Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
karl 12

Creationism and 6000 year old dinosaurs.

763 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

karl 12

Creationism and the 6000 year old dinosaur idea.

Although many people treat this subject as a laugh there are some serious concerns about the anti-intellectualism aspect of this concept and it´s effect on the objective education of children from overtly religious parents.

It´s also interesting that a Roper Poll as late as 1999 said that 47 per cent of Americans beleived that god created human beings pretty much in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

Quote:

"I have determined, after extensive surveying, tabulation, and data analysis, that the average creationist in the US earns $21,387.29 in family income; owns 1.2 cars; 1.8 TV's, and 2.3 kids; and has, at some stage answered to the name "Bubba". He has less than one year of college. Yet he knows more about paleontology than Bakker or Horner (or he thinks that what they know is wrong--same thing). He knows more about the definition of evolution than Gould or Dawkins. He knows more about Biology than Dobzhansky or Mayr. He knows more about cosmology Hawking, Smoot or Witten and more about fossils than Jhanson or the Leakeys. He knows more "true" geology than geologists, more psychics than physicists, more astronomy than astronomers--and more about everything than atheists like Asimov or Sagan"

http://thebizzare.com/funny/jesus-probably-rode-dinosaurs/

Dad, did dinosaurs really exist?

Sure they did, son. The Bible says so. They didn’t call them “dinosaurs” back then, but instead they were known as “leviathans” or “behemoths”.

But, my science teacher says dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. Is that true?

Of course not, son.

Then how old are they?

Well, let’s see. The Bible tells us [from Adam and Eve's family tree] that the Universe is only a few thousand years old. So dinosaurs had to have lived within the past few thousand years. That’s simple logic, son.

Oh. So that means they were on Noah’s Ark?

Absolutely! The Bible says two of every animal were brought [by God] to the ark. Dinosaurs were animals. So, using your logic again son, dinosaurs had to be on the ark.

Huh. So how come scientists say they’re older than that? and died way before Jesus?

Well, son, they just make that up. Dinosaur bones don’t have labels on them to tell how old they are. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist saw dinosaurs die-

Dad!

No I’m serious. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.

That’s sad. But I thought scientists were smart?

Sure, but they don’t know everything. So they have to make stuff up to fit their beliefs. While you and I, we have the facts, straight from the Bible.

I don’t want to be a scientist!

Ha! That’s ok, son. It’s better to be right, than smart. C’mon, wanna learn how to flip burgers like your Dad?

Yeah!

Any ideas;is teaching children the young earth/young dinosaur model just harmless fun or can it have an unhealthy,subversive effect on the way children view objective science?

Cheers Karl

Edited by karl 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bender Rodríguez

Making up alternative history is a dangerous crime, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cimber

I can address this from a more personal perspective.

Many students who come from the Bible Belt have a very difficult time adjusting to Introductory of Biology classes I have been in since they have been taught the opposite (and incorrect) view of things. It merely takes time and every one of these students has since moved on past that incorrect view when discussing it when the professors and attending the classes. All of them that I have talked to still retained their belief in God; they have however, changed their past stance regarding the age of the earth and evolution when confronted with the great amount of evidence.

In a sense, it was damaging, but the damage done was easily reversible. Keep in mind, however, that these were freshman college students and they were being taught by leaders in their given field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The One Who Is

I'm curious. What's the average creationist quote from?

You could probably find worse stuff in some Creationist material than you found on thebizarre.com, and that's sad. :rolleyes:

I have no problem with people looking at evidence according to their own worldview [because let's face it, it's impossible to avoid]. But then turning around and accusing everyone else who looks at things according to a different worldview of "making stuff up" is all wrong.

That's way beyond science and into indoctrination. Which is dangerous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot

I've always wondered, if the only dinosaurs in the Bible were large land animals and large marine reptiles...

Where do the medium to small dinosaurs fit in?

I mean... did they just not notice the raptors, compies, stegs, ect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The One Who Is
I've always wondered, if the only dinosaurs in the Bible were large land animals and large marine reptiles...

Where do the medium to small dinosaurs fit in?

I mean... did they just not notice the raptors, compies, stegs, ect.

They would have been too boring for much notice, I presume. It would be like paying special attention to a common fowl.

"Behold now the chicken, which I made with thee..."

^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CommieX

On a diffrent note, most people miss the part about 2 of each kind, and 7 if they are clean, meaning you can eat them, are led to the ark. Sooo... 7 cows, 7 chickens, 2 pigs, and how many Stegosaurs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
Creationism and the 6000 year old dinosaur idea.

Then how old are they?

Well, let’s see. The Bible tells us [from Adam and Eve's family tree] that the Universe is only a few thousand years old. So dinosaurs had to have lived within the past few thousand years. That’s simple logic, son.

Oh great! Here we go again. The ignorance on both sides of this issue is overwhelming. Nowhere, I repeat, nowhere in the bible does it say that the earth is 10,000 years old. Nowhere. The age of the earth is indeterminate according to most creationists who've done any research at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The One Who Is
On a diffrent note, most people miss the part about 2 of each kind, and 7 if they are clean, meaning you can eat them, are led to the ark. Sooo... 7 cows, 7 chickens, 2 pigs, and how many Stegosaurs?

Well, if dinosaurs were reptilian as commonly thought, they would be unclean, so two, I guess.

That would make extinction rates for different kinds of animals incredibly high.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SQLserver

The main problem with teaching evidence against Evolution( or for Creationism) in schools is that none exists.

The entirety of Creationism is based on misconceptions of the evidence by Creationists, either on purpose or unknowingly.

Allowing Creationism to be taught, or allowing "Evidence" against Evolution to be taught would result in NOTHING besides a massive amount of misinformation, propaganda, and outright lies being taught in our schools.

Quite frankly, the ONLY reason Evolution is being treated almost "dogmatically" in schools today is the fault of Creationists!

Creationists were originally theologists and politicians, two fields almost synonymous with lying and misinformation. They originally believed that they could pass the same lies and propaganda in Science, and, of course, they were laughed right out of the field.

Thus, no scientist today trusts anything remotely anti-Evolution without carefully examining it first. The problem with schools, however, is that board members, teachers, and students would not be capable of distinguishing between the truth and the lies. A huge amount of propaganda from Creationists would make its way into schools UNLESS we are extremely careful.

Cheers,

SQLserver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bleedingelite

Haha, some guy from work says he went to a Sarah Palin rally holding a sign with that picture of jesus riding the dinosaur on it. There was a caption above it reading "Dinosaurs are Jesus Ponies!"

I retain my stance that modern creationists' very existence is an argument against survival of the fittest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy

post-66579-1225315972_thumb.jpg

Hmm....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
Oh great! Here we go again. The ignorance on both sides of this issue is overwhelming. Nowhere, I repeat, nowhere in the bible does it say that the earth is 10,000 years old. Nowhere. The age of the earth is indeterminate according to most creationists who've done any research at all.

Oh? Is that so? Why is the age of the earth indeterminate? What exactly is wrong with radiometric dating? Do you know how radiometric dating works? Would you care to explain the problems that you see with them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
They would have been too boring for much notice, I presume. It would be like paying special attention to a common fowl.

"Behold now the chicken, which I made with thee..."

^_^

Anyone who'd regard a raptor as to boring to mention...

Wow... those guys were tough. Fighting of raptors, riding T-rex as ponies...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SQLserver
Anyone who'd regard a raptor as to boring to mention...

Wow... those guys were tough. Fighting of raptors, riding T-rex as ponies...

Dude... These guys has Jesus on their side. Jesus eats raptors for breakfast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowSot
Dude... These guys has Jesus on their side. Jesus eats raptors for breakfast.

They... taste of chicken.

Wait... we taste of chicken... and... I eat a bit of Jesus every time I go to Church!

But he tastes of bread...

Jesus wasn't human!

Obviously the sacrament is the reptilians way of getting back at Jesus for the degradation suffered unto them by being ridden bareback.

Yes. That was random thoughts brought to you by to much caffeine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guyver
Oh? Is that so? Why is the age of the earth indeterminate? What exactly is wrong with radiometric dating? Do you know how radiometric dating works? Would you care to explain the problems that you see with them?

Yes. First of all the age of the earth as accepted by modern science has fluctuated wildly through the years. The variance in these dates is around 3.5 billion years. That's alot.

Here's some data showing the scientifically accepted age of earth in years through time.

1850 - 100 million

1932 - 1.6 billion

1947 - 3.4 billion

1976 - Present 4.6 billion

Now, the most recent estimates are based on modern radiometric dating methods. As you can see the recent revision has a variance of 1.2 billion years. That's alot.

Next problem, fossils used to support the theory of evolution have been dated with these methods. If there is a significant margin of error in dating the age of the earth, then it is not improper to assume that the fossils have also been incorrectly dated. Only igneous rocks can be dated using radiometric methods and fossils are not usually contained in this type of rock. Even if there is some igneous rock mixed in with the layers of sedimentary strata, there is no way to verify that the igneous rock was not much older than the layers of sediment that contain fossils.

Also, rocks produced from the Mt. St. Helen's eruption in the 1980's have been dated with modern potassium argon techniques and found to be hundreds of thousands of years older than they are in fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bender Rodríguez
Dude... These guys has Jesus on their side. Jesus eats raptors for breakfast.

That's nonsense. Jesus was a raptor.

linked-image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bleedingelite
Yes. First of all the age of the earth as accepted by modern science has fluctuated wildly through the years. The variance in these dates is around 3.5 billion years. That's alot.

Here's some data showing the scientifically accepted age of earth in years through time.

1850 - 100 million

1932 - 1.6 billion

1947 - 3.4 billion

1976 - Present 4.6 billion

Now, the most recent estimates are based on modern radiometric dating methods. As you can see the recent revision has a variance of 1.2 billion years. That's alot.

Next problem, fossils used to support the theory of evolution have been dated with these methods. If there is a significant margin of error in dating the age of the earth, then it is not improper to assume that the fossils have also been incorrectly dated. Only igneous rocks can be dated using radiometric methods and fossils are not usually contained in this type of rock. Even if there is some igneous rock mixed in with the layers of sedimentary strata, there is no way to verify that the igneous rock was not much older than the layers of sediment that contain fossils.

Also, rocks produced from the Mt. St. Helen's eruption in the 1980's have been dated with modern potassium argon techniques and found to be hundreds of thousands of years older than they are in fact.

You're absolutely right, the earth is only a few thousand years old. The known universe is about 20 billion light years across, and our sun is about 4.57 billion years old. Of course, god actually showed up around 6,000 years ago and was just like "this solar system needs another planet." and *poof* he created earth out of nothing without throwing the other planets out of orbit or anything. And then he was like "let there be light!" though the sun had already been there for billions of years, so this wasn't really an impressive trick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ravergirl
You're absolutely right, the earth is only a few thousand years old. The known universe is about 20 billion light years across, and our sun is about 4.57 billion years old. Of course, god actually showed up around 6,000 years ago and was just like "this solar system needs another planet." and *poof* he created earth out of nothing without throwing the other planets out of orbit or anything. And then he was like "let there be light!" though the sun had already been there for billions of years, so this wasn't really an impressive trick.

I doubt the Earth is 6,000 years old. It is older, by a bunch. I'm thinking around 8 million years at the youngest, 1 billion at the oldest. im leaning closer to a billion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
annmariet
Yes. First of all the age of the earth as accepted by modern science has fluctuated wildly through the years. The variance in these dates is around 3.5 billion years. That's alot.

Here's some data showing the scientifically accepted age of earth in years through time.

1850 - 100 million

1932 - 1.6 billion

1947 - 3.4 billion

1976 - Present 4.6 billion

Now, the most recent estimates are based on modern radiometric dating methods. As you can see the recent revision has a variance of 1.2 billion years. That's alot.

Once again, why is the application of knowledge gained through new techniques and the fact that science revises itself when new information is available in some way a negative? Science uses facts, religion is the one that does not change regardless of the facts. Are you really surprised that since 1850 techniques have improved? If you don't trust this, I think you should make sure your house only has the conveniences of a house in 1850 and your doctor only uses medical techniques from that time too. Sicne obviously those things have changed too much to be trustworthy. If you don't want/accept some of the changes in science you shouldn't get any of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The One Who Is
Once again, why is the application of knowledge gained through new techniques and the fact that science revises itself when new information is available in some way a negative? Science uses facts, religion is the one that does not change regardless of the facts. Are you really surprised that since 1850 techniques have improved? If you don't trust this, I think you should make sure your house only has the conveniences of a house in 1850 and your doctor only uses medical techniques from that time too. Sicne obviously those things have changed too much to be trustworthy. If you don't want/accept some of the changes in science you shouldn't get any of them.

It's not a negative. It's a positive. But it's also a sign that science doesn't know everything. For now, the generally accepted age of the earth has been lengthening, but in a couple decades, who knows? It could begin shortening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
karl 12
post-66579-1225315972_thumb.jpg

Hmm....

Oh I do like that one. :tu:

I might send it to Liberty university in the US where students are actualy taught as ´fact´ that the earth is 6000 years old.

I don´t know how can this place legally be called a university but it does occur.

You can´t make this stuff up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
Yes. First of all the age of the earth as accepted by modern science has fluctuated wildly through the years. The variance in these dates is around 3.5 billion years. That's alot.

Here's some data showing the scientifically accepted age of earth in years through time.

1850 - 100 million

1932 - 1.6 billion

1947 - 3.4 billion

1976 - Present 4.6 billion

Now, the most recent estimates are based on modern radiometric dating methods. As you can see the recent revision has a variance of 1.2 billion years. That's alot.

Next problem, fossils used to support the theory of evolution have been dated with these methods. If there is a significant margin of error in dating the age of the earth, then it is not improper to assume that the fossils have also been incorrectly dated. Only igneous rocks can be dated using radiometric methods and fossils are not usually contained in this type of rock. Even if there is some igneous rock mixed in with the layers of sedimentary strata, there is no way to verify that the igneous rock was not much older than the layers of sediment that contain fossils.

Also, rocks produced from the Mt. St. Helen's eruption in the 1980's have been dated with modern potassium argon techniques and found to be hundreds of thousands of years older than they are in fact.

Oh? Is that so? Tell me Guyver, do you know anything about the history of geology? Have you taken a geology course? Do you even know how radiometric dating works?

Radiometric dating works by calculating the amount of time it takes for radioactive atoms to decay. Radioactive elements eventually decay because they are unstable. Each element has a specific half life, the time required for half of all atoms in a radioactive sample to decay into daughter atoms. For instance, we know that the half life of uranium-235 to lead-207 has a half life of about 704 million years. If you graph a half life it follows an exponential decay curve.

Here are two charts from my geology 101 notes (converted to MS Paint - I don't own a scanner)

post-66579-1225374884_thumb.jpg

The first chart shows us the exponential decay curve of uranium 235 to lead 207. After one half life the sample will contain half 235-U and half 207-Pb. After another half life, half of the remaining 235-U will have decayed to 207-Pb. After another half life, half of the remaining 235-U will have decayed, so on and so forth.

Here's another in class chart that maps out the percentage of parent to daughter atoms as related to time:

post-66579-1225375676_thumb.jpg

By this point, you're probably asking yourself just how scientists get this data. Well, that's a good question Guyver. Scientists use a machine called a "Mass Spectrometer". Basically, how this machine operates is as follows: The scientist takes a sample that he wishes to date, charges it, and sends it through a magnetic field. The sample curves through the magnetic field, and, depending on their weight, will impact different sensors designed to detect their presence. Here is another image i found to explain:

linked-image

And there you have it, the basics of radiometric dating. Now... what is it exactly that you disagree with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
I doubt the Earth is 6,000 years old. It is older, by a bunch. I'm thinking around 8 million years at the youngest, 1 billion at the oldest. im leaning closer to a billion.

What evidence do you have to support either conclusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.