Creationist Museum shows dinosaurs playing with human children

[MrBishop]

Supposedly, it's a trick by God to make us humans think that the earth was created more than 8k years ago...to keep us curious. All planted evidence, down to the last hominid femur.

 

[unclehobart]

It is not a trick by God. It is a trick by: http://www.venganza.org/

 

[RDX]

Unless you can find me a coal deposit with no Carbon 14, I would say there is a controversy.

 

[chcr]

You guys are funny

I didn't realize there was a controversy over carbon dating. What is the controversy exactly?

Carbon-14 dating is only accurate to about 50,000 years. Somehow, and I've never quite had this explained to me so that it makes any sense at all, this proves that the earth is really less than 10,000 years old. Controversial to somebody.

 

[Gonz]

Supposedly, it's a trick by God to make us humans think that the earth was created more than 8k years ago...to keep us curious. All planted evidence, down to the last hominid femur.

If the believers are right and he is all-knowing & all-powerful, etc, then that would be within his abilities.

I still wanna know who Adam & Eves sons slept with.

 

[unclehobart]

If we all descended from Adam and Eve, does that not make us all one gigantic incestuous cesspool? It kinda gives new meaning to 'love your brother'.

 

[MrBishop]

If the believers are right and he is all-knowing & all-powerful, etc, then that would be within his abilities.

I still wanna know who Adam & Eves sons slept with.

The Aliens that had been kidnapped from another planet. Did you think that we were the first planet to have aliens land on and say "Mars needs your women"?

Perhaps 8k years ago, they landed on Betelgeuse and said "Earth needs your women"

Explains Oprah quite nicely.

 

[freako104]

Won't go, don't care.

And they can make one if they want to, but it won't last long more than likely

 

[BB]

There's a big difference between a tax exemption on $23 million and $23 million in tax dollars being given to something. If you assume, for shits and giggles, that the organization would be taxed at 35 percent, Then that would be $8,050,000 in tax dollars exempted. Big difference between $8 million and $23 million.

in the region of $15m i beleive

 

[Inkara1]

Thanks, Mr. Obvious.

 

[Professur]

Mammals may have flown before birds

By MALCOLM RITTER, AP Science Writer Wed Dec 13, 7:45 PM ET

NEW YORK - During the age of dinosaurs, tiny squirrel-like creatures climbed trees and jumped into the darkness. Then they spread their limbs and glided away — the first known mammals to take to the air, a new report says.

The species is revealed by a fossil find in northeastern China, which pushes the known history of mammalian gliding or flying back by more than 75 million years.

The creature may have even beaten birds into the air.

Like today's flying squirrels, it stretched a furry membrane between its limbs to provide an airfoil for gliding after it jumped from a tree. But it's not related to anything living today.

Scientists don't know exactly when the animal lived. Its remains could be anywhere from 130 million to 164 million years old, said Jin Meng of the American Museum of Natural History. He and colleagues from Beijing report the Inner Mongolia fossil discovery in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature.

So it's clearly older than the 51 million-year-old bat that used to be the oldest evidence of flying or gliding in a mammal. And it has a chance of preceding the earliest known bird, Archaeopteryx, which flew about 150 million years ago.

It is much younger than flying reptiles called pterosaurs, which are dated from 230 million years ago.

Still, added to a recent find in the same locale that revealed a semi-aquatic creature, the discovery shows that early mammals were a lot more varied than the land-loving creatures scientists have traditionally envisioned, Meng said.

He and colleagues dubbed the animal Volaticotherium antiquus, which is Latin and Greek for "ancient flying (or winged) beast."

They believe it was nocturnal, like other mammals of the time were thought to be, and like gliding mammals are today. It was the size of a flying squirrel or a bat — less than three ounces. Its stiff tail might have been longer than the trunk of its body.

The find includes not only bones, but also impressions left in rock that reveal the furry membrane the creature used for gliding. Its teeth show it ate mostly insects, researchers said. But it probably couldn't hunt insects while gliding because it was too clumsy a flier and couldn't stay airborne long enough, researchers said.

So why glide? It's hard to draw conclusions for this creature specifically, Meng said, but in general, scientists think that gliding is an energy-saving way to get from tree to tree, compared to repeatedly climbing up and down trunks. Gliding probably increased the foraging range of the creature and maybe helped it escape predators in the trees, he said.

Larry Heaney, curator of mammals at the Field Museum in Chicago who has long studied gliding mammals, said the new creature "has taken the first step" toward powered flight like a bat exhibits.

But from its anatomy, "I would say this animal probably was not very far along the path to true flight," Heaney said. "It was not on the road to the kinds of modifications we see in bats that allow them to actually fly."

Meng said it's not clear whether descendants of the creature gained the ability to fly.

Not shortened to omit stuff that I don't want read.

Source

 

[Gotholic]

I didn't realize there was a controversy over carbon dating. What is the controversy exactly?

Below are two articles that I think get to the heart of the matter...

Doesn't Carbon Dating Prove The Earth Is Old? (#115)
by John Morris, Ph.D.

Abstract
"And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know Him that is true, and we are in Him that is true, even in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life" (I John 5:20)

Perhaps no concept in science is as misunderstood as "carbon dating." Almost everyone thinks carbon dating speaks of millions or billions of years. But, carbon dating can't be used to date either rocks or fossils. It is only useful for once-living things which still contain carbon, like flesh or bone or wood. Rocks and fossils, consisting only of inorganic minerals, cannot be dated by this scheme.

Carbon normally occurs as Carbon-12, but radioactive Carbon-14 may sometimes be formed in the outer atmosphere as Nitrogen-14 undergoes cosmic ray bombardment. The resulting C-14 is unstable and decays back to N-14 with a measured half-life of approximately 5,730 years. Thus the ratio of stable C-12 to unstable C-14, which is known in today's open environment, changes over time in an isolated specimen.

Consider the dating of a piece of wood. As long as the tree lives, it absorbs carbon from the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide, both C-12 and C-14. Once the tree dies, it ceases to take in new carbon, and any C-14 present begins to decay. The changing ratio of C-12 to C-14 indicates the length of time since the tree stopped absorbing carbon, i.e., the time of its death.

Obviously, if half the C-14 decays in 5,730 years, and half more decays in another 5,730 years, by ten half-lives (57,300 years) there would be essentially no C-14 left. Thus, no one even considers using carbon dating for dates in this range. In theory, it might be useful to archaeology, but not to geology or paleontology. Furthermore, the assumptions on which it is based and the conditions which must be satisfied are questionable, and in practice, no one trusts it beyond about 3,000 or 4,000 years, and then only if it can be checked by some historical means.

The method assumes, among other things, that the earth's age exceeds the time it would take for C-14 production to be in equilibrium with C-14 decay. Since it would only take less than 50,000 years to reach equilibrium from a world with no C-14 at the start, this always seemed like a good assumption.

That is until careful measurements revealed a significant disequalibrium. The production rate still exceeds decay by 30%. All the present C-14 would accumulate, at present rates of production and build up, in less than 30,000 years! Thus the earth's atmosphere couldn't be any older than this.

Efforts to salvage carbon dating are many and varied, with calibration curves attempting to bring the C-14 "dates" in line with historical dates, but these produce predictably unreliable results.

A "Back to Genesis" way of thinking insists that the Flood of Noah's day would have removed a great deal of the world's carbon from the atmosphere and oceans, particularly as limestone (calcium carbonate) was precipitated. Once the Flood processes ceased, C-14 began a slow build-up to equilibrium with C-12—a build-up not yet complete.

Thus carbon dating says nothing at all about millions of years, and often lacks accuracy even with historical specimens, denying as it does the truth of the great Flood. In reality, its measured disequilibrium points to just such a world-altering event, not many years ago.

*Dr. John Morris is President of ICR.

Source

Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages (#364)
by John Baumgardner, Ph.D.

Abstract
The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year.

Evolutionists generally feel secure even in the face of compelling creationist arguments today because of their utter confidence in the geological time scale. Even if they cannot provide a naturalistic mechanism, they appeal to the "fact of evolution," by which they mean an interpretation of earth history with a succession of different types of plants and animals in a drama spanning hundreds of millions of years.

The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically different picture of our planet's history. In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year. This Biblical interpretation of the rock record implies that the animals and plants preserved as fossils were all contemporaries. This means trilobites, dinosaurs, and mammals all dwelled on the planet simultaneously, and they perished together in this world-destroying cataclysm.

Although creationists have long pointed out the rock formations themselves testify unmistakably to water catastrophism on a global scale, evolutionists generally have ignored this testimony. This is partly due to the legacy of the doctrine of uniformitarianism passed down from one generation of geologists to the next since the time of Charles Lyell in the early nineteenth century. Uniformitarianism assumes that the vast amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow and uniform processes operating over an immense span of time, as opposed to a global cataclysm of the type described in the Bible and other ancient texts.

With the discovery of radioactivity about a hundred years ago, evolutionists deeply committed to the uniformitarian outlook believed they finally had proof of the immense antiquity of the earth. In particular, they discovered the very slow nuclear decay rates of elements like Uranium while observing considerable amounts of the daughter products from such decay. They interpreted these discoveries as vindicating both uniformitarianism and evolution, which led to the domination of these beliefs in academic circles around the world throughout the twentieth century.

However, modern technology has produced a major fly in that uniformitarian ointment. A key technical advance, which occurred about 25 years ago, involved the ability to measure the ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms with extreme precision in very small samples of carbon, using an ion beam accelerator and a mass spectrometer. Prior to the advent of this accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) method, the 14C/12C ratio was measured by counting the number of 14C decays. This earlier method was subject to considerable "noise" from cosmic rays.

The AMS method improved the sensitivity of the raw measurement of the 14C/12C ratio from approximately 1% of the modern value to about 0.001%, extending the theoretical range of sensitivity from about 40,000 years to about 90,000 years. The expectation was that this improvement in precision would make it possible to use this technique to date dramatically older fossil material.1 The big surprise, however, was that no fossil material could be found anywhere that had as little as 0.001% of the modern value!2 Since most of the scientists involved assumed the standard geological time scale was correct, the obvious explanation for the 14C they were detecting in their samples was contamination from some source of modern carbon with its high level of 14C. Therefore they mounted a major campaign to discover and eliminate the sources of such contamination. Although they identified and corrected a few relatively minor sources of 14C contamination, there still remained a significant level of 14C—typically about 100 times the ultimate sensitivity of the instrument—in samples that should have been utterly "14C-dead," including many from the deeper levels of the fossil-bearing part of the geological record.2

Let us consider what the AMS measurements imply from a quantitative standpoint. The ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms decreases by a factor of 2 every 5730 years. After 20 half-lives or 114,700 years (assuming hypothetically that earth history goes back that far), the 14C/12C ratio is decreased by a factor of 220, or about 1,000,000. After 1.5 million years, the ratio is diminished by a factor of 21500000/5730, or about 1079. This means that if one started with an amount of pure 14C equal to the mass of the entire observable universe, after 1.5 million years there should not be a single atom of 14C remaining! Routinely finding 14C/12C ratios on the order of 0.1-0.5% of the modern value—a hundred times or more above the AMS detection threshold—in samples supposedly tens to hundreds of millions of years old is therefore a huge anomaly for the uniformitarian framework.

This earnest effort to understand this "contamination problem" therefore generated scores of peer-reviewed papers in the standard radiocarbon literature during the last 20 years.2 Most of these papers acknowledge that most of the 14C in the samples studied appear to be intrinsic to the samples themselves, and they usually offer no explanation for its origin. The reality of significant levels of 14C in a wide variety of fossil sources from throughout the geological record has thus been established in the secular scientific literature by scientists who assume the standard geological time scale is valid and have no special desire for this result!

In view of the profound significance of these AMS 14C measurements, the ICR Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) team has undertaken its own AMS 14C analyses of such fossil material.2 The first set of samples consisted of ten coals obtained from the U. S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank maintained at the Pennsylvania State University. The ten samples include three coals from the Eocene part of the geological record, three from the Cretaceous, and four from the Pennsylvanian. These samples were analyzed by one of the foremost AMS laboratories in the world. Figure 1 below shows in histogram form the results of these analyses.

These values fall squarely within the range already established in the peer-reviewed radiocarbon literature. When we average our results over each geological interval, we obtain remarkably similar values of 0.26 percent modern carbon (pmc) for Eocene, 0.21 pmc for Cretaceous, and 0.27 pmc for Pennsylvanian. Although the number of samples is small, we observe little difference in 14C level as a function of position in the geological record. This is consistent with the young-earth view that the entire macrofossil record up to the upper Cenozoic is the product of the Genesis Flood and therefore such fossils should share a common 14C age.

Percent Modern Carbon
Figure 1. Histogram representation of 14C analysis of RATE coal samples. Coal 14C AMS Results Mean: 0.247 Std dev: 0.109


Applying the uniformitarian approach of extrapolating 14C decay into the indefinite past translates the measured 14C/12C ratios into ages that are on the order of 50,000 years (2-50000/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc). However, uniformitarian assumptions are inappropriate when one considers that the Genesis Flood removed vast amounts of living biomass from exchange with the atmosphere—organic material that now forms the earth's vast coal, oil, and oil shale deposits. A conservative estimate for the pre-Flood biomass is 100 times that of today. If one takes as a rough estimate for the total 14C in the biosphere before the cataclysm as 40% of what exists today and assumes a relatively uniform 14C level throughout the pre-Flood atmosphere and biomass, then we might expect a 14C/12C ratio of about 0.4% of today's value in the plants and animals at the onset of the Flood. With this more realistic pre-Flood 14C/12C ratio, we find that a value of 0.24 pmc corresponds to an age of only 4200 years (0.004 x 2-4200/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc). Even though these estimates are rough, they illustrate the crucial importance of accounting for effects of the Flood cataclysm when translating a 14C/12C ratio into an actual age.

Percent Modern Carbon

Some readers at this point may be asking, how does one then account for the tens of millions and hundreds of millions of years that other radioisotope methods yield for the fossil record? Most of the other RATE projects address this important issue. Equally as persuasive as the 14C data is evidence from RATE measurements of the diffusion rate of Helium in zircon crystals that demonstrates the rate of nuclear decay of Uranium into Lead and Helium has been dramatically higher in the past and the uniformitarian assumption of a constant rate of decay is wrong.3 Another RATE project documents the existence of abundant Polonium radiohalos in granitic rocks that crystallized during the Flood and further demonstrates that the uniformitarian assumption of constant decay rates is incorrect.4 Another RATE project provides clues for why the 14C decay rate apparently was minimally affected during episodes of rapid decay of isotopes with long half-lives.5

The bottom line of this research is that the case is now extremely compelling that the fossil record was produced just a few thousand years ago by the global Flood cataclysm. The evidence that reveals that macroevolution as an explanation for the origin of life on earth can therefore no longer be rationally defended.

Acknowledgement: The RATE team would like to express its heartfelt gratitude to the many generous donors who have made the high precision analyses at some of the best laboratories in the world possible. The credibility of our work in creation science research depends on these costly but crucial laboratory procedures.

Source

Here is much more on the subject.

I still wanna know who Adam & Eves sons slept with.

I know I addressed you before about that. They slept with their sisters. Do you think that was not a possibility?

 

[Gonz]

I know I addressed you before about that. They slept with their sisters. Do you think that was not a possibility?

It's a rhetorical question so I may have missed your answer. See it I have to ask, what about the flaws that presents in the genetics & isn;t it immoral?

 

[rrfield]

desperate times, desperate measures

 

[spike]

It's a rhetorical question so I may have missed your answer. See it I have to ask, what about the flaws that presents in the genetics & isn;t it immoral?

Good question. Apparently it used to be ok to have sex with your relatives in that model.

 

[Gotholic]

It's a rhetorical question so I may have missed your answer. See it I have to ask, what about the flaws that presents in the genetics & isn;t it immoral?

I gave you a simple answer. But before that I gave Mr. Bishop a more detailed one. It can be found here.

 

[MrBishop]

Hey Gotho...how about humans playing with dinosaurs?

 

[BB]

Spielberg's already covered that one, Bish

 

[MrBishop]

Smart-ass!

 

[Gato_Solo]

Hey Gotho...how about humans playing with dinosaurs?

Ahem

There they found a series of tracks imprinted into the rock. Immense tracks of a creature with three toes. Scientists would later identify this animal as a large theropod dinosaur named Acrocanthosaurus. Nearby the three-toed tracks was something even more amazing: A series of oblong footprints in the stone that looked like it came from a giant man.

Interesting, no?

And most probably debunked...