An Unproven Hypothesis, The Rise of Ignorance.

[Viceroy63]

At least all Darwinist will enjoy each others company.

I tell you the truth, corrupt tax collectors, prostitutes, and Darwinists will get into the Kingdom of God before you do.

Sure, I believe that with all of my heart; If they repent of their sins.

Why not?

Shit; If God can be merciful and forgiving with a piece of low life, garbage, murderering, sexual deviant, like myself (past tense), Why not forgive a Darwinist like yourself? If all you've done is lie?

If you repent of your lies, that is.

[comic boy]

The following is an excerpt from the article "Are the Ica Stones fake or real?" This article can be read in it's entirety at...
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/icastones.php

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 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 [u][b]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.

Viceroy you were supposed to eat your shit , not deposit several tons more of it

[AndyDufresne]

If the skeptics would do a little research, they wouldn't have to be so skeptical.

Skeptics are the scum of the Earth. No, the Solar System. No, the Galaxy. No, the Universe. No, the Multiverse. No, the afterlife.




--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

The following is an excerpt from the article "Are the Ica Stones fake or real?" This article can be read in it's entirety at...
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/icastones.php

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 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 [u][b]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.

When someone starts yelling through a higher font size, then this indicates that they have lost the argument.

[AndyDufresne]

When someone starts yelling through a higher font size, then this indicates that they have lost the argument.

Oh yeah, BBS? I resent the implications you are suggesting!


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

When someone starts yelling through a higher font size, then this indicates that they have lost the argument.

Oh yeah, BBS? I resent the implications you are suggesting!


--Andy

Cheeky monkey.

[jonesthecurl]

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]

So kinda the reverse of how you view evidence for evolution.

[Lootifer]

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).

[Viceroy63]

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]

So kinda the reverse of how you view evidence for evolution.

I don't know why you would say that when I did post the link in the comment. But you would not know that because you probably ignored the comment all together. here it is again because you missed it the first time.

Are the Ica Stones fake or real?
The following is an excerpt from the article "Are the Ica Stones fake or real?" This article can be read in it's entirety at...
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/icastones.php

Do you see the link just above?

The facts that man saw dinosaurs and etched them out in rocks and caves simply destroys the theory of evolution. Don't you get it? How can Dinosaurs still be around after 65,000,000 million years yet no transitional species? Surely if the Dinosaurs lived around on the earth all this time then so did their transitional species, those that eventually evolved into the Birds and mammals that then became man should also still be around. In fact there should be even more of them in the fossil records because according to the theory of the mechanism, Natural Selection, Nature diversifies a great deal more than the ultimate creature that evolved. So where are they.

Read it for yourself, Oh but wait, you don't want to do that; Do you? You would rather believe that tens of thousands of rocks carved on for over eight hundred years of carving/etching, were all etched out by some dentist with a drill???

Gotcha!

[AndyDufresne]

The facts that man saw dinosaurs and etched them out in rocks and caves simply destroys the theory of evolution. Don't you get it? How can Dinosaurs still be around after 65,000,000 million years yet no transitional species? Surely if the Dinosaurs lived around on the earth all this time then so did their transitional species, those that eventually evolved into the Birds and mammals that then became man should also still be around. In fact there should be even more of them in the fossil records because according to the theory of the mechanism, Natural Selection, Nature diversifies a great deal more than the ultimate creature that evolved. So where are they.

I posted this in another topic, but I think it deserves posting here as well:

Subject: Questions for Evolutionists

Paintings aren't always clear in their subject matter, without the original reference.

--Andy

[jonesthecurl]

Some are definitely fake. All come from the same source. A man who claim there was an advanced society from the stars a million years ago.
Gotcha???

[PLAYER57832]

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]

I see, so once again... you asked, we answer... and you proceed onto your own tangent and pretend no one answered your earlier challenge.

Yep, that is about why you are the liar...

PS... there is a difference between being duped and lying. I know a lot of young earthers who believe what they have been told, but who don't lie. I know plenty of scientists who have been proven incorrect... that doesn't mean they "lied".

That you insist on calling people who just disagree with you "liars".. and do so while ignoring any evidence given to you that mostly just says that your points, true or not, are irrelevant.... well, guess who the true liar is.

Anyway, here is another chance for you to act honestly.

see, so again, you ask a question, we answer... and you go off on your own little tangent

To refresh your memory:

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.

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.

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....

You can start with any of those.

The facts that man saw dinosaurs and etched them out in rocks and caves simply destroys the theory of evolution. Don't you get it?

Yes, we get that you think this is true. What confuses us is WHY you would imagine this to be the case, because its nothing to do with real science.

How can Dinosaurs still be around after 65,000,000 million years yet no transitional species? Surely if the Dinosaurs lived around on the earth all this time then so did their transitional species, those that eventually evolved into the Birds and mammals that then became man should also still be around. In fact there should be even more of them in the fossil records because according to the theory of the mechanism, Natural Selection, Nature diversifies a great deal more than the ultimate creature that evolved. So where are they.

First and foremost, if a dinosaur were still around today it would, as I have said many times already, prove nothing.
IF, as you claim there were not a single dinosaur-modern species transition, just ancient evidence and modern species, then we would have a scientific puzzle, not proof against evolution.

So, your entire premise is false.

Beyond that, there ARE transition species and there IS evidence post-dinosaur (and pre-dinosaur as well, by-the-way) . You like to claim they don't, but I have seen the evidence. The TRUE fossils, mind you, not plaster casts (though those certainly exist as well), not internet pictures, but physical visible fossils, both in the soil, rock and after removal. I have seen them in multiple locations.


Proving evolution false means refuting the evidence for evolution. You never have done that. You just pretend to do this by pretending that the evidence just doesn't exist. Your fallback is that anyone who disagrees with you is just obviously lying.. no matter how much proof they present. Yet, you don't put your own "evidence" to even one tenth the same kind of scrutiny.

Either you are incredibly stupid or are a complete troll.

Read it for yourself, Oh but wait, you don't want to do that; Do you? You would rather believe that tens of thousands of rocks carved on for over eight hundred years of carving/etching, were all etched out by some dentist with a drill???

Gotcha!

Uh... no.

but continue to dig your hole even deeper.

[Viceroy63]

Some are definitely fake. All come from the same source. A man who claim there was an advanced society from the stars a million years ago.
Gotcha???

Some may very well be fake. And? But they do not all come from the same source. Unless you are that source because you don't cite any links or source?

I would think that the fake one's represent less than 0.0001% considering that these stones go back 800 years or more and there are literally tens of thousands of these stones. But even if some are fakes, how does that take away from the historical and archeological evidence that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth together just a few hundred years ago.

[Lootifer]

The facts that man saw dinosaurs and etched them out in rocks

Can you provide me with the evidence that the artists of those pictures saw dinosaurs?

[jonesthecurl]

Viceroy: on the question of the Ica stones: what is your position on the ones that show brain surgery, flying machines and people using telescopes?

[Viceroy63]

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]

I see, so once again... you asked, we answer... and you proceed onto your own tangent and pretend no one answered your earlier challenge.

Yep, that is about why you are the liar...

PS... there is a difference between being duped and lying. I know a lot of young earthers who believe what they have been told, but who don't lie. I know plenty of scientists who have been proven incorrect... that doesn't mean they "lied".

That you insist on calling people who just disagree with you "liars".. and do so while ignoring any evidence given to you that mostly just says that your points, true or not, are irrelevant.... well, guess who the true liar is.

Anyway, here is another chance for you to act honestly.

see, so again, you ask a question, we answer... and you go off on your own little tangent

To refresh your memory:

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.

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.

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....

You can start with any of those.

The facts that man saw dinosaurs and etched them out in rocks and caves simply destroys the theory of evolution. Don't you get it?

Yes, we get that you think this is true. What confuses us is WHY you would imagine this to be the case, because its nothing to do with real science.

How can Dinosaurs still be around after 65,000,000 million years yet no transitional species? Surely if the Dinosaurs lived around on the earth all this time then so did their transitional species, those that eventually evolved into the Birds and mammals that then became man should also still be around. In fact there should be even more of them in the fossil records because according to the theory of the mechanism, Natural Selection, Nature diversifies a great deal more than the ultimate creature that evolved. So where are they.

First and foremost, if a dinosaur were still around today it would, as I have said many times already, prove nothing.
IF, as you claim there were not a single dinosaur-modern species transition, just ancient evidence and modern species, then we would have a scientific puzzle, not proof against evolution.

So, your entire premise is false.

Beyond that, there ARE transition species and there IS evidence post-dinosaur (and pre-dinosaur as well, by-the-way) . You like to claim they don't, but I have seen the evidence. The TRUE fossils, mind you, not plaster casts (though those certainly exist as well), not internet pictures, but physical visible fossils, both in the soil, rock and after removal. I have seen them in multiple locations.


Proving evolution false means refuting the evidence for evolution. You never have done that. You just pretend to do this by pretending that the evidence just doesn't exist. Your fallback is that anyone who disagrees with you is just obviously lying.. no matter how much proof they present. Yet, you don't put your own "evidence" to even one tenth the same kind of scrutiny.

Either you are incredibly stupid or are a complete troll.

Read it for yourself, Oh but wait, you don't want to do that; Do you? You would rather believe that tens of thousands of rocks carved on for over eight hundred years of carving/etching, were all etched out by some dentist with a drill???

Gotcha!

Uh... no.

but continue to dig your hole even deeper.

I'm sorry; was there a question in there some where?

[PLAYER57832]

I'm sorry; was there a question in there some where?

Yes, yours... answered, but the answer was ignored, as usual.

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 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 . [edit.. previously referred to the Depression, WWII, both of which rather took scientists away from their normal pursuits].

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....

You can start with any of those.

[tzor]

Shit; If God can be merciful and forgiving with a piece of low life, garbage, murderering, sexual deviant, like myself (past tense), Why not forgive a Darwinist like yourself? If all you've done is lie?

If you repent of your lies, that is.

First you call me a "Darwinist." I'm still not quite sure what that means but I'll accept it in humility. (Seriously, does that mean that anyone who agrees with the principles of General Relativity is an Einsteinist?)

Second, you claim that all I have ever done is lie, when I have clearly not done so. Yes, Viceroy, you make this secular Franciscan happy. True joy!

"So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don't fall!"

[jonesthecurl]

Excuse me, Player, I think there's a point or several you've not made clearly enough for Viceroy to appreciate. So, with your permission, let me cut to the chase.

(1)Viceroy, who exposed the Piltdown Man hoax? Creationists or scientists?

(2)When the hoax was exposed, did it convince the people who exposed it that creationism was therefore self-evidently true?

(3)Has anybody who was not desperately trying to disprove evolution ever claimed that the Piltdown Man was an essential proof of evolution, without which the whole theory would fall apart?

(4)Has any "pro-evolution" argument even suggested since 1953 that it was not a hoax?

[PLAYER57832]

Thank you, though I doubt he will answer, even more clearly put.

[Viceroy63]

I'm sorry; was there a question in there some where?

Yes, yours... answered, but the answer was ignored, as usual.

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 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 . [edit.. previously referred to the Depression, WWII, both of which rather took scientists away from their normal pursuits].

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....

You can start with any of those.

What if I just pick one, just to keep it simple and honest. OK.

Done.
Piltdown is a hoax, as 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 . [edit.. previously referred to the Depression, WWII, both of which rather took scientists away from their normal pursuits.

If Piltdown man was the only example of this then I would have to agree with you that it could just be an over sight. But the facts are that every single example used to portray evolution as fact even down to the geographic layers, the "Sedimentary Column," is sadly misrepresented and twisted and even fabricated to prove that evolution is a "factual" theory. The sad part is that the truth is, at the same time suppress.

For example:
Evolutionist always say that no human bones are ever found in that layer of the earth where the dinosaurs are because man and Dinosaurs are separated by 65,000,000 million years of evolution. But human bones and human foot prints are found in those very layers of sedimentary rocks and fossilized foot prints along side with those of the dinosaurs. But we never hear about this in schools or museums. Why do you suppose that is?



In 1971 a heavy equipment operator made a startling discovery in a layer of Dakota Sandstone which is part of the Lower Cretaceous strata. The Lower Cretaceous strata is known for its dinosaur fossils according to the evolutionary time table and is supposedly 140 million years old. This is the same rock strata where numerous dinosaur fossils have been found at Dinosaur National Monument.



The skeletons of ten perfectly modern human beings were found fifty eight feet down in the Dakota Sandstone. At least four of the individuals were female, one was an infant, and the rest were men. The amazing thing is that some of the fossils were articulated or found in their natural body positions which indicates they were quickly buried by some sort of catastrophic flood and mud slide.

You can read the rest of this at...

http://www.discoverynews.us/DISCOVERY%2 ... trata.html

So the question are:

1.)
Either modern man lived 65,000,000 years ago, or how else to you explain this? Or

2.)
Dinosaurs lived with man for thousands of years and there is some wrong with the explanation of the "Sedimentary Column" display used to explain evolution? And most importantly...

3.)
Why would this not make headlines all around the world?

I would think that a discovery like this would simply change everything!

So far I posted links that showed that Dinosaur Blood and Fresh DNA were discovered. Even Fresh Dinosaur Bone, not fossilized but recently dead dinosaurs bones. Also I have posted links with the "Ica Stones" proving that man has seen living dinosaurs no more than 800 years ago tops and that the cave etchings by American Indians were also approximately 500 hundred years old. I have yet to post the errors of the sedimentary columns and how badly and sadly it is misrepresented to prove that evolution is a fact when it is simply not a fact, but who cares because people like me must be crazy and so what? But the evidence will just no go away!

If it were just the Piltdown down man, then man, would I be so wrong and so very sorry and so humbly apologetic that it would embarrass even you. Oh, for shame, I would leave CC and not even come back under a different name because I would simply feel so terrible about myself, that my shame would not even let me get a good nights sleep. I would be a completely repented human being and ever so silent that I would not make another comment on any internet topics comments anywhere at all.

If it were just the piltdown man than you would be oh, so right in judging me a fool! But it is not just the Piltdown man but every single last exhibit that is used to portray evolution as factual and that is why I am not sorry in the least.

I also used to believe that evolution was true and even spoke in support of evolution but when I really looked at it, What was I really supporting and why? I am the kind of person that would not tell my own children that there is a Santa Claus. And believe me that when your young children know the truth and tell your neighbors young children the truth, you hear about it from your neighbors! Not the children but the parents. "What the hell is wrong with you sir...."

But I don't want my children growing up believing that I ever lied to them about anything and for nothing, and so I simply don't practice it.

[AndyDufresne]

Viceroy is onto something with the dino-mite analysis. I recently found this documentary from 1993.




--Andy

[jonesthecurl]

Excuse me, Player, I think there's a point or several you've not made clearly enough for Viceroy to appreciate. So, with your permission, let me cut to the chase.

(1)Viceroy, who exposed the Piltdown Man hoax? Creationists or scientists?

(2)When the hoax was exposed, did it convince the people who exposed it that creationism was therefore self-evidently true?

(3)Has anybody who was not desperately trying to disprove evolution ever claimed that the Piltdown Man was an essential proof of evolution, without which the whole theory would fall apart?

(4)Has any "pro-evolution" argument even suggested since 1953 that it was not a hoax?

You asked to deal with one thing at time.
Del with this one,which you keep bringing up, then let's move on. Just as you asked.

[Viceroy63]

Viceroy is onto something with the dino-mite analysis. I recently found this documentary from 1993.




--Andy

And I bet your children don't know the difference between Hollywood Movies and reality, right?

[AndyDufresne]

And I bet your children don't know the difference between Hollywood Movies and reality, right?

Bro, fantasy is reality in the modern world, man.




--Andy