Dinosaurs 'rode around in Noah's Ark'

[Conan Troutman]

Dinosaurs 'rode around in Noah's Ark'

By Andrea Hopkins in Petersburg, US

May 27, 2007 01:45am

* New US attraction - $32 million "Creation Museum"

* Grand Canyon "took just days to make"

* Half of USA believes humans created by God

LIKE many modern museums, the newest US tourist attraction includes some awesome exhibits - roaring dinosaurs and a life-sized ship.

But only at the Creation Museum in Kentucky do the dinosaurs sail on the ship - Noah's Ark, to be precise.

The Christian creators of the sprawling museum, unveiled today, hope to draw as many as half a million people each year to their state-of-the-art project, which depicts the Bible's first book, Genesis, as literal truth.

While the $27 million ($32 million) museum near Cincinnati has drawn snickers from media and condemnation from US scientists, those who believe God created the heavens and the Earth in six days about 6000 years ago say their views are finally being represented.

“What we've done here is to give people an opportunity to hear information that is not readily available ... to challenge them that really you can believe the Bible's history,” said Ken Ham, president of the group Answers in Genesis that founded the museum.

Here exhibits show the Grand Canyon took just days to form during Noah's flood, dinosaurs coexisted with humans and had a place on Noah's Ark, and Cain married his sister to people the earth, among other Biblical wonders.

Scientists, secularists and moderate Christians have pledged to protest the museum's public opening on Monday.

An airplane trailing a “Thou Shalt Not Lie” banner buzzed overhead during the museum's opening news conference.

Opponents argue that children who see the exhibits will be confused when they learn in school that the universe is 14 billion years old rather than 6000.

“Teachers don't deserve a student coming into class saying 'Gee Mrs. Brown, I went to this fancy museum and it said you're teaching me a lie,'“ Dr Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Centre for Science Education, said before the museum opened.

A Gallup poll last year showed almost half of Americans believe that humans did not evolve but were created by God in their present form within the last 10,000 years.

Three of 10 Republican presidential candidates said in a recent debate that they did not believe in evolution.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21801624-2,00.html

[PD.]

i wanna ride a dinosaur

[Fenris]

What if 30 Million Christian fundamentalists believed the earth was flat?

[Dodie]

Sounds like a pretty cool theme park

[Legba]

it all makes sense now. THATS why th Unicorns wouldnt get on th boat.

[Ace]

Here exhibits show...dinosaurs coexisted with humans

Lol - that's why there have been so many fossils of human remains that carbon date back to the same era as the dinosaurs

Scientists have identified the remains of the oldest known modern humans. They are nearly 200,000-year-old skulls from Ethiopia, dating back almost to the time when modern people evolved in Africa from earlier beings. The date means they are more than 40,000 years older than what anthropologists thought were the oldest human remains. Experts say the finding provides new information about early humans who roamed the earth.

The two skulls were originally excavated from near Kibish, Ethiopia, in 1967 by a team, including world renowned archaeologist Richard Leakey. Earlier scientific dating estimated them to be about 130,000 years old. But even at that age, they were not the oldest known modern humans. That distinction fell to other relics from Ethiopia estimated to be about 160,000 years old.

Now, a new analysis of the Kibish River skulls using new dating techniques puts their age at just under 200,000 years, confirming that they are the oldest known examples of human species.

Paleontologists believe modern humans, called Homo Sapiens, developed from more primitive humans between 200,000 and 250,000 years ago. They are thought to have then migrated out of Africa after developing modern skills, such as hunting, spear making and cave painting about 40,000 to 165,000 years ago.

From HERE

Ok, so the oldest possible age that human remains have been found at: 200,000 years. Now thats pretty good eh?

So, how about the mass-extinction that has been estimated to have happened some 65.5 MILLION YEARS AGO?? Hmm, yes, this was the one that killed off the dinosaurs - the 'Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction'. Please note that this was some 65,300,000 years before any signs of modern human life had been noted.

-Info about the Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction found HERE

Hmm, how about we all make our own decisions here eh?

[MrBumpy]

Here exhibits show...dinosaurs coexisted with humans

Lol - that's why there have been so many fossils of human remains that carbon date back to the same era as the dinosaurs

From HERE

Ok, so the oldest possible age that human remains have been found at: 200,000 years. Now thats pretty good eh?

You've just been brainwashed is all.... click here http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5001/5001_01.asp to have the "truth" explained to you

-bumpy

[Ace]

Wow. That is one hell of a comic strip. It truly has changed my ways. Now I will go and read my little book (which I conveniently bought from that wonderful site) and pray to my invisible friend every day in the hope that I will spend eternity anywhere but in hell... WTF?

On second thought, I think I'll just stick to reality and let the sheeple worship their invisible friend as they quiver in fear of the thought of spending eternity in hell...

Cheers Bumpy - the ''truth'' has opened my eyes

[teonanacatl]

lol ace christain young eath creationists believe that the radioactive decay rates are not accurate because they were once accelerated and have slowed down. There is a paper published about it, they look at the He content in zircons and find that the concentration of He is much greater then would be expected given the diffusion rates and therefore they date the earth on the age of the He diffusion data. Do a google to find it Zircons and accelerated radioactive decay rates.

[ENtiTY]

Yeah its been proven that radio carbon dating is not at all accurate. Don't understand why they still use it and publish the results as factual??

[Entheo]

Wow. That is one hell of a comic strip. It truly has changed my ways. Now I will go and read my little book (which I conveniently bought from that wonderful site) and pray to my invisible friend every day in the hope that I will spend eternity anywhere but in hell... WTF?

Hi Ace,

well how about this comic then?

http://www.geocities.com/tribhis/cthulhutract.html

(the original was taken down)

http://www.howardhallis.com/bis/cthulhuchick/

based on the famous Chick tract "The Choice"

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0100/0100_01.asp

have fun reading

and of course there is also this one

http://www.erowid.org/chemicals/lsd/lsd_hu...ick_parody1.pdf

[teonanacatl]

harry what i said was ment at other radiodating as carbon is only good for 10000's of years, carbon dating is bad because the error associated with the amount of time seems like a lot, with other dating ages might be 600000000years +- 20000000years so not as bad.

[Ace]

Lol - Love that first one Entheo! Cant beat a good parody

So what is the issue Teo? Carbon dating is no good for anything older (supposedly) than some 10,000yrs? Hmm, but there are other methods available to estimate these dates?

[Dodie]

6 days to create earth is totally slack, and he wont work on a sunday..

I bet Allah coulda done it in 2, maybe with a little OT..

[Ace]

Lol Dodie Mother Nature is much more relaxed in her work ethic - a few million years to get that job done

[teonanacatl]

Well the major issue with C dating is that you need to guess the amount of 14C in the sample to start with and organisms all fractionate against 14C in different ways, there is significant differences in the enrichment of 14C in C3 and C4 plants for example. This contamination issue isnt present so much in other radiodating techniques because some of the elements produced are not normally found in the sample to start with.

There are dating methods for a large amount of time periods. The work which this christain group did was crap but was better then them just saying science was wrong.

[Conan Troutman]

Entheo- Nice links, that erowid one is something else and that last page of it is a classic...

[Ace]

Thanks for clearing that up Teo

The work which this christain group did was crap but was better then them just saying science was wrong.

So what makes it crap? I thought some of it actually sounded somewhat believable (though I'm not going to suddenly change my school of thought on the first 'scientific' looking thing they come up with ).

Do you mind explaining the gaps in their theory?

[teonanacatl]

Well the main problems i have with them is the way they measured the diffusion of the He from the zircons in a vacuum and not at the pressure the rocks were at, they selected only certian zircons that gave them the best results, they didnt take into consideration that the surrounding rocks had a high concentration of He therefore diffusion would be slower. The way they went about the experiment is also crap, they went in with a preconcieved result in mind and their report was not scientific.

Anyway it doesnt matter if accellerated decay rates did happen because it would affect those things in the fossil record before or during the acelerated period, their conclusion was that the period occured 6000+-2000 years which could be either during genesis or during the flood, and as they say dinosaurs were taken on the ark then the dinosaurs which died after theflood (the last period of time the accelerated decay could have occured) then they would show normal decay rates and could be analysed by radiodating, so that would put the flood back to the Cretaceous period i think and therefore 65 million years ago.

[occidentalis]

Well the major issue with C dating is that you need to guess the amount of 14C in the sample to start with and organisms all fractionate against 14C in different ways, there is significant differences in the enrichment of 14C in C3 and C4 plants for example. This contamination issue isnt present so much in other radiodating techniques because some of the elements produced are not normally found in the sample to start with.

There are dating methods for a large amount of time periods. The work which this christain group did was crap but was better then them just saying science was wrong.

radiocarbon dating is accurate to about 35000. The issue with it (apart from what Teo has raised) is that after this time period, C14 levels are so low that they can easily be contaminated by groundwater or other environmental sources.