What of the dinosaurs?

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

You are so funny. According to your profile, 20 years is almost your age. Why is 120 years just "a little over a hundred years a go,"? It is nearly your lifetime!

What is taught about paleontology is the parts that Cope and Marsh got correct, and the much better work done for over a century. As for the misnomer of "Brontosaurus," I do agree that it wrong in the highly abstract pure Linnaeus taxonomy. But.... We all grew up with the name from childhood. The massive reorganization of the taxa under Eriogonum or the even more complex Asteraceae seems much better supported.

The idea that we are limited to "index fossils" to date a geological strata is utter male bovine fecal mass.

 

[4enlightment]

It is actual very difficult to directly date rock art pigments. However, in just the last 2-3 years new technologies have become available which should make this feasible. It was impossible when I published my last paper on rock art (1991 "The Analysis of an Unusual Rock Art Pigment by Neutron Activation Analysis." George E. Miller, G. S. Hurd in Ken Hedges (ed.) Proceedings of the 15th Annual Rock Art Symposia, San Diego: Museum of Man).

There are many examples of faked "dinosaur rock art." We know they are faked because they match illustrations in popular children's books on dinosaurs, and comic book art which used badly reconstructed images. Here is an example;
View attachment 91783

This artwork wasn't a fake, but it look as if it had came out of an comic book. I know about artwork for I had did artwork since I was a child, and I'm pretty good at it. But when I was at the age of four, that is how my drawing had came out looking like. When you are a beginning artist, it is hard to make the hands and feet. Everything that I see in this image remind me of the mistakes that I had did as a child.

 

[4enlightment]

Learning how to draw hands and feet is one of the main areas artists get stuck on. Fingers, thumbs and toes can be a major headache for us all, so wouldn’t it be great if you could find a way of getting them right time after time? Read on, as we deal with those digits and lend a hand…
We’ve all been there. You’ve worked for what seems a lifetime on a painting only to discover your subject’s hands and feet look like a group of microwaved Corn Dogs or the subhuman claws of some monster from the deep. As any artist will tell you, people will always ignore the good parts of your painting and zone in on the mistakes, so hands that resemble processed meat products will always stick out like a sore thumb!
There’s no denying it – hands and feet are super difficult, but with practice and a few handy pro techniques, we’ll help you understand how these parts of the body are constructed and how to get them looking right. So, where do you start?
- See more at: How to Draw Hands and Feet

How to Draw Hands and Feet

 

[Brainfreeze]

Dr. Dino is a fair topic because in only the second post on this thread a link to a Dr. Dino video is provided. With a comment saying Dr. Dino explains it well, meaning that the earth is 6.000 years old and dinosaurs coexisted with humans.

Every other week or so a new thread is created on this website about a young earth, dinosaurs, et al. It never fails. Somebody praises Dr. Dino and links to one of his videos. Very funny.

You find all this amusing and funny... I don't. The guy is doing real time for something as fraudulent and corrupt as the IRS, like " targeting " and income tax. I'm not a science guy, he's someone I've listened to on the subject, so I posted. I don't need explanations, some of you do. I know all to well how real God is, and if anyone knew the before and after transformation of me, you would most possibly get out a Bible. I don't need Dino talk to strengthen my faith, or billion year talk, I've seen far enough, GODS REAL! We can spin our wheels thinking and pondering how this or why that, and let this detour us from the real truth, if people just spent half the time with faith as small as a mustard seed, watch what will happen, just read the Bible and Gospel, and believe what your reading sincerely, what will this cost you, nothing, you have everything to gain "eternal life ". I'm here, thirty years old at 9:30 pm saying this .. I gain nothing on earth for this, doing it because that's what God would have me do.

I know some of you smart guys are hard wired to think constantly on things. If you could just stop, put what you think you know to the side and humble yourselves before The Lord, to say you don't know everything and He does. Jesus can fill you with a peace I never knew existed, can do things I never knew were possible. Miracles are what God is capable of, nothing short of it. Even if your life is perfect as you think it is, if you had Jesus, it would be a 1000x better.

As I said I'm not a science guy though, I'm now a spiritual guy, so maybe Godissalvation or better yet God can help you guys on the topic, either way I love you all as Jesus does, God bless

 

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

This is why I have so much fun with creationist "experts."

The name "Brontosaurus" as a formal scientific name="taxa" of a particular fossil was preceded by a published name, "Apatosaurus." The rules of naming species gives the first publication the priority. So, all fossils of the same species are now called "Apatosaurus." There was nothing fraudulent. They had a naming rule from the 1600s, and they used it. This same rule recently caused the Sunflowers to be renamed to Asteraceae. For most of my professional career we called them Compositae. They are still the same large group of plants.

Any laboratory method can be done badly. My personal experience has been that inaccurate radiometric ages are the result of incompetent sample collection, sometimes followed by incompetent laboratory work. Creationists like Steve Austin are experts on how to get everything wrong. I think they do it on purpose. Explain these:

 

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

The idea that this image could be a "dinosaur" drawing is so stupid that it should be used by atheists to humiliate creationists.

First, how too many toes could be "dinos?"
Second, mammal hind legs.
Third, mammal fore legs.
Fourth, radically flexible necks.
Fifth, curled tails.
Sixth, Dinosaurs had pelvic bones (especially the ischium) that make the narrow "withers" in the artwork obviously not a dinosaur. The creationists are promoting another creationist fraud.

 

[JackH]

You find all this amusing and funny... I don't. The guy is doing real time

Yes, I do find it somewhat funny that people actually believe Dr. Dino's nonsense. But it's more sad than funny.

In response to Blain's first post, you linked to a Dr. Dino video and said: "Here's a guy who explains it well Blain." Meaning old earth vs. young earth and dinosaurs, et al.

No, Dr. Dino does not explain it very well. Quite the contrary.

In my opinion, you couldn't have given any worse advice.

Nobody will ever get smarter than a 5th grader watching Dr. Dino videos.

 

[Dr_GS_Hurd]

I taught at a few art colleges. My freshman male students were always excited the first week of Life Drawing. They were bored by the third week. Similarly when I taught Medicine, my first year medical students were very concerned about how they were supposed to professionally deal with the genitals of their patients. It was not a problem after a few months of anatomy dissection.

 

[JackH]

I don't think we will ever be lucky enough to be able to sequence the DNA of any of the hundreds of thousands of dinosaur species that once existed. We might get some fragmented DNA recovery, but we won't really know what it was from originally. Mary Schweitzer thinks she recovered heme, and some globin fragments. But she could not sequence them. You might look at: Dino Blood and the Young Earth

The oldest human DNA recovered was a very short sequence dated from fossils ~700,000 years old. The oldest completely reconstructed human DNA genome was recently published from 430,000 years ago. In that study published this year, the paleoanthropologists had to use samples from 17 individuals, and overlap the results. Different specimens had different sections of DNA that was too degraded to sequence. The oldest entire genome from modern European humans was ~36,000 years old (also published this year). But, the work continues, and the chemical methods are still improving.

"Neandertal roots: Cranial and chronological evidence from Sima de los Huesos" Science 20 June 2014: Vol. 344 no. 6190 pp. 1358-1363

"Genomic structure in Europeans dating back at least 36,200 years" Published Online November 6 2014 Science DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa0114

A more recent "soft tissue" controversy is that concerning Mark Armitage. That gets mentioned occasionally in these forums by YECs with comments like "Scientist proves dinosaur bone is younger rather than older and gets fired!"

First, I would hardly call a part-time microscope technician with an advanced degree from ICR a scientist.

Second, his lawsuit will likely go nowhere from what I've seen of it.

Third, his "scientific" conclusions are mostly hogwash as far as I can determine.

So, of course, ICR et al paint him as a great martyr for the cause.

Just wondering if you have any particular thoughts regarding this situation.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

You are so funny. According to your profile, 20 years is almost your age. Why is 120 years just "a little over a hundred years a go,"? It is nearly your lifetime!

What is taught about paleontology is the parts that Cope and Marsh got correct, and the much better work done for over a century. As for the misnomer of "Brontosaurus," I do agree that it wrong in the highly abstract pure Linnaeus taxonomy. But.... We all grew up with the name from childhood. The massive reorganization of the taxa under Eriogonum or the even more complex Asteraceae seems much better supported.

The idea that we are limited to "index fossils" to date a geological strata is utter male bovine fecal mass.

Lol is 120 years not a little over a hundred years? There's plenty more topics on this site for pointless semantics and so we shall pass on.

In regards to what Cope and Marsh got right, we cannot know what they got right because they did a great service to us in discreditting and casting doubt upon eachother and themselves. The very fact so much of what is taught about the dinosaurs and the ficitional old earth originates from their dubious theories and errors is very telling of how unreliable and flawed the old earth fantasy is.

As for dating fossils by strata and strata by fossils, if you agree that we should not use this illogical and obsolete method then you and I are in full agreement on this point.

 

[GodIsSalvation]

To touch on radio dating. I had once believed in this. Where I first began to question this unreliable method was some of my sources in the military had informed me that they had done tests on animals they had killed recently and the dating results said such animals died thousands to millions of years ago, which is pretty funny.

From there I had done more research on this method and have found it to be severely flawed. It is not shoddy samples or lab work that makes this method flawed, for we can simply rule those out. The method itself is flawed for several reasons. Here is an interesting video clip on radio-atomic dating and its flaws.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ICcfbqUFZo
[video=youtube;_ICcfbqUFZo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ICcfbqUFZo[/video]

 

[Word_Swordsman]

In the beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth. That means that God created all of the heavens including the sun and moon in the beginning. which means the Earth was here and the Sun and Moon before there was an Adam.

The Earth became void ( read the Hebrew) and full of darkness, God would not create something that was full of darkness as HE is light. In Fact He said let there be light and there was light before He allowed the Sun to shine. On the fourth Day God allowed the the Sun to shine ( check the Hebrew is a word of allowance not creation) and the moon (again allowance and not creation)

An unborn baby lives in darkness, created by God.

In flew over the Pacific in Navy planes occasionally at night when the ocean was totally invisible, black as coal, with no moon light, sometimes due to dense clouds. It isn't a strange thing to still observe darkness upon the face of the deep. We knew mountains were ahead, but no forms were to be see.

Try reading this withut having to interpret plainly presented text.

Genesis 1:1-5 (KJV)
[SUP]1 [/SUP] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
[SUP]2 [/SUP] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
[SUP]3 [/SUP] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
[SUP]4 [/SUP] And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
[SUP]5 [/SUP] And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

Like a potter intending to make a clay bowl, the thing is unsightly, without form void. Note that verse one says He created the heaven AND the earth in the beginning. Some of you insist that verse is dated millions of years before verse 2. The Bible says God created the earth void and lying in darkness. It does not say it was lit up once then the lights went out. I think yu must be inbfluencedby a "Pre-Adamite" theory. The Bible doesn't support that either. The "world that then was" is the one before the Genesis flood. It was a compromise among some preachers trying to fit fossils into history.

AFTER the first day and night (with light present that first day) in verses 6-8 say Heaven, that being of course the atmosphere, a product of the dividing of the waters, was set up.

That should point out that verse one is simply an introduction to a very grand chapter.

One important lesson of that v. 1-5 section is that it portrays how Jesus would be a light to the world, interpreted in
John 1:1-5 (KJV)
[SUP]1 [/SUP] In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
[SUP]2 [/SUP] The same was in the beginning with God.
[SUP]3 [/SUP] All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
[SUP]4 [/SUP] In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
[SUP]5 [/SUP] And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

There is not a hint in Gen 1 of old ages. Evolutionists and atheists in general delight in reading that into the plain truth.

 

[Word_Swordsman]

To touch on radio dating. I had once believed in this. Where I first began to question this unreliable method was some of my sources in the military had informed me that they had done tests on animals they had killed recently and the dating results said such animals died thousands to millions of years ago, which is pretty funny.

From there I had done more research on this method and have found it to be severely flawed. It is not shoddy samples or lab work that makes this method flawed, for we can simply rule those out. The method itself is flawed for several reasons. Here is an interesting video clip on radio-atomic dating and its flaws.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ICcfbqUFZo
[video=youtube;_ICcfbqUFZo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ICcfbqUFZo[/video]

ICR.org has real professional physicists presenting how each radiometric dating method is unreliable enough to safely drop the idea of creation being more than 6,000 years old. Christians ought to read up on those articles, then rest in the fact the Bible is in agreement with their conclusions. More false uses of dating methods are under review. Stratigraphic fossil dating is already deeply refuted. Given the limits of C14 dating I suspect it will be necessary to fall back on that entirely since there are no materials older than that test can determine.

 

[Word_Swordsman]

A significant number of dinosaurs including T. rex were sustained in Montana, were they not? As in the Hell Creek Formation. Until they became extinct around 65 million years ago.

You need to quit reading those Ken Ham comic books with the dinosaur and human coexisting on the cover.

Apparently you are very familiar with Ham's books. I am not.You will not find me quoting his work no matter how far back you go. If you don't like that I recommend you stop getting aggravated over it and stop reading it.

Those dinosaurs probably remained in their original region of Pangaea (the ancient super continent) after it broke up during the lifetime of Peleg. When men began to spread over the known earth they were highly unlikely to have encountered dinosaurs on a regular basis until having to migrate due to the ice age resulting from the flood effects.

Faulty dating methods put the age of those animals at 65 million years. Atheists have sold a lot of people on that error. They are blinded by Satan.

 

[Brainfreeze]

Yes, I do find it somewhat funny that people actually believe Dr. Dino's nonsense. But it's more sad than funny.

In response to Blain's first post, you linked to a Dr. Dino video and said: "Here's a guy who explains it well Blain." Meaning old earth vs. young earth and dinosaurs, et al.

No, Dr. Dino does not explain it very well. Quite the contrary.

In my opinion, you couldn't have given any worse advice.

Nobody will ever get smarter than a 5th grader watching Dr. Dino videos.

Ok, watch Ham vs Nye a million times... See if it helps, the facts have been discussed, now it's up to interpretation. I'm not going to argue with you Jack.

 

[4enlightment]

The idea that this image could be a "dinosaur" drawing is so stupid that it should be used by atheists to humiliate creationists.

First, how too many toes could be "dinos?"
Second, mammal hind legs.
Third, mammal fore legs.
Fourth, radically flexible necks.
Fifth, curled tails.
Sixth, Dinosaurs had pelvic bones (especially the ischium) that make the narrow "withers" in the artwork obviously not a dinosaur. The creationists are promoting another creationist fraud.

View attachment 91811

I doesn't know if this creature is a T-Rex or not, but I do believe that a being that has a big pelvis area that they had walked on two legs like and Kangaroo, ostrich, and so on; but this creature look as if it has walked on all four because of it small pelvic area. It could be and T-Rex that went under some changes due to environmental or climate changes. God did told the serpent that it will be slither on its belly one day and which He could of have been talking about its descendants like the descendants of Ham became slaves; and so the serpent's descendants had slowly gradually became dwarf.

This is one of the images that on this mosaic painting of a giant creature that crawl on all four and which it could be the same creature of the fossil you had posted.

The Nile mosaic of Palestrina is a late Hellenistic floor mosaic depicting the Nile in its passage from Ethiopia to theMediterranean. The mosaic was part of a Classical sanctuary-grotto in Palestrina, Italy. It has a width of 5.85 metres and a height of 4.31 metres and provides the only glimpse into the Roman fascination with Egyptian exoticism in the 1st century BC, both as an early manifestation of the role of Egypt in the European imagination[SUP][1][/SUP] and an example of the genre of "Nilotic landscape", with a long iconographic history in Egypt and the Aegean.
Nile mosaic of Palestrina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Word_Swordsman]

Many scientists believe in God and evolution. The majority of Christian churches believe in God and support evolution.

My objection is to pitting science against religion, when it is not necessary.

It makes Christians look foolish in the eyes of many. Is that what we want?

Mahatma Gandhi once said, “I would have been a Christian if I hadn't met one."

His rejection of Christ was over Christians not living the Bible way, not believing the scriptures, and
not respecting others.

There is no advantage in befriending the world, which Jesus warned not to do, through acceptance of atheist concepts.
Not obeying God cost the souls of India many generations. But now there is progress, folks there turning to Christ by the millions, and in China (both places guaranteeing some serious persecution), and S. Korea, and elsewhere where Christians formerly set bad examples. They are going with literal belief of the Bible.

You will likely live to see the old earth idea fail miserably, then will stand having turned untold numbers of people away from Christ.

 

[Word_Swordsman]

So why was Bishop Ussher's chronology that gives you all this begat business and your 6,000-year-old world removed from the King James Bible after being in it for a couple hundred years?

Try lack of credibility.

I have some collectible Bibles that contain the Apocrypha, and are not "Catholic Bibles". I have others with pages of articles like Ussher's, clearly said to be not part of the scriptures. I also doubt any Bible publisher meant for MAPS in the back to be regarded as part of the Bible, nor would any promote commentaries on each page of a Bible to be equal to scripture. The old believer creeds are no longer showing up, yet most Christians believe those fundamental statements. It appears the trend is to produce thinner Bibles to a market desiring a small profile, thinner paper, smaller text, at the expense of study materials.

 

[JackH]

I have some collectible Bibles that contain the Apocrypha, and are not "Catholic Bibles".

Do those collectible Bibles of yours have the date 4004 BC printed in the right-hand margin next to the verses in Genesis 1?

If not, they must not be very old and you got ripped off if you paid good money for them.

 

[JackH]

Apparently you are very familiar with Ham's books. I am not.You will not find me quoting his work no matter how far back you go.

In the post of yours right before the one above you mention ICR and you repeat the link to the Edward Boudreu video. Boudreu is affiliated with Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham). Boudreu has articles published on that website.

Is there any significant difference between Institute for Creation Research and Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham)?

They appear to me to be two peas in a sycophant pod.

I do understand that Ham had a falling out with ICR after slandering some of their top people, but all is apparently reasonably well now after an exchange of money.