Dino's not real???
Posted on 05/26/2007 9:24:34 AM PDT by Sleeping Beauty
Some Scientists Worry That Sophisticated Center Will Distort Children's Views of Science
According to an ABC News poll, 60 percent of Americans believe God created the world in six days. In Petersburg, Ky., this weekend, a creation museum is opening that depicts a story far from what you may have learned in science class.
Exhibits at almost every natural history museum teach that dinosaurs are millions of years old, and that they died out long before human beings existed. But at the Creation Museum, they say God created dinosaurs and humans at the same time.
The Creation Museum, designed by the same man behind some of the attractions at Universal Studios in Florida, is a $27 million, high-tech sensory experience with animatronic dinosaurs and a movie theater with seats that shake.
The museum is intended to convince visitors that evolution is wrong and that the biblical story of life on earth from Adam and Eve to Noah's ark is scientifically verifiable.
The museum depicts Adam living with animals, including a dinosaur.
Ken Ham, the president of Answers in Genesis, the group that is funding the museum, says that only "secular scientists" would maintain that the first humans never lived with dinosaurs.
"[Scientists] can say that, but what's their evidence?" Ham says, insisting that "All land animals were made on day six."
Mainstream scientists worry that because the museum is so technically sophisticated, it could be effective in giving children a distorted view of science.
"That they'll show up in classrooms and say, 'Gee, Mrs. Brown, I went to this spiffy museum last summer and they say that everything you're teaching me is a lie,'" said Eugenie Scott, the executive director of the National Center for Science Education.
Ham believes that's what should happen.
"And I say, great. Amen. That's what this place is all about," he said. "It's meant to challenge people."
The stakes are high. The museum argues that evolution jeopardizes people's belief in the Bible and leads to social ills like pornography and abortion.
"In an evolutionary world view, why should you have things like absolute morality? Why would it be wrong to kill someone?" said Jason Lisle, of Answers in Genesis. "I'm not saying that evolutionists aren't moral. I'm saying they have no reason to be moral."
[more at the link]
And you seem to be setting up strawman.
I never said that radiocarbon dating is wrong, but that it is only accurate up to 3,500 years.
If you are getting any higher numbers, it is because your evolutionary assumptions are wrong.
I explained how something came from nothing. The all powerful Big Dino in the Sky created everything, first the dinosaurs after his own image, and then later man and the sky-god for man. There’s no other possible explanation. I’m sure you agree.
This is your source? Please.
That's some tasty irony! Yummo!
Ok so if you are so good with the Bible answer this for me. do you believe EVERY word of the Bible to be true and exactly what your God wanted to relay to you? If so please state the version you believe in so I can be sure we are discussing the same thing.
I think a lot of the discusion misses the vital point.
Was there original sin?
Does man need a saviour?
The whole Bible hinges on this.
Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;
and so death passed upon all men,
for that all have sinned: 13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.
15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if
through the offence of one
many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. 16 And not as it was by
one that sinned,
so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. 17 For if by
one man’s offence death reigned by one;
much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life
by one, Jesus Christ.)
18 Therefore as by the offence of one
judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one
the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience
many were made sinners, so by
the obedience of one
shall many be made righteous.
The basic theme of redemtion relies on the first man.
If there was no literal “first” man then there is no original sin ... no need for a saviour ... the whole thing is bunk.
So ... is Christianity a “moral” guide?
Or is it the way to eternal life .. the door?
Perhaps you didn’t realize that John and Jan are the one and the same. Very dishonest.
You have already admitted that you were ignorant on the technicalities of radiocarbon dating so you should not make such sweeping, false statements.
Why did God wait an eternity before creating the universe and man?
There was a flood because the Bible said so. In the end they rely on Genesis.
Geological and archeological evidence does NOT support the flood.
Ask him if he believes the Earth is 6,000 years old.
LapTag Study findings:
3. State of Physics Graduate Students
Walter expressed disappointment with the quality of current physics graduate students. He feels that there are two possible causes for the decline in quality of the students. First, is the poor preparation that students receive in science at the elementary and secondary levels. This is a problem that LAPTAG is trying to address. The second factor is the dwindling numbers of jobs available for physics researchers as a result of the downsizing of industrial and government efforts in basic research. The brightest students are going into professions where they can make the most money such as Law and Business.Walter would like high school college counselors to encourage students to take physics in high school. He also suggested that UCLA Physics create and distribute a brochure describing the opportunities to work as teachers at the elementary, middle, and high school level with a degree in physics or other sciences. He will visit several of the high schools this year and sit in back of the science classrooms as an observer.
UCLA: Home of the late Willard Libby, founder of radiocarbon dating!
The argument you are repeating is that radiocarbon dating only is accurate up to 3,500 years because the global flood throws things off earlier than that date.
That might be accurate if there was any scientific evidence of a global flood. There is not.
For the lurkers
We have overlapping tree-ring sequences going back some 12,600 years now. These are used to calibrate the radiocarbon dates. For most of that sequence the tree-rings have been dated every ten years. That is how the fluctuations of 14C in the atmosphere are accounted for. The trees used are standing dead bristlecone pines in the White Mountains of southern California. They live in an environment which produces only one ring per year. These rings can be cross-checked against historic volcanos, which produced worldwide climatic changes. This allows the rings to be matched with historic volcanic events for over 3,500 years (see the link below).
Unfortunately folks who just have to have a young earth and a global flood will not believe any scientific evidence to the contrary, and make up the most ridiculous "what ifs" to try to argue away those inconvenient facts. Some of the posts on this thread are prime examples of this.
Here are some good links on radiocarbon dating:
ReligiousTolerance.org Carbon-14 Dating (C-14): Beliefs of New-Earth CreationistsRadiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
This site, BiblicalChronologist.org has a series of good articles on radiocarbon dating.
Are tree-ring chronologies reliable? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
Tree Ring and C14 DatingHow does the radiocarbon dating method work? (The Biblical Chronologist, Vol. 5, No. 1)
How precise is radiocarbon dating?
Is radiocarbon dating based on assumptions?
Has radiocarbon dating been invalidated by unreasonable results?
Radiocarbon WEB-info Radiocarbon Laboratory, University of Waikato, New Zealand.
God created Heaven and the angels first. Then the angels got tired of putting up with him and rebelled. Then God chose to not destroy those angels and their leader, but instead gave them not only their own place to run, but also gave them enormous control over the new place God was about to create, Earth and its inhabitants. Then man (and woman) rebelled against God (it’s hard to see how he didn’t see that coming) by falling for a trap that God himself put in their home (Thanks for the trap, God! And why did you let Satan in here, anyway?). Then God got annoyed and kicked them out of their home. Then later God saw that man really, really had gotten tired of him, so he said, “Well, let’s see how good you can swim!” and he flooded the whole earth, every man, woman (even the pregnant ones with that special pregnancy glow with their cute fetuses inside) and child (even the ones with physical and mental deformities), except for one family that still was pretty dysfunctional (Noah the alcoholic who gets angry when his son Ham tells his brothers that Dad’s drunk and naked again and so Noah puts a curse— just like Henbane put on Sleeping Beauty, but this is all totally real and not made up like Sleeping Beauty— on his own grandson and his grandson’s lineage). Then God’s new creation rebelled against him (again!) and so he had to send a new savior (even though the savior never made a big deal about writing things down regarding what we should or should not do, and he recycled previous material, and called people he disagreed with names and had bouts of rage— like Daddy, and wasn’t inclined to use reason to convince people he was right— only coercion of riches and threats of eternal pain in the afterlife). Then God shut up for 2000 years, after being quite active for 4000 years prior. It all makes sense to me.
I got it now. Thanks!
You mean like your unfounded, unevidenced and unbelievable conjecture that the 'Flood' makes carbon dating meaningless?
I don't think so. You see, carbon dating is verified and calibrated by dendrochronology, varves and ice cores, all of which I might add are independent but correlate to a high degree.
You make an obviously biased claim that carbon dating is in error because it is conjecture, yet your basis for doing so is an even bigger conjecture.
Sorry, but scientifically examined physical evidence trumps your wishful thinking.
"All one needs to know about evolution is its presuppositions, since at that point, we are no longer dealing with science, we are dealing with a religion, based on faith.
Unfortunately for your group of anti-evolutionists, the fields related to Cosmology, Astrophysics, Physics, Geology, Geophysics and a number of others I have probably missed, have determined the age of the Earth and the Universe independently from the needs and desires of Evolutionary scientists. The age of the Earth was known to be much older than 6,000-10,000 years, decades before Darwin, through a lot of intensive and dedicated hard scientific work, discovered one of the most important mechanisms of Evolution.
"Evolution is a myth cloaking itself with scientific jargon.
The scientists follow the well established and tested procedures and processes of science. If you care to dispute that, show us you understand the difference between science and myth.
I see you have quoted Walt Brown. Did Brown include any data, analysis numbers and backing cites for his rambling or are you just working from his rhetoric?
If I remember correctly, Walt Brown also claims the the asteroids are a result of the Flood. If my memory is correct and his math is so poor he doesn't understand the impossibility of this then it would be prudent to question all of his work based on math.
If Brown has no math worth considering then he has nothing but polemic rhetoric which in the world of science is worse than useless.
Dino's not real???
If they were doing science at the museum, they would also try to explain why dinosaurs don't exist now and why the only evidence for their existence is found in rocks more than 65 million years old.
And your evidence of this is?
If everything needs to have a creator, whether intelligent or not, then God also needs a creator. If God is outside time and outside the current requirement for a cause then what general laws above and beyond those of the universe limits the existence of an uncaused cause to just one being or thing?
You are simply making the conjecture that since everything in the universe must have a creator, and in fact that single thought gives you comfort in proving to yourself that a God exists, then the origin of the universe must have an uncreated creator, otherwise known as the one and only 'Uncaused Cause'.
However, for some reason, you ignore the physics which lead scientists to believe that the universe may not have needed a cause itself, because the current laws of cause and effect, as well as time, were not in effect until after that origin. The start of the universe is outside of time and space and does not need to be caused any more than, as you conjecture, your God does. The need for cause and effect is a result of the universe, not the other way around. The universe can be said to be our uncaused cause.
What criteria should we be using to decide between two (or more) potential uncaused causes? Is there some reason we should believe that God is the uncaused cause over any other?
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.