Aron Ra vs Bob Dutko

[AronRa]

Dutko replayed his interview with me, and someone managed to record and share most of it. So now I have the references I need to look up to refute his claims about dinosaurs drawn on Medieval swords and other such rot, just like I did with Enyart.

Duffy, you could be useful here. I have at least a dozen presentations booked this year already, and all of them have to be original; I can't give the same speech twice. On one occasion, I intend to refute all those claims you guys make about how there really wasn't any undecomposed biological material found in any fossils. I'll also address the falsified footprints, forged Ica stones, and all that cryptozooligical fraudulence. So list for me all your claims of a Flintstonian-past that we haven't already refuted.

On another occasion, I may talk about how the Bible fails at prophesy. So give me your top few favorite examples of that too, predictions you think were fulfilled I mean, and only the ones you think are really good, please.

If you have any other arguments which you actually believe are supportive of your position, and you like them enough that it would be worth disproving them in front of a live audience, feel free to list those too -along with my other requests. You'll save me a lot of time wading through the cesspools of pseudoscience if you'll just post your specific claims and citations here instead.

 

[DutchLiam84]

Ohh Aron, apparently some guy named Buddy Davis found 200 pounds of unfossillized bones. Potholer just made a video about it! Just watch out, he has a beard and adventure clothes so he MUST know what he's talking about!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taenqj6TNXQ

 

[DiscipleTube1]

Just want to point out as well that I talked to Bob about this and he says the debate will be aired on his "best of bob" for some time to come. Just in case people thought he was afraid to air the debate again. It's not archived or anything but it is still being aired.

 

[Darkprophet232]

Just want to point out as well that I talked to Bob about this and he says the debate will be aired on his "best of bob" for some time to come. Just in case people thought he was afraid to air the debate again. It's not archived or anything but it is still being aired.

So he does keep a copy of the interview for himself but refuses to share said copy with AronRa (or anyone else who has asked). This is hardly a point in his favor, DiscipleTube1.

 

[AronRa]

OK here is the challenge I was looking for from the Bob Dutko show.

You give me one single example that you will announce on the air that can be scientifically verified to be authentic and be a human -pre-Columbian- human representation of a dinosaur.

I can give you over thirty of them right now. I could give you over thirty of them. Let me give you, oh just one or two. For example, in the Arizona Historical Society, ancient swords were excavated near Tucson Arizona, they were excavated in 1924. The swords are referred by the way on page 331 of the book, Lost Cities of North and Central America, you can look it up for yourself, they have various artwork designs carved into them. One sword has an exact brachiosaurus carved into it. If you look at this, you can show it to anybody, it looks exactly like it came out of a Jurassic Park movie. The Arizona Historical Society owns the sword. You can look at that picture of the brachiosaur There is nothing ambiguous about it at all. You can't say, "Oh the ears aren't right", nothing along those lines. That's one of example of thirty of them I could give you right now. I would encourage you to look that up.

Can anyone find an online source I can see for this claim?

 

[Isotelus]

Can anyone find an online source I can see for this claim?

I found the book online, but the pages he referred to won't display. I did however find this: Encyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology: From Atlantis to the Walam Olum, which has a picture of the sword. You can just make out the "dinosaur" on the blade, which is referred to as a Diplodocus-like depiction everywhere else--not a Brachiosaurus. To me, it's neither; nothing more than the typical out-dated and anatomically incorrect sauropod that you see in children's books. It looks like it came out of The Land Before Time...not Jurassic Park.
A more in-depth article explaining why this is a hoax is included on the next page under further reading. I have access to it, but I can't read it until tomorrow.

Hopefully this is at least somewhat helpful.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Encyclopedia of Dubious Archaeology: From Atlantis to the Walam Olum

The simple fact that they say there were swords in the New World before Columbus screams hoax to me. However, after looking at the picture, I can safely say that it is a hoax. Just look at the dinosaur depiction, they gave it a forked tongue and it appears to be dragging its belly (at the very least, the legs are only half the length they should be). I agree with Isotelus, the depiction on that sword does not resemble what an actual Sauropod would have looked like.

 

[AronRa]

The simple fact that they say there were swords in the New World before Columbus screams hoax to me. However, after looking at the picture, I can safely say that it is a hoax. Just look at the dinosaur depiction, they gave it a forked tongue and it appears to be dragging its belly (at the very least, the legs are only half the length they should be). I agree with Isotelus, the depiction on that sword does not resemble what an actual Sauropod would have looked like.

Dutko assured me that I would not be able to look at that image and criticize it for being inaccurate, and yet it is of a sauropod with a forked tongue?!

From two different locations I have clicked that link but still cannot see the image. Is there another link to it? I haven't seen the explanation of this hoax either.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

The simple fact that they say there were swords in the New World before Columbus screams hoax to me. However, after looking at the picture, I can safely say that it is a hoax. Just look at the dinosaur depiction, they gave it a forked tongue and it appears to be dragging its belly (at the very least, the legs are only half the length they should be). I agree with Isotelus, the depiction on that sword does not resemble what an actual Sauropod would have looked like.

Dutko assured me that I would not be able to look at that image and criticize it for being inaccurate, and yet it is of a sauropod with a forked tongue?!

From two different locations I have clicked that link but still cannot see the image. Is there another link to it? I haven't seen the explanation of this hoax either.

The link Isotelus provided worked for me. You have to scroll down the page and enlarge the image. I am sure your local library would carry a copy of the book if the link still does not work for you.

 

[AronRa]

The link Isotelus provided worked for me. You have to scroll down the page and enlarge the image. I am sure your local library would carry a copy of the book if the link still does not work for you.

On a different browser, I finally did see it. Thanks.

I read the article, and saw the image. This is really too funny. When I challenged Dutko to provide one example that he would stake his reputation on, this is what he came up with?! Next I will look up the in-depth refutation noted in the article. I have a feeling that's the one I really want to read.

 

[Isotelus]

The simple fact that they say there were swords in the New World before Columbus screams hoax to me. However, after looking at the picture, I can safely say that it is a hoax. Just look at the dinosaur depiction, they gave it a forked tongue and it appears to be dragging its belly (at the very least, the legs are only half the length they should be). I agree with Isotelus, the depiction on that sword does not resemble what an actual Sauropod would have looked like.

Ha, I didn't even see the forked tongue until I zoomed in. Even without the tongue, and even taking into consideration that it's an abstract rendering, you would definitely still have a problem with the inaccurate anatomy. In addition to the dragging belly and wierd legs, its back is far too arched, the tail shouldn't curve, and the neck is placed too low on the trunk of the body. There's just way too much wrong with it.

And then there's the sword itself. It doesn't look like a sword typical of the time period they're claiming it came from. Hoaxed or no, I also think it's wierd that they cast it as one piece. Even ceremonial swords are cast in separate pieces and assembled when finished.

On a different browser, I finally did see it. Thanks.

This is really too funny. When I challenged Dutko to provide one example that he would stake his reputation on, this is what he came up with?! Next I will look up the in-depth refutation noted in the article. I have a feeling that's the one I really want to read.

I'm not sure if you have access to journals, but in either case, here's a preview of the in-depth article: Romans in Tucson? the Story of an Archaeological Hoax. The dinosaur is briefly mentioned on the last part of the preview, although I imagine you're more interested in why the author thinks it's hoaxed. As for the full text, it looks like it's archived. Hopefully you can dig one up. I found one with all the pictures included in JSTOR.

 

[AronRa]

Thanks guys. I expected Dutko to come up with something absurd and easily debunked, but I couldn't have hoped for better than this.

I'm reading the more detailed analysis next. I'm doing a speech on Flintstones archaeology next month, and between Enyart and Dutko, I'm already well into it. I could use some more creationist foibles of this type, but for some reason Will Duffy ignored my request to show me his best and most compelling examples. Surely they'll be better than this, right?

 

[scientia]

As far as Bob Enyart I think he took too long when admitting what he did get wrong but he did admit them... but overall his arguments were more compelling than Aron's.

How do you give someone credit when he not only did not understand evolutionary theory but he couldn't even get Christian doctrine correct. In fact, Ray Comfort was even worse on Christian doctrine.

 

[australopithecus]

As far as Bob Enyart I think he took too long when admitting what he did get wrong but he did admit them... but overall his arguments were more compelling than Aron's.

How do you give someone credit when he not only did not understand evolutionary theory but he couldn't even get Christian doctrine correct. In fact, Ray Comfort was even worse on Christian doctrine.

But clearly Bob's complete and total misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, genetics, fossilisation HGT, and what eukaryotes are was more compelling....because of stuff and things.

 

[AronRa]

I'm not sure if you have access to journals, but in either case, here's a preview of the in-depth article: Romans in Tucson? the Story of an Archaeological Hoax. The dinosaur is briefly mentioned on the last part of the preview, although I imagine you're more interested in why the author thinks it's hoaxed. As for the full text, it looks like it's archived. Hopefully you can dig one up. I found one with all the pictures included in JSTOR.

I haven't found the JSTOR article yet, but while looking for that, I found this treasure instead. This is just the sort of thing I wanted Duffy to show me. Yes, defend your claims of pre-Columbian depictions of dinosaurs by showing me sculptures of common lizards and turtles along with fanciful drawings of long-necked leopards like the 'serpopard'.

What else can you expect from people like Carl Gallups who say, "The word, "dinosaur" is used here in its most general sense, "an ancient, extinct animal - as in prehistoric", and then present lions and mastodons as dinosaurs. This collection even has a two-headed dragon -with one head growing out of its tail! If that doesn't disprove evolution, I don't know what will!

 

[scientia]

along with fanciful drawings of long-necked leopards like the 'serpopard'.

Actually, to me, it is reminiscent of the scientific name for giraffe: camelopardalis.

 

[scientia]

But clearly Bob's complete and total misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, genetics, fossilisation HGT, and what eukaryotes are was more compelling....because of stuff and things.

I'm not sure which is worse: Bob's inability to admit that an emu is a bird or Ray's statement that he cannot consider facts because of his religious belief. Interestingly, neither of these notions is based on Christian doctrine. I keep wondering if I am going to have to write a book to explain Christian doctrine to Creationists.

 

[Isotelus]

I'm not sure if you have access to journals, but in either case, here's a preview of the in-depth article: Romans in Tucson? the Story of an Archaeological Hoax. The dinosaur is briefly mentioned on the last part of the preview, although I imagine you're more interested in why the author thinks it's hoaxed. As for the full text, it looks like it's archived. Hopefully you can dig one up. I found one with all the pictures included in JSTOR.

I haven't found the JSTOR article yet....

Hmm, it seems if you just search on the JSTOR homepage, it won't come up. I found an oddly convoluted way using my university online library, which obviously may not work the same for you, but maybe you could try something similar. What I did is search for the Journal of the Southwest, which is where the article was originally published. That brought me straight to the list of other databases where articles are stored in. It looks like volumes published in 1987 through to 2009 are archived in JSTOR. The article we want is from 2009; in Vol: 51.1. It's also on AcademicOneFile, but most of the figures are omitted.

but while looking for that, I found this treasure instead. This is just the sort of thing I wanted Duffy to show me. Yes, defend your claims of pre-Columbian depictions of dinosaurs by showing me sculptures of common lizards and turtles along with fanciful drawings of long-necked leopards like the 'serpopard'.

What else can you expect from people like Carl Gallups who say, "The word, "dinosaur" is used here in its most general sense, "an ancient, extinct animal - as in prehistoric", and then present lions and mastodons as dinosaurs. This collection even has a two-headed dragon -with one head growing out of its tail! If that doesn't disprove evolution, I don't know what will!

I've come across that webpage before! I can't believe I didn't remember it. Amazing really, but not surprising. I'll offer this quote as a summary for the flavour of the article as a whole: "It is called a "serpopard," supposedly a mosaic of a serpent and a leopard. But for those who believe that man was created in the beginning alongside the great reptiles, these palettes seem to be an attempt to depict a sauropod dinosaur." The eye sees what the mind wants it to. So many of these can be easily countered with a current understanding of dinosaur anatomy, like the Oviraptor, Saurolophus, and Edmontosaurus examples (I have no idea what they mean by 'metatarsal stance'. I suspect they're trying to sound clever). The following pages on pterosaurs and marine reptiles are equally amusing.

 

[malicious_bloke]

along with fanciful drawings of long-necked leopards like the 'serpopard'.

Actually, to me, it is reminiscent of the scientific name for giraffe: camelopardalis.

That just reminded me of this:

 

[DiscipleTube1]

So he does keep a copy of the interview for himself but refuses to share said copy with AronRa (or anyone else who has asked). This is hardly a point in his favor, DiscipleTube1.

Perhaps, depending on your perspective. However I wasn't trying to score points for Bob Dutko, only to dispel this notion that Bob did not want to be held accountable, or that he was 'withholding' the debate from people.

Having it archived would be awesome I think. Even a scheduled time for the re-airing would be nice. But neither of those are necessary to be held accountable. It aired on the radio for goodness sake! It has to be recorded and made available at everyone's leisure for him to be accountable? Apparently AronRa thinks so. Do you? Bob also told me it was going to air on "best of bob". So at least one more time it will air, or has aired, again. How is this 'withholding' the debate? Do you think it is 'withholding' the debate if he makes sure it airs again?

I would love for AronRa and HWIN to correct their statements, but I'm not holding my breath. Why is admitting such mistakes so hard for you guys? I don't think it does anything to hurt evolution, despite what you think of me HWIN. It does, however, show your unwillingness to admit ANY error.