Dear board members,

Recently, James I. Nienhuis, posting under the pseudonym Genesis Veracity, has been trolling on this board with various assertions that should change our complete view of history. Unfortunately for Genesis Veracity, who I shall refer to as GV from here on, it takes a bit more than a few vague assertions and a game of trivial pursuit to succeed in turning this drastic review from a nice story into reality. Offering evidence would be a good way to start.

I have roughly scanned through GV's article section on his website genesisveracity.com, and decided to post a few comments:

From article #3:

"So, Jesus cannot be the Messiah, should Genesis prove fallacious, because He would then be seen as a liar or a lunatic for teaching such "mythologies." "

Is this evidence? This sort of conclusion is simply laughable. If Jesus taught mythologies, Genesis isn't correct and he would have been a "liar". Of course, in the eyes of GV, Jesus couldn't have lied so we just have to take his word literally, without any questioning. Genesis is correct because Jesus said so. It's the Middle Ages all over again, and there are such big holes in this methodology that even a whale could swim through them.

It isn't the end of the madness, though, because GV continues to preach in the following quote:

"Dragons ("dinosaurs") have demonstrably been with us throughout human history, and the rock-dating and carbon 14-dating methods are shown to be fraught with unknowable presuppositions and interpretational inconsistencies; so, good reasons to discount the Genesis account seem lacking. Remember, Jesus' integrity is at stake here: He is a liar, or a lunatic, or who He says He is."

First of all, GV doesn't tell us HOW it's demonstrable humans have lived amongst the dinosaurs. Convenient for him, he declares that C-14 dating is useless. In the light of his extraordinary claims, let's take a look at how C-14 dating works:

Being based on the rate of decay of isotope 14, the radiocarbon method works as follows: 14C is the radioactive or unstable carbon isotope, and as soon as a plant or animal dies, replenishment of radiocarbon stops. After 5568 years, scientists see a decay of half the C14 that was originally present at the time of death and after another 5568 years, half of that remaining material will have decayed again, and so on.

C-14 dating is limited, though. Beyond fifty to sixty THOUSAND years, other radiometric techniques must be used for dating. Even if C-14 dating is not completely accurate, this is still a problem for GV's ideas. All he did was simply dismissing C-14 dating, without any further explanation. If only science was that simple...

C-14 dating is quite a problem for his ideas, though, so it's only natural he chooses to simply dismiss it. If the earth is only a couple of thousands years old, one can really not use such annoying little things as C-14. Fortunately, saying it just doesn't work is enough for pseudoscience.

For those not yet convinced, GV warns us again. We're talking about Jesus' integrity, something we shouldn't mess with! Beware those who will apply true science in their understanding of history. Let's all go back to the dogmas of the Middle Ages. The Earth is flat, the centre of the universe, and we should all pay money to buy our place in heaven...

In article #9, GV talks about how the last ice age didn't end until 1500 BC:

"Maps saved from the Library of Alexandria which were authored by the ancient "Tyranean Sea Fish" and were later utilized by Turkish admirals surprisingly reveal Ice Age coastlines from before
the end of the Ice Age (that is before the subsequent rise of sea-level by hundreds of feet in the middle latitudes)."

The Piri Reis map, which is being referenced here by GV, has been discussed at length on this message board and in various articles. It seems GV only read the pseudoscientific rubbish that was published about this topic, because it is widely understood that the map does NOT show any pre Ice Age coastlines. Even worse for GV's case, Antarctica, which supposedly is on this map and which is supposedly depicted with pre-Ice Age coastlines, is not even present on the map. Unless in 1513 it was connected to the South-American mainland. What we are looking at here, is nothing more than the extremity of the South-American continent.

Clearly without any cartographic analysis, GV accepts the statements of Charles Hapgood that it's a representation of Antarctica, a continent unknown at the time the map was drawn. It's all just like Hancock did in Fingerprints of the Gods, and shows that also in pseudoscience, history repeats itself, and pseudoscientists keep on making the same mistakes.

Not surprisingly, a quick glimpse to the references of article #9 reveals:

Charles H. Hapgood, Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings (Kempton, Illinois: Adventures Unlimited Press, 1996).

There goes another part of his theory. Am I to understand this is really part of the "evidence" Ma'at members have been asking for in the last few days?

in article 11, GV even calls the Piri Reis map "astonishingly accurate", clearly showing that he hasn't read anything that was NOT on the New Age shelves. According to GV, the map even accurately charted the bays and rivers on the mainland of Antarctica. Quite an accomplishment, if the map doesn't even show Antarctica at all! But then again, GV just asks us to believe ...

All the best,
Gerd



------------------------------------------------
Amun: Co-Moderator
My TrekEarth Account

OK, so what's the speed of dark?
"Steven Wright"



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 09/20/2004 04:54AM by Gerd VDC.