Dinosaur Propaganda

Discussion in 'Science' started by Deacon, Jan 27, 2005.

  1. Deacon

    Deacon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2002
    Messages:
    6,968
    Likes Received:
    128
    I visited a home last night and noticed a pamphlet put out by one of Ken Ham's groups.

    Prominently featured on the cover was a picture of an man in an African safari hat holding a baby dinosaur and feeding it crackers.

    I also found a book called, The Dinosaur Dilemma : Fact or fantasy. by Dennis Gordon Lindsay, published by Christ For The Nations, Inc. Dallas. 1999,1990.

    They still use the old argument that dinosaurs and man tracks are found together in Paluxy, Texas.

    Should we be allowing this sort of material in our churches? Should we teach it to our kids?

    Can Scripture alone support a belief in a young earth. ...or do we need to use sloppy science and propaganda?

    Rob
     
  2. Bro. James

    Bro. James
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    14
    Sola Scriptura--in all matters of faith and practice.

    Man has shown himself to be quite adept at bungling his affairs--all of them, including Anthropology, Archaeology, Paleontology etc, etc, ad infinitum.

    We are scratching around on another moon--trying to find out where we came from--"que lastima".

    Selah,

    Bro. James
     
  3. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, the problem with saying that man can bungle all his affairs, of course, is that man can also bungle his religions and his attempts at interpreting what interpretation to put on a given religous text. Therefore we can all dismiss each other and why bother debating?

    Unless you wish, of course, to abandon the field due to lack of any substantive arguments?
     
  4. Bro. James

    Bro. James
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    14
    Things fallible are debated.

    Things infallible are not debated.

    What part of: "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God" is open for interpretation or debate?

    The problem comes up when Man tries to be God--the clay cannot be the potter.

    This is a classic clash of paradigms.

    Jesus told Rabbi Nicodemus: "You must be born from above". John Ch. 3.

    Man asks: Where is above?

    Selah,

    Bro. James
     
  5. Paul of Eugene

    Paul of Eugene
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2001
    Messages:
    2,782
    Likes Received:
    0
    Br. James, merely discovering the age of the earth and merely discovering the common descent of all life is not playing God. It is finding out what God has done, after the fact.

    It does, of course, call into question whether certain interpretations from the Bible are literally true, after all.
     
  6. PlainSense Bible believer

    PlainSense Bible believer
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thanks for your welcome the other day Deacon, I appreciated it.

    Dinosaurs obviously lived in Job's time, otherwise God would not have used this illustration.

    There are also many references to dragons throughout the Old Testament, too many to quote here.

    Yes, I know newer Bible versions try to pass these off as lesser beasts like the hippo, but when did you last see a hippo with a "tail like a cedar"? Also, the Leviathan described here, is far more fearsome than the mere crocodile that I think some versions try to pass it off as.

    So yes, we can make a biblical case and we should teach this in our churches. I, for one, have already done so many times.

    Yours, in Christ,
    PlainSense
     
  7. just-want-peace

    just-want-peace
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2002
    Messages:
    5,503
    Likes Received:
    40
    If you believe the Bible as written, seems a moot point to question whether man & dinos lived at the same time!
    The following quote also becomes irrelevant if you accept scripture as written.

    If you choose to believe science rather than God, then this whole discussion is pointless, since Scripture says what it says, and belief is up to each individual.
     
  8. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    >Jesus told Rabbi Nicodemus: "You must be born >from above". John Ch. 3.


    And then told Nico that he, Nico, had no control over the process.
     
  9. hillclimber

    hillclimber
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2005
    Messages:
    2,075
    Likes Received:
    0
  10. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    I personally find it frightening that 21st century Christians would allow themselves to be duped by such nonsense. We as Christians need to learn to distinguish between reruns of the “Twilight Zone” and reality.

    [​IMG]
     
  11. Craigbythesea

    Craigbythesea
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2003
    Messages:
    5,500
    Likes Received:
    20
    Absolutely not!


    Although I believe that we need to be careful about spoon-feeding information to our children, and that we need to encourage them to learn for themselves, I also believe that we need to warn our children about predators who prey on young bodies or young minds. I believe that the church is doing a fair job of warning our children about those who prey on young bodies, but I do not believe that the church is doing enough to warn our children about those like Ken Ham who prey on young minds.

    [​IMG]
     
  12. PlainSense Bible believer

    PlainSense Bible believer
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not having a TV, I have to assume that the "Twilight Zone" is some kind of TV sci-fi programme(?)

    Personally, I thank God for such dedicated and clearly genuine Bible-believing Christian scientists. Except for work such as that of Setterfield, AiG, Christian Science Foundation, and others, the Bible-ridiculing evolutionary scientists would have no scientific opposition to their claims that the Bible is just myth and superstition.

    I believe the earth to be roughly 6000 years old because that is the plain sense interpretation of Genesis and associated Scripture. Scientists who believe likewise and can actually show this scientifically have done a lot to prove the credibility of the Bible to a largely secular and unbelieving world, and are a source of encouragement to Bible-believers. I thank God for placing such people in positions of influence in the scientific community.

    PlainSense
     
  13. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "Personally, I thank God for such dedicated and clearly genuine Bible-believing Christian scientists. Except for work such as that of Setterfield, AiG, Christian Science Foundation, and others, the Bible-ridiculing evolutionary scientists would have no scientific opposition to their claims that the Bible is just myth and superstition."

    Hillclimber started a separate thread on Setterfield. Here:

    http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/39.html

    I would encourage you to take a look. While Barry seems like a smart guy and has been a nice guy when I have interacted with him, he really does not have a leg to stand on with his ideas. They sound good. But they make certain predictions which just are not inline with what is observed. And that is a fatal flaw.

    Unfortunately, it is the same flaw that most of the so called "creation scientists" have. What they claim is not supported by the observations. IMHO, folks such as AIG and ICR are forced to invent and misrepresent what is really seen to attempt to make a case.

    This is the very reason why I am no longer YE. I once was. When I went to the YE source, like the ones you mentioned, I was so shocked by the poor scholarship (to put it charitably) that I felt forced to broaden my scope. I am no longer YE because of the evidence for YE. Or more specifically the lack of evidence thereof and the way in which folks such as AIG attempt to build a case.
     
  14. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think Answers in Genesis is a great ministry, I believe that dinosaurs and humans were on the earth together, I actually believe there are still dinosaurs on the earth today, they just don't live as long and get as big. Another great ministry I support is Steve Grohman, Creation Seminar Ministries.

    So yes we should teach our children this, if we don't they could be misled to believe evolution and the lies about the earth being millions of years old that is even taught by some Christians.
     
  15. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    You are right about one thing...

    There are still dinosaurs on the earth. I have a dinosaur feeder in my backyard full of seed. Which reminds me, I need to refill it.

    I am curious what dinosaurs you think are still alive today? Where are they hiding? What kinds are they?

    "So yes we should teach our children this, if we don't they could be misled to believe evolution and the lies about the earth being millions of years old that is even taught by some Christians."

    The earth is actually about 4.6 billion years old, so someone who only claimed millions would be incorrect. The lie is to say otherwise, especially folks like AIG who do so without evidence and in contrast to the real evidence.
     
  16. JGrubbs

    JGrubbs
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Messages:
    4,761
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is an issue that you and I will never agree on, so we will just have to agree to disagree.

    I believe that many reptiles of today if alive pre-flood would have been considered dinos as they would have lived hundreds of years and grown to massive sizes. Keep in mind that reptiles never stop growing. In 1841 Richard Owen coined the term "dinosaur" which means "terrible lizard".

    I believe the earth to be no more than 10,000 years old, I believe this is proved by both the Bible and Science. I choose to side with the Creationists, you side with the Evolutionists, we will just have to agree to disagree.
     
  17. PlainSense Bible believer

    PlainSense Bible believer
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2005
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am sorry to hear you claim that Creation Science is poor scholarship. I have found just the opposite. It is the evolutionists who try to pull the wool over our eyes. Don't forget evolutionist hoaxes:

    'Piltdown Man' was a hoax
    For nearly 50 years 'Piltdown Man' who consisted of fragments of a jawbone and pieces of a skull was believed to be a genuine sub-human ancestor. But in 1950 it was shown to be a hoax. Someone had taken the jawbone of an ape and the skull of a modern human, treated them with chemicals, filed the teeth to make them look more human than ape-like and planted them in a gravel pit. It fooled the world's experts!

    'Nebraska Man' was a pig!
    'Nebraska Man' was the result of someone finding a single tooth in Western Nebraska. One of America's foremost fossil experts, Dr. Henry Fairchild Osborn at Columbia University, along with others, presented it as evidence that man had evolved from apes. A few years later, additional bones were discovered and 'Nebraska Man' turned out to be a pig! Their theory was based on a pig's tooth!

    'Neanderthal Man' suffered from arthritis and rickets
    About the time of Darwin in 1860, 'Neanderthal Man' was discovered and was declared to be a sub-human ancestor. A famous anatomist Dr. Rudolph Virchow pointed out that the bones were not sub-human but were old people suffering from arthritis and rickets. This was eventually acknowledged by other scientists.

    'Ramppithecus' was an orang-utan!
    About 60 years ago, part of a fossilized jaw and a few teeth became known as belonging to a creature called 'Ramppithecus'. Apparently these remains proved that this creature was well on the way to becoming human. Recently however, enough of this creature has been found to show that it was in fact, an orang-utan.

    More recently a skull cap found in Spain was hailed as the oldest fossil man found in Europe. Later, French experts confirmed that it was the skull cap of a six month old donkey!

    In 1973 Dr. Donald Johanson found a fossilized skeleton and called it 'Lucy'. However when they required a knee joint to prove that Lucy walked upright, they used one found more than 200 feet lower in the strata and more than 2 miles away!

    What it boils down to is: do we believe what God has said, or do we believe the theories of man? Any man-made theory can be wrong - "For now we see through a glass, darkly" (1 Corinthians 13:12). In science we are groping our way in trying to understand the things that God has made. God has given us enquiring minds and it is right that we make use of them, but we must realise and accept that if our conclusions are contrary to what the Bible clearly says*, then it is our conclusions that are wrong, not the Bible.

    *If we twist Scripture to try to make it say what we want it to say - such as is the case with the gap theory, or with the "each 'day' is a long time-period theory", then we are not interpreting Scripture correctly. "God is not the author of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33) and Genesis does not need to be 'manipulated' into fitting in with our theories. It is simple text and is meant to be understood exactly as it is written).

    PlainSense
     
  18. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "I am sorry to hear you claim that Creation Science is poor scholarship. I have found just the opposite. It is the evolutionists who try to pull the wool over our eyes. Don't forget evolutionist hoaxes:"

    I agree. Let's take a look.

    "'Piltdown Man' was a hoax
    For nearly 50 years 'Piltdown Man' who consisted of fragments of a jawbone and pieces of a skull was believed to be a genuine sub-human ancestor. But in 1950 it was shown to be a hoax. Someone had taken the jawbone of an ape and the skull of a modern human, treated them with chemicals, filed the teeth to make them look more human than ape-like and planted them in a gravel pit. It fooled the world's experts.
    "

    Now, let's put a finer point on some of the things you said.

    This was not faking evidence by scientists. It was a hoax played upon them. It is very important here to point out that science DID work in this case. The hoax was discovered because Piltdown did not fit in with other data that was collected. Science is self correcting, whether it be mistakes or hoaxes. They are eventually discovered and corrected by the process.

    Now, for the key question. Can you name a single reference that still uses Piltdown as evidence for evolution? No? Of course you cannot! So what exactly is the point in bringing it up.

    Now, let's draw a contrast by looking at an example of YE fraud in current use. Since someone asserted AIG as a good organization, let's look there.

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v21n3_date-dilemma.asp

    Now the good Dr. Snelling claims that he found a piece of wood in a Triassic era sandstone and had it dated. The Triassic was roughly 200 million years ago. But it C14 dated to about 33000 years old. Obviously this means C14 dating is flawed, right?

    Nope. What it means is that Snelling took an iron concretion and presented it for dating. Sandstones tend to be porous and water can flow through them and deposit minerals in the sandstone. Iron concretions are one type of deposit that can be formed and they are known to geologists to give incorrect dates because they are not organic in nature and due to the flowing water are likely contaminated.

    The head of the C14 dating group at Geochron Labs, where Snelling had the sample sent for analysis, told Snelling that the sample was not wood but likely an iron concretion. Snelling said to date it anyway. He also still reported the sample as wood and claims that this shows that dating is flawed. He will not submit his work to peer review nor will he allow others to inspect the sample.

    It does not sound as if he is being honest here.
     
  19. UTEOTW

    UTEOTW
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2002
    Messages:
    4,087
    Likes Received:
    0
    "'Nebraska Man' was a pig!
    'Nebraska Man' was the result of someone finding a single tooth in Western Nebraska. One of America's foremost fossil experts, Dr. Henry Fairchild Osborn at Columbia University, along with others, presented it as evidence that man had evolved from apes. A few years later, additional bones were discovered and 'Nebraska Man' turned out to be a pig! Their theory was based on a pig's tooth!
    "

    This gets the same basic treatment as above. A hoax that was corrected by science itself. For this one, you need to further qualify the hoax as being one that never really had much support before it was even exposed.

    Again I must ask my question. Can you name a single reference that still uses Nebraska Man as evidence for evolution? No? Of course you cannot! So what exactly is the point in bringing it up.

    And I will draw the same contrast again by showing prominent YE leaders perpetrating current fraud.

    How about false claims of fresh dinosaur blood being found? How about AIG again?

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4232cen_s1997.asp

    AIG claims that actual ed blood cells were found of a dinosaur. And since a blood cell cannot survive long, this must mean a young earth. But not so fast, my friend.

    Now what was actually found was this. A very well preserved dinosaur was found. So well preserved that the fossils of the individual cells could be observed. (There are other interpretations, even less kind to the YECers.) Within these cells were a few organic molecules. They removed these molecules and had them tested. On the basis of a number of tests, they found that the compounds contained heme (the oxygen carrying group in blood cells) and concluded that the molecules were from the dinosaur tissue. The abstract reference is given below. So, a scientist reports then they found a well preserved fossil that contained fragments of heme and AIG reports that actual blood cells were found. Junk science.

    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/94/12/6291
     
  20. Daisy

    Daisy
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    7,751
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Piltdown Man was a hoax, but who was it that exposed it as one? The evolutionists! As early as 1925, when paleontoloy was still in its infancy, F. H. Edmonds,British geologist in the Geological Survey, reported that the geology of the Piltdown man was in error. In 1953 J. S. Weiner, Wilfred Le Gros Clark, and Sir Kenneth Oakley exposed the hoax definitively.
    Actually, there were two skulls, both approximately 620 years old. The jawbone was from an orangutan about 500 years old. The elephant molar was a genuine fossile, as were the hippotamus tooth and the canine tooth of a chimpanzee. (link)

    The Nebraska Man was not widely accepted even in its heyday. But who determined it was a pig's tooth? Again, evolutionists, and only 5 years later!
    They don't really seem to know how to classify Rampithecus, maybe an orangutan's grandpappy.

    Skullcap? As in a yarmulke? That reference is unclear.

    Now your Lucy fraud is a fraud itself (link). If you think that the Piltdown fraud proves that evolution is fraudulent, then this Lucy fraud proves the same about creationist?

    Johanson was asked, "How far away from Lucy did you find the knee?" to which he answered, "Sixty to seventy meters lower in the strata and two to three kilometers away." Now the problem is that "the knee" in Johansan's reply is not Lucy's knee, but the first knee he found in 1973, a year earlier than Lucy's discovery.
     

Share This Page

Loading...