The Qi Ling EXISTS! AIG tells us it must

[grmorton]

I have long been fascinated by the logic in an argument put forth by AIG on the existence of dinosaurs in the 15th century AD. The article can be found at http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/bishop.asp

I was struck by a couple of passages:



“Although dinosaurs appear to be extinct today, it would not be very surprising if some kinds had survived until quite recently. If so, people would have witnessed them down through the centuries since the flood and recorded their existence in literature and art.” Philip Bell, “Bishop Bell’s Brass Behemoths!” Creation 25(2003):40-44, p. 42

Using this logic, Bell then advances the argument that the animals on this picture had to exist in the 15th century.

Click image for a larger view.​

The article says:

"This glimpse into the zoological world of the 15th century has another ring of truth about it."

And

"No doubt many would have us believe that the Renaissance artisan made up a beast that, by pure coincidence, just happens to look like a dinosaur."

The logic here is that anything a human draws MUST have existed for the person to be able to draw it. The author also claims:


“To the unprejudiced mind, however, Bishop bell’s ‘brass behemoths’ suggest that at least some such creatures were alive and well in the Middle Ages.” in In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation, John F. Ashton, Editor, (El Cajon: Master Books, 2001), p. 42

They MUST have existed in order for the Medieval Bishop Bell to have had them caste them on the bell. The logic is, of course inescapable
(It is hard to say that with a straight face).

Now, given this logic, that anything a human creates in art MUST have actually existed when the artist drew it, then it is quite clear, that the Qi Ling (pictured below) actually existed. I bought two of these today (there is a male and a female--correctly carved by the ancient chinese artists who had seen this thing and then recopied by the modern artist).

All I know about the Qi Ling is what my driver told me. The Qi Ling is the son of the dragon. He has a dragon's head, a horse's legs, a fish's body and the tail of the lion. There is absolutely no doubt that this thing existed. REally, beleive me. AIG says it must be so. Now all we need to do is actually find the fossil of it.

So, how many YECs actually think this thing existed? Anyone willing to say it existed?

 

[cerad]

I don't think you are being totally fair here. It was not just "anything" that was painted. It was a picture containing a creature that (with a fair amount of squinting) does indeed resemble a dinosaur. To suggest that the author might have seen such a creature (or seen depictions) is really not all that unreasonable.

 

[Edx]

I don't think you are being totally fair here. It was not just "anything" that was painted. It was a picture containing a creature that (with a fair amount of squinting) does indeed resemble a dinosaur. To suggest that the author might have seen such a creature (or seen depictions) is really not all that unreasonable.

But to continue to be fair, its just a small undetailed drawing. Consider the other dragon-type animals the ancients thought up. How about those long snake type ones. Now put legs on it. Matches the picture more, done you think?

Ed

 

[grmorton]

I don't think you are being totally fair here. It was not just "anything" that was painted. It was a picture containing a creature that (with a fair amount of squinting) does indeed resemble a dinosaur. To suggest that the author might have seen such a creature (or seen depictions) is really not all that unreasonable.

Fine, then if it is not unreasonable for a 14th century person to have seen a dino, then you must agree that it is likely that the Qi Ling existed.

Yes or no, is it reasonable for the Qi Ling to have existed? If you reject the existence of the Qi Ling, please explain why and what the difference is.

 

[cerad]

Fine, then if it is not unreasonable for a 14th century person to have seen a dino, then you must agree that it is likely that the Qi Ling existed.

Yes or no, is it reasonable for the Qi Ling to have existed? If you reject the existence of the Qi Ling, please explain why and what the difference is.

I think you are jumping to unwarranted conclusions. No I don't not believe that Qi Ling existed nor does the description even come close to matching any creature known to have existed. It is a silly notion.

However, in your original post you said:

The logic here is that anything a human draws MUST have existed for the person to be able to draw it. The author also claims:

To me at least there is a big difference between saying that if someone draws something closely resembling an existing animal implies that the author might have seen the animal and claiming ANYTHING a human draws must exist.

The "If A Then B" conclusion is just too extreme for my tastes.

By all means ridicule Bell for thinking dino's existed in the recent past. But I don't think we should put even more extreme words in his mouth. The dino theory is more than enough.

 

[Scholar in training]

About as convincing as the missing link from the Neanderthal to the Homo Sapien.

 

[mikeynov]

About as convincing as the missing link from the Cro-Magnon to the Homo Sapien.

Cro Magnon is a Homo sapiens (sapiens).

 

[Gracchus]

About as convincing as the missing link from the Neanderthal to the Homo Sapien.

Even your edited version is wrong. Homo sapiens sapiens did not evolve from Homo sapiens neandertalensis. Neandertals were a separate branch of the human tree.

 

[grmorton]

I think you are jumping to unwarranted conclusions. No I don't not believe that Qi Ling existed nor does the description even come close to matching any creature known to have existed. It is a silly notion.

However, in your original post you said:

To me at least there is a big difference between saying that if someone draws something closely resembling an existing animal implies that the author might have seen the animal and claiming ANYTHING a human draws must exist.

The "If A Then B" conclusion is just too extreme for my tastes.

By all means ridicule Bell for thinking dino's existed in the recent past. But I don't think we should put even more extreme words in his mouth. The dino theory is more than enough.

Look at the logic of the article. A 15th century artist drew a dinosaur, therefore, dinosaurs existed in the 15th century. That is their logic, but it is an abbreviated double syllogism with implicit statements.

A 15th century artist drew a dinosaur.
artists can not draw things they have not seen.
Therefore, the artist must have seen the dinosaur in order to draw him.
Since a 15th century artist saw a dinosaur
Therefore dinosaurs existed in the 15th century.

What AIG has done is to remove statements 2-4 from the above.

So, I will ridicule AiG for their belief that dino's existed in the 15th century AND I will ridicule AiG for their incredibly stupid assumption that artists can not draw things they have not seen.

If their 2nd, but unstated, assumption is true, then the Qi Ling MUST exist.

Once again this is an abbreviated double syllogism.

A 5th century BC artist carved a Qi Ling
artists can not carve things they have not seen.
Therefore, the artist must have seen the Qi Ling in order to carve him.
Since a 5th century BC artist saw a Qi Ling
Therefore Qi Lings existed in the 5th century BC
Since artists since then have seen the carvings of previous Qi Lings,
They are then able to carve one today!. QED

And this goes for other things like the bug-eyed aliens, the alien who was the star of that Sigourney Weaver movie (he too must exist). And that weasel in the movie and book, Dreamcatcher, must also exist--what fun and excitement awaits those who get the s-weasel.

At its heart, this is the ontological argument for the existence of God used in the middle ages. It went like this:

"Ontological arguments conclude that God exists from premises derived by reason alone, and not observation of the world. For example, take St. Anselm's concept of a being than which no greater can be conceived--if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being--namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists--can be conceived. However, nothing can be greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. So a being than which no greater can be conceived--God--exists. " from http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/arguments.html

The comparison is that if man can conceive of it, it must exist and (the aig addition) it must have been seen.

 

[Lifesaver]

grmorton, I neither believe dinosaurs existed in the 15th century nor in the Qi Ling.
However, you are depicting the argument in an unfair manner:

the man in question depicted a creature which has existed, and which we nowadays know that it did and how it looked like, since we have access to the fossils.
What are the odds of someone, purely out of their own imagination, draw a creature that indeed existed but whose existence was only discovered later on?

If we find fossils of the Qi Ling, then your parody argument will be a good analogy.

As for the creationists' argument, the following points must be cleared up:
-didn't people know about fossils in the 15th century? I know St. Albertus Magnus, in the 13th century, alreadly mentions what seems to be fossiles; though I don't know of what creatures.

-is the belt authentic?

-is it really similar to dinosaurs when inspected closely, or has it considerable differences?

 

[grmorton]

grmorton, I neither believe dinosaurs existed in the 15th century nor in the Qi Ling.
However, you are depicting the argument in an unfair manner:

the man in question depicted a creature which has existed, and which we nowadays know that it did and how it looked like, since we have access to the fossils.
What are the odds of someone, purely out of their own imagination, draw a creature that indeed existed but whose existence was only discovered later on?

I don't think I am being unfair. The argument is a logical shambles. Let's say you are right that the artist had seen a reconstructed fossil (by the way reconstruction of fossils didn't happen before the 17th century AFAIK). How on earth does one THEN draw the conclusion that the dinosaur LIVED int he 15th century? Come on, the conclusion they make is that dinosaurs LIVED just 5 or 6 centuries ago. How does the seeing of a reconstructed fossil help the logic of arriving at that conclusion.

Secondly, a simple drawing of any quadruped can inadvertently look like any number of previous animals in paleontological history, regardless of whether the person was aware of dinos or not. So, no, I don't think I am being unfair. I think they have a very bad argument on their hands.

If we find fossils of the Qi Ling, then your parody argument will be a good analogy.

As for the creationists' argument, the following points must be cleared up:
-didn't people know about fossils in the 15th century? I know St. Albertus Magnus, in the 13th century, alreadly mentions what seems to be fossiles; though I don't know of what creatures.

-is the belt authentic?

-is it really similar to dinosaurs when inspected closely, or has it considerable differences?

The AIG argument is NOT that the artist saw a reconstructed dinosaur. Please deal with the argument they present. They say the artist saw a real live dinosaur. I think you are trying to change what they said so that they don't look so stupid.

 

[Scholar in training]

Even your edited version is wrong. Homo sapiens sapiens did not evolve from Homo sapiens neandertalensis. Neandertals were a separate branch of the human tree.

Show me proof that they are a separate branch. Unless I have read outdated information (if you consider 2003 outdated) there are several theories as to why Homo sapiens sapiens replaced the Neanderthals (extinction, evolution, extermination, and so forth). But we do not have a wealth of evidence to support any of the aformentioned theories.

 

[Illuminatus]

The logic here is that anything a human draws MUST have existed for the person to be able to draw it.

I'd love to see what AiG has to say about the works of Salvador Dali. I wonder exactly where he spotted an atmospheric skull sodomizing a grand piano?

 

[MartinM]

A 15th century artist drew a dinosaur.
artists can not draw things they have not seen.
Therefore, the artist must have seen the dinosaur in order to draw him.
Since a 15th century artist saw a dinosaur
Therefore dinosaurs existed in the 15th century.

I don't think that is the logic of the article, though. It's more like this:

A 15th century artist drew a dinosaur.
It is highly improbable that an artist would, by sheer coincidence, happen to make up a creature that was very similar to one which really existed, but he had never seen.
Therefore, the artist probably saw a dinosaur.



Which is still a pretty dumb argument worthy of ridicule, of course

 

[MartinM]

I'd love to see what AiG has to say about the works of Salvador Dali. I wonder exactly where he spotted an atmospheric skull sodomizing a grand piano?

Well, there's a good example. The argument 'Dali drew an atmospheric skull sodomizing a grand piano, therefore atmospheric skulls sodomizing grand pianos exist' is really, truly idiotic.

On the other hand, if atmospheric skulls sodomizing grand pianos actually did exist, but it was previously thought that their existence was unknown in Dali's time, it might be reasonable to conclude from Dali's work that the existence of atmospheric skulls sodomizing grand pianos was known at that time.

Of course, that's reasonable because atmospheric skulls sodomizing grand pianos are what you might call...distinctive. It's unreasonable in the case AiG are citing because there's nothing remarkable about the image in question.

 

[tryptophan]

I disagree with your reasoning a little. I think what the article is saying is that it is too big a coincidence for the pictures of the (alleged) dinosaurs to look so distinctly like dinosaurs, and then find out that creatures that look remarkably like the pictures exist. Of course, the pictures aren't really distinctive enough to make such an argument in my opinion. But I don't think your argument holds up, unless we actually happen to find evidence of the Qi Ling existing.

 

[El Brujo]

I'd love to see what AiG has to say about the works of Salvador Dali. I wonder exactly where he spotted an atmospheric skull sodomizing a grand piano?

When I read the article I was thinking the same thing, only regarding the works of Hieronymous Bosch...

 

[Randall McNally]

Show me proof that they are a separate branch.

It's called mitochondrial DNA analysis. Look into it.

Unless I have read outdated information (if you consider 2003 outdated) there are several theories as to why Homo sapiens sapiens replaced the Neanderthals (extinction, evolution, extermination, and so forth). But we do not have a wealth of evidence to support any of the aformentioned theories.

Okay. Is this relevant to understanding the lineage somehow?

 

[Herman Hedning]

When I read the article I was thinking the same thing, only regarding the works of Hieronymous Bosch...

Right, or Pieter Bruegel...

 

[Pete Harcoff]

I think what the article is saying is that it is too big a coincidence for the pictures of the (alleged) dinosaurs to look so distinctly like dinosaurs, and then find out that creatures that look remarkably like the pictures exist. Of course, the pictures aren't really distinctive enough to make such an argument in my opinion.

Not only that, but how many possiblities are we talking about? You're right that the drawings are not distinctive at all. And based on the detail in the drawing, if people made enough drawings like that, surely some of them would relate to something that used to or does exist.