I found this website along time ago.
http://www.s8int.com/

A good portion is semi hopeful info - but some is very interesting.

It's a Creationist website that explores that viewpoint.

I find it interesting because it's usually dismissed out of hand, and I like to evaluate everything.

Sooooooo, being of curious mind - and among like minds here - I'd like to get some second opinions on the material they have.

My fav section is on giants.

Really cool pics - although some are vintage fakes.

What do you think of their info? Specificly what looks right, and what is wrong?

-DE

No offense, DE, but that site needs to do its home work a bit better.
Several of the items I saw -- like the Ica Stones -- have been pretty thoroughly disproved.

So many of the rest fall into the category of "What else can this be?!"
Apparently, by this thinking, everyone before the 20th Century was compelled to follow the strictest realism in painting and never invented any images.

That's not a very convincing argument, surely?

--Jaylemurph

Well, let me put it this way, the same arguments are used by others to "prove" that the human race originated on Cygnus 64 (or was it 65?).

That's what I'm getting at.

I don't agree with all the stuff on there - but for those of us (or at least in my case) don't know "the other side", that's why I put it here.

You said about the Inca stones being discredited - I haven't read that part yet, but if it's wrong - that's what's interesting.

Here's an example if what I'm getting at.

One their home page, there's a pic of what looks like a plane on Egypt hiro's. And on the second page, there more Egyption and Incan stuff that looks like planes, helocopers, and Ufo's. Now to an untrained eye (like me), I'd say "Wow!".
Now, people here may know a different story on those items, or maybe not.
If they do, and would like to share that's awesome. In either case, talk is good for everyone.

No offense to me - it's not my website, and I don't buy into everything on that site.

It's when they have pics of giant skulls - and those weird south american skulls that are shaped so strange: Are those for real? I bet someone here knows. That's what I'm after.

-DE

Lets see, this is the seal of Cleopatra in Hierogliphs:

Click to view attachment


Notice the airplane there too?

Well, that is an ancient Egyptian letter.

I think they look very different. But I do get your point.

Ok, Here's one that I really like:
http://www.s8int.com/giants3.html

The people with weird heads.

The page claims these aren't the result of head binding.
I'd be fun if there was different species of semi-modern human (now extinct).

This reminds me of starchild.

Does this have any factual basis?

-DE

Ok, about nine foot tall is not unheard of in the human race, see here:

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/record...allest_man.aspx

As for head deformations, does the term hydrocephalus tell you something?

Very nice - thank you.

That does explain the large round headed one.

What do you think about the pointy headed ones?

-DE

None whatsoever.

Harte

A bound round headed one, or better said, a round headed one that has been forced into a form since infant. That could have been a ceremonial tiara or what have you.

Morphology follows function, and the function of the head is to house the brain near to the eyes as they have the most complex data transmission. That is like a high speed computer cable, the higher the speed of the data that goes through it, the shorter the connection has to be to avoid data loss. There is nothing to be gained by nature to extend the brain lengthwise because it enlarges the data transmission routes. A natural bigger brain would extend in all directions.

If you take a close look at it you can see that the part that is pointed backwards on the hydrocephali skull there is just pointed upwards. The technique was mostly employed by Mongol tribes because of a weird idea of beauty they had.

I, myself like reading Creationist websites, even though I'm anything but religious. They do tend to get into subjects that make you think, always disecting science and evolution and presenting 'evidence' for it all. I find them very interesting.

I subscribe to the theory of science assumes alot with guesses. I like to delve into questioning everything too. I myself think the Ica stones are not a hoax based on reading up huge amounts of information on them. I believe Basillo (the hoaxer) was forced into claiming them as a hoax to protect himself from the Governments ruling on selling ancient Peruvian artifacts. That also means I think it's a possibility man and dinosaur co existed based on dating methods being unreliable, plenty of evidence of dinosaurs (dragons) in literature and ancient art and the possibility that man hunted them into extinction. One thing I find perplexing is the recent studies done on a 65 million year old T Rex found with soft tissue in the thigh bone and how the soft tissue survived so long. Apparently science is perplexed at it too. This does not mean I am Creationist merely someone who thinks it could be a possibility.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/science/12cnd-dino.html?

http://naturalselection.0catch.com/Files/fossilizeddna.html

Head binding from what I know was practised as a form of attaining beauty. Giants I believe were around once, but like the giant marsupials and other giant animals died out or evolved shorter and smaller to survive in a world changing into one that did not suit giants. I am in limbo on whether I believe in ancient astronaut theory because I spend alot of time on that one and have so much info spinning in my head I have yet to reach a conclusion. These Creation websites do make you think about things, they are well worth checking out.

They also ignore a lot of knows and make up their own explanations not based in any kind of factual reality. They make you think because are steeped in fiction.

For instance, the "giants" of this website, which were nothing of the sort, unless of course you are referring to a large ape. There were no giant human looking apes, nor Goliaths from the bible. What I cannot fathom is how religious peoples that create these websites rant about moral fibers, yet lie about information they are providing.

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here? If their religion is so right and based in facts, why would one then need to lie to convert followers?

Also, WWAS as a side note, anyone "dissecting" science on a k-12 understanding of science should probably not be taken with more than a grain of salt.

The website doesn't work anymore.

You are correct, they shouldn't be taken too seriously and believe me I don't just read them and go "duh, oh yeah, that must be it", I really read and then follow up anything I find interesting or that makes sense. I personally didn't find the giants part very good but other information they give can be quite factual. It's a matter of sorting out the crap from the info that might actually be valid. I know you are a physicist and all but even physics is based in theory. Why hasn't Stephen Hawking got a Nobel yet? Because all his work is unproven. I don't think they are lying, I think they are presenting it as they see it and understand it. Btw, I do take it all with a grain of salt.

hey there was this gaint called Andre the Giant. I ve seen him fight ..hehehe

Really? I find them funny -- Heres a 34 minute movie of a creationist being embarrassed because NO creationist theories can be proved without lying


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bf2B4AideIU

PS, There ARE some funny shaped skulls .. Lolz

Well don't know what chemists study nowadays in the US, but at the University I went to he would have found his diploma besides the trashcan. It starts with the fact that even in Roman times, when medicine was already usable, the average generation was less than 40 years. According to his calculation the world would had been created around 3000 BC. In pre Roman times the generational span was about 30 years. Well, evidently except for a certain Methuselah ... but he seems to be the only exception according to THEM.

Here is a website that evaluates the ages of Earth from the point of old Earth Creationists, new Earth Creationists and science.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_date.htm

Old age creationists believe the world is very old like evolutionists do. Young Earth creationists are going by the single day theory of Genesis. Man can be traced back to Adam and Eve determining their age for man but the gap is in the time from God creating the Earth and Adam that causes their holes and confusion.



Like what? Not many scientific theories can be proved without lying if you consider the lying to be the guessing of the answer. Maybe you can explain the geological column to me...........
Here I'll make it easier, here's a link from Was Darwin Right? about the Geological Column. Can you point out the lies please? http://www.wasdarwinright.com/geologicalcolumn.htm

I don't think the dating techniques we have are 100% correct, nor does evolutionist William B Stansfield, a Professor in Biological Sciences. He says:
"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock."' SCIENCE OF EVOLUTION, pp. 80-84. He is anti-Creationist, is he lying?

In case you think I am religious or Creationist, I'm not. I just have a genuine interest in how they come to their conclusions.

Right, I got halfway down the first page when it was explaining the different religious views about the creation of the world, and then it got to the "scientists" view and it stated that unlike the others they were:

"based on actual measurements and calculations"

No real need for the rest of the website then.

Through actual measurements and calculations, we know the Earth was created Monday morning, 10 November 4004 BCE.
I mean, with a date that accurate, how could you question it?

--Jaylemurph

EDIT: I'm sorry. I just found Bishop Ussher's date is the expulsion from Eden, not creation...

Stansfield is not lying, he said that over 30 years ago and it's also not his field. The Science of Evolution was printed in 1977. Radiometric dating was just coming into its own and technology has increased significantly since then. Ur-Pb testing is accurate within a couple million years over 3 billion. Even the least accurate form of testing is good within 30-50 millions years old. Here's a good site that may interest you:
http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

.....and your point is? I pasted the site as information on the 3 main thoughts, picking it apart was a waste of time, I didn't paste it up for that.

OK yep, 1977 is a long time ago. I will check that site, thanks very much for that. I need to get updated with latest dating news. It's the dating that gets me every time when I debate Creationists.

You'll find a lot on that site. It's actually by a christian for christians, and he addresses a lot of the misconceptions creationists tend use to discredit radiometric dating.

WAAS,

I started a thread on radiometric dating, HERE. There is laymens terms explanations (least that is what I was shooting for). There is also links (Dr. Wiens' included). I have seen you now for months saying "you doubt radiometric dating" or wish to learn more about it. Well the information is here, just need the initiative to learn it. If you have any questions on radiometric dating you can post them in that thread, if I cannot answer them, I will find someone who will (working at lab in academia has its benefits).

Uhm. That's a HAND.

- It's pronounced 'Dâ' (D as like in 'Dog' << Just an example, I know accents can change the sound of lettering)

It's hardly an aeroplane, when aeroplanes did not exist until the late 19th century. The hieroglyphs(sp?) that were found to contain a tank, a UFO and a blimp were found to be a hoax.

There is a huge difference between filling in the facts with educated guesswork, and taking accepted scientific fact and deliberately mistranslating it.

Thanks for your offer of help in understanding it.
I have read many sites and info on it but found them all pretty in depth, which it is I know, but it all gets a bit over your head sometimes and I come out of them being no wiser.....lol. I have for months been wishing to understand it better but even when I read them (which I am doing even after months of checking this out) I still find myself questioning it all.
There's always that nagging sentence that says (along the lines)" The presence of minerals (or zones within minerals) older than the rock being dated can also cause age-discordance. In either case, the geochronologist is warned that such uranium-lead ages cannot be taken at face value. When such discordant ages are encountered, a suite of several samples must be analyzed, and one of several mathematical methods (depending on the nature and complexity of the age discordance) applied to arrive at a reliable age-estimate."
To me, that equals there is room for error.

It's taken me ages to differentiate between the types of radiometric dating, I see carbon dating often mentioned in Creationist sites but I do know carbon (C14) dating has accuracy only up until 50,000 odd years ago. I will take some more time to explore both the link provided by capeo and your link.

Scientific theories never, ever, ever, get proven. There is no need to prove, their existence is not to "prove" things, only to unite facts and observations, individual hypothesis etc. Scientific theories are like an open book with an infinite amount of pages, they can be added to at any time to make the book more accurate. If you claimed the theory was "proved" that would be like closing the book, rather silly as you never know what information you may come across in the future.

However, many of the words and pages of the book are fact, indisputable observation, testable experiments, hypotheses, laws of Nature. The theory is simply the binding that ties all of these things together. Its to no ones benefit to close the book, ever.

OK, I used wrong words. I know a theory cannot be proven. Nice post though. I like your posts Camlax, once upon a time I didn't but I do now. As a scientist you offer 1st hand knowledge to me which is good.