Cold Fusion Video Reviews

Science is the testing of hypotheses against the available evidence. How can you even pretend to be working for the good of science when everything you do is colored by your a priori assumptions? What kind of evidence would convince you? Would you have to discover every related branch of science for yourself (geology, zoology/biology, meteorology, chemistry) in order to be sure you weren’t deceived? Then would you have to discover every single fossil for yourself?

What could possibly convince a person who denies the senses and intellect God gave him?

Nathan Shumate

With respect to the alleged prior existence of “dinosaurs”, I do not disregard anything; I pay attention to everything I read and see, always with a skeptical mind, of course.

It is an established fact, not an a priori assumption, that there have been successful scams and lies before, and I can guarantee you that there are and will be in the future successful scams and lies.

Genesis and the stories of “dinosaurs”, in my view, are incompatible and inconsistent; one of these, at least, is not telling history correctly.

Being able to test theories and reproduce results is critical to good science. Unfortunately, with respect to dinosaurs, one needs to “take their word for it” from those who discover “dinosaur bones” that their finds are authentic.

Statistics and probability may be considered a mathematical science. Why, then, do I never hear of any “dinosaur bone” discoveries by operators of earth-digging construction equipment? In my view, if “dinosaurs” were authentic, there would have been numerous discoveries by people who make a living by digging basements for houses, for example. Rather, the discoveries I typically hear about are made by a select group of people known as “paleontologists”.

David Wozney

> With respect to the alleged prior existence of “dinosaurs”, I do not

> disregard anything; I pay attention to everything I read and see,

> always with a skeptical mind, of course.

But you do so with an assumption that God could not have created the dinosaurs (an impression I read from your page; if I am wrong, please tell me). Therefore you find every reason you can not to accept evidence of dinosaurs.

> It is an established fact, not an a priori assumption, that there

> have been successful scams and lies before, and I can guarantee

> you that there are and will be in the future successful scams and lies.

Granted. However, the scope, scale, and time frame of the scam conspiracy you propose is so far beyond any other scam you could cite that comparisons become meaningless.

> Being able to test theories and reproduce results is critical to good

> science. Unfortunately, with respect to dinosaurs, one needs to

> “take their word for it” from those who discover “dinosaur bones”

> that their finds are authentic.

I would disgree. Dinosaurs are often found by amateurs, who then call the specialists in for careful examination and extraction of those fossils. In fact, there was a documentary on the Discovery Channel two weeks ago which showed the work of a family of amateur dinosaur enthusiasts who, for their summer vacation every year, go fossil hunting. Their discoveries are well respected and appreciated by professionals.

> Statistics and probability may be considered a mathematical science.

> Why, then, do I never hear of any “dinosaur bone” discoveries by

> operators of earth-digging construction equipment? In my view,

> if “dinosaurs” were authentic, there would have been numerous

> discoveries by people who make a living by digging basements for

> houses, for example. Rather, the discoveries I typically hear about

> are made by a select group of people known as “paleontologists”.

This requires delving to geology, but: dinosaur bones are typically found in areas where 1) vegetation is not thick, as plant processes would dissolve the bones as they would other large mineral accretions; 2) erosion clears earth and exposes bone. Neither of these sound like ideal building sites. Nevertheless, many such were found in the last century (references >available upon request). It isn’t as though a paleontologist can find a bone anywhere; instead, they choose to look in areas where, geologically, preservation is more likely — and those places are not usually high on the real estate values list.

I would also point out to you the practice of poaching fossils from federally held lands. What poacher would venture on to policed reserves when the fossils aren’t there? (These poachers are successfull — there’s quite a black market.)

Bottom line: You are not practicing good science. You have your conclusion in mind, and are engaged in conjuring up “ad hoc” hypotheses to explain away the evidence against your conclusion. Your theory should fit the facts, not vice versa.

In fact, your style of reasoning reminds me of Flat Earth believers, who use every possible ad hoc hypothesis to explain away the spherical earth simply because their interpretation of the Bible binds them to believing the earth to be flat.

Nathan

> Before I begin, I have to apologize for the “terse” tone of my last

> message; if you are willing to discuss the subject, I am as well.

>

> > With respect to the alleged prior existence of “dinosaurs”, I do not

> > disregard anything; I pay attention to everything I read and see,

> > always with a skeptical mind, of course.

>

> But you do so with an assumption that God could not have created the

> dinosaurs (an impression I read from your page; if I am wrong, please tell

> me).

There is no indication in the Bible God created dinosaurs. As the Bible reads, it is highly unlikely (in my opinion, impossible) dinosaurs ever existed in the manner we are told by paleontologists.

> Therefore you find every reason you can not to accept evidence of

> dinosaurs.

Believing in dinosaurs would require faith in the honesty and integrity and trustworthiness and inerrancy of men, a faith which, quite frankly, I do not have (and for good reason, wisely so).

> > It is an established fact, not an a priori assumption, that there

> > have been successful scams and lies before, and I can guarantee

> > you that there are and will be in the future successful scams and lies.

>

> Granted. However, the scope, scale, and time frame of the scam conspiracy

> you propose is so far beyond any other scam you could cite that comparisons

> become meaningless.

I believe one of Hitler’s aides stated something like: “The bigger the lie, the more willing people are to believe it” or “the more effective it is” or “the more easily people are lead” (not an exact quote).

It would take only a small number of people (less than ten, for example)to plant fake dinosaur bones on a worldwide scale. However, it is quite possible that much more than this number of people are involved.

Are you familiar with the banking system?

> > Being able to test theories and reproduce results is critical to good

> > science. Unfortunately, with respect to dinosaurs, one needs to

> > “take their word for it” from those who discover “dinosaur bones”

> > that their finds are authentic.

>

> I would disgree. Dinosaurs are often found by amateurs, who then call the

> specialists in for careful examination and extraction of those fossils. In

> fact, there was a documentary on the Discovery Channel two weeks ago which

> showed the work of a family of amateur dinosaur enthusiasts who, for their

> summer vacation every year, go fossil hunting. Their discoveries are well

> respected and appreciated by professionals.

How do we know the bones were not planted? How do we know the discoverers are honest and “on-the-level”, so to speak? Again, we are taking other peoples’ word that these are authentic finds. We can only believe based on “faith”. From what you have written, I understand
they were not a disinterested party (being dinosaur enthusiasts), and may have had a vested interest in “making” the find. I myself am unable to do any science in this matter, as I am unable to reproduce their results.

Is Discovery Channel the same organization that has come out with a computer game called “Evolution”?

> > Statistics and probability may be considered a mathematical science.

> > Why, then, do I never hear of any “dinosaur bone” discoveries by

> > operators of earth-digging construction equipment? In my view,

> > if “dinosaurs” were authentic, there would have been numerous

> > discoveries by people who make a living by digging basements for

> > houses, for example. Rather, the discoveries I typically hear about

> > are made by a select group of people known as “paleontologists”.

>

> This requires delving to geology, but: dinosaur bones are typically found

> in areas where 1) vegetation is not thick, as plant processes would

> dissolve the bones as they would other large mineral accretions; 2) erosion

> clears earth and exposes bone. Neither of these sound like ideal building

> sites.

I know of many places where dinosaurs have been claimed to have been discovered that do not fit your above description. Are you claiming exposed bones do not decay in areas where vegetation is sparse? Are you claiming vegetation remains the same in some area over alleged millions of years?

> Nevertheless, many such were found in the last century (references

> available upon request). It isn’t as though a paleontologist can find a

> bone anywhere; instead, they choose to look in areas where, geologically,

> preservation is more likely — and those places are not usually high on the

> real estate values list.

Given the small number of paleontologists in the world (less than 0.0000001% of the world’s population) it is highly unlikely, improbable, surprising and remarkable that there should have been any discoveries by “paleontologists” at all!

> I would also point out to you the practice of poaching fossils from

> federally held lands. What poacher would venture on to policed reserves

> when the fossils aren’t there? (These poachers are successfull — there’s

> quite a black market.)

Are you suggesting poachers are trustworthy and to be believed? Are you suggesting that those who engage in a black market are trustworthy and to be believed?

P.T.Barnum: “There’s a sucker born every minute.”

> Bottom line: You are not practicing good science. You have your

> conclusion in mind, and are engaged in conjuring up “ad hoc” hypotheses to

> explain away the evidence against your conclusion. Your theory should fit

> the facts, not vice versa.

>

> In fact, your style of reasoning reminds me of Flat Earth believers, who

> use every possible ad hoc hypothesis to explain away the spherical earth

> simply because their interpretation of the Bible binds them to believing

> the earth to be flat.

>

> Nathan

Bottom line: I am not claiming to be practicing science. In fact, it is very difficult to do any science in this matter. I am simply asking some questions by those who claim to be practicing science, and are passing off dinosaurs and evolution as science.

People who believe in dinosaurs have done so without asking these same skeptical questions.

Fact: Men and organizations of men have deliberately deceived in the past, do so at present, and will do so in the future.

Is it alright with you if I am skeptical of dinosaurs and ask some questions and raise some issues, or is that not to be tolerated?

Where in the Bible does it indicate the earth is flat? As I understand it, Christians throughout the centuries have believed the world to be round, and the Bible does not claim the earth is flat.

David Wozney

> > Therefore you find every reason you can not to accept evidence of

> > dinosaurs.

> >

>

> Believing in dinosaurs would require faith in the honesty and integrity

> and trustworthiness and inerrancy of men, a faith which, quite

> frankly, I do not have (and for good reason, wisely so).

Disbelief in dinosaurs would require conviction that a conspiracy of wide-ranging global proportions can be successfully implemented among people across the globe and kept from all public knowledge for over 150 years.

> I believe one of Hitler’s aides stated something like: “The bigger the lie,

> the more willing people are to believe it” or “the more effective it is” or

> “the more easily people are lead” (not an exact quote).

Oddly enough, Hitler & Co. were only able to dupe their small nation, and that for less than twenty years, with plenty of dissenters and exposes.

> How do we know the bones were not planted? How do we know the

> discoverers are honest and “on-the-level”, so to speak?

And again, you are assuming duplicity to confirm your a priori assumptions. This is called ad hoc reasoning. Look it up.

> I know of many places where dinosaurs have been claimed to have been

> discovered that do not fit your above description. Are you claiming exposed

> bones do not decay in areas where vegetation is sparse? Are you claiming

> vegetation remains the same in some area over alleged millions of years?

I am claiming neither. I am saying that bones are more likely to be found under some situations than others. The erosion factor (which exposes many dinosaur bones) keeps people from living in those areas, as their foundations would erode out from under them.

> Are you suggesting poachers are trustworthy and to be believed?

> Are you suggesting that those who engage in a black market are

> trustworthy and to be believed?

What I am telling you is that these poachers are caught by police on the gov’t lands, with the goods in hand. Did the poachers risk imprisonment to go and plant the fossils, so they could risk imprisonment again to go and dig them up without any witnesses?

> Bottom line: I am not claiming to be practicing science. In fact, it

> is very difficult to do any science in this matter. I am simply

> asking some questions by those who claim to be practicing science,

> and are passing off dinosaurs and evolution as science.

If you cannot give your thesis as a disprovable scientific hypothesis, you have no right to ask practitioners of the scientific method to disprove your claims. It would be the same as be challenging scientists to disprove the claim that I have an invisible four-armed fairy sitting on my shoulder.

> Is it alright with you if I am skeptical of dinosaurs and ask some

> questions and raise some issues, or is that not to be tolerated?

It certainly is all right, and I have made no moves to silence you. Is this how you would react if paleantologists were to challenge your claims, as you’ve asked? Would you claim persecution of your Christian beliefs? If a challenge to your beliefs is such a threat, you ought not ask for it.

> Where in the Bible does it indicate the earth is flat? As I understand it,

> Christians throughout the centuries have believed the world to be round,

> and the Bible does not claim the earth is flat.

What I said was that flat-earthers interpret the Bible to say that the earth is flat. They have through the centuries, and there are still those who do. Likewise, there are those who use their interpretation of the Bible to support white supremacy. There are those who will kill women and children in support of their interpretation (ever heard of Ireland?). My point was not what the Bible says; my point was that your style of interpretation reminds me of theirs.

Again, I ask the question I asked in my first post (which you have studiously avoided answering): What kind of evidence could possibly convince you of the existence of dinosaurs? If you cite evidence for your case, you should be able to accept evidence against it; if not, then
you should state your case as a metaphysical conviction and not try to prove it.

Nathan

> > > Therefore you find every reason you can not to accept evidence

of

> > > dinosaurs.

> > >

> >

> > Believing in dinosaurs would require faith in the honesty and integrity

> > and trustworthiness and inerrancy of men, a faith which, quite

> > frankly, I do not have (and for good reason, wisely so).

>

> Disbelief in dinosaurs would require conviction that a conspiracy of

> wide-ranging global proportions can be successfully implemented among

> people across the globe and kept from all public knowledge for over 150

> years.

I am aware of people who do not believe in dinosaurs, so use of the term “kept from all public knowledge” would be misleading.

> > I believe one of Hitler’s aides stated something like: “The bigger the lie, the

> > more willing people are to believe it” or “the more effective it is” or

> > “the more easily people are lead” (not an exact quote).

>

> Oddly enough, Hitler & Co. were only able to dupe their small nation, and

> that for less than twenty years, with plenty of dissenters and exposes.

Did you expect Hitler to be able to dupe people outside of the nation? A dinosaur hoax would be much less urgent and less necessary to expose than Hitler’s activities. (By the way, I remember reading Hitler believed in evolution, possibly as a result of the recent “discoveries” of dinosaurs.)

> > How do we know the bones were not planted? How do we know the

> > discoverers are honest and “on-the-level”, so to speak?

>

> And again, you are assuming duplicity to confirm your a priori assumptions.

> This is called ad hoc reasoning. Look it up.

I am asking questions and then you claim I am “assuming duplicity”. So should I stop asking questions to avoid your false statements about me?

I have not made any “a priori assumptions”. I am simply trying to get
to the truth of the matter. Is that so wrong?

> > Are you suggesting poachers are trustworthy and to be believed?

> > Are you suggesting that those who engage in a black market are

> > trustworthy and to be believed?

>

> What I am telling you is that these poachers are caught by police on the

> gov’t lands, with the goods in hand. Did the poachers risk imprisonment to

> go and plant the fossils, so they could risk imprisonment again to go and

> dig them up without any witnesses?

It is possible the bones are planted by people other than the poachers. (Please, notice in the above sentence I used the phrase “it is possible”! I am not “assuming duplicity”, nor am I claiming the bones were planted! I am simply stating that it is possible!)

If you are not considering this as being possible then you are making yourself vulnerable to being scammed. I know that there are many people who have not considered this, and I am raising awareness in this area.

> > Bottom line: I am not claiming to be practicing science. In fact,

it

> > is very difficult to do any science in this matter. I am simply

> > asking some questions by those who claim to be practicing science,

> > and are passing off dinosaurs and evolution as science.

>

> If you cannot give your thesis as a disprovable scientific hypothesis, you

> have no right to ask practitioners of the scientific method to disprove

> your claims. It would be the same as be challenging scientists to disprove

> the claim that I have an invisible four-armed fairy sitting on my shoulder.

I am not making any claims. However, I am expressing skepticism of other peoples’ claims. Have you heard of free speech? Have you heard of the right to ask questions and investigate others’ claims?

> > Is it alright with you if I am skeptical of dinosaurs and ask some

> > questions and raise some issues, or is that not to be tolerated?

>

> It certainly is all right, and I have made no moves to silence you.

You have made false statements about me that I am making claims.

> Is this how you would react if paleantologists were to challenge your claims,

> as you’ve asked?

Again I am not making any claims!

> Would you claim persecution of your Christian beliefs?

I would claim persecution if someone went around spreading false information that I am making claims.

> If a challenge to your beliefs is such a threat, you ought not ask for it.

>

> What kind of evidence could possibly

> convince you of the existence of dinosaurs?

Because of the negative tone and adversarial nature of your emails (in addition to your false statements that I am making claims) I will not reply to your question at this time. However, I will state, that from what I have read and seen, I extremely skeptical of the claims that have been made.

David Wozney

> > Disbelief in dinosaurs would require conviction that a conspiracy of

> > wide-ranging global proportions can be successfully implemented among

> > people across the globe and kept from all public knowledge for over 150

> > years.

> >

>

> I am aware of people who do not believe in dinosaurs, so use of

> the term “kept from all public knowledge” would be misleading.

If these people to whom you refer do not have concrete evidence, then “kept from all public knowledge” is accurate.

> Did you expect Hitler to be able to dupe people outside of the nation?

> A dinosaur hoax would be much less urgent and less necessary to expose than

> Hitler’s activities. (By the way, I remember reading Hitler believed in evolution,

> possibly as a result of the recent “discoveries” of dinosaurs.)

And I remember that American White Supremacists believe the Bible. This is “post hoc” reasoning: Because two conditions are found together, one is assumed to be the cause of the other.

> I am asking questions and then you claim I am “assuming duplicity”.

> So should I stop asking questions to avoid your false statements about me?

>

> I have not made any “a priori assumptions”. I am simply trying to get to the

> truth of the matter. Is that so wrong?

Yes, you are very careful in your site to use the words “possible” and “suggest”. Let’s stop beating around the bush: You also say, “I personally do not have any reasons to believe dinosaurs ever existed and I believe they may be a fabrication of nineteenth and twentieth century people possibly under Satanic control pursuing an evolutionary and anti-Bible and anti-God agenda.” Is this your thesis, yes or no?

> It is possible the bones are planted by people other than the poachers.

> (Please, notice in the above sentence I used the phrase “it is possible”!

> I am not “assuming duplicity”, nor am I claiming the bones were planted!

> I am simply stating that it is possible!)

You posit duplicity as a viable explanation in all cases, being at least as possible as the face value accounts. Is there anywhere in your web page where you make any statement of approbation toward the pro-dinosaur statement, or is every statement in the negative — i.e., designed to throw doubt on the existence of dinosaurs?

> > If you cannot give your thesis as a disprovable scientific hypothesis, you

> > have no right to ask practitioners of the scientific method to disprove

> > your claims. It would be the same as be challenging scientists to disprove

> > the claim that I have an invisible four-armed fairy sitting on my shoulder.

>

> I am not making any claims. However, I am expressing skepticism

> of other peoples’ claims. Have you heard of free speech? Have you

> heard of the right to ask questions and investigate others’ claims?

Have I done anything — ANYTHING — to limit your free speech? I am ENGAGING in free speech. If discussion of your “questions and issues” challenges you so much, retire your page.

> > > Is it alright with you if I am skeptical of dinosaurs and ask some

> > > questions and raise some issues, or is that not to be tolerated?

> >

> > It certainly is all right, and I have made no moves to silence you.

>

> You have made false statements about me that I am making claims.

I phrased my interpretation of your words in words that you did not choose. See the quote from your page above. I am not “making false statements” about you — that would imply that I am misrepresenting you to a third party. If I misinterpret your statements, correct me without feeling so personally offended.

> > Is this how you would react if paleantologists were to challenge your claims,

> > as you’ve asked?

>

> Again I am not making any claims!

Fine! Your “questions and issues” which support your stated thesis — your disbelief in the existence of dinosaurs. Answer the question, don’t quibble with wording!

> > Would you claim persecution of your Christian beliefs?

>

> I would claim persecution if someone went around spreading false information

> that I am making claims.

Have I spread any false information? If so, please give evidence. You have no proof that I have ever informed anyone else of your page, your views, or your existence.

> Because of the negative tone and adversarial nature of your emails

> (in addition to your false statements that I am making claims)

> I will not reply to your question at this time. However, I will state, that

> from what I have read and seen, I extremely skeptical of the claims that

> have been made.

You seem perfectly willing to answer any issue which you think is a personal attack. Why not this question?

The question stands. What kind of evidence would be convincing? If there is no evidence which you would consider to more solidly cement the dinosaur hypothesis, then it would be futile for the people in the dinosaur industry to discuss your questions and issues. Any hypothesis which is not disprovable is not a fit topic for scientific discussion.

Nathan

> > > Disbelief in dinosaurs would require conviction that a conspiracy of

> > > wide-ranging global proportions can be successfully implemented among

> > > people across the globe and kept from all public knowledge for over 150

> > > years.

> > >

> >

> > I am aware of people who do not believe in dinosaurs, so use of

> > the term “kept from all public knowledge” would be misleading.

>

> If these people to whom you refer do not have concrete evidence, then “kept

> from all public knowledge” is accurate.

The following quote is from http://www.netpci.com/~tttbbs/dinosr-1.html [note: the link is now dead, but the main page is still at http://www.netpci.com/~tttbbs/]

“To add to this comedy of errors, today in our museums and hallowed halls of science, we have hundreds of dinosaur skeletons constructed, not of REAL bones, but of ‘MOLDED COPIES.’ If you don’t believe this, just ask your friendly museum curator exactly where that ‘whole’ brontosaurus skeleton, or that ‘whole’ Tyrannosaurus Rex skeleton was discovered. Watch him start to cough and sputter as he tries to come up with a half-believable way to explain to you that they were really ‘pieced’ together based on a few discovered bones, or that most of the skeleton is based on some ‘original’ discovered somewhere which he himself has never seen! Or maybe he will be honest and tell you that what you are looking at is not even real bones.”

If molded copies are being passed off as real bones, is this not deception and fraud? Would you trust an organization that is known to engage in deception and fraud?

> >(By the way, I remember reading Hitler believed in evolution,

> > possibly as a result of the recent “discoveries” of dinosaurs.)

>

> And I remember that American White Supremacists believe the Bible. This is

> “post hoc” reasoning: Because two conditions are found together, one is

> assumed to be the cause of the other.

I have not necessarily assumed one condition to be the cause of the other. One does have to admit, though, that dinosaurs and evolution are often presented together, with statements such as “dinosaurs evolved into birds”.

> Is there anywhere in your web page

> where you make any statement of approbation toward the pro-dinosaur

> statement, or is every statement in the negative — i.e., designed to throw

> doubt on the existence of dinosaurs?

To be quite fair, I do provide to links to organizations that claim dinosaurs to be valid, so people can make up their own minds.

In the mainstream media, do you find any statements doubting the existence of dinosaurs? I am simply trying to provide some balance and skepticism to the commonly-held paradigm. From what I have seen in the mainstream media, dinosaurs are always presented as fact, with no skepticism or alternative viewpoints expressed.

> If discussion of your “questions and issues”

> challenges you so much, retire your page.

I enjoy a challenge, and I have found this search for the truth to be worthwhile and enjoyable. Retiring my page would hinder my efforts to get to the truth.

> The question stands. What kind of evidence would be convincing?

At this time, I am not going to speculate on, or attempt to make a list of, all the types of evidence that would be convincing. Rather, I prefer to consider the evidence that is presented.

> If there

> is no evidence which you would consider to more solidly cement the dinosaur

> hypothesis, then it would be futile for the people in the dinosaur industry

> to discuss your questions and issues.

I disagree. If deception and fraud has occurred, or if claims are being made with absolute certainty when there is still reasonable doubt, then questions and issues should be discussed. Discussing these question or issues would not be “futile”. I should not be expected or required to present a list of types of evidence which “would consider to more solidly cement the dinosaur hypothesis” before questions and issues can be discussed on evidence already presented.

David Wozney

> > If these people to whom you refer do not have concrete evidence, then “kept

> > from all public knowledge” is accurate.

>

> The following quote is from

> http://www.netpci.com/~tttbbs/dinosr-1.html

>

> “To add to this comedy of errors, today in our museums and

> hallowed halls of science, we have hundreds of dinosaur

> skeletons constructed, not of REAL bones, but of ‘MOLDED

> COPIES.’ If you don’t believe this, just ask your friendly

> museum curator exactly where that ‘whole’ brontosaurus

> skeleton, or that ‘whole’ Tyrannosaurus Rex skeleton was

> discovered. Watch him start to cough and sputter as he tries

> to come up with a half-believable way to explain to you that

> they were really ‘pieced’ together based on a few discovered

> bones, or that most of the skeleton is based on some

> ‘original’ discovered somewhere which he himself has never

> seen! Or maybe he will be honest and tell you that what you

> are looking at is not even real bones.”

>

> If molded copies are being passed off as real bones, is this

> not deception and fraud? Would you trust an organization

> that is known to engage in deception and fraud?

1) This does not relate to the above quote, “kept from all public knowledge.” How does the fact that museums use replicas equate to evidence against the existence of dinosaurs?

2) Every museum curator I know is quite forthright with the fact that most museums have replicas, and that perfectly complete skeletons are as rare as hen’s teeth; in fact, perfectly complete skeletons would be less plausible than fragmentary ones. In fact, skeletons at the museum near my house are labelled as replicas up front. While other museums may not advertise the fact, how does this equate to “depction and fraud”?

> > >(By the way, I remember reading Hitler believed in evolution,

> > > possibly as a result of the recent “discoveries” of dinosaurs.)

> >

> > And I remember that American White Supremacists believe the Bible. This is

> > “post hoc” reasoning: Because two conditions are found together, one is

> > assumed to be the cause of the other.

> >

>

> I have not necessarily assumed one condition to be the cause of the other.

Then why are you bringing it up? What does Hitler have to do with this discussion?

> One does have to admit, though, that dinosaurs and evolution are often

> presented together, with statements such as “dinosaurs evolved into birds”.

Granted. How does this relate to Hitler’s belief in evolution, and how does any conclusion to that question relate to this discussion?

> > Is there anywhere in your web page

> > where you make any statement of approbation toward the pro-dinosaur

> > statement, or is every statement in the negative — i.e., designed to throw

> > doubt on the existence of dinosaurs?

> In the mainstream media, do you find any statements doubting the

> existence of dinosaurs? I am simply trying to provide some balance

> and skepticism to the commonly-held paradigm. From what I have

> seen in the mainstream media, dinosaurs are always presented

> as fact, with no skepticism or alternative viewpoints expressed.

No, nor do I find statements in the mainstream media doubting that the earth is spherical, although there are those on “fringe” who would decry that assertion as blasphemous. Your skepticism is noted, but see my remarks a few paragraphs down.

> > The question stands. What kind of evidence would be convincing?

>

> At this time, I am not going to speculate on, or attempt to make a list of,

> all the types of evidence that would be convincing. Rather, I prefer to

> consider the evidence that is presented.

In that case, I’ll modify my question: Could evidence convince you of the existence of dinosaurs, or does your personal conviction of their fictitious nature stem from your religious, “faith-based” belief system? Again, any hypothesis which is not disprovable cannot be the subject of any scientific debate. Do you consider your hypothesis disprovable?

> > If there

> > is no evidence which you would consider to more solidly cement the dinosaur

> > hypothesis, then it would be futile for the people in the dinosaur industry

> > to discuss your questions and issues.

>

> I disagree. If deception and fraud has occurred, or if claims are being made

> with absolute certainty when there is still reasonable doubt, then questions

> and issues should be discussed.

Wrong. A lack of absolute certainty does not necessarily mean that there is a reasonable doubt. An example: Does the fact that O.J. Simpson was acquitted mean that there is absolute certainty that he didn’t do it? No, but a reasonable doubt was established as to his guilt. A hypothesis beyond a reasonable doubt is not an absolute certainty; rather, it is the only reasonable conclusion based on the evidence available, and anything which hopes to counter that conclusion must have overwhelming new evidence on its side, not nit-picking questions of wording and quotes taken from context. You cannot cast aspersions on a well-supported branch of science by making its practitioners “offenders for a word.”

> Discussing these question or issues would

> not be “futile”. I should not be expected or required to present a list of types

> of evidence which “would consider to more solidly cement the dinosaur

> hypothesis” before questions and issues can be discussed on evidence

> already presented.

Yes, should be expected to do so. You are the one challenging the consensus reality; it therefore is your responsibility to define the debate.

Nathan Shumate

> > The following quote is from

> > http://www.netpci.com/~tttbbs/dinosr-1.html

> >

> > “To add to this comedy of errors, today in our museums and

> > hallowed halls of science, we have hundreds of dinosaur

> > skeletons constructed, not of REAL bones, but of ‘MOLDED

> > COPIES.’ If you don’t believe this, just ask your friendly

> > museum curator exactly where that ‘whole’ brontosaurus

> > skeleton, or that ‘whole’ Tyrannosaurus Rex skeleton was

> > discovered. Watch him start to cough and sputter as he tries

> > to come up with a half-believable way to explain to you that

> > they were really ‘pieced’ together based on a few discovered

> > bones, or that most of the skeleton is based on some

> > ‘original’ discovered somewhere which he himself has never

> > seen! Or maybe he will be honest and tell you that what you

> > are looking at is not even real bones.”

> >

> > If molded copies are being passed off as real bones, is this

> > not deception and fraud? Would you trust an organization

> > that is known to engage in deception and fraud?

>

> 1) This does not relate to the above quote, “kept from all public

> knowledge.”

The above quote indicates that the author of the article is aware that molded bones are being used; this knowledge has been made available to him. Since the author of the quote is a member of the public, the quote does relate to the term you used, “kept from all public knowledge.” Discovering this knowledge has lead him to question dinosaurs.

What percentage of people are aware that molded bones are being used? Please indicate your source for such information. When you see a dinosaur skeleton on display, how do you know which bones, if any, are authentic? Are they all marked or labelled?

> 2) Every museum curator I know is quite forthright with the fact that most

> museums have replicas,

How many museum curators do you know? Please provide names, addresses, and/or fax numbers, and the dates you had conversations discussing these replicas.

Also please indicate which museums clearly label bones as “molded” or “authentic.” Also indicate what percentage of museums worldwide this represents.

> and that perfectly complete skeletons are as rare as

> hen’s teeth; in fact, perfectly complete skeletons would be less plausible

> than fragmentary ones. In fact, skeletons at the museum near my house are

> labelled as replicas up front.

Most people do not have the benefit of having museums near their houses. Personally, I do not believe museums should be using replicas, as they tend to mislead people. How many images are there and how much video footage is there of these replicas that do not have an explanatory note that “the bones have been manufactured”? Does your museum state where the original bones are located?

> While other museums may not advertise the fact, how does this equate to

> “depction and fraud”?

If people are believing that molded bones are authentic dinosaur bones, then they are being deceived. If molded or manufactured bones are being passed off as authentic dinosaur bones, then this is fraud.

> Then why are you bringing it up? What does Hitler have to do with this

> discussion?

To not bring issues up is to live in a bubble world. The fact is, Hitler believed in evolution and dinosaurs, and this affected his belief systems and philosophical outlook. If you wish to learn more about Hitler, a library is one information source.

> You are the one challenging the

> consensus reality; it therefore is your responsibility to define the

> debate.

>

> Nathan Shumate

And I have defined the debate; I have asked questions about the claims being made, and I have not received satisfactory answers. Once I receive satisfactory answers to my questions, I will consider answering your questions in full. Those that claim dinosaurs existed millions of years ago are challenging the consensus reality as presented by the Bible. Others have made claims and I have asked questions about these claims; now it is the responsibility of those making the claims to answer my questions.

David Wozney

> > > If molded copies are being passed off as real bones, is this

> > > not deception and fraud? Would you trust an organization

> > > that is known to engage in deception and fraud?

> >

> > 1) This does not relate to the above quote, “kept from all public

> > knowledge.”

>

> The above quote indicates that the author of the article is aware that

> molded bones are being used; this knowledge has been made available

> to him. Since the author of the quote is a member of the public,

> the quote does relate to the term you used, “kept from all public

> knowledge.” Discovering this knowledge has lead him to question

> dinosaurs.

As I said, this is no secret. Fiberglass models are much lighter than fossilized stone bones, and thus are easier to hang. Also, there are often not enough specimens of popular species for each museum to have one (there have only been six T-rex skulls found, for example).

> What percentage of people are aware that molded bones are being

> used? Please indicate your source for such information. When you

> see a dinosaur skeleton on display, how do you know which bones,

> if any, are authentic? Are they all marked or labelled?

>

> > 2) Every museum curator I know is quite forthright with the fact that most

> > museums have replicas,

>

> How many museum curators do you know? Please provide names, addresses,

> and/or fax numbers, and the dates you had conversations discussing these

> replicas.

>

> Also please indicate which museums clearly label bones as “molded”

> or “authentic.” Also indicate what percentage of museums worldwide

> this represents.

Since your quoted source gave no such percentages, addresses, etc., I see no reason that I should do so.

> > and that perfectly complete skeletons are as rare as

> > hen’s teeth; in fact, perfectly complete skeletons would be less plausible

> > than fragmentary ones. In fact, skeletons at the museum near my house are

> > labelled as replicas up front.

>

> Most people do not have the benefit of having museums near their houses.

How does this relate to our discussion?

> Personally, I do not believe museums should be using replicas, as they

> tend to mislead people. How many images are there and how much video

> footage is there of these replicas that do not have an explanatory note that

> “the bones have been manufactured”? Does your museum state where the

> original bones are located?

More appropriately, most are labelled with the location at which the original bones are found. They are willing to tell me where the originals are located; I visited my local museum over the weekend, and the staff was quite friendly and forthcoming. No sputtering to be heard.

> > While other museums may not advertise the fact, how does this equate to

> > “depction and fraud”?

>

> If people are believing that molded bones are authentic dinosaur bones,

> then they are being deceived. If molded or manufactured bones are being

> passed off as authentic dinosaur bones, then this is fraud.

No. If they believe that, they’re wrong. If someone is intentionally deceiving, then they are deceived. You have yet to prove intent.

> > Then why are you bringing it up? What does Hitler have to do with this

> > discussion?

>

> To not bring issues up is to live in a bubble world. The fact is, Hitler

> believed in evolution and dinosaurs, and this affected his belief systems

> and philosophical outlook. If you wish to learn more about Hitler, a

> library is one information source.

I understand that. And as I said, white supremacists believe in the Bible. Are you saying that Hitler’s actions came about because of his viewpoint on evolution? If not, what are you trying to say?

> > You are the one challenging the

> > consensus reality; it therefore is your responsibility to define the

> > debate.

> >

> > Nathan Shumate

>

> And I have defined the debate; I have asked questions about the claims

> being made, and I have not received satisfactory answers. Once I receive

> satisfactory answers to my questions, I will consider answering your

> questions in full. Those that claim dinosaurs existed millions of years ago

> are challenging the consensus reality as presented by the Bible.

Wrong. As presented by the Bible, “in my view” is what you originally stated. Are you now asserting that your interpretation of the Bible is the only valid position to take?

> Others

> have made claims and I have asked questions about these claims;

> now it is the responsibility of those making the claims to answer my

> questions.

And I am asking you what kind of evidence you would consider to be valid. Until that question is answered, then no answer can be attempted to your questions.

Nathan

> > What percentage of people are aware that molded bones are being

> > used? Please indicate your source for such information. When you

> > see a dinosaur skeleton on display, how do you know which bones,

> > if any, are authentic? Are they all marked or labelled?

> >

> > > 2) Every museum curator I know is quite forthright with the fact that most

> > > museums have replicas,

> >

> > How many museum curators do you know? Please provide names, addresses,

> > and/or fax numbers, and the dates you had conversations discussing these

> > replicas.

> >

> > Also please indicate which museums clearly label bones as “molded”

> > or “authentic.” Also indicate what percentage of museums worldwide

> > this represents.

>

> Since your quoted source gave no such percentages, addresses, etc., I see

> no reason that I should do so.

This is a very poor reason you have provided. According to you, the fact that I request information from you is “no reason that” you “should do so” (provide information). Then you are expecting me to “take your word” that your claims are authentic. Because you are not providing me with any means to verify and research your claims, the only way I can believe you is by “faith”, not by science.

You are not going to convince me by this method!

> Wrong. As presented by the Bible, “in my view” is what you originally

> stated. Are you now asserting that your interpretation of the Bible is the

> only valid position to take?

Would you recommend to people that they should stop believing in the Bible, the word of God, because of your claims and the claims made by men about dinosaurs?

> > Others

> > have made claims and I have asked questions about these claims;

> > now it is the responsibility of those making the claims to answer my

> > questions.

>

> And I am asking you what kind of evidence you would consider to be valid.

> Until that question is answered, then no answer can be attempted to your

> questions.

Are you stating that you have made no attempt to answer any of my questions? If it is your position that you will not respond to my questions, then there is no further reason to continue a discussion with you. Others have made attempts to answer my questions, so at least one answer has been attempted to my questions. This contradicts your statement “no answer can be attempted to your questions”. I can assure you that there are kinds of evidence that I would consider to be valid.

-David Wozney

“The practice of various forms of deception in science is widespread and of long standing. The American writers William Broad and Nicholas Wade, in their survey of fraud and deceit in science, argue that these practices are an inevitable result of the current dependency of scientific endeavour on finance from the state: “‘Few scientists today can leave it to posterity to judge their work; their universities may deny them tenure, and the flow of grants and contracts from the federal government is likely to dry up quite quickly, unless evidence of immediate and continuing success is forthcoming.’ [121]

“The Popperian philosopher the late William W. Bartley III has argued that the academic world, as the “marketplace of ideas”, is far less of a real market than the marketplace for the production of goods and services [122]. In the latter, market forces and common law standards maintain real quality and a high degree of honesty. The academic world, he argues, resembles far more a feudal order. Corruption, nepotism, obscurantism, intellectual “cartels”, suppression of dissent and competition, fraud, plagiarism, theft, false advertising, lies, slander, “conspiracies of silence”, deceit, etc, are all far more common in academia than they are in business. Woe betide the scholar who bucks predominant medical orthodoxy. Research funds, academic appointment or advancement are controlled by “medical barons” who will allow no threat to their favoured doctrine. I regret that the rather strict British laws of libel prevent us from elaborating further on this point.

“Whether or not a separation of science and state is a realistic prospect in the current political climate in the Western world, where the state is continually extending its grip over virtually all forms of human endeavour, is highly debatable. What is vital, however, is that the honest journalist and the informed citizen must now recognize that, in the words of the late Professor Petr Beckmann: ‘degrees and academic career are no longer guarantees of honesty, truthfulness, or even competence’. The natural sciences have now been drawn into the political struggles of our times, and hence grievously corrupted. It is thus the responsibility of all individuals who wish to judge the merits of any political conflict into which science has been conscripted to acquaint themselves with science and scientific reasoning. There is no alternative, unless we wish to be led by the nose into the sort of statist and authoritarian
order into which paternalists and collectivists have failed to dragoon us by other means.”

-Chris R. Tame and David Botsford (quoted from http://www.forces-cdn.com/scares.htm)

From: “Nathan Shumate”

To: “David Wozney”

Subject: Re: your dinosaur web page

Date: Tue, 26 May 1998 16:59:43 -0600

> > Since your quoted source gave no such percentages, addresses, etc., I see

> > no reason that I should do so.

> >

>

> This is a very poor reason you have provided. According to you, the fact that

> I request information from you is “no reason that” you “should do so” (provide

> information). Then you are expecting me to “take your word” that your claims

> are authentic. Because you are not providing me with any means to verify and

> research your claims, the only way I can believe you is by “faith”, not by science.

> You are not going to convince me by this method!

You provide no such percentages of your sources — why should I be held to standards of evidence which you are unwilling to observe? Your source didn’t even give a case study — he didn’t say “I went to this curator, and he hemmed and hawed.” Your case is less faith-worthy than mine, by objective standards (but somehow I don’t think you’re holding yourself to them either). You are willing to believe a generalized statement which supports your case, but will nitpick at mine. That’s hardly objective, or even sporting.

> > Wrong. As presented by the Bible, “in my view” is what you originally

> > stated. Are you now asserting that your interpretation of the Bible is the

> > only valid position to take?

> >

>

> Would you recommend to people that they should stop believing in the

> Bible, the word of God, because of your claims and the claims made by

> men about dinosaurs?

Do you always answer questions with further questions just to drag people away from the original matter at hard? You originally claimed that it was your interpretation of the Bible which didn’t agree with evolution. Now you claim that the “the consensus reality as presented by the Bible” is in opposition to evolution (demonstrating, along the way, that you have no idea what the term “consensus reality” means, as you cite the Bible a single, authoritative, and objectively unsubstantiable source).

BTW, it would be much easier for me to shoot down the inerrancy of the Bible than for you to shoot down the existence of dinosaurs. Try me if you’ve got the courage.

> > > Others

> > > have made claims and I have asked questions about these claims;

> > > now it is the responsibility of those making the claims to answer my

> > > questions.

> >

> > And I am asking you what kind of evidence you would consider to be valid.

> >

> > Until that question is answered, then no answer can be attempted to your

> > questions.

> >

>

> Are you stating that you have made no attempt to answer any of my

> questions? If it is your position that you will not respond to my questions,

> then there is no further reason to continue a discussion with you. Others

> have made attempts to answer my questions, so at least one answer has been

> attempted to my questions. This contradicts your statement “no answer can

> be attempted to your questions”. I can assure you that there are kinds of

> evidence that I would consider to be valid.

Then why won’t you say what they are?! That’s what I asked you in my first post, and you still are avoiding the question. I ask again: Could you be convinced of the possibility of dinosaurs? It’s a simple question, yes or no.

And if your long list of quotes at the end of your post prove one way or another the feasability of dinosaurs, please point out how. General statements covering all of the sciences aren’t evidence of an over-arching conspiracy by atheists.

Nathan

> > You are not going to convince me by this method!

>

> You provide no such percentages of your sources — why should I be held to

> standards of evidence which you are unwilling to observe?

I am willing to “observe” standards of evidence.

> You are willing to believe a generalized statement which

> supports your case, but will nitpick at mine.

I never stated that I believe his statement, nor that I disbelieve it. I simply presented it to make you aware that such a statement exists.

> > Would you recommend to people that they should stop believing in the

> > Bible, the word of God, because of your claims and the claims made by

> > men about dinosaurs?

>

> Do you always answer questions with further questions just to drag people

> away from the original matter at hard?

I see you are not answering my questions.

> … as you cite the Bible a

> single, authoritative, and objectively unsubstantiable source).

Are you stating the Bible is an “unsubstantiable source”? If so, I believe we have just agreed to disagree!

> BTW, it would be much easier for me to shoot down the inerrancy of the

> Bible than for you to shoot down the existence of dinosaurs. Try me if

> you’ve got the courage.

Now I finally understand where you are coming from! I have read numerous articles by people unsuccessfully trying to “shoot down the inerrancy of the Bible”, so unless you are willing to present something completely original, do not bother, as I have probably read or heard it before.

> Then why won’t you say what they are?! That’s what I asked you in my first

> post, and you still are avoiding the question. I ask again: Could you be

> convinced of the possibility of dinosaurs? It’s a simple question, yes or

> no.

I am convinced of the possibility of dinosaur deception - the possibility that dinosaurs never existed and the possibility that there may be an effort to deceive people into believing in a false concept of “dinosaurs” to get people to believe in evolution and to make people lose faith in the Bible.

Some insight as to why evidence of dinosaurs should be viewed with skepticism is available at http://www.audiocentral.com/conferences/alien/default.html (This is a very interesting conference; I am currently viewing The Coming Cosmic Deception by Chuck Missler as I write this.)

Here are some sample slides one should consider:

http://www.audiocentral.com/conferences/alien/pp/chuck070597/session6/sld004.htm

>The Coming Great Deception

“For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”

Matthew 24:24

http://www.audiocentral.com/conferences/alien/pp/mark070597/session5/sld018.htm

“The Coming Great Deception

It will deceive, “if possible, even the elect”.

This means it will seem real.

Your intellect won’t help you.

Your five senses won’t help.

Only spiritual discernment alone will detect the deception.”

http://www.audiocentral.com/conferences/alien/pp/chuck070597/session6/sld035.htm

>”For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume
with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,”

2 Thessalonians 2:7-9

(There are many more slides and Bible verses dealing with deception - these are just a few that I came across while I was writing this email.)

-David Wozney

I Timothy Chapter 4

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

I Timothy Chapter 6

20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:

> > > You are not going to convince me by this method!

> >

> > You provide no such percentages of your sources — why should I be held to

> > standards of evidence which you are unwilling to observe?

>

> I am willing to “observe” standards of evidence.

>

> > You are willing to believe a generalized statement which

> > supports your case, but will nitpick at mine.

>

> I never stated that I believe his statement, nor that I disbelieve it.

> I simply presented it to make you aware that such a statement exists.

If you do not support the statement, why are you bringing it into the discussion? Why do you present a generalized statement, but then ask for corroborating evidence for mine?

> > > Would you recommend to people that they should stop believing in the

> > > Bible, the word of God, because of your claims and the claims made by

> > > men about dinosaurs?

> >

> > Do you always answer questions with further questions just to drag people

> > away from the original matter at hard?

>

> I see you are not answering my questions.

Fine. Answer: No, I would not. How does your question relate to evidence for the existence of dinosaurs?

> > … as you cite the Bible a

> > single, authoritative, and objectively unsubstantiable source).

> >

>

> Are you stating the Bible is an “unsubstantiable source”?

> If so, I believe we have just agreed to disagree!

It is unsubstantiable in that it is the “single, exclusive, and inerrant word of God” (I am inferring your belief by correlating your statements with the beliefs of others who make similar statements; if I am in error as to your beliefs, please correct me) to a believer, but no more reliable to a non-believer than the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Three-Fold Lotus Sutra, the Book of Mormon, or any other religious work from a separate tradition. Corroboratory evidence is neither sought not needed by believers, and scholarship which casts doubt upon any of its claims
is dismissed out of hand by those believers because it does not jibe with their faith.

As for agreeing to disagree — hell, we’ve been doing that for a long time!

:^)

> > BTW, it would be much easier for me to shoot down the inerrancy of the

> > Bible than for you to shoot down the existence of dinosaurs. Try me if

> > you’ve got the courage.

> >

>

> Now I finally understand where you are coming from! I have read numerous

> articles by people unsuccessfully trying to “shoot down the inerrancy of the

> Bible”, so unless you are willing to present something completely original,

> do not bother, as I have probably read or heard it before.

How someone could unsuccessfulyl shoot down Biblical inerrancy is beyond me — it’s like missing the broad side of a barn.

And where am I coming from?

> > Then why won’t you say what they are?! That’s what I asked you in my first

> > post, and you still are avoiding the question. I ask again: Could you be

> > convinced of the possibility of dinosaurs? It’s a simple question, yes or

> > no.

>

> I am convinced of the possibility of dinosaur deception - the possibility

> that dinosaurs never existed and the possibility that there may be an

> effort to deceive people into believing in a false concept of “dinosaurs” to

> get people to believe in evolution and to make people lose faith in the

> Bible.

Are you convinced that dinosaurs did not exist (I’m talking about your personal thesis, not the evidence you carefully presented with everything written in “possibility” questions), or merely that the possibility exists? I, too, admit the infinitesmal possibility that dinosaurs did not exist. I also admit the infinitesmal possibility that I am a brain in a jar, perceiving the world my virtual reality. However, all available evidence points to the opposite side of the equation, so until convincing and overwhelming evidence can be presented to the contrary, I will accept that dinosaurs exist and that I’m not a head in a jar.

> Some insight as to why evidence of dinosaurs should be viewed with skepticism

> is available at http://www.audiocentral.com/conferences/alien/default.html

> (This is a very interesting conference; I am currently viewing The Coming

> Cosmic Deception by Chuck Missler as I write this.)

I hope you’ll forgive me if I can’t get to thisright now. I’ve bookmarked the page, and will review it when I can.

> “For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets,

> and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that,

> if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.”

> Matthew 24:24

I agree with the verse, but I don’t believe it applies to the situation. And again, I think it’s “playing with the net down” to use dogmatic, believed-by-faith quotes such as this in a discussion about science. How can you prove that Christ actually said that, or that it is correct? (Again: I believe the verse. Contrary to what you may think, I am a Christian, and a very devoted one. But for the purposes of science, what is real is only what can be supported.)

Nathan

> > > > You are not going to convince me by this method!

> > >

> > > You provide no such percentages of your sources — why should I be held to

> > > standards of evidence which you are unwilling to observe?

> >

> > I am willing to “observe” standards of evidence.

> >

> > > You are willing to believe a generalized statement which

> > > supports your case, but will nitpick at mine.

> >

> > I never stated that I believe his statement, nor that I disbelieve it.

> > I simply presented it to make you aware that such a statement exists.

>

> If you do not support the statement, why are you bringing it into the

> discussion?

At this time, I have no formal position on the statement, and I intend to more thoroughly investigate this matter in the future. The statement is relevant to the discussion and I presented it to get your reaction, which I did successfully get. Thank-you for input on this
public statement, which many other people in the public have read.

> Why do you present a generalized statement, but then ask for

> corroborating evidence for mine?

I do not see any contradiction or inconsistency with making you aware of the statement and requesting back-up support and documentation for statements you make.

> > > > Would you recommend to people that they should stop believing in the

> > > > Bible, the word of God, because of your claims and the claims made by

> > > > men about dinosaurs?

> > >

> > > Do you always answer questions with further questions just to drag people

> > > away from the original matter at hard?

> >

> > I see you are not answering my questions.

>

> Fine. Answer: No, I would not. How does your question relate to evidence

> for the existence of dinosaurs?

The Bible (Genesis to Revelation) and the story of dinosaurs are inconsistent (as I see it). If one is honest, one has to admit that both cannot be believed by the same person.

-David Wozney

II Corinthians 4

3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

II Timothy 3

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

I Corinthians 14

33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

> > If you do not support the statement, why are you bringing it into the

> > discussion?

>

> At this time, I have no formal position on the statement, and I intend

> to more thoroughly investigate this matter in the future. The statement

> is relevant to the discussion and I presented it to get your

> reaction, which I did successfully get. Thank-you for input on this public

> statement, which many other people in the public have read.

You followed the quote with the statement,

“If molded copies are being passed off as real bones, is this not deception and fraud? Would you trust an organization that is known to engage in deception and fraud?”

You were using it for support of your case for deception and fraud. That seems like a “formal” position to me.

> > Why do you present a generalized statement, but then ask for

> > corroborating evidence for mine?

>

> I do not see any contradiction or inconsistency with making you aware

> of the statement and requesting back-up support and documentation for

> statements you make.

The question remains: Why does a generalized statement which supports your position have no corroborating evidence, but you ask such evidence from me upon presentation of my statement?

> > > > > Would you recommend to people that they should stop believing in the

> > > > > Bible, the word of God, because of your claims and the claims made by

> > > > > men about dinosaurs?

> > > >

> > > > Do you always answer questions with further questions just to drag people

> > > > away from the original matter at hard?

> > >

> > > I see you are not answering my questions.

> >

> > Fine. Answer: No, I would not. How does your question relate to evidence

> > for the existence of dinosaurs?

> >

>

> The Bible (Genesis to Revelation) and the story of dinosaurs are inconsistent

> (as I see it). If one is honest, one has to admit that both cannot be believed

> by the same person.

One cannot believe in both the account given in Genesis, if interpreted as a concrete account of a creation period of six 24-hour days and if intended by God as a primer in planet creation, and the evidence for dinosaurs. I will grant that. However, as I do not interpret Genesis in that manner, I can honestly admit that I believe both.

> II Corinthians 4

> 3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:

> 4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them

> which believe not, lest

> the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should

> shine unto them.

>

> II Timothy 3

> 16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable

> for doctrine, for reproof,

> for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

>

> I Corinthians 14

> 33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches

> of the saints.

I’m not sure what you intend to say with the three scriptures — I’ll have to ask you to spell it out for me.

Nathan

> You followed the quote with the statement,

> “If molded copies are being passed off as real bones, is this

> not deception and fraud? Would you trust an organization

> that is known to engage in deception and fraud?”

The last time I checked, sentences ending with a question mark are not statements. They are questions.

> You were using it for support of your case for deception and fraud.

I am not claiming deception nor fraud! I have told this to you before! Nor was I using the statement in support of anything! I was merely presenting the statement and making you aware of it!

> One cannot believe in both the account given in Genesis, if interpreted as

> a concrete account of a creation period of six 24-hour days and if intended

> by God as a primer in planet creation, and the evidence for dinosaurs. I

> will grant that. However, as I do not interpret Genesis in that manner, I

> can honestly admit that I believe both.

Even if one interprets the days in Genesis 1 as epochs, ages, or “thousand years” (2 Peter 3:8 “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”) there are events occurring out of sequence when comparing the Bible with the story of dinosaurs. This is an area that causes serious irreconcilable differences.

(See THE DINOSAUR DILEMMA AND MODERN SCIENCE Did They Roam The Earth Millions Of Years Before Man? at http://www.netpci.com/~tttbbs/dinosr-1.html)

> I’m not sure what you intend to say with the three scriptures — I’ll have

> to ask you to spell it out for me.

>

> Nathan

Nathan, because of your tendency to jump to false conclusions and to make false statements (eg.: “You were using it for support of your case for deception and fraud.”) I consider it may be adviseable to presently discontinue any further discussion with you. The Bible, the word of
God, speaks for itself.

-David Wozney

2 Timothy 3:1-5

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,

Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.”

> > You followed the quote with the statement,

> > “If molded copies are being passed off as real bones, is this

> > not deception and fraud? Would you trust an organization

> > that is known to engage in deception and fraud?”

>

> The last time I checked, sentences ending with a question mark

> are not statements. They are questions.

David, come on. Say what you mean. Your first query asks whether such pass-offs would be deception. You then question the level of trust to be had for an organization that is known to engage in deception. You are implying a logical connection between the two. It’s a Socratic technique of asking rhetorical questions as a a means of drawing conclusions.

Anyway, my point was that you were using the quote as a basis to launch into your rhetorical questions, which are a part of your larger case. There is, in such usage of a source quote, an implicit approval.

> > You were using it for support of your case for deception and fraud.

>

> I am not claiming deception nor fraud! I have told this to you before!

> Nor was I using the statement in support of anything! I was merely

> presenting the statement and making you aware of it!

Then why did you include the rhetorical questions after it ? You did not present the quote with some kind of, “Interesting what this person thinks” comment. You followed it up with rhetorical questions which link thematically to the rhetorical questions asked on your web page. Say what you mean, David; I don’t want to spend all of my time asking you, “What did you mean by that?”

> > One cannot believe in both the account given in Genesis, if interpreted as

> > a concrete account of a creation period of six 24-hour days and if intended

> > by God as a primer in planet creation, and the evidence for dinosaurs. I

> > will grant that. However, as I do not interpret Genesis in that manner, I

> > can honestly admit that I believe both.

> >

>

> Even if one interprets the days in Genesis 1 as epochs, ages, or “thousand

> years” (2 Peter 3:8 “But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day

> is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day”)

> there are events occurring out of sequence when comparing the Bible with the

> story of dinosaurs. This is an area that causes serious irreconcilable differences.

> (See THE DINOSAUR DILEMMA AND MODERN SCIENCE

> Did They Roam The Earth Millions Of Years Before Man? at

> http://www.netpci.com/~tttbbs/dinosr-1.html)

But I can also show histories out of sequence between Kings and Chronicles. Does this invalidate them, simply because of different sequences of transmission? Or can we posit the possibility (look, it’s one of your favorite words) that human interpretation is a factor in the written accounts of the Bible, just as they are in any other information transmitted through human hands?

> > I’m not sure what you intend to say with the three scriptures — I’ll have

> > to ask you to spell it out for me.

> >

> > Nathan

>

> Nathan, because of your tendency to jump to false conclusions and

> to make false statements (eg.: “You were using it for support of your case

> for deception and fraud.”) I consider it may be adviseable to presently

> discontinue any further discussion with you. The Bible, the word of God,

> speaks for itself.

Is an interpretation which may be in error necessarily a false statement? You are judging me, and harshly at that — somehow I don’t remember Jesus condoning such action. As for the Bible speaking for itself…. You’re falling again into using unsubstantiated claims. I’m sorry your faith doesn’t have the fortitude to discuss your own questions without feeling a personal attack. Mine does.

> -David Wozney

>

> 2 Timothy 3:1-5

> “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

> For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud,

> blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,

> Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent,

> fierce, despisers of those that are good,

> Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;

> Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn

> away.”

As a last comment, I must ask you what you mean by the last quote. Are you implying that I fit into that category? If so, which terms do you see as applying to me personally?

Nathan