[Stoner]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

..........................

Why would a scientist who is biased to think dinosaurs are 100 million years old care about an entire collection of ancient Mayan sculptures of multiple dinosaurs depicted correctly when our own befuddled scientists couldn't even get the body positions right of any until just recently?

It clearly implies first hand knowledge.

It's a challenge to his theories.
He can either dismiss on grounds of absurdity, or demonstrate the absurdity.
As I have shown, ( Link ) the Acambaro Figures were a hoax.

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Now that's the ripped I remember
Incoherrant

Maybe this link will help you understand the time line of dinosaur identification.


http://www.enchantedlearning.com/sub...ls/First.shtml

several excerpts>




Interesting history of discovery.


BTW, looking at the mention of the Acambaro Figures ( Waldemar Julsrud ), Link there exists considerable controversy concerning fraud.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acambaro_figures

even more shocking is this depiction of the fraud:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_2.html


ripped, how about bringing something to the forum that doesn't promote deception?

That is all very interesting speculation. But, why were the body positions of the sculptures that were found in 1953 contrary to all published views of how dinosaurs positioned their bodies???

Only within the last 10 to 15 years have scientists realized that most of the giant dinosaurs were warm blooded and closely related to birds with body positions that were extremely athletic and horizontal.

Hoax? It hasn't been proven. Supposed motive isn't proof.

When soft dinosaur tissue was first found I remember reading an article where the scientist actually said it was a fluke example of soft tissue plasticizing.

What about this? An underwater city??? Hmmm...
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/phikent/japan/japan.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...nken-city.html

Is it a hoax?

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

That is all very interesting speculation. But, why were the body positions of the sculptures that were found in 1953 contrary to all published views of how dinosaurs positioned their bodies???

Only within the last 10 to 15 years have scientists realized that most of the giant dinosaurs were warm blooded and closely related to birds with body positions that were extremely athletic and horizontal.

Hoax? It hasn't been proven. Supposed motive isn't proof.

When soft dinosaur tissue was first found I remember reading an article where the scientist actually said it was a fluke example of soft tissue plasticizing.

What about this? An underwater city??? Hmmm...
http://www.cyberspaceorbit.com/phikent/japan/japan.html

That is all very interesting speculation.

What speculation are you talking about besides the dubious link you posted?

But, why were the body positions of the sculptures that were found in 1953 contrary to all published views of how dinosaurs positioned their bodies???

non sequitur
You need to ask the people that perpetrated the fraud.

Only within the last 10 to 15 years have scientists realized that most of the giant dinosaurs were warm blooded and closely related to birds with body positions that were extremely athletic and horizontal.

How does that relate to the fraud you posted to?

closely related to birds

As much as all those millions of years of evolution allow for relative closeness, you mean.

When soft dinosaur tissue was first found I remember reading an article where the scientist actually said it was a fluke example of soft tissue plasticizing.

So?
They were wrong.
And now they know better.
Isn't that more responsible than continually perpetuating the lies as in the link you posted?..... Link

Hoax? It hasn't been proven. Supposed motive isn't proof.

Just because you don't read the links I provide, doesn't mean the proof of a hoax didn't exist.
The hoax was chronicled here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_2.html

excerpt>

De Peso (1953) made the following observations:

* The surfaces of the figurines were new. They were not marred by a patina or coating of soluble salts characteristic of genuinely old artifacts from the same area. The owner said none of the figures had been washed in acid. Edges of depressions were sharp and new. No dirt was packed into crevices.

* Genuine archeological relics of fragile items are almost always found in fragments. Finding more than 30,000 such items in pristine condition is unheard of. The excavators of the artifacts were "neither careful nor experienced" in their field technique, yet no marks of their shovels, mattocks, or picks were noted in any of the 32,000 specimens. Some figurines were broken, but the breaks were unworn and apparently deliberate to suggest age. No parts were missing.

* "The author spent two days watching the excavators burrow and dig; during the course of their search they managed to break a number of authentic prehistoric objects. On the second day the two struck a cache and the author examined the material in situ. The cache had been very recently buried by digging a down sloping tunnel into the black fill dirt of the prehistoric room. This fill ran to a depth of approximately 1.30 m. Within the stratum there were authentic Tarascan sherds, obsidian blades, tripod metates, manos, etc., but these objects held no concern for the excavators. In burying the cache of figurines, the natives had unwittingly cut some 15 cms. below the black fill into the sterile red earth floor of the prehistoric room. In back-filling the tunnel they mixed this red sterile earth with black earth; the tracing of their original excavation was, as a result, a simple task" (Di Peso 1953, 388).

* Fresh manure was found in the tunnel fill.

* Fingerprints were found in freshly packed earth that filled an excavated bowl.

points to consider>

# If authentic, the figurines imply even more archeological anomalies:

* If the figurines really were based on actual dinosaurs, why have no dinosaur fossils been found in the Acambaro region?
* Why did no other Mexican cultures record any dinosaurs?
* What caused the dinosaurs to disappear in the last 1,100 years?

What about this? An underwater city??? Hmmm...

I skimmed the article........I saw nothing relating to dinos.
If there is a mention, please point it out.




Got any Chick tracts to start the morning off ?
Maybe a little dr. dino from behind iron bars

[valis]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

That is all very interesting speculation. But, why were the body positions of the sculptures that were found in 1953 contrary to all published views of how dinosaurs positioned their bodies???

Only within the last 10 to 15 years have scientists realized that most of the giant dinosaurs were warm blooded and closely related to birds with body positions that were extremely athletic and horizontal.

we learn, we go on. Birds are more closely related to dino's than you think; again, that is why they are called living fossils. As to the body positioning, after research (aka methodology), they realized that the weight of the dino's couldn't be carried the way that they had the skeleton's arranged; the load-bearing bones were in the incorrect place to be a load-bearing bone. There are still exhibits out there that have them in the incorrect posture.

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Stoner

non sequitur
You need to ask the people that perpetrated the fraud.

Are you suggesting that people in 1953 planted these figurines of dinosaurs in positions that are only now (within 10-15 years) known to be correct?

If it was fraud why would they create figurines that depicted the creatures in positions that have only recently (10-15 years) become recognized as correct??? Wouldn't that contradict the fraudulent purpose of deceiving the scientific community if the scientific community believed that dinosaurs were cold blooded, reptilian tail draggers?

That is truly non sequitur (not stoner non-sequitur which doesn't mean non-sequitur). It is ridiculous to infer that frauds would have planted these figurines (as they contradicted all "science" of that time!) with the mind for deception.




The underwater pyramids completely set classical archeology on its ears since there "could not of been" civilization at those depths within the time frame that would have been necessary. Where in the world would all of that water come from????

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Just because you don't read the links I provide, doesn't mean the proof of a hoax didn't exist.
The hoax was chronicled here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_2.html

Talkorigins makes me chuckle. Disingenuous talk origins would be a better name.

They have some well thought out points and questions, but none of them explain why these figurines found in 1953 completely contradict the paleontology of the time by showing dinosaurs as warm blooded, nimble animals instead of the universally accepted views of the time (Dinosaurs were thought to be lumbering and tail-dragging, cold blooded reptiles).

Talk origins fails to address this unexplainable anomaly. While their questions may be well thought out they are circumstantial and inconclusive without direct proof of a hoax. The depiction of dinosaurs as they truly were before when science was so befuddled is hard proof that these ancient people witnessed the creatures.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

Are you suggesting that people in 1953 planted these figurines of dinosaurs in positions that are only now (within 10-15 years) known to be correct?

If it was fraud why would they create figurines that depicted the creatures in positions that have only recently (10-15 years) become recognized as correct??? Wouldn't that contradict the fraudulent purpose of deceiving the scientific community if the scientific community believed that dinosaurs were cold blooded, reptilian tail draggers?

That is truly non sequitur (not stoner non-sequitur which doesn't mean non-sequitur). It is ridiculous to infer that frauds would have planted these figurines (as they contradicted all "science" of that time!) with the mind for deception.




The underwater pyramids completely set classical archeology on its ears since there "could not of been" civilization at those depths within the time frame that would have been necessary. Where in the world would all of that water come from????

Are you suggesting that people in 1953 planted these figurines of dinosaurs in positions that are only now (within 10-15 years) known to be correct?

No, it was publicly known in 1953 that it was a fraud..
Go back and read the article again.

BTW, the radiometric dating is only good for the materials of the figurines, not when they were actually made into figurines.

If it was fraud why would they create figurines that depicted the creatures in positions that have only recently (10-15 years) become recognized as correct???

Again, you will have to ask the perpetrators of the hoax.

Wouldn't that contradict the fraudulent purpose of deceiving the scientific community if the scientific community believed that dinosaurs were cold blooded, reptilian tail draggers?

non sequitur.......
Would the intent to defraud the scientific community be dependent on the current views of that scientific group?
Perhaps, but I think it would be more relevant to understand the minds of the artist/artists that depicted the fakes.
Was it artistic, was it cultural?
I don't know.
It's just another hoax that got exposed as far as it's importance, imo

That is truly non sequitur (not stoner non-sequitur which doesn't mean non-sequitur). It is ridiculous to infer that frauds would have planted these figurines (as they contradicted all "science" of that time!) with the mind for deception.

The only problem with that statement is that the figurines were shown to have been planted at the site of discovery.
At that point, everything you have posted becomes irrelevant.
Essentially, you become a non sequitur.
Link

The author spent two days watching the excavators burrow and dig; during the course of their search they managed to break a number of authentic prehistoric objects. On the second day the two struck a cache and the author examined the material in situ. The cache had been very recently buried by digging a down sloping tunnel into the black fill dirt of the prehistoric room. This fill ran to a depth of approximately 1.30 m. Within the stratum there were authentic Tarascan sherds, obsidian blades, tripod metates, manos, etc., but these objects held no concern for the excavators. In burying the cache of figurines, the natives had unwittingly cut some 15 cms. below the black fill into the sterile red earth floor of the prehistoric room. In back-filling the tunnel they mixed this red sterile earth with black earth; the tracing of their original excavation was, as a result, a simple task" (Di Peso 1953, 388).

It was a hoax, ripped.

The underwater pyramids completely set classical archeology on its ears since there "could not of been" civilization at those depths within the time frame that would have been necessary. Where in the world would all of that water come from????

Again, what did that have to do with dinos?
As far as the site you refer to being now under water, have you tried to search out the geology of the area?
Or are you just practicing diversion?

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Stoner

No, it was publicly known in 1953 that it was a fraud..
Go back and read the article again.


Again, you will have to ask the perpetrators of the hoax.

Would the intent to defraud the scientific community be dependent on the current views of that scientific group?
Perhaps, but I think it would be more relevant to understand the minds of the artist/artists that depicted the fakes.
Was it artistic, was it cultural?
I don't know.
It's just another hoax that got exposed as far as it's importance, imo

The only problem with that statement is that the figurines were shown to have been planted at the site of discovery.
At that point, everything you have posted becomes irrelevant.
Essentially, you become a non sequitur.
Link

It was a hoax, ripped.

Again, what did that have to do with dinos?
As far as the site you refer to being now under water, have you tried to search out the geology of the area?
Or are you just practicing diversion?

#1 I don't trust talkorigins as they are biased. Other sources are required.

#2 Saying it was a hoax doesn't make it a hoax. The discoverers persisted that it was a genuine find in 1953 before dinosaurs were recognized as nimble.

#3 The fact that the figurines depicted actual dinosaurs in their correct form that varied from all paleontology of the time is unassailable. If you cannot do better than "those guys just were lucky" in how they guessed true dinosaurs carried themselves or their flesh on their bones then your proof is dead in its tracks (pun intended).

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

Talkorigins makes me chuckle. Disingenuous talk origins would be a better name.

They have some well thought out points and questions, but none of them explain why these figurines found in 1953 completely contradict the paleontology of the time by showing dinosaurs as warm blooded, nimble animals instead of the universally accepted views of the time (Dinosaurs were thought to be lumbering and tail-dragging, cold blooded reptiles).

Talk origins fails to address this unexplainable anomaly. While their questions may be well thought out they are circumstantial and inconclusive without direct proof of a hoax. The depiction of dinosaurs as they truly were before when science was so befuddled is hard proof that these ancient people witnessed the creatures.

They have some well thought out points and questions, but none of them explain why these figurines found in 1953 completely contradict the paleontology of the time by showing dinosaurs as warm blooded, nimble animals instead of the universally accepted views of the time

Doesn't need to be addressed.
The method of planting the fakes was discovered and TO was not involved in that revelation.

Talk origins fails to address this unexplainable anomaly.

They don't need to.
Read the article, ripped.

While their questions may be well thought out they are circumstantial and inconclusive without direct proof of a hoax.

Like discovering how the fakes were planted? _

The depiction of dinosaurs as they truly were before when science was so befuddled is hard proof that these ancient people witnessed the creatures

That is sad that you have to manufacture such silliness in front of all those that read this thread, imrippinit.
The assertions of those scientists at that time have been superseded with theories that are more correct.
The figurines exist as a fraud that approached some similarities of what is now known.
There is nothing else that the hoax proves.......other than your gullibility.

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Stoner

Again, what did that have to do with dinos?
As far as the site you refer to being now under water, have you tried to search out the geology of the area?
Or are you just practicing diversion?

Just more biased evidence for a young Earth.

http://www.s8int.com/
(Photo: under water monument off the coast of Japan)Especially remarkable is the persistence of that biblical name Noah. And this is particularly so when you consider the ultimate language differences between peoples, and the extreme local distortions which (developed in flood legends. Yet the name survived virtually unchanged in such isolated places as Hawaii (where he was called Nu-u), the Sudan (Nuh), China (Nu-Wah), the Amazon region (Noa), Phrygia (Noe) and among the Hottentots (Noh and Hiagnoh). :

SUDDEN APPEARANCE:
Are you aware that "ALL CULTURES BEGAN SUDDENLY" and were fully developed? A long preliminary period is not supported by archaeology. Before cities on earth, there was nothing. There was no transition whatsoever between the ancient civilizations and any primitive forebearers. They were at their peak from the beginning. :

...Great cities, enormous temples, pyramids of overwhelming size. Colossal statues with tremendous expressive power. Luxurious tunnels and tombs. Splendid streets flanked by magnificent sculpture, perfect drainage systems. A decimal system at the very start. A ready-made writing, already perfected. A well established naming system (in which each Pharaoh had as many as five names). Society already divided into specialist classes. An army, civil service and hierarchy minutely organized. A court exhibiting all the indications of well-defined precedence and form. Egypt came from a clearly established civilization.

The only conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence is that,1 Each of the first civilizations appeared suddenly, already fully developed. 2) That a connection existed between them. 3) Their footprints led back to the Middle East mountains where Noah and his family left the Ark. :

The sudden appearance of civilization is itself a memorial to history's one great catastrophe. More importantly, the flood is a historical event of tremendous testimonial importance to modern man...... :

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

#1 I don't trust talkorigins as they are biased. Other sources are required.

#2 Saying it was a hoax doesn't make it a hoax. The discoverers persisted that it was a genuine find in 1953 before dinosaurs were recognized as nimble.

#3 The fact that the figurines depicted actual dinosaurs in their correct form that varied from all paleontology of the time is unassailable. If you cannot do better than "those guys just were lucky" in how they guessed true dinosaurs carried themselves or their flesh on their bones then your proof is dead in its tracks (pun intended).

I've proven my point.
All you have is denial without merit.
You don't like TO.
So?
I don't like ICR or AiG.
But when I dispute their claims, I post the sources for that position.

You just keep repeating yourself and attempt diversion.

[Stoner]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

Just more biased evidence for a young Earth.


" blah

blah

blah"

So, you are giving up on the figurines?

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Stoner

I've proven my point.
All you have is denial without merit.
You don't like TO.
So?
I don't like ICR or AiG.
But when I dispute their claims, I post the sources for that position.

You just keep repeating yourself and attempt diversion.

You have not offered any explanation as to how anyone would have had the forethought to create figurines that depicted different dinosaurs in their proper forms prior to the 1980's. 1953 is well before Paleontology would even consider that dinos were warm blooded and nimble.

The only explanation offered by disingenuous-talkorigins is circumstantial and should not be called proof since it is refutable.

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Stoner

I've proven my point.
All you have is denial without merit.
You don't like TO.
So?
I don't like ICR or AiG.
But when I dispute their claims, I post the sources for that position.

You just keep repeating yourself and attempt diversion.

At least ICR and AIG are sincere about what they believe.

Talkorigins makes me chuckle as they try to portray themselves as pro Jesus . What a ploy.

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Stoner

So, you are giving up on the figurines?

I can carry on more than one conversation at the same time. I can even chew bubble gum while I do it.