Dinosaurs a hoax created and perpetuated by evolutionists?

No they do not. There's one in that video, or go to his website.

How else would we get fossils world-wide when fossils only form under flood sedimentary conditions?

Creationism is about the global flood. All creationist believe in the global flood.

the meteor impact theory of dino extinction is an attempt at explaining the global flood sediment and fossil record. They admit there was a seriouc catastrophy.

you mean like science, that crap?

[link to www.talkorigins.org]

"6. Implications of a Flood

A global flood would have produce evidence contrary to the evidence we see.

How do you explain the relative ages of mountains? For example, why weren't the Sierra Nevadas eroded as much as the Appalachians during the Flood?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in ice core series? Ice cores from Greenland have been dated back more than 40,000 years by counting annual layers. [Johnsen et al, 1992,; Alley et al, 1993] A worldwide flood would be expected to leave a layer of sediments, noticeable changes in salinity and oxygen isotope ratios, fractures from buoyancy and thermal stresses, a hiatus in trapped air bubbles, and probably other evidence. Why doesn't such evidence show up?

How are the polar ice caps even possible? Such a mass of water as the Flood would have provided sufficient buoyancy to float the polar caps off their beds and break them up. They wouldn't regrow quickly. In fact, the Greenland ice cap would not regrow under modern (last 10 ky) climatic conditions.

Why did the Flood not leave traces on the sea floors? A year long flood should be recognizable in sea bottom cores by (1) an uncharacteristic amount of terrestrial detritus, (2) different grain size distributions in the sediment, (3) a shift in oxygen isotope ratios (rain has a different isotopic composition from seawater), (4) a massive extinction, and (n) other characters. Why do none of these show up?

Why is there no evidence of a flood in tree ring dating? Tree ring records go back more than 10,000 years, with no evidence of a catastrophe during that time. [Becker & Kromer, 1993; Becker et al, 1991; Stuiver et al, 1986]"

There is no plausible science that states the earth is 3000 years old. There are thousands of geologists, thousands of plaleontologists and thousands of well educated physicists that give no creedance whatsoever to the idea. The fact that you can trot out a handfull of people willing to make claims bent by bad logic and false premise that fail even the most basic tenants of scientific process proves only that there are enough people in the world that you can produce a meaningless minorty to hang your flag on. Scientific process is well established and agreed upon, and NO evidence that claims a young earth in any form passes even the most basic tests of generalized peer review, or even simple earth science. That fact that people claim it does is a simple falsehood.

Example: the flood argument is a complete straw man. The basic geology of earth is such that land masess rise and fall with the shift of plates and the folding of crust, At one point in time or another, almost every inch of the earth has existed as a seabed or mountaintop. Some of the oldest exposed rock is at elevations over 10,000ft above sea level currently. Since fossilization occurs under specific chains of conditions that typically involve seabeds or lakes, thats where they occur. it does NOT prove a global flood, and only someone willfully distorting known science or too uneducated to know better would claim so. The real issue is that fossilization primarily occurs where sea beds existed, so our knowledge of past living eras is limited to what existed at the proper times before the proper conditions (typically sea beds or lake beds). Hundreds of millions of years of life existed in areas that failed to experience those conditions, so we have no record of that life, but its existence can be assumed based on the PROVEN science of geology and conditions that created fossils. We have no concrete proof of life where we have no fossilized record, but the prerequisite information under proper scientific process exists to assume that it did, because we find no violation of the premise where we would not expect one ( other than the bible, of course). You arguments all lack any true science, they only ape the words of science to fool those who already want to be fooled.

It's not because you're ignorant of some thing that necessarily what someone else is saying about that thing is a hoax.

insane thread...all dinos false? I agree they existed ince bones are still found all over the globe .

the fact is there is not a single eyewitness to ancient events able to tell us what happened

we are only able to deduce and extrapolate based on our current limited jnterpretation of the available data

in other words we make our best most intelligent guesses

we assume the way things act nowadays is the way they've always acted -- there's no way to prove this

did you know fossils have been found in the middle of nonsedimentary rocks? crack open a rock -- there's a fossil absolutely no way to explain it -- unless maybe the rock was created with the fossil inside?

our best guesses today make our best guesses of 100, 200, 300, and 500 years ago seem relatively stupid

what do you think people 100, 200, 500 years from now will think of our current guesses? if we're still here.

yet the Word of God will remain as it has always been.

me personally, I think science is great -- I also think that ultimately it could prove the Bible accurate. in a few hundred years or so.

the important thing is the Gospel message. this came to us just a couple millenia ago. Jesus died on the cross for our sins, then rose from the dead. when we believe this in our hearts we have eternal life.

and in heaven I imagine all our questions will be answered.

when we face judgment, God will want to know what we did with His Son. what are we going to tell Him? sorry God -- but those dinosaur bones they dug up convinced me that Your Book was false, so I just decided not to believe in You, or accept that You gave Your only Son for me.

is eternity really worth our current scientific beliefs -- which our great great great grandchildren will laugh at?

we all have the choice what to believe -- I choose the Bible.

love peace and joy

rb

Of course we have no direct proof. But we have the brains that you believe God gave us, and the reasoning ability that keeps you alive from day to day. The very process of succesfully extrapolating unknowns from correlated information is what allows you to live from day to do. You trust that ability at almost every level to provide for the safety and well being of yourself and ones you care about.

Yet for some rason, the powerful religions demand you surrender that very innate ability and allow it to be replaced by faith specifically for the information that endagers themselves and your faith.

You cannot dismiss the process of learning and reasoning, for without it you die, yet we allow ourselves to be indoctrinated into the idea that God requires us to give up what he gave us as the very basis for our success on this earth: Our ability to think, absorb and reason with the real worl around us.

Your faith has taught you that in all matters that contradict the bible, you must accept the result of faith as superceeding the very methods of survival that bring you to that choice. Its funny that the religions that require that sort of obeisance are the ones who use it as a tool to kill and subjugate all those who would oppose its rule. I'm sure its just a coincedence that the warring religions of history are those who demance faith conquor the gifts of reason and intellect that allow us to wake, breathe and eat......

Polar ice caps have only been since the flood 4350 years ago.
[link to www.icr.org]
[link to www.licoc.org]

On the contrary what is found on the sea floor does not demonstrate more than 4400 years of sedimentary mudd.
[link to www.answersingenesis.org]

Tree rings do not go back more than 4400 years. The oldest tree is 4789.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
[link to en.wikipedia.org]
[link to sonic.net]
Others are either clones or merely roots that are then dated using faulty geostrata flood layer assumptions.


Radioactive ‘dating’ failure
Recent New Zealand lava flows yield ‘ages’ of millions of years

by Andrew Snelling

Standing roughly in the centre of New Zealand’s North Island, Mt Ngauruhoe is New Zealand’s newest volcano and one of the most active. It is not as well publicized as its larger close neighbour MT Ruapehu, which has erupted briefly several times in the last five years.

However, Mt Ngauruhoe is an imposing, almost perfect cone that rises more than 1,000 metres (3,300 feet) above the surrounding landscape.

Mt Ngauruhoe is thought to have been active for at least 2,500 years, with more than 70 eruptive periods since 1839, when European settlers first recorded a steam eruption. Of course, before that, the Maoris witnessed many eruptions from the mountain. The first lava eruption seen by Europeans occurred in 1870. Then there were ash eruptions every few years until a major explosive eruption in April–May 1948, followed by lava flowing down the northwestern slopes in February 1949. The estimated lava volume was about 575,000 cubic metres (20 million cubic feet).

Conclusion

The radioactive potassium-argon dating method has been demonstrated to fail on 1949, 1954, and 1975 lava flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, in spite of the quality of the laboratory’s K–Ar analytical work. Argon gas, brought up from deep inside the earth within the molten rock, was already present in the lavas when they cooled. We know the true ages of the rocks because they were observed to form less than 50 years ago. Yet they yield ‘ages’ up to 3.5 million years which are thus false. How can we trust the use of this same ‘dating’ method on rocks whose ages we don’t know? If the method fails on rocks when we have an independent eye-witness account, then why should we trust it on other rocks where there are no independent historical cross-checks?
[link to www.answersingenesis.org]
[link to www.detectingdesign.com]
[link to www.trueorigin.org]

The age of the earth has changed several times over the last couple of centuries. After the supposed moon mission and resulting rock samples were tested these estimates increased to 4.5 billion.

Moon rocks

In general, the rocks collected from the Moon are extremely old compared to rocks found on Earth, as measured by radiometric dating techniques. They range in age from about 3.16 billion years old for the basaltic samples derived from the lunar maria, up to about 4.5 billion years old for rocks derived from the highlands. Based on the age dating technique of "crater counting," the youngest basaltic eruptions are believed to have occurred about 1.2 billion years ago, but we do not possess samples of these lavas. In contrast, the oldest ages of rocks from the Earth are about 3.8 billion years old, a vastly different value from that of the moon.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

This all rest on the supposed moon mission, rocks and faulty radiometric dating.

Age of the Earth
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Modern geologists and geophysicists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years. This age has been determined by radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples.

Arthur Holmes published The Age of the Earth, an Introduction to Geological Ideas in 1927 in which he presented a range of 1.6 to 3.0 billion years based on radiometric dating.
[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Proving the point, evolutionst sheepishly go along with the majority having no interest in facts or real science. Science is not up to a vote. The acadamic majority view only proves a hostile marxist nwo conspiracy not science.

Hypothesis of Evolution Impact on Marxism & Communism
13 min
[link to www.youtube.com]

Every single point you make there is either bad or non-existant science. Show me any on of those ideas accepted by peer review of educated geologists. Show me one point there that passes even the passing scrutiny using empirical evidence to the point any educational institution would support it as a viable possibility ( oh and skip the 5 or 6 bible schools out there that specialize in bad science, once again fringe and themselves part of the problem). Once again its all science sounding words presented as science, yet all complete nonsense.

And that you for proving my point by saying that demanding a consensus of educated individuals who subscribe to the basic tenants of science is " being easily led and simply going along with the powers that be". Again, a straw man that takes YOUR problem and tries to make it everyone elses. Your idea of "science" is nothing more than finding someone who will say what you want to hear and then claiming that your individual trumpe the knowledge and consensus of others. The idea that a consensus is required can not be made into a weakness, beacuse it is the strength of the idea. It prevents one or few from misleading the guillible using ideas they dont understand.

NOTHING youve posted is anything more than fringe individuals purporting facts that dont stand up to basic accepted science. You can say anything you want, and just using fancy words doesnt make it true. it makes it easy to swallow to people who wanted to hear it.

I'm a modern-day Christian and I follow the Bible. I have absolutelyno desire or compunction whatsoever to kill or subjugate anybody. I understand horrible atrocities have been committed in the name of religion and God, but that doesn't make me guilty by mere association. there is absolutely no commandment whatsoever in the New Testament, the part of the Bible that applies to me at this time, that I should ever kill or subjugate anybody.

however, there are several admonishments to be on the alert for vain philosophies and foolish imaginations of man. I am told I can cast down arguments that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God.

all over the world archaeologists have been finding human footprints, artifacts, and even fossized body parts in rocks estimated to be 10s of millions of years old -- by our current dating methods. either humans have been around much longer than current science believes, or our dating methodology is incorrect.

or there is another explanation -- the apparent speed of geologic time we have been witnessing and take for granted as the way it's always been actually fluctuates. processes we currently estimate would need millions of years to -- er -- evolve could actually happen in a wink of geologic time -- a millenia, a century, or maybe a year month or even a day. maybe even one second.

say we are ants living in a garage next to a car. our perception of time somehow makes us think one night is 10,000 years. so we mess around, hang out next to the car, examine it, climb on it, then explain it as best we can. the centuries and millenia go by, from our perspective, and we settle on the fixed conclusion that the car is merely a permanent immobile object -- always been there, always will be.

all of a sudden it's morning and a giant being comes into the garage, opens the door and gets in. he then starts the car and backs out the open garage door. there is absolutely no way for us to describe or explain this incredible occurrence. we also in no wise could have predicted it

we aren't ants in a garage though. we are human beings on what appears to be a very old static planet. nothing ever really moves much. but there is no way for us to know if this planet was parked here 10,000 years ago, and certainly no way to predict that the driver is about to get in and turn the key.

we're going for a ride, my friend. we're VERY fortunate to have the Owner's Manual.

love peace and joy

rb

Dinosaurs are real.
They are not extinct.
They evolved into birds.

I think That they came through a portal. At least that's what the Master of the Paranormal knows in his gut. There were big portals for the big ones, and little portals for the little ankle-biting variety. The other side of the portal originated in the Clown Nebula.

Or maybe that was the Ass Clown Nebula. I forget. Hell, Can't go wrong with good ol' George "One Neuron" Noory though. I love it!

I think "Dinosaurs" existed, if you mean there were "thunder lizards", as in large lizards, in the past.

Did massive quantities of them exist at the same time, I don't think so, and the fossil record does NOT give that impression.

Any reptile, when left alone, for the most part and has a large food supply, will continue to grow and CHANGE and live to be HUNDREDS of years old.

As man has become more and more advance, technologically, they have been able to make a larger and larger impression the other habitants of the planet. Now we are very prolific . Our technology would make it very hard for a lizard to be safe, relatively alone and have an abundant food supply.

aww.. come on if you take away Godzilla. All we got left is Under-Dog, & every one knows the little mutt was a pill popper.. we're so do0med.!!

Not even. Nothing has ever evolved. Dinos becoming birds is a pagan belief.

200 years ago, the general "scientific consensus" was that machine-powered heavier-than-air flight was not possible. Anybody saying otherwise, not being able to perform the feat, would be called a fool.

We're looking for lab testable science, not majority opinion of the antichrist marxist nwo elite.

Peer reviewed journals claim granite is igneous, that earth was once molten. Prove it. If granite was/is igneous then produce it in a lab. You can't because it is not igneous.

more false science created to sound scientific.

The basis of the scientific process is that in circumstances where you cannot duplicate the circumstances required to prove something, you look for the process' that you believe occurred and the data that supports them. You then look for circumstances that COULD be found or COULD be duplicated and test the preimse. If you can find no contradicting evidence, and all the real world behavior you find is concurrent with the the premise, then you have supported your assertion properly. If contradicting evidence is found, its applied to THE SAME process to see if it disproves any of the previous assertions. If it does, then the NEW ideas become the working assumption.

In your case, your flawed logic is that because we cannot reproduce the circumstances, I.E. make a whole planet with a molten core in a laboratory, then the premise is wrong regardless of how much supporting evidence there is that CAN be duplicated, and regardless of how easily your assertions can be disproved.

Since these concepts seem to overwhelm you, I'll simplify it:

The fact that no one can manufacture a whole planet to demonstrate to you the conclusion that is based on hundreds of years of tested and verified premise does NOT mean that you can now claim your book in which almost every idea cannot stand up to existing premise or knowledge is now the accepted conclusion.

You have once again hiijacked the words fof science and isused them in an attempt to disprove science. Science isnt opposed to your ideas. It's just that your dieas fail almost every real test of veracity instantly.

If you can actually provide the hundred years of methodically developed knowledge and evidence to support you claims, I would not only have no choice but to accept them, but would do so happily. I have no innate desire to see any particular truth. I just work to find what the world provides for me.

For every 1 "expert" or talking point you provide, there are 10,000 similarly inclined individual who can disprove them using basic discernable fact and acceptably supported premise. Simply finding someone who disagrees does not make them right.

I would encourage you to back up some, and instead of the whole creationist concept, go back to learning and understanding what science is about. You clearly mised some of it if you feel what you are presenting proves anything. Once youhave a good grasp of the idea and the process, then go back and see if what you claim is science really is before you reduce your credibility by trying to persuade your point using it.

Science is not finding a way for one to disprove the many, its about the many coming to a premise based on the supporting evidence, of which you really have none. Evey piece of evidence youve presented is nothing more than an easily explained phenominon that has volumes of supporting evidence, taken and isolated, then applied to a different unsupported premise as proof it is correct instead.

I have ten dollars. I have a job. History shows people with jobs earn money. Its a reasonable premise that I earned money.

Simply finding someone whos been robbed of ten dollars doesnt prove I did it. Simply finding someone without ten dollars doesnt prove that my money is fake. Finding a twenty dollar bill doesnt disprove the existance of ten dolar bills. Simply knowing I have ten dollars doesnt prove that I dont have two ten dollar bills, or that I could actually have two five dollar bills. The unknown does not become acceptable premise because you have no proof otherwis, and a single instance indicating otherwise does not contradict volumes of reasonable premise to the contrary.

Read up on Occams Razor too...its a valuable idea.

Uh, DrPostman, hate to be a douche, but that was a pretty silly question. I am not usually one to respond in this fashion, or maybe I am. "When has religion ever done that"?

Did you really say that!?!?

Look over the past 2000 years and see how drastically "Christianity" has changed. Look at "Islam" major changes, they have keep some and tossed others, but major changes. Not to mention Hindu, huge difference.

Are they as big as "the earth is flat..........no wait, it's round", yes.

From 100 gods, to over a million. From a place between heaven and hell, to no hell at all. The countless different sects, branches, denominations, and so.

There are more than one seasonal rings per year. The ice cores do not show anything past a few thousand years once read correctly. Just as the other dating methods poor assumptions are used by evolutionist with political motives to deceive the masses.

[link to www.icr.org]
ICE CORES AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH
By: Larry Vardiman, Ph.D.

Introduction

Based on flow models, the variation of oxygen isotopes, the concentration of carbon dioxide in trapped air bubbles, acid concentrations, and particulates, they believe the lowest layers of the ice sheets were laid down over 160,000 years ago. Annual oscillations of such quantities are often evident in the record near the top of the ice sheets.

Are these records in the ice legitimate? Do they cause a problem for the recent-creation model of earth history? What are we to make of these data? This article will show that the great ages reported for the bottom layers of ice sheets depend on assumed models of past climate. Direct counting of annual layers is valid downward in the ice sheets for 2-3,000 years in the past, but prior to that there are many gaps in the record and the layers are probably not due to annual accumulation. An alternative model of ice sheet formation following the Flood described in Genesis will be suggested.


World War II Airplanes Under the Ice

The Greenland Society of Atlanta has excavated a 10-foot diameter shaft in the Greenland ice sheet in the late 1980’s to remove two B-17 Flying Fortresses and six P-38 Lightning fighters trapped under an estimated 250 feet of ice for almost 50 years (Bloomberg, 1989). Aside from the fascination with salvaging several vintage aircraft for parts and movie rights, the fact that these aircraft were buried so deeply in such a short time focuses attention on the time scales used to estimate the chronologies of ice core data.

If the aircraft were buried under about 250 feet of ice and snow in about 50 years, this means the ice sheet has been accumulating at an average rate of five feet per year. The Greenland ice sheet averages almost 4000 feet thick. If we were to assume the ice sheet has been accumulating at this rate since its beginning, it would take less than 1000 years for it to form and the recent-creation model might seem to be vindicated.

Greenland Ice Cores

However, life is never as simple as implied above. In making our calculations, we did not take into account the compaction of the snow into ice as it is weighted down by the snow above. Neither did we consider the thinning of ice layers as the tremendous weight above forces the ice at lower levels to squeeze out horizontally. More importantly, we did not consider the average precipitation rate and actual depths of ice for different locations on the Greenland ice sheet.

When these factors are taken into account, the average annual thickness of ice at Camp Century located near the southern tip of Greenland is believed to vary from about fourteen inches near the surface to less than two inches near the bottom (Hammer, et al., 1978). If, for simplicity, we assume the average annual thickness to be the mean between the annual thickness at the top and at the bottom (about eight inches), this still gives an age of less than 6000 years for the 4000-foot-thick ice sheet to form under uniformitarian conditions.

Possibly there were ice caps on the poles pre-flood some 4500 bce. Most of the polar ice is known to have fallen with the flood water freezing the wooly mammoth rapidly. That there were wooly mammoths in the region goes against polar ice at that time. The preflood earth is believed to have had a greenhouse effect giving a consistant tempurature year around over the entire planet.
www.licoc.org/TBS/Evidence%20Supporting%20the%20Flood.htm

[link to www.youtube.com]

[link to www.youtube.com]

[link to www.youtube.com]

Quote:
Not even. Nothing has ever evolved. Dinos becoming birds is a pagan belief.

Reaction:
A remark that perfectly shows that discussing scientific findings, with common sense and on a rational level, is virtually impossible when it comes to fundamentalistic 'believers'... LOL

You've presented no scientific findings only your beliefs.

Very funny!

Isn't through but I doubt if those other guys will get it ;-)