smartaxes.com Blog

[note: this is jb writing this post, not Salvador]
A discussion started in the comments of the previous post (”more proof of the great flood”) which concerns dinosaurs. That was slightly off-topic there, so rather than continue that conversation there, it was pointed out that maybe we should start another thread to discuss it. So I’m creating this post to recap the conversation and open the floor to further discucssion.

If the YEC timeframe is correct then donosaurs must have lived at the same time as humans. This is occasionally hit upon in creationist literature from time to time, and occasionally some writers set out to demonstrate that this is indeed the case by referring to ancient art, legends, etc. which depict dinosaurs living contemporanously with humans.

Janice brought up the Ica Stones and the Acambaro Figurines. However, while I do not discount the idea that dinosaurs very well could have lived contemporaneously with humans, I am skeptical of this particular bit of evidence. I will admit, however, that I’m not in any way an expert in this area, and I could very well be all wrong. However, after reading something like this…

http://skepdic.com/icastones.html

… I’m inclined to really wonder if this is something we should be using as an apologetic for YEC. This just has something about it that seems fishy; if only because it appears to be a too-good-to-be-true “too easy” bit of evidence. Now, I’m skeptical of the skeptic site skepdic, but this particular article seems compelling.

Not wanting to completely leave it up to a site like skepdic, I also queried CMI, AiG, and ICR for information on these. I also tried several of the web sites that Salvador linked to in a previous post. ICR and the sites that Salvador had linked to did not turn up anything (a few references came up at creationresearch.org, but apparently you have to sign up to access their material, and I have not done so; and it didn’t appear that the hits I got there were very relevant). CMI and AiG pretty much have a lot of the same articles, and the relevant ones in this search were the same at both sites.

At CMI/AiG, I came up with this:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/133#r17

With particular attention given to note # 17. However, Rick pointed out that on this page, just below the footnote is an “Editors note” somewhat apologetic of what the footnote says. They still don’t come out and endorse the stones, and state “we would not advise using them as an apologetic evidence,” they do seem to back off slightly and leave some room for them being proven to not be hoaxes. However, that Editors Note was from 2003, and they seemed to indicate that they would persue the matter further in an issue of their magazine. I’m not aware if they indeed did so. I might email them and ask them about it. If so, I will report back here what I find out.

Also at CMI, I came across this page, which seems to be a reader-feedback page. One reader had this to say:

“I’ve been interested in dinosaurs for about 20 years and thoroughly enjoy every article that Creation puts out on them. I was surprised to learn of the Ica Stones in your article on pterosaurs and American Indians (24(2):28-32). While I believe that man and dinosaur definitely once co-existed, the photograph that went with the article appears to suggest that the stones are fake. I notice they show an outdated version of a sauropod with a vertical neck and drooping tail (something the animal could never have had—it would have fallen over). The T. rex and Stegosaurus also appear to have the same drooping tail problem. Thanks for a great read though!”

CMI did not respond to this comment, as it appears that the purpose of the page was not for them to respond, but rather just to publish the comments without further comment.

In the previous conversation, Rick had this to say:

[quoting from the CMI article] “The Institute of Geological Sciences in London has since examined one of the stones and confirmed its modern origin. The fraud was exposed on a Nova television documentary in 2002.”

Am I the only one whose smoke detector goes off with this statement? What, after all, is the examination of a single stone supposed to prove? Those who believe the stones genuine are aware that some are, in fact, of modern origin–so this isn’t a revelation.

…

I happen to have a book about these stones, by, I believe, Dennis Swift. He discusses the differences between the modern stones and ones that appear to be ancient. He talks about the two categories and compares examinations of each under high magnification. He also examines the claims of the local artists and explains why it would be in their best interest to say that they had carved the stones themselves.

Now, I happen to think that there are other, very compelling evidences that demonstrate man’s contemporaneous existence with dinosaurs. For me, just the similarity between dragon traditions and dinosaurs is compelling. Also there are a few other artifacts, like this one that Jehu pointed out, as well as the Bishop Bell’s Brass Behemoths (which is the article that contained the footnote disclaiming the Ica Stones).

I’m still skeptical of the Ica and Acambaro artifacts, but not of the contemporaneous human/dinosaurs hypothesis itself. But then, I’m just a lay person who’s read a few articles on the web. Others disagree. What do you think? I’m open to looking at further evidence one way or the other, and I’m fascinated by the subject, so it should be a good discussion. I’d be interested to see refutations of the skepdic article.

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 14th, 2007 at 10:09 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.