Creationists

[Big_D]

This is only an unproven opinion. They said the same thing about the Coelacanth,not true according to the ones we see today.

The fossils show that they had legs.

The new adult fossil—8 feet (2.6 meters) long—has four legs, with the hind two still connected to the backbone. The fetus has well developed teeth, indicating that it was prepared to fend for itself soon after birth.

Early Whales Gave Birth on Land, Fossils Reveal

No way they had what they call legs that would support the weight of a whale.

Show me a picture that proves they had legs and we will cretique it together.

Just do a google search to find what I'm talking about. You'll see that whales looked a lot different from what they do today and we owe that to evolving.

 

[newpolitics]

This is only an unproven opinion. They said the same thing about the Coelacanth,not true according to the ones we see today.

The fossils show that they had legs.

The new adult fossil—8 feet (2.6 meters) long—has four legs, with the hind two still connected to the backbone. The fetus has well developed teeth, indicating that it was prepared to fend for itself soon after birth.

Early Whales Gave Birth on Land, Fossils Reveal

No way they had what they call legs that would support the weight of a whale.

Show me a picture that proves they had legs and we will cretique it together.

Stop using an argument from personal incredulity. Just because YOU can't believe it is possible that whales used to have legs, doesn't mean it wasn't so. Whales DO have remnants of leg bones, which demands an explanation. The simplest and most logical one is simply: Whales used to have legs. God offers no explanatory power here, because you have no proof, whatsoever, for god.

 

[newpolitics]

this clip is fitting for this thread right now

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vhzd1Q8Ym8&feature=related]Evolution is irrelevant to God - The Atheist Experience #767 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daws101]

The strongest argument for intelligent design is to -----
EDITED FOR LACK OF NEW INFORMATION, SHEER REPETITION AND NO PROOF OF CONCEPT----------------

 

[daws101]

I am real busy. I won't have the time to continue educating daws and yourself. I will look at the thread from time to time to correct some of your nonsense. Have a good day.

pulling up your skirts and running away!

I'm not Irish, No offense to the Irish.

WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE IRISH..
if I had to guess, you're a cross dresser ,when you wifes' out handing out the watch tower or trespassing for god!
besides didn't you say that you were busy?

 

[daws101]

Hawly, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, but you are just stupid. How many times do I need to tell you I believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is 13.7 billion? How many? 25? 50 before it sinks in? It really is impossible to have an intelligent conversation with you.

Now, instead of addressing the fact you continually strawman me as a young earth creationist, you will probably just accuse me of acting like a 12-year old. Don't you ever tire of your childish games? Really, let go of the hate. I know part of your mo is to just frustrate the living H out of us until we act unbecomingly. Arguing with you really is akin to this...

the only difference between you and yWC's lies is about 13billion years.

Lies ,how do you know if you can't respond with viable explanations to our questions nor refute our views ?

yes lies , the only so called viable explanation that I need is that your highly specious speculation is based on a false premise: GOD DID IT!
HOW MANY TIMES DOES THAT HAVE TO BE REPEATED ?
YOUR QUESTIONS ARE NOT QUESTIONS AS YOU'VE CHOSEN AN ANSWER BASED NOT ON EVIDENCE BUT ON FAITH.

 

[daws101]

This is only an unproven opinion. They said the same thing about the Coelacanth,not true according to the ones we see today.

The fossils show that they had legs.

The new adult fossil—8 feet (2.6 meters) long—has four legs, with the hind two still connected to the backbone. The fetus has well developed teeth, indicating that it was prepared to fend for itself soon after birth.

Early Whales Gave Birth on Land, Fossils Reveal

No way they had what they call legs that would support the weight of a whale.

Show me a picture that proves they had legs and we will cretique it together.

another world famous mis interpretation by YWC

AGAIN YOUR SELF INFLICTED IGNORANCE SHINES
ancient whales were small compared to what they evolved into, so you comment is intentionally stupid .

hey dick head: Using trees to make predictions about fossils: The whale's ankle

Scientists used to think that whales' ancestors were now-extinct carnivores called mesonychids. However, based on recent findings, scientists have hypothesized that whales are actually more closely related to hoofed mammals like hippos and ruminants such as cows and giraffes.

This hypothesized phylogeny leads us to predict that ancient whales should share some characters with their close relatives. The close relatives of whales have a type of ankle called a double pulley ankle, so we would expect that ancestral whales would also have a double pulley ankle.

And in fact, recent fossil discoveries have borne out that prediction. Scientists found ancient whales with hind legs and pelvises: these whales had the same kind of double pulley ankle bone that modern pronghorns, camels, cows and hippos have.
Compare the ankle bones of the two ancient whales on the left and right (the specimen on the right is missing some bones) and those of a modern pronghorn (center). Notice the double pulley structure boxed on all three.

Ankle bones photo courtesy of Philip D. Gingerich, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

 

[daws101]

May I ask if you also believe that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark and that the story of the Ark is 100% accurate as it is written?

If they were they would have been juveniles. Which they had to be on the ark because man has accurately carved images of dinosaurs they supposedly never seen. I love the renderings of dinosaurs with zebra stripes. Then we find dinosaurs with fossilized skin that had stripes like a zebra.

They had to be seen by early man. The bible also describes one of these creatures.

bullshit!

A Faint Image Under A Natural Bridge In Utah
Two creationists, Karl Butt and Eric Lyons, who published Dinosaurs Unleashed: A (Falsely) True Story of Dinosaurs and Humans, visited Utah as an attempt to find evidence to support their make believe views about dinosaurs living with humans, just like what this guy did, and now they claimed to have returned with more determination to make fools of themselves and boldly try to prove their stupid beliefs about dinosaurs living with humans to be true while being blatantly ignorant of the fact that no fossils of dinosaurs has ever been found alongside humans in both fossil and historical records.

The first place they visited in Utah is The Dinosaur National Monument in Jenson, Utah. As they described what they learned at that place and make references to the findings of the Titanosaur named Jobaria made by Paul Sereno and the Walking With Dinosaurs series, note how the 2 creationists are putting phrases such as "seasonal flood" "flash flood" and "flood" in bold letters to make it imply that these fossil findings agree to their faulty beliefs that these fossils are formed by Noah's Flood. Apparently, neither of them do not want to get it in their heads that the terms "seasonal floods", "floods" and "flash floods" do not necessary imply and refer to Noah's Flood. They can't get it in their heads that there are indications of more than one flash floods happening each separately over a period of time. Even to this day, there are multiple occurrences of massive flash flooding that kill many animals by the hundreds, let alone thousands. Wildebeests' annual attempts to cross a large river to fresh pastures are the best example of this. And how do the 2 creationists explain carnivorous teeth marks and broken teeth found among the bodies, indicating that the bodies were scavenged by meat-eating dinosaurs who have come to feast on the drowned dinosaurs that have floated down the river and washed ashore? Answer is simple: They can't.

Next, the 2 creationists visit the Natural Bridges National Monument where they, just like all creationists', claim to have seen the alleged faint carving of a sauropod. Here, the 2 creationists made up a false story about a conversation they had with one of the staff working at the national park who assumed that none of the evolutionists have an explanation to how did the Anasazi people carve such an [sic] "accurate" picture of Apatosaurus upon the side of a rock wall, if dinosaurs never lived with man according to the evolutionists, and concludes that the creature carved in the wall were that of a horse or some kind of a monster.

There are several problems to the story. The petroglyph does not in anyway resemble, nor accurately depict a sauropod. It's not a horse either. UPDATE as of 3/1/11: According to two paleontologists Phil Senter and Sally Cole who published a paper dealing with this petroglyph, this image is nothing more than just an illusion - a pareidolia made up of only distinct carvings and mud stains.

Nevertheless, the 2 creationists still try to confirm their fallacy about the rock art being a so-called "accurate image" of Apatosaurus by citing 2 evolutionists by the names of Francis Barnes and Dennis Slifer, whom they claim confirms their notion about the rock art being a dinosaur while the quotes they present are possibly mined from the books and changed to fit their own perceptions of it. The rock art is anything but a dinosaur. the creature is depicted to have 5 short, stumpy legs, a dragging tail, and a cartoonish head on a upright neck. Based on the most recent studies made on sauropod anatomy, Apatosaurus had a horse-like head, a thick neck that's held in a horizontal posture, 2 elephant legs and 2 U-shaped fore legs barely having any toes except a claw growing on each first digit, a long tail held up high for balance, and a huge body with a curved back. The rock art has in fact none of these things.

Here's the creationists' distorted version of the petroglyph.[

The first image is shown on the Genesis Park website, the second image is from bible.ca and the third image is shown on a plaque inside Ken Ham's idiot crackhouse. Each site deliberately distort the petroglyph much differently than each other. Notice the alleged men in the three images. No image of a man was found right next to the so-called dinosaur to begin with. The creationists of bible.ca and AiG have purposely put the man in the 3 images to deceive their followers into believing their dino-man lies. The inspiration behind the men comes from just two vertical lines seen next to a few wavy lines on the upper left side of the undistorted image below. Look up close and you'll notice that on top of the two lines appears to be faint designs that don't appear to look like a body of a man at all.

And now, lo and behold, Here's what the faint petroglyph really depict according to Senter and Cole.

Humph! So much for it being an accurate depiction of a sauropod standing next to a man….

Just as the supposed staff member in the made up story are at a loss for words to explain why did the natives allegedly made the image so accurate never mind the sauropod's true anatomy based on fossil evidence, the 2 creationists are both at a loss for words to explain why are there no fossils of human and dinosaurs together in the fossil record if what they say about dinosaurs and humans were true. Just like the supposed evolutionists in their claim, the creationists would simply just "explain away" instead of facing the truth that their views on humans and dinosaurs are all nothing but blatant lies.

To help verify their make believe conclusions about the rock art being a dinosaur, the 2 creationists pay a visit to Blanding, Utah to check out The Dinosaur Museum, which is located 45 miles west from the national park, where they saw some fragmentary remains of an Apatosaurus hip bone and falsely conclude that the Anasazi people must have saw the dinosaur alive in what is now Blanding, Utah and went to the national monument and carved the dinosaur on the wall of the bridge, thus building for themselves a case for their dino/human coexistence fallacy. A case that's empty and hopeless for all of what they claim in the article still doesn't explain why no human remains are found alongside dinosaur remains in the fossil record, let alone why no dinosaur fossils are found among the remnants of Anasazi culture such as in burial mounds, ritual sites, villages, and why are they not found in jewelry, pottery, baskets, valid rock carvings, etc.

Just as evolutionists have used dinosaurs to introduce people to the world of science, the creationists, since the 1970s, have used dinosaurs to spread lies (And then turned around and be hypocrites, accusing evolutionists of the exact same thing like what the creationists have done in the conclusion of their idiot article.) about a world based on a strict, distorted following of Genesis 1-11 of the Bible and elaborate their lies by shoehorning stuff to the Bible that's don't belong in there in the first place and take certain passages and verses out of context and twisted them to make it say exactly what they want the Bible to say regardless of what it really says.

This is one of the most purest examples of how creationists feign making discoveries they think proves their idiocy while in fact this is a direct result of taking everything out of context regardless of whether it's an ancient pottery, a faded rock art, or a quote from a book and change the stories around to fit in with their young earth beliefs while being stupidly ignorant of the fossil and historical records being completely void of traces of human and dinosaur co-existence.

Reference:

Senter, P.; Cole, S.J. (2011). “Dinosaur” petroglyphs at Kachina Bridge site, Natural Bridges National Monument, southeastern Utah: not dinosaurs after all Palaeontologia Electronica, 14 (1), 1-5
http://www.stupiddinosaurlies.org/a-faint-image-under-a-natural-bridge-in-utah/

 

[Youwerecreated]

The fossils show that they had legs.



Early Whales Gave Birth on Land, Fossils Reveal

No way they had what they call legs that would support the weight of a whale.

Show me a picture that proves they had legs and we will cretique it together.

Just do a google search to find what I'm talking about. You'll see that whales looked a lot different from what they do today and we owe that to evolving.

You are aware that many animals were similar to others but went extinct ? Then a lot of times they are not complete fossils and they were just someones opinion of what they could have looked like but no evidence to prove they look the way they are rendered.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The fossils show that they had legs.



Early Whales Gave Birth on Land, Fossils Reveal

No way they had what they call legs that would support the weight of a whale.

Show me a picture that proves they had legs and we will cretique it together.

Stop using an argument from personal incredulity. Just because YOU can't believe it is possible that whales used to have legs, doesn't mean it wasn't so. Whales DO have remnants of leg bones, which demands an explanation. The simplest and most logical one is simply: Whales used to have legs. God offers no explanatory power here, because you have no proof, whatsoever, for god.

Provide the species and let's see if it was a complete fossil found or someones imagination built it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

pulling up your skirts and running away!

I'm not Irish, No offense to the Irish.

WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE IRISH..
if I had to guess, you're a cross dresser ,when you wifes' out handing out the watch tower or trespassing for god!
besides didn't you say that you were busy?

Some Irish men wear skirts.

 

[Youwerecreated]

the only difference between you and yWC's lies is about 13billion years.

Lies ,how do you know if you can't respond with viable explanations to our questions nor refute our views ?

yes lies , the only so called viable explanation that I need is that your highly specious speculation is based on a false premise: GOD DID IT!
HOW MANY TIMES DOES THAT HAVE TO BE REPEATED ?
YOUR QUESTIONS ARE NOT QUESTIONS AS YOU'VE CHOSEN AN ANSWER BASED NOT ON EVIDENCE BUT ON FAITH.

Explain how life got started without a designer ? Explain complexity ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The fossils show that they had legs.



Early Whales Gave Birth on Land, Fossils Reveal

No way they had what they call legs that would support the weight of a whale.

Show me a picture that proves they had legs and we will cretique it together.

another world famous mis interpretation by YWC

AGAIN YOUR SELF INFLICTED IGNORANCE SHINES
ancient whales were small compared to what they evolved into, so you comment is intentionally stupid .

hey dick head: Using trees to make predictions about fossils: The whale's ankle

Scientists used to think that whales' ancestors were now-extinct carnivores called mesonychids. However, based on recent findings, scientists have hypothesized that whales are actually more closely related to hoofed mammals like hippos and ruminants such as cows and giraffes.

This hypothesized phylogeny leads us to predict that ancient whales should share some characters with their close relatives. The close relatives of whales have a type of ankle called a double pulley ankle, so we would expect that ancestral whales would also have a double pulley ankle.

And in fact, recent fossil discoveries have borne out that prediction. Scientists found ancient whales with hind legs and pelvises: these whales had the same kind of double pulley ankle bone that modern pronghorns, camels, cows and hippos have.
Compare the ankle bones of the two ancient whales on the left and right (the specimen on the right is missing some bones) and those of a modern pronghorn (center). Notice the double pulley structure boxed on all three.

Ankle bones photo courtesy of Philip D. Gingerich, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Show me the complete skeleton and name the species.

 

[UltimateReality]

I'm not Irish, No offense to the Irish.

WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE IRISH..
if I had to guess, you're a cross dresser ,when you wifes' out handing out the watch tower or trespassing for god!
besides didn't you say that you were busy?

Some Irish men wear skirts.

What about William Wallace?

 

[Youwerecreated]

May I ask if you also believe that dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark and that the story of the Ark is 100% accurate as it is written?

If they were they would have been juveniles. Which they had to be on the ark because man has accurately carved images of dinosaurs they supposedly never seen. I love the renderings of dinosaurs with zebra stripes. Then we find dinosaurs with fossilized skin that had stripes like a zebra.

They had to be seen by early man. The bible also describes one of these creatures.

bullshit!

A Faint Image Under A Natural Bridge In Utah
Two creationists, Karl Butt and Eric Lyons, who published Dinosaurs Unleashed: A (Falsely) True Story of Dinosaurs and Humans, visited Utah as an attempt to find evidence to support their make believe views about dinosaurs living with humans, just like what this guy did, and now they claimed to have returned with more determination to make fools of themselves and boldly try to prove their stupid beliefs about dinosaurs living with humans to be true while being blatantly ignorant of the fact that no fossils of dinosaurs has ever been found alongside humans in both fossil and historical records.

The first place they visited in Utah is The Dinosaur National Monument in Jenson, Utah. As they described what they learned at that place and make references to the findings of the Titanosaur named Jobaria made by Paul Sereno and the Walking With Dinosaurs series, note how the 2 creationists are putting phrases such as "seasonal flood" "flash flood" and "flood" in bold letters to make it imply that these fossil findings agree to their faulty beliefs that these fossils are formed by Noah's Flood. Apparently, neither of them do not want to get it in their heads that the terms "seasonal floods", "floods" and "flash floods" do not necessary imply and refer to Noah's Flood. They can't get it in their heads that there are indications of more than one flash floods happening each separately over a period of time. Even to this day, there are multiple occurrences of massive flash flooding that kill many animals by the hundreds, let alone thousands. Wildebeests' annual attempts to cross a large river to fresh pastures are the best example of this. And how do the 2 creationists explain carnivorous teeth marks and broken teeth found among the bodies, indicating that the bodies were scavenged by meat-eating dinosaurs who have come to feast on the drowned dinosaurs that have floated down the river and washed ashore? Answer is simple: They can't.

Next, the 2 creationists visit the Natural Bridges National Monument where they, just like all creationists', claim to have seen the alleged faint carving of a sauropod. Here, the 2 creationists made up a false story about a conversation they had with one of the staff working at the national park who assumed that none of the evolutionists have an explanation to how did the Anasazi people carve such an [sic] "accurate" picture of Apatosaurus upon the side of a rock wall, if dinosaurs never lived with man according to the evolutionists, and concludes that the creature carved in the wall were that of a horse or some kind of a monster.

There are several problems to the story. The petroglyph does not in anyway resemble, nor accurately depict a sauropod. It's not a horse either. UPDATE as of 3/1/11: According to two paleontologists Phil Senter and Sally Cole who published a paper dealing with this petroglyph, this image is nothing more than just an illusion - a pareidolia made up of only distinct carvings and mud stains.

Nevertheless, the 2 creationists still try to confirm their fallacy about the rock art being a so-called "accurate image" of Apatosaurus by citing 2 evolutionists by the names of Francis Barnes and Dennis Slifer, whom they claim confirms their notion about the rock art being a dinosaur while the quotes they present are possibly mined from the books and changed to fit their own perceptions of it. The rock art is anything but a dinosaur. the creature is depicted to have 5 short, stumpy legs, a dragging tail, and a cartoonish head on a upright neck. Based on the most recent studies made on sauropod anatomy, Apatosaurus had a horse-like head, a thick neck that's held in a horizontal posture, 2 elephant legs and 2 U-shaped fore legs barely having any toes except a claw growing on each first digit, a long tail held up high for balance, and a huge body with a curved back. The rock art has in fact none of these things.

Here's the creationists' distorted version of the petroglyph.[

The first image is shown on the Genesis Park website, the second image is from bible.ca and the third image is shown on a plaque inside Ken Ham's idiot crackhouse. Each site deliberately distort the petroglyph much differently than each other. Notice the alleged men in the three images. No image of a man was found right next to the so-called dinosaur to begin with. The creationists of bible.ca and AiG have purposely put the man in the 3 images to deceive their followers into believing their dino-man lies. The inspiration behind the men comes from just two vertical lines seen next to a few wavy lines on the upper left side of the undistorted image below. Look up close and you'll notice that on top of the two lines appears to be faint designs that don't appear to look like a body of a man at all.

And now, lo and behold, Here's what the faint petroglyph really depict according to Senter and Cole.

Humph! So much for it being an accurate depiction of a sauropod standing next to a man….

Just as the supposed staff member in the made up story are at a loss for words to explain why did the natives allegedly made the image so accurate never mind the sauropod's true anatomy based on fossil evidence, the 2 creationists are both at a loss for words to explain why are there no fossils of human and dinosaurs together in the fossil record if what they say about dinosaurs and humans were true. Just like the supposed evolutionists in their claim, the creationists would simply just "explain away" instead of facing the truth that their views on humans and dinosaurs are all nothing but blatant lies.

To help verify their make believe conclusions about the rock art being a dinosaur, the 2 creationists pay a visit to Blanding, Utah to check out The Dinosaur Museum, which is located 45 miles west from the national park, where they saw some fragmentary remains of an Apatosaurus hip bone and falsely conclude that the Anasazi people must have saw the dinosaur alive in what is now Blanding, Utah and went to the national monument and carved the dinosaur on the wall of the bridge, thus building for themselves a case for their dino/human coexistence fallacy. A case that's empty and hopeless for all of what they claim in the article still doesn't explain why no human remains are found alongside dinosaur remains in the fossil record, let alone why no dinosaur fossils are found among the remnants of Anasazi culture such as in burial mounds, ritual sites, villages, and why are they not found in jewelry, pottery, baskets, valid rock carvings, etc.

Just as evolutionists have used dinosaurs to introduce people to the world of science, the creationists, since the 1970s, have used dinosaurs to spread lies (And then turned around and be hypocrites, accusing evolutionists of the exact same thing like what the creationists have done in the conclusion of their idiot article.) about a world based on a strict, distorted following of Genesis 1-11 of the Bible and elaborate their lies by shoehorning stuff to the Bible that's don't belong in there in the first place and take certain passages and verses out of context and twisted them to make it say exactly what they want the Bible to say regardless of what it really says.

This is one of the most purest examples of how creationists feign making discoveries they think proves their idiocy while in fact this is a direct result of taking everything out of context regardless of whether it's an ancient pottery, a faded rock art, or a quote from a book and change the stories around to fit in with their young earth beliefs while being stupidly ignorant of the fossil and historical records being completely void of traces of human and dinosaur co-existence.

Reference:

Senter, P.; Cole, S.J. (2011). “Dinosaur” petroglyphs at Kachina Bridge site, Natural Bridges National Monument, southeastern Utah: not dinosaurs after all Palaeontologia Electronica, 14 (1), 1-5
A Faint Image Under A Natural Bridge In Utah - Stupid Dinosaur Lies

Let's see how your side deliberately misleads the evidence. The honest on your side only interpret evidence according to their presuppositions.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7cNeGL6j9I&feature=related]Dinosaurs and the Bible - Steve Wolfe - YouTube[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmC4dwCcsUs]Proof Dinosaurs Lived With Man - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azMgKrkJ5lA&feature=related]Mathematical proof for Intelligent Design - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Youwerecreated]

WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT THE IRISH..
if I had to guess, you're a cross dresser ,when you wifes' out handing out the watch tower or trespassing for god!
besides didn't you say that you were busy?

Some Irish men wear skirts.

What about William Wallace?

Scotts did to, you are right.

 

[Hollie]

If they were they would have been juveniles. Which they had to be on the ark because man has accurately carved images of dinosaurs they supposedly never seen. I love the renderings of dinosaurs with zebra stripes. Then we find dinosaurs with fossilized skin that had stripes like a zebra.

They had to be seen by early man. The bible also describes one of these creatures.

bullshit!

A Faint Image Under A Natural Bridge In Utah
Two creationists, Karl Butt and Eric Lyons, who published Dinosaurs Unleashed: A (Falsely) True Story of Dinosaurs and Humans, visited Utah as an attempt to find evidence to support their make believe views about dinosaurs living with humans, just like what this guy did, and now they claimed to have returned with more determination to make fools of themselves and boldly try to prove their stupid beliefs about dinosaurs living with humans to be true while being blatantly ignorant of the fact that no fossils of dinosaurs has ever been found alongside humans in both fossil and historical records.

The first place they visited in Utah is The Dinosaur National Monument in Jenson, Utah. As they described what they learned at that place and make references to the findings of the Titanosaur named Jobaria made by Paul Sereno and the Walking With Dinosaurs series, note how the 2 creationists are putting phrases such as "seasonal flood" "flash flood" and "flood" in bold letters to make it imply that these fossil findings agree to their faulty beliefs that these fossils are formed by Noah's Flood. Apparently, neither of them do not want to get it in their heads that the terms "seasonal floods", "floods" and "flash floods" do not necessary imply and refer to Noah's Flood. They can't get it in their heads that there are indications of more than one flash floods happening each separately over a period of time. Even to this day, there are multiple occurrences of massive flash flooding that kill many animals by the hundreds, let alone thousands. Wildebeests' annual attempts to cross a large river to fresh pastures are the best example of this. And how do the 2 creationists explain carnivorous teeth marks and broken teeth found among the bodies, indicating that the bodies were scavenged by meat-eating dinosaurs who have come to feast on the drowned dinosaurs that have floated down the river and washed ashore? Answer is simple: They can't.

Next, the 2 creationists visit the Natural Bridges National Monument where they, just like all creationists', claim to have seen the alleged faint carving of a sauropod. Here, the 2 creationists made up a false story about a conversation they had with one of the staff working at the national park who assumed that none of the evolutionists have an explanation to how did the Anasazi people carve such an [sic] "accurate" picture of Apatosaurus upon the side of a rock wall, if dinosaurs never lived with man according to the evolutionists, and concludes that the creature carved in the wall were that of a horse or some kind of a monster.

There are several problems to the story. The petroglyph does not in anyway resemble, nor accurately depict a sauropod. It's not a horse either. UPDATE as of 3/1/11: According to two paleontologists Phil Senter and Sally Cole who published a paper dealing with this petroglyph, this image is nothing more than just an illusion - a pareidolia made up of only distinct carvings and mud stains.

Nevertheless, the 2 creationists still try to confirm their fallacy about the rock art being a so-called "accurate image" of Apatosaurus by citing 2 evolutionists by the names of Francis Barnes and Dennis Slifer, whom they claim confirms their notion about the rock art being a dinosaur while the quotes they present are possibly mined from the books and changed to fit their own perceptions of it. The rock art is anything but a dinosaur. the creature is depicted to have 5 short, stumpy legs, a dragging tail, and a cartoonish head on a upright neck. Based on the most recent studies made on sauropod anatomy, Apatosaurus had a horse-like head, a thick neck that's held in a horizontal posture, 2 elephant legs and 2 U-shaped fore legs barely having any toes except a claw growing on each first digit, a long tail held up high for balance, and a huge body with a curved back. The rock art has in fact none of these things.

Here's the creationists' distorted version of the petroglyph.[

The first image is shown on the Genesis Park website, the second image is from bible.ca and the third image is shown on a plaque inside Ken Ham's idiot crackhouse. Each site deliberately distort the petroglyph much differently than each other. Notice the alleged men in the three images. No image of a man was found right next to the so-called dinosaur to begin with. The creationists of bible.ca and AiG have purposely put the man in the 3 images to deceive their followers into believing their dino-man lies. The inspiration behind the men comes from just two vertical lines seen next to a few wavy lines on the upper left side of the undistorted image below. Look up close and you'll notice that on top of the two lines appears to be faint designs that don't appear to look like a body of a man at all.

And now, lo and behold, Here's what the faint petroglyph really depict according to Senter and Cole.

Humph! So much for it being an accurate depiction of a sauropod standing next to a man….

Just as the supposed staff member in the made up story are at a loss for words to explain why did the natives allegedly made the image so accurate never mind the sauropod's true anatomy based on fossil evidence, the 2 creationists are both at a loss for words to explain why are there no fossils of human and dinosaurs together in the fossil record if what they say about dinosaurs and humans were true. Just like the supposed evolutionists in their claim, the creationists would simply just "explain away" instead of facing the truth that their views on humans and dinosaurs are all nothing but blatant lies.

To help verify their make believe conclusions about the rock art being a dinosaur, the 2 creationists pay a visit to Blanding, Utah to check out The Dinosaur Museum, which is located 45 miles west from the national park, where they saw some fragmentary remains of an Apatosaurus hip bone and falsely conclude that the Anasazi people must have saw the dinosaur alive in what is now Blanding, Utah and went to the national monument and carved the dinosaur on the wall of the bridge, thus building for themselves a case for their dino/human coexistence fallacy. A case that's empty and hopeless for all of what they claim in the article still doesn't explain why no human remains are found alongside dinosaur remains in the fossil record, let alone why no dinosaur fossils are found among the remnants of Anasazi culture such as in burial mounds, ritual sites, villages, and why are they not found in jewelry, pottery, baskets, valid rock carvings, etc.

Just as evolutionists have used dinosaurs to introduce people to the world of science, the creationists, since the 1970s, have used dinosaurs to spread lies (And then turned around and be hypocrites, accusing evolutionists of the exact same thing like what the creationists have done in the conclusion of their idiot article.) about a world based on a strict, distorted following of Genesis 1-11 of the Bible and elaborate their lies by shoehorning stuff to the Bible that's don't belong in there in the first place and take certain passages and verses out of context and twisted them to make it say exactly what they want the Bible to say regardless of what it really says.

This is one of the most purest examples of how creationists feign making discoveries they think proves their idiocy while in fact this is a direct result of taking everything out of context regardless of whether it's an ancient pottery, a faded rock art, or a quote from a book and change the stories around to fit in with their young earth beliefs while being stupidly ignorant of the fossil and historical records being completely void of traces of human and dinosaur co-existence.

Reference:

Senter, P.; Cole, S.J. (2011). “Dinosaur” petroglyphs at Kachina Bridge site, Natural Bridges National Monument, southeastern Utah: not dinosaurs after all Palaeontologia Electronica, 14 (1), 1-5
A Faint Image Under A Natural Bridge In Utah - Stupid Dinosaur Lies

Let's see how your side deliberately misleads the evidence. The honest on your side only interpret evidence according to their presuppositions.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7cNeGL6j9I&feature=related]Dinosaurs and the Bible - Steve Wolfe - YouTube[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmC4dwCcsUs]Proof Dinosaurs Lived With Man - YouTube[/ame]


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azMgKrkJ5lA&feature=related]Mathematical proof for Intelligent Design - YouTube[/ame]

Those goofy videos are among the more outrageous claims among really, really outrageous claims made by the fundie cultists.

 

[Hollie]

Lies ,how do you know if you can't respond with viable explanations to our questions nor refute our views ?

yes lies , the only so called viable explanation that I need is that your highly specious speculation is based on a false premise: GOD DID IT!
HOW MANY TIMES DOES THAT HAVE TO BE REPEATED ?
YOUR QUESTIONS ARE NOT QUESTIONS AS YOU'VE CHOSEN AN ANSWER BASED NOT ON EVIDENCE BUT ON FAITH.

Explain how life got started without a designer ? Explain complexity ?

Explain how a designer got started without a designer.

The building blocks for life exist throughout the cosmos. We can test for that and confirm their existence.

How do we test for a suparnatural designer which itself requires a supernatural designer.

 

[Youwerecreated]

yes lies , the only so called viable explanation that I need is that your highly specious speculation is based on a false premise: GOD DID IT!
HOW MANY TIMES DOES THAT HAVE TO BE REPEATED ?
YOUR QUESTIONS ARE NOT QUESTIONS AS YOU'VE CHOSEN AN ANSWER BASED NOT ON EVIDENCE BUT ON FAITH.

Explain how life got started without a designer ? Explain complexity ?

Explain how a designer got started without a designer.

The building blocks for life exist throughout the cosmos. We can test for that and confirm their existence.

How do we test for a suparnatural designer which itself requires a supernatural designer.

He who created all is eternal.

But thanks for admitting your side want to claim my side are fundies and nuts even though your side has no clue how it could of happened.

We see complexity created by man but there can't be someone more intelligent then man beyond our comprehension.

 

[Hollie]

Explain how life got started without a designer ? Explain complexity ?

Explain how a designer got started without a designer.

The building blocks for life exist throughout the cosmos. We can test for that and confirm their existence.

How do we test for a suparnatural designer which itself requires a supernatural designer.

He who created all is eternal.

But thanks for admitting your side want to claim my side are fundies and nuts even though your side has no clue how it could of happened.

We see complexity created by man but there can't be someone more intelligent then man beyond our comprehension.

It's convenient to claim that "he who ...". It's more of that convenient "because I say so" admonition that you believe relieves you of any requirement to support your claims to supermagical gods.

I do find it interesting that you identify your gods as "he". You attribute thoroughly human attributes to a thoroughly human invention. That's not surprising since as a human construct, humans will add their familial and social conventions to their gods. That has been the case with all the gods which have "existed" before your gods.

And yes, for those who believe the nonsense further by Ken Ham and his abomination called the " creation museum" , we are forced to come to conclusions about those who believe in a literal 6,000 year old earth and humans frolicking with dinosaurs.