Raving Conservative

Google

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

Evidence that Dinosaurs and Man Coexisted, or of Something Else?

I recently read a fascinating book called “Secrets of the Ica Stones and Nazca Lines” by Dr. Dennis Swift. What it presents is very compelling, though I am not yet totally sure what to make of it.

First the criticism that must come. It is obviously a self-published book as no publishing company would allow errors like “astronauts” being misspelled “astronaughts” every time astronauts are mentioned, which is at least 20 times. There are other misspellings and words that have been mashed together due to a missing space. Given that, feel free to make what you will of the book. My pet theory is that no major publishing would tough it because of the nature of the material inside. What it contains would be considered by many to absolute quackery.

This book discusses something known as the Ica Stones, and it does so critically, but favorably. For those of you who are going to instantly declare the following information as being nothing more than a desperate move by a Christian apologist I have the following to reveal: the author of this book was an Atheist and Evolutionist until his thorough professional study of the Ica Stones convinced him that religion must be right.

The author, as I mentioned, is a credentialed archaeologist. He has dedicated years to studying the Ica Stones and working to either prove or disprove them. Here is the conclusion based upon proper scientific study: Some are real, some are obvious fakes.

Among all the conspiracy theory style information about government cover ups and museums keeping stones and pottery with dinosaurs, men on hang gliders, and performing advanced surgery in boxes in the storage room is some far more interesting and substantive information.

First, there is a criticism that no carved stones have ever been found by actual archaeological expeditions. The author demonstrates this to be utterly false with his accounting of post dig literature from other archaeologists who have found such stones on their digs, as well an eyewitness account of carved stones being removed form an ancient grave. He gives the date and publication of these properly conducted digs in his book. So the argument that all carved stones must be fake because only the Juaceros find them is proven to be false.

Second is the criticism that the controversy of the stones is because of depictions of extinct fish, but that the depictions are so stylized that it takes a stretch of the imagination to conclude that man actually interacted with said fish. This is simply preposterous. The controversy is because of the depictions of dinosaurs that have been shown to be totally accurate even to the most recent discoveries about such things as how the tail is held, the back plate and tail spike placement of Stegosaurus, and other depictions that are true on every stone whose age has been verified as ancient, meaning at least 300 years, before the discovery of dinosaurs. There are pictures of men riding and hunting dinosaurs. There are also depictions of heart surgery, cesarean sections, organ transplants, and brain surgery. To date the methods that have been criticized as impossible are being shown to work, such as the use of acupuncture needles to deaden the pain of a c-section operation. Therefore, any claim that the stones are meaningless because it is just stylized fish is demonstrably ridiculous.

It turns out that there is also ancient pottery of verified age, 500-1200 years old, that depicts these same images, and some of it is on display in museums, but with the controversial images turned toward the walls.

Full color photographs of these stones and pottery are in the book.

The Museum of Dr. Javier Cabrera contains the vast majority of the Ica Stones that are available for public viewing. Before his death he allowed the stones to be tested at random to prove or disprove their age as being too old for the modern counterfeiters. His stones were tested on their own, as well compared to known counterfeits made by known counterfeiters. The results were that Dr. Cabrera’s stones bore no resemblance to any counterfeits and that they are at least old enough to have developed a natural patina, and yes, the patinas were proven to be from natural aging and not the result of such techniques as leaving the stones in a chicken coop for a month or rubbing mud and dung into them then baking them. The compositions of each these counterfeiting methods and the actual patinas on Dr. Cabrera’s stones were completely dissimilar. Another important note: there are no known counterfeits larger than a football, but Dr. Cabrera’s collection contains stones so large they must be lifted with a crane.

In a totally different part of the world, at the Temple of Ta Prohm, there is a gigantic carved boulder that hasa stegosaurus on it. This carving has baffled scientists for years, and the only two explanations offered are that either the artist actually saw a stegosaurus, or he has somehow able to reconstruct an accurate picture of one from a jumbled skeleton typical of what is found on Paleontological digs. They also claim that primitive man did not have the technical expertise to perform such reconstructions that are still being revised today.

Based off this information I have come to the conclusion that there are 2 possible explanations. The first is that we need to get over our self indulgent pride and acknowledge that man has had the ability to figure out the same stuff we are figuring out now for thousands of years. If people were performing advanced surgery in South America 1,000 years ago then I think it can safely be said that they may have had the curiosity and expertise to reconstruct a dinosaur skeleton that they excavated. This is sure to be a shot to the pride of modern scientists, which would explain why they would rather deny the stones and pottery even exist than seek to explain them. The second is that these images were entirely based on real life images and experience. If this is true then man and dinosaurs actually did coexist at some point, which is another good reason for scientists to pretend the stones and pottery don’t exist rather than trying to explain them. Personally, I am open to either explanation and am hesitant to draw any definite conclusions based solely upon these stones and pottery.

An interesting recent discovery actually lends credence to the second explanation though. We have recently discovered a T-Rex skeleton with marrow in the bones and flesh and skin still attached that has not rotted away or been fossilized at all. Preliminary testing indicates that the DNA may even be viable though so far there is degradation. Naturally, scientists are now looking at our understanding of decay rather than our understanding of history.

I propose that any of you out there perform the following experiment.

Take a pot, a washcloth, a steady heat source, and regular tap water. Fill the pot with tap water. Boil it. Add the washcloth. Keep the pot at least ¾ full at all times. In 2-5 years depending on the mineral content of your tap water you will have an honest to goodness fossilized washcloth on your hands.

The results of this experiment are compelling not in that it has any bearing on decay, but in that it may present us with a new understanding of the fossilization process. I find it equally compelling that there has been no further study on fossilization based upon the results of this experiment. It seems to show that in the presence of evaporating or percolating water that fossilization may actually happen in a few years rather than over thousands or millions of years. This may explain the intact soft tissues of the T-Rex that has recently been discovered. Combine these two things with the Ica Stones and pottery as well as the carving at the Temple of Ta Prohm and you have a reasonable case for a young Earth that may be thousands rather than billions of years old. If dinosaurs and man actually did coexist then evolution is proven false beyond all reasonable doubt and no amount of arguing can continue to fool people.

Naturally, there will be absolutely no scientific inquiry into any of this. Seriously, could you imagine how the world would be turned on it’s head if scientists actually gave proper study to this issue and *GASP* proved that it is possible that that dinosaurs only went extinct in the lat thousand years or so? Everything we know about astronomy and geology would be called into question. How could the universe appear so old and yet our tools for measuring it be so wrong? How could we mistake fossils a few thousand years old for being 65 million old or more? Is radiation dating even accurate? What assumptions have we been operating off of that gave us this false data? How did all of these layers of rock develop if not over hundreds of millions of years? How did the Grand Canyon get dug if the world is so young?

As you can see, the scientific confusion would be immense, and much of or knowledge would suddenly be called into serious question. And, of course, religious folks of all types would be trumpeting their various stories of Creation, much to the chagrin of Atheist scientists.

Me? I don’t see the problem. Science is simply an inquiry into the way the natural world works. If this universe was created to appear to be a certain age why should it bother me? If dinosaurs and man coexisted how does this affect medicine and technology? It doesn’t. It only affect our understanding of the history of the world, and evolution specifically. If other branches of science required evolution to be true in order to work then maybe I might be concerned. However, medicine works regardless of evolution. Surgery works regardless of evolution. Drugs work regardlss of evolution. What is a virus develops a slight change to its protein coat that makes it immune to current drugs? What id a bacterium does something similar? Simple. We find a new drug to kill it just like we always have. What about or understanding of genetic ancestry? Does genetic ancestry matter outside of each species? It seems to me to be a waste of time and money trying to determine is 6 different types of mosquitoes all came from a single proto-mosquito species millions of years ago. Just know them now so we can know which ones carry which diseases and how to kill them effectively. If the world is only a few thousand years old then evolution has not had time to cause any new species to appear and they have no common ancestor anyway.

Perhaps my attitude toward all of this is rather cavalier. It just seems to e that truth is more important than appearances. I want to know what ALL the evidence indicates. If selective evidence indicates evolution, and elective evidence indicate Creation, what does it indicate when you combine the whole mess? I shudder to say it, but might it actually indicate Intelligent Design? Or perhaps the combination simply wrecks evolution? Based upon the evidence I have a hard time seeing God eliminated from the equation at all.

So, who here is willing to actually study ALL the evidence without a specific agenda in mind? I don’t qualify. I want to see Creation supported as bad some of my readers want to see Evolution supported. A neutral party might actually say that there is some indication that either may be true and give an impartial study. For that we need a true Agnostic, not an Atheist or an Atheist claiming to be an Agnostic, and not a deeply religious person like myself. A true Agnostic would fit the bill, someone who simply doesn’t know and is open to anything. Good luck finding one who can’t be influenced by either side of the argument though. Money doesn’t talk, it screams these days.

8 Comments:

  • I certainly don't qualify either. And you're right, trying to find a person who does qualify and will not be swayed by arguement or money would be next to impossible!

    Good post, RC. It's quite thought provoking.

    I cannot, however, keep a dishrag boiling in a pot of water for two two five years! LOL! Our water is so hard here I believe it wouldn't take that long.

    By Blogger Gayle, at 6:32 AM  

  • I think you make some excellent points. It does seem that ancient man either had to have seen dinosaurs at some point or had to be able to reconstruct dinosaur appearances from skeletal remains. If they did see dinosaurs, which seems like the most likely scenario, then that really throws evolution and Darwinism on its head.

    Like you said, it is unlikely that anything will come of this. The greater scientific establishment wouldn't give this a passing glance. They "know" they're right, so why consider other options (even when data indicates that they should).

    By Blogger Seamus, at 4:02 PM  

  • Mark over at Casting Pearls Before Swine has an interesting post on evolution "facts."

    By Blogger Tom, at 1:39 PM  

  • Mark over at Casting Pearls Before Swine has an interesting post on evolution "facts."

    By Blogger Tom, at 1:40 PM  

  • "a T-Rex skeleton with marrow in the bones and flesh and skin still attached that has not rotted away or been fossilized at all. Preliminary testing indicates that the DNA may even be viable"

    This is new and surprising information to me; new because, well, I've not heard this until now; surprising because of the implications.

    I get blasted every time I assert than man and dinosaurs were contemporaneous with each other. I'll have to research this and add it to my 'Arsenal of Proofs'

    Interesting post. What are your thoughts on Immanuel Velikovsky? Or Lee Strobel's work, 'The Case for a Creator'?

    By Blogger ELAshley, at 12:02 PM  

  • Elashley,

    I have never read either of those authors. As far te whole concept of dinosaurs and man living together goes, I am personally hesitant to draw that conclusion, but when I look at the T-Rex with intact, unfossilized flesh, the global dragon legends, the multiple instances where dinosaurs are mentioned in the Bible, the Ica Stones, Nazca Lines, Moche Pottery, The fossil beds in th Missle East where human and dinosaur footprints are in the exact same layer of rock, the evidence begins to look overwhelming. Such evidence is actually far more solid than the evidence for evolution which is based on such things as imaginary transitional species in the gaps theories, imaginary self replicating protiens that formed under imaginary circumstances in a primordial Earth that is constantly being revised.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 11:02 AM  

  • "Dr" Swift is NOT a credentialed archaeologist. His PhD is in Theology.

    He is no more qualified to make pronouncements as to the scientific value of these as i am to practice brain surgery.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:53 AM  

  • Sure the ancient (wo)man saw them:
    http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Dinoglyphs.htm

    They are documented not only in the classic books from the antiquities, but also as drawings, mosaics, bronze seals, cave paintings and even in garments from South America.

    Pauli Ojala
    biochemist
    Helsinki, Fine land

    By Blogger Ojalanpoika, at 10:20 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Listed on BlogShares