... This was written by Ishmael Abrahams, not Ken Ham. Here is a detailed response to Abrahams diatribe. ... In other words, Abrahams doesn t like what WoodApr 2, 2011 1 of 6View Source--- In Maury_and_Baty, Robert Baty wrote (post #22561):
> Coincidence?This was written by Ishmael Abrahams, not Ken Ham. Here is a detailed response to Abrahams' diatribe.
> Ken Ham's fallacious use today of Ockham's razor?
> It's an interesting article and analysis, in which Ken Ham
>> Dinosaur 1 at Kachina Bridge is
>> best explained as a dinosaur.
>>> Ken Ham
> See if you think so too (notice also Ken's appeal to
> logic, the distinction between "proof" and "persuasion",
> to the "soundness" of arguments, and, implicitly, the
> "logical validity" of the modus ponens form argument such
> as my "Goliath of GRAS"):
> Feedback: Kachina Bridge Dinosaur PetroglyphIn other words, Abrahams doesn't like what Wood and Garner said, so he's going to tell a lie and falsely pretend that Wood and Garner didn't really pay any attention to what Senter said.
> Still Good Evidence
> by Ishmael Abrahams, M.S., Christian Apologist
> March 18, 2011
> This article's purpose is to counter the anti-creationist
> claims of a recent paper by Senter and Cole.(footnote 1)
> A number of creationists have spotted this paper and
> called attention to it. (footnote 2)
> I'm sure these respected creationists, such as Dr. Wood
> and Dr. Garner, would have a great deal more to say had
> they taken a closer look at the paper and the specific
> arguments presented therein. However, I understand that
> their busy schedules do not permit them to look at
> everything in great detail.
"Dinosaur" petroglyphs at Kachina Bridge site, Natural Bridges National Monument, southeastern Utah: not dinosaurs after all
by Phil Senter and Sally J. Cole
(Palaeontologia Electronica, Vol. 14 Iss. 1, 2011)
> Using the common point by point style, this article willRight, brilliant scientist Dr. Jason Lisle, whose Ph.D. in astronomy is from a legitimate university yet who has never published a single scientific research paper providing support for his young earth creationism religious beliefs in any professional peer-reviewed science journal in his entire life.
> examine Senter's and Cole's claims, methods, and worldview
> arguments. At first glance, the paper from Senter and Cole
> may seem to be a worthy endeavor and perhaps even
> convincing until a few arguments are analyzed.
> Keep in mind the great difference between proof and
> One can be persuaded by bad arguments, as Dr. Jason Lisle
> explains in The Ultimate Proof of Creation, but that does
> not make the argument sound.
And you always have to laugh when a young earth creationist rambles about people being persuaded by bad arguments.
> For an example of poor reasoning from an old-earthBecause Abrahams says so, of course.
> worldview, one may claim that he would expect to find
> extensive fossiliferous rock layers. Upon examination,
> extensive fossiliferous rock layers are found all around
> the world. Therefore, the old-earth proponent concludes
> that the earth is indeed old. This reasoning may convince
> or persuade someone; however, it is the fallacy of
> affirming the consequent.
'Because I say so' is a fallacy.
> Let's begin examining the claims and reasoning in Senter'sYada, yada, yada.
> and Cole's paper.
>> The findings of mainstream geology have firmly
>> established that non-avian dinosaurs became
>> extinct 65 million years ago when the Mesozoic
>> Era gave way to the Cenozoic Era, and that
>> Homo sapiens appeared less than one million
>> years ago.
> Senter and Cole begin with a declaration of their absolute
> adherence to the religion of humanism with its underlying
> concepts of naturalism, geological evolution, and
> biological evolution. In other words, they have
> pigeonholed themselves as biased researchers who come to
> the evidence, not in a neutral fashion (which no one can
> do), but with an agenda to push their opinions as fact.
In other words, 'I'm going to ignore all the geological facts I feel like ignoring because of my religious beliefs, and those who do rely on the geological facts and put what they're researching in the context of what's already been learned about in geological science I'll just tell lies about them following the religion of 'humanism' or 'atheism' rather than relying on science, and tell lies that they are the ones who are biased and pretend that I'm not the biased one even though I deliberately ignore any scientific discoveries I don't like because of my particular religious beliefs. And it's okay to tell lies based on falsely pretending that all of the millions of Christians who reject the religious doctrine of young earth creationism that I believe in don't exist.'
> Have they ever observed anything over the course ofHave they ever observed anything over the course of a hundred years?
> millions of years?
> Have they ever repeated a single experiment over millionsHave they ever repeated a single experiment over a hundred years?
> of years?
> So it is not a scientific view, but a purely religiousIn other words, 'If it's in the past before our lifetimes, then we can make up anything we like according to our religious beliefs and ignore any and all empirical evidence to the contrary.'
What was Abrahams saying about people being persuaded by bad arguments?
>> Young-earth creationists, on the other hand,Apparently, Abrahams doesn't know what "terrestrial" means. LOL!
>> insist that humans, dinosaurs, and all other
>> terrestrial animals were created on the same
>> day about 6000 years ago (e.g., papers in Ham
>> 2006, 2008).
> Actually the Bible declares that land animals and humans
> were created the same day.
(See later, this is not the only indication that English is not his native language - and that he makes silly remarks based merely on his failure to comprehend the meaning of specific words in what Senter and Cole state explicitly.)
> According to information'The Bible said it, therefore it's true, because the Bible said it.'
> provided in the biblical genealogies, the earth was
> created several thousand years ago, and is not billions of
> years old.(footnote 3) This idea did not originate with
> YEC (young-earth creationists), but the YEC are consistent
> with the Bible on this issue and trust the eyewitness
> revelation of the Creator God.
Fallacy of circular argument.
What was Abrahams saying about people being persuaded by bad arguments?
> In contrast, theOf course, history has proved consistently that in regard to the fallible, sinful, imperfect ideas and opinions that theologians and preachers... ahem, "Christian apologists"... such as Abrahams love to make up and contradict each other with, using all manner of fallacious rhetoric as a matter of routine, when it comes to them making empirical proclamations based on their ignorance they are trounced every time by the fallible, sinful, imperfect ideas and opinions of scientists who actually study the real world facts about interest and studiously rely on rational analysis of the real world data.
> fallible, sinful, imperfect ideas and opinions of people
> regarding the past are not as accurate.
> So note againFor Abrahams the debate is a religious one.
> that the debate is a religious one: shall we interpret
> evidence in light of what God says or what man says
> (Christianity versus humanism)?
Yes, we knew that already.
>> They have therefore long sought evidenceRight, the spewer of pseudoscience propaganda, Answers in Genesis, doesn't even exist.
> All the evidence is God's, according to Psalm 24:1. "The
> earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, the world
> and those who dwell therein." It is not a matter of trying
> to find evidence.
In other words, typical young earth creationist, besides the big lies Abrahams likes to use, he also likes to sprinkle all sort of little lies into his rhetoric.
> The evidence is everywhere.But poor Abrahams and his fellow young earth creationists can't seem to find it.
Indeed, young earth creationist notions haven't even been a part of science for over two hundred years, because the idea that the earth didn't exist more than about 6,000 or so years ago was conclusively disproved in geological science over two hundred years ago.
> The issue is the interpretation of the evidence.Which is why Abrahams and his fellow young earth creationists are all the time promoting false information, such as pretending that geological unconformities don't exist by quoting scientists out of context and misrepresenting them by deliberately omitting what scientists specifically stated in immediately surrounding sentences, and why Abrahams and his fellow young earth creationists are all the time disputing the scientific data and pretending it doesn't exist (such as YECs who pretend that "rocks don't bend" and "there isn't any evidence that rocks bend", while in geology geologists have been studying macroscopically and microscopically how much particular rocks have been bent [rock deformation] and in what specific ways, such as stress and shear, even with specific examples of deformed fossil organisms).
Yes, young earth creationists do very much love to use bad arguments based on lies. Their rhetoric is permeated with it.
> When starting with God's Word, the evidence makes sense.Which is why the Bible has been such a stunning success and useful guide for research in geological and astronomical science.
In other words, Abrahams, like the vast majority of young earth creationists, loves to use utterly boneheaded, completely empty rhetoric.
>> for the coexistence of humans with dinosaurs'The Bible said it, therefore it's true, because the Bible said it.'
> The Bible already declared man and land animals were
> living at the same time (Genesis 1:2431). Since God
> declared it, and He is the ultimate authority on the
> subject, then it is true. Finding evidence that is
> properly interpreted should merely be a confirmation of
> this truth.
What was Abrahams saying about people being persuaded by moronic arguments?
(But, hey, at least there's enough plain honesty to Abrahams rhetoric such that the we do see the explicitly religious nature of young earth creationism. It is based - very obviously - on belief in the Bible. It isn't science. Thanks for that much, Abrahams.)
>> and other pre-Pleistocene organisms so as to"assumes humanistic interpretations are absolute"
>> cast doubt upon the mainstream geological
>> timescale of millions of years.
> The Pleistocene refers, not to a timescale, but to rock
> layers that were post-Flood. The indication of
> "pre-Pleistocene" assumes humanistic interpretations are
Translation: Does not assume the fallaciously circular argument that 'The Bible said it, therefore it's true, because the Bible said it.'
And there again is Abrahams' implicit lie that the millions of Christians who reject his religious doctrine of young earth creationism don't exist.
> By starting withOf course, the global flood story was disproved in geological science over two hundred years ago precisely because it could not account for the actual physical features of the fossiliferous rock layers that geologists found upon detailed examination.
> the Bible, we can find out about the global Flood, which
> accounts for the bulk of the fossiliferous rock layers
> laid down about 4,350 years ago
> (since then, localIn fact, the Pleistocene refers to geologic layers that are from about 2.6 million years old to 12,000 years old.
> catastrophes like volcanoes and smaller floods have
> occurred that accumulate some layers). Rock layers above
> that would be less in age (like the Pleistocene).
In other words, Abrahams' position - the position of any young earth creationist - is: 'I'm going to ignore all the geological facts I feel like ignoring because of my religious beliefs, and those who do rely on the geological facts and put what they're researching in the context of what's already been learned about in geological science I'll just tell lies about them and pretend they're biased even though I'm the one who is so irrationally biased by my religious beliefs that I deliberately ignore any and all scientific results that specifically contradict my particular religious beliefs.'
> Those from Adam to Shem were living before rock layers'The Bible said it, therefore it's true, because the Bible said it. Screw the actual geological data.'
> that contain dinosaurs were even laid down! (footnote 4)
> This occurred during Noah and Shem's lifetime.
> Furthermore, it is the Bible's timescale that casts doubts
> and in fact refutes the humanist's geological evolution.
Or, in the exact words written by Answers in Genesis authors as part of their explicit faith statement: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
Circular argument all the way.
What was Abrahams saying about people being persuaded by bad arguments?
>> Several such pieces of "evidence" appeared in theAllegation?
>> twentieth century, only to be discredited upon scrutiny.
>> Alleged human footprints in Mesozoic strata have been
>> exposed as forgeries in some cases and identified as
>> dinosaur tracks in others (Neufeld 1975; Kuban 1989).
>> An alleged sandal print on a Cambrian trilobite has been
>> identified as a weathering pattern (Stokes 1986). An
>> alleged fossilized, Cretaceous human finger has been
>> identified as the infilling of a burrow (Isaak 2007).
>> Alleged Mesozoic sediment encrusting a hammer has
>> been identified as a recent concretion (Isaak 2007).
>> A human skeleton that allegedly came from Jurassic
>> sediment has been identified as an intrusive burial
>> (Strahler 1999). An alleged Miocene deposit on
>> Guadeloupe in which a human skeleton was found
>> has been shown to be a Quaternary deposit (Strahler
> Answers in Genesis and, as I understand it, a number of
> other creation ministries have rejected the above findings
> as proper evidence for this subject.
> But note that recent concretion covering the hammer is
> good evidence for rapid formation of rock, which is an
> excellent argument against the allegation of slow gradual
> formation of rock over millions of years.
WHO says "ALL ROCKS AND ALL ROCK FORMS OVER MILLIONS OF YEARS"??? Who? Leave it to a scientifically illiterate young earth creationist to make a boneheaded mispresentation of something in science and then spout some stupid piece of rhetoric based on his own false premise. But, then, attacking silly straw man misrepresentations in order to pretend to be sophisticatedly critical, while only coming off looking like a fool due to scientific ignorance is a standard pastime for young earth creationists.
The London Hammer: An Alleged Out-Of-Place Artifact
by Glen J. Kuban (last revised 7/14/2006)
Plus it demonstrates - as is so very typical of young earth creationists - ignorance about what they're discussing in the first place:
"Concretions are hard bodies that form in sediments BEFORE they become sedimentary rocks." [emphasis added]
> But one should not neglect the secular side and blatantScientists got this one right. Abrahams - touting the standard young earth creationist bull pucky - is blaming scientists for the mistakes of a couple of overly ambitious journalists at National Geographic - journalists who went ahead with their article even while scientists were telling them to wait until the scientific study was completed. National Geographic, by the way, published an immediate retraction.
> forgeries such as Archaeorapter,
In stark contrast to how young earth creationists operate.
> Piltdown Man,The one genuine forgery. Which many scientists questioned from the beginning, and which the scientific community today points to specifically as a lesson in how science failed and why professional scientific standards today make it extremely difficult for such fraud to get by. Scientists caught in fraud are exposed and fired from their jobs, and their careers in science are at an end.
Again, this is in direct contrast to the deliberate practice of young earth creationists who manufacture fraudulent "research" and falsely portray it as legitimate science meeting the basic standards of professional science, and defiantly continue to promote such fraudulent material for DECADES after it has been debunked. Young earth creationists engaging in such behavior are not only not exposed by young earth creationists and fired for engaging in such behavior but have praise heaped on them by the young earth creationist community.
> Nebraska Man,Again, not a forgery.
Creationist Arguments: Nebraska Man
| Osborn, in fact, specifically avoided making any
| extravagant claims about Hesperopithecus being an
| ape-man or human ancestor.
| Most other scientists were skeptical even of the more
| modest claim that the Hesperopithecus tooth belonged to a
| primate. It is simply not true that Nebraska Man was
| widely accepted as an ape-man, or even as an ape, by
| scientists, and its effect upon the scientific thinking of
| the time was negligible.
| Nor is it true, as Ian Taylor (1995) has said, that the
| retraction of the original identification was not
| publicized and never made the headlines. Bowden (1981)
| similarly states that "Little publicity was given to the
| discovered error". In fact, The New York Times and The
| Times of London both announced the news (the NYT put it on
| the front page), and both also printed editorials about it
| (Wolf and Mellett 1985). Taylor's other claim, that the
| retraction was announced in the scientific literature in
| only four lines in the back pages of Nature, is almost
| correct (it was 16 lines) but highly deceptive, since it
| conceals the fact that a one and a half page article
| retracting the claim was printed in the prestigious
| journal Science (Gregory 1927). Moreover, Taylor should
| have known about this article, because it was referenced
| by the item in Nature to which he did refer.
| Nebraska Man should not be considered an embarrassment to
| science. The scientists involved were mistaken, and
| somewhat incautious, but not dishonest. The whole episode
| was actually an excellent example of the scientific
| process working at its best. Given a problematic
| identification, scientists investigated further, found
| data which falsified their earlier ideas, and promptly
| abandoned them (a marked contrast to the creationist
> and so on.The overarching point is that most young earth creationists - especially those like Ishmael Abrahams - are obviously so simpleminded that they are incapable of pulling their heads out of their butts even long enough to recognize the obviously fallacious nature of circular argumentation such as "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record" (The Bible said it, therefore it's true, because the Bible said it, no matter what the evidence is). The fact that young earth creationists rely on that argument in such a fundamental way is a guarantee that their screws are loose. The fact that young earth creationists are all the time filling their rhetoric with such stupid remarks as pretending that relying on scientific discoveries of the past two hundred years is "the religion of humanism" (pretending that geological science is a worldwide atheist/evolutionist conspiracy, rather than science), which in turn uses the blatantly false premise that the millions of Christians who disagree with them don't exist, is a guarantee that you're dealing with minds possessed by horrible religious bias.
> The overarching point here is that making an argument that
> there have been improperly used evidences is not a
> guarantee of the nature of this particular petroglyph.
>> The Ica Stones, upon which are images of dinosaursAnd the so-called "absolute morality" of the fundamentalist Christians who push young earth creationism is based on the premise that "Lying for Jesus is a virtue", which explains why they keep right on pushing false pseudoscience claims and fallacious arguments which have been debunked for decades, and why they have less than zero qualms about promoting things that they've just made up based on nothing more than their own ignorance and the idea that it's perfectly okay to make things up to promote your religious beliefs.
>> that were allegedly made by ancient inhabitants of
>> present-day Peru, have been exposed as forgeries
>> (Isaak 2007).
> In recent times, some have created forgeries when poor
> Peruvians realized that tourists would gladly pay a pretty
> penny for stones with dinosaurs on them. Usually, these
> could easily be spotted as forgeries (recent paint,
> paintings of incorrect dinosaur images that were common in
> the latter part of the twentieth century). The same sort
> of thing apparently inspired the famous fraud of dinosaurs
> with feathers (Archaeorapter).
> Christians have a basis to refrain from engaging in
> forgeries but not those who espouse a secular worldview.
> Notice who didIn other words, irrelevant to the current topic. So why is Abrahams wasting our time?
> the frauds - non-Christians, be it from China, Mexico,
> Peru, or elsewhere, and the primary reason was for money,
> not for worldview debate.
By the way, notice the blanket statement. how does Abrahams know whether all of these people, or any of them, are non-Christians or not?
He doesn't. As usual, the young earth creationist never lets his ignorance stop him from just making up stuff and asserting what he's made up as if it's the truth. (These guys love to pretend they're followers of their oh-so-superior Christian morality - even while they're in the process of demonstrating how inferior their morality is.)
> Note how Christians argue against incorrect or fraudulentAlmost never. Young earth creationists are among the biggest pushers of false and fraudulent "findings" in the United States.
Index to Creationist Claims
Young earth creationism is rampant with loony claims and arguments, and only some of the very worst of them are rejected by SOME young earth creationists, such as the AiG young earth creationists.
> The exposure of many of the above examples as frauds wasWhich doesn't change the fact that the Ica Stones are still being promoted by young earth creationists as evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived together.
> aided by researchers from Loma Linda University, the
> Institute for Creation Research, and Answers in Genesis.
Neil Steede is not a young earth creationist. Erich von Däniken is not a young earth creationist. Vicente Paris is not a young earth creationist. And so on.
What Abrahams means is that, according to the kind of marality practiced by young earth creationists, which is predominant among fundamentalist Christians (being part of the fundamentalist mentality), it's okay to put a deceitful "spin" on a matter to try to portray yourself in a false light. In fact, SOME young earth creationists have merely chosen to reject some of the erroneous pseudoscience claims promoted by other young earth creationists because simply because even they consider them to be too loony to accept. Young earth creationists were not responsible for exposing the examples as frauds. The culture of young earth creationism is notorious for engendering uncritical acceptance of bogus claims and fallacious argumentation.
On the Ica Stones, see:
by Philip Coppens
(Fortean Times, Oct. 2001)
>> The Acámbaro figures, which include dinosaurWhich doesn't change the fact that the Acámbaro figures are still being promoted by young earth creationists as evidence that humans and dinosaurs lived together.
>> statuettes allegedly made by ancient inhabitants
>> of present-day Mexico, have been exposed as
>> forgeries (Di Peso 1953).
> Again, this was not promoted by Answers in Genesis either.
> But there is plenty of evidence from radiometric dating to"humanists" (i.e., it's an atheist conspiracy).
> dinosaurs that has been repeatedly ignored by humanists
> pushing for evolution and millions of years.
Those millions of Christians who reject the religious doctrine of young earth creationism don't exist.
This is an example of the silly, petty little lies that young earth creationists love to use in their rhetoric all the time.
(It's also another good example of the irrationality of the young earth creationist mind. If the idea of the antiquity of the world really did imply atheism, then the fact that the antiquity of the world is a fact about reality - discovered through geological and astronomical science - would imply that atheism is correct. Notice how Abrahams is utterly oblivious to the logic, because his mind, his habit of fundamentalist Christian rhetoric, is enmeshed in fallacy. 'The antiquity of the earth implies atheism, therefore you must reject the antiquity of the earth because you dislike atheism so much.' Argument-by-bigotry is blatantly, obviously fallacious, yet Abrahams, and the thousands of young earth creationists who use this specific piece of rhetoric ad nauseum are completely blind to the logical conclusion of their own argument.)
What was Abrahams saying about people being persuaded by bad arguments?
> See the Answers in Genesis website Get Answers section."Evidence" that is so lacking in meeting even the most basic standards of professional science that young earth creationists have never even once attempted to write it up and present it for publication in a professional peer-reviewed science journal of physics, geophysics, or geology, because even they know it can't stand up to the critical scrutiny of professional scientists. (In other words, just more lying fodder for the fundamentalist sheep.)
> Furthermore, why have all this listed here when theAs historical background of the factual statement that young earth creationists love to promote bogus claims to try to support their religious beliefs, such as the belief that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.
> authors agreed in the conclusion that this petroglyph was
> not a fraud?
> Is this section for the purpose of making creationistsThis is Abrahams trying to falsely pretend that young earth creationists are not still to this day promoting the Ica Stones and the Acámbaro figures.
> "guilty by association"?
Senter's and Cole's statements about these are truthful statements. Every time Abrahams attempts to falsely pretend otherwise, even through lying innuendo, he is demonstrating the young earth creationist penchant for lying about everything in sight.
>> Another putative piece of evidence for theSenter and Cole did not claim the Kachina Bridge petroglyphs are forgeries.
>> coexistence of dinosaurs and humans, the
>> alleged depiction of a sauropod dinosaur at
>> the Kachina Bridge archaeological site
>> (Figure 1), has proved more baffling.
> Even the secular side agrees that Native Americans made
> the petroglyph well before the recent debate over the age
> of the earth, and in particular the dinosaur/dragon issue.
> So of course, this is a more difficult issue. One can't
> simply claim forgery.
That's Abrahams lying by misrepresentation. Again. Of course. The shell game continues.
>> The image, hereafter called Dinosaur 1, is ofBecause Abrahams says so.
>> importance because until now it has escaped
>> explanation from mainstream science.
> A couple extremely important points need to be made here.
> First, "science" doesn't explain things.
> This is theBecause Abrahams says so.
> fallacy of reification.
> People explain things,People use science to explain things, which is a part of science.
> not science.
> Science, as weScience as we practice it today was developed by a whole lot more people than just Francis Bacon.
> practice it today, is a methodology developed by a
> young-earth creationist (Francis Bacon).
And Bacon died in 1626, long before geological science really even began. The fact that Bacon was a young earth creationist is thus not only utterly irrelevant to the matter, but the fact that he was a young earth creationist because of his religious beliefs, and not because of any knowledge or understanding of scientific discoveries in geology (or in other areas of science) points out the very problem with belief in young earth creationism in the first place.
In other words, another ridiculously moronic pretension by the young earth creationist.
(And after geological science really got going, by the early to mid-1800s the vast majority of scientifically literate Christians - and even many of the prominent Christian theologians - rejected the doctrine of young earth creationism. Notice how young earth creationists deliberately ignore that historical fact.)
> So what Senter and Cole really mean is the secularThank you Ishmael Abrahams for demonstrating the young earth creationist mentality, the culture of uncritical thinking that fundamentalist Christians rely on. Far be it from a fundamentalist and young earth creationist to engage in and use critical scrutiny and rational analysis to investigate a claim to see whether it actually holds up under detailed examination. If you're saying what you're saying in order to promote your religious belief, then it's perfectly okay. Doesn't matter whether it's legit or not.
> humanists do not have an explanation yet. But even if they
> did, does that disprove the other view?
Young earth creationists don't drive the priorities of scientific research, precisely because young earth creationism doesn't even exist in science today, because the notion was empirically falsified in geological science over two hundred years ago. The claims of pseudoscience promoters are rarely the subject of research by professional scientists, because they have better things to do with their time. In this case, the only reason a scientist took a look happens to be because Phil Senter has a personal interest in young earth creationist claims.
> Not at all.Gee, did Senter and Cole say otherwise?
Ah, but now we know why them mentioned other examples of young earth creationists promoting this kind of nonsense. It's the young earth creationist pattern of pushing bogus claims and bad arguments to try to prop up their false religious belief.
> For example, imagine someone finds a solitary dinosaurAbrahams is falsely pretending it's a problem that Senter and Cole wrote their investigative article about just one particular claim, and didn't write a whole encyclopedia dealing with every young earth creationist claim ever made.
> fossil, and one group says the dinosaurs had three babies
> and four grandbabies. If another group comes along and
> disagrees with the first by stating, "No, no, this
> dinosaur had one baby and six grandbabies," does that
> refute the first? Of course not. They have not refuted
> the first view because their position is merely an
> educated guess based on scant evidence.
Senter's and Cole's investigation is dealing with one particular young earth creationist claim.
This doesn't change the fact that virtually every young earth creationist claim in science that has been investigated has been found to be wrong, which is precisely why we have a history of young earth creationist behavior to rely on to truthfully state the fact that the promoters of "scientific creationism" are frauds, and that the culture of young earth creationism engenders uncritical thinking and the embrace of a cornucopia of bogus pseudoscience claims and fallacious arguments.
Index to Creationist Claims
>> Reference to it persists in young-earth creationistCase in point.
>> literature (Swift 1997, 2006; Ham 2000; Butt and
>> Lyons 2005, 2008) and websites (Sharp 2001;
>> Anonymous 2009; Creation Truth Ministries 2009;
>> Swift 2009; The Interactive Bible 2009) as a popular
>> rallying point, heretofore without rejoinder. A
>> plaque illustrating the image is even exhibited
>> in the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.
>> Dinosaur 1 has received considerable attention fromTranslation: 'Well, we might accept what Senter and Cole have pointed out about the others, but we've been promoting the first one, and as young earth creationists we are pretty defiant against acknowledging the errors of the bogus claims we've promoted and correcting them, as we've been demonstrating to everyone for several decades now, and this one is even promoted in our Creation Museum, so we're going to dig in our heels on this one.'
>> young-earth creationists but close inspection and
>> thorough description of it has not occurred before
>> now. This lack of research is understandable, because
>> it is approximately 2 m above the head of the average
>> observer on a nearly vertical surface, surrounded by
>> rough and extremely steep terrain that discourages
>> the carrying of a ladder, about an hour by foot from
>> the nearest road. One author (Sharp 2001) identifies
>> three more petroglyph images, hereafter called
>> Dinosaurs 2 4, at the Kachina Bridge site as
>> dinosaurs. Here we report the results of an
>> investigation into the nature of these four items.
> These others are more difficult to discern and may well be
> other creatures. But this discussion will regard Dinosaur
> 1 in the response, which is the main one used and the
> easiest to discern.
>> The four alleged dinosaur depictions are partIn archaeology, "prehistoric" specifically refers to the period of a culture before THEIR written history, and that's exactly how Senter and Cole are using the word.
>> of a plethora of images made by prehistoric
>> cultures at the Kachina Bridge site.
> They are not prehistoric.
> Prehistoric is actually an illogical term that
> demonstrates an anti-biblical worldview.
> Historical accounts begin with the beginning of time in
> Genesis 1, which is a historical account. Genesis 5:1
> mentions "the book of the genealogy of Adam" which was
> written long before this petroglyph.
> This etching was both after the Flood and the scattering
> at Babel, so it was less than about 4,200 years ago and
> probably much more recent than this.
> But it was definitely within historic times, as time would
> not exist prior to Genesis 1:1.
| The four alleged dinosaur depictions are part of a
| plethora of images made by prehistoric cultures at the
| Kachina Bridge site. Kachina Bridge is an immense
| sandstone formation resembling an archway over 60 m high
| and wide, formed by the undercutting of a rock wall by
| flowing water. The images comprise rock paintings
| (composed of pigments) and petroglyphs formed by pecking,
| abrading, incising, and scratching. Earlier examples are
| associated with Archaic era hunter-gatherers that occupied
| the study area generally prior to 1000 B.C. Other images
| are for the most part attributed to Ancestral Pueblo
| farming societies (Basketmaker IIPueblo III) dating from
| approximately A.D. 200 to 1300. Some petroglyphs may have
| been made by more recent protohistoric or historic Paiute,
| Ute, or Navajo groups (Grant 1978; Schaafsma 1980; Cordell
| 1984; McVickar 2001; Cole 2009; Spangler et al. 2009).
Geeze, Abrahams, how idiotic can you get?
Of course, what else can we expect from people like this who have made it their life's business to preach irrationality?
>> Kachina Bridge is an immense sandstone formation"and all of which can be done by humans with tools."
>> resembling an archway over 60 m high and wide, formed by
>> the undercutting of a rock wall by flowing water. The
>> images comprise rock paintings (composed of pigments)
>> and petroglyphs formed by pecking, abrading, incising,
>> and scratching.
> Agreed - and all of which can be done by humans with
Geeze, Abrahams, that's what Senter and Cole said. Do you have a point? What do you think "pecking, abrading, incising, and scratching" mean? What kind of silly innuendo are you trying to promote here?
>> Earlier examples are associated with Archaic eraNotice the circular argument again.
>> hunter-gatherers that occupied the study area
>> generally prior to 1000 B.C.
> The time period was ancient, yes, but not an "Archaic
> era," as these people were fully developed descendants of
> Noah. The date of 1000 BC is possible, as that is in the
> biblical range,
> but it couldWhich is what Senter and Cole said. What is your point, Abrahams? Do you have one?
> also have been much more recent.
>> Other images are for the most part attributed toNotice the circular argument again. The "biblical timeframe" is utterly irrelevant to the scientific facts.
>> Ancestral Pueblo farming societies (Basketmaker
>> IIPueblo III) dating from approximately A.D. 200 to
> Though dating methods are proven to be wrought with
> problems, (footnote 5) these dates seem reasonable within
> a biblical timeframe.
>> Some petroglyphs may have been made by more recentAgain, all of this is utterly irrelevant to what Senter and Cole are discussing.
>> protohistoric or historic Paiute, Ute, or Navajo groups
>> (Grant 1978; Schaafsma 1980; Cordell 1984; McVickar 2001;
>> Cole 2009; Spangler et al. 2009).
> Either way, the glyphs were made post-Flood and
> post-dispersion from Babel. They may have been made within
> a few centuries of the dispersion or immediately before
> modern times.
>> METHODSYep, all those millions of Christian who reject the religious doctrine of young earth creationism don't exist.
>> The hypothesis that a given petroglyph depicts a dinosaur
>> makes four predictions:
> Actually the authors are making four predictions, but they
> are humanists looking at this from a humanistic
> perspective, and so they already believe it does not
> represent a dinosaur they have made this clear with their
> stated comments adhering to humanistic beliefs).
> So any conclusions they draw will comport to theirFar be it from anyone to rely on scientific facts that contradict Abrahams' religious beliefs. After all, what the Bible says is true, because the Bible says it.
> previously stated position.
You always have to laugh when a young earth creationist delusionally pretends that all of the millions of Christians who disagree with his espoused religious doctrine don't exist and then spouts remarks trying to falsely pretend that everyone who disagrees with him and criticizes his errors is merely doing so because of a "humanist" (i.e., atheist) bias.
> Honest, unbiased observers they are not.The lying biased Abrahams has proclaimed it, so it must be so.
Of course, in reality, in regard to the subject of young earth creationism pseudoscience, young earth creationists have been demonstrating to everyone for decades just how dishonest and biased they really are.
> In fact, they have made their conclusion prior to any ofRemember, this is being written by the man who is writing as a representative of an organization that explicitly states as one of their "Statements of Faith" that "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
> this research.
> To be quiteLying remark based on facts not in evidence (i.e., false premise).
> frank, the research done so far has had gross
> misrepresentations of biblical Christianity
> and the Bible,
> so this isSo says the man who is representing an organization who promotes a religious agenda that the member purport to be "science" despite the fact that not a single one of them has ever published even one single piece of scientific research related to supporting their young earth creationist beliefs meeting the basic standards of science in a professional peer-reviewed science journal in their entire lives. (In fact, as far as we know they have never even attempted to do so! It's probably because they love their conspiracy theory rhetoric too much, and would hate to actually have a public record of rejection letters which would provide specific examples of specific reasons given by editors explaining the scientific incompetence of these frauds.)
> already a red flag because their research has proven to be
> of low quality.
They're not even at the bottom of "low quality". They're beneath it!
>> (1) the image isAbrahams' remarks here are, of course, completely irrelevant, since Senter and Cole are discussing the "final" image of a "dinosaur" as purported by AiG.
>> a single image, not a composite of separate images,
> This is irrelevant.
> An artist can easily use multiple images to composite a
> whole image.
> This is often done by artists today. But if such a
> prerequisite was applied to secular interpretations, Lucy,
> which is a composite, must be rejected in the alleged
> human evolution debate.
Incidentally, the Lucy specimen is not a composite. That's another lie thrown in by Abrahams. Remember, this is the guy who, just previously said, "It is not a matter of trying to find evidence. The evidence is everywhere. The issue is the interpretation of the evidence." The truth of the matter is that young earth creationists tell lies left and right about the evidence, making up evidence that doesn't really exist (such as the alleged Paluxy River man tracks; or the radical time dilation outside of a region the earth is inside of in a white hole at the center of the universe, for which there isn't a lick of empirical evidence) and denying evidence that does exist (such as the empirical fact of rock deformation). We thank Ishmael Abrahams for demonstrating this by example for us again.
>> (2) it depicts anFalse. This irrelevant. All that is necessary is to demonstrate that the image that was thought to be there, isn't.
> This is a reasonable deduction. In fact, this is more key.
> One needs to show what other animal it could be,
> but even then,False. If it isn't an image of a dinosaur then it isn't an image of a dinosaur and the young earth creationist claim is debunked.
> that would not be absolute but merely a tentative option.
>> (3) its features cannotFalse. It presupposes that if the image is demonstrated to not be that of a dinosaur that the young earth creationist claim about it is debunked. Young earth creationists are desparate to come up with good evidence that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time, and so far they have utterly failed to do so.
>> be reconciled with an interpretation that it depicts a
>> member of the non-dinosaurian local fauna that was
>> contemporaneous with its maker(s),
> This presupposes that dinosaurian local fauna was absent.
> In a biblical"from our best estimates"
> worldview, dinosaurs survived the Flood and have since
> died out (from our best estimates).
In other words, from the best non-science based fabrications of some guys at Answers in Genesis and some other young earth creationists.
>> (4) its features depictIn other words, Ishmael Abrahams thinks young earth creationists are allowed to make up anything they like without actually having good evidence for it.
>> a specific, identifiable dinosaur, and
> Not necessarily.
> We expect that the ancient depiction is no longer in the
> original condition and has deteriorated. So having a
> specific species is not a requirement, nor even close.
Yeah, we knew that already. Standard young earth creationist operating procedure.
>> (5) it is entirelyIt's called a writing goof.
> This is a fifth prediction, so why do the authors say
> there are four predictions, as noted above?
> Of course, there will be weathering acting on it, but theWho said anything about aliens?
> sheer fact that other images are also etched and have
> residual paint should be obvious.
> Should we expect the common humanistic view of aliens to
> dominate the rest of this?
Who said that some alleged "view of aliens" is a "common humanistic view"?
No one other than Ishmael Abrahams, who, as we've been observing, loves to make up all kinds of things (most of them obviously false, too) that are completely irrelevant to the subject at hand.
>> To test these predictions the four alleged dinosaurLeave it to Ishmael Abrahams, a young earth creationist, to poo-poo the very idea of carrying out a close inspection and detailed examination of something - the kind of close inspection and detailed examination that young earth creationists almost always desperately avoid and chastize scientists for engaging in, such as Abrahams is doing here. Because, after all, the important thing is the intention to promote your religious beliefs is the right and moral thing to do - getting your facts straight is not important.
>> depictions were examined with the naked eye and with the
>> aid of binoculars and telephoto lenses. Observations were
>> made while the images were illuminated by direct and
>> indirect sunlight and when they were in shadow. Accurate
>> documentation and analysis of petroglyphs requires this
>> level of observation and recording insofar as visibility
>> varies considerably under changing light conditions, and
>> it may be difficult if not impossible to perceive
>> differences between natural and man-made manipulations of
>> sandstone surfaces.
> So all the researchers did was...look at it?
> They performed no paint test, etching experiments,Right, you can't know that the object in the road you just accidentally hit with your car is a tree branch rather than a raccoon or a deer because you haven't studied anything about the raccoon or deer population in the county.
> weathering experiments, animal shape research, or
> researching related rock art in the region?
What a brilliant criticism, Abrahams.
(Note also that Abrahams is completely ignoring the footnoted references Senter and Cole give throughout their article, falsely pretending they don't exist. Standard YEC practice.)
> This is no more scientific than what had been previouslyIn fact, it's significantly superior to anything any young earth creationist did, so Abrahams' remark here unwittingly indicts his fellow young earth creationists.
> This entire procedure is an insufficient evidence fallacyIn fact, young earth creationists never had good evidence of the dinosaur claim to begin with. So if they want to try to refute Senter's and Cole's examination and analysis they are certainly free to make the attempt and write up their research and submit it to Palaeontologia Electronica or any other relevant professional peer-reviewed science journal for publication.
> to refute.
I wager 3,712 quatloos (my biggest wager yet) that not a single one of the Answers in Genesis guys will even MAKE THE ATTEMPT.
In other words, more standard lying bluster from the young earth creationist, in this case, Ishmael Abrahams.
> Merely looking at something, like others have alreadyLying again. Senter and Cole looked at these in much more detail than before. (And remember how, just previously, Abrahams pretended that he's willing to accept what Senter and Cole have stated about the three dinosaur image claims other than the first one!)
> and ignoring otherIf they are unnecessary or irrelevant, they're not needed. We don't need to know anything about the deer population in a county in which we've had a car accident to know we hit a tree branch in the road.
> scientific procedures that could have helped or refuted
> the authors' position
And when a young earth creationists pretends to express concern about "ignoring other scientific procedures that could have helped or refuted the authors' position", we laugh and laugh at the lying hypocrisy.
> reveal that precious little was done to actually derive"Precious little" - which was, of course, far more than any young earth creationist did. Abrahams again unwittingly indicts his fellow young earth creationists.
> plausible conclusions to refute the depiction being a
> dinosaur image.
>> RESULTSAs pointed out, Abrahams' point was wrong. There is no good evidence of a composite image of a dinosaur. Abrahams' "method" is no better than looking at random browning patterns on a piece of toast and declaring a vague outline of supposedly the Virgin Mary to be a miracle of God. This is the point.
>> Dinosaur 1 does not satisfy the predictions that it is a
>> single image,
> As pointed out, this was irrelevant.
>> that it depictsRight, it's impossible from one person to examine something at a greater/better level of detail than some observations made by a previous person.
>> an animal,
> But other researchers, doing the same scientific
> procedures that Senter and Cole did (observing it) come to
> the opposite conclusion.
This is the ludicrous premise Abrahams' remark is based on.
What an idiot.
> Why trust biased persons who believed it was not aWhy trust persons who have demonstrated the excruciating obvious bias of their belief in a religious dogma with a decades-long track record of bogus claims and fallacious arguments for their religion-based pseudoscience (who are still to this day pushing dozens of claims that have been debunked for decades) who have also explicitly stated their bias ("By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record"); who falsely pretend that everyone who disagrees with them no matter what background they have (often even spouting remarks based on delusionally pretending that the millions of Christians who disagree with them don't exist) are the "biased" ones; yet who stupidly pretend that they are not driven by the massive religious bias of irrational adherence to an empirically false religious dogma ('The Bible says it, so it's true, because the Bible says it'); who spout thousands of words of religious rhetoric and other red herring irrelevancies rather than dealing with the specifics of the subject at hand, sprinkled with big lies and little lies?
> dinosaur to begin with and then upon looking at it
> conclude it is not a dinosaur?
Only a fool would trust people like Ishmael Abrahams.
If some young earth creationists want to try to refute the details of Senter's and Cole's examination and analysis THEN DO IT ALREADY. Otherwise, shut up with the irrelevant religious preaching and other irrelevant and fallacious rhetoric and stop wasting our time.
> This is a fallacy of affirming the consequent.Because Abrahams says so, of course.
Based on misrepresenting everything in sight and burying the subject with all manner of fallacious and otherwise irrelevant rhetoric.
>> or that itNot if part of what young earth creationists have claimed is "the original" is actually some weathering.
>> is entirely human-made.
> Naturally, weathering will have its effect, but the
> original is what is in question.
>> It is aNon sequitur. Whether it was done intentionally that way by the artist doesn't change the fact that it's two different items which don't make the image of a dinosaur.
>> composite of two separate items that were formed by
>> pecking (a technique in which small bits of rock are
>> chipped from the surface by a hand-held instrument), plus
>> mineral or mud stains. The "head," "neck," and "torso"
>> are a single item: a thick, sinuous shape formed by
>> pecking. The "tail" is a second, Ushaped item formed by
>> pecking. That the two items are indeed two separate items
>> is indicated by a gap between them and also by
>> differences in pecking patterns and densities between the
> As mentioned, being a composite does not eliminate it from
> being intentionally done in such a way by the artist.
Bear in mind that if it really had turned out to be a genuine "pecking" image of a dinosaur, Abrahams would be crowing about it. But since it isn't, and so he can't, he's desperately trying to throw sand in everyone's eyes with dozens of red herring remarks of every kind. In other words, the typical tactics of a close-minded, lying young earth creationist.
>> The "legs" areWhy assume it was? The outline of the stains that are actually there don't even look like legs. Why assume they are, when they aren't?
>> not part of the image and are not pecked or otherwise
>> human-made but are stains of mud or some light-colored
>> mineral on the irregular surface.
> But why assume it is not part of the image?
> Using stains ofSo why assume it was in this case? Despite the fact that we're dealing with two separate glyphs?
> mud or other sources of coloring was common for artists.
> Furthermore, the underExactly, so why would we assume otherwise?
> surface has been through years of weathering, which we
> would expect to affect the surface.
> Such a find is not to be misconstrued as having noExcept, of course, when such a find is not to be miscontrued as having original human input when there isn't good evidence to do so.
> original human input.
>> What appears toIt's even easier to falsely pretend that it's just the artist incorporating a natural feature of the rock into being the eye of a dinosaur when the other details of the markings indicate that it's two different petroglyphs, and you don't even have an image of a dinosaur to begin with. Young earth creationists have demonstrated time and time and time and time again that it's far easier for creationists to just ignore reality and make things up than deal with the facts.
>> be an eye is a natural chip or depression.
> That is an easy thing to do from an artistic perspective.
'What, we don't actually have good evidence of a picture of a dinosaur? No problem! We'll just pretend this, that, and the other thing, and - ta da! - we have a picture of a dinosaur again!'
>> What appears toWhich, of course, is not at all what Senter and Cole said. Typical young earth creationist, misrepresent everything in sight, based on, among other things, sheer stupidity in the comprehension of plain English. Poor Abrahams apparently doesn't know what "enigmatic" means! Note that I've also noticed that another young earth creationist, David Menton, is parroting this line about Senter and Cole supposedly saying that the glyphs have no meaning, saying, "I reject the hypothesis that it has no meaning at all."
>> be a smiling mouth is the edge of the pecking that forms
>> the "chin." It follows a raised surface that continues to
>> the right, beyond the "head."
> This is an excellent observation, but it would seem
> strange that the artist would intentionally put a smile on
> it, too. So it is good that this is dispelled. Thanks.
>> The meaning of
>> the two pecked items is enigmatic, but it is clear that
>> neither depicts an animal.
> Again, this is based on the assumption that a person
> wasted his time etching two things that are, in the
> authors' opinion, not things at all, but happen to look
> very much like something!
Silly YECs, tricks are for kids!
> This is aSo says this author who not only uses the standard young earth creationist tactic of seeing what he wants to see, but is writing as a representative of an organization whose explicitly stated guiding principle is that they're going to believe what they believe regardless of the facts. ("By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record")
> common tactic of seeing what the authors want to see,
> but it inOf course, when you don't actually have an image of a dinosaur in the first place, whether the two (or four) glyphs form some other enigmatic representation is irrelevant. The point is that you don't have good evidence of the image of a dinosaur.
> no way presents a solid argument against this being a
> final single image.
>> The "head" of Dinosaur 1 is overlapped by a subsequentWell before the new idea that the earth orbits the sun, rather than the other way around, and that disease is caused by microscopic organisms, rather than evil spirits, too.
>> pecking of a spiral-like shape, a common motif in
>> petroglyphs and rock paintings and on pottery of
>> Ancestral Pueblos after Pueblo I times (~A.D. 700 to
> Granted, the dates are highly questionable, but it shows
> that this artist was indeed using techniques common to him
> and well before the new idea that man and dinosaurs did
> not live at the same time.
>> The "torso" is superimposed over a previously peckedAs proclaimed by a man who has up to this point written over 2,100 words without presenting a single coherent argument that represents a genuine criticism of anything pointed out by Senter and Cole, or substantiating the claim that it was designed to look like an animal, let alone look like a dinosaur.
>> triangle the apex of which protrudes above the
>> "dinosaur's "back." The significance of the triangle is
> In all this, there is no coherent argument that this was
> not designed to look like an animal
> or that itWhere did Senter and Cole say it was not done by a person?
> was not done by a person.
> Yet it showsOkay. So?
> the intricate ability of Native American artists as being
> highly intelligent in using a number of techniques -
> etching, pecking, painting, and so onwhen doing rock art.
> I get tiredIncredible!
> of the humanistic diatribes against peoples like the
> Native Americans whom they have viewed as less "evolved"
> and thus not as intelligent.
Who has said that Native Americans are less evolved? Not as intelligent?
It was Christians, not "humanists", who drove the Native Americans from their lands, who made promises with written treaties and then broke treaty after treaty after treaty with each tribe because of their prejudice, bigotry, and lack of humanity. If the Christians of the United States had wanted their political representatives in government to respect the treaties with the Native Americans, they would have done so. (It was also Christians who perpetuated slavery in the United States. The Bible commands and condones slavery and never condemns the institution. Our sense of morality today has been shaped by our cultural evolution such that now we have left the so-called "biblical morality" in the dustbin of history.)
We get tired of young earth creationists and fundamentalist Christians lying through their teeth, misrepresenting everything in sight, filling their anti-science rhetoric with blatantly empty lies based on nothing more than sheer anti-atheist bigotry, and being such utter hypocrites besides.
However, for this we also thank them demonstrating the obvious inferiority of their alleged superior Christian morality.
And what does any of this have to do with the topic of Senter's and Cole's article and the bogus young earth creationist claim of a Native American carving an image of a dinosaur on a rock?
Nothing. Of course.
> These natives wereOf course, they were neither more nor less intelligent in general than people in general are today.
> truly brilliant,
> and poor argumentsSo proclaims a man who is representing one of the foremost pseudoscience propaganda spewing organizations on the planet, people who have never published even a single scientific research paper supporting their young earth creationism notions (derived from their beliefs in their religious dogma) in a professional peer-reviewed science journal in their entire lives. An organization whose very raison d'être is to publish and promote poor arguments that lack good scientific research.
> that lack good scientific research,
> like this one attacking their artwork,They did not attack their artwork.
> surely do notObviously they provide good criticism of yet-another-bogus-YEC-argument, or you wouldn't have written over a couple of thousand words of irrelevant nonsense trying to minimize the impact, Abrahams, you ridiculously silly duck, so much so that you have to resort to irrelevant attacks against the writers, even to the point of telling stupidly blatant lies about them, like pretending they are "attacking their artwork".
> help evolutionary worldview considerations.
> There is no need to spend time on the questionable images,Thanks for finally admitting it.
> which are stillWhich no one said otherwise. So?
> clearly done by Native Americans.
> So the responseFalse.
> will pick up on the discussion.
>> Pareidolia is the psychological phenomenon of perceiving
>> significance in vague or random stimuli, e.g., seeing
>> animals in clouds or the face of a religious figure in a
>> food item. The results of this investigation indicate
>> that the dinosaurs of Kachina Bridge are examples of this
>> phenomenon and exist only as pareidolic illusions.
> This would be predicated on the argument that the
> illustrations and petroglyphs were drawings of nothing
Senter and Cole never stated or implied that.
> and had noFalse.
> meaning to the artist;
Senter and Cole never stated or implied that.
(This is Abrahams spouting stupid remarks based on his simple lack of comprehension of the word "engimatic".)
[Edit: Now that I'm giving what I've written a final editing pass, I see that my previous parenthetical statement is actually one of two different possibilities. The other possibility is that Abrahams is making an utterly boneheaded remark based on his failure to comprehend that the context of Senter's and Cole's reference to "pareidolia" is in connection to young earth creationists perceiving the various markings, indentations, and discolorations as a dinosaur.]
> and therefore, thoseSince Senter and Cole never said any of those things, what we have here is an absurd argument made by an uncomprehending idiot. [Edit: This is true, regardless of which of the two possibilities above is the error in Abrahams comprehension of what Senter and Cole have stated.]
> looking at it are deriving a false meaning of something
> when it is supposed to be nothing! This is an absurd
> conclusion to say an artist took time to draw "nothing"
> that had no meaning.
Thanks for that, Abrahams.
> These etchings didAnd Senter and Cole never said otherwise.
> signify something,
> and Senter's andOf course, that's exactly what they've shown.
> Cole's paper has not shown Dinosaur 1 to be something
> other than a dinosaur.
> The argument thatAnother stupidly uncomprehending remark. Geeze, is English a second language for Abrahams, and has he not finished his night classes on it yet?
> this petroglyph represents "nothing" does not show
> in the slightest the very point in question.
Senter and Cole NEVER said the petroglyphs represent "nothing". (In fact, the word "nothing" is not used at all in Senter's and Cole's article, in any context!)
>> They can therefore be added to the list ofRegardless of the fact that it isn't a petroglyphic image of a dinosaur.
>> discredited evidence for the coexistence of
>> dinosaurs and humans.
> And likewise, the argument still stands that the most
> reasonable explanation of the petroglyph is that it is
> indeed a dinosaur that the artist rendered.
'We are going to believe what we believe, no matter what the facts are.' That's the young earth creationist mantra, people who keep right on adamantly promoting dozens and dozens of bogus arguments for decades after they've been debunked.
Their reputation precedes them. We expect no less of them.
>> It should be noted that, unlike some previous suchPretending that young earth creationists - who don't even know what genuine scientific research is they studiously keep themselves so far away from it - and who've been absolutely trounced in every court case in the country where they've attempted to pretend that their young earth creationism beliefs are "scientific" rather than merely notions derived from belief in a particular religious doctrine by a certain religious segment - are competent to properly judge what is and isn't good science is like pretending that.
>> "evidence" (Di Peso 1953; Neufeld 1975; Isaak 2007), in
>> this case there was no deliberate hoax.
> In light of the poor quality of the research and
> Senter and ColeSo says Abrahams, who has brought nothing of substance, with literally no research at all, to pretend to refute the facts that Senter and Col
> have brought nothing of substance to refute the idea that
> this Native American petroglyph, dubbed here Dinosaur 1 at
> Kachina Bridge, is best explained as a dinosaur.
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
Todd, Thanks for offering up a rebuttal to Ken Ham s rebuttal regarding the petroglyph. I may have more to say later, but I wanted to quickly note theApr 2, 2011 1 of 6View SourceTodd,
Thanks for offering up a rebuttal to Ken Ham's rebuttal regarding the petroglyph.
I may have more to say later, but I wanted to quickly note the following:
I wrote, in part:
> Dinosaur 1 at Kachina Bridge isYou were more exacting and noted:
> best explained as a dinosaur.
>> Ken Ham
> This was written by Ishmael Abrahams,For what it's worth, I have had the habit recently of ascribing to Ken Ham that which he posts approvingly.
> not Ken Ham. Here is a detailed response
> to Abrahams' diatribe.
>> Todd Greene
... While there are many examples where the above is played out in relative degree, my mind was turned to Goldsmith and his most recent demonstrations inApr 2, 2011 1 of 6View Source--- In Maury_and_Baty@yahoogroups.com, "Todd Greene" <greeneto@...> wrote, in his closing remarks:
> ...most people won't even deal with youngWhile there are many examples where the above is played out in "relative" degree, my mind was turned to Goldsmith and his most recent demonstrations in proof of the above observations by Todd.
> earth creationists and their
>> obstinate nonsense.
> You have to wade through reams of irrelevant
> and so on - and you're typically dealing
> with people who are
>> utterly close-minded,
>> who have less than zero intention
>> of changing anything they think
>> based on actual, good evidence,
>> based on genuine science,
>> people who have every intention
>> of continuing to believe what
>> they believe, and
>> pushing bogus claims and
>> using fallacious arguments,
> no matter what the facts are.
Longsuffering that I am, however, I am going to wait a little longer in hopes that "Mark" will reappear and take up where I left off trying to help him get started with the lead he seemed so desperate to take.