Plebe

<a href="http://www.creationposter.com" target="_blank">http://www.creationposter.com</a>

<a href="http://www.creationposter.com/sdm.asp?pg=evidence&specific=ea" target="_blank">http://www.creationposter.com/sdm.asp?pg=evidence&specific=ea</a>

Check out this site thoroughly as well as the stuff on dinosaurs, they are showing supposed evidence for man living with dinosaurs ie: the mayan rock and the beached sauropod C. 1935 Anyone familiar with these "evidences?" This is a "Young Earth Creationist site with slick photos, color and highlighted text. I think the Mayan rock is suspect[I think there was a debunking of that a few years ago] but I wonder about the beached sauropod because all I see is the head of a large animal, sort of eel like.
I am seeing a proliferation of bringing up Noah's ark in the media within the last week and would be interested in seeing the editors of Infidels website's response to this proliferation. Examples: Last night The Learning Channel had a special on Noah's Ark and the flood and my roommate was flipping through the AM radio channels and on 560 The Art Bell show was on and they were discussing the same. Also, for the last year or so channels such as Discover, History Channel and The Learning Channel have been featuring stories similar to the above including ones covering Exodus and other Bible stories.

ps418

Regarding the Ica stones with dinosaur engravings: Yep, they've been debunked. There is an article on them in the September/October issue of Skeptical Enquirer.

Ica Stones: Yabba-Dabba-Do!, Massimo Polidoro, pp. 24-25.

Two of the individuals who sold these stones to the gullble Dr. Cabrera (who popularized them), Basilio Uchuya and Irma Gutierrez, admitted in a 1975 newspaper interview that they created the stones themselves, based on images from comic books and magazines, for the purpose of selling them. Their admission is in Mundial magazine, no. 6, January 17, 1975. The SI article also says that sandpaper abrasions have been found on some of the stones, further suggesting a hoax.

Grumpy

Slightly OT, but am I correct in believing that "evidences," plural, is used primarily by theologians and apologists (or, more generally, philosophers)? In more common use, and when used specifically by lawyers or scientists, "evidence" is itself a collective noun: take one piece of evidence and add it to another, now you have two pieces of evidence, not two evidences.

If this is a hard & fast rule, I'd like to see it used to identify religious arguments disguised as science.

As a practical example, take Arkansas' <a href="http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/ftproot/bills/2001/htm/HB2548.pdf" target="_blank">House Bill 2548 (.pdf)</a>. (Please!) If it had become law last year, the fact that it reads "No state agency... shall use any public funds... to promote the false evidences set forth in subsection (d)...." would be proof positive of its non-secular purpose. If "evidences" is the exclusive terminology of apologists, that is.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Basking shark corpse. That's what that "dinosaur" washed up was. That shit has happened DOZENS of times, and guess what? One test later, and it turns out to be...a dead, rotting, shark carcass.