- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 54,899
- Reaction score
- 1,518
Read again posts # 99, 119, and 137.
All scientists have the potential to make mistakes because they are human beings.
What does the Bible say about dinosaurs?
- Thread starter Liebling:-)))
- Start date
- Status
this overview is not meant to be complete, but does show some of the most important finds. The fossils are arranged by approximate age as determined by radiometric dating and/or incremental dating.
The above is taken from the link you gave. Radiometric dating is NOT accurate and gives different dates for peices on the same animal fossil, and incremental dating is using the layers or strata to determine age. If you ask a scientist how do they determin the layer ages, they will say by radiometric dating. If you ask how they determine the radiometric ages, they will say using the layers. This is called circular reasoning. They have NO proof of the earths age. In addition look further down the list where LUCY is listed. Lucy has already been proven to be a FRAUD. She was peiced together from several different strata layers, miles apart, by a scientist desperate to maintain his funding.
Another "Missing Link" Proven To Be A Fraud
Another "Missing Link" Proven To Be A Fraud
Goodbye, peppered moths
and this
8. The Great Tasaday Hoax
One of the most startling anthropological discoveries of the 20th century was the discovery of a primitive, cave-dwelling society in the Philippines in 1971. The Tasadays, as they were called, were a find of enormous proportions because they lived a life undisturbed by hundreds of years of society. And to many an academic’s delight, anthropologists could now directly observe how people lived in such societies. The Tasadays even used stone tools.
If you’re thinking it’s impossible that such an isolated group could exist in the Philippines as late as the 1970s, you’re right. It turns out that their "discoverer," PANAMIN (Private Association National Minorities) secretary Manuel Elizalde Jr., paid local farmers to live in the caves, take off their clothes, and appear Stone Age. In return he gave them money and security from counterinsurgency and tribal fighting.
The fact that the Tasaday were a hoax was not confirmed until the fall of Marcos in 1983, invalidating, no doubt, many PhD dissertations that had been written in the interim.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Messages
- 31,020
- Reaction score
- 10
Reba, after read your post and went back to read your post #99. I can see the discussion between you and Vampy. Oh yes, I remember about cat history. Cat history was first found who can live with humans in Egypt BC. Why should Isreali mentioned cats in the bible when they hate Egyptians?
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Messages
- 31,020
- Reaction score
- 10
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Messages
- 31,020
- Reaction score
- 10
Also this description of a dinosaur from the book of JOB
"15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares."
This sure sounds like a dinosaur to me. The word dinosaur is a recent invention.
"15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.
16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.
17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.
19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.
22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.
24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares."
This sure sounds like a dinosaur to me. The word dinosaur is a recent invention.
VamPyroX
bloody phreak from hell
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 34,374
- Reaction score
- 21
If non-believers are expected to have an open mind and consider the Bible, then believers should be expected to have an open mind and consider Evolution.
Secretblend
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,824
- Reaction score
- 121
Considered and rejected!
GarnetTigerMom
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2007
- Messages
- 4,951
- Reaction score
- 1
Yep agreed there. It okay to have both if some people are not open to that evolution issue.
Yep agreed there. It okay to have both if some people are not open to that evolution issue.
I grew up on Evolution. Then I learned about the lies, the frauds and the geological evidence that supports a young earth. This is where most creationists have come from. I grew up in a public school, that taught evolution and the teachers blatantly told us our parents were naive and uneducated if they believed in creation. And this was all over the US. My dad was Navy and by the time I was 13 I had lived in 28 different states and went to 14 different schools. So this was taught within the entire school system. I believed in evolution until I found out that it is only a Religion masquarding as Science.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 54,899
- Reaction score
- 1,518
I was taught and believed in evolution until I was age 28 years, so I've given it plenty of consideration.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 54,899
- Reaction score
- 1,518
Heh, heh, we had some similar backgrounds, although I didn't move quite as much as you. I did live in several different states, from East to West Coast, and down to Florida. I went to 8 elementary schools, 1 junior high, 4 high schools, and 4 colleges, and they all taught evolution. One of my high school book reports was on Desmond Morris's The Naked Ape, about the evolution of man.
Yes and remember when we were show the embryo drawings of different animals that supposedly proved evolution? That nearly caused me to loose faith. But then I discovered it was a complete lie and a fraud. Read the following.
This idea (called embryonic recapitulation) was vigorously expounded by Ernst Haeckel from the late 1860s to promote Darwin’s theory of evolution in Germany, even though Haeckel did not have evidence to support his views.1
Data manufactured
Lacking the evidence, Haeckel set out to manufacture the data. He fraudulently changed drawings made by other scientists of human and dog embryos, to increase the resemblance between them and to hide the dissimilarities. We reported on this particular fraud in a recent issue of Creation magazine.2
Haeckel’s German peers (notably, in 1874, Wilhelm His Sr, professor of anatomy at the University of Leipzig) were aware of this fraud and extracted a modest confession from him, in which he blamed the draughtsman for blundering—without acknowledging that he himself was the draughtsman!2
Most informed evolutionists in the past 70 years have realised that the recapitulation theory is false.3
Nevertheless, the recapitulation idea is still advanced as evidence for the theory of evolution in many books and particularly encyclopedias and by evolutionary popularizers like the late Carl Sagan.4
But wait—there’s more
When evolutionists say that the recapitulation theory is false, they usually do not mean to admit that comparing embryos gives no evidence of common ancestry. In fact, they still frequently highlight the assumed similarities between embryos in their early stages (called embryonic homology) as evidence for evolution. This assumption is based on the idea that such similarities are ‘common knowledge’.5
Haeckel’s famous set of 24 drawings purporting to show eight different embryos in three stages
Haeckel’s famous (infamous) set of 24 drawings purporting to show eight different embryos in three stages of development, as published by him in Anthropogenie, in Germany, 1874. Click here for larger image.
This alleged similarity of embryos has for years been resting, consciously or unconsciously, on a set of 24 of Haeckel’s drawings which he first published in 1866 in his Generalle Morphologie der Organismen, and then repeated in 1874 in his more popular Anthropogenie (see below). These purport to show embryos of fish, salamander, turtle, chicken, pig, cow, rabbit, and human in three stages of development.
The various stages, particularly the earlier ones, show substantial similarity. Ever since these drawings appeared, it has been assumed that they have given us something close to the truth about embryos of vertebrate species. So much so that they still appear in textbooks and popular works on evolution.6,7
In fact, no one has bothered to check—until now. It turns out that Haeckel’s fraud was much worse than anyone realised. It did not just affect the idea of recapitulation, it turns out that the similarities are much, much less than anyone thought.
Fraud examined and exposed
Michael Richardson, a lecturer and embryologist at St George’s Hospital Medical School, London, has exposed this further fraud, in an article in the journal Anatomy and Embryology, 8 recently reviewed in Science9 and New Scientist.10
Haeckel's drawings of several different embryos, compared with reality
Top row: Haeckel’s drawings of several different embryos, showing incredible similarity in their early ‘tailbud’ stage.
Bottom Row: Richardson’s photographs of how the embryos really look at the same stage. (From left: Salmo salar, Cryptobranchus allegheniensis, Emys orbicularis, Gallus gallus, Oryctolagus cuniculus, Homo sapiens.) Many modern evolutionists no longer claim that the human embryo repeats the adult stages of its alleged evolutionary ancestors, but point to Haeckel’s drawings (top row) to claim that it repeats the embryonic stages. However, even this alleged support for evolution is now revealed as being based on faked drawings. Click here for larger image.
Richardson says he always felt there was something wrong with Haeckel’s drawings, ‘because they didn’t square with his [Richardson’s] understanding of the rates at which fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals develop their distinctive features’.8 He could find no record of anyone having actually compared embryos of one species with those of another, so that ‘no one has cited any comparative data in support of the idea’.8
He therefore assembled an international team to do just that—examine and photograph ‘the external form of embryos from a wide range of vertebrate species, at a stage comparable to that depicted by Haeckel’.8
The team collected embryos of 39 different creatures, including marsupials from Australia, tree-frogs from Puerto Rico, snakes from France, and an alligator embryo from England. They found that the embryos of different species are very different. In fact, they are so different that the drawings made by Haeckel (of similar-looking human, rabbit, salamander, fish, chicken, etc. embryos) could not possibly have been done from real specimens.
Nigel Hawkes interviewed Richardson for The Times (London).11 In an article describing Haeckel as ‘An embryonic liar’, he quotes Richardson:
‘This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry … What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t … These are fakes.’ 11
Haeckel not only changed the drawings by adding, omitting, and changing features but, according to Richardson and his team,
‘he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals’.9
Ernst Haeckel’s drawings were declared fraudulent by Professor His in 1874 and were included in Haeckel’s quasi confession, but according to Richardson,
‘Haeckel’s confession got lost after his drawings were subsequently used in a 1901 book called Darwin and After Darwin and reproduced widely in English language biology texts.’ 9,12
Will there now be a rush by libraries, publishers and sellers of evolutionist books to withdraw from circulation, rewrite and otherwise acknowledge the fact that the idea of embryonic similarities’ suggesting evolution is largely based on academic fraud?
More of Richardson's photographs of embryosMore of Richardson’s photographs of embryos at the same ‘tailbud’ stage of development and to the same scale, showing the huge differences between various species. (From left: Petromyzon marinus, Acipenser ruthenus, Bufo bufo, Erinaceus europaeus, Felis catus, Manis javanica, Canis familiaris.) Click here for larger image.
The embryo photos used in this article were kindly supplied by Dr Michael K. Richardson. They originally appeared in M.K. Richardson et al., ‘There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: implications for current theories of evolution and development’, Anatomy and Embryology, 196(2):91–106, 1997, © Springer-Verlag GmbH & Co., Tiergartenstrasse, 69121 Heidelberg, Germany. Reproduced here with permission.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Messages
- 31,020
- Reaction score
- 10
It would be interesting to discuss about cat history. I will create a new thread about cat's history to discuss about this to separate from this thread here.
Yes, I have read your posts but the description of a dinosaur does not mention in my bible.
for share 
here in this thread which is good education for us. Yes, we are still focus on both sides between Evolution and Creatisum.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Messages
- 31,020
- Reaction score
- 10
Yep agreed there. It okay to have both if some people are not open to that evolution issue.
Exactly, I am still focus on both side between the creationism and Evolution issues. The new theories between creationism and Evolution comes every other day, it never does stop.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 54,899
- Reaction score
- 1,518
Yes and remember when we were show the embryo drawings of different animals that supposedly proved evolution? That nearly caused me to loose faith. But then I discovered it was a complete lie and a fraud. Read the following.
This idea (called embryonic recapitulation) was vigorously expounded by Ernst Haeckel from the late 1860s to promote Darwin’s theory of evolution in Germany, even though Haeckel did not have evidence to support his views.../QUOTE]
Yes, I remember embryonic recapitulation. My other favorite is vestigal organs.
Ouch! My tail bone!
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2004
- Messages
- 31,020
- Reaction score
- 10
I repeat my question.
Why ALL dinosaur types only Dinosaur Types
disappeared for good? Why only them?
Why ALL dinosaur types only Dinosaur Types
disappeared for good? Why only them?
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 54,899
- Reaction score
- 1,518
If your Bible doesn't have Job 40:15-24, then you don't have a complete Bible.It do not mention in my bible.
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 54,899
- Reaction score
- 1,518
It is NOT only them. There are fossils of all kinds of plants and animals. Please see the links in my reply to Vampy's similar question.
- Status