Dinosaurs frolic with Adam and Eve at creationism museum

PETERSBURG, United States (AFP) - Dinosaurs frolic with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and an animatronic Noah directs work on his Ark in a multimillion dollar creationism museum set to open next week in Kentucky.

Designed by the creator of the King Kong and Jaws exhibits at the Universal Studios theme park, the stunning 60,000 square foot (5,400 square-metre) facility is built for a specific purpose: refuting evolution and expanding the flock of believers in a literal interpretation of the Bible.

"You'll get people into a place like this that you can't get into a church with a stick of dynamite," said founder Ken Ham from his office overlooking the museum's manicured grounds.

Polls consistently show that nearly half of Americans believe God created humans in their present form less than 10,000 years ago. Only about 13 percent believe God played no part in the origin of human life.

Ham does not blame evolution per se for society's ills. He believes that sin has been around since Adam and Eve took their fateful bite of apple about 5,700 years before Charles Darwin published "On the Origin of Species."

But he says the theory of evolution has been used to undermine the validity of the literal truth of the Bible, heralding a dangerous age of moral relativism which can be blamed for everything from racism to the Holocaust.

Located just outside of Cincinnati near the intersection of the states of Indiana, Kentucky and Ohio, nearly two thirds of the population of the United States lives within a 650-mile (1,050-kilometer) drive of the Creation Museum.

Woodmorappe’s Elementary Blunders Undermine Creationism, May 4, 2001 Reviewer: Kevin R. Henke

I’ve checked hundreds of Woodmorappe’s references and quickly discovered that he routinely misuses and selectively ignores the literature. For example, Woodmorappe couldn’t even list the proper ages of many of the “index” fossils in Table 2 (p. 28-29). Specifically, in his original 1983 article, Woodmorappe (p. 138) listed Monograptus as an “Ordovician” graptolite (#5). However, the Treatise of Invertebrate Paleontology (which is considered one of the best, if not the best, sources of information on invertebrate fossils) and other references say it’s Silurian. I documented this error along with about 15 pages of more serious mistakes from this one article. Several years ago, Woodmorappe received a copy of my critique through email.

Now, the “Foreword” (p. 1) claims that “no changes” were made in the original papers in this volume. However, in the 1999 edition, Monograptus has been erased from #5 in Table 2 (p. 28-29), but it is clear that NO effort has been made to correct the consequences of this mistake in Map 5 (p. 31), Table 3 (p. 42-43) and other figures that use the disinformation in Table 2. In another example, Woodmorappe lists the genus Dictyonema in Table 2 (p. 28-29) as being an “Ordovician” index fossil. In reality, without citing the species, Dictyonema is a poor index fossil, because it lived from the Cambrian to the Mississippian. Because of the widespread sloppiness and errors in Table 2, Woodmorappe’s subsequent arguments are utterly flawed and untrustworthy.

The later part of his stratigraphic separation article is full of hypothetical diagrams (p. 51f) that are largely inaccurate and unrealistic. They’re even contradictory. For example, Figure 8 (p. 56) says that hypothetical fossil E1 stratigraphically overlaps fossil I20, E3 overlaps I18, and E20 overlaps J14. Figure 7 (p. 54) flatly contradicts Figure 8 and shows no overlap for these pairs! If Woodmorappe can’t even read his own figures, how can he properly interpret the literature?

Further flaws may be seen in his interpretations of Map 36 (p. 40), which show the locations for certain Cambrian, Silurian, Lower Carboniferous, and Jurassic fossils in Nevada-Utah and Great Britian. Not surprisingly, few of the locations overlap. Woodmorappe (p. 38) erroneously believes that this lack of overlap somehow refutes evolution. However, if well cores were used to construct this map, the probabilities of striking two of the fossils on his small list in Table 2 are slim. If the data are also based on outcrops, outside of some very deep gorges or high mountains, it’s unlikely that the outcrops would have rocks from more than one geologic period. So, how many deep gorges and high mountains are there in Great Britain? What’s the probability of a 6-inch drill core hitting two or more fossils from Woodmorappe’s Table 2 list? Also, why did Woodmorappe avoid using fossils from two consecutive periods (such as Cambrian and Ordovician)? The geologic maps of Nevada, Utah and Great Britain and even his own maps on p. 108f indicate that consecutive periods are present. However, as indicated by Table 3 (p. 42-43), by not using consecutive periods, the chances of erosion and non-deposition increase and it’s less likely that they will be overlaps. Woodmorappe’s exercise does nothing to refute evolution and he and his allies fail to appropriately recognize that non-deposition and erosion entirely explain the poorly preserved geologic record.

Woodmorappe’s errors are also serious and prolific elsewhere in the volume. His attack on radiometric dating contains countless misquotations and misrepresentations. For example, Woodmorappe (p.151) claims that Naumov and Mukhina (1977) (Woodmorappe’s reference #80) obtained “erroneous” radiometric dates of 188-270 million years for some Russian volcanics when the fossils supposedly indicate that they should be older than 225 million years. In reality, Naumov and Mukhina obtained ACCEPTABLE dates of 172-270 million years. Because of a poor fossil record, they admit that the volcanism could have extended to 172 million years (Jurassic). Woodmorappe (p. 158) also misquotes Grasty and Leelanadam (reference #386) and claims that a K/Ar date on a “hornblende” yielded an “anomalous” date of 440 million years for a Precambrian (>600 million years old) charnockite. However, Grasty and Leelanadam dated a biotite (not a “hornblende”). Under an optical microscope, Grasty and Leelanadam note that the biotites show slightly bent cleavages and a moderate wavy extinction, which supports alteration. In other words, the biotites could easily have been deformed by a metamorphic event that caused the argon to escape, which led to a 440 million year old date. Inappropriately, Woodmorappe (p. 158) misrepresents a plausible metamorphic K/Ar date on a biotite as an “anomalous” igneous crystallization date on a “hornblende.” Again, Woodmorappe fails to properly read the literature.

Sometimes Woodmorappe’s figures and tables end up refuting creationism. In tables on p. 88f, Woodmorappe mostly cites small and easily mobile fossils to incorrectly claim that out-of-place geologic strata and fossils are common. In contrast, Table 2 (p. 127) shows no evidence of “out-of-place” fossils. There are no examples of the Silurian overlying the Jurassic or the Cambrian overlying the Devonian. Although some periods may be missing because of erosion and non-deposition, the Cretaceous is still stratigraphically above the Permian and the Permian is above the Cambrian. Unless creationists want to invoke unrealistic conspiracies, Table 2 actually supports the geologic time scale! Also, after deriving Figure 1 (p. 25), which demonstrates that most fossil families and genera are restricted to a few geologic periods, Woodmorappe vainly tries to belittle it’s meaning. Why? Because if creationism is true, we would expect most genera and families to cross all or most of the 11 geologic periods. However, the graph shows the opposite and supports evolution.

Woodmorappe’s arguments (including Table 3, p. 42-43) totally fail to explain why Cambrian trilobites and Cretaceous ammonoids from western North Dakota were not mixed during “Noah’s Flood,” why Tertiary turtles are stratigraphically above dinosaur fossils, and why dinosaurs are directly above Cambrian trilobites in the Williston Basin and elsewhere. Whether it deals with Z-shaped coal seams, “microevolution,” or radiometric dating, “Studies in Flood Geology” is a classic pseudoscientific fantasy and an utter geologic failure.

I decided to go through J. What’shisface’s list and look up some of the references.

Here’s a tip: When you reference something, it’s because you expect somebody sometime might actually want to look it up. Therefore, it’s important to not use your own personal abbreviations for the journals, but use the official abbreviation or (as I do) write out the whole journal name to avoid confusion. Once you’ve got that down, it’s also important to give all of the required information CORRECTLY to find the article, usually at least the year, volume, and initial page number.

If I produced a reference list like this it would probably be because I was steadily drinking Jack Daniels during the entire composition, and once I had returned to sobriety I would be so ashamed I would attempt to bury the hideous offspring of my inebriated mind, not post it up on the internet for all to see for years to come.

With no more ado, here are my notes during my frustrating expedition through old what’shisface’s page:

MI, MP: Micropaleontology
NA: Nature
SP: Journal of Sedimentary Petrology
PS: ??
RP: Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology
JW: ??
EL: ??
RU: International Journal of Earth Sciences (Shoot me now.)
GP: Grana Palynologica
CA: Canadian Petroleum Geology (My kingdom for a sensible abbreviation!)
US: Proceedings of the Ussher Society
IC: ??
JP: ??

70 May be actual extension.
71 no such reference?
72 no such reference?
73 No reworking, second paragraph refers to another paper that found reworking in a different area—SO FREAKING REFERENCE THAT PAPER, YOU INCOMPETENT MORON.
74 An actual instance of reworking! “The very low frequency of Cretaceous species in this predominately Paleocene fauna suggests reworking of Upper Cretaceous rocks at the time of deposition of these Paleocene sediments.”
75 More true reworking. “However, planktonic foraminifera are absent during this phase [marine transgression and deepest water] and appear only in the Reculver Silts which represent shallow marine deposition immediately prior to regression and deposition of the lagoonal Woolwich Beds. The planktonic foraminifera thus appear only in sediments deposited near the delta front, an anomaly that can be best explained by reworking.”
76 TYPO: page 291. Full text unavailable. No reworking mentioned in abstract—”Evidence is presented of the great change in calcareous nannoplankton fossils between the Maestrichtian and Danian, and indicates that it represents primarily a remarkable extinction of a large number of distinctive Cretaceous genera and species.” A delineation like this presents a great problem to creationists, who should rightly expect ALL fossil layers to be reworked, as all would be deposited essentially simultaneously.
77 Unsurprisingly, sand gets washed around by strong currents—”Intruding microfossils, which include planktonic foraminifera and calcareous nannofossils, and to a minor degree also radiolarians and diatoms, are most easily distinguished by not being contemporaneous with the sediments in which they are found. Presumably their occurrence arises from the mechanical reworking of oceanic sediments by bottom water currents. The data suggest that there were pulses of intensive reworking around 40 Myr BP, 30 Myr BP, 15 Myr BP, 5-10 Myr BP and during the Plio-Pleistocene; these pulses were interrupted by phases of only modest erosion on the Pacific Ocean floor. The absence of reworking of non-contemporaneous fossils in sediments older than 70 Myr suggests relatively sluggish deep-sea currents which were not able to erode deeply into the underlying Cretaceous and in certain areas Jurassic sediments.”
78 Full text unavailable, but true reworking.
79 This looks like another secondary reference. Cannot track down either source for lack of information.
80 “The Lodo section of California shows little evidence to suggest reworking of the material, except for rare specimens in the upper part of the Lower Eocene (Unit 3). The distributions shown in Table 1 indicate a remarkably abrupt termination of the range of many of the common species of the Paleocene, so abrupt as to suggest some discontinuity. All the common and easily recognizable species of the Paleocene, however, have been found sporadically but only as very rare specimens in samples from the upper part of the Lower Eocene strata (Unit 3). The only exception is that some of the Braarudospharidae reappear in considerable numbers in the Lower Eocene and are also known in the Eocene of other regions. Although these rare specimens may represent a sparse survival into the Eocene of species common only in the Paleocene, available evidence seems to favor the interpretation that they were reworked from the Paleocene.”
81 Book, not available.
82 Stone the man. “197?” is not an appropriate way of designating a date. Nor is “PS” sufficient to tell us what journal it is in. Could not find this paper.
83 Once again, “RP” is not sufficient to designate a journal. Could not find this paper.
84 What the heck? Krasilov wrote Paleoecology of Terrestrial Plants: Basic Principles and Techniques. This book was reviewed in the Journal of Ecology in 1977, but he’s referencing an unknown journal (”JW”). He is probably referencing a book review!
85 Another freaking book review? This is a book as well, yet he appears to reference a journal, unless “EL” is the publisher, Elsevier.
86 Freaking p 523, not 527. If I made this many major screwups in a list of references my boss would flunk me out. “Results are given of a programme of K-Ar age determinations from an equatorial weathering profile beneath the Mid-Jurassic unconformitiy of Anøya, northern Norway. A model is presented where the original age of weathering is considered as Lower Carboniferous with partial resetting of ages during subsequent diagenesis. It is concluded that the Kaolinite of the weathering profile became a closed system of40Ar diffusion in late Triassic times, and that a sufficient thickness of Mesozoic-Tertiary strata was never developed to occasion the resetting of the ages. The implication of the results is that a former thick cover of Upper Palaezoic age formerly existed in the region which was effectively removed by erosion in late Triassic — early Jurassic times. The results of the study are reviewed in a context of North Atlantic palaeogeographical evolution.” This paper is entirely concerned with rocks, and therefore rather boring to me. The mention of spores comes into the conclusion, “In the flanking continent uplift and erosion of the Paleozoic cover continued as is indicated by resedimented clastic clay materials, resedimented clastic sediments, and spores.” This may or may not be a case of reworking, since it’s only mentioned in passing it’s hard to say.
87 Book, not so’s you can tell by the reference.
88 Not available.
89 He likes to send you on treasure hunts. This paper is in volume 23, pages 183-206. Not available.
90 A cookie to whoever can say what journal “US” is. Cannot find this reference.
91 Cannot find this reference. A citation to it by the author prior to publishing said it was in press in the Journal of the Geological Society of India, not Palaeobotanist.
92 Ooh, a correct reference, albeit with a really stupid abbreviation. “Fragmented Permian fossils in early Triassic sediments; not survivors, but redeposited from land area with Permian outcrops; Permian-Triassic sequence embraces gap in sedimentation equivalent to Dzhulfian.” Permian strata was eroded by the ocean, broken, and redeposited in Triassic sediment.
93. That’s initial page 173. Text not available, true reworking.
94. Eh wot??
95 Finally found out what “US” is, but couldn’t get the text nor abstract.
96 Could not find reference.
97 I weep. Pages 145-154. Could not get text nor abstract.
98 I’m not sure what all the assemblage of numbers he has here mean (72? 35?), but this is volume 27, number 1, pages 1-81, NOT 8-9. Again, no text available.
99 Cannot find reference.
100 “Unpublished MS Thesis.” How useful. I quit!

"Yes, all of those "homos" you cite are nothing but variations on normal human structures.

What?

Have you looked at the skulls, and the skeletons where available? They are far from just variations in modern humans. Go back and really look at the structure of the skulls.

"It's not so surprising, really; you should by now know that creationists believe the "missing links" are really either fully ape or fully human, none of this in-between stuff.

They are basing their opinion on their deep rooted fear of being wrong, not on a dispassionate examination of all the skulls available.

Funny how Baraminology focuses primarily on differences to determine classification but when differences show a gradual change Creationists want to lump them all together based on similarities.

"Honestly, just because a skull slopes a little more, does that make someone less or more of a monkey? That's what the racists of old thought. (No, I'm not calling you a racist.)

Within the normal variation of Homo sapiens skulls of course not. But the skulls (skeletons) of Homo habilis, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, and even Homo neanderthalensis are well outside normal (or not so normal) variation within Homo sapiens.

It isn't just the external shape of the skull but the brain cavity, the neck attachment, the teeth, and much of the rest of the skeleton that defines each species. In addition, the habits, the tools used, art produced, burial practices all show different levels of conscious thought and communication.

Funny how Baraminology focuses primarily on differences to determine classification but when differences show a gradual change Creationists want to lump them all together based on similarities.

Baraminology is nothing more than the Biblical "kinds" put into different words to try to make it "scientific." Traditional science examines the world as it is, while baraminology interprets the data in terms of religious belief.

Modern science examines organisms and follows the data wherever it leads. Creation “scientists” examine the same organisms and formulate a classification scheme designed to accommodate the Biblical version of creation, right down to a young earth and the global flood--in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary!

One of the leading advocates of "baraminology," Wayne Frair, provides us with some guidelines:

Guidelines
In accomplishing the goal of separating parts of polybaramins, partitioning apobaramins, building monobaramins and characterizing holobaramins, a taxonomist needs guidelines for deciding what belongs to a particular monobaraminic branch. These standards will vary depending upon the groups being considered, but general guidelines which have been utilized include:

1. Scripture claims (used in baraminology but not in discontinuity systematics). This has priority over all other considerations. For example humans are a separate holobaramin because they separately were created (Genesis 1 and 2). [emphasis added]

Hmmmm. Sure doesn't sound much like science to me.

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.