Apparently, Alvis Delk, a 72-year old amateur archeologist, has found a slab of limestone which bear the footprints of both human and dinosaur, and the dinosaur's print overlaps the human one, showing that the dinosaur print occurred after the human print.
Before you get too excited, let's consider a few things:
One: a photo of the print:
While the human footprint may look reasonably accurate (with the exception of the ridiculously deep impression left by the big toe), the "dinosaur" footprint is a joke. It looks like Alvis made the hole with a template cut from plywood with his jigsaw.
As for the mysteriously deep human toe print, maybe back then, humans had big killing claws on their big toes, like velociraptors. :P
Two: Due to a serious fall from a ladder eight months ago, Alvis has racked up some expensive medical bills. Deciding to sell some of his finds to keep the wolves from the door, he started to "clean" the chunk of limestone with the dinosaur footprint, only to "discover" the human footprint. Well, that's fortuitous, isn't it?
Three: To date, the "fossil" has been inspected and certified as authentic by only one person: its new owner, Dr. Carl Baugh. Guess who he is.
...
Wait for it...
Carl Baugh is the founder and director of the Creation Evidence Museum.
With "certification" like that, does anything else need to be said?
We can only hope that Ray and his Raytards seize on this as the "evidence" they've been praying for.
Posts
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteLooks pretty real to me. I'm going to go watch Professional Wrestling now.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Dust...I was just going to let it go, but apparently, the jackals over there mistook my silence for meekness and attacked what they thought was an easy target. I just couldn't let that stand... ;)
ReplyDeleteI don't know if I should respond again, though. I enjoy a good round of Kick-the-Fundie as much as the next godless atheist, but Ray simply doesn't deserve the patronage.
Amusing, how none of them took me up on my offer to discuss the subject here, in a forum where we could actually hold a conversation. That's probably because they know that whenever a real dialog is held between theists and atheists, the theists usually wind up embarrassing themselves.
Baugh isn't the only one to certify it as real. David Lines, a technical writer for Texas Instruments, who describes himself as "no expert on rocks", who took the photo, says that he has no doubt that the rock is real.
ReplyDeleteAnd then he goes on to talk about how there's no way someone could fake the rock. THE ROCK! Not the footprint! “If someone found a way to fake that, they could also get a patent for concrete that would far surpass anything," he says.
Wow.
I am convinced that it is indeed a rock. Maybe not though. It's hard. I can believe that.
ReplyDeleteflinging,
ReplyDeletehave you read or heard Matt Dillahunty's account of how he left fundamentalism? He had enough self-honesty to investigate the 'evidence' and 'proofs' his elders presented, and found them to be bogus. Yes, every scrap of fraudstuff they present helps our side.
Is that museum guy really so naive that he thinks the limestone was less than 6,000 years old? Or is he an OEC? However, they'll make up tons of excuses why they won't let scientists investigate the rock, how early humans walked differently, how dating methods are wrong and all the usual stuff. Sadly, many people will prefer to let themselves be deceived; it's much easier to believe a comfortable lie than an inconvenient truth.
Don't OECs believe that, even though the Earth is old, humans were still created in the last 10,000 years? So the limestone would still have to be younger than that in order for it to have been soft enough to preserve footprints. So either way, they're idiots.
ReplyDeleteLance,
ReplyDeleteBy what standard of logic do you claim that the object in question is a rock, how do you account for that standard, and why does that standard necessarily apply to the object in question?
</SimpleSye>
19 And the LORD said, "I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the LORD, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 20 But," he said, "you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live."
ReplyDelete21 Then the LORD said, "There is a place near me where you may stand on a rock. 22 When my glory passes by, I will put you in a cleft in the rock and cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will remove my hand and you will see my back; but my face must not be seen."
Question posed to John MacArthur:
ReplyDelete"I have a question about the "Christian Rock" movement. Is "Christian Rock" music non-biblical? And if so, is there any biblical proof?"
Answer:
That's a good question and we have answered this question through the years. Let me say it this way, "Is 'Christian Rock' music unbiblical?" A lot of music is unbiblical. A lot of church music is unbiblical. There are some hymns that are unbiblical. There are some Gospel songs that are terrible because they don't say the right thing. When you say "Christian Rock" that's a big thing, I mean that goes all the way from what some people would think is "Christian Rock," that's nothing more than a ballad, (but you know that if you are over 70 that's rock; and to a teenager that's "old people's" music) all the way to the "Heavy Metal," slam, bang, (you know) kind of trash music (well you know what I mean), to what now is "Christian Rap."
So you know that it's a big field, so what I would say is, here's some general criteria to use with any music:
1. Are the words distinctively biblical? Don't tell me you sang "You light up my life baby!" and you were talking about Jesus. That's not distinctively biblical, you could be talking about your sweetheart, your girlfriend, you mother, your daughter, Buddha, or anybody else. So that's not distinctively biblical language. OK? We are talking about, "Are the words distinctively Christian? Theologically accurate? Biblical?"
2. Does the means (the vehicle) which transports those words, which would be: tune, arrangement, style, fit those words? In other words, if I am going to sing a song called "Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God Almighty" I had better be restricted to a certain "genre" [style, manner] of music or I will trivialize the profound. Understood? I can't sing, "Holy, Holy, Holy" to the tune of "Yankee Doodle Dandy." Do you know what I mean? Or to some hip, snap your finger, rock beat, because that trivializes the profound.
So I want to find a vehicle, musically, that will move those lyrics on a level that they are worthy of. Now if I want to sing, "I am so happy in Jesus. I am really enjoying my Christian experience," [then] I can turn the tempo up. If I want to sing about the fact that life is bitter, life is painful, I might chose some kind of a "Blues Mood" to do that. There has to be some sense about that, and one of the things that I just can't comprehend in "Rock" music is to take profundity and trivialize it with the kind of music that is trivial. Or worse (I guess) is to take profound lyrics and profound theology and put them to cheap musical style, that is not lofty in terms of it's musicianship; it's not lofty in its terms of its ability to comprehend music as such.
3. I don't ever want to use a style that will drag down the content. It is highly unlikely that I can put the gospel, for example, in a very contemporary musical "genre" and elevate the "genre." Do you understand? The tendency is going to be to pull the gospel down to that level. This is new; there was a song (I have used this illustration before and I'll use it again), there is a song that came out in the "schmaltzy forties" when everything sleazy, barroom, kind of crooning. The pop music, the big time music, was all the crooners, and songs were written for the Church like that. One of them that was very popular (and I remember it even as a kid) "I'm in l-o-o-o-o-o-v-e, d-e-e-e-p-ly in l-o-o-o-o-ve with the l-o-o-o-o-o-v-er of my soul!" Yuk! That is terrible, because now what you have got is [that] you have reduced loving God to some "schmaltzy" sort of sexy relationship that you put in a song sung in a barroom. See, the Church isn't new at doing that.
So what I'm saying is, you have to be very careful, because musical style can communicate so much culture, that all it does is take profound gospel truth and pull it down rather than the truth elevating the music (it usually works the other way).
4. This is a simple one: Amos 5 says, "Stop your songs, your hearts aren't right." I would simply say this: all I would ask of a musician is whatever musical style he chooses to use, I want to know that he is filled with the Spirit. Because if the Spirit of God is using him, his sensitivity to the Holy Spirit will come through in any musical style. He'll modify it enough so that it doesn't cheapen the profound. If his heart isn't right, God doesn't want to hear his songs, that's Amos, chapter 5, "Stop your songs, your hearts aren't right." Go back, get your heart right and then come and sing your song to me. I really believe that you leave it at that point; if the heart of the musician is right, it is amazing how many different kinds of forms and styles he can communicate the truth in. But those are the tests that I would use in that issue.
I don't know what the comment about John MacArthur and "Christian rock is doing here, but it makes me think of a South Park episode where Cartman started a Christian band so he could make ten million dollars. When it came to songwriting he just took secular pop songs and made slight changes, such changing "I love you, baby" to "I love you, Jesus".
ReplyDeleteAs for the dino/human fossil, our buddy Terry Burton has made claims before about such finds. And he should know, since he's a science degree person.
I was just making fun of that guy that always posts John Macarthur articles. And since we were talking about rocks...
ReplyDeleteWait for it....
ReplyDelete...
...
FAIL!
Jason:
ReplyDeleteOkay. You do see the John MacArthur byline over there often. Just about as much as Burton mentions
Hell's Best Kept secret.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteDr. Carl Baugh is such a respected science degree person that even Answers in Genesis criticizes him. That puts him in the same league as Hovind, who Ray Comfort uses in The Evidence Bible to explain the two different creation stories in the first chapter of Genesis. I wish I was a science degree person.
ReplyDeleteEat your heart out, Rufus.
ReplyDeleteScience Degree Guy:
ReplyDeleteHi Terry, you old psycho swabbie.