Creation Museum To Display Dino Skeleton It Says Proves Bible

Even IF (if!) we assume that a flood happened in the past, how does this prove the Bible?

Those people make not ONE logical mistake, they make two...ah...wait..three.

They assume the Dino was "buried quickly by a flood"...and then assume this flood was one sent by god, eg. THE flood as talked in the Bible...AND then assume that because of their assumption...the Bible must be true.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
WOW. They will use ANYTHING to justify creationism being true, even saying dinosaur bones were planted by satan in one breath (that link is to a Christian forum with people discussing that issue, pretty funny read to see the ignorance spewed there) then we have these guys using dinosaurs to PROVE creationism. So which is it Christians?

Just for the sake of clarity, that website and the Landover Bapist Church is fictional, meant as satire and to mock fundamentalist Christian thinking. It's meant to be absurd and ignorant sounding.

a reply to: NoRulesAllowed


I am and I have ego, therefore a God must have made me.

No need for your silly critical thinking processes.



Now stop being logical and go do something useful. Like put another witch on the fire.

Where did Noah keep bigfoot on the boat? Did he hang out with the dinosaurs or did he just lay low 'til the water went down?

Science is supposed to be based off facts, not some fairytale notions. Get rid of this guy so that science may move forward. I'd like to know what happened to dinosaurs. That's one of the biggest mysteries of all. That and flight 370.

>>
and why my beliefs about biological evolution fall over at the Big Bang
>>

The Big Bang, THE "one and only" BB, is only one theory and not even a good one. So then is the idea that "everything came about from nothing".

The BB is also not a topic for "evolution-ists", how you call them...but for cosmologists. I myself do not "believe" in the BB since it's an extremely wide stretch to observe that the universe expands and from there concluding there was ONE, exactly one BB at one time where everything was created "from nothing". IMHO births of universes may be cyclic, there can be more, possibly infinite BBs where one universe is born while others go. In other words: This would not even require the idea that everything "came from nothing". Most other things observable in the universe are cyclic with no fixed "beginning" and no fixed "end". Logic tells me that the same would also apply to the birth of this, our current universe.

a reply to: Fylgje

"Where did Noah keep bigfoot on the boat? "


Maybe he was hanging out in the mess with the wrong crowd. On lookout with Loch Ness while the Dinos smoked.

So not made extinct, just put into exile.

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: tsingtao

originally posted by: DeadSeraph
a reply to: alienjuggalo

This is just sad. I know there are people on this very site that actually share this belief, so let me ask those of you who do:

-How did human beings survive alongside dinosaurs?

-Why doesn't the bible say anything about dinosaurs in genesis? Wouldn't abraham have been fighting off dinos on his sojourn from mesopotamia? Seems like that might have been worth mentioning?

-How can you claim dinosaurs were running around with Adam and Eve in 5000 bc when we have clear evidence of human built temples, tools, and dwellings, that are ACCURATELY dated to thousands of years before that?

I am a Christian, but COME ON. Use some common sense.

Proverbs 18:15

An intelligent heart acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge

Proverbs 12:1

Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

Proverbs 15:14

The heart of him who has understanding seeks knowledge, but the mouths of fools feed on folly.

I could go on and on and on.

they killed them, what was left of them.

wasn't there Leviathan and something else that swam? maybe he didn't meet any?

and how do you know they were here only 7000 ya?

Are you saying that God created dinosaurs alongside Adam in 4000 bc, and then people killed them all by the time the flood happened?

Meh. I just don't have it in me to argue about this. There isn't even any common sense in the idea that dinosaurs and people could have coexisted. Add to that the fact nobody has ever found dinosaur bones bearing marks from human tools or weapons (or human bones bearing dinosaur tooth marks). There are no written records or even pictographs of dinosaurs either, yet we have carvings of various animals that date far further back in history than 4000 bc. And this is just the evidence against such a notion if we completely ignore geology and carbon dating.

There is just too much scientific evidence that the earth is much older than 6000 years. We will have to agree to disagree, because if the body of scientific evidence hasn't changed your mind yet, I'm not sure anything will.

naw, you mistake me for a YEC. i am not and not sticking up for them.

and you still insist adam and eve were were only from 5000 bc?
oh, adam lived for almost 1000 yrs, right?

wasn't that outside the garden? how long was he IN the garden?
what did God do with the garden after they were kicked out?

dino's? most seemed to be wiped out 65 mil ya. they said nothing bigger than a chicken survived. they could have gotten bigger. a few could have survived to the modern ages in some places.
St. George, asia, had run ins with something, right?
moleke membe (sp) whatever.

anyway, i am not arguing with anyone, especially you.
i just answered your post with possibilities.

sometimes i forget my style of writing can put people off. sorry.

and the museum displaying that wonderful specimen is a shame in respect to what they want to attribute to it.

i always thought the time lines of people were off, but these guys are WAY off!

ETA; no one knows how long a "day" was in genesis, i doubt it was 24hrs.

a reply to: borntowatch

Moving goal posts, no.

Yes . . . Bringing the BB into a discussion about evolution, after your first "move" to geology, is moving the goalposts (for a second time).

The big bang doesnt explain the diversity of elements
Ok how does a stars birth (ahem) create new elements, how does fusion create new elemental elements. . . .Are stars in the know of how we can change lead in to Gold. Alchemy stars???

Faith comes in to it when you say stars make the diverse elements, there is no evidence or physics to justify that statement at all. You believe it without any proof, hence faith.

Did you ever take a science class, at any level, when you were in school? Were you homeschooled by others who didn't understand science? Just asking because this has to be one of the most ignorant statements made by you yet. Everything in the post I'm quoting from is wrong . . . just plain wrong . . . and you seem to employ the "ignorance is bliss" model to your reality. I would explain each to you in detail . . . but, you won't care and will just say it's all made up anyway.

Stellar Nucleosynthesis

Stellar nucleosynthesis is the process by which the natural abundances of the chemical elements assemble in the cores of stars. Stars are said to evolve (age) with changes in the abundances of the elements within. Stars lose most of their mass when it is ejected late in their stellar lifetimes, thereby increasing the abundance of elements heavier than helium in the interstellar medium. The term supernova nucleosynthesis is used to describe the creation of elements during the explosion of a star, as Hoyle advocated in 1954[1]. One stimulus to the development of the theory of nucleosynthesis was the variations in the abundances of elements found in the universe. Those abundances, when plotted on a graph as a function of atomic number of the element, have a jagged sawtooth shape that varies by factors of tens of millions. This suggested a natural process other than a random distribution. Such a graph of the abundances can be seen at History of nucleosynthesis theory. Stellar nucleosynthesis is the dominating contributor to several processes that also occur under the collective term nucleosynthesis.

A second stimulus to understanding the processes of stellar nucleosynthesis occurred during the 20th century, when it was realized that the energy released from nuclear fusion reactions accounted for the longevity of the Sun as a source[2] of heat and light. The fusion of nuclei in a star, starting from its initial hydrogen and helium abundance, provides that energy and synthesizes new nuclei as a byproduct of that fusion process. This became clear during the decade prior to World War II. The fusion product nuclei are restricted to those only slightly heavier than the fusing nuclei; thus they do not contribute heavily to the natural abundances of the elements. Nonetheless, this insight raised the plausibility of explaining all of the natural abundances of elements in this way. The prime energy producer in the sun is the fusion of hydrogen to helium, which occurs at a minimum temperature of 3 million kelvin.

Supernova Nucleosynthesis

Supernova nucleosynthesis is the production of new chemical elements inside supernovae, a picture due to Fred Hoyle.[1] It occurs primarily due to explosive nucleosynthesis during explosive oxygen burning and silicon burning.[2] Those fusion reactions create the elements silicon, sulfur, chlorine, argon, sodium, potassium, calcium, scandium, titanium and iron peak elements: vanadium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, and nickel. These are called "primary elements", in that they can be fused from pure hydrogen and helium in massive stars. As a result of their ejection from supernovae, their abundances increase within the interstellar medium. Elements heavier than nickel are created primarily by a rapid capture of neutrons in a process called the r-process. However, these are much less abundant than the primary chemical elements. Other processes thought to be responsible for some of the nucleosynthesis of underabundant heavy elements, notably a proton capture process known as the rp-process and a photodisintegration process known as the gamma (or p) process. The latter synthesizes the lightest, most neutron-poor, isotopes of the heavy elements.

And how do we know what the compositions of the stars and interstellar gases are . . . You can even test this for yourself at home using prism and large magnifying glass or small telescope!
Astronomical Spectroscopy

Astronomical spectroscopy is the study of spectroscopy and spectra used in astronomy to aid scientists in advancing in the study of visible light waves dispersed according to their wavelengths. The object of study is the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, including visible light, which radiates from stars and other hot celestial objects. Spectroscopy can be used to derive many properties of distant stars and galaxies, such as their chemical composition, temperature, density, mass, distance, luminosity, and relative motion using Doppler shift measurements.

I am not arguing with you about your evolution, I am making a statement of my beliefs, and why my beliefs about biological evolution fall over at the Big Bang

That seems pretty disingenuous. If you are simply speaking about your beliefs and aren't "arguing" or "debating" . . . why is it you are always asserting what science claims, what science doesn't claim, what evidence there is, or if the science is even valid? If you are simply stating your beliefs . . . why don't you stick to philosophical and theological arguments and stop pretending you know anything (at all . . . at even the most elementary level) about science?

Truth is you are just like every other zealous religious person (especially Christians), in that you simply deny or lie about any scientific claims that go against your personally biased worldview. If you want to remain willfully ignorant about science, while maintaining the weak threads your superstition relies on that's your prerogative. However, you'd garner a lot more respect simply sticking to one canned response for every science thread:
"I know absolutely nothing about what science claims or how to even learn about those claims, but I can't believe anything that goes against the word of my chosen god . . . or else I'll burn for eternity."

That way . . . you don't have to put your ignorance on parade?

I didnt say it was silly,
but obviously to a fringe element who believes in God planting dinosaur bones, its insane.

As for Kent Hovind. Thats typical of an opposing view.
"I wont watch it, its dumb"

The problem is you stay ignorant to the argument of the opposing view.
You are complaining about the "God planted dinosaur bones" brigade for being closed minded, yet you choose to
remain ignorant to their argument.As they do to yours

Until you step down of your high horse and lose the righteous attitude (sorry thats how I see it), till you understand both sides of the argument, you will never understand the argument.

I study evolution and geology, I know the evolutionary argument, I understand why they believe the way they do.
It just doesnt provide all the key answers

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: borntowatch

Moving goal posts, no.

Yes . . . Bringing the BB into a discussion about evolution, after your first "move" to geology, is moving the goalposts (for a second time).

The big bang doesnt explain the diversity of elements
Ok how does a stars birth (ahem) create new elements, how does fusion create new elemental elements. . . .Are stars in the know of how we can change lead in to Gold. Alchemy stars???

Faith comes in to it when you say stars make the diverse elements, there is no evidence or physics to justify that statement at all. You believe it without any proof, hence faith.

Did you ever take a science class, at any level, when you were in school? Were you homeschooled by others who didn't understand science? Just asking because this has to be one of the most ignorant statements made by you yet. Everything in the post I'm quoting from is wrong . . . just plain wrong . . . and you seem to employ the "ignorance is bliss" model to your reality. I would explain each to you in detail . . . but, you won't care and will just say it's all made up anyway.

Stellar Nucleosynthesis

Stellar nucleosynthesis is the process by which the natural abundances of the chemical elements assemble in the cores of stars. Stars are said to evolve (age) with changes in the abundances of the elements within. Stars lose most of their mass when it is ejected late in their stellar lifetimes, thereby increasing the abundance of elements heavier than helium in the interstellar medium. The term supernova nucleosynthesis is used to describe the creation of elements during the explosion of a star, as Hoyle advocated in 1954[1]. One stimulus to the development of the theory of nucleosynthesis was the variations in the abundances of elements found in the universe. Those abundances, when plotted on a graph as a function of atomic number of the element, have a jagged sawtooth shape that varies by factors of tens of millions. This suggested a natural process other than a random distribution. Such a graph of the abundances can be seen at History of nucleosynthesis theory. Stellar nucleosynthesis is the dominating contributor to several processes that also occur under the collective term nucleosynthesis.

A second stimulus to understanding the processes of stellar nucleosynthesis occurred during the 20th century, when it was realized that the energy released from nuclear fusion reactions accounted for the longevity of the Sun as a source[2] of heat and light. The fusion of nuclei in a star, starting from its initial hydrogen and helium abundance, provides that energy and synthesizes new nuclei as a byproduct of that fusion process. This became clear during the decade prior to World War II. The fusion product nuclei are restricted to those only slightly heavier than the fusing nuclei; thus they do not contribute heavily to the natural abundances of the elements. Nonetheless, this insight raised the plausibility of explaining all of the natural abundances of elements in this way. The prime energy producer in the sun is the fusion of hydrogen to helium, which occurs at a minimum temperature of 3 million kelvin.

Supernova Nucleosynthesis

Supernova nucleosynthesis is the production of new chemical elements inside supernovae, a picture due to Fred Hoyle.[1] It occurs primarily due to explosive nucleosynthesis during explosive oxygen burning and silicon burning.[2] Those fusion reactions create the elements silicon, sulfur, chlorine, argon, sodium, potassium, calcium, scandium, titanium and iron peak elements: vanadium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, and nickel. These are called "primary elements", in that they can be fused from pure hydrogen and helium in massive stars. As a result of their ejection from supernovae, their abundances increase within the interstellar medium. Elements heavier than nickel are created primarily by a rapid capture of neutrons in a process called the r-process. However, these are much less abundant than the primary chemical elements. Other processes thought to be responsible for some of the nucleosynthesis of underabundant heavy elements, notably a proton capture process known as the rp-process and a photodisintegration process known as the gamma (or p) process. The latter synthesizes the lightest, most neutron-poor, isotopes of the heavy elements.

And how do we know what the compositions of the stars and interstellar gases are . . . You can even test this for yourself at home using prism and large magnifying glass or small telescope!
Astronomical Spectroscopy

Astronomical spectroscopy is the study of spectroscopy and spectra used in astronomy to aid scientists in advancing in the study of visible light waves dispersed according to their wavelengths. The object of study is the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, including visible light, which radiates from stars and other hot celestial objects. Spectroscopy can be used to derive many properties of distant stars and galaxies, such as their chemical composition, temperature, density, mass, distance, luminosity, and relative motion using Doppler shift measurements.

I am not arguing with you about your evolution, I am making a statement of my beliefs, and why my beliefs about biological evolution fall over at the Big Bang

That seems pretty disingenuous. If you are simply speaking about your beliefs and aren't "arguing" or "debating" . . . why is it you are always asserting what science claims, what science doesn't claim, what evidence there is, or if the science is even valid? If you are simply stating your beliefs . . . why don't you stick to philosophical and theological arguments and stop pretending you know anything (at all . . . at even the most elementary level) about science?

Truth is you are just like every other zealous religious person (especially Christians), in that you simply deny or lie about any scientific claims that go against your personally biased worldview. If you want to remain willfully ignorant about science, while maintaining the weak threads your superstition relies on that's your prerogative. However, you'd garner a lot more respect simply sticking to one canned response for every science thread:
"I know absolutely nothing about what science claims or how to even learn about those claims, but I can't believe anything that goes against the word of my chosen god . . . or else I'll burn for eternity."

That way . . . you don't have to put your ignorance on parade?

Here is a simple Wikipedia opening statement

"Stellar nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis
Stellar nucleosynthesis is the process by which the natural abundances of the chemical elements assemble in the cores of stars. Stars are said to evolve (age) ..."

My question is
Where did the natural abundance of elements come from to be assembled.

You dont understand my issue, your not listening to my question.
Relax, read my comment and your answer and you will see why you have given me the wrong answer

originally posted by: GAOTU789

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
WOW. They will use ANYTHING to justify creationism being true, even saying dinosaur bones were planted by satan in one breath (that link is to a Christian forum with people discussing that issue, pretty funny read to see the ignorance spewed there) then we have these guys using dinosaurs to PROVE creationism. So which is it Christians?

Just for the sake of clarity, that website and the Landover Bapist Church is fictional, meant as satire and to mock fundamentalist Christian thinking. It's meant to be absurd and ignorant sounding.

I didnt know that, how cool.
I dont know whats funnier, me believing it or the anti christians using it to slam Christians

Thats an awesome website

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Dude, i went to that link.
Whatever those people are smoking has got to be some good #@%^

originally posted by: Degradation33
*facepalm*

So because the skeleton is intact is proof of a flood? Well, I'll be! Seems they may have skipped over a few options there. What's a pyroclastic flow anyway. I believe unicorns (land narwhals) accidentally caused a landslide while grazing for cotton candy and gumdrops.

Here's a link to what a pyroclastic flow looks like - here.

a reply to: bitsforbytes

It's not a mystery. We've pretty much solved the reason those bones exist through various radiometric dating processes, geologic strata, and evolutionary theory.

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I believe that the Earth is very old, yet I have a slight problem with the link you posted (and many others like it)
It is basically a circular argument.
They date the strata by the type of fossils it contains.
They then date the fossils by the strata it is found in.

There is more than just that. Those are old techniques to date things. Radiometric dating is also used on the fossils.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I believe that the Earth is very old, yet I have a slight problem with the link you posted (and many others like it)
It is basically a circular argument.
They date the strata by the type of fossils it contains.
They then date the fossils by the strata it is found in.

There is more than just that. Those are old techniques to date things. Radiometric dating is also used on the fossils.

So your faith is in the accuracy of radiometric dating.
It is well known it is flawed

www.cs.unc.edu...

evolutionfacts.com...

You make your argument so solid, it isnt.

Where did the first baby come from?
Apes?

So where did the first ape baby come from?
A reptile?

So where did the first reptile egg come from?
A fish?

So where did the first fish baby come from?
A single cell organism?

So where did the first single cell organism baby come from?
The comet that killed the dinosaurs?

So where did the first dinosaur eggs come from?
And back to single cell babies...

It's all just a simulation and we don't exist!!!

I'm just going with Ockham's Razor there and don't actually believe that!!!

But then where did the first baby co... You know what forget it!!!


Peace everybody!!!

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Quadrivium
a reply to: Krazysh0t
I believe that the Earth is very old, yet I have a slight problem with the link you posted (and many others like it)
It is basically a circular argument.
They date the strata by the type of fossils it contains.
They then date the fossils by the strata it is found in.

There is more than just that. Those are old techniques to date things. Radiometric dating is also used on the fossils.

So your faith is in the accuracy of radiometric dating.
It is well known it is flawed

www.cs.unc.edu...

evolutionfacts.com...

You make your argument so solid, it isnt.

Well known by who? And are we sure that they are correct? But before I read your two links, I decided to look a little bit further into them. They are both creationist sites (surprise...).

From the evolution handbook about Evolutionary theory:

1 - This is the evolutionary formula for making a universe:

Nothing + nothing = two elements + time = 92 natural elements + time = all physical laws and a completely structured universe of galaxies, systems, stars, planets, and moons orbiting in perfect balance and order.

2 - This is the evolutionary formula for making life:

Dirt + water + time = living creatures.

Both of those two claims are false. Evolution doesn't talk about the origins of life and it CERTAINLY doesn't talk about the origins of the universe. So your second source is HIGHLY flawed and has been shown to be lying. IT'S information can obviously be thrown out the window. Let's look at the other source now.

From the home page:

The theory of evolution explains the origin of all life on earth by ordinary physical and chemical processes.

Same lie said AGAIN.

I like that your first site tries to argue using science and calculations but if it isn't even going to be thorough enough to make real claims about what evolution is saying and not what it THINKS evolution is saying then I cannot trust its information about radiometric dating. Let's use some less biased sources:

Q: How is radiometric dating reliable? Why is it that one random thing is unpredictable, but many random things together are predictable?

Radiometric dating still reliable (again), research shows

If you want to prove to me that radiometric dating is flawed in your favor, give me a site or study that ISN'T located on a creationist site making bogus claims about evolution. Notice I didn't post from websites that are militantly arguing in favor of evolution. One of them is a mathematics website.

Behemoths ?

en.wikipedia.org...

Job 40:15-24 King James Version

15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox. 16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly. 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together. 18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. 19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him. 20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play. 21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens. 22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about. 23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth. 24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

What came first the chicken or the egg ?

Where did God come from ?

It's all a never-ending-story.