You mean The Flintstones isn't scientific evidence?
Probably no worse scientific evidence, actually, than what's in that "museum" [sic].
Google "ica burial stones".
I remember making a shoebox diorama in the second grade featuring dinosaurs. It was T-Rex vs. ankylosaurus. I guess I shoulda added Jesus as the referee.
I did google it. The first 30 references were to creation science advocates; I did not bother to look at 31+. Apparently the entirety of mainstream archeology has ignored this art, or so the indexers at Google would be inclined to believe.
You see the problem is that true or not you dismiss them because of who is showing them. Of course scientists that believe evolution to be a fact will dismiss and ignore anything that does not fit in their convenient scheme of thought. They will ignore that to date no intermediate specie fossils have been found and discount things that might prove them wrong when they are right there in front of them. So they accept as fact something they don’t have evidence for and reject outright anything that contradicts them. Supposedly there are manuscripts about Spanish priests in the 16th century who went looking for the rocks with the pictures of the strange creatures on it in the new world. Long before dinosaurs were supposedly known to exist. Now of course there are supposedly thousands of these stones with all kinds of pictures on them not just supposed dinosaurs so I guess the forger decided to just make them for the hell of it. The problem with evolutionists is that they cannot for one minute think outside their tiny little tunnel of what they believe to be right. Very intellectual of them isn’t it, they don’t want to acknowledge anything that in the slightest way might challenge their theory. They claim to be so intellectually superior when in fact they are really rather narrow minded
Argument ad hominem is not valid to prove absolute falsehood or truth.
However, argument ad hominem, specifically appeals to authority, are valid to show likelihood of truth when an entire community of peer-reviewed science simply does not even recognize your evidence as evidence, and when the one making the appeal i.e. myself in this case, lacks the time and inclination to do your research without pay. Just today, I heard an excellent exposition on this point of logic from this fine podcast.
You asked me to google it; I did.
I examined 30 responses. None of them came from a university, even a Christian university. This tells me that the item is more likely to be a fad among creationists than a topic of scientific interest among thousands of universities on six continents, most of which publish papers in English.
The fact that the Greeks had myths of Cerberus the three-headed dog or of a pantheon of Greek gods doesn't mean that three headed dogs or a community of gods on Mount Olympus existed, nor that the burden is on me to prove it/they didn't. Men flying on some winged critter seems unlikely per se as well, from physics not evolutionary biology. Under Occam's Razor, one takes the simpler explanation: these Inca had myths and drew their myths.
a flikr set with photos from the museum itself.
Who needs facts and dates to understand ALL OF TIME? Not me, all I need are the 7 c's.
And what "science" museum would be complete without a whole section dedicated to DEBUNKING PROVEN SCIENCE?
The very existence of this museum is horribly disturbing.
Proven Science, please Andrew, if one thing is a fact in science is that everything can be proven wrong. One example, they used to say and said for years that they would never find any remnants of soft tissues as only bones fossilize. Why did they say that, because they had only found bones. Now they are finding soft tissue which proves them wrong.
Yes, exactly: everything can be proven wrong. If there's enough contradictory evidence against evolution, scientists will reject it. In contrast, creationists make no falsifiable predictions.
Oh look a scientific U-turn in the news today. Well isn't that odd, I thought scientists were always right.
http://www.breitbart.com/article...&
show_article=1
David, well argued.
Commenting by HaloScan
