The guest was your typical fundy creationist -- devoid
of morals -- lying his corrupt ***** off about modern
dinosaurs. His name was Dennis Swift. Well, considering
all the lies he spewed, maybe it would be safer just to
say that he called himself Dennis Swift...
One the immoral *****'s examples is the "stegosaur"
image you can still find on the Coast To Coast website:
http://www.coasttocoastam.com/
And if you're hitting this after the image has come down,
there are other images (though not as detailed) that
can be found here:
http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/dino-cambodia/
Now, this dirt told countless lies, some of them far bigger
than anything concerning this image, but I'm going to limit
my remarks to this because I can show you what I mean.
One lie concerning this (and other) images he told was that
they are anatomically correct, though science entertained
anatomical errors -- such as lizard-like sprawled out legs --
for quite some time before finally catching up to the primatives
(who obviously knew these creatures from living examples).
Look at the picture. Is he right? Are the legs underneath the
body, as he states they should be, or are they splayed out
like a lizard?
He's right?
Well, not exactly. See, although dinosaurs are for the most
part supposed to have their legs beneath their body, not
splayed out like a lizard, this is not true for the front legs of
a Stegosaurous. They ARE supposed to be lizard like. The
front legs.
Then there's the droopy tail. total "no-no," that one is.
And, hey, check out the ears on that thing! Horse ears on
a dino? Sheesh!
Next, can you believe this scumbag had the nerve to make
up some story were artists & paleontology students, when
asked to draw a Stegosaurous, couldn't match such stunning
accuracy as found on this thing?
A paleontology student is going to screw up worse than the
wrong legs, the wrong tail and non-existing horse ears? How?
By adding wings? Giving it flippers and putting it in the water?
Hmm... I suppose I should also mention that there's nothing
identifying images such as these as dinosaurs in the first
place. I can show you such a picture today and say "
Stegosaurous" and, yes, you are going to see a Stegosaurous
in the image. But does that mean a few hundred years ago,
before the Stegosaur was first described, that nobody could
have identified it as something else?
Then there's that whole "cultural divide" to work past. The
images from cultures foreign to our own -- even when they
haven't been stylized -- are not always so recognizable to
us. I've seen European depictions of lions, for example, of
roughly this same age (if not newer) which I would never
had known were supposed to be lions without the
accompanying text...
Last but not least, the maggot fundy claimed that there's
no way that past cultures could have reconstructed the
fossil remains of dinosaurs, so any dinosaur depictions had
to be taken from living specimens.
The word you're looking for here is "articulated":
http://www.sdnhm.org/exhibits/mystery/fg_glossary.html
A "fully articulated" fossil may be a rare find, but it's not
like you need more than one -- ever -- to spawn a legend.
What is the rule these scum bags are claiming? That,
you can go your whole life without seeing a dragon or
a unicorn and the legend will survive, but if you skip a
generation without finding another fully articulated dinosaur
skeleton the legends of such beasts will instantly vanish?
The lengths these evil bastards will go to.... shameless.
.
|
