Noah's Ark Found?

sandimashigh

HR MVP
Mar 14, 2003
1,699
0
36
Nope that is in another room. The stones are also by statue of the Blessed Virgin that cries vegetable oil.
This post was edited on 4/27 2:25 PM
 

chafedHawk

HR Legend
Sep 25, 2002
11,875
0
36
Originally posted by NPRLover:
Boss,

There are mainly two groups of those who think that man co-existed with dinosaurs: those that just aren't aware of the geologic time-line (which is pretty common - basically scientific ignorance), and those that choose to follow a literal biblical interpretation, which can be based on the earth being 6,000 yrs old, or the hazy reference in Job to a leviathan/behemoth/whatever.

Many reasons are created by those who want to be biblical literalists: flaws in carbon dating, god can do anything, footprints of dinosaurs directly adjacent to footprints of humans. The fundamentalists/literalists employ an interesting psychology to assuage their cognitive dissonance. You've seen it here by god's ambassador - they are right, everyone else is wrong.

That's my view, caustic and abrasive as it may be. But as you see, I don't suffer fools gladly

Speaking of ignorance, you are apparently unaware of a very large group of Christian theologians who believe the apparent disconnect with science and Genesis lies in the mistranslation of one Hebrew word in Genesis 1:2.

Genesis Chapter 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was (or became- Hebrew 'hayah') without form (Hebrew 'tohuw), and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


From Strong's Exhaustive Concordance: Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary:
'1961. 'hayah' ... to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass.'
'8414. tohuw ... to lie waste; a desolation (of surface).'

The reasonable interpretation of Genesis 1:2 with the properly translated 'became' in place of the incorrect 'was' indicates that the earth (Gen1:2 is specific to the 'earth'; it does not make mention of the 'heavens' here) existed previous to this event, and that something caused it to become chaotic and without form and its surface had been made desolate. Chaos is, of course, not a part of God's nature, the event or force that caused this would have had to be something outside of God's control (agruably Satan, maybe an asteroid impact?). This neatly reconciles another theological quagmire where scholars have been trying to justify God's creation of chaos in only one Biblical instance, this one. He didn't create the chaos that was earth, he formed it. So Genesis 1:2 likely does not describe the first event that took place on planet earth, but God's recreation of it from an uninhabitable, desolate state.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became ('hayah') a living soul.

Here we see the Hebrew 'hayah' used again in reference to God creating something. Again, 'hayah' is used to describe the 'becoming...coming to pass' of something, not the existence of something, and is furthur evidence that the above translation of Genesis 1:2 is correct. Now we've got consistency.

(Side note: This particular passage and its chosen language are astounding to me, given the time of its author. It's not likely men of ancient times were aware that the chemical compounds necessary for mammalian life are all present in ordinary soil.)

One more time, for good measure:

Isaiah 45:18 'For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain (Hebrew'tohuw')(he did not create a chaos, or 'tohuw'), he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.'

It is clear now that God did not create a chaos, he reformed and reshaped an existing one into something that was not chaos.

It's also quite clear that the original translators under King James made an error here by using 'was' instead of 'became' in Gen1:2 because translating the term properly created a completely different concept of Biblical Creation than what the church taught at that time. That, of course, would have been considered heresy.
 

DSinDM

HR All-American
Oct 4, 2001
3,176
0
36
"If it was iced/snowpacked without being glacially churned, it could easily be preserved. Hell, they have found relatively well-preserved bodies thousands of years old under such circumstances."

CLONE NOAH!!! Then we'd get some real answers--like whether he sounds anything like Mel Brooks.
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
So, NPR...Your lack of knowledge on Carbon 14 doesn't disqualify you from attacking this website? Everyone on here is discrediting the website - but no one wants to get specific as the where it err's regarding the assertions...

I don't get it.

& it's Ica stones. Get scooter in here. He can explain to all of us why the Peruvian's would draw a Pterodactyl on a rock when 'Science' hadn't told them that one ever existed.....



You are correct, it is Ica stones.

So, according to you, the relevant question is why the Peruvians would draw a dinosaur on a rock? Maybe they didn't; maybe it is a hoax perpetrated by Dr. Cabrera.

Before I continue, I must frankly express my amazement that anyone would fall for the Ica stone story. We have left the bible and its stories, and have descended into a deeper circle of fairy-tale and myth, with an unwitting public ready to lap it up because it supports their views on biblical literalism. How any intelligent person with any amount of education could believe this is beyond me. We're talking about pictures of space men riding dinosaurs here.


The link below has other links with it.

The Ica stones are a collection of stones allegedly discovered in a cave near Ica, Peru. The andesite stones have had their oxidized surfaces engraved with depictions that call into question just about everything science has taught us about the origin of our planet, ourselves, and other species. For example, some of the stones depict men (who look like ancient Incas or Aztecs) attacking huge stylized monsters with axes. The monsters are said to be dinosaurs. (One film production company goes so far as to claim that the monsters on the stones are "realistic depictions of Stegosaurus, Tyrannosaurus Rex and Pterodactyls.")

The cave where the stones were allegedly discovered has never been identified, much less examined by scientists. Skeptics consider the stones to be a pathetic hoax, created for a gullible tourist trade. Nevertheless, three groups in particular have endeavored to support the authenticity of the stones: (a) those who believe that extraterrestrials are an intimate part of Earth's "real" history; (b) fundamentalist Creationists who drool at the thought of any possible error made by anthropologists, archaeologists, evolutionary biologists, etc.; and (c) the mytho-historians who claim that ancient myths are accurate historical records to be understood literally.

The Ica stone craze began in 1996 with Dr. Javier Cabrera Darquea, a Peruvian physician who allegedly abandoned a career in medicine in Lima to open up the Museo de Piedras Grabadas (Engraved Stones Museum) in Ica. There he displays his collection of several thousand stones. Dr. Cabrera claims that a farmer found the stones in a cave. The farmer was arrested for selling the stones to tourists. He told the police that he didn't really find them in a cave, but that he made them himself. Other modern Ica artists, however, continue to carve stones and sell forgeries of the farmer's forgeries. In 1975, Basilio Uchuya and Irma Gutierrez de Aparcana claimed that they sold Cabrera stones they'd graved themselves and that they'd chosen their subject matter by copying from "comic books, school books, and magazines" (Polidoro 2002).

Dr. Cabrera's museum is listed as a tourist site by the Peruvian National Chamber of Tourism, though the authenticity of the stones is left open. According to the Chamber of Tourism, the museum has an exhibition of engraved stones depicting -supposedly - thousand of years of human activities. Based upon the found pieces, collection owner doctor Javier Cabrera, holds a theory according to which Ica was the seat of the first Peruvian culture.*

Dr. Cabrera's authority in the matter of the stones seems to have originated from his declaration that a particular stone (shown above) depicts an extinct fish. The depiction is stylized, as are most of the drawings of ancient Peruvian cultures. It must be admitted that knowledge of extinct fish is rare among physicians, even those who have studied biology. Those who are impressed with this knowledge of extinct fish don't seem to be interested in exactly what fish this is supposed to be, when it became extinct, or what the telltale marks are that allow for this identification.

It is argued by the Extraterrestrialites and the Creationists that this depiction of an extinct fish proves either that the Indians who made these stones were given information by aliens about extinct fish (for they could not possibly have found any fossils and copied the fossils) or that the timeline that places extinctions of animals like this fish millions of years in the past are clearly wrong. The Indians lived within the past millennium or two, and so the extinctions must be recent.

It is argued by the Myth-Is-Historyites that since the stones depict men attacking monsters, monsters must really have existed and men must really have attacked them. Thus, either humans existed during the Jurassic period or dinosaurs existed until very recently. It is argued by all of the above that this means that evolutionists are wrong. Furthermore, the fact that they won't admit that they are wrong proves that there is a conspiracy among scientists to keep the truth from the public in order to dupe us into believing things that are inconsistent with both the notion that God created all species a few thousand years ago and that we are all descendents of aliens. (Note: these are the same scientists who have kept the truth from us about the reality of the monsters depicted in stories, on vases, and on temples in ancient Greece, India, etc. They have also kept from us the truth about the ancient Egyptians building pyramids as radio towers. There are many other things these wicked scientists have hidden from us, such as that in 75,000,000 B.C. Xenu ordered a nuclear attack on our planet.)

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. Of course, there are the Nazca lines. Unfortunately, the creators of the Nazca figures didn't depict any Indians attacking dinosaurs or doing brain transplants, something which might have tied the Ica stones to the Nazca lines in this exciting new field of "alternative science".

There is, of course, an explanation for the cleanliness of this great people. They were able to exist long enough to hunt dinosaurs and build spacecraft (when they were not doing brain transplants) and yet leave nothing behind but a cave full of artistic scratches on stones because they were not from this planet. They left (and presumably took everything with them), leaving behind only the stones as a kind of puzzle for later generations of stupid humans to solve. Maybe they went on to Nazca or to Lubaantun to create more puzzles. Maybe these aliens are giving us an I.Q. test. Or the stones may be another test of faith given to mankind by the God of the Bible. Or maybe they're just a hoax.

The proof that the stones are not a hoax, says Dr. Cabrera, is in their number. There are too many stones for a single farmer, or even a collective of hoaxers, to have scratched out. He claims that the locals have unearthed about 50,000 stones and that they showed him a "tunnel" where there are another 100,000. However, so far no scientific expedition, or even a film crew led by Charleton Heston of the mysterious "Mysterious Origins of Man" spectacle, has set out to explore this tunnel.

Furthermore, says Cabrera, who apparently fancies himself an expert on volcanic stone as well as on extinct fish, andesite is too hard to carve well by mere mortals using stone tools. True, but the stones aren't carved. They are graved, i.e., a surface layer of oxidation has been scratched away. Dr. Cabrera assumes that the creators of the stones only had stone tools available to them. The Inca, Maya and Aztec cultures all had advanced metallurgy by the time the Spanish arrived. Cabrera and the Ica locals certainly have more than stone tools available to them. Basilio explained how he and Irma achieved the "ancient" look on their stones: They laid out the graved stones in a chicken pen and the "chickens did the rest" (Polidoro 2002).

Are the stones authentic? If by authentic one means that they were engraved by pre-Columbians, then the answer has to be an unqualified "not all of them." Some engraved stones are said to have been brought back to Spain in the 16th century. It is possible that some of the stones are truly examples of pre-Columbian art. However, it is known that some such stones are forgeries. Tourists, not just in Peru, but everywhere on earth where there are antiquities, have been suckers for forgeries. Local con artisans are aware of the market for "forbidden" antiquities. (I myself am the proud owner of a shard sold to me in Arizona by a young Native American as an authentic "illegal" piece of Anasazi pottery. A colleague has some nice forgeries from Egypt made to look old by dipping them in motor oil and torching them.) Pre-Columbians certainly were fascinated with monsters, as were ancient European cultures, but do the stones depict dinosaurs? That is open to interpretation. If they do depict dinosaurs and humans together what is more likely? that they are accurate historical documents or that they are part of a clever hoax? In light of the lack of corroborating evidence, a reasonable person must conclude that the stones are a hoax.

Cabrera's story does not have the ring of verisimilitude about it, though it does have a certain charm. The story certainly has found several ready audiences who have found a niche in their own belief systems for the stones. Never mind that the belief systems not only contradict one another, but are also contrary to the preponderance of the scientific evidence. Creationists, mythohistorians, and extraterrestrialists are in a jihad against belief in evolution where apparently it is one's duty to make the preposterous seem plausible.


http://skepdic.com/icastones.html
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Originally posted by chafedHawk:
Originally posted by NPRLover:
Boss,

There are mainly two groups of those who think that man co-existed with dinosaurs: those that just aren't aware of the geologic time-line (which is pretty common - basically scientific ignorance), and those that choose to follow a literal biblical interpretation, which can be based on the earth being 6,000 yrs old, or the hazy reference in Job to a leviathan/behemoth/whatever.

Many reasons are created by those who want to be biblical literalists: flaws in carbon dating, god can do anything, footprints of dinosaurs directly adjacent to footprints of humans. The fundamentalists/literalists employ an interesting psychology to assuage their cognitive dissonance. You've seen it here by god's ambassador - they are right, everyone else is wrong.

That's my view, caustic and abrasive as it may be. But as you see, I don't suffer fools gladly


Speaking of ignorance, you are apparently unaware of a very large group of Christian theologians who believe the apparent disconnect with science and Genesis lies in the mistranslation of one Hebrew word in Genesis 1:2.

Genesis Chapter 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was (or became- Hebrew 'hayah') without form (Hebrew 'tohuw), and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.


From Strong's Exhaustive Concordance: Hebrew and Chaldee Dictionary:
'1961. 'hayah' ... to exist, i.e. be or become, come to pass.'
'8414. tohuw ... to lie waste; a desolation (of surface).'

The reasonable interpretation of Genesis 1:2 with the properly translated 'became' in place of the incorrect 'was' indicates that the earth (Gen1:2 is specific to the 'earth'; it does not make mention of the 'heavens' here) existed previous to this event, and that something caused it to become chaotic and without form and its surface had been made desolate. Chaos is, of course, not a part of God's nature, the event or force that caused this would have had to be something outside of God's control (agruably Satan, maybe an asteroid impact?). This neatly reconciles another theological quagmire where scholars have been trying to justify God's creation of chaos in only one Biblical instance, this one. He didn't create the chaos that was earth, he formed it. So Genesis 1:2 likely does not describe the first event that took place on planet earth, but God's recreation of it from an uninhabitable, desolate state.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became ('hayah') a living soul.

Here we see the Hebrew 'hayah' used again in reference to God creating something. Again, 'hayah' is used to describe the 'becoming...coming to pass' of something, not the existence of something, and is furthur evidence that the above translation of Genesis 1:2 is correct. Now we've got consistency.

(Side note: This particular passage and its chosen language are astounding to me, given the time of its author. It's not likely men of ancient times were aware that the chemical compounds necessary for mammalian life are all present in ordinary soil.)

One more time, for good measure:

Isaiah 45:18 'For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain (Hebrew'tohuw')(he did not create a chaos, or 'tohuw'), he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.'

It is clear now that God did not create a chaos, he reformed and reshaped an existing one into something that was not chaos.

It's also quite clear that the original translators under King James made an error here by using 'was' instead of 'became' in Gen1:2 because translating the term properly created a completely different concept of Biblical Creation than what the church taught at that time. That, of course, would have been considered heresy.

Chafed, same wine, new bottle.

The theologians may be satisfied with that explanation; scientists less so.
 

ThunderHawk

HR Heisman
Oct 3, 2002
7,074
1
36
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
So, NPR...Your lack of knowledge on Carbon 14 doesn't disqualify you from attacking this website? Everyone on here is discrediting the website - but no one wants to get specific as the where it err's regarding the assertions...

I don't get it.

& it's Ica stones. Get scooter in here. He can explain to all of us why the Peruvian's would draw a Pterodactyl on a rock when 'Science' hadn't told them that one ever existed.....


hulka old buddy, you're setting yourself up for a thourough and well deserved asskicking on this issue. That website you're referring to is a freaking joke.

Carbon dating works. Science works. Wacky half-witted crackpot ideas based on half-truths and logical fallacies don't work. You can believe them if you want, but your belief in no way lends them validity.

I can't believe we even have this discussion amongst people who can operate computers.
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
My extended post is merely the text to sandimas' link.

He beat me to it, bravo sandimas, we thinkg alike. :)

But check out that site if you have any questions about the Ica stones. If you still believe in their authenticity, then talk to me about some real estate investments.
This post was edited on 4/27 2:44 PM
 

sergeanthulka

HR Heisman
Oct 1, 2001
5,894
1
36
That website does not claim that the ICA stones are a farce...

It says that (and this should surprise no one) some have been fabricated.

NPR: Is this all you've got? I was expecting an ass-kicking...Are you honestly basing your asserting that the Ica stones are bunk on this link?
 

sergeanthulka

HR Heisman
Oct 1, 2001
5,894
1
36
Thumper:

Regarding Carbon 14 dating. Do you deny that - to say Carbon 14 dating is accurate - that it depends on the following 3 assumptions?


1) There has always been as much carbon 14 in the atmosphere as there is today.
2) Carbon 14 has always decayed at the same speed.
3) All living things absorb the same amount of carbon as the atmosphere has in it

Do you deny that any of these 3 assumptions are open to scrutiny or variance of opinion?
 

sandimashigh

HR MVP
Mar 14, 2003
1,699
0
36
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
NPR:

Again, (not that it matters)...What animal is described in the book of Job?

Behemoth, from Job 40:15-24, was a dinosaur. Job 40:17 says, "His tail sways like a cedar." Such tails only existed on dinosaurs.

Explanation (not mine): The "tail like a cedar" which creationists think indicates a large dinosaur isn't even a real tail. "Tail" was used as a euphemism in the King James Version. A more likely translation for the phrase is, "His penis stiffens like a cedar." [Mitchell 1987] The behemoth was probably a bull, and the cedar comparison referred to its virility.

Dinosaur? Bull wang? What's the difference?
 

sergeanthulka

HR Heisman
Oct 1, 2001
5,894
1
36
Originally posted by sandimashigh:
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
NPR:

Again, (not that it matters)...What animal is described in the book of Job?

Behemoth, from Job 40:15-24, was a dinosaur. Job 40:17 says, "His tail sways like a cedar." Such tails only existed on dinosaurs.

Explanation (not mine): The "tail like a cedar" which creationists think indicates a large dinosaur isn't even a real tail. "Tail" was used as a euphemism in the King James Version. A more likely translation for the phrase is, "His penis stiffens like a cedar." [Mitchell 1987] The behemoth was probably a bull, and the cedar comparison referred to its virility.

Dinosaur? Bull wang? What's the difference?

And yet I get called 'crackpot'...

His tail sways like a cedar = His penis stiffens like a cedar...Hmmmm. Some translator needs to be shot...Those two things say something entirely different.
 

chafedHawk

HR Legend
Sep 25, 2002
11,875
0
36
Nprlover:
'Chafed, same wine, new bottle.'


Baloney. You obviously don't comprehend the implication of the proper translation. It fits seamlessly with old-Earth theory and widely accepted scientific fact.

The theologians may be satisfied with that explanation; scientists less so.

This theology is not at odds with the timeline of life. You are completely missing the boat here.
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Originally posted by sandimashigh:
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
NPR:

Again, (not that it matters)...What animal is described in the book of Job?

Behemoth, from Job 40:15-24, was a dinosaur. Job 40:17 says, "His tail sways like a cedar." Such tails only existed on dinosaurs.

Explanation (not mine): The "tail like a cedar" which creationists think indicates a large dinosaur isn't even a real tail. "Tail" was used as a euphemism in the King James Version. A more likely translation for the phrase is, "His penis stiffens like a cedar." [Mitchell 1987] The behemoth was probably a bull, and the cedar comparison referred to its virility.

Dinosaur? Bull wang? What's the difference?

I hope this puts the Job dinosaur references to bed.

That song has been played for a long time now.

It's funny. Jews discuss and dissect the book of Job in excrutiatingly philosophical detail (I think William Safire has a book on it), probing the reason why a just man would suffer and why a benevolent god would allow such a thing.

Fundamentalist christians read the same book and what do they get out of it? It has dinosaur references. That's about it.

Isn't it patently obvious that a very transparent ends-oriented reasoning methodology is being applied? They look for, and seek out, items that support their outlook, and ignore those things that don't support their view.

If the dino stones were true, why not allow scientists to go into the caves where they were found? Why not discuss the location of the cave? A skeptical mindset is a wonderful thing to have, imo. Science is also wonderful.
 

ThunderHawk

HR Heisman
Oct 3, 2002
7,074
1
36
You know, all I really want out of religion is a nice warm tunnel of light when I croak...I don't need to understand the intricacies of cedar stiffened bull penises.
This post was edited on 4/27 3:20 PM
 
  • Like
Reactions: FlickShagwell

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Originally posted by chafedHawk:
Nprlover:
'Chafed, same wine, new bottle.'


Baloney. You obviously don't comprehend the implication of the proper translation. It fits seamlessly with old-Earth theory and widely accepted scientific fact.

The theologians may be satisfied with that explanation; scientists less so.

This theology is not at odds with the timeline of life. You are completely missing the boat here.

Don't you mean it is the ark that I'm missing? About 300 cubits long? Nestled in Mt. Ararat?

So, this translation you offer makes the bible and science compatible? You need to get the word out, my friend, for that is news indeed.
 

sergeanthulka

HR Heisman
Oct 1, 2001
5,894
1
36
Whose blocking the freaking door to the cave, NPR...?

You are being unreasonable. Neither one of us can unequivocally conclude on the authenticity of the stones. But science is constantly on the creationists for finding 'evidence'...Yet when some is brought to the fore - it is immediately dismissed...There is other evidence - polystrate fossils...Evidence that rapid fossilization occurs...I would say it's you that are selective in your examination. I'd love to visit with you about Job - that's a hell of an interesting question...
 

Sal_Paradise

HR Legend
Jan 15, 2002
15,110
3
36
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
Thumper:

Regarding Carbon 14 dating. Do you deny that - to say Carbon 14 dating is accurate - that it depends on the following 3 assumptions?


1) There has always been as much carbon 14 in the atmosphere as there is today.
2) Carbon 14 has always decayed at the same speed.
3) All living things absorb the same amount of carbon as the atmosphere has in it

Do you deny that any of these 3 assumptions are open to scrutiny or variance of opinion?




I'm teaching a class right now, but be assured I'll deal with this in a minute.
 

NewsBreaker

HR Legend
Jun 5, 2002
25,347
0
36
Originally posted by NPRLover:
Fundamentalist christians read the same book and what do they get out of it? It has dinosaur references. That's about it.


That's all you care to hear about that book. I've never heard a discussion in Church, in Catholic School, hell, anywhere but HERE about Job that focused on a possible dinosaur. Instead, I've heard a great deal on the complexity of God testing a supposedly righteous man, what does it mean to us and what should we learn from both God's actions and Job's reactions.
 

SousyHawk

HR Legend
Aug 18, 2002
12,306
0
36
That's all you care to hear about that book. I've never heard a discussion in Church, in Catholic School, hell, anywhere but HERE about Job that focused on a possible dinosaur. Instead, I've heard a great deal on the complexity of God testing a supposedly righteous man, what does it mean to us and what should we learn from both God's actions and Job's reactions.

Newsy, that's called "studying Job if you don't have to worry about every dotted 'i' and crossed 't'" - the way that most people (and faiths) tend to read the Book of Job.
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Whose blocking the freaking door to the cave, NPR...?

Do you mean that the cave site where the stones were found is known and no one is "blocking the door"? I take it you haven't read the post on the stones, have you?

But answer your question, apparently Dr. Cabrera.

The cave where the stones were allegedly discovered has never been identified, much less examined by scientists. Skeptics consider the stones to be a pathetic hoax, created for a gullible tourist trade.

Dr. Cabrera claims that a farmer found the stones in a cave. The farmer was arrested for selling the stones to tourists. He told the police that he didn't really find them in a cave, but that he made them himself. Other modern Ica artists, however, continue to carve stones and sell forgeries of the farmer's forgeries.

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.

There are too many stones for a single farmer, or even a collective of hoaxers, to have scratched out. He claims that the locals have unearthed about 50,000 stones and that they showed him a "tunnel" where there are another 100,000.
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Originally posted by NewsBreaker:
Originally posted by NPRLover:

Fundamentalist christians read the same book and what do they get out of it? It has dinosaur references. That's about it.


That's all you care to hear about that book. I've never heard a discussion in Church, in Catholic School, hell, anywhere but HERE about Job that focused on a possible dinosaur. Instead, I've heard a great deal on the complexity of God testing a supposedly righteous man, what does it mean to us and what should we learn from both God's actions and Job's reactions.

Newsy, you overlooked the "fundamentalist" aspect of my post. I stated that the dino aspect is what the "fundamentalist" takes away from a reading of Job.

Is your church fundamentalist? (I thought it was RCC?).
 

sergeanthulka

HR Heisman
Oct 1, 2001
5,894
1
36
Well then, that settles it, NPR...I crown you arbitor of all that is or will ever be up for debate. Your link settles the issue.

And thanks for the insight on the Tail/Penis debate. That settles that too...The Bible is obviously talking about a penis...

Note to self...In the Bible Tail = Penis

Or you might consider just one more perspective. I thought the part about the farmer being arrested if he claimed not to have made the Ica stones was interesting. But I'm obviously wasting my time since you & your 'skeptics' have already decided the issue.


This post was edited on 4/27 3:49 PM

Don't bother NPR...
 

NewsBreaker

HR Legend
Jun 5, 2002
25,347
0
36
NPR, my Church is RCC. I think the line between what a fundimentalist and just a run of the mill Christian is gets blurred badly here all the time. That's why I though it was important to point out that Christianity takes just as much away from Job as anyone else.
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Please, everyone, follow sarge's link at drdino.com. Unbelievable.

Here it is....

In 1571 the Spanish conquistadors were exploring what is now Ica, Peru when they discovered rocks with strange creatures carved on them. They had never seen animals like this so they sent some to the King of Spain. He also had never seen such creatures.

Dr. Cabrera, a medical doctor from Lima devoted much of his life (he died in 2001) to collecting and studying these stones. On them you will see people doing brain and heart surgery as well as every known dinosaur clearly depicted. Several hundred of them show humans and dinosaurs together.

Skeptics have tried to portray them as being carved by local peasants for profit. One peasant was even interviewed on TV “admitting” he carved them. What the interview did not show was that there were police officers waiting behind the camera to arrest him and put him in jail (a very bad place to go in Peru!) if he admitted he was selling Peruvian national treasures. When he tried to carve one on TV to show how he did it, the work looked like a child’s work and it was obvious he was not the one carving the actual Ica stones. Also the oxidized coating of “desert varnish” on the stones clearly proves they are several hundred to several thousand years old. Textiles and pottery from the same area also depict man with dinosaurs.

Dr. Dennis Swift of Beverton, OR spent many hours in Peru with Dr. Cabrera analyzing the stones. Dr. Carl Baugh, 254-897-3200, www.creationevidence.org, Dr. Don Patton, 972-279-5325, www.bible.ca/tracks and Antoine Ouellette 450-359-4405 have also devoted much study to this topic. See also, www.wexclub.comfor a similar find of dinosaurs with man in Mexico.

I have been told that there are only about 20 of these Ica stones in the united States. Our museum in Pensacola has one of the largest known collections with (3) three!

Dinosaurs (formerly called dragons) have always lived with man. God told us (Ex. 20:11 and Genesis 1) that He made everything in six days. For more information on dinosaurs living with man and the few that are still alive please see our videotape #3 of our seminar series or get our book Claws Jaws and Dinosaurs from www.drdino.com.


Skepticism has, at its roots, science. Where is the science in this, sarge?
 

sergeanthulka

HR Heisman
Oct 1, 2001
5,894
1
36
'Also the oxidized coating of “desert varnish” on the stones clearly proves they are several hundred to several thousand years old.'

This seems like science...
This post was edited on 4/27 4:14 PM
 

SousyHawk

HR Legend
Aug 18, 2002
12,306
0
36
It would seem that examining the oxidized coating would be a 'scientific' way of trying to determine the stones authenticity - but you left this part out...

Pssst... take another look. (He didn't bold it, but it's there.)
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
Why would you not post the ENTIRE link, NPR? Another tidbit from the link - selectively left out by NPR...

'Also the oxidized coating of “desert varnish” on the stones clearly proves they are several hundred to several thousand years old. Textiles and pottery from the same area also depict man with dinosaurs.'

It would seem that examining the oxidized coating would be a 'scientific' way of trying to determine the stones authenticity - but you left this part out...

Why did you leave it out? Seems strange to me that you would selectively exclude the science part & then ask, 'Where's the science?'

Sarge, I didn't leave it out.

Go up and reread my post. It is there.

You should put more effort into your reading (and thinking, imo).

See it now?
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Originally posted by NPRLover:
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
Why would you not post the ENTIRE link, NPR? Another tidbit from the link - selectively left out by NPR...

'Also the oxidized coating of “desert varnish” on the stones clearly proves they are several hundred to several thousand years old. Textiles and pottery from the same area also depict man with dinosaurs.'

It would seem that examining the oxidized coating would be a 'scientific' way of trying to determine the stones authenticity - but you left this part out...

Why did you leave it out? Seems strange to me that you would selectively exclude the science part & then ask, 'Where's the science?'

Sarge, I didn't leave it out.

Go up and reread my post. It is there.

You should put more effort into your reading (and thinking, imo).

See it now?

Oooh, sargy, I see you turned tail and ran on that one, eh? Went back and edited your post.

And no, that really doesn't sound like science to me.
 

Iza*

HR Legend
Feb 21, 2004
16,099
3
36
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
'Also the oxidized coating of “desert varnish” on the stones clearly proves they are several hundred to several thousand years old.' This seems like science...

This post was edited on 4/27 4:14 PM

Ya, and much more accurate than carbon dating. :^)
 

sergeanthulka

HR Heisman
Oct 1, 2001
5,894
1
36
It would seem to me that examining the oxidation of the varnish is the best that 'science' can do to conclude on authenticity...According to the link the oxidation indicates thousands of years old...But your science - has already concluded that the stones are bunk...

I've pointed you toward the science used in reaching my conlusion...What science have you used to determine that they are a hoax...?
 

sergeanthulka

HR Heisman
Oct 1, 2001
5,894
1
36
I made a mistake...Dunno how I missed it.

Seems like the only 'scientific' evidence would point to (at least some of) the rocks being thousands of years old...

Iza...You cannot carbon date rocks. (If that's what you were implying).
 

RobertIngersoll

HR Legend
Dec 11, 2002
15,918
0
36
Iza...You cannot carbon date rocks. (If that's what you were implying).

I suspect that Iza is implying that you discount science when it works against you, yet selectively embrace it when it helps you.
 

Hawk24

HR Legend
Oct 29, 2001
11,805
1,013
113
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
Iza...You cannot carbon date rocks. (If that's what you were implying).

No...but you CAN carbon date some of the materials from the same geological strata in which the rocks were found. Unfortunately, the "discoverer" conveniently fails to provide the location in which said rocks were found, so this examination cannot occur.

Hmmm. Nothing fishy about that...no sir.
 

NPRLover

HR Legend
Oct 20, 2003
25,729
9
36
Originally posted by sergeanthulka:
It would be fishy if creationists made the discovery...But they didn't.


But creationists have taken this issue to heart, haven't they?

Sarge, once again, you should read the post that sandimas linked. That point is addressed there.
This post was edited on 4/27 4:39 PM
 

Iza*

HR Legend
Feb 21, 2004
16,099
3
36
My Spidey senses are telling me that after all this time my notion that this was a documentary were all wrong. (sigh)
 

Hawk24

HR Legend
Oct 29, 2001
11,805
1,013
113
Originally posted by Iza*:
My Spidey senses are telling me that after all this time my notion that this was a documentary were all wrong. (sigh)

caveman.jpg

Atook Zug-Zug Lana!
 

Hawk-A-Doodle-Doo

HR Legend
Oct 1, 2001
20,111
8,522
113
Island of Misfit Message Board Posters
So basically according to the link...

...provided by NPR, Genesis, the age-old biblical story of how God snapped his mighty fingers and the heavens and the earth were instantly created, proves the existence and validity of the theory of evolution.

Here's a quote from NPR's link to the "explain the Bible to me Barney-style" web site:

"Genesis 6:20
Of the birds after their kind, of animals after their kind, and of every creeping thing of the earth after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive.
----------------------------------------------------------

A kind is different from the way scientists classify animals today. We are not sure what God meant exactly, but it was probably 2 dog kind. 2 cat kind, 2 parrot kind, 2 finch kind, etc..

Noah probably only had to take less than 40,000 animals total!

He had enough room to keep all the animals just on one floor of the ark."

---------------------------------------------

So what this explanation says is that Noah didn't need two St. Bernards, two Yorkshire Terriers, two Black Bears, two Grizzly Bears, two Polar Bears, two Chimpanzees, two Gorillas, two Goldfinches, two Red-crested Finches, etc... He only needed two of "a kind". So how the heck then, did we get all these different breeds? Did God just zap them into place after the waters receded? If the two dogs that God supplied to Noah were Golden Retrievers, did their offspring just spontaneously turn into German Shepherds? And then their offspring's offspring spontaneously turned into Yorkshire Terriers???

Funny thing is, one of this boards most revered biblical literalists and defenders of the faith - our old pal Hounded - said that very thing last year when this same debate was raging. In response to Doodle's questioning how it would be possible for Noah to have one of every breed of animal on the ark, noting that the number would be in the hundreds of thousands (including every type of insect, bird, etc..) Hounded said, "Noah didn't need two of every breed, he just needed two of each species. For example he just needed two dogs, a male and a female." Hounded then went on to say that "science has proven that all the dog breeds currently inhabiting the Earth could very well have sprung from just two dogs."

Folks, if that isn't evolution, Doodle doesn't know what is!