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 ...
Others believe that they will go to the land of dreams where everyone is equal, there is not sickness or evil and they can sit around all day and night talking to God about how God kills all the innocent babies ...
Educate me, wise one. Refute the statement.
This should be an easy task for you. Either demonstrate the statement regarding Kelvin was in error or if true Kelvin's demonstration was wrong. Call in your Big Guns if need be. Whatever you do, for once in your life offer something more to the debate than derision or dripping sarcasm.
I grow weary of your non-stop insults to those who profess their faith. Put up or shut up . . .
First, there are so many false posts by the creos it begs me to ask, why bother. Second, I was referring to the whole part, not JUST to Kelvin's "statement".
Now, the poster mentioned NOTHING about any of the other forces acting on the earth or the earth's rotation. Any seventh grade science student can find the flaws in his argument. But we know that he got it from some creo website so what the heck, it is not his fault that it is so blatantly dishonest. For that, he is ignorant.
Yes it is. First, the poster misrepresented the argument. Kelvin was anti-evolution so he set out to prove evolution wrong. He based his calculations on the 'hypothesis' that the sun's energy came from gravitational forces which would make it last 50 to 60 million years as chemical reactions would last only about 3 million years and even LK knew the earth was older than that! Now we know that LK was wrong, his theory of the sun's energy source was wrong and the poster is ignorant.
1. Residual heat in the Earth. Lord Kelvin demonstrated that if the Earth was more than fifty million years old, the Earth would have cooled down to ambient temperature. In response, evolutionists proposed that radioactives in the Earth's core have kept it warm for 4.5 billion years. In other words, creationists accurately predict the current volcanic state of Earth, while evolutionists must invoke an unproven process -- a violation of Occam's Razor.
I don't insult those that profess their faith, I call them ignorant if they post ignorant posts.
Ha Ha. If you weren't so ignorant, you would know that LK based his age of the sun and earth on the 'hypothesis' that the sun's energy came from gravitational forces. Now we know that it comes from fusion and LK was wrong. Much like the creos today, LK was ignorant on the sun's energy and the age of the earth. His "demonstration" was thoroughly debunked.
I am referring to just the one statement. I am not requiring you to debunk every crazy 'creo' statement ever made; just this one.
I am not nearly educated enough to dispute anything anybody ever said regarding Lord Kelvin. Since you highlighted that particular statement and quickly claimed the entire post, as well as it's author, totally ignorant, I figured you must have the answer at your fingertips.
(BTW, why did you attribute the killing of innocent babies to God? Is that supposed to be the hallmark of the faithful? More cleverness on your part?)
Thank you for your INTELLIGENT response.
(You, at least, did respond)
My mother tends to believe the version that you mention, but I've read the verses that supposedly support this and do not see the correlation. It's the strongest point of disagreement we have about Scripture interpretation.
Personally, other than accepting that seven days is seven days and that God could certainly create a mere world in that amount of time, I wonder how long Adam and Eve were in the Garden and about what was going on elsewhere until they were expelled. Dinosaurs could have been on the Earth at the same time but may have been extinguished when the couple was exiled. Happily, my thoughts on the subject are neither important to Salvation nor to science. We'll find out when the time comes and will be amazed.
You are very creative.
Tell your mom I said hello. See #195.
Darwinists being run out of public education bump!
Using different words to water down meaning can always allow for different things to be done with the words as a whole. That's why language is designed to give words specific meaning such that clarity is established to the extent possible when using specific words. What you reason would be allowed vs. what the passage says is two different things. In the original language, no such billions of years nonsense is supported.
What invisible pink unicorn? I mean, I realize that people like having fun with language when they don't know what the heck they're talking about; but, I'm not aware of any invisible pink unicorns being mentioned in the Bible. I'm aware of a beast with an english translated name "unicorn" in the bible - it's reference in strongs is to a possible boar or the like. Care to enlighten us?
That is not how science works. Please do your research.
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.