02 Dec 08
Originally posted by freightdog37how in the world did that dude get a phd?
Taken from
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/billions-of-people
Billions of People in Thousands of Years?
by Monty White, Ph.D.September 5, 2006
Simple, conservative arithmetic reveals clear mathematical logic for a young age of the earth.
Creationists are often asked, “How is it possible for the earth’s population to r ...[text shortened]... kworld.html Back
White, A. J. Monty, How Old Is the Earth? Evangelical Press, p. 22, 1985. Back
02 Dec 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziI sincerely doubt that he believes his own claims. There is a reason why his articles appear on 'answers in genesis' and not in the pages of 'Scientific American'. Getting a Phd does not stop you from lying, nor even make you sane.
how in the world did that dude get a phd?
02 Dec 08
Originally posted by FabianFnaswell i should have formulated my question better. a phd doesn't have to imply brilliance. you simply have to publish some books and sustain a doctorate thesis. in a certain domain in a certain university. and if the university is "Lord's smart people university" from Yahoo, Arkansas and is allowed by the state to spawn phd's, the world gets a brand new doctor to hold lectures and people actually think he has a clue. so i know how a phd after all.
He bought it...
twhite gave also good answer. one other kind of phd's. the ones who are not as intelligent as dawkins and realize they will never get a grant in evolutionism. so they ask the religious people to give them money.
02 Dec 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziWhy bring filth to ones own name, by spewing out desinformatin, only to get some money from religious groups? Doesn't he have some kind of honour?
well i should have formulated my question better. a phd doesn't have to imply brilliance. you simply have to publish some books and sustain a doctorate thesis. in a certain domain in a certain university. and if the university is "Lord's smart people university" from Yahoo, Arkansas and is allowed by the state to spawn phd's, the world gets a brand new doct ...[text shortened]... ll never get a grant in evolutionism. so they ask the religious people to give them money.
03 Dec 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziI love how none of you try to examine it as true or false. He has to be a loon because of the conclusions he has drawn. LOL Dawkins and other prominent scientists openly admit that they cannot let these scientists be recognized. So they are blacklisted. Dawkins said which no one responded to earlier that life could have been planted here from aliens; he wasn't sure how it all originally started. At least this man can admit he doesn't have it figured out, he just refuses to believe that it was God. He admits it is a war against religion. Funny how there was no comment when it was stated before. I have taken all this information from Expelled: No intelligence allowed. Ben Steins movie.
well i should have formulated my question better. a phd doesn't have to imply brilliance. you simply have to publish some books and sustain a doctorate thesis. in a certain domain in a certain university. and if the university is "Lord's smart people university" from Yahoo, Arkansas and is allowed by the state to spawn phd's, the world gets a brand new doct ...[text shortened]... ll never get a grant in evolutionism. so they ask the religious people to give them money.
05 Dec 08
Originally posted by freightdog37well do you show the same courtesy you demand from us to evolutionists? do you admit they can be right?
I love how none of you try to examine it as true or false. He has to be a loon because of the conclusions he has drawn. LOL Dawkins and other prominent scientists openly admit that they cannot let these scientists be recognized. So they are blacklisted. Dawkins said which no one responded to earlier that life could have been planted here from alien ...[text shortened]... I have taken all this information from Expelled: No intelligence allowed. Ben Steins movie.
dawkins says he doesn't know how life started and that it could have been planted by aliens. he was joking, of course. he made a religion out of always using logic and was trying to point out that for is theory it doesn't matter how life came to be, he only tells us how it evolve once it got here. and because he is biased against religion, he considers aliens a more believable idea than god or gods.
i don't like dawkins. in fact i would pretty much wanna smack him in the face whenever i see him on tv. his smugness, his super-ego, him being convinced religion interferes with the basic functions of the brain, that everyone religious is either insane or ignorant(not to say idiotic) all of that contributes to me not liking him.
this however does not change the fact that he is bloody brilliant. whenever he doesn't appear on TV to bash on religion, he explains his ideas, offers proofs, logic, examples. he is an awesome scientist. he is an awful human being because he hasn't found Jesus yet(wink wink, twhite 😀) just joking.
Expelled has the same scientifical value as Religulous. They both are made by people obviously biased towards the other category. But while i may get the time to watch Religulous to see in horror just what religion might do to certain people, i will probably never watch Expelled, because it is wrong from the start. The notion that the evolutionists are conspiring to keep a theory that says anything we cannot explain is designed by god is preposterous. The notion that anything wonderful in the world is designed by god and therefore requires no explanation is preposterous and dangerous. that notion represents the end of our pursuit for knowledge because we can say god is the answer whenever we hit an obstacle.
05 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziI believe I show the same courtesy to people that believe in evolution by trying to answer the questions they pose. I will agree to disagree with someone in this viewpoint. If I was shown that there was enough evidence to confirm that I (humans) came from pond scum I think I could admit they are right. However, I have yet to see that this is the case.
well do you show the same courtesy you demand from us to evolutionists? do you admit they can be right?
It irritates me that many people I speak with (especially on this forum) are quick to discount the ideas of creation scientists. We are all using the same evidence to figure out the past. The difference is how life began. I think you agree that none of us know 100% how that started. Evolutionist general go with the big bang theory. Creation follows the bible. I do believe micro evolution is real, and there is science to back this up. But there is no real scientific evidence to say that there was a big explosion in space and then over millions to billions of years the human race came to be.
I haven't watched Bill Maher's moive yet, but I still plan on seeing it even though I don't agree with him. Expelled has tenured scientist in their field talking about something that affects everyone one of us. Regardless where you stand I think you should take the time to watch it.
06 Dec 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI believe that you are referring to the triceratops at the Creation museum with a saddle on it. To my knowledge it isn't an exhibit, but a novelty for the kids to enjoy. The Bible doesn't express that dinosaurs where used like horses or camels. It is silent.
Let's examine it then.
Do you believe that mankind saddled and rode triceratops around 5,000 years ago?
06 Dec 08
Originally posted by freightdog37OK, do you believe triceratops roamed the earth unsaddled around 5,000 years ago?
I believe that you are referring to the triceratops at the Creation museum with a saddle on it. To my knowledge it isn't an exhibit, but a novelty for the kids to enjoy. The Bible doesn't express that dinosaurs where used like horses or camels. It is silent.
06 Dec 08
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesTaken from http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/stone.asp
Suppose somebody believed that triceratops went extinct around 65,000,000 years ago. What evidence would you cite in order to convince that person that triceratops lived as recently as 5,000 years ago?
Mammoths and mastodons
It was once held that mammoths and mastodons became extinct 30,000 to 40,000 years ago. When flint spear points attributed to the ‘Clovis’ culture were found in mammoth bones,1 the evolutionist scientific community had to concede reluctantly that these colossal beasts were being hunted in America some 10,000 years ago by their reckoning. However, there is evidence which suggests that these huge pachyderms were in existence at a much more recent date.
The Anasazi Indians lived in the south-west of the United States from roughly 150 BC to AD 1200. They had first-hand knowledge of these massive beasts. Near Moab, Utah, is a pictograph of a mammoth showing many of its characteristic features.2 There are also other examples in Shay Canyon on the Colorado Plateau3 and near Thousand Lake Mountain in central Utah.4
An authority in Indian rock art writes that ‘no rock art known to be older than about 1,000 years resembles the sophistication of design and technique that was used in making these mammoths.’5 The preponderance of evidence indicates these figures were made during the period of the Anasazis.
Nor is that all. Two carved stone slabs found in Indian ruins at Flora Vista, New Mexico, show meticulously chiselled elephantine figures, surrounded by numerous symbols and pictures. Earl H. Morris, a noted authority on south-western Indian artifacts, says the ruins date at about ad1200, so the ancient artist could not have seen his elephant in a circus, zoo or a book. An excavated mammoth skeleton would not show that it had a trunk, so the artist obviously saw a live elephantid of some sort still alive in the region only hundreds of years ago.
All this is no surprise, since the Bible indicates that there have been only a few thousand years since the Great Flood of Noah's day. The extinction of mammoths (and dinosaurs) must have occurred sometime in the last 4,000 or so years.
Dinosaurs and flying reptiles
However, evolutionists and other long-agers believe dinosaurs became extinct more than 60 million years before the first man appeared, so they cannot admit that any ancient rock art depicts dinosaurs.
When I was in Peru recently, Dr Javier Cabrera Darquea, a research professor at Ica National University, gave me a stone which he said had been found on the Nazca desert plains. This has a startlingly accurate depiction of two dinosaurs, Triceratops and a therapod dinosaur somewhat similar to Tyrannosaurus rex or Allosaurus. Because Triceratops and T. rex are both ‘favorites’ in popular dinosaur lore (often depicted as sparring partners), it raises the question of a modern forgery. However, the stone, of high density, smooth andesite (a volcanic rock), has several areas deeply encrusted with desert sand, especially covering some of the engraved areas showing leaves. It has a film of oxidation over it, and the segment of T. rex's lower leg and foot are well worn. The fact that the therapod is not a good representation of T. rex (the front legs are too long) is further evidence against a modern forgery. The frill-like treatment along the back suggests the artist may have been drawing something like Spinosaurus.
There are examples which are impossible to dismiss as anything other than the work of ancient artists. Fran Barnes, a recognized authority on rock art of the American South-West, writes, ‘In the San Rafael Swell, there is a pictograph that looks very much like a pterosaur, a Cretaceous flying reptile.’5
While some say it may be a bird, the presence of a prominent head crest and what appears to be a long tail suggests otherwise. It is intriguing to note that not far away from this site, the University of Ohio quarried a fossil pterosaur.6
Sioux Indians have long featured the ‘Thunder Bird’ in their mythology, and always draw it as unmistakably similar to the pterosaur Pteranodon.7
A petroglyph in Arizona's Havasupai Canyon shows a creature with the unmistakable upright stance and balancing tail of some of the known dinosaurs, but unlike any other creature.8
Barnes writes,5 ‘There is a petroglyph in Natural Bridges National Monument that bears a startling resemblance to a dinosaur, specifically a Brontosaurus,9 with a long tail and neck, small head and all.’ Note that Barnes, who despises creationists, knows that this work shows every sign of age, such as pitting and weathering, etc. If there was an ‘orthodox’ way to explain these sorts of finds away, he would have tried to do so.
Such messages left by ancient artists (and we have only shown a small sample here of the many reported from around the world) testify to the reliability of the biblical record, and the bankruptcy of the idea of evolution and long ages of ‘prehistory’.
Rock art dating
Although it is not possible to assign absolute dates to rock art, it is possible to narrow the time span in which a particular figure might fall. There are many methods of dating rock art that give us a clue to its relative age. At times it is suggested that rock art of extinct animals is the work of clever hoaxers. Several dating methods dismiss this possibility.
Desert varnish is an accumulation of minerals that build up in glyphs and on canyon walls. This dark coating, or varnish, takes a considerable amount of time to accumulate. It can be generalized that if the varnish on a glyph is as dark as its surrounding, undisturbed surface, then the glyph is significantly old. One could easily tell if a glyph was recent because it would clearly stand out as very light against a dark background.
Weathering. Erosion of exposed rock by wind and water wears the surface of the drawing and gives it a pockmarked appearance. A newer glyph has a bright, fresh appearance. The degree of weathering provides a clue to the age, and the weathering factor is considered impossible to fake.
Lichens. Studying lichens (common plants consisting of an alga and a fungus living together), which form a scaly adherence on rock surfaces, helps us to date rock art. Lichenometry, the study of lichen cover patterns, colonization and growth, is based on the slow growth rate of lichens on exposed surfaces and the long life expectancy of their colonies. In certain habitats lichens may reach their final size only after several thousand years. Lichenometry can help tell us if a particular piece of rock art is hundreds of years old. A modern hoaxed glyph would have no lichen growth.
Dennis L. Swift, B.A. M.A, M. Div, Th.D. has been actively engaged in ancient Indian archaeological research and Biblical archeology. His articles on dinosaurs and man have been published in Russia, where he has engaged in lectures and TV appearances. He is currently pastor of Beaverton Nazarene Church in Oregon, USA. Return to top.
06 Dec 08
Originally posted by ZahlanziYou assume too much.
so why wasn't noah instructed to get some dinosaurs by god?
"and you shall take a couple of them t-rex on board, even if i will wipe them later anyway. be careful not to go near them and don't put them next to the brontosaurs. and don't worry about all the extra weight, i will make sure personally it floats. if i took the trouble of making it rain for 40 days i can do that much."