End of Year

The number of dinosaurs may be greatly exaggerated?

The article “Deceived by the Morpho-saurs” (July 31, 2010) in New Scientist magazine reveals several serious problems evolutionists have frequently overlooked. The author admits that the number of dinosaurs may be greatly exaggerated (I agree!) since some dinosaurs change shapes so radically as they grow that they now have different species names for the same dinosaur at different stages of its life. If they had only been found as fossils and not alive, no one would ever think the caterpillar and the butterfly were the same animal!

Several simple points need to be made from the article.

  1. Much speculation has gone into the study of dinosaurs, so everyone needs to hold to what they believe loosely and be willing to change as new evidence comes to light.
  2. There were probably many fewer dinosaurs than are currently listed in the books. (So Noah had even less of a problem getting two of the various KINDS on the ark—babies no doubt—just be sure to get a pink one and a blue one.) Just as all 400+ varieties of dogs, foxes, wolves, coyotes, maybe jackals, and other dog-like animals probably came from two of the dog “kind” on Noah’s ark, probably all the dinosaurs came from just 30 or so basic “kinds” in the Garden of Eden.  See The Garden of Eden.
  3. There is a strong tendency in various fields of science to greatly exaggerate the importance of your research (to keep grant money flowing; see 1 Tim. 6:10). A person who spends hundreds of hours and millions of dollars digging bones out of the dirt wants others to think what they have done is important. My dog did the same thing but for different motives.
  4. I will predict these same scientists who have discovered and dared to report on the “fewer than they thought” number of dinosaurs will NEVER dare to even consider the thought that the dinosaurs are also “younger than they thought”—like maybe 4,400 years? (Buried by Noah’s flood!)
  5. Just as a dinosaur’s  skull shape changes as they age, so does a human’s.  Neanderthals were just normal humans who reached advance ages; maybe even several hundred years. See the great research by Dr. Jack Cuozzo in his book Buried Alive.
  6. I further predict that these same researchers who warn against “misunderstanding evolutionary relationships” will not even consider the idea that the similarities found in various life forms might just mean they have a common DESIGNER rather than a common ancestor.
  7. I further predict that the same God Who created this amazing world and then came down as a man to redeem His creation will be REALLY upset with lots of people who refused to give Him His glory and praise for His creation!

DON’T be in that crowd!  Every knee will bow (see Phil. 2:10). I recommend you do it now—voluntarily. God loves you and wants you to be saved.

,

Leave25 Responses to testThe number of dinosaurs may be greatly exaggerated?

  1. David Ray September 21, 2010 at 1:17 pm #

    “God loves you and wants you to be saved”

    But if you don’t love him back, He’ll throw you in a pit to be tortured for all eternity. That’s love alright.

    Reminds me of the old “If I can’t have you, no one can” statement that’s so common in abusive relationships.

  2. Julie Collins September 21, 2010 at 1:40 pm #

    i 100% agree, many people in todays age will listen to anything just for the reason of WHO said it, not the reliability of WHAT was said. if lady gaga, T-pain, and gigi dobson all said that life is worthless, many kids and teens would listen to them. in todays society it is media vs science, and no, not evolution, big bang, and abiogenesis, i mean REAL science.

  3. Jeremey Chinshue September 21, 2010 at 4:48 pm #

    Another excellent little blog.

  4. Tony Watkins September 21, 2010 at 5:23 pm #

    Also agree !!! In fact I think it’s a distinct possibility that God created a few Supergenetic Kinds ……. including man ……. that by some mechanism were triggered by circumstances after the flood to DEVOLVE into the hundreds of species of every KIND that we have now …. again including man !!!!!!! Once these KINDS had devolved into their many diverse species the genetic code which God had created and arranged met their predestined ends and CANNOT GO BACK !!! EVOLUTION IS NOT OCCURING and NEVER DID OCCUR !!!!! This explains things like the drastically shortened lifespan …….. physically man is not what he once was ………. BUT SPIRIT STILL REMAINS AND CRIES OUT TO GOD FOR FULLNESS OF RELATIONSHIP WITH HIM !!!!!

  5. Nigel McNaughton September 21, 2010 at 7:42 pm #

    Yes, the march of science, auto correcting.. oh you are trying to mock people for discovering a mistake? How unlike a Creationist! Basically you trust the scientists when they correct a mistake but they are wrong all the rest of the time that you don’t agree with them.

    I do find it highly entertaining that Kent apparently has a paid subscription to New Scientist.

    You comment on Kinds is of course completely meaningless since Creationists never give a testable definition of Kind, and it simply means whatever they need it to mean at the time.

    You are still pretending that Neanderthals are just really old men? Hilarious!

    So the Neanderthal children are just really old children?

    Common Design = Common Designer, so Different Design = Designer,… Right?

    Ohh Real Science Julie, please share with the world what Real Science is, let me guess, Science you agree with on Religious Grounds?

  6. Nigel McNaughton September 21, 2010 at 7:48 pm #

    Oh and I love the completely unsubstantiated slam on the researchers.

    “There is a strong tendency in various Ministries to greatly exaggerate the importance of your outreach (to keep donations flowing; see 1 Tim. 6:10). A person who spends hundreds of hours and millions of dollars preaching against something they don’t believe wants others to think what they have done is important”

    See how easy that was.

  7. Lance Grey September 21, 2010 at 8:40 pm #

    The Metamorphosis phenomenon is worthy of scientific discovery where bible adherents and evolutionists may find common ground as a valid type of evolution to both sides. Tadpoles are another great example
    And I’d predict the wrath of (an upset) God was fully satisfied once, for all!

  8. David McCrea September 22, 2010 at 2:02 am #

    Christopher Hitchens believes Christ is just a human construct. But during a debate he stated there would be no Christianity if not for the apostle Paul.

    Let me get this straight. Hitchens denies the existence of Christ but acknowledges the reality of Paul, but without Christ there would never have been an apostle Paul. Something very real and very supernatural must have happened to Paul (Saul) on the road to Damascus to convince him to give up his comfortable life and follow Christ. He spent the next 25 years preaching the gospel under intense persecution only to end up imprisoned and beheaded. Why didn’t he just quit and go home? What get him going?

    No power on the face of the earth could have converted Paul and kept him on task but the power of the resurrected Christ. Or is the apostle Paul just a construct of man as well? The high-priest of atheism Christopher Hitchens apparently believes Paul was all too real. And if Paul was real, so are all his letters which comprise the bulk of the New Testament. And if his letters are real, then I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that Christ is real too.

    How does an atheist deconstruct the humanity of Paul with any degree of certainty? Oh, that’s right. Christ never existed, so I guess that means neither did Paul. Someone better get the word out to Hitchens then, before he piles any more credibility onto the apostle Paul!

  9. Alexey Podtinny September 22, 2010 at 5:06 am #

    I am so extremely glad to hear from Dr. Kent Hovind! Many christians here in Ukraine watched his seminars which are really amazing!
    I saw David Ray’s comments and I want to ask: are not this comments an example of how the most beautiful LOVE can be scorned?

  10. Jon Richt September 22, 2010 at 12:43 pm #

    i 100% agree, many people in todays age will listen to anything just for the reason of WHO said it, not the reliability of WHAT was said

    Practically dripping with irony…

  11. David Ray September 22, 2010 at 12:48 pm #

    “are not this comments an example of how the most beautiful LOVE can be scorned?”

    And yet you failed to address the point, Alexey. Do you truly think that ‘beautiful love’ is exemplified by this paradox? I love my children more than I ever thought possible. However, if they decide one day that they don’t love me anymore, should I cast them into the basement to be tortured by demons and to have noxious fumes forced into their noses FOREVER? Would that be a good example of ‘beautiful love’? If you think so, then I worry for your family should they ever make you sad or angry.

  12. Julie Collins September 22, 2010 at 2:01 pm #

    “You comment on Kinds is of course completely meaningless since Creationists never give a testable definition of Kind,”

    one, it is “youR comment”, remember the R if you are trying to talk smart.

    two, the word “species” is the same way. there is no one size fits all definition.

  13. Nigel McNaughton September 22, 2010 at 3:54 pm #

    David McCrea, was the Apostle Paul a Triceratops?

  14. David McCrea September 23, 2010 at 2:55 am #

    Random genetic mutations repeated over and over through millions of years would have accomplished one thing, a devolution of the genetic code into complete and unalterable chaos. Time is actually an enemy to evolution and natural selection. Information is lost over time, not gained. It becomes scrambled, not better organized.

    In contrast to standard evolutionary dogma, what do we clearly see every day in nature? Order and stability. And lots of it. Birds are birds, fish are fish, trees are trees, and people are people. They are distinct, genetically healthy, and reproductively viable. How in the world could blind random genetic mutations occurring repeatedly over millions and millions of years have created genetic order and stability? The answer is it can’t!

    Further, if plants and animals evolved over millions and millions of years, how did they manage to remain reproductively viable? Don’t cop out now evolutionists. There are literally millions of species of plants and animals on the earth, and they are all reproductively viable. Not most of them. ALL OF THEM. And they bring forth after their KIND, just like the Bible says.

    Millions have been deceived into believing anything is possible if given enough time. This is all the evolutionists have. The gods of time and chance. UTTER NONSENSE! A billion years won’t create a paper clip, a ball point pen, shoe laces, or a sippie cup. It surely won’t create something as amazing as us, and unlike a sippie cup, we’re ALIVE.

    King David was way ahead of his time when he said he was wonderfully and fearfully made. And the apostle Paul was deadly serious when he warned against worshipping the creation and denying the Creator.

  15. Nigel McNaughton September 23, 2010 at 3:33 pm #

    Julie, I guarantee I can give a more definitive definition of Species than you can for Kind.

    I asked first, so you go first.

    But if you are reduced to pointing out spelling mistakes instead of actual answers though I won’t hold my breath.

  16. Nigel McNaughton September 23, 2010 at 3:41 pm #

    Once again David McCrea leaps in with the strawmen examples of Evolution and asks how would this work!

    The simple answer is David, your strawmen wouldn’t work! which is why no one thinks that way.

    Once again you rattle off a list of ‘gotcha’ questions, which if you really cared about you could quite simply look up.

    Pubmed has 5000 article listings on evolution and speciation.

    Talk Origins has pages of examples of the observed cases of speciation in the lab and in the wild.

    For a very simple example that even Ray Comfort acknowledged google Ring Species.

  17. Julie Collins September 23, 2010 at 5:24 pm #

    Jon Richt September 22nd at 12:43 pm

    “Practically dripping with irony”

    just like you saying creationist had a conclusion before they had proper evidence? you know DARWIN did the same thing when making his theory, right?

  18. Joakim Rosqvist September 24, 2010 at 7:28 am #

    @David McCrea
    If mutation was the only process that affected lifeforms, then they surely would deteriorate with time, as you say.
    Natural selection, however, filters out the comparatively less fit organisms and keeps the best ones.

    A hypothetical god can of course create un-viable organisms at any time, but when evolution runs the show, un-viable organisms would go extinct, so we would expect to find only viable ones.

  19. Peter Lake September 24, 2010 at 10:28 am #

    I understand that Dr. Hovind taught science for a number of years. I will undertake a logical response in hopes of remaining in an arena comfortable to all.

    I respond separately to each point Dr. Hovind wrote:
    1. Much speculation has gone into the study of dinosaurs, so everyone needs to hold to what they believe loosely and be willing to change as new evidence comes to light.
    ——No argument there. All good scientists recognize the need for willingness to adjust to new evidence.
    2. There were probably many fewer dinosaurs than are currently listed in the books.
    ——Hmmm. Problematic. Paleontologists are having a grand time pummeling each other in disputes over just how many different dinosaurs they’ve discovered. But what proportion of the extinct dinosaur species have been found? How does Dr. Hovind come to the conclusion that there were “probably many fewer”? Only on the basis of evidence suggesting paleontologists have thus far discovered remains of fewer than was once thought. Not sufficient to support the conclusion reached, I’m afraid.
    3. There is a strong tendency in various fields of science to greatly exaggerate the importance of your research.
    ——–As someone else noted, the phrases “various fields of science” and “research” can be replaced by any number of things and the statement remains as valid as the original. Merely a reflection of a human tendency.
    4. I will predict these same scientists who have discovered and dared to report on the “fewer than they thought” number of dinosaurs will NEVER dare to even consider the thought that the dinosaurs are also “younger than they thought” like maybe 4,400 years? (Buried by Noah’s flood!)
    ——-Harumph. Predicting such is merely a form of impugning the integrity of one’s opponent. I’ve met a few paleontologists, and read and heard many more. Each, without fail, has been willing to consider pretty much any idea presented–if there’s evidence to support it.
    5. Just as a dinosaur’s skull shape changes as they age, so does a human’s. Neanderthals were just normal humans who reached advance ages; maybe even several hundred years.
    ———-First sentence, quite unremarkable. Second statement completely unsupported. Final clause of second sentence simple unbridled speculation.
    6. I further predict that these same researchers who warn against “misunderstanding evolutionary relationships” will not even consider the idea that the similarities found in various life forms might just mean they have a common DESIGNER rather than a common ancestor.
    ———-Another instance of dressing one’s opponent in the garb convenient to one’s argument. Are we supposed to think that paleontologists (and other scientists) have never encountered the idea that there might be a Creator? Really? Are we supposed to believe that they, unlike pretty much everyone else that’s ever stopped for a moment and considered the universe, have never wondered about the possibility?
    7. I further predict that the same God Who created this amazing world and then came down as a man to redeem His creation will be REALLY upset with lots of people who refused to give Him His glory and praise for His creation!
    ——-Ummmmm….okay….. If we start with the assumption of the first part, then the second part seems to be a reasonable guess. Presently untestable, of course, so of no real value in this discussion on that basis alone–and irrelevant, to boot.

    I am a believer in a transcendent, omnipotent, and loving Creator of the universe. I do not claim to understand or even fully apprehend the design or the operational laws of that universe, however. I try to remain humble in displaying what I think I do understand. I do not find my own faith in God at all threatened by the consideration of the idea of evolution, the notion that the universe may have started with a bang and a burst of inflation, or evidence suggesting that the Earth may be just a bit older than Bishop Ussher’s arithmetic suggests.

  20. Stephen Holshouser September 24, 2010 at 11:29 am #

    David Ray,
    The answer to your legitimate question is; God’s love is eternal for His people. He would never cast anyone into hell that He has ever loved. You can’t factually say to every person “God loves you and wants you to be saved.” You are correct; if God loved someone and wanted them to be saved and then they ended up in hell, two things would be true; God was powerless to accomplish His will, and, like you said, He would be punishing forever someone that He professed to “love.” You can read Romans 8:28-39 and see plainly that all of God’s chosen people (the elect) will never be separated from Him. God simply has not chosen to save every person from the just punishment that all of us deserve… is He obligated to? How many of the fallen angels will He save?? You can read Roman 9:11-24 and see that this is true. If that seems unfair, the Apostle Paul anticipated your objection and answers it in verses 19-22 of Rom 9. It is what it is; you might as well get on board and don’t cut your nose off to spite your face. (Other refs: Eph 1, John 6:43-48, John 17… just the tip of the iceberg)

    However, this does not take away one bit from our responsibility to repent and believe the gospel, as we have been commanded to. It is only when we come to Him for forgiveness that we can ever know that we are one of His children and know for sure that He loves us and wants us to be saved. He doesn’t cast out any that come to Him for mercy, based on what Jesus has done on their behalf. Does God love you? Seek Him, find Him, Bow to Him and find out… what do you have worthwhile to lose?

    Are you absolutely sure you are right to reject God? Those kids that you love more than you thought possible will be greatly affected by your beliefs as their father, will they not? sincerely,

  21. Peter Lake September 24, 2010 at 4:00 pm #

    Query to Julie Collins–

    You imply–nay, state–that Darwin “had” or reached a conclusion without proper evidence. Have you not read anything about the man? Have you not read even a summary of “On the Origin of Species”? Have you not heard of his travels, observations, and collections made on and from HMS Beagle? Are you not aware of the many years he spent putting his theory together? If you have indeed done the background work necessary–those things noted above–how then do you justify your conclusion that he had no “proper evidence”? Is the ONLY “proper evidence” printed on thin sheets of paper between bonded leather covers?

  22. donaldrsmith@o2.co.uk September 25, 2010 at 12:34 am #

    David Ray September 21st at 1:17 pm

    “God loves you and wants you to be saved”

    But if you don’t love him back, He’ll throw you in a pit to be tortured for all eternity. That’s love alright.

    Reminds me of the old “If I can’t have you, no one can” statement that’s so common in abusive relationships.

    Is this what the Bible teach? Are the lost tortured forever?
    The first lie of Satan was contradict God claiming that you wont die:
    Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
    (Gen 3: 1 to 5).

  23. Mark James September 25, 2010 at 4:55 am #

    Hi Joakim,

    Please give us an example of a mutation that adds coherent information to the genetic code. Unless it was originally created as we see it today, the only explanation is that DNA started out as a much smaller molecule (a couple of base pairs, even) and random mutations added all the information. Otherwise, natural selection would never have had anything to filter out.

  24. ant bourdon September 25, 2010 at 11:50 am #

    To David Ray,
    I want to address your point which is interesting:

    “I love my children more than I ever thought possible. However, if they decide one day that they don’t love me any more, should I cast them into the basement to be tortured by demons and to have noxious fumes forced into their noses FOREVER?”

    Every parents must have asked themselves that question when their children became teenagers and started to require their freedom and being aggressive. When I was young, I started one day to protest against the “bad” education I had saying I lacked encouragements and was too much criticized for the wrongs I had done. I went too far by not respecting the order my parents had set in their home and they sent me away in an apartment because they didn’t want the other children to do the same by my example and I had to do my own life alone. It was very difficult for me and I cried often. I realized that I needed my parents, but I couldn’t be with them because I was not respecting them and making them sad. And for some years, I had problems with them and I stayed distant because I didn’t want to humiliate me in front of them. So, during all that period, I was sad and often alone and suffering only because I couldn’t stand my parents. Ok, this is just an example because I cannot say that my parents were perfects, but the example is good in the sense that when someone can’t stand God, and God being the essence of love, how can someone be happy without the presence of love in his life?

    Is God sending anyone the a pit of eternal fire with demons to torment them?

    No, The pit of eternal fire is just a picture to help understand the gravity of the situation. If someone doesn’t want to stand love in his life, That person will be tormented by the absence of love after his death because love is the only desire of our hearth even when we are dead. It is even possible to experience a little part of that suffering when lose the persons we love the most. The reason why we don’t suffer Hell right now is that we are always distracted by our senses. Our senses make us think about something else than the fact that we are alone.

    So, Is God sending anyone to Hell? I’ve already answered that. No. We send ourselves to Hell when we choose to cut the link of love between us and the source of all love.

    Let me set another picture so that we can understand better the situation. God is like a king that rules a city. He sets rules so that his people can live happy and in harmony. If someone doesn’t like the king and his rules and starts to be violent against others, the king even tolerates him to some point and doesn’t cast him out of his city. He even goes to put him in prison to educate him to respect others instead of sending him outside the walls. But instead of staying in prison, that person may choose to be sent outside the city because that person doesn’t stand the king’s laws. In love, there is no need to cast anyone out. If someone doesn’t love, that person is automatically cast out of love (the city of God is love); it is that simple. Lets now say that outside the city, there is a desert with almost no food (no love=no food), where people starve and are thirsty. Before going outside, the person didn’t know that there could be something like that and thought that it was outside as it was in the beautiful city of the king. Lets say that the person is a beautiful woman. Do you think that woman won’t be raped by the others outside which are all people that mock law and order and love? What are the demons doing in the picture of Hell? Well demons are every others that chose to use their freedom in any way they wanted. So, in Hell, anyone is free to make others suffer. Hell is the place where people chose to go to a place where the absolute law would be absolute freedom. They wanted to do everything they wanted. The thing they didn’t think about is that there might not be alone in that place of freedom. This is why in that place, the weakest are not protected from persecution because they didn’t want to be. You see, this is all personal choice. No one goes to Hell against his will. Someone want to do his own law, God says: I am everywhere, but I will create a place just for you where I won’t be so that you won’t have to follow my laws. Why didn’t he create a Hell for every damned to separates them from others? Well, that wouldn’t be absolute freedom. The only law in Hell is what every damned decided in the first place. To be separated from love. This in why they can’t go to heaven.

    You may say that God should make everyone choose to love before the end of their lives so that no one sends himself outside the Paradise. Let me think. Would that be freedom of will if God would modify the person’s will in order to make her choose to love others? Would that be just for others that tried hard to be good during their lives and just to find out that all the bad people they knew got the same award without doing any effort? Hell exists because freedom exists. Are you criticizing God because he made us free? No anger at you, I’m just questioning. Take care.

  25. David Ray September 25, 2010 at 11:57 am #

    @Stephen
    Re: your paragraph 1 (not quoted for brevity)
    You (and Romans 9) have stated that God created at least some portion of the human race to be ‘saved’ and another portion of the human race to be damned forever. I find it shocking to think that this is your idea of a supreme being. Have you actually thought about what you’ve written? Is this is a God worthy of worship? Would you respect me if I decided to have two more children but in advance determined that only the first two would receive my love and care? That the other two would be condemned to the basement and be beaten 24 hours a day? These are NOT clay vessels. They are thinking, feeling, human beings. Should the second two children respect me as a parent? Heck, should the first two children respect me after seeing my callous attitude toward their siblings? I’ll repeat what I wrote to Alexey – “If you think so, then I worry for your family should they ever make you sad or angry.”

    Also, I suppose that YOU are one of the elect. How fortunate for you and how arrogant of you. Is this humility?

    Re: your paragraph 2 (not quoted for brevity)
    This whole paragraph simply reinforces my original comment on this thread. “God loves you and wants you to be saved.” But if you don’t love him back, He’ll throw you in a pit to be tortured for all eternity. That’s love alright. I ask you – is this the kind of love you show to your family? Do your children need to come to you for forgiveness BEFORE you will show your love to them? I hope you respond with a “no”. If you do, you are morally superior to God.

    You wrote – “based on what Jesus has done on their behalf”. This raises and interesting question, what exactly did Jesus do? A key point of the Christian faith is that Jesus took the punishment that we should receive. So, that brings up the question, what is the real punishment for sin? Yes, death (Romans 6:23). But that’s not all – oblivion isn’t really punishment. The real punishment comes after death. If we are guilty of sin, the punishment is separation from God for ETERNITY/eternal hellfire. So, if Jesus has really taken on the punishment for my sins, shouldn’t He be separated from God and/or in hell suffering for ALL ETERNITY just like I would be? After all, that’s the punishment we get if we sin. Of course, what we hear is that he is now “at the right hand of God.” If that’s the case, he hasn’t actually taken the punishment for our sin and God is not really just. As Julia Sweeney put it, Jesus just “had a really bad weekend for our sins.” Furthermore, was it really a sacrifice if Jesus knew he wasn’t going to stay dead? Jesus is God, right? All knowing and such. That means He knew He wouldn’t stay dead. I think I would be willing to go through some pretty intense suffering if I knew with certainty that after three days, I would be in sitting at God’s right hand in heaven. After all, what is three days of suffering compared to an eternity of bliss?

    Re: your paragraph 3 (quoted)
    “Are you absolutely sure you are right to reject God? Those kids that you love more than you thought possible will be greatly affected by your beliefs as their father, will they not? ”

    I have limited knowledge and would never be so arrogant as to claim that there is no supreme creator out there. But, as of yet I have not been presented with any evidence to support the conclusion that there is such a thing. Thus, I am not particularly concerned with your first question. Until there is evidence of something God-like, it isn’t worth my valuable time.

    My children are free to come to their own conclusions. They will learn that their mother believes in God and that their father does not. They will be given the tools to think critically about the evidence and come to their own conclusions about the topic. ***I will love them regardless of their beliefs.*** Can God say the same? Not according to your first paragraph.