The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread postby Dcopymope on Thu Apr 04, 2013 9:53 pm

lux wrote:I find it puzzling the way the academics are currently pushing the bird-dinosaur concept but I agree that it seems to be an attempt to equate dinosaurs with our present day world for some reason. Maybe the entire propaganda punchline will become clearer in time.

One of the most famous bird-dinosaur fossil hoaxes was the Archaeoraptor fiasco, aka “The Piltdown Chicken.”

A Chinese farmer claimed he found the fossil and sold it to a dealer in 1999. It seemed to show an animal that was half bird and have dinosaur.

Image
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor

National Geographic Magazine featured it in their magazine and it was hailed as the “missing link” of dino-bird evolution. Shortly after the article was published it was revealed that the “fossil” was a fake. It was actually two fossils of different animals intentionally stuck together before being sold by the Chinese farmer and NG had to print a retraction of the piece.

But, this is far from the only example of flaky dino-bird fossils. As this wiki page notes, most of this type of fossil comes from China which has a well know reputation for producing fossil fakes. Searching the web for “fake Chinese fossils” brings up a long list of references. China recently enacted stiff laws against unauthorized sale of fossils but they don't apply to selling fakes since those are not real fossils. :lol:

One Chinese paleo researcher went on record as saying that 80% of the fossils on display in Chinese museums are fake! If their museum professionals can't or won't distinguish between real and fake fossils, I wonder what that statistic is for the western world.

And, about Chinese fossils in general, one major fossil dealer warns ...

Perhaps no other source for fake fossils has posed such a problem as exists today with fossils from China. We must preface this section to say the fake Chinese fossil market is becoming increasingly sophisticated and changing so rapidly that any fossil now originating in China should be approached with caution.


Yet most of the "fossil evidence" for the dino-bird connection comes from China.


Great, so we have the Piltdown man and the Piltdown chicken. At present, the obvious motive to compare dinosaurs with the creatures of today is to bolster the theory of evolution, for they have literally nothing else to stand on as a foundation for this religion. They still haven't quite convinced the entire planet of the supposed scientific validity of evolution, so they have to come out with something big that would reel in all groups of all creeds. I'm certain that the next major hoax of this nature that will be held as the "missing link" of evolution will be what I call the 'Piltdown Ancient Astronaut'. NASA will help this along mightily, since everybody believes NASA.
Dcopymope
Banned
 
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread postby anonjedi2 on Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:41 am

Dinosaurs: Science Or Science Fiction
by David Wozney

http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/dinosaurs.htm

I found this very informative. It seems that there is a lot of tomfoolery around some of the early dinosaur discoveries. Here's an excerpt. After reading this and some of the posts on this thread, my doubts are growing pretty quickly. Fascinating stuff.

Wayne Grady explains in his book The Dinosaur Project: "From Cope, Sternberg had learned cutthroat bone hunting. Cope and his arch rival, Othniel Charles Marsh, professor of paleontology at Yale University, had been engaged in what have been called 'the bone wars' throughout the 1870s and 1880s. It was a fierce scientific rivalry that entailed some of the most underhanded shenanigans in the history of science, but it also amassed stupendous collections of fossils. … The Second Great Dinosaur Rush took place in the badlands of the Red Deer River in southern Alberta. Dinosaur remains had been known from this region as early as 1884 but it wasn't until 1910 that this region became an active collecting area. It was here that the second great collecting rivalry took place between Barnum Brown of the American Museum of Natural History in New York and C. H. Sternberg of the Geological Survey of Canada."

Why should various claims of people, who engaged in "some of the most underhanded shenanigans in the history of science", be believed?

Why were there no discoveries by native Americans in all the years previous when they roamed the American continents? There is no belief of dinosaurs in the native American religion or tradition.

For that matter, why were there no discoveries prior to the nineteenth century in any part of the world? According to the World Book Encyclopedia, "before the 1800's, no one ever knew that dinosaurs ever existed". "During the late 1800's and early 1900's, large deposits of dinosaur remains were discovered in western North America, Europe, Asia, and Africa." "Dinosaur deposits also lie in Belgium, Mongolia, Tanzania, West Germany, and many other parts of the world."

Why has man suddenly made all these discoveries? The land areas of Belgium, Mongolia, Tanzania, western Germany (and the Americas as well) were inhabited and very well explored for thousands of years and there were no discoveries until the nineteenth century. Why?

At Dinosauria : Fossil Record we learn that "The late 1800s were the 'golden age' of dinosaur paleontology, when many animals that you might be familiar with were discovered and named. Today we seem to be in another 'dinosaur renaissance', with new information accumulating rapidly". At The Meaning of the Hadrosaurus Find: Proof That Dinosaurs Were Real we learn that people were allegedly becoming enlightened by the new discoveries. The impression that I receive is that people were possibly being deceived and that the discoveries were possibly "being made" as an effort to try to discredit the Bible.

The Meaning of the Hadrosaurus Find: Proof That Dinosaurs Were Real states:
"The First Real Proof of Dinosaur Existence
Eight years after this reference book was published the first comprehensive skeletal form of a real dinosaur--Hadrosaurus foulkii --was unearthed in Haddonfield, New Jersey. Taller than a house, it had the pelvic structure of a bird, the tail of a lizard and, incredibly, it walked upright on two legs, foraging with arm-like forelimbs."

Were the bones of a bird and lizard and other animals used in the discovery? The presented "Haddonfield skeleton" did not prove "dinosaurs" ever were real living creatures.
anonjedi2
Member
 
Posts: 726
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2012 5:50 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:20 am

I came across the same article and did find this point to hit me like a ton of bricks:

For that matter, why were there no discoveries prior to the nineteenth century in any part of the world? According to the World Book Encyclopedia, "before the 1800's, no one ever knew that dinosaurs ever existed".


No record, not even with the infamously, universally understood power of human superstition.

Yet today all we talk about is how they are the "real rulers" of the majority of the planet's history.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread postby Dcopymope on Fri Apr 05, 2013 2:38 am

anonjedi2 wrote:Dinosaurs: Science Or Science Fiction
by David Wozney

http://ocii.com/~dpwozney/dinosaurs.htm

...


At Dinosauria : Fossil Record we learn that "The late 1800s were the 'golden age' of dinosaur paleontology, when many animals that you might be familiar with were discovered and named. Today we seem to be in another 'dinosaur renaissance', with new information accumulating rapidly". At The Meaning of the Hadrosaurus Find: Proof That Dinosaurs Were Real we learn that people were allegedly becoming enlightened by the new discoveries. The impression that I receive is that people were possibly being deceived and that the discoveries were possibly "being made" as an effort to try to discredit the Bible.


Well, what else is new hey. The motive just always seems to be the same with these creatures doesn't it?
Dcopymope
Banned
 
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread postby hoi.polloi on Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:38 am

There is a number of potential motives for discrediting peoples' personal opposition to a hoax. If you are a hoaxer, they coalesce on supplanting others' personal beliefs for your own, for power and for greed. Which is kind of what you seem to be trying to do on our site on your less impressive days.

Some people use the Bible as their reasoning. Other people use the responsibility of science to make phenomena show repeat, reliable performance in the physical world. Everyone knows you use the Bible for your reasoning. Please stop assuming everyone does the same and throwing your bullshit at us.
hoi.polloi
Administrator
 
Posts: 5061
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread postby lux on Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:27 am

As far as I've been able to discover, it does seem that there were no real finds of documented dino remains prior to the 1800s which seems quite odd to me as well. A number of sites that I've found make claims such as "dinosaur bones have been discovered for hundreds/thouisands of years" but they give no evidence to support that notion.

There was one documented find in 1676 that the dino fans now like to claim was from a dinosaur.

Image


It was a bone fragment examined by a chemistry professor named Robert Plot who included a drawing of it in the book shown above. Plot decided it was from the thigh bone of a giant human. More info on it here.

The bone has since been lost but the illustration is detailed enough that some have since identified it as that of Megalosaurus.


Note that it says "Some have since identified it ...". It's identity was never firmly established.

Later, in 1763 ...

The Cornwell bone was described again by Richard Brookes in 1763. He called it "Scrotum humanum," while comparing its appearance to a pair of human testicles. The label was not considered to be a proper Linnaean "name" for the animal in question at the time, and was not used in subsequent literature. Technically, though, the name was published after the advent of binomial nomenclature, and so if it was truly intended to represent the establishment of a new genus it would have priority over Megalosaurus.

At what point it was thought to possibly be from a Megalosaurus isn't clear but, as noted in the above link, it wasn't until the early 1800s that bone finds began to be identified as "being from giant lizard like creatures" though how this determination was made at that time is not clear.


Also worthy of note -- evidently quite a number of early 1800s fossil finds were discovered by a non-scientist woman named Mary Anning who began finding fossils at age 12.

Not a trained scientist herself, Anning seems to have gotten into fossil collecting as a way of making money ...


The old tongue-twister, "She sells sea shells on the sea shore" was written about Mary Anning. She is sometimes referred to as a paleontologist though I can't find any evidence that she had any official education as such. But, she did have her own business selling fossils from her shop:

Image

So, even back in the 1800s fossils were a commercial activity. Mary was also awarded a lifetime annuity for her fossil-finding efforts by the British Association for the Advancement of Science.
lux
Member
 
Posts: 1914
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 10:46 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread postby scud on Fri Apr 05, 2013 12:53 pm

Great post Lux!

The following is the story of ‘Sue’ apparently the largest and most complete example of a ‘T-Rex’ discovered to date and now on display at the Field museum Chicago complete with a background artist’s impression of what ‘Sue’ looked like before keeling over and duly ‘fossilized’..
Image
According to Wiki, ‘Sue’ (affectionately named in honour of her discoverer, Sue Hendrickson) was found by what can only be described as amazing good fortune during the summer of 1990 in western South Dakota.

Hendrickson had been part of a team of paleontologists searching elsewhere around the Cheyenne river Indian reservation when their truck suffered a puncture which for some reason or other forced the remainder of the team (no information as to who, or how many this ‘team‘ was composed) to abandon the truck and head toward the nearest ‘town‘ (unspecified) leaving Sue Hendrickson, by all accounts alone to guard the fort.
I suppose on pain of boredom and being of a naturally inquisitive mind, Hendrickson decides to take the opportunity to explore the immediate area and soon discovered some ‘small pieces of bone' and on looking up at the cliff-face.. ‘to see where the bones had originated‘ ?? ‘observed larger bones protruding from the wall of the cliff’.

One would presume at this point, that the rest of ‘the team’ would have eventually returned with a spare wheel and told by an excited Hendrickson of her discovery, but there is no mention of this, rather that she later handed over her finds to the president of the ‘Black Hills Institute’ http://www.bhigr.com/ Peter Larson who confidently identifies ‘the two pieces of bone’ as those belonging to a T-Rex by their ‘distinctive contour and texture’.

There then follows (what struck me at least) a nice little media wind up. Larson apparently offers the owner of the land a piss take $5,000 to excavate and remove the skeleton to which initial agreement was reached, then, still with ‘removal work in progress’ Maurice Williams (the land proprietor of Sioux tribe descent), changes his mind and claims the 5 grand was not for the sale of the excavated bones but only for Larson and his team to ‘remove and clean’. Naturally a legal ownership dispute arises where it is eventually found that the land actually belonged to the US department of the Interior otherwise known as ‘the government’ and in 1992, 2 years after Sue’s ‘discovery' with the bones still being cleaned of ‘plaster and burlap’ at the Black Hills preparation labs, the FBI and National Guard suddenly turn up and seize the fossil!!!

“What shall we do with it sir?”
“Toss it in the back of that there truck soldier.”
“Yes sir”.
“And you can all sing along whilst ya doin’ it.”
“Sir?”
“Repeat after me men...I don’t know but I’ve be told.”
(Chorus)
“I don’t know but I’ve been told...”
“This fucking fossil is mighty old.”
(Chorus)
“This fucking fossil is mighty old.” Etc, etc..

Anyway, eventually the FBI and National Guard manage to spirit ‘Sue’ away and deposit it at ‘South Dakota School of Mines and Technology’...I mean, where else! remaining in storage until 'the protracted legal battle’ finally decreed that Maurice Williams owned Sue to whom it was duly returned.
Presumably not happy with the way Sue looked on his mantlepiece, Williams then decides to sell his unusual ornament with the help of Sotheby’s auction house which causes furrowed brows of concern throughout the esteemed world of geology that some other private mantlepiece will be adorned and thus deprive the world of the finest example yet of their fiercest of fierce ancestors.
A whip round for sponsors was held with Walt Disney and Mc Donald’s hamburgers providing the largest sums to secure for the Field museum the eventual $8,362,500 selling price...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sue_(dinosaur)

What!?

Image
Sue Hendrickson, Peter Larson plus dog who found a bone...
scud
Member
 
Posts: 126
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 5:56 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread postby totalrecall on Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:07 pm

I have a quick layman question:

If there are so many fossilized dinosaur bones around, where are all the fossilized mammal bones? I know in their theory that mammals came after dinosaurs, but if "66" million years creates fossils for dinos, then 65 million year old mammals will surely also to have fossilized.

What about 10 milllion year old ones, or 1 million year old ones? How old does it have to be for fossilization to occur anyway?

I read somewhere years ago that fossilization can occur even 10,000 years ago. Here is a source:

http://library.sandiegozoo.org/fossil_dating.html

Fossils, by definition, are the remains or traces of organisms that lived at least 10,000 years ago. This date marks the end of the Cenozoic Era and the Pleistocene Period on the geologic time scale. Paleontologists consider materials younger than 10,000 years ago “recent”.


Mind you, I wouldn't hold any credence to official sources regarding dinosaurs, but anyway.


So where are all the mammal fossils? There should be tons and tons of them as well, no? :huh:

Maybe there are? I haven't researched mammalian fossils.
totalrecall
Member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:23 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread postby totalrecall on Fri Apr 05, 2013 3:52 pm

It turns out with a quick search on the interwebs that there are tons of mammal fossils after all.

I know this site isn't for conjecture, and more about fraud analysis, but I'll make a stab at this situation.

I'm not religious whatsoever, but I'm leaning more on the bible bashers' side at the moment in terms of time-frame and the great flood etc.

I find it difficult to reconcile the size of the animals, both lizards and mammals of the pre-flood era. If true, then everything seems to have been three times the size of their modern relatives. How was their environment different to today to incorporate such size?

I'm guessing that all the fossils they find today are those animals taken up and deposited in the sediments of the rushing flood waters which probably took place only a few thousand years ago.

I wonder if the sun was different then in terms of the type and extent of electromagnetic light emitted. I have evidence that the sun is an artificial construct, so maybe the old filament was swapped out for something else. Mmmmm :mellow:

Maybe the sun has an effect on pressure or gravity and when swapped caused valleys to form and mountains to rise and the water under the earth to flow up and cover the land, most of it still here as oceans and seas; but some sank back again as the crust undulated and the gravity of the new sun established itself?

This would mean that the dinos and sabretooths etc. slowly became extinct after the flood due to either a cooler climate or people hunting the dangerous animals.

This is a good video by a fundamentalist on the evidence for the flood and it covers dinos. Interesting, but who knows?

[you­tube]KGeULHljDn8[/you­tube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGeULHljDn8


The truth is very difficult to determine with dinos. I'll sit on the fence for now, but I will say that the majority of found dino bones will more than likely be frauds. I'm not sure if the whole concept of dinos is fraudulent however.
Last edited by totalrecall on Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.
totalrecall
Member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:23 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread postby Heiwa on Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:09 pm

totalrecall wrote:I wonder if the sun was different then in terms of the type and extent of electromagnetic light emitted. I have evidence that the sun is an artificial construct, so maybe the old filament was swapped out for something else. Mmmmm :mellow:

Maybe the sun has an effect on pressure or gravity and when swapped caused valleys to form and mountains to rise and the water under the earth to flow up and cover the land, most of it still here as oceans and seas; but some sank back again as the crust undulated and the gravity of the new sun established itself?

Pls expand on "I have evidence that the sun is an artificial construct". Sounds surprising and makes me wonder. :rolleyes: :blink: :D
Heiwa
Banned
 
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread postby totalrecall on Fri Apr 05, 2013 4:18 pm

I would love to. I will need a free evening. I am missing one piece of the puzzle though. Maybe you guys could help me out.

Could someone here prove to me that the sun doesn't go around the earth? If I can show this then I can rule out both theories that the "earth goes around the sun" and that the "sun goes around the earth". Using planets or stars or the moon won't do for me unfortunately. I would like to use this, but I can't.

Then I'll start another thread and lay it all out. I may lay it all out anyway and we will just have to assume that the "sun goes around the earth" theory isn't true.
totalrecall
Member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:23 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread postby Heiwa on Fri Apr 05, 2013 6:50 pm

What about your evidence? :ph34r: :rolleyes: :D :puke:
Heiwa
Banned
 
Posts: 1062
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2009 6:20 pm

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread postby totalrecall on Fri Apr 05, 2013 9:41 pm

Ok,

I'll lay it all out this weekend. Someone then may be able to help me fill the gap (which is essential).

I have enough material for half a book at the moment. As long as Simon allows me to postulate a theory and not just reveal frauds, then all should be good.


## :)
totalrecall
Member
 
Posts: 41
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2013 11:23 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread postby Dcopymope on Fri Apr 05, 2013 10:43 pm

totalrecall wrote:I have a quick layman question:

If there are so many fossilized dinosaur bones around, where are all the fossilized mammal bones? I know in their theory that mammals came after dinosaurs, but if "66" million years creates fossils for dinos, then 65 million year old mammals will surely also to have fossilized.

What about 10 milllion year old ones, or 1 million year old ones? How old does it have to be for fossilization to occur anyway?

I read somewhere years ago that fossilization can occur even 10,000 years ago. Here is a source:

http://library.sandiegozoo.org/fossil_dating.html

Fossils, by definition, are the remains or traces of organisms that lived at least 10,000 years ago. This date marks the end of the Cenozoic Era and the Pleistocene Period on the geologic time scale. Paleontologists consider materials younger than 10,000 years ago “recent”.


Mind you, I wouldn't hold any credence to official sources regarding dinosaurs, but anyway.


So where are all the mammal fossils? There should be tons and tons of them as well, no? :huh:

Maybe there are? I haven't researched mammalian fossils.


The fact is, if there was a massive amount of water that rushed across the land then fossilization won't take millions or thousands of years, it would happen very rapidly.

totalrecall wrote:It turns out with a quick search on the interwebs that there are tons of mammal fossils after all.

I know this site isn't for conjecture, and more about fraud analysis, but I'll make a stab at this situation.

I'm not religious whatsoever, but I'm leaning more on the bible bashers' side at the moment in terms of time-frame and the great flood etc.

I find it difficult to reconcile the size of the animals, both lizards and mammals of the pre-flood era. If true, then everything seems to have been three times the size of their modern relatives. How was their environment different to today to incorporate such size?

I'm guessing that all the fossils they find today are those animals taken up and deposited in the sediments of the rushing flood waters which probably took place only a few thousand years ago.

I wonder if the sun was different then in terms of the type and extent of electromagnetic light emitted. I have evidence that the sun is an artificial construct, so maybe the old filament was swapped out for something else. Mmmmm :mellow:

Maybe the sun has an effect on pressure or gravity and when swapped caused valleys to form and mountains to rise and the water under the earth to flow up and cover the land, most of it still here as oceans and seas; but some sank back again as the crust undulated and the gravity of the new sun established itself?

This would mean that the dinos and sabretooths etc. slowly became extinct after the flood due to either a cooler climate or people hunting the dangerous animals.

This is a good video by a fundamentalist on the evidence for the flood and it covers dinos. Interesting, but who knows?

[you­tube]KGeULHljDn8[/you­tube]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGeULHljDn8


The truth is very difficult to determine with dinos. I'll sit on the fence for now, but I will say that the majority of found dino bones will more than likely be frauds. I'm not sure if the whole concept of dinos is fraudulent however.


As far as what the antediluvian world was like, here is a video discussing this matter, basically it was a pole to pole tropical or rain forest like environment.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoRSBGD7vbA

The articles below gives further weight behind the things discussed in the video. Yet again, you will see that they don't know why the earths climate became the way it is today, so these evolutionary 'scientists' start making assumptions. As I said earlier, whenever they make a discovery their findings are always based on the assumption of deep time, throwing it way off into the past, with no validity whatsoever. Just like the pangea theory, or the theory that there was only one continent, it requires deep time according to them, always ignoring cataclysmic events like the Biblical flood that would explain it all, and the Bible isn't the only source describing a global flood, literally every culture has a flood account.

Studies Portray Tropical Arctic in Distant Past: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/science/earth/01climate.html?pagewan%20%20%20%20ted=all&_r=1&

When Antarctica was a tropical paradise: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/17/antarctica-tropical-climate-co2-research

Speaking of the theory that there was only one continent, the Bible implies this as well. It says that the waters were gathered together in one place, then the dry land appeared. If all the water was in one place, then you can also conclude that there was only one continent. Later on, it says the "fountains of the great deep broke apart" during the flood, explaining the mid-Atlantic ridge. This is known as the hydroplate theory.

The Hydroplate Theory - The Flood:
full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKO-vTwYCo8
Dcopymope
Banned
 
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 1:59 am

Re: The (non-religious) dinosaur hoax question

Unread postby nonhocapito on Sat Apr 06, 2013 12:56 am

The problem with this, the way I see it, is the usual one: to enroll in a Paleontology course is allowed to anyone. To have access to fossils is also, I expect, allowed to any scholar willing to study them. Unless we assume a conspiracy so wide to embrace the whole academy from students to professors and field researchers, I find it hard to believe that this whole branch of science might have been faked, or that all people entering this field become corrupted or are completely blind to a conspiracy so deep. After all most of them are people like us.

I don't think our job can be so easy. Regardless the propaganda behind it, I'd tend to assume that there must be some truth to this whole dinosaurs fossils thing.

Dinosaurs are today an industry that spans from the scientific to the entertainment to popular culture and the arts and as such it is prone to the worst. Yet it is not impossible to imagine most fossils to be real, while the alleged reconstructions of their bodies as well as of their habits and lives is probably often a product of fantasy or a twisting of facts. The two things can go together without the need for us to postulate yet another world wide conspiracy so deep that makes your head spin.
Were serious paleontologists happy about Jurassic park? I doubt it.

Final note: Despite the laudable intention of this thread, I am pretty sure that if there is a conspiracy behind this, a scientific and cultural conspiracy, it most certainly is about using the dinosaurs and in general the age of the planet to undermine religious beliefs, in particular christian ones since they (used to) hold so much power and are so invested, at least in certain denominations, in the idea of a creation and the design of the cosmos. I frankly cannot imagine any other reason but this general tendency of a certain top-down culture to undermine spiritual traditions that are now getting in the way of progress. Which is probably why dinosaurs and animals are today so big in elementary schools and even earlier. All other teachings are considered embarrassing.
nonhocapito
Administrator
 
Posts: 2555
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 5:38 am
Location: Italy

PreviousNext

Return to General World Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests