Some months ago, I was on Bob Dutko’s young-earth creationism radio show. He tried to argue that if any non-avian dinosaurs were ever discovered, that would somehow disprove evolution. He doesn’t know how it would disprove evolution. I think he thinks that evolution is just a story, like his own belief system is, and that the story has to be ‘just so’ the same way his own story has to be.
Like so many of his ilk, he tried to cite weird and often laughable anomolies -misunderstood and misrepresented- as if these could or would count as evidence that non-avian dinosaurs once co-existed with men.
When he presented his stegosaurus in a Cambodian temple, I pointed out that stegosaurs didn’t have hooves, external ears, or whispy little tails, and that he couldn’t tell dinosaurs apart from barnyard animals, because he was actually looking at a pig.
He told me I was fooling myself. But he gears immediately swapped evidence and said he didn’t need that or the fraudulent Ica stones either. He had many other examples he could cite. So I challenged him:
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.
Are you ready for what he came up with?
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.
Dutko should never encourage anyone to look into his claims. What we saw was just too funny. He’s referring to a collection of home-made sword replicas made out of lead. That’s right, lead (Pb). Not steel or bronze or iron, but something that would be utterly useless as a sword. On one of these fireplace decorations is an image of what was either meant to be a very fat monitor lizard, or a dinosaur drawn back when people thought dinosaurs were lizards. Note the forked tongue. This trait only occurs in monitor lizards and snakes which are their closest cousins. Lizards are on the wrong side of the reptile family tree from dinosaurs, who would not have had forked tongues.
But it gets funnier than that because of all those other markings which can’t be read in this image. Apparently that is writing, and what it says belies the fraud. The next quote is from the Encylopedia of Dubious Archaeology by Kenneth L. Feder:
It was difficult to explain how artifacts with a depiction of a dinosaur and Latin and Hebrew writing, perhaps dating to 800, came to be cached in an early twentieth-century lime kiln located just outside Tucson. But this was clarified, sort of, once all the writing had been translated. It appeared that the writing on the artifacts told the story of an ostensible ROman-Jewish colony in Arizona, dating from 775 to 900.
When experts in Latin, Roman history and archaeology, and Southwest prehistory examined the Tucson artifacts, they declared them to be complete nonsense-not just fakes, but bad ones at that. When a University of Arizona professor and highly respected Latin scholar, Dr. Frank Fowler, pored over teh inscriptions, he discovered, taken together, the writing made no sense. The inscriptions did not represent a comprehensive or comprehensible message, but were instead a jumble of largely nonsensicle and disconnected, discontinuous phrases. But the argument for fakery seems to have been cinched when Fowler discovered that all of the individual Latin phrases inscribed on the artifacts had been lifted verbatim from three Latin textbooks -Harkness’s Latin Grammar, the Latin Grammar of Allen and Greenough, and Rouf’s Standard Dictionary of Facts. The earliest publication date for any of these works was 1864, which is rather more recent than the dates inscribed on them. Fowler went on to state that, when whoever inscribed the Latin on the Tucson artifacts attempted to in any way change the phrasing from what appeared in those publications -to change the tense, for example -he or she betrayed the lack of even a rudimentary knowledge of Latin. As a result of Fowler’s analysis, it is clear that none of the artifacts can date to before 1864, and therefore none of them date to the purported period for the Roman-colony they mention.
Byron Cummings, director of the Arizona State Museum, was an eyewitness to the removal of at least one of the artifacts. He stated that the artifact in question was embedded in an already existing hole -that it had, in other words, been planted in a hole in the sand and gravel which had then been only imperfectly tamped down around. Cummings included his testimony in a report he presented to the University of Arizona, which at the time was considering purchasing the Tucson artifacts for a substantial sum of money. Geologist James Quinlan maintains that ti would not have been difficult to have planted the artifacts in the gravel and suggests that the artifacts were placed there afer the lime kiln was abandoned.
The Tucson artifacts are another example of attempts made to connect an anceint Old World culture to America long before the voyages of Christopher Columbus. Like so many of the others, the Tucson artifacts are frauds.
For a thorough and extemely well-written debunking of the Tucson artifacts, see the article published in 2009 in the Journal of the Southwest titled *Romans in Tucson.
I am now looking for the more detailed article.
Seriously Dutko? I asked you for one example on which you would stake your reputation, and this was it? Do you see why I say that creationists have no credibility whatsoever?