Baby dinosaurs on Noah's Ark

Just been reading AZ Central and came across this gem of an article that I though that I might share -- What am I missing here?

"Here is a bit of instruction from a guy Superintendent Diane Douglas tapped to help review Arizona’s standards on how to teach evolution in science class:

The earth is just 6,000 years old and dinosaurs were present on Noah’s Ark. But only the young ones. The adult ones were too big to fit, don’t you know.

"Plenty of space on the Ark for dinosaurs – no problem," Joseph Kezele explained to Phoenix New Times' Joseph Flaherty.

Flaherty reports that in August, Arizona's soon-to-be ex-superintendent appointed Kezele to a working group charged with reviewing and editing the state’s proposed new state science standards on evolution.

Kezele is a biology teacher at Arizona Christian University. He also is president of the Arizona Origin Science Association and, as Flaherty puts it, “a staunch believer in the idea that enough scientific evidence exists to back up the biblical story of creation.”

eu.azcentral.com...


Mod Note:
Mod Note: Posting work written by others.– Please Review This Link.

"although the real science will confirm the Bible," Kezele told Flaherty.

This statement alone shows that they don't understand the premise of science. It is an assumption and science is not based on assumption.

originally posted by: DpatC
"Here is a bit of instruction from a guy Superintendent Diane Douglas tapped to help review Arizona’s standards on how to teach evolution in science class:

The earth is just 6,000 years old and dinosaurs were present on Noah’s Ark. But only the young ones. The adult ones were too big to fit, don’t you know.

"Plenty of space on the Ark for dinosaurs – no problem," Joseph Kezele explained to Phoenix New Times' Joseph Flaherty.

That is some grandmaster level stupid right there.

In a rational society it's mental illness, and there's no way that person should be teaching anyone

a reply to: DpatC


Pondering the possibility of intelligent design is one thing, probably better for a philosophy class than a science class, though. But, gerry rigging intelligent design to retrofit biblical mythology is a bridge too far.

"But only the young ones"

Yes lets just keep modifying the story every time someone puts a hole in it. I'd really like to see the repeatable results (aka science) for the baby dinosaurs on the Ark hypothesis.

The US has terrible math and science scores, and it is not because our kids are stupid. Our political leaders are stupid, and pandering to anti-intellectual religious nuts, who hate rational thought.

originally posted by: JasonBillung
The US has terrible math and science scores, and it is not because our kids are stupid. Our political leaders are stupid, and pandering to anti-intellectual religious nuts, who hate rational thought.

h

Having spent my last two years of high school in a fundamental baptist school, there are a couple things I think should be taught. First carbon 14 dating isn’t accurate. The amount isn’t based on a constant conversion ratio of temp and air pressures staying at a constant rate. The issue is that it’s not possible for it to have been this low in the past as we have fossil evidence to support much higher temperatures as well as higher oxygen levels which would increase bariatric pressure. With that said, do I believe in Noah’s flood. Absolutely, around 12,500 years ago the ice age ended and sea levels raised pretty significantly. Today 90% of the population lives near the ocean, back that long ago, 90% would have lived near the ocean too and as a result you would see catastrophic flooding. So, yes that story from a historical perspective is possible, just as the story of Gilgamesh, the Hopi flooding etc lead credenence to global flooding, which from a Stone Age perspective needed to be explained. So with these two things in mind should these things be taught, yes absolutely. As should natural selection too. However, there is no evidence to prove creationism anymore then that. We should not Pursue any more finding past that, imo.


Camain

a reply to: DpatC

S&F-i've missed my daily dose of sarcasm.

My friend recently got married and the stone in the ring left me in awe because it's very rare to find a six thousand year old rock that survived the KT extinction.

a reply to: DpatC

Nevermind all the pairs of breeding dinosaurs. Where did all the bugs go?? Millions of the bastards.

Nvm Ive got it. Bugs rode on the dinosaurs.

a reply to: camain

There are many ways to date material. Carbon 14 is fairly accurate up to a point. And it is also confirmed/metered by other tests.

If you believe in a Global flood, well there is no evidence. There is evidence of many localized floods all over the world at different times. There is good evidence of the flooding of the Black sea in ancient times as sea levels rose.

Also, it is impossible to fit all animals on a boat. Maybe you could get some of your farm animals in there. Maybe that is where the story came from. Also, there is a bit of a genetic problem with everyone being directly related to Noah and his family.

I do appreciate your addition to the conversation.

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: camain

There are many ways to date material. Carbon 14 is fairly accurate up to a point. And it is also confirmed/metered by other tests.

If you believe in a Global flood, well there is no evidence. There is evidence of many localized floods all over the world at different times. There is good evidence of the flooding of the Black sea in ancient times as sea levels rose.

Also, it is impossible to fit all animals on a boat. Maybe you could get some of your farm animals in there. Maybe that is where the story came from. Also, there is a bit of a genetic problem with everyone being directly related to Noah and his family.

I do appreciate your addition to the conversation.

Right from a Stone Age man perspective or even Bronze or Iron Age, the flooding that would have resulted from the ice melt would have “looked” global. Especially since it would have happened quickly and destroyed homelands and forced relocation. I think that’s where the Noah’s ark concept came from.

As far as carbon 14, it is accurate as long as the temp and pressure stayed accurate, however you can’t get massive dinosaurs and 6 foot long centipedes or 2 ft long ants with our current oxygen level in the atmosphere. Oxygen would have had to have been 4-6x higher then it is today, which would have drastically altered carbon dating the further back you go. No with that said, all I’m saying is maybe the creatatious period didn’t happen 5 billion years ago and maybe it was actually 1billion, or Jurassic could have been 1million vs 365million etc. I don’t believe in a 6000 yr old earth. Especially since the Chinese have a history that goes back 6000 years. People are a lot older than that. I’m just saying that those two things, should be reviewed and argued only. Everything else just makes you look like a fool arguing(not you, just saying as example 6000yr old earth)

Camain

a reply to: DpatC

Kind of strange.

I have read the Bible a couple of times and a lot of the commentaries by some noted men on the subject. Yet I have never read any of this in any of it.

You don't think this guy just makes stuff up as he goes along, do you ???

a reply to: camain

What they didn't teach you is that scientific results are based on repeatable, tested experiments. The carbon dating experiments are checked and backed by other tested methods and other laboratories.


Real science requires a history of strong evidence before an idea can transition from hypothesis to theory. You should familiarize yourself with Five Sigma.

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: DpatC

Kind of strange.

I have read the Bible a couple of times and a lot of the commentaries by some noted men on the subject. Yet I have never read any of this in any of it.

You don't think this guy just makes stuff up as he goes along, do you ???

It's a possibility!

originally posted by: tinymind
a reply to: DpatC

Kind of strange.

I have read the Bible a couple of times and a lot of the commentaries by some noted men on the subject. Yet I have never read any of this in any of it.

You don't think this guy just makes stuff up as he goes along, do you ???

I’ve heard it before. In school I have worship every morning. Bible class before lunch then bible class at end of day, followed by worship. Trust me, there all all kinds of different levels of creationism that is just completely bs. The ones I mentioned I could almost see as plausible. The other is that given enough heat and pressure you can turn any piece of wood into coal, and any coal into a diamond. Given that, a “global” flood would explain large deposits of coal, just as large deposits of iron would explain destroyed cities. It’s possible sure. Plausible, ya not so much, but makes for a good read.

Camain

a reply to: camain

ll I’m saying is maybe the creatatious period didn’t happen 5 billion years

No it did not. The earth is only 4.5 billion years old.

A bit about carbon dating:

Measuring the amount of 14 C in a sample from a dead plant or animal such as a piece of wood or a fragment of bone provides information that can be used to calculate when the animal or plant died. The older a sample is, the less 14 C there is to be detected, and because the half-life of 14 C (the period of time after which half of a given sample will have decayed) is about 5,730 years, the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by this process date to around 50,000 years ago, although special preparation methods occasionally permit accurate analysis of older samples.

Link

Radiocarbon dating is generally limited to dating samples no more than 50,000 years old, as samples older than that have insufficient 14 C to be measurable. Older dates have been obtained by using special sample preparation techniques, large samples, and very long measurement times. These techniques can allow measurement of dates up to 60,000 and in some cases up to 75,000 years before the present.[63] Radiocarbon dates are generally presented with a range of one standard deviation (usually represented by the Greek letter sigma as 1σ) on either side of the mean. However, a date range of 1σ represents only 68% confidence level, so the true age of the object being measured may lie outside the range of dates quoted. This was demonstrated in 1970 by an experiment run by the British Museum radiocarbon laboratory, in which weekly measurements were taken on the same sample for six months. The results varied widely (though consistently with a normal distribution of errors in the measurements), and included multiple date ranges (of 1σ confidence) that did not overlap with each other. The measurements included one with a range from about 4250 to about 4390 years ago, and another with a range from about 4520 to about 4690.[77]

lead to a radiocarbon result being reported as two separate age ranges, corresponding to the two parts of the curve that the radiocarbon age intercepted.[40] Bayesian statistical techniques can be applied when there are several radiocarbon dates to be calibrated. For example, if a series of radiocarbon dates is taken from different levels in a stratigraphic sequence, Bayesian analysis can be used to evaluate dates which are outliers, and can calculate improved probability distributions, based on the prior information that the sequence should be ordered in time.[84] When Bayesian analysis was introduced, its use was limited by the need to use mainframe computers to perform the calculations, but the technique has since been implemented on programs available for personal computers, such as OxCal.[87]

originally posted by: JasonBillung
a reply to: camain

ll I’m saying is maybe the creatatious period didn’t happen 5 billion years

No it did not. The earth is only 4.5 billion years old.

A bit about carbon dating:

Measuring the amount of 14 C in a sample from a dead plant or animal such as a piece of wood or a fragment of bone provides information that can be used to calculate when the animal or plant died. The older a sample is, the less 14 C there is to be detected, and because the half-life of 14 C (the period of time after which half of a given sample will have decayed) is about 5,730 years, the oldest dates that can be reliably measured by this process date to around 50,000 years ago, although special preparation methods occasionally permit accurate analysis of older samples.

Link

Radiocarbon dating is generally limited to dating samples no more than 50,000 years old, as samples older than that have insufficient 14 C to be measurable. Older dates have been obtained by using special sample preparation techniques, large samples, and very long measurement times. These techniques can allow measurement of dates up to 60,000 and in some cases up to 75,000 years before the present.[63] Radiocarbon dates are generally presented with a range of one standard deviation (usually represented by the Greek letter sigma as 1σ) on either side of the mean. However, a date range of 1σ represents only 68% confidence level, so the true age of the object being measured may lie outside the range of dates quoted. This was demonstrated in 1970 by an experiment run by the British Museum radiocarbon laboratory, in which weekly measurements were taken on the same sample for six months. The results varied widely (though consistently with a normal distribution of errors in the measurements), and included multiple date ranges (of 1σ confidence) that did not overlap with each other. The measurements included one with a range from about 4250 to about 4390 years ago, and another with a range from about 4520 to about 4690.[77]

lead to a radiocarbon result being reported as two separate age ranges, corresponding to the two parts of the curve that the radiocarbon age intercepted.[40] Bayesian statistical techniques can be applied when there are several radiocarbon dates to be calibrated. For example, if a series of radiocarbon dates is taken from different levels in a stratigraphic sequence, Bayesian analysis can be used to evaluate dates which are outliers, and can calculate improved probability distributions, based on the prior information that the sequence should be ordered in time.[84] When Bayesian analysis was introduced, its use was limited by the need to use mainframe computers to perform the calculations, but the technique has since been implemented on programs available for personal computers, such as OxCal.[87]

I was just throwing numbers out. But ya I hadn’t was that about carbon 14. Cool info. Just relaying my indoctrination 😂. Sounds like the teachers latched on to carbon 14 not being accurate then never went into detail that other stuff was used to measure past 60k years since the earth was on 6000 years old anyway 😂

a reply to: camain

Cool beans. I never believed my Sunday school teachers for the reasons you mention above.

Ant they told me Santa was fake in the 2nd grade! How mean can you be?