Posted on 12/11/2013 8:10:28 AM PST by fishtank
Agreed.
What conclusions do you see being argued, and what assumptions are they based on?
-what translation are you reading from?
"There is NO way if young earth creationists were correct in claims of a young earth would the Creator have allowed the religion of evolution to become the law of this land...."
FALSE conclusion/argument
your argument for protein fragments
Wow... someone hasn’t read the Word to get a proper sense of what is going on.
The “prince of the air” is the temporary ruler of this world, of which we are to be “in” but not “of”,
so it’s actually EXPECTED that a false religion would become “common knowledge” amongst those “of” this world.
by this you mean evolution?
Humanism.
“Man is the sum of all knowledge”.
Evolution is a consequence of this, and is circularly argued to support it.
I guess they need to read II Peter 3:17........
The guy who sold him those stones with the dinosaur carvings admitted in 1973 that he had faked them. He demonstrated how he did it in a BBC documentary in 1977 titled Pathway to the Gods.
Google is your friend.
send me a link.
is this the same guy that sold a pig’s tooth as human?
There is no argument from this author that there are some fake Ica Stones out there, but on the other hand, just because some fakes and frauds have been made, doesn’t mean the real ones are discredited. However, most evolutionists take the position that the stones are all fakes because they are afraid. If just one of these stones is real, it would collapse the very foundations of their religious teachings.
I have traveled to Pensacola, FL to see the largest collection of these stones in the US. Most evolutionists, that believe the stones to be fake, have never even seen them in person. They are incredibly dense and heavy, and when you see them yourself, you will notice the care that must have been taken to carve these stones, and question the processes that were used to accomplish it.
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. Most of these shows and documents are simply not well-researched because there is a presuppositional bias that needs the stones to be non-existent. 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:
“Cabrera’s private museum includes a collection of stones belonging to his father — Bolivia Cabrera...”
Those that say all the Ica Stones are fake have to find a ways around the scientific and archeological evidence, and often, it is ignored. 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.”
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 microorganisims 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.”
-Erich von Daniken, According to the Evidence: My Proof of Man’s Extraterrestrial Origins, Souvenir Press, 1977, p. 327, ISBN: 9780285623019
http://www.creationliberty.com/articles/icastones.php
entire article
If the skeptics would do a little research, they wouldn’t have to be so skeptical.
-Christopher J. E. Johnson
They are incredibly dense and heavy... Now THAT's a real solid supporting argument o.0
you will notice the care that must have been taken to carve these stones, and question the processes that were used to accomplish it. by the hoaxers admission: dentist's drill.
...whereas microorganisims 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. Baked cow poop.
You say this after fully reading the article I supplied???
You didn’t read it??
I leave it to others to judge betwixt us.
(I would have read the article before replying)
You brought a smile to my face!!!
I will just leave you with that! :)
I made no argument. I asked a question.
I read the article. The “evidence is thin, incomplete or hearsay.
So here’s a thought experiment for you - if the stones are real, why do you assume that this proves that dinosaurs existed recently? Would you allow that (if they were real) the stones could also indicate that humans have been around for a lot longer than generally assumed (millions of years)?
Just as soon as Evo's begin to assume 10,000 years. Let me know when that happens. When it does, let me know if after allowing for 10,000 years that this person would be open to both.
"The Ica stones were a hoax and officially a branch of the tourist industry. It was over… or was it? When dealing with controversies of this sort, nothing is ever simple. Believers in the antiquity of the stones claimed that the farmer admitted to the hoax for a very simple reason: if the stones were genuine, he had been selling government possessions. Peruvian law dictates that archæological discoveries should be turned over to the government and he faced prison if found guilty. By admitting it was a simple hoax, the farmer was let off the hook… and was able to provide his family with an income. When von Däniken visited the farmer in 1973, Uschuya confirmed to him that he had faked the stones; but later on, in an interview with the German journalist Andreas Fischer, Uschuya claimed the opposite. They were genuine, he insisted, and he admitted to a hoax to avoid imprisonment."
http://www.philipcoppens.com/jurassiclibrary.html
“In the 1930s, a man named Dr. Javier Cabrera started collecting strange stones that an ancient Indian culture had carved.”
Is that the same Dr. that admitted that he faked the stones?
I read the article. The “evidence is thin, incomplete or hearsay....”
he referenced his quotes well. so I reject this statement.
“So here’s a thought experiment for you - if the stones are real....”
now that is an good question. (the point of the exercise)
did he?
when?
Please don’t quote portions of what I wrote. It’s childish. I posed a thought experiment to you which you refused to answer.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.