Posted on 08/27/2005 9:28:07 PM PDT by Crackingham
Dinny the roadside dinosaur has found religion. The 45-foot-high concrete apatosaurus has towered over Interstate 10 near Palm Springs for nearly three decades as a kitschy prehistoric pit stop for tourists. Now he is the star of a renovated attraction that disputes the fact that dinosaurs died off millions of years before humans first walked the planet.
Dinny's new owners, pointing to the Book of Genesis, contend that most dinosaurs arrived on Earth the same day as Adam and Eve, some 6,000 years ago, and later marched two by two onto Noah's Ark. The gift shop at the attraction, called the Cabazon Dinosaurs, sells toy dinosaurs whose labels warn, "Don't swallow it! The fossil record does not support evolution."
The Cabazon Dinosaurs join at least half a dozen other roadside attractions nationwide that use the giant reptiles' popularity in seeking to win converts to creationism. And more are on the way.
"We're putting evolutionists on notice: We're taking the dinosaurs back," said Ken Ham, president of Answers in Genesis, a Christian group building a $25-million creationist museum in Petersburg, Ky., that's already overrun with model sauropods and velociraptors.
"They're used to teach people that there's no God, and they're used to brainwash people," he said. "Evolutionists get very upset when we use dinosaurs. That's their star."
The nation's top paleontologists find the creation theory preposterous and say children are being misled by dinosaur exhibits that take the Jurassic out of "Jurassic Park."
"Dinosaurs lived in the Garden of Eden, and Noah's Ark? Give me a break," said Kevin Padian, curator at the University of California Museum of Paleontology in Berkeley and president of National Center for Science Education, an Oakland group that supports teaching evolution. "For them, 'The Flintstones' is a documentary."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Only an idiot believes that nonsense.
Whatever.
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha. Why the guru of ID says evolution is impossible .... You know, IC!
Hahaha, There is your proof right there! You made a believer out of me, I'm convinced... : ) <<< me
I have always understood that the mistranslation of the word "Was" in Genesis 1:2 was the culprit for this controversy. Most newer translations (including your disdained NIV) show a footnote that "Became" is also acceptable. The Hebrew word is "Hayah" and for reference it is the same hebrew word used in Genesis 19:26 where it says "But Lot's wife looked back and she "became" a pillar of salt."
When the proper translation is used, and traditional theology is ignored, you do indeed find acceptable the idea as you proposed of a prior creation.....but, I do agree that the creation from Genesis 1:3 through 1:31 took a literal 6 days to complete. And God rested on the Sabbath.
Using "became" as the verb in Genesis 1:2 allows then perhaps billions and billions of years between verse 1 and verse 2. Then 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6 make more sense when you realize that the location "Tartarus"(Greek for the commonly mis-translated Hell) is the current restrained condition of the sinning angels from the "Ancient" world.
I often ask people to show me in scripture where the rebellion of Satan and his angels took place....if not before Genesis 1:2?????
Point One: Read the post again in context. Therefore no apology is needed.
Point two: Read the posts I was responding to. That should explain the name calling.
Point three: No smokescreen or disinformation allowed. If s a scientist creates a living organism in a lab from scratch he is not God. Therefore the postulate that life on earth was engineered does not necessarily presuppose God as the designer. Thus it does not fall squarely in the creationist camp as they state the origin is biblical and God is the creator.
Well, hard to refute those points.
Responding with personal attacks and no substance means I won.
Thanks for playing.
Taught in science class?
Like the foolish idea that hydrogen gas, when left alone to chance, will become people through evolution?
You mean rediculous things like that taught in science class?
I'd ratherbelieve the stories of dragons, which only means lizard anyways, than fables of apes becoming people.
You need to read more posts before you make such questions.
It wasn't with no substance. Your post indicates you are completely ignorant on evolution outside of what you read on the creationists' websites.
(BTW, you must have bought the $29.95 tape.)
They were baby dinosaurs.
Like the foolish idea that hydrogen gas, when left alone to chance, will become people through evolution?
You mean rediculous things like that taught in science class?
I'd rather believe the stories of dragons, which only means lizard anyways, than fables of apes becoming people.
Common, Race. You can do better than that! There are a lot of things on your previously posted list which are simply contradicted by science--contradicted by a lot of science!
The idea of apes and other critters changing through time (evolving) is supported by a lot of data. If you're going to argue these scientific points, its best to stick to scientific data and theories.
If you want to argue faith, fine--but don't try to mix the two. What is true on one side of the fence is not necessarily true on the other. You have two different world views represented, and its not very productive to try to argue from such diverse bases.
There you go again - trying to confuse everyone with facts. Shame on you! ;)
bump
It seems to do pretty well becoming all the higher chemical elements, pretty much by chance.
Transmutation is a tougher climb up the hill of improbability than chemical combination.
2. Lack of Solar Neutrinos from the Sun. If the Sun is powered by fusion, then it can stay lit for billions of years. However, a fusion reaction should produce neutrinos. No neutrinos are detected coming from the Sun. This indicates that the Sun is powered by a lesser energy reaction -- such as gravitational collapse -- which again could not be sustained for more than a few million years.
Neutrinos aren't easy to detect. However, once we were able to detect neutrinos, we were able to detect them from the Sun. There has been no serious question that the Sun runs by nuclear fusion and not gravitational collapse. It could hardly do otherwise, as we proved with the H-bomb.
For a time, we didn't detect so many neutrinos as we thought we should. We didn't realize that neutrinos can change from mu to tau in transit. They can. So even the "missing" neutrinos aren't missing anymore and at no time were they ALL missing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.