Creationist Anti-Evolution Fraud Exposed at Dinosaur Valley Texas

Riding dinosaurs at Creation Museum. Note the Equiped Saddle.
Riding dinosaurs at Creation Museum. Note the Equiped Saddle.

Creationists get angry at Science, Reality and Evidence

"Will you speak falsely for God, and speak deceitfully for him? Will you show partiality toward him, will you plead the case for God?" -- Job 13:7-8

Many hard-core Creationists in their futile anti-evolutionary jihad often cite examples of fossils that, were they real, would contradict both the order in which evolution says past creatures existed, and the scientifically accepted timescales for the earth. This is because the creationists bible says that the earth and all life was created six thousand years ago and all lifeforms co-existed for a time after creation, yes even humans and dinosaurs, completely contradicting the scientific evidence. Obviously this makes creationists spewing mad and as instructed by the bible at Job 13:7-8, they lie for Jesus.

Did Man Walk with Dinosaurs?

One glaring example of the creationist tendency to making up lies to protect their god is in Dinosaur Valley State Park near Glen Rose, Texas. Here in the sandstones, limestones and mudstones are found fossilised dinosaur footprints. Science says these were laid down approximately 113 million years ago during the Cretaceous, long before humans came onto the scene. However creationists claim something extraordinary here, that they have "found" human footprints side by side with those of dinosaurs. In nearby Glen Rose they have even set up a Creation Evidence Museum which contains sections of stone containing these supposed prints. Much of creationist literature stresses the importance of these claims in proving creationism. Thousands of creationist websites declare this to be true. If these claims were real then it would certainly be a blow for evolution. As we shall see, however, these alleged footprints are either natural objects that have nothing to do with humans or are deliberate frauds.

Examining the "Fossils"

In order to properly examine any fossil print they must be cross-sectioned. This exposes the interior of the print. In genuine fossil prints the rock layers will follow the contours of the print and the layers will be unbroken. Imagine holding three layers of different coloured rubber and pressing into them, the layers will remain unbroken and the top layer of rubber will remain the only exposed layer, no matter how deep the indentation is. Now imagine instead cutting into the rubber to make the indentation. Obviously which layer of rubber is exposed will now depend on what depth you examine into the indentation, and the layers will teminate at the edges of the indent. In the same way if a fossil was carved into rock instead of pressed, the prints would be scooped out, and would slice across the horizontal rock layers. This is an easy and foolproof method to tell the difference between real and fake fossil prints. So when these "creation fossils" were examined, what was found?

Quoting geologist Berney Neufeld:

"One of the three-toed dinosaur tracks and both types of man prints have been cross-sectioned. In each instance the rock layers end abruptly at the edge of the track, indicating that they are not the result of a foot stepping into soft mud but are produced by carving."

(About other prints)
" In my opinion, these footprints are not tracks at all but represent random erosion marks in the surface of the limestone plate"
"Often, in order to contrast the tracks with the surrounding rocks for photographic purposes, they [the tracks] have been painted with oil.....It is only with a great deal of imagination that a bipedal trackway can be seen at all."

LYING for Jesus

So the first instance was literally carved, someone sat down with carving tools and purposely carved a set of prints into ancient rock, in order to prove that their god really had created man when the bible says.In the other a creationist painted oil into random erosion marks. These "fossils" are proven fakes. Why do many creationists continue to cite them as evidence for their beliefs? Perhaps they hope the average person might not have done the research to know they are fakes and will be convinced by the lies. There are literally hundreds of examples of creationists making fraudulent claims to prop up a failing deity. Perhaps they think it is Ok to lie because they "know" creationism is true anyway. Or maybe their own faith is failing and they hope to make up for it by convincing others. These same creationists constantly lobby the government to be allowed to teach their beliefs in public schools, as valid scientific theory's. Meanwhile they are constantly exposed as liars and frauds. Would you personally allow these "liars for Jesus" access to your children's minds?

Comments 31 comments

pylos26 profile image

pylos26 6 years ago from America

will not stop until I've read all your stuff. Thanks again.


GGarza profile image

GGarza 6 years ago

Most creationists do not understand science. Evolution occurs at the DNA level. They do not understand that the Bible is not a science document. So their arguments against science based on their findings in the Bible are opinions at best.


i love accents 6 years ago

@ GG Yes DNA is infomation and informaion can only come from a mind. You're right the bible is not a science book it's truth and unlike your "science" book it never changes.


Antecessor profile image

Antecessor 6 years ago from Australia Author

"@ GG Yes DNA is information and informaion can only come from a mind."

How do you know? Sources please?

Do you even understand what information is?

When our brains percieve an objects position due to information contained in light patterns, DOES A MIND PUT IN THE INFORMATION CONTENT OF THOSE LIGHT PATTERNS? Clearly light patterns from a reflected object contain information about that object, yet that information is not the result of a mind putting it there but the result of physical interactions between light particles and the object. You = Epic Fail.

"You're right the bible is not a science book it's truth and unlike your "science" book it never changes."

You MUST BE JOKING.

How many different bibles are there today, if the bible doesn't change then why are there different bibles? Oh you mean YOUR one true bible.... OH lololol

...The Bible is, from Genesis to Revelation, a flat-earth book. ...While the Bible nowhere states categorically that the earth is flat, numerous Old Testament verses clearly show that the ancient Hebrews were flat-earthers. This comes through more clearly in modern translations such as the New English Bible, but it's clear enough in the King James Version. The Genesis creation story says the earth is covered by a vault (firmament) and that the celestial bodies move inside the vault. (See Genesis 1:6-8 and 1:17. Note that, even in KJV, while there are waters "above" the firmament, the celestial bodies are "in" it.) This makes no sense unless one assumes that the earth is essentially flat.

That the Hebrews considered the sun and moon to be small bodies near to the earth is clear from Joshua 10:12, which gives specific localities [geographic] in which they stood still. Isaiah 40:22 says that "God sits throned on the vaulted roof of earth, whose inhabitants are like grasshoppers." In the book of Job, Eliphaz the Temanite says God "walks to and fro on the vault of heaven.'' (Job 22:14. The KJV translators copped out on the last two verses, but in both cases the implications are clear.)

That the earth was considered essentially flat is clear from Daniel, who said, "I saw a tree of great height at the centre of the earth; the tree grew and became strong, reaching with its top to the sky and visible to the earth's farthest bounds." (Daniel 4:10-11) Only on a flat earth could one see a tree reaching the sky (dome?) from "the earth's farthest bounds."

The New Testament also implies a flat earth. For instance, Matthew 4:8 says that "The devil took him [Jesus] to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their glory." From a sufficiently high mountain, one could see all of the kingdoms of the world"but only if the earth were flat. The same applies to Revelation 1:7, which says that at the second coming, "Every eye shall see him." Finally, Revelation 7:1 refers to "the four corners of the earth," and corners are not generally associated with spheres.

Actually, if you want a good picture of the hebrew conception of the earth, look in a Jewish encyclopedia under "cosmography." You might also want to read the so-called "Ethiopic" Book of Enoch, written perhaps 150 B.C. While not canonical, it's paraphrased or quoted a couple of times in the New Testament, so it was highly regarded in those days. Its flat earth implications are even stronger.

The Biblical cosmos model derives from Egyptian sources, which had a flat earth covered by a rounded sky vault supported at the four corners of the earth by high mountains. The 'waters above and the waters below' in the book of Genesis refer to the Babylonian notion that the waters were divided, and some remained above the sky vault. The vault was like a leaky roof and some of that water falls down as rain.

Astonishingly, some present-day 'biblical creationists' now argue that this water above the sky was the source of the flood in the time of Noah. They realize that if the waters did cover the earth to the highest mountain tops, there just isn't any source of that much water in the earth or in the atmosphere! So it must have come from somewhere else, they argue, in their pathetic attempt to make creationism appear 'scientific'.


Antecessor profile image

Antecessor 6 years ago from Australia Author

I love accents do not spam creationist links. If you want to argue then do so, but listing 20 creationist links is only evidence that you don't understand your own position, and means I have to delete it.


i love accents 6 years ago

Oh yawn! Too bad you can't handle the truth. Denial is a common evolution tactic. You ask for facts, then when I provide them. You call it spam and try the play "protector/hero" role, but hey you believe whatever you want but don't call it real science it's guesswork at it's worst.. Btw you never provided an answer on how cold blooded dinos became warm blooded birds. I really wanted to know. Your “pastor” Dawkins couldn’t answer either. He also couldn’t’ answer the overwhelming evidence of the minimal gene set concept. I won't waste my time, but if you have the courage look up those links and channels. Or you can just “stay in the closet” of evolutionary denial. What do you have to lose you're right, right?


nowisthetime34 profile image

nowisthetime34 6 years ago from USA

This exchange is pretty telling and this article is the most biased unscientific piece baloney, who knows how many ID proponents comments the author has deleted. Pathetic!


Antecessor profile image

Antecessor 6 years ago from Australia Author

I love accents ip address: 70 176 169 108

nowisthetime34 ip address: 70 176 169 108

creationist sockpuppetry is sad, didn't you know that the ip adress of commenters is visible to the author? Do creationists so lack support that you have to use sock puppets to agree with yourselves? Lololol, this is the most pathetic saddest display by the liers for Jesus....

Btw as I said before you question regarding dinosaurs is wrong as dinosaurs were Fully warmblooded. Also even what we commonly call coldblooded, is actually nothing of the sort, it actually means warmblooded but not as warmblooded as mammals.

The minimal gene concept is a fail because it would mean that Adam had 100,000 or so more genes in his genome than we do today. The differnce between us and Adam would be greater than the difference between us and a dog, according to the minimal gene concept.


Antecessor profile image

Antecessor 6 years ago from Australia Author

So by saying that my article is wrong, you are saying that you believe that the dinosaur footprints mixed with human ones are real? Despite the fact that even answers in genesis says they are fakes? I feel sorry for you, being so wilfully blind and misled.


trooper22 profile image

trooper22 6 years ago from Chicago

I love it when the Religious fanatics speak of courage; what a spin from the fact that they are afraid to die and that is the real reason that they are so engrossed in mysticism. Great Hub Antecessor.

"Real gods do not require worship. What could a groveling human offer a god other than humor?"

"Real Gods do not require pathetic and stupid humans for their defense..they are gods!"

"Real Gods have better things to attend too than stupid humans who poison the land and sea while populating themselves into extinction. The Earth and the Universe will live on, and will live happier without the god wannabes."


Ashmi profile image

Ashmi 6 years ago from Somewhere out there

I can't make out whether TROOPER believes in God or not.

Anyway great hub Antecessor!!.....what amuses me is the over aggressive reaction from what are supposed to be followers of so called peaceful and loving God's. Their attitude is hardly a picture of triumph for their respective religion is it?!


Antecessor profile image

Antecessor 6 years ago from Australia Author

I think trooper is a deist, someone who redefines god as unknowable or uninterested, and undefinable.


nowisthetime34 profile image

nowisthetime34 6 years ago from USA

lol Sockpuppet? try shared computer. I didn't see any sources for all those "facts" you spouted. Dinos were warm-blooded? Whoa can that ever be proven? No, and it would go against what we now know about reptiles. You guys always have a rescue story that attempts to make evolution seem true. Like I said very telling. And since you’re so handy with a computer google Science vs. Evolution.

As for the minimal gene set concept you're right Adam was a "super human" and we are just copies of the original which is supported by the fact that mutation or copying of info results in a decrease information. Got any more "facts" HA

The footprints were faked? My kingdom for sources from a real sources not just other angry atheist site.

You can keep deflecting from the truth and make-up another rescue story, or admit evolution is a fairy tale with a timegod as the hero. I don't have that much faith.


Antecessor profile image

Antecessor 6 years ago from Australia Author

Actually the geologist i quoted who researched the prints and concluded they were fakes is a seventh day adventist. Not an atheist by any stretch.

Dinos were found in the snow, only warmblooded creatures can survive in snow, therefore they were warmblooded.

Again I repeat, there is actually no such thing as coldblooded, all creatures have warm blood of varying temperatures.

I feel no need to give an ignoramus a biology lesson he should have learnt in highschool about an animals metabolism.

It has been proven in the lab that gene duplications followed by point mutations increase the information content of a genome, so you are wrong here again.

You were indeed playing sockpuppets, not only is you ip address the same as i love accents, but so is your level of stupidity and writing style (a two year old could write better).

You are a lier attempting to mislead people, you attempt sockpuppetry because you have noone to agree with you. Since you are a proven liar (sockpuppetry is lying)(Making up facts is lying) (Saying that the prints are real is lying) why would anyone believe anything you say?

If you have any more claims to make then back them up with links to peer reviewed scientific research, else Ive done with you.


nowisthetime34 profile image

nowisthetime34 6 years ago from USA

Lier is spelled LIAR, First of all, now whose the second grader. Believe it or not this a shared computer.

Again you listed no sources or links you just keep spouting rescue stories and hope that stick. They don't.

Dinos being found as fossils in cold climate does not mean they lived in cold climates. The ended up there after the Noachian flood, and the freezing of the water which you call the “ice age”

Open up a college bio book and flip to the appendix and glossary and look up cold blooded and dinos are still classified as cold-blooded by reputable biologist, not those atheistic evolutionist with and anti God agenda to push.

Saying "it's been proven" means nothing without facts and proof. If I said it's been proven would you believe me?

You called me a liar. But if there is mo objective moral standard that says lying is wrong, why is lying wrong? You're the one that has no basis for morality so you’re the one who shouldn't be trusted you'll say(and you have said)anything so evolution seems true with NO proof.

You're assumptions about me and i love accents is wrong, a rational person when proven wrong would apologizes, correct the wrong and move on, but you as an atheist must ask yourself What would Dawkins do? and much like him instead of dealing with the arguments you resort to tactless name-calling and denial of the obvious.

On another note the "increase of information" study I think you're referring to mentioned that the there wasn't an increase but a genome found the parent population and the regressive genome, and vital enzymes exchange not brand new information, which is needed in order for evolution to be true.

You want links and proof I provide them but will you post them?


Antecessor profile image

Antecessor 6 years ago from Australia Author

U link to creationist websites, not scientific papers.

U use exactly the same ip as I love accents.

U use the same arguments as I love accents.

U are a sockpuppet.

U ignore the fact that u asked who determined the prints to be fake, and I told u a seventh day Adventist did.

U ignore the fact that there is no such thing as cold blood, it is a comparitive term only, comparitive to us. A cold blooded snake has blood warmer than ice doesn't it? Therefore I have proved that it has warm blood!

Information has been proven to increase in mutations. Information is bits of data, therefore if a genome contains say10 bits and one of it's bits is duplicated twice, it will then have 11 bits. Simple easy logic. Increase of information!

Once again I find myself giving highschool education for free, go back to school if you don't know these simple facts.

Btw Aswers in genesis what arguments not to use, says that the glen rose tracks are frauds. I proved the tracks are frauds in my article. If u don't like it then prove they are real.


nowisthetime34 profile image

nowisthetime34 6 years ago from USA

You ask for peer-reviewed scientific papers, Answers in Genesis and ICR.org only listed peer reviewed articles. Of course I’m going to list ID proponents sites that’s the side I support, why would I used an atheistic evolutionism website for ID arguments come on get real. You keep asking for proof, but you refuse to post the facts. Unless you plan on posting them stop asking. you've been provided with more than proof enough already. You’re one of those atheist who thinks that if you believe in God you can’t be a ”real” scientist. Let me give you a little of truth, this might hurt.

Isaac Newton-who co-discovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope and made a number of discoveries in optics.

Carl Linnaeus- the Swedish botanist who developed the double-Latin-name system for taxonomic classification of plants and animals, also believed the Genesis creation account

Dutch geologist Nicolaus Steno , who developed the basic principles of stratigraphy.

Andrew Ure and John Murray , entomologist William Kirby, and geologist George Young. James Clerk Maxwell discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey. Indeed, Maxwell’s equations are what make radio transmissions possible. He was a deep student of Scripture and was firmly opposed to evolution.

Russ Humphreys, a Ph.D. physicist, has developed (among many other things) a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields,5 which enabled him to accurately predict the field strengths of the outer planets.

. John Baumgardner, a Ph.D. geophysicist and biblical creationist, has a sophisticated computer model of catastrophic plate tectonics, which was reported in the journal Nature; the assumptions for this model are based on the global Flood recorded in Genesis.

Creationist Georgia Purdom who has a Ph.D. in molecular genetics. Dr. Purdom certainly understands DNA, mutations, and natural selection. However, she is convinced that these do not support evolution because such processes go in the “wrong direction” to make evolution work.7 On the contrary, they confirm biblical creation.

Dr Raymond Damadian, Pioneer of MRI

I could go on and on. In fact is nearly every branch of science was discovered by bible believing Christians. And another science couldn’t exist without the uniformity of the universe, If evolution were true we couldn’t logical expect tomorrow to be like today, but we do because the in consistent and uniformed complexity all throughout the universe,

You didn’t prove the prints were faked you just parroted another person guesswork. Have you ever seen the prints?

You’re really angry that these prints are supposedly faked and conclude the creation account is wrong, but when Ida was proven not to be the missing link did you say evolution is wrong? What about Ardi, or Lucy or Haeckel’s drawings, Stanley Miller experiment which created poison is still used as proof of a biogenesis when the experiment was a total failure(and before you say abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution ask yourself why is abiogenesis in the textbook and the foundation for evolution and since it has never been proven evolution has no basis to be true.) Or vestigial organs, the appendix is not vestigial and is a critical part of the immune and lymphatic system. But the evolutionist have a rescue story for that too, “Well is doesn’t do what is use to do” without any proof or any way of knowing, evolutionists have faith that the appendix used to have another function. What about whale legs. Whale “legs” has been proven to hold the male penis during copulation. So they are very much needed for reproduction purposes. What about the peppered moth? Moths were pined glued to tree to intentionally mislead people to believe evolution is true. “NEANDERTHAL MAN: When this prehistoric man was first discovered, only part of an arm was recovered. Yet, the scientific community fabricated an entire ancient society around an arm bone. Scientists have since found quite a few Neanderthals and after careful study have concluded that these ancestors were regular humans with bone disease, probably rickets.

PILTDOWN MAN: For more than 50 years we were led to believe that this ancient creature was another supposed ancestor of modern man. Two scientists eventually took a closer look and found out that Piltdown man was a fraud. This invented creature was a composite of the jawbone of an orangutan and the skull of a small child. The original "discoverers " had stained these bone fragments to gain recognition and promote the falsehood of evolution.

JAVA MAN: This prehistoric man was found on the island of Java and was reported to be the missing link between man and ape. After serious study it was found that the two pieces of Java Man were from two different skulls from two different areas of the island. Both were from the same species, probably an Orangutan, but they were not the parts of a man. Recent human skulls have now been discovered in the same layer of rock

PEKING MAN: This manlike creature was found in China during the early part of this century. No other scientists have directly observed this site and it has not actually been seen in more than 50 years. All of the examples of Peking Man were reported to have the back of their skulls smashed in, exactly matching the result when people of that region hunt for monkey brains. Also, modern human remains were found at the same site

LUCY: Lucy is the latest find that has been almost universally accepted as mankind's ancestor.

Lucy is an Australopithecus, that is actually more like a monkey than man. When the bones were studied by spectrograph, they were found to match a chimpanzee, rather than a man. Lucy too, is a mosaic, with bones assembled from different locations

LAETOLI FOOTPRINTS: These footprints were found in the same strata as the Lucy bones. Evolutionary scientists have said that Lucy-like animals made these, but a podiatrist concluded they are modern human footprints. It appears that Lucy is not an ancestor of modern man, but simply a monkey

KENYA SKULL: Recently it was reported that scientists had discovered a fossil of a skull in Kenya that evolutionists claim has more human-like features than "Lucy." This means that evolutionary scientists must once again revise their theory of man's origin. Ken Ham, Executive Director of Answers in Genesis says that the skulll - which he says appears to be the skull of a chimpanzee - [will cause] the evolutionary fossil record of human ancestors to bereplaced with question marks.

ARCHAEOPTERXY: Originally thought of as a transitional fossil between the reptiles and birds, it is now considered by most evolutionists to be a true bird. Also true birds have been found lower in the fossil record, making them older than Archaeopteryx.

And finally ALL of the “ape-man drawings. They’re simply drawings of what the evolutionists want to see and are no way based in reality of what we know from observable and testable science.

And the list goes on and on and on of evolution’s lies, fraud, and intentional misleading misinformation, but you still have an unshakable faith in evolutionism credo “one day we’ll figure it all out, probably” Again, I don’t have that much faith.


Antecessor profile image

Antecessor 6 years ago from Australia Author

First of all, I have not claimed that the glen rose fraud disproves god in my hub, please quote me where I have done so, else retract your claim. If you do neither then you are not honest. A fraud rejected disproves only the fraud, all evolutionaray frauds have been rejected, can you show me ANY scientist who uses piltdown man as proof of evolution? No? Yet creationists, like yourself, still use disproven fake man prints as creation evidence, this means that you are less than honest, or stupid. Can you tell the difference between a fraud rejected, and a fraud used as evidence, despite being refuted? Anyway, this article is only dealing with the claim of thise prints, for other discussions see my other hubs.

Second I have indeed visted dinosaur valley, and have indeed seen several of the faked man prints. I am an athropologist, and while not part of my normal job (which currently consists of working for a social services in Australia) I was interested enough to actually look up information on them, when I used to live in the US.

The disection of the prints was not done by one mad atheist evolutionist satanist diametrically opposed to creationism. BUT WAS DONE, IN PART, BY A WELL KNOWN CREATIONIST. A SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST. Why do you not address the fact that most creationist sources say the prints are faked.

What does answers in genesis say? I am going to break my own rule here and link to a a creationist site.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/...

Why should a Christian ministry maintain a list of arguments creationists should avoid? As a ministry, we want to honor God and represent Christ well when we defend His Word. This means using honest, intellectually sound arguments that are based in Scripture, logic, and scientific research. Because there are so many good arguments for a recent creation (which the Bible clearly teaches), we have no need to grasp at straws—arguments using questionable logic and tenuous or no evidence. Answers in Genesis is not willing to distort evidence or resort to bad logic to defend the Bible.

Furthermore, there is little harm in avoiding questionable arguments—or, at least, stating that certain interpretations of evidence are doubtful—since there are plenty of valid arguments with well-documented evidences against molecules-to-man evolution, atheism, and the like. Using bad arguments allows evolutionists to easily “refute” creationists by sidestepping the actual case for biblical creation. Even one instance of using a faulty argument can lead someone to write off creationism as pseudoscientific and dismiss creationists as shoddy researchers—or charlatans!

A final reason for avoiding flawed arguments is that it leads to faulty thinking. Answers in Genesis is not just about defending a young-earth creation; ultimately, the ministry wants to teach people to start from Scripture and think biblically in all areas of life. The Bible explains the world around us, and since the Bible’s description of earthly things is true, its gospel message is also true.

(These listings are not comprehensive but are instead some of the most common faulty arguments.)

Arguments that should never be used

1.Moon dust thickness proves a young moon.

2.The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall. (If so, how could Adam and Eve have eaten and digested their food that they were told to eat before the Fall?)

3.NASA computers, in calculating the positions of planets, found a missing day and 40 minutes, proving Joshua’s “long day” (Joshua 10) and Hezekiah’s sundial movement (2 Kings 20).

4.There are no beneficial mutations.

5.Darwin recanted on his deathbed.

6.Woolly mammoths were flash frozen during the Flood catastrophe.

7.If we evolved from apes, apes shouldn’t exist today. (In an evolutionary worldview, mankind did not evolve from apes but from an apelike ancestor, from which both humans and apes of today supposedly evolved.)

8.No new species have been produced.

9.Ron Wyatt has found much archeological proof of the Bible.

Arguments that should be avoided (because further research is still needed, new research has invalided aspects of it, or biblical implications may discount it)

(Second)

1.Evolution is just a theory. (“Theory” has a stronger meaning in scientific fields than in general usage; it is better to say that evolution is just a hypothesis or one model to explain the untestable past.)

2.Microevolution is true but not macroevolution. (People usually mean that we see changes within a kind but not between kinds; however, the important distinction is that we observe changes that do not increase the genetic information in an organism.)

3.There was a water vapor canopy surrounding earth before the Flood.

4.Mitochondrial Eve is only 6000 years old.

5.The Gospel is in the stars.

6.The Japanese trawler Zuiyo Maru caught a dead plesiosaur near New Zealand. (Later research showed it to be a basking shark.)

7.The earth’s axis was vertical before the Flood. (Genesis 1:14 reveals seasons did exist prior to the Flood.)

8.Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.

9.Stars are closer than we are led to believe.

10.There was no rain before the Flood. (Genesis 2:4–6, a passage commonly used to support this, is speaking of Creation Week, prior to the creation of man. It may not be wise to assume this projects into the future until the Flood.)

11.The speed of light has decreased over time.

12.There are no transitional forms. (It would be better to say there are no intermediates between two different kinds. We find variant transitional fossils for animals within the same kind—horse to a horse for example but that is expected in a biblical worldview.)

Common misconceptions/misunderstandings

1.Earth’s division in the days of Peleg (Genesis 10:25) refers to catastrophic splitting of the continents. (How could the mountains of Ararat in Genesis 8:4 have existed on Day 150 of the Flood for the Ark to land in, if the Eurasian, African, and Arabian plates had not collided to form these mountains yet?)

2.The Septuagint records the correct Genesis chronology. (Methuselah would have lived 17 years after the Flood without being on the Ark. This is a problem.)

3.The phrase “science falsely so called” in 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) refers to evolution.

4.Man could only live to 120 years as per Genesis 6:3. (Then how could many of Noah’s descendants outlive 120 years, including Abraham? This makes better sense as a countdown to the Flood.)

5.The Intelligent Design Movement is a Christian movement.

6.Women have one more rib than men.

7.Archaeopteryx is a fraud.

8.The Geneva Bible Society used Voltaire’s house to produce Bibles. (This has never been verified.)

NOTICE NUMBER 8 in the (second section)

8.Paluxy tracks prove that humans and dinosaurs co-existed.

So by your own creationist movement you are undone.

I asked you to provide links, you provided links to Aig claiming they supported your views. I have here shown that Aig DOES NOTHING OF THE SORT. Therefore you have lied once more.

Also Aig does not contain any SCIENTIFIC peer reviewed research. The term requires that it be published in a science journal. Can you link to ANY peer reviewed scientific research, which by the very nature of the term, been published in a scientific journal, which supports ANY of your views?

You also commit the fallacy of appeal to authority, by pointing out past figures who believed in god, again this is about the "man tracks" not god. Also I can show you prominent past figures who believed the earth was flat. Appeal to authority is not a genuine argument for anything, only the concensus of the scientific majority should be considered. Also the modern day creationists you have listed all got their degrees from a creationist degree factory WHICH IS NOT approved by any scientific body, so their degrees are worthless.


nowisthetime34 profile image

nowisthetime34 6 years ago from USA

I never stated that you stated it disproves God. Where did I say that? I said if the prints were faked that does not disprove the creation account.(btw I seen your other hubs and you definitely say evolutionism prove there is no God so please don’t play the victim or insult my intelligence) Which of those arguments to avoid did I use? I simply stated if the prints were faked they alone does not and could not disprove the biblical creation. I then went on to list known and proven frauds of evolution. Why do you think AIG put that page up? So we can be of the cutting edge of the science against evolution and know what argument not to use and how to avoid blurry arguments(which I posted in other links.)

Of course AIG teaches to start with the bible, because it's not a matter of evidence vs evidence we have the same earth, the same fossils, the same science(when it comes to observable and testable and repeatable). It's a matter of worldview vs worldview you start with the evolutionism worldview so even after all the facts I provided you still revert to the rescue stories so you maintain the worldview. That’s why you’ll hardly ever see any atheistic evolutionary “peer-reviewed” published anything from a creationist no matter what because they too have a worldview to maintain. AIG and other Creation advocates have there own peer reviewed journals

http://creation.com/creationism-science-and-peer-r...

"Also the modern day creationists you have listed all got their degrees from a creationist degree factory WHICH IS NOT approved by any scientific body, so their degrees are worthless."

This is a bold faced lie if you kept going on the AIG site you would have seen that nearly all the people listed attend very secular universities. And most of the people who work for AIG came from secular universities.

Another great example is Dr. Monty White,

You’re pulling the good old evolution tactic The Credential Attack

evolutionists often attack the scientific credentials of any scientist who rejects the theory of evolution. They have to do this because:

There is so little scientific evidence that supports evolution.

What little evidence they have is highly questionable.

Since they can’t refute the scientific evidence, they try to refute the scientist.

The more time we spend defending ourselves, the less time we have to present factual data about the unscientific notions upon which the theory of evolution is based. That’s why we tend to ignore the personal attacks and focus on science.

Because we do this, our critics naturally claim that we don’t defend the credentials of scientists who reject the theory of evolution because we can’t. Since the charge is repeatedly made that all “real scientists” accept the theory of evolution. Science against evolution. org has already answered this tactic

“There is no question that some of the most famous scientists of all times believed in creation. Ann Lamont has written a book entitled 21 Great Scientists Who Believed The Bible. She devotes chapters to Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun. These men weren’t dummies, and they believed in creation.

Evolutionists, of course, will argue that these great scientists lived before Darwin, and weren’t acquainted with the theory of evolution or modern scientific discoveries. While that may be true of some, it certainly isn’t true of Werner von Braun (1912 - 1977). Furthermore, their argument is based on the false premise that the evidence for the theory of evolution is stronger today than it was in the sixteenth through twentieth centuries. In reality, it was easier to believe in the theory of evolution when the fossil record was much less complete, before spontaneous generation of life was disproved, before genetics and molecular biology were understood as well as they are today.

According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%. [italics and ellipsis used as on their web page

The Creation Research Society currently has a membership of 650 scientists, each one holding a Master’s degree or above in a recognized field of science. In a recent article Dr. Russell Humphreys, physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico, estimates that there are around 10,000 practicing professional scientists in the USA alone who openly believe in a six-day creation.”

And finally your entire article is a desperate attempt to “prove” that dinos didn’t live with man and it fails. Again I list AIG because they support my position.

www.answersingenesis.org/articles/1999/11/05/dinosaurs-and-the


penningl profile image

penningl 6 years ago from U.S.

great hub man, lot of debating going on here. I love how nowisthetime said "open up a college science book". That same college science book also says that we are here through evolution. 1st chapter, every college science book I have.


Antecessor profile image

Antecessor 6 years ago from Australia Author

"I never stated that you stated it disproves God. Where did I say that?"

Right here:

"You’re really angry that these prints are supposedly faked and conclude the creation account is wrong"

THIS hub is about the fake prints, and how some creationists, like yourself, continue to claim they are evidence for creation despite the fact they are fake. Nothing more, nothing less.

"And finally your entire article is a desperate attempt to “prove” that dinos didn’t live with man and it fails. Again I list AIG because they support my position. "

They do not support your position that the prints are real:

you said: "The footprints were faked? My kingdom for sources from a real sources not just other angry atheist site."

Now you are trying to change your original claim of support for the dino tracks, just because I pointed out to you that your beloved Aig does not support them. Do you think that noone can remember what you have already said or something?

Nowhere does my article say that because these prints are faked, this means that dinos and humans never lived together. This article is about how creationists have made false prints in order to support those notions. That and only that, nothing else, these comments HAVE become way off topic, but that is no excuse for you to continue to missrepresent my hub. The very reason they have to fake evidence is because there is no real evidence.

Yes my other hubs do deal with other evidences for evolution. None of them claim that because evolution is true, god must not be real. NONE OF THEM. Even the catholic pope believes in evolution, the majority of religious people believe in evolution. Only Americans and Muslims believe in literal creation. Evolution does NOT disprove god, and only disproves a literal reading of genesis. A literal reading of genesis disproves itself anyway, eg: that green plants were created before light. LOL.

However for a disproof of a GOOD GOD, I have written a specific hub dealing with theodicy. That is NOT EVOLUTION, OR EVOLUTIONARY. It deals only with theodicy. Dont missrepresent it.

"That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%."

That sounds about right, for America, I think if you look elsewhere you will find even less support, but not all scientists are all that bright. The fact remains that the scientific concensus says that creation is wrong, and evolution is true. The scientific concensus is what matters.

As for the people you quote with so called degrees, I haven't the space to address them all, but here is one. Proof that their "degrees" are made up:

A Matter of Degree:

Carl Baugh's Alleged Credentials

Copyright © 1989 by Glen J. Kuban

[This article is being mirrored from http://paleo.cc/paluxy/degrees.htm.]

Originally published in NCSE Reports Vol 9, No. 6, Nov-Dec. 1989.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Texas "man track" enthusiast Carl E. Baugh claims to have "degrees in theology" as well as advanced degrees in science. Baugh's "man track" claims have been evaluated and refuted on the basis of the physical evidence alone[1,2], but an examination of his claimed credentials is warranted as well, since by claiming them, Baugh has linked their validity to his scientific credibility and integrity. The issue not is whether Baugh should have a particular degree, but whether the claimed degrees are legitimate and have been represented accurately.

Although questions have been raised before about Baugh's science degrees[3] (and will be expanded upon here), even Baugh's claimed theology degrees appear somewhat overstated. The theology degree most frequently claimed by Baugh is a "Doctor of Philosophy in Theology from the California Graduate School of Theology."[4] Baugh described this as an "earned degree" (implying normal course work and graduation); however, attempts to verify the degree from CGST have been unsuccessful,[5] and a former close associate of Baugh's stated that the degree was "not real, but honorary."[6] In any case, the school is not accredited by any national or regional accrediting agency,[7] and evidently has little standing in the academic community (it is not even listed in standard college and graduate school directories).[8]

A December 1986 "vita" by Baugh did not mention the degree from CGST, but did list "1959, Bachelor of Arts, Burton College" and "1983, Master of Arts, Luther Rice in Conjunction with Pacific College of Graduate Studies."[9] I have not been able to verify the existence of Burton College. Luther Rice is an unaccredited seminary in Jacksonville, Florida. A representative from Luther Rice indicated that Baugh graduated in 1984 with an M.A. in "Biblical archaeology...through our Australian extension ...since we don't a degree in that."[10] However, the "Australian extension" appears questionable at best, and is related to Baugh's science degrees as well (explained below).

The specific science degrees claimed by Baugh (or attributed to him) have varied somewhat from account to account[11,12,13,14]. In recent years Baugh has claimed a "Masters Degree in Archaeology from Pacific College" and a "Doctor of Philosophy Degree in Anthropology from College of Advanced Education."[15]

Baugh gave the location of the College of Advanced Education (CAE) as Irving, Texas; however, the Chamber of Commerce, and Department of Taxation, and phone directory in Irving have no record of the school.[16] When pressed by an assistant for the address of CAE, Baugh gave it as "2355 West Pioneer, Irving, TX, 75061" and indicated that its dean was Dr. Don Davis.[17]. The address appears on a small house in Irving, located next to Sherwood Baptist Church, whose pastor is Rev. Don Davis. Davis indicated that CAE is a "missions" school, with no science classes or facilities.[18] The school is not accredited by any national or regional agency, nor certified by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (which must be obtained to legally grant degrees in Texas). In fact, none of the educational organizations that I contacted had ever heard of the school.[19]

Rev. Davis explained that Baugh's anthropology degree was granted "through" CAE, "under the auspices of Clifford Wilson in Australia."[20] However, the reason for this curious arrangement was not explained, and the connection to Wilson (discussed below) only further undermines the validity of the degree.

A copy of Baugh's CAE "diploma" (furnished by Baugh) indicates that CAE is the "Graduate Division" of International Baptist College (IBC).[21] IBC is incorporated in Missouri (where Baugh lived before coming to Texas); however, the school is not accredited, nor certified to grant degrees in any subject.[22] In fact, IBC appears to be as lacking in science facilities and courses as CAE. When I called IBC in 1986, the man answering the phone stated that IBC is a correspondence school for Bible studies based on cassette tapes by Jerry Falwell.[23] Further, the letterhead of IBC listed Baugh himself as "President."[24] Thus, it appears that Baugh essentially granted himself a science degree from a branch of his own unaccredited Bible school.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Baugh's doctoral "dissertation" is largely a compilation of anti-evolutionary arguments on the origin of man, and includes an extensive section on missions that consists of literature by others which was photocopied and inserted.[25]

Pacific College Incorporated (a.k.a Pacific College of Graduate Studies and Pacific International University)[26], from which Baugh claims a master's degree in archaeology, traces to a small, private, religious school in Australia, whose president is Clifford Wilson.[27] Ian Plimer, a member of the Australian Research Council and professor of geology at Newcastle University, reported that PCI is not accredited or authorized to grant degrees. Plimer stated, "Any degrees from this 'College' are illegal in Australia and are clearly being used fraudulently in the U.S.A.[28]


nowisthetime34 profile image

nowisthetime34 6 years ago from USA

Where did I say the prints were real? WHERE? I just ask a question. I personally don't know if those prints were real but there's more evidence that man and dinos co existed(Inca stones, cave drawings, artwork, rock carvings etc.)

"Only Americans and Muslims believe in literal creation"

The founder of AIG is an Australian! LOL Have you met everyone? Young earthers are more common than you think. I guess after being lied to so much by the evolutionism propaganda machine, people started to find the truth of God. So in a way I should thank you.

If there is no God how do you what good is. You can only determine what's bad if you're appealing to an ultimate standard of good, ie GOD. Before you start quoting the old testament read it all.

I constantly said IF they were fake that does not disprove the creation account. PERIOD. Why don't you get that? If we followed your "logic" you are a "delusional retard"(your words from other comments against other creationist) because you still believe in evolution after ALL the frauds, lies, and misinformation pumped out by the evolutionism propaganda machine.

I repeat: IDA was proven not to be the missing link did you say evolution is wrong? What about ARDI, or Haeckel’s drawings, Stanley Miller experiment which created poison is still used as proof of a biogenesis when the experiment was a total failure(and before you say abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution ask yourself why is abiogenesis in the textbook and the foundation for evolution and since it has never been proven evolution has no basis to be true.) Or vestigial organs, the appendix is not vestigial and is a critical part of the immune and lymphatic system. But the evolutionist have a rescue story for that too, “Well is doesn’t do what is use to do” without any proof or any way of knowing, evolutionists have faith that the appendix used to have another function. What about whale legs. Whale “legs” has been proven to hold the male penis during copulation. So they are very much needed for reproduction purposes. What about the peppered moth? Moths were pined glued to tree to intentionally mislead people to believe evolution is true.

“NEANDERTHAL MAN: PILTDOWN MAN: JAVA MAN: PEKING MAN: LUCY:LAETOLI FOOTPRINTS: KENYA SKULL: ARCHAEOPTERXY:

And finally ALL of the “ape-man drawings. They’re simply drawings of what the evolutionists want to see and are no way based in reality of what we know from observable and testable science.

Are you really pulling The Credential Attack, AGAIN LOL

Who is Carl E. Baugh anyway? I didn't use anything from him, did I so why bring him in the convo. Oh I get it because one ID proponent might have questionable credits all I ID proponents must be wrong That's so illogical I don't where to start. How about addressing the scientists I actually used in my responses, and stop building men out of straw.


Antecessor profile image

Antecessor 6 years ago from Australia Author

Carl E. Baugh is listed on Aig, he is also a proponent of the man tracks. I thought it was relevant.

"Where did I say the prints were real? WHERE?"

Here:

"You’re really angry that these prints are supposedly faked and conclude the creation account is wrong"

"The footprints were faked? My kingdom for sources from a real sources not just other angry atheist site."

"this article is the most biased unscientific piece baloney,"

The above comments from you are in defense of the prints, or in criticism of my hub which says the prints are fakes.

Its ok, its the right thing to do, changing your position when you know your wrong. Just a pity you're too blind to change your other beliefs.


nowisthetime34 profile image

nowisthetime34 6 years ago from USA

Ummm I still didn't say the prints were real. I honestly don't know, but IF they were faked that alone cannot and doesn't disprove the biblical account of creation that's been my position throughout this exchange. Quote mining me when everyone can read for themselves is not too bright. I'm not aware of this Carl person, but his name is NOWHERE on the AIG site, again you’re wrong get use to it.


DanDare 6 years ago

nowisthetime34, come on over to

http://www.rational-skepticism.org/creationism/

and start your own topic criticising this page so we can all have a good and rational argument about it. What do you say?


Antecessor profile image

Antecessor 6 years ago from Australia Author

I doubt he will do that, but good idea dan, thxs


hackenslash 6 years ago

An awful lot of citing of arsebiscuitsingenesis as a source here. There is a major problem with that, namely the section of their mission statement:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

In other words, where reality and doctrine differ, reality is wrong and doctrine is right.

As for your guff about AiG being a peer-reviewed source, nowisthetime34, you overlooked the important qualifying word, namely 'scientific'. Review by peers is only of value when those peers actually have a clue of what they're discussing and when that review is not carried out with the blinkers of the above clause from the peers' mission statement above that rules reality out when it does not conform to doctrine.


SmrtrThnU 5 years ago

"Who decided that evolutionists are right anyway?"

Just about everyone with more than half a brain. If my mom was also my sister I might believe in creation. It's completely absurd.

Survival of the fittest is what you refer to, and that hasn't been believed to be completely accurate for a long time. Sometimes the fittest falls into the tarpit and the retard gets to mate.


Trish_M profile image

Trish_M 4 years ago from The English Midlands

Hi :)

Personally, I am convinced that evolutionary theory is correct, but, obviously, I do not have answers to every anti-evolution claim ~ and this claim is one that keeps being cited, but which I have not checked out fully.

I am really pleased to have found this explanation. Thank you!!


Meada 4 years ago

Ok, not certain if this has been stated but, Dinosaurs had to be warm blooded for many reasons, not first among those were their growth rates, which can be determined quite easily, secondly their bone structure itself gives evidence to similar structures as found in other vertebrates that points to endothermic regulation, such as airway tracts, finally their morphology such as Deinonychus, required the animal to maintain it's tail in an upright posture as a counterbalance, no other physical arrangement supports bone alignment otherwise, in order to produce that sort of energy, the creature must have endothermic regulation, i.e. warm-blooded. The list goes on, but the thinking of eggs and scaly skin triggered many Victorians to think reptile. Richard Owens the man who discovered the first Dinosaur in 1841 even hypothesized that they might be some sort of warm-blooded reptile. However other scientist chose lizard-like attributions towards these interesting creatures. The fact that rock layering shows that these animals only existed during certain periods is likely to not allow us to sway you. the fact that we can account for how rock layering determined by conditions influences mineral creation and that certain mineral creation requires specific conditions and by such processes we can determine the age of rocks allows us a window into the past.

But let's forget all that the issue of man walking with Dinosaurs requires a somewhat interesting question of biomass and the number of creatures that would need to exist at the same time and the locations of where those creatures are found, e.g. fish fossils in deserts. but let's say hey presto chango we can move rock from here to there, or the ever popular, FLOOD!, despite the water quantities needed to cover to sufficient depth on the earth, not existing to reach those places (61m of sea level rise with all water as liquid), but hey were working with an omnipotent super-being he can add as much water as he wants and take it away with a snap of his fingers. All that being said, the amount of biomass that would still need to exist concurrently in sufficient number to allow for viable progeny to be produced in the window of time prior to the flood or in other words 1556 years, which isn't a lot of time to have cohabiting together almost 3 orders of magnitude as many creatures at the same time, to be clear that would mean that there would be 1,000 times as many organisms present at the same time. While many would claim the bounty of Eden to support this, many of these animals were suited to various climates, and so we need to properly allocate those climates around the globe to make this happen, to which the ability to do so disobeys thermodynamics, but hey super-being, he can do anything. Still the sheer amount of water required by each creature then begins a daunting question, and we're not talking about what they're drinking as some animals require large daily water intake, no we're talking about the water that you're made of, much like every other organism. To wit, hey that's where the flood waters come from, except, more problems as now you include land into the picture that no terrestrial organism wanders into, that remains that way for almost 16 centuries. This is beginning to get old, real fast; because every special invocation essentially requires us to disregard what we learn in our every day lives as comparative analysis, in which we take the most likely reason and the least likely reason, weigh the two for their merits and decide which answer is correct.

To wit, if your children broke something, do they claim, "God did it!" and do you believe them? No of course not you figure the kid is lying, he's blaspheming, and he deserves some form of punishment as such, of course if god really did work in that mysterious way, makes you wonder how many other strange and weird things he's done to confuse you like maybe telling you this book full of impossibly constructed fictions is true, and it's a test, what he's testing you don't know, you can only claim that you have the right answer, but then again, you don't know.


Joel G 3 years ago

Hello,

I think you content is good, keep it up; however, may I please critique without being rude?

Christians tend to take things out of context, a lot. I just want to warn you as you present the truth, gain a context when approaching a biblical text. Job was not telling people to lie for God in the verse you quoted, he was chastising them because they were speaking falsely.

I would acknowledge that fact so you may have great credibility. I study ancient works and I am a scholar as well. I just want you to have credibility, taking out the "Obviously this makes creationists spewing mad and as instructed by the bible at Job 13:7-8, they lie for Jesus." After all, we don't want you acting like the creationist would we, you know, taking things out of context.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working