see below), which means that to describe it as fact is, well, factually incorrect. It is much different from the realm of actual facts (e.g. the fossils we have collected). What science class teaches you always is, and always has been, is the accepted consensus of the scientific community at large of a reasoned explanation for the facts we observe. Physics class is not just about learning that it is a fact that if you throw something upwards, it will fall down; it is about quantifying how long it will take to fall down, given a particular scientific theory explaining gravity. Chemistry class is not just about learning that molecules have electrons; it is quantifying how certain molecules react, using a particular understanding of intermolecular forces. Earth science/geology class is not just about learning that earthquakes happen; it is describing the theory of plate tectonics that we believe explains why earthquakes happen. Similarly, biology class is not just about learning that we have collected certain fossils; it is about learning how all of those fossils are related, in a coherent framework. The purpose of science class is not so much to teach facts as it is to teach the scientific method -- how scientists take a set of data and analyze it to come to a conclusion.
But the theory of evolution has as much acceptance among professional biologists as the theory of plate tectonics has among professional geologists, so it is perfectly reasonable to teach it in the science classroom. If you believe that there should also be a class that teaches about religious outlook on the world, you are welcome to push for it. Or if you believe that we should not teach science in high school, you are welcome to push for that too. But it is absurd to suggest that we should not teach what the vast majority of scientists believe, in science class.
[16] Some do not even acknowledge the word "Theory" as simply an idea or a thought and use words like "Unproven Hypothesis?" Whaaat? Yes, the word theory does not simply mean theory but a fact that has yet to be proven??? What ever that means. I always that that a fact is proven already, but watch out now, Don't you be ignorant of the difference between the two???
The word "theory" just means something specific in science. It is not a reasonable argument to suggest that because you have a different definition of it, that the arguments of scientists is moot. In science, a theory is a hypothesis that explains a set of a data in a coherent manner and, as far as we know, is not in dispute with any other data. In other words, a theory is a hypothesis that actually explains known data. A hypothesis is under no such restriction, which is why "theory" is reserved for better-tested ideas. If you would indict evolution as an "unproven hypothesis," so you must indict Newton's theory of gravity and all the other ones I mentioned above, and more.
DoomYoshi wrote:Viceroy, the evolution of the horse family is an old concept. It used to be that eyes were taken as a perfect example of convergent evolution, and now we know that it is divergent evolution. I could bring up old posts about the evolution of eyes, and prove that they are wrong, but why bother? Why not argue against current evidence?
1 - Different animals in each series.
Scientists very often disagree about how a phylogeny fits together. Eventually, a consensus will be reached, but even long accepted phylogenies are frequently overturned. Sometimes they are upheld though (Protostomes and Deuterostomes were predicted by Dev. Biologists and upheld by molecular evidence).
2 - Imaginary, not real.
Oh?
3 - Number of rib bones
This is controlled by a single group of genes called the Hox genes. If you turn one on later, or earlier, the number of rib bones change. It's not as if there is a gene called Rib18 and it turns into Rib19 only.
4 - No transitional teeth. The teeth of the "horse" animals are either grazing or browsing types. There are no transitional types
Why would there be?...
5 - Not from in-order strata.
Something evolving to be larger doesn't mean it can't later evolve smaller. The whole concept of Natural Selection is that you will evolve to whatever the conditions are, not some ideal form. You must remember that the "goal" of evolution was not to make a perfect Horse. There is no "goal" which is why it is almost impossible to predict what is upcoming.
6 - Calling a badger a horse.
Just because people aren't sure of an exact phylogeny doesn't mean that evolution is wrong.
7 - Horse series exists only in museums.
This really is a weird point. The authors are grasping at straws, to put it politely.
8 - Each one distinct from others.
Once again, I ask you to define intermediate species. Also, I want you to write a list of the exact conditions required for fossilization over millions of years. You need to understand that not everything that dies becomes a fossil.
9 - Bottom found at the top.
FIrst, I repeat that we don't need to know the phylogeny for evolution to be correct. Second, just because one species derives from another doesn't mean that the parent species dies off.
10 - Gaps below as well as above.
At this point, the article becomes trolling. Most of the points are about why constructing phylogenies isn't perfect. I can't find somebody who says they are though.
11 - Recent ones below earlier ones.
This point is exactly the same as point 9.
12 - Never found in consecutive strata.
This is a repeat of point 7.
13 - Heavily keyed to size.
This one is bordering on an outright lie.
14 - Bones, an inadequate basis.
So, what is the point of the preceding 13 arguments. If bones can never find anything, why bother arguing any specifics? Why not just posit: "Since bones are useless for developing phylogenies, no evidence of evolution can ever be found".
VIceroy, you are being scammed. These people are performing a legerdemain by relying on your incomplete knowledge of what is being proposed by evolutionary theories.
Just because you don't like it, or don't like the tone, or even if the response is outright wrong, it is a lie, and you are a liar, for saying that no issues were ever addressed from your OP.
Please, stop lying, Viceroy.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Neoteny wrote:And.. again, no other theory has been presented that better answers the data we have. This is significant. Its one thing to say that evolution might not be true.. fine, few will disagree. But for it to matter, you have to present a competing theory that equally answers ALL the evidence. Just saying "we cannot fully prove evolution right now" isn't enough.
no... of course you don't need to. Providing an alternate theory / hypothesis / conjecture / whatever u wanna call it only matters if you want to get someone to accept that another specific view is more likely. It's not needed to show the existing theory (evolution) isn't as solid as is currently thought by most people, and they shouldn't be so sure that it's necessarily correct.
I didn't actually write that. It was written by PLAYER during the first five pages of this thread. I just reposted it as evidence that Viceroy is a liar, like so many creationists....
Right; Don't you mean like so many Darwinists with their evolution of the horse exhibit, A proven hoax and Lie, or the Darwinists who presented the The Australopithecus Sediba Hoax (Short Youtube Video - 5 minutes long), And they have yet to present any bones for that one yet. You mean "Liar" as in that kind of a lie?
Or do you mean "Liar" as in the Darwinist Liars who wrote in the internet the Lies that the Kachina Bridge Dinosaurs were not really drawings of Dinosaurs but they themselves never really bother to even look at those carvings close up but with Binoculars and "psychic readings" or what not (really scientific), only to have real observers of the truth go up there, bringing an actual ladder with them so that they could get a close up and personal look at this with their own eyes and write this articles with Pictures about what liars they were, these two Darwinsts liars who were trying to convince people that these carvings were anything other than dinosaurs carvings? You mean that kind of Liar?
And I have yet to post the misleading lies about the "Sedimentary Layers" being manipulated and misrepresented so as not to tell the whole story of the fossil records. Is that the kind of liar that we are talking about? Because the list goes on and on my friend. It's like the list that never ends. Some Darwinists start spouting all them lies and no one stops to question them because their ignorance cries to high heaven!!!
All that evidence around you and you still can't figure out the math. Man!
Viceroy63 wrote:Or do you mean "Liar" as in the Darwinist Liars who wrote in the internet the Lies that the Kachina Bridge Dinosaurs were not really drawings of Dinosaurs but they themselves never really bother to even look at those carvings close up but with Binoculars and "psychic readings" or what not (really scientific), only to have real observers of the truth go up there, bringing an actual ladder with them so that they could get a close up and personal look at this with their own eyes and write this articles with Pictures about what liars they were, these two Darwinsts liars who were trying to convince people that these carvings were anything other than dinosaurs carvings? You mean that kind of Liar?
The above drawing is found in Utah, USA. It was made by American Indians 500 years ago. At the time the Indian people were nomadic tribesmen. That means that they moved around a lot. They were nomads by choice because the hunting of the American Buffalo was their main concern. Well, that and the smoking of the peace pipe. Who can blame them.
The Buffalo never stayed put in just one place. So where ever the Buffalo roamed the Indians followed. They had no cities or high technology and certainly did not have spare scientist digging for bones and collecting the bones where ever they went. Spending the night dancing and singing songs around the camp fire to their gods was the height of their scientific endeavors.
So my question is...
If no one has seen a dinosaur in over 60,000,000 million years, Then just what the hell were they drawing in the cave walls?
There is an image of a man which is certainly definable but what creature even remotely resembles that of a large Horse with a tail the size of a tree and an obvious bump on it's head which we now know that some dinosaurs had atop their heads?
The painting was made 500 years ago.
Lets for a minute assume that we have only been here for a few thousand years (thats inline with your belief Viceroy? take few thousand to mean anything between 3 and 30).
We certainly havent observed a living Dinosaur in human history, and certainly not in the last 2000 years.
So you are saying that a random nomadic tribe that is best known for smoking opiates managed to somehow keep an accurate picture of anything, dinosaur or otherwise, in their memory/records for no less than 1500 years?
You must be a pretty boring person to play chinese whispers with if that is the case...
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no
Viceroy63 wrote: An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance. by Viceroy63
[1] Evolution is taught and accepted as factual evidence when in fact there is no factual evidence to support the Theory of Evolution.
Evolution is not taught as fact. It is taught as a scientific theory, which does have a LOT of factual evidence to support it, though it is true there is not 100% definitive proof.
Viceroy63 wrote:The word Theory means Theory and not fact. No matter how badly Darwinist may want it to mean so or how often they use the word fact instead of theory.
True, but theory doesn't mean precisely what you seem to think.
The theory of gravity is a classic example that illustrates this well. (I even made a thread on that, but you neglected to participate) On the one hand, no one has yet been able to 100% fully and completely prove the ideas behind the theory of gravity. On the other hand, we know enough that we can counter its impact by sending rockets to the moon, design airplanes and parachutes, etc. Ask any school child beyond the age of about 9 if gravity is real and they will generally assure you it is... and that they learned about it in school.
Evolution doesn't have quite the backing of the theory of gravity. Partly, that is because despite what young earth creationists like yourself like to assert, its not really one theory, but a series of individual theories.
Viceroy63 wrote: That branching tree that is mentioned as fact is in fact speculation and there is no evidence to support the idea that because there are some similarities between the species in their Bone structure, that there occurred any evolution of the species. The other evidence of Molecules and Genetics is also not evidence that Evolution has ever occurred but speculative just like the similarities in the bones. I will soon post about the geologic records as that to has been misrepresented as well. As for organs, He is just making that one up because there are no Dinosaur organs around to compare to modern supposedly "evolved" animals of today. So how would he know? And finally at the end of the video he also admits it when he says, "'IF' the theory is true."
Only part of that video apparently came through. Sort of irrelevant, though because its not as if I haven't heard all of these arguments many times before.
Essentially, he is saying what I am saying above.. that while technically the whole theory of evolution is a theory, it has so much proof behind it that it is treated as fact in general useage. A subtlety that you avoid is the fact (no dispute here!) that evolution is both an all encompassing idea that "things change over time", a more specific (but still general) scientific idea (creatures evolved from more primitive species that came before) AND a whole series of very specific individual theories about how specific forms came to be. That last can even be divided up into theories of how specific changes happened or what specific changes happened.
Part of your confusion is a failure to identify each of those distinct ideas and terms.
It is a fact that things change over time. This is seen, observed and quantified. Young Earthers like to claim that each of these examples is "not a true example of evolution" -- either too small of a change, a change "within kind" is the new term you folks like to parade (never mind that its utterly meaningless concept, used only by young earthers attempting to fit facts to their ideas of the account in Genesis). It is all but absolutely proven that species evolve into other species, that species we see here came from more primitive types. (that would be sort of equivalent to the proof around the theory of gravity).
When you get to that last layer.. the specifics of how this species became that species or how, say fins evolved from structures that in other creatures became hands, etc, etc... there you get a mixture of things pretty firmly proven and things that are only speculation. If you go back throughout the history of evolutionary study, you find many missteps in the individual studies, ideas.
The problem with so many young earth arguments, including most of your own is that you take criticism of some very specific ideas and pretend that challenges to these specific ideas mean you are somehow "disputing the entire theory of evolution".
Oftentimes, creationists even further try to muddy the water by claiming that "evolution" involves many things that really have nothing at all to do with the theory, like the creation of the universe.. Again, the ONLY people to try to refer to "cosmic evolution" or to try to argue against evolution by refering to the Big Band are young earthers (and maybe a few very misinformed individuals of other persuasions). OR, they will, as you have insist that evolution is about the origin of life, rather than "what happened after it came here"
Here is a question... if your goal is to refute evolution, the why do so many of the young earther arguments center on things that truly have nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution????
Viceroy63 wrote: "Attention Governor Perry: Evolution is a fact" http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on- ... _blog.html "Evolution is a fact, as securely established as any in science, and he who denies it betrays woeful ignorance and lack of education, which likely extends to other fields as well" -Richard Dawkins wrote this response to Governor Perry for On Faith, the Washington Post’s forum for news and opinion on religion and politics.
Again, refer to the above. In this context, yes.. it is. However, in the context of "is this idea about horse skulls correct".. no.
Viceroy63 wrote:
At the 3:00 minute marker, Dawkins is telling a teenager that evolution is a fact and that any teacher not teaching that is doing a bad job at teaching. Not to mention that he feels "sorry for her" for not getting an adequate education.
Well, depends on the context, as mentioned above. Also, Dawkins is an individual. He is an intelligent researcher, a knowledgable scientist. He is not perfect. I absolutely disagree with much of what he says about faith and religion, for example.
Also, there is a big difference between saying that "our ideas about evolution may not be entirely correct" and saying "the Earth is only a few thousand years old and the evidence shows this, but scientists don't want you to know that and persist in lying about it".
The first.. that our ideas about evolution may not all be correct is absolutely true and a good teacher WILL bring that out. But, the gap is no where near big enough to allow for any of Dr Morris' ideas or the things you try to present here. Your ideas are all based on the pretense that scientists just lie and evidence presented over and over and over and critiques over and over and over is all just wrong... you know better.
Sorry, but that is either a very childish attitude. Earlier, most of us could have allowed that you were merely ignorant, did not know any better. ..... but you have shown yourself unwilling to seriously challenge any ideas you present or to seriously consider ANY evidence presented.
Viceroy63 wrote: The age of the earth has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. But by connecting the two you make the theory a fact. And that is what is being taught in schools. That evolution is a fact.
Interesting idea, but wrong. They go together. The layers of Earth are part of how we understand evolution, because there ARE very distinct layers with distinct types of species. Several folks here, including myself have explained much of this, walked you through a lot of the proofs, but you ignore it as all "fabrication"... and respond by posting some link or video that you seem to think proves we are wrong.
The trouble is, if you had bothered to follow the evidence we show you, you would readily see that we are not wrong. Its a complicated mix and you don't seem to want to deal with anything more complicated than "God did it..and anything else is just wrong", so of course you think they are independent. You have been lied to.. and are happy to remain ignorant. People who like remaining ignorant, who refuse to allow any challenge to their ideas are considered bigots and idiots. Several folks here
Viceroy63 wrote: "The Taylor County School Board in Florida has voted to oppose evolution" Posted by RB on January 9, 2008 · 40 Comments http://theframeproblem.wordpress.com/20 ... evolution/ NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Taylor County School Board of Taylor County, Perry, Florida, that the Board urges the State Board of Education to direct the Florida Department of Education to revise the new Sunshine State Standards for Science such that evolution is not presented as fact, but as one of several theories.
I maintain that if the theory of evolution is a proven fact then why so much hubbub, bub? There should be no great a dissension if the Theory of evolution was a scientific and proven fact that even school teachers are arguing as to how to teach this and they are saying, "Not as fact, not in our school!" And if anyone should know better, it would be those teachers!
[/quote] Ah, well you yourself were the one saying to "follow the money".. too bad you never really bothered to do that.
There is a very small segment who just won't look into the science. The Amish, for example are not heavy believers in Evolution.. nor in driving cars, for that matter. They, however, make no pretense about "proving" evolution wrong. People who just say "the evidence doesn't matter, I believe..." similarly are, well, just not scientists. They deal in faith and that is fine, for their world.
The problem comes with those, like yourself, who claim that you have "proof" that evolution is wrong, though when we look at your "arguments" most have nothing at all to do with evolution ("God exists", for example.. fine, but the debate is over evolution, not God), are not really attacks on evolution at all (From one of the IRC papers... 'and it turned out that the Ceolocanth was just a fist" --- who ever said it should be anything else, except young earthers), or are just false themselves (the second law of thermodynamics dictates....; there is no evidence...., etc.).
Also, well, there is a segment of the population that willing to believe that their failure to understand some complex scientific concepts means those concepts just must be wrong. They would rather all of science be wrong than that they might be, well, stupid... except, to the rest of the world, that pretty much is the definition of "stupid". Ignoring facts in favor of some idea they prefer to believe.
Look, Viceroy, the real truth about the piltdown video and the other videos I had the time to view (have not had the time to look at all of YOUR postings, but I have certainly heard most of this before!) is that they just don't show what you claim.
You wish to assert, basically, that if anyone studying evolution has ever either been mistaken or plain lied then that is all you need to disprove the theory and then you can just go and insert whatever other alternative theory you wish. In fact, what you show is that in a subject studied by literally thousands, perhaps millions of professional, acclaimed, scientists there are a few who are less than honest. I will go even further and say that in the hundred or so years of serious study on this, many, many errors have been made. Many have been corrected, others will likely be found and corrected in the future.
BUT, what you don't do is answer all the data that is absolutely not fraudulant and not fabricated, that has been verified over and over. You pretend none such exists... That is a flat lie. Any idea that depends on a lie is plain not worthy.
Further, you worsen your case by not bothering to truly investigate most of what you present as "proof" with anything close to the same scrutiny you put on anything supporting evolution. In fact, evolutionists do a much, much better job of verifying and criticizing their own data than any creationist. Or are you completely unaware that its been evolutionists, scientists not young earth creationist pretenders who are finding these errors? The real ones, I mean... what you see from the IRC is pure garbage. Plain and simply, garbage... and I say that after having spent a great deal of time tracking the claims down, not just based upon something someone else told me or some site I happened to find on the internet.
Don't believe me... find an example you think is "irrefutable" and we can see. EXCEPT, the problem is we have already addressed several of your "irrefutable" claims and all you can do is just post more videos of unverified claims.
You don't even seem to understand what "verification' really means.
The truth is, I have debated quite a few creationists. You are not even giving close a decent showing of their ideas.
Viceroy63 wrote:Or do you mean "Liar" as in the Darwinist Liars who wrote in the internet the Lies that the Kachina Bridge Dinosaurs were not really drawings of Dinosaurs but they themselves never really bother to even look at those carvings close up but with Binoculars and "psychic readings" or what not (really scientific), only to have real observers of the truth go up there, bringing an actual ladder with them so that they could get a close up and personal look at this with their own eyes and write this articles with Pictures about what liars they were, these two Darwinsts liars who were trying to convince people that these carvings were anything other than dinosaurs carvings? You mean that kind of Liar?
The above drawing is found in Utah, USA. It was made by American Indians 500 years ago. At the time the Indian people were nomadic tribesmen. That means that they moved around a lot. They were nomads by choice because the hunting of the American Buffalo was their main concern. Well, that and the smoking of the peace pipe. Who can blame them.
The Buffalo never stayed put in just one place. So where ever the Buffalo roamed the Indians followed. They had no cities or high technology and certainly did not have spare scientist digging for bones and collecting the bones where ever they went. Spending the night dancing and singing songs around the camp fire to their gods was the height of their scientific endeavors.
So my question is...
If no one has seen a dinosaur in over 60,000,000 million years, Then just what the hell were they drawing in the cave walls?
There is an image of a man which is certainly definable but what creature even remotely resembles that of a large Horse with a tail the size of a tree and an obvious bump on it's head which we now know that some dinosaurs had atop their heads?
The painting was made 500 years ago.
Lets for a minute assume that we have only been here for a few thousand years (thats inline with your belief Viceroy? take few thousand to mean anything between 3 and 30).
We certainly havent observed a living Dinosaur in human history, and certainly not in the last 2000 years.
So you are saying that a random nomadic tribe that is best known for smoking opiates managed to somehow keep an accurate picture of anything, dinosaur or otherwise, in their memory/records for no less than 1500 years?
You must be a pretty boring person to play chinese whispers with if that is the case...
What I am attempting to point out is that these people must have seen the dinosaurs that they were drawing because you just can't make shit like this up. No matter how much Marijuana you smoke.
When you compare all the evidence such as Dinosaur Blood still decomposing like Mummified remains where you can even get DNA from them still even after thousands of years in wrap and also the Ica stones where these Venezuelans actually carved different types of dinosaurs such as "Triceratops," and others and even depicted them as being either hostile, like the T-rex or docile like the Triceratops where there is even shown in one of the stones a man riding a Triceratops while smoking his pipe no less, as if it were an Elephant. And also the thousand of still photos and videos of everyday folks who have seen them and only in these very few location (No one is saying that they saw a T-Rex in the sewers of New York City???), all in the same location, Lake Champ USA, Lake Ness Great Britain, The Amazon Forest Basins, The Congo Jungle (as big as any state of the U.S.) and even in the Siberian wilderness!!! You put all of that together and you can not arrive at any other conclusion except that dinosaurs still live among us and did not become extinct 65,000,000 years ago but that they are still with us in remote parts of the world and that the theory of millions of Years of evolution just does not answer that.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Look, Viceroy, the real truth about the piltdown video and the other videos I had the time to view (have not had the time to look at all of YOUR postings, but I have certainly heard most of this before!) is that they just don't show what you claim.
You wish to assert, basically, that if anyone studying evolution has ever either been mistaken or plain lied then that is all you need to disprove the theory and then you can just go and insert whatever other alternative theory you wish. In fact, what you show is that in a subject studied by literally thousands, perhaps millions of professional, acclaimed, scientists there are a few who are less than honest. I will go even further and say that in the hundred or so years of serious study on this, many, many errors have been made. Many have been corrected, others will likely be found and corrected in the future.
BUT, what you don't do is answer all the data that is absolutely not fraudulant and not fabricated, that has been verified over and over. You pretend none such exists... That is a flat lie. Any idea that depends on a lie is plain not worthy.
Further, you worsen your case by not bothering to truly investigate most of what you present as "proof" with anything close to the same scrutiny you put on anything supporting evolution. In fact, evolutionists do a much, much better job of verifying and criticizing their own data than any creationist. Or are you completely unaware that its been evolutionists, scientists not young earth creationist pretenders who are finding these errors? The real ones, I mean... what you see from the IRC is pure garbage. Plain and simply, garbage... and I say that after having spent a great deal of time tracking the claims down, not just based upon something someone else told me or some site I happened to find on the internet.
Don't believe me... find an example you think is "irrefutable" and we can see. EXCEPT, the problem is we have already addressed several of your "irrefutable" claims and all you can do is just post more videos of unverified claims.
You don't even seem to understand what "verification' really means.
The truth is, I have debated quite a few creationists. You are not even giving close a decent showing of their ideas.
Why don't you post that evidence that you say, I am ignoring?
Why can't we focus on one thing at a time?
Sure I wrote a lot in my article but nothing is being dissected and discussed; Only counter arguments offered that dismiss the details and go right over all that I have posted. If you did that then you would be addressing the issue. Why don't we begin with Pilt down Man? Make you point and your questions about just that one thing and lets see if we can't get some place with that?
Because to jumble it all together into some heavy soup with many, Many questions, and then say that I am the one who is ignoring all of the evidence and questions posted is surely not right! Not for anyone.
Last edited by Viceroy63 on Sun Mar 03, 2013 5:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Viceroy63 wrote:What I am attempting to point out is that these people must have seen the dinosaurs that they were drawing because you just can't make shit like this up. No matter how much Marijuana you smoke.
It seems you understand the human imagination even less than you do evolution.
Not to mention pot.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk Too much. I know.
Viceroy63 wrote: What I am attempting to point out is that these people must have seen the dinosaurs that they were drawing because you just can't make shit like this up. No matter how much Marijuana you smoke.
Your attempt is a massive failure. Nothing you have presented truly proves that these people saw a real, live dinosaur. Several people have patiently explained this, but you are not interested in anything but your own ideas.
Further its actually irrelevant. Even if this dinosaur were alive 500 years ago, or even if it were still alive today, it would not in any way, shape or form disprove the theories of evolution.
Viceroy63 wrote: When you compare all the evidence such as Dinosaur Blood still decomposing like Mummified remains where you can even get DNA from them still even after thousands of years in wrap
Why do you believe that the DNA evidence seen is somehow conflicting with the ideas of evolution or the age of the fossils concerned?
Basically.. you think this because you begin with a very poor understanding of fossils, geology, etc. That is all you are proving..and that you cannot be bothered to educate yourself to the reality.
Viceroy63 wrote:and also the Ica stones where these Venezuelans actually carved different types of dinosaurs such as "Triceratops," and others and even depicted them as being either hostile, like the T-rex or docile like the Triceratops where there is even shown in one of the stones a man riding a Triceratops while smoking his pipe no less, as if it were an Elephant.
This would be fun to see, but why do you think it represents proof against evolution?
Viceroy63 wrote:And also the thousand of still photos and videos of everyday folks who have seen them and only in these very few location (No one is saying that they saw a T-Rex in the sewers of New York City???), all in the same location, Lake Champ USA, Lake Ness Great Britain, The Amazon Forest Basins, The Congo Jungle (as big as any state of the U.S.) and even in the Siberian wilderness!!! You put all of that together and you can not arrive at any other conclusion except that dinosaurs still live among us and did not become extinct 65,000,000 years ago but that they are still with us in remote parts of the world and that the theory of millions of Years of evolution just does not answer that.
LOL....
Sorry, but the Loch Ness monster is not real, neither are most of the other creatures to which you refer. It is slightly possible that a dinosaur might exist somewhere (chances are getting slimmer and slimmer as more of the world is surveyed fully). However the bottom line is that it would not disprove evolution. It would be a fantastic scientific discovery that would delight scientists, much as other discoveries have.
That you seem to think this would somehow disprove the theories of evoluion, again, shows that you don't understand science or evolution.
Viceroy63 wrote: What I am attempting to point out is that these people must have seen the dinosaurs that they were drawing because you just can't make shit like this up. No matter how much Marijuana you smoke.
Your attempt is a massive failure. Nothing you have presented truly proves that these people saw a real, live dinosaur. Several people have patiently explained this, but you are not interested in anything but your own ideas.
Further its actually irrelevant. Even if this dinosaur were alive 500 years ago, or even if it were still alive today, it would not in any way, shape or form disprove the theories of evolution.
It would be fucking cool though.
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk Too much. I know.
I do find it interesting Viceroy that you discredit thousands of scientists, based on the findings of one or two highly biased sources.
You seem to simply take the word for any possible evidence against evolution, and present any glimmer of hope against it, regardless of the source.
I wouldnt say that is dishonest, but more akin to wishful thinking.
However, because of this obvious bias, and your posting here, trying to convince others of it....you certainly are guilty of misleading, which is awfully close to that word "lie" that you like so much.
Isn't that expressly forbidden in your book?
I'm Spanking Monkey now....err...I mean I'm a Spanking Monkey now...that shoots milk Too much. I know.
Viceroy63 wrote:What I am attempting to point out is that these people must have seen the dinosaurs that they were drawing because you just can't make shit like this up. No matter how much Marijuana you smoke.
Haha, really?
Just because they were a nomadic tribe they had to be literal; things like folklore and fictional story telling didnt apply to the indians 500 years ago?
You say they drew a dinosaur because they saw one; thus dinosaurs lived 500 years ago.
I say they drew a dinosaur because their grandad told them a wild tale about grossly embellished bad guys (see natural predators) and then the kids then went on to draw the monsters on the wall at their equivilent of primary school. Thisdoesnt actually make me form an opinion on whether or not dinosaurs lived 500 years ago as I just made it up (see: Strawman) and I could be wildly incorrect.
I base my opinion on the fact that no one has scientifically observed a dinosaur within the last 20-30 years; over the last 20-30 years we have undergone massive changes to the way in which we record information; in addition to this we have scientists literally crawling over the world, lifting every stone, digging into every nook and cranny and going down the probverbial rabbit hole where ever they can. While these fact do not prove that dinosaurs do not exist, they are circumstantial, they give me more than enough information to make a judgement: Dinosaurs became extinct millions of years ago.
When you compare all the evidence such as Dinosaur Blood still decomposing like Mummified remains where you can even get DNA from them still even after thousands of years in wrap.
This I find rather intreguing, do you have a source? (I cant watch youtube at work, but im sure if the source is reputable it will have something other than a youtube clip associated with it).
I go to the gym to justify my mockery of fat people.
PLAYER57832 wrote:Look, Viceroy, the real truth about the piltdown video and the other videos I had the time to view (have not had the time to look at all of YOUR postings, but I have certainly heard most of this before!) is that they just don't show what you claim.
You wish to assert, basically, that if anyone studying evolution has ever either been mistaken or plain lied then that is all you need to disprove the theory and then you can just go and insert whatever other alternative theory you wish. In fact, what you show is that in a subject studied by literally thousands, perhaps millions of professional, acclaimed, scientists there are a few who are less than honest. I will go even further and say that in the hundred or so years of serious study on this, many, many errors have been made. Many have been corrected, others will likely be found and corrected in the future.
BUT, what you don't do is answer all the data that is absolutely not fraudulant and not fabricated, that has been verified over and over. You pretend none such exists... That is a flat lie. Any idea that depends on a lie is plain not worthy.
Further, you worsen your case by not bothering to truly investigate most of what you present as "proof" with anything close to the same scrutiny you put on anything supporting evolution. In fact, evolutionists do a much, much better job of verifying and criticizing their own data than any creationist. Or are you completely unaware that its been evolutionists, scientists not young earth creationist pretenders who are finding these errors? The real ones, I mean... what you see from the IRC is pure garbage. Plain and simply, garbage... and I say that after having spent a great deal of time tracking the claims down, not just based upon something someone else told me or some site I happened to find on the internet.
Don't believe me... find an example you think is "irrefutable" and we can see. EXCEPT, the problem is we have already addressed several of your "irrefutable" claims and all you can do is just post more videos of unverified claims.
You don't even seem to understand what "verification' really means.
The truth is, I have debated quite a few creationists. You are not even giving close a decent showing of their ideas.
Why don't you post that evidence that you say, I am ignoring?
Well, for one thing, who it was that discovered that Pilt down was a hoax.. and what it really meant.
It was not a case of creationists refuting evolution. It was a case of scientists, all of whom understand the evidence for evolution, challenging specific points very critically...and finding, eventually that this was a lie. The remarkable part about this was that it took so long to discover. BUT.... you have to remember that we had some "rather significant" event during that time, namely the Depression, WWII, etc. A lot of non-military science was curtailed in that period.
Viceroy63 wrote:Why can't we focus on one thing at a time?
Sure I wrote a lot in my article but nothing is being dissected and discussed; Only counter arguments offered that dismiss the details and go right over all that I have posted. If you did that then you would be addressing the issue. Why don't we begin with Pilt down Man? Make you point and your questions about just that one thing and lets see if we can't get some place with that?
Done. Piltdown is a hoax, as I noted, it perpetuated for a long time, but when you look at the world events of the time, its not really all that remarkable, after all, that this particular bit went unchallenged for as long as it did.
Viceroy63 wrote:Because to jumble it all together into some heavy soup with many, Many questions, and then say that I am the one who is ignoring all of the evidence and questions posted is surely not right! Not for anyone.
Well, the above is a nice example. See, you keep pretending that we are claiming Piltdown is something other than a hoax, and seem to be inferring, further that the information of this hoax was hidden by some evolutionist conspiracy and challenged by those opposing evolution. The facts are otherwise. That you insist on bringing this up again and again is pretty much an example of your refusal to honestly discuss this.
OR... how about the way you keep bringing up this picture of a dinosaur painting and insisting that it would somehow refute evolution. It doesn't necessarily indicate that a dinosaur was alive at the time or in any recent time (as has been explained several times to you), but more importantly, even if it were an accurate photograph, even if ou found such a dinosaur alive today, it would not refute evolution. It might, possibly change how we see a small section of the story, but it would in no way, shape or form refute it.
OR.. how about my whole prior response to your post, in particular the recent one where I tell you that your entire idea of evolution and what theories mean is just wrong....
Here's a little something about those stones showing the men and dinosaurs co-existing...and their "discoverer", Dr Cabrera.
Cabrera has his own theory about the creators of the stones. His theory is based upon the premise that the stones are not a hoax. This is understandable, since, if the stones are a hoax, Cabrera is one of the key hoaxers. Cabrera's theory is that the stones depict the first Peruvian culture as an extremely advanced technological civilization. How advanced? The stones allegedly depict open-heart surgery, brain transplants, telescopes, flying machines, etc. When did they exist? They came from the Pleiades about one million years ago. How does he know this? That is anybody's guess, but you can read about it in Cabrera's book The Message of the Engraved Stones of Ica.
Why don't scientists simply date the stones and settle the matter? Stones without organic material trapped in them can only be dated by dating the organic material in the strata in which they are found. Since Cabrera's stones come from some mystery cave which has never been identified, much less excavated, there is no way to date them.
That no one has ever found any other remnant of this great culture should be troublesome, however. Such a great society might have left at least some garbage or some ruins, maybe even a bone or two, a grave here or there, or a temple, a hospital, an observatory, an airport. But this great civilization, unlike every other great civilization of the past (except Atlantis, of course!) has vanished without a trace, except for Cabrera's stones.
Neoteny wrote:And.. again, no other theory has been presented that better answers the data we have. This is significant. Its one thing to say that evolution might not be true.. fine, few will disagree. But for it to matter, you have to present a competing theory that equally answers ALL the evidence. Just saying "we cannot fully prove evolution right now" isn't enough.
no... of course you don't need to. Providing an alternate theory / hypothesis / conjecture / whatever u wanna call it only matters if you want to get someone to accept that another specific view is more likely. It's not needed to show the existing theory (evolution) isn't as solid as is currently thought by most people, and they shouldn't be so sure that it's necessarily correct.
I didn't actually write that. It was written by PLAYER during the first five pages of this thread. I just reposted it as evidence that Viceroy is a liar, like so many creationists....
Right; Don't you mean like so many Darwinists with their evolution of the horse exhibit, A proven hoax and Lie, or the Darwinists who presented the The Australopithecus Sediba Hoax (Short Youtube Video - 5 minutes long), And they have yet to present any bones for that one yet. You mean "Liar" as in that kind of a lie?
Or do you mean "Liar" as in the Darwinist Liars who wrote in the internet the Lies that the Kachina Bridge Dinosaurs were not really drawings of Dinosaurs but they themselves never really bother to even look at those carvings close up but with Binoculars and "psychic readings" or what not (really scientific), only to have real observers of the truth go up there, bringing an actual ladder with them so that they could get a close up and personal look at this with their own eyes and write this articles with Pictures about what liars they were, these two Darwinsts liars who were trying to convince people that these carvings were anything other than dinosaurs carvings? You mean that kind of Liar?
And I have yet to post the misleading lies about the "Sedimentary Layers" being manipulated and misrepresented so as not to tell the whole story of the fossil records. Is that the kind of liar that we are talking about? Because the list goes on and on my friend. It's like the list that never ends. Some Darwinists start spouting all them lies and no one stops to question them because their ignorance cries to high heaven!!!
All that evidence around you and you still can't figure out the math. Man!
No, I mean a liar as in someone who lies, not someone who disagrees with your mythology, and uses an evidence-based system to disprove a literal interpretation of it. Do people go to hell for lying, Viceroy?
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." -Revelation 21:8
At least all Darwinist will enjoy each others company.
jonesthecurl wrote:Here's a little something about those stones showing the men and dinosaurs co-existing...and their "discoverer", Dr Cabrera.
Cabrera has his own theory about the creators of the stones. His theory is based upon the premise that the stones are not a hoax. This is understandable, since, if the stones are a hoax, Cabrera is one of the key hoaxers. Cabrera's theory is that the stones depict the first Peruvian culture as an extremely advanced technological civilization. How advanced? The stones allegedly depict open-heart surgery, brain transplants, telescopes, flying machines, etc. When did they exist? They came from the Pleiades about one million years ago. How does he know this? That is anybody's guess, but you can read about it in Cabrera's book The Message of the Engraved Stones of Ica.
Why don't scientists simply date the stones and settle the matter? Stones without organic material trapped in them can only be dated by dating the organic material in the strata in which they are found. Since Cabrera's stones come from some mystery cave which has never been identified, much less excavated, there is no way to date them.
That no one has ever found any other remnant of this great culture should be troublesome, however. Such a great society might have left at least some garbage or some ruins, maybe even a bone or two, a grave here or there, or a temple, a hospital, an observatory, an airport. But this great civilization, unlike every other great civilization of the past (except Atlantis, of course!) has vanished without a trace, except for Cabrera's stones.
Here's a little more...
In 1973 during an interview with Erich von Däniken, Uschuya stated he had faked the stones.[2] In 1975 Uschuya and another farmer named Irma Gutierrez de Aparcana confirmed that they had forged the stones they gave to Cabrera by copying the images from comic books, text books and magazines.[1] Later Uschuya recanted the forging story during an interview with a German journalist, saying that he had claimed they were a hoax to avoid imprisonment for selling archaeological artifacts. In 1977, during the BBC documentary Pathway to the Gods, Uschuya produced an Ica stone with a dentist's drill and claimed to have produced the patina by baking the stone in cow dung.[2] That same year, another BBC documentary was released with a skeptical analysis of Cabrera's stones, and the newfound attention to the phenomenon prompted Peruvian authorities to arrest Uschuya, as Peruvian law prohibits the sale of archaeological discoveries. Uschuya recanted his claim that he had found them and instead admitted they were hoaxes, saying "Making these stones is easier than farming the land." He engraved the stones using images in books and magazines as examples and knives, chisels and a dental drill.[5] He also said that he had not made all the stones. He was not punished, and continued to sell similar stones to tourists as trinkets.[2] The stones continued to be made and carved by other artists as forgeries of the original forgeries.[1]
No links available at this time, [1] but feel to Google search this data [5] and information at you leisure. These stones have to be false, all of them [7] despite the facts that some may have been forged because it just is not true. [4]
Viceroy63 wrote:"But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death." -Revelation 21:8
At least all Darwinist will enjoy each others company.
It's fun to watch you try to justify your lies.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Are the Ica Stones fake or real? Author: Christopher J. E. Johnson Published: Sept 12, 2011
In some of our CLE seminars, I show pictures of large stones with drawings carved into them called "Ica Stones." Originally collected by a man named Dr. Javier Cabrera, these Ica Stones portray clear and detailed dinosaurs, as well as complex medical surgery, and other devices such as telescopes and magnifying glasses.
To take an absolute stance that they are all real or all fake would not be wise because there are some fakes out there, but vice versa, just because some fakes and frauds have been made, doesn't mean the real ones are discredited. However, there are many evolutionists that take the position that they are all fakes and frauds because one of these stones being real would disrupt the entire evolution religion, and that is a scary thought for many people who scoff at the Bible.
There are many articles and documentaries made that have, in their own words, "proven" these Ica Stones to be fakes,but the whole truth is not told. [Viceroy63: if something is a half truth, then it is a whole "LIE!"] Most of these shows and documents are simply not well-researched because there is a presuppositional bias that wants to prove them fraudulent. For example, a man by the name of Philip Coppens wrote an article on his website that attempts to squelch any credibility to the Ica Stones, but the extent of his research is seen in his labeling of Dr. Cabrera's father:
Dr. Cabrera's father's name is Dom Pedro. This may not seem that important, but I say this to emphasize the lack of research that is being done, and this is but one of many such mistakes in articles written on the subject of the Ica Stones. [Viceroy63: To not really look into a subject and then post it as truth or self evident, is a "LIE!"]
[Note:] For a fraud to carry on from one generation to the next is a very Mayor undertaking for a small town community where every knows your business even before God Himself knows it. I know this because I live in a small town. This is truly an elaborate hoax??? -Viceroy63
Those that say all the Ica Stones are fake have to find a way around the scientific and archeological evidence. For example, these stones were first discovered and reported by the Spanish in 1535.
"Father Simon, a Jesuit missionary, accompanied Pizarro along the Peruvian coast and recorded his amazement upon viewing the stones. In 1562, Spanish explorers sent some of the stones back to Spain."
[Note:] Ah yes, 1562; Of course! That was the year that the "Dentist Drill" was invented??? -Viceroy63
Are we to believe that 500 years ago someone, living in South America, was carving thousands of these stones, just to fool the evolutionists? However, they must believe such things in order to reconcile their theory with the evidence.
[Note] Man, are those evolutionist smart. Even 500 years ago, they were already plotting the debunking of these Ica stones as fackes! -Viceroy63
In 1967, Dr. Cabrera picked 33 stones out of his collection and sent them to Maurico Hochshild Mining Company in Lima, Peru to be examined for age, and test to see if they had been recently deposited by a grave-robber who was carving them just to make extra money. Eric Wolf, geologist who worked at the MHMC laboratory sent back his signed analysis which read:
"The stones are covered with a fine patina of natural oxidation which also covers the grooves, by which age should be able to be deduced..."
Erich von Daniken analyzed these stones on a microscopic level, and found the following:
"Right angled clean scratches showed on the new stone under the microscope, whereas microorganisms could be seen in the grooves of Cabrera's stones under a fine glaze... that was the tiny major difference between genuine and false stones."
Though shows, like NOVA, will attempt to convince an audience that the stones' cuts have been made recently, F.G. Hawley, an experienced chemist and archaeologist, said:
"Many [artifacts] in dry western country show little or no patina after seven or eight hundred years."
[Note] How Shocking that LIES would be spread on the airwaves influencing the minds and thoughts of our little children to believe in a LIE! -Viceroy63
Under microscopic analysis, we can see that the real Ica Stones can be verified. Yet, commonly, evolutionists will still attack the authenticity of the Ica Stones without the evidence, and commonly I find they do not provide any references to what they are talking about.
Another common evidence used against the Ica Stones is the farmer Uchuya, who was said to be making the stones and selling them to tourists. However, before we analyze this story, let's assume it to be true for the moment.
If it is true that he is making some stones and selling them, does that account for the stones found 500 years ago? Do his fake stones account for all the Ica Stones discovered over the past few decades? Using this admission of forgery does not disprove the Ica Stones altogether.
This is about the same as someone taking a picture of a stick in the water, claiming it as a picture of the Lochness monster, and then when it is proven fraudulent, the evolutionists will jump on it and say that all accounts are disproven because one person lied. (This is also called a "false dilemma" logical fallacy, claiming they're either all real or all fake.) This emphasis on forgeries, without considering all the evidence, is an immature childish tactic used to persuade an audience, not a method used by researchers seeking the truth.
In addition, Dr. Cabrera alone had over 11,000 stones in his collection, so where is the gigantic crater that would be required to have dug up that many stones? And how could these two people have done all this by themselves without anyone noticing? Hamilton Forman, archaeologist researching the Ica Stones, said:
"If one family did this, they must have had an army of elves helping them."
A Peruvian jail sentence is almost the same as an American death sentence. They don't feed you. They don't cloth you. They don't help you in any way. If your family does not come to give you food and assistance, you will die in a Peruvian jail. Selling Peruvian treasures without government authorization is against the law, so when police officers brought in Irma and Basilio, both said they make the stones and sell them, because if the two confessed to digging up the stones and selling them, they would be immediately thrown in a Peruvian jail. [Viceroy63: Sure they did! That makes perfect sense when you put it like that??? ]
Even Philip Coppens, who writes against the authenticity of the Ica Stones, wrote:
"When von Däniken visited the farmer in 1973, Uschuya confirmed to him that he had faked the stones; but later on, in an interview with the German journalist Andreas Fischer, Uschuya claimed the opposite. They were genuine, he insisted, and he admitted to a hoax to avoid imprisonment."
[Note:] Oh, Come on People; Does any reasonably intelligent person really believe that any police, any where on the planet, would try to coerce a confession from a suspect? Ha, ha, ha, Get real??? -Viceroy63
There is still a lot to be learned by the Ica Stones, but few people are willing to pay for the research because, after all, these stones completely destroy the general theory of evolution.
Who would want to pay for research that destroys the only presupposition evolutionists have to help them reject true Biblical history?
If the skeptics would do a little research, they wouldn't have to be so skeptical.
Last edited by Viceroy63 on Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:46 pm, edited 5 times in total.
no... of course you don't need to. Providing an alternate theory / hypothesis / conjecture / whatever u wanna call it only matters if you want to get someone to accept that another specific view is more likely. It's not needed to show the existing theory (evolution) isn't as solid as is currently thought by most people, and they shouldn't be so sure that it's necessarily correct.
