Posts Tagged ‘evolution vs creation’

Note To Counterfeiter’s of “Ancient Indian Relics”..Don’t Shape Them Like Sauropod Dinosaurs!

Crypto, Dinosaurs in Literature, s8int.com, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Jul 17 2010

Photo:Counterfeit Relics? Click for Higher Resolution

Note to counterfeiters indeed!

If one is going to create a market for ancient “Indian” relics (back in the mid-late 1800′s and early 1900′s) by cleverly making the artifacts in question, one must be smart enough Not to make them in the shape of a creature that those “Indians” could never have either seen or imagined (according to Darwinist’s).

That would be like counterfeiting $1 million dollar bills or Cleveland Indian World Series tickets today.

Clearly counterfeit bears, fish, horses or buffalo would have been better received, particularly by the scientifically literate. When one realizes that a counterfeiter of those times would have to take the needed time to shape and polish stones into various shapes, then artificially ‘age’ them and then after all that work to sell them for .50., 75 or $1.50 each it hardly makes sense.

Photo:Counterfeit Relics? Click for Higher Resolution

That kind of criminal enterprise would seem to be its own punishment. In fact, if one was convicted of such a crime in those days, a sentence of forced labor making animal shapes from stones would no doubt be both ironic and appropriate.

But then, to be unsmart enough to carve them into the shape of a dinosaur?….The third piece appears to be a side view of a sauropod with a neck frill of some kind…like maybe Miragaia, but dude seriously!

The American Archaeologist Magazine of 1898; for Scientist and Student-A Monthly Journal Devoted to Archaeology and Ethnology was having none of it and editorialized strongly against the counterfeiters.

The Magazine noted:

“We have commenced in this number of The Archaeologist to give our opinion of relic counterfeiters in language that cannot be misconstrued; and we will continue the crusade against the scoundrels until their swindling is suppressed. Let us hear from our readers now”._-Editor

Photo:Counterfeit Relics?
Click for Higher Resolution

We must assume that their readers were also against counterfeiting “Indian relics”.

The editorial pulled no punches, naming the Robinette family of Hancock County Tennessee as one of the chief malefactors although they carefully noted that they also did a brisk trade in genuine “Indian” artifacts.
Clearly, the relics that appeared with the editorial arguably in the shape of prehistoric animals were in the class “fakes” and the very items which could have confused the public.

One of the Robinette family’s chief competitors chimed in and amazingly enough agreed wholeheartedly with the American Anthropologist in the matter. They also perhaps unwittingly identified the primary issue with respect to the ‘fake” relics in question:

A very honorable and reliable dealer in curios, in Ohio, writes us, under recent date, as follows:” I have in my possession one of J.T. Overstreet pipes which I can send you for examination if you wish. It is the best counterfeit pipe I have yet seen, and is well calculated to deceive anyone.

Don’t fail to show up these pipe fraud fiends, for I consider some of their pipes far more dangerous to our business and Your Science than the flint crooks.”.

From this time and distance we cannot comment as to the “fakeness” if any of the artifacts in question. No doubt, counterfeiting these artifacts was a serious problem. But where did these “counterfeiting fiends” get the idea to create fake artifacts in the shape of a sauropod?

“So We Make Up Stories” About Human Evolution

Church of Darwin, Religious, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Feb 23 2009

Richard Lewontin is the Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at the Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University.

As such, he is internationally recognized as one of the foremost “evolutionist” , Atheist and Materialist in the world. We haven’t read a fraction of all that he has said, but he is apparently given to occasional bouts of blatant honesty.

He was previously and famously quoted for saying:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. “….Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review, p. 31, January 9, 1997.

As reported in the following article, he began verbally thrashing around again at an address to the American Association for the Advancement of Science in which he delivered some remarks that (unintentionally?) struck some severe blows against the Darwinist religion:

“So We Make Up Stories” About Human Evolution
by Kyle Butt, M.A.
Apologetic’s Press

Dr. Richard Lewontin is the Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. Harvard University Press describes him as one of their “most brilliant evolutionary biologists.” A Harvard professor since 1973, he has impeccable academic credentials, and has gained worldwide notoriety for authoring several books, including The Triple Helix, The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, and Biology as Ideology.

During the week of February 14-18, Dr. Lewontin was invited to speak at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting held in Boston, Massachusetts. Michale Balter, writing for Science magazine, reported briefly on Lewontin’s comments that caused quite a stir in the evolutionary community. Balter titled his article “How Human Intelligence Evolved—Is It Science or ‘Paleofantasy’?” (2008). In the first paragraph, Balter quipped that Lewontin really “knows how to grab an audience’s attention.”

What did Lewontin say that was so noteworthy and attention-grabbing? Lewontin “led off a session titled ‘The Mind of a Toolmaker’ by announcing that scientists know next to nothing about how humans got so smart. ‘We are missing the fossil record of human cognition,’ Lewontin said at the meeting. ‘So we make up stories’” (Balter, 2008, emp. added). While Balter spent the rest of his article scrambling to show that Lewontin’s conclusions are not recognized by all in the scientific community, Lewontin’s devastating blow to evolution’s long-cherished scenario of human development could not be papered over so easily.

James Randerson, science correspondent for the United Kingdom’s Guardian, wrote an article titled “We Know Nothing About Brain Evolution” in which he, too, reported on Lewontin’s speech. Lewontin titled his speech, “Why We Know Nothing About the Evolution of Cognition.” Randerson reported that, in the lecture, the eminent Harvard professor “systematically dismissed every assumption about the evolution of human thought, reaching the conclusion that scientists are still completely in the dark about how natural selection prompted the massive hike in human brain size in the human line” (2008, emp. added).

Lewontin then turned his attention to the fossil record. Randerson summarized Dr. Lewontin’s statements by saying: “The main problem is the poor fossil record. Despite a handful of hominid fossils stretching back 4m [million—KB] years or so, we can’t be sure that any of them are on the main ancestral line to us. Many or all of them could have been evolutionary side branches” (2008). Randerson continued, stating: “Worse, the fossils we do have are difficult to interpret. ‘I don’t have the faintest idea what the cranial capacity [of a fossil hominid] means,’ Lewontin confessed. What does a particular brain size tell us about the capabilities of the animal attached to it?” (2008).

Of course, Lewontin’s comments fly in the face of everything the general population has been led to believe about human evolution. The beautiful drawings showing ape-like creatures gradually evolving in a straight line into humans have been plastered on science-lab walls, in science textbooks, and in popular science magazines for the last five decades. We have been told that the hominid fossil record is so complete that it provides irrefutable evidence verifying human evolution. We have been told that our “ancestral” fossils indicate exactly when our ancient great-grandparents began to walk upright, when they evolved greater cognitive skills, and when they evolved into us.

Lewontin was not finished tearing into the standard evolutionary party line about hominid fossils. Randerson noted that Lewontin “is even skeptical that palaeoanthropologists can be sure which species walked upright and which dragged their knuckles. Upright posture is crucial for freeing up the hands to do other useful things” (2008).

What, then, did Lewontin conclude regarding the prevailing status of ignorance that pervades the scientific community regarding the supposed evolution of humans? He said: “We are in very serious difficulties in trying to reconstruct the evolution of cognition. I’m not even sure what we mean by the problem” (as quoted in Randerson, 2008).

The bombshell that Lewontin dropped on the 2008 AAAS annual meeting will leave devastating and lasting carnage in its wake in the evolutionary community. He debunked 50 years of orchestrated evolutionary propaganda. Randerson concluded his summary of Lewontin’s statements by observing: “All in all, despite thousands of scientific papers and countless National Geographic front covers, we have not made much progress in understanding how our most complicated and mysterious organ [brain—KB] came about” (2008).

After reviewing Lewontin’s statements and the various journal articles describing them, the writers of Creation/Evolution Headlines appropriately admonished the reader:

Remember this entry the next time you get a National Geographic cover story of a hominid with a philosopher’s gaze. Remember it when you are told stories about hominids walking upright, their hands now freed to scratch their chins and think. Remember it when you are shown a chimpanzee on NOVA performing memory tricks for a banana or smashing bugs with a rock. Remember it when a stack of erudite scientific papers on human evolution is placed on the witness table at a trial over whether students should be allowed to think critically about evolution in science class (“Paleofantasy…,” 2008).

To comment on this entry, email s8intcom@comcast.net

REFERENCES
Balter, Michael (2008), “How Human Intelligence Evolved—Is It Science or ‘Paleofantasy’?” Science, 319 [5866]:1028, [On-line], URL: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/319/5866/1028a.

“Paleofantasy: Brain Evolution is Mere Storytelling” (2008), Creation/Evolution Headlines, February 22, [On-line], URL: http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200802.htm.

Randerson, James (2008), “We Know Nothing About Brain Evolution,” Guardian, [On-line], URL: http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/02/the_distinguished_biologist _pr.html.

——————————————————————————–

Copyright © 2008 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.
We are happy to grant permission for items in the “Sensible Science” section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.