creations to explain. Have dinosaurs ever been found with mammals or people? Stay tuned for some surprising answers. Biblical creationists believe that dinosaurs lived with people. On Day 6 God
created dinosaurs or land animals and people so dinosaurs lived with people
and live with all the other animals.
So according to the bible, what what we
believe, what Biblical creationists believe is: dinosaurs lived alongside all
the other animals. Well, a question that has been thrown at
us is, how come we don't find other animal fossils buried with dinosaur
fossils? When I was in school I. Bought into the evolution of paradigm. Usually see a diagram like this, on you screen, where you know
basically they say that you only find these creatures buried in these layers
and then you know there's an upward progression and finally you get to the dinosaurs and then you get some mammals and finally get
people on the scene.
It's always that progression. I know that's not always the way it's found. There is a pattern to the fossil record, but a lot of times what we find in the
ground doesn't actually match that evolutionary story. So one day I took three hours at the office and I.
Went looking online, and I looked for evidence that
showed 'modern type' creatures buried with
dinosaurs. So let me just share some of the results. Here's what they've actually found. The first article I found was called, "Cretaceous duck ruffles feathers".
Well why did the finding of this duck ruffle these scientists feathers? Because it was founded in a rock layer
that they believe the 70 million years old. So now you've got ducks living with dinosaurs! Then I found this one, "Dinosaur era bird
surprisingly duck like". Now I. Thought it was a repeat of the first
article, but I kept reading at actually it
wasn't.
This this duck-like creature supposedly a 110 million
years old. So this is 40 million years older. They say that
the soft tissues were preserved including flight feathers and wedding
like a duck's, between the birds toes. It's supposedly 110 million
years old.
They called it a Gansus 'cause it always sounds cooler if you give it a Latin name I guess. And here's a picture of what an
artist drew. But it's got modern characteristics like
knobby knees, it was an underwater swimmer, preserved skin of the webbed feet. Again, this is supposedly 110 million years old they still found the wedding and all this stuff.
And I thought there was an interesting quote
at the end of the article. It said, "It may have looked like a duck and acted like a duck but Gansus was no duck." There's a saying that kind of goes the other direction that most people
might be familiar with. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. They don't think it's a duck because it's 110 million years old.
We don't believe in this timeline, of course, but we're just showing you what people have found. Then I found this one, it was a flying squirrel. I used to work with my folks up in Pickle Lake, in Ontario Canada, and my mom was always trying to
protect her pies and stuff like that from flying squirrels. Well this flying
squirrel is supposedly least 65.5 Million years old.
So now the squirrels have been living with dinosaurs. Then I found this one. It was a 120 million year old platypus. It's got the electro sensors down its bill.
It looks like any modern platypus. So now platypus have been living with dinosaurs
according to the fossil record. Then I found this one. "Easter surprise: World's oldest rabbit bones found".
Well, this guy is supposedly 53 million years old, but the the researcher who found him, Dr Wible said he wouldn't be surprised if you went out into the field
and found an 80 million year old rabbit. So according to evolutionists, they they have no problem believing that, he's open the idea to having rabbits 80 million years old and living at the same time as dinosaurs. Then I found this one, it's a beaver it's a 154 million year old beaver! So now the beavers and the dinosaurs
have been living together. Then this one 130 million year old, well they didn't know what was but it had eaten a dinosaur 'cause
the stomach contents contained the digested remains of a psittacosaurus.
Pretty sure that
it lived at the same time as the dinosaurs then. They called it a Repenomamus robustus. Again, it sounds cool if you give it a Latin name, but that Repenomamus robustus looks like a modern-day honey
badger. Basically what the fossil record is showing here, for those of you watching, has your 'age of dinosaurs' picture that you grew up with, with all the dinosaur books with the volcano
blasting off in the back, hasn't changed any in the last three minutes since we've been going
through this you don't usually picture you know t-rex
walking along you know, quack, quack, quack...
We've really skimmed through very quickly
what they've actually found. You said you found all these in like three hours of just a simple internet search. That's right. Lots of evidence that 'modern-type' creatures have existed
alongside dinosaurs, great evidence for what the bible said
that there was a global flood and that's when the creatures died out.
Who would have ever thought that scratches in rocks could disprove the biblical flood? Well, scratches in rock called striations are sometimes caused by a glacier moving over bedrock. Therefore when geologists
encounter striated rock they often claim that a glacier caused it. Striated rock occurs within the sedimentary rocks that were laid down by Noah's flood. Evolutionary geologists claim this is
evidence of multiple ancient ice ages.
So they claim that Noah's year-long flood could not have laid down these rocks.
However, we now know that underwater landslides
cause rock striations similar to those caused today by glaciers. Furthermore,
there are important differences between glacial deposits formed today and those of
the alleged ancient ice ages. So don't let scratches in rocks scratch away
your confidence in God's Word.
To find out more from Creation Ministries
International visit our website CREATION.Com So why don't we find human fossils with dinosaurs? Evolutionists say that, well, if you
find two animals in the fossil record buried together, then they lived together. And you're not going to find a dinosaur and a rabbit, for example,
fossilized together because those animals didn't live together, is what the
evolutionists have said. Well, we just looked at things, that well
maybe that doesn't work so well. Rabbits maybe did live back at the
time of dinosaurs.
But what about human fossils? When you really think about it, this
argument that if you don't find them together then they didn't live together first we want to handle that because, for example coelacanths. A coelacanth is a creature that 65 point something million years old, supposedly.
It was supposedly the creature the crawled out and became the land creatures and stuff like that. Well they found live ones now! Now here's the point, we don't find humans and coelacanths buried together. We haven't found that yet.
But supposedly, according to the
evolution timeline, we've coexisted. Well, humans are modern so that it didn't live with the coelacanths, didn't find them buried, but supposedly coelacanths and whales have lived together for millions and millions of years and
in the same environment. You wouldn't really expect a dinosaur and a person to be living close together. But coelacanths and whales...
And we haven't found them either. But when you think about people are being burned at the time of
the flood... We don't know how many people would have been on the planet... You can estimate.
You might say 10 million if you do a calculation starting with two people and basic population
growth. 1600 Years years after creation. If we play with some of these numbers, what would the human population be and the land mass, and so on
and then work in what volume of fossil bearing
strata do we have? We've done some of those calculations. If there were 10 million people at the time the flood and you preserve their bodies completely, every bone, of the body, for every one of the 10 million, then you'd find about one skeleton in every 70 cubic km of sedimentary rock on the planet.
So even if everybody had been completely
fossilized, and you're not going to expect that... Fossilization is a very specialized process. And the skeletons get torn apart and things like that. So the chances of finding a human fossil
anyway compared to the volume of other creatures and other species, we would've been completely outnumbered, by all the other creatures that God created at that time.
It would be hard to find them because, if you look at the fossil record about 95 percent of what we find is marine invertebrates. Then you've got about 2 percent
marine vertebrates. The rest is plants and land dwellers. You actually don't find a lot of land dwelling creatures in
the fossil record.
So we are outnumbered you don't find a lot of those
fossils anyway. Here's the other thing scientist tend not to find what
they're not looking for. Funny how that works. A leading paleontologist Donald Burge, and he makes a
startling admission in Carl Werner's book he interviewed this man
he said this, "We find mammals and almost all of our dinosaur dig sites.
These were not noticed years ago We have about 20,000 pounds of bentonite clay that has mammal fossil that we are trying to give away to some
researcher. It's not that they're not important, it's just that you only live once and I
specialize in something other than mammals. I specialize in reptiles and dinosaurs." To me this is a startling admission. He's saying, we find mammal...
You know when I was
growing up as a kid I was looking through my dinosaur books. I was thinking well you never find... That was a no-no. Mammals and dinosaurs living at the same
time? You're not going to find a rabbit, you're not going to find a duck with the dinosaur.
They lived at completely different times. He's just admitting that we find this all the time, but you know I've got all this clay, if you want to go sifting through it and find out what's in there... I'm not interested. I'm just interested in the dinosaurs.
I'm interested in what was living together at the same time is
right? Perhaps there are some human bones have been found with this. They're not even looking for them. If you
don't think it's happened, I mean we don't know for sure, but here's a case where this fellow Tim White he thinks he's found a hominid, a collarbone. Of course he's thinking about human
evolution, he's found this bone and it turns out it's the rib of a dolphin.
We work with scientists, very brilliant
people but they still have to make guesses. So, maybe we have found some human and dinosaur bones together maybe we haven't we don't know but number one, just to recap vastly outnumbered you wouldn't expect to find human bones like that and perhaps they have been found together but nobody's really noticed yet. Stay tuned we've got some more great stuff coming up. The reason that the Creation Answers Book is so popular is because the covers a huge range of
topics and answers more than 60 of the most-asked questions about Genesis and
the creation-evolution issue.
Questions like: What is the evidence for God's existence? Could the days in Genesis 1 be long periods
of time? How did all the animals fit on Noah's Ark? Does radioisotope dating prove that the
Earth is very old? Where do dinosaurs fits into the Bible? And many more. To order your copy visit CREATION.Com Okay, we've talked about dinosaurs and other animals fossilized together. We've talked about dinosaurs and humans together. If dinosaurs really lived recently
right alongside people, which is what the bible plainly says what other evidences might we expect
to find if humans and dinosaurs lived together fairly recently? If people
and dinosaurs have interacted then there should be
evidence of it.
Now what's interesting is you will often see people equate dinosaurs with dragons. You've heard creationists say
that before. There's dragon legends all of the world from virtually all people
groups. They describe seeing these huge reptilian beasts and this has been, kind of, mythologized.
But even in the World Book Encyclopedia in 1973 we hear this quote "The dragons of legend are strangely like
actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles dinosaurs which inhabited the earth long before
man is supposed to have appeared on Earth." So they're even noting this. They're saying, wait a second if people have these descriptions of creatures that sound like dinosaurs called them dragons because 'dinosaurs' is a modern word, that's kind of strange because dinosaurs
in people aren't supposed to have lived together. Scientist and atheist Louis Jacobs author and former president of
the society of vertebrate paleontology made this really startling claim, he said that you don't want to associate dinosaur with dragons.
"Such an association would dispel any
earth with vast antiquity the entire history of creation including
the day of rest could be accommodated in the seven biblical days of the Genesis
myth. Evolution would be vanquished." That is huge! He said don't equate dinosaurs and dragons
because that's going to blow evolution of the water. So if dinosaurs lived
recently that blows the evolutionary time scale out which of course destroys
evolution itself. Then you can't be an atheist because you have to believe in evolution to be an atheist.
So what is some of the evidence here?
Saint George in the dragon, that was written is real history. Famous dragon legend. It's been mythologized. The flag of Wales
actually has a dragon on it.
Some of the biblical commentaries from several hundred years ago actually
referenced people seeing dragons. Very old books. The zodiac the Chinese zodiac has all these animals that we readily
recognize. Real animals plus a dragon.
Why one with
mythological animal? Marco Polo, the well-known historian and he
describes seeing these huge reptilian beasts, these dragons. Some of the artifacts we've found. One of what the oldest artifacts ever found was this Mesopotamian cylinder seal.
And if you look at the creatures there four-legs, big long-neck, big long tail, looks like one of the sauropod dinosaurs. The head looks a little different but
you don't know what that is.
Could be soft tissue. That's interesting how they have their necks wrapped around each other that way. Keep that in mind. There are some other interesting artifacts that have been found Of course Dracorex, you did an article on that in that the Creation magazine.
Yeah, little article. What does it look like? I mean even the people funded it here, there's a little
sign down there that says that it's a dinosaur that looks like a dragon. Well that's what we've been saying all along. To make the connection between dinosaurs dragons even stronger, here's a thing
that looks like a dragon.
Carl Sagan, once called the smartest man
in America. He's and atheist, he wrote the book Dragons of Eden trying to explain why people groups all
over the world have these memories of seeing these dinosaurs that they called dragons. He's
not a Christian, what did he say? Well, basically he came up with this thought that basically in our past, when we were just
some greebly little mammal or something, we saw these dinosaurs and it was so frightening that it
imprinted in our memories, somehow in our DNA. And that memory got passed along till finally we evolved into humans and
here we are we remember seeing these things but course we didn't live with
this...
That's preposterous. And that's what he
said in his book. That's what he said his book, he makes a connection between dragons he says that many cultures have these legends and all that kind of stuff. So just astounding 'evidence'.
In Cambodia 800 ago they carved this stone column. You look in the center of the column what's it look like? I do dinosaur talks with kids, four legs You can see the creature's tail with the plates on its back, you get 7 year-old kids, that's a Stegosaurus! They didn't have dinosaur books and Land Before Time
and Jurassic Park 800 years ago in Cambodia. So maybe they had real live dinosaurs.
It would make sense that that's probably what they saw. Here's Bishop Bell, his tomb in Carlisle cathedral.
You see the creatures there? They look
like dinosaurs, and look, they've got their necks wrapped around each
other to just like the Mesopotamian cylinder seal. Separated hundreds of
years chronologically and hundreds of
miles distance geographically yet people record the same activity. Have you ever wondered how Noah would have fitted dinosaurs on the Ark? For
example, how would a large sauropod like brachiosaurus even get in the
door? This question is often used to challenge the validity of the bible. But new research has provided a stunning
answer.
By studying the growth rings in dinosaur bones scientists have
discovered that dinosaurs underwent a tremendous adolescent growth spurt. Take
for example the huge Apatosaurus. Scientists hypothesize that their growth
spurt started at about five years of age when they weighed about one ton. During the spurt however, they put on
about five tones per year until they reached about twenty five tons.
The bible
tells us that God brought the animals to Noah for the Ark voyage. Therefore,
it's reasonable to assume that God would have chosen young dinosaurs that
happened yet undergone their growth spurt. So, yes there was plenty of room for
brachiosaurus. To find out more from Creation Ministries
International visit our website CREATION.Com Okay, another one of the challenges that
evolutionists have thrown at Biblical creationist in the history of
dinosaurs is dinosaur track ways.
You find in
the fossil record fossilized dinosaur footprints and even egg nests and
so on where dinosaurs have laid eggs and then that's buried and there's
another level that has the same thing and that's
buried there's another level. And they said in the year-long flood that you
biblical creations are talking about you can't explain multiple nesting horizons. So, how do we answer that? Well the idea is that sentiment was laid down very slowly
over millions of years. So if you've got this here then you've got another layer up here, let's say eggs that was separated by millions of years, in
the evolutionary story.
But if those sediment layers got laid down quickly you're not talking millions of years. All it did was it got laid down in separate events, not necessarily millions
of years. So again it's your paradigm, the way
you're looking at this, is that a bunch of time? Could those sentiments have been laid
down quickly? Many people have a simplistic understanding of what biblical creationists believe the flood
actually did. It wasn't just a event where something popped open and water
just came up and went down and that's it.
You weren't there. It's a one time, one off event, but when you look at things like the tsunamis when you look at some of the footage from Japan when the tsunami hit the... There's lots of stuff online. Just go on YouTube and you can watch this.
Basically we're suggesting that
maybe a very simplistic view of the flood is not what we should be looking at here
to explain multiple dinosaur nesting horizons. That the water may have
come up in jerks and spurts and so on. That's right, or even in massive waves like you look at the tsunami. You know you get this huge bunch
of water and sediment that comes up and then it goes back out again
and then it comes back in that's one of the signs of a tsunami when you see it
go out.
And you go, oh that doesn't look too good. Mud slides of multiple situation you've
got 40 days and 40 nights of rain recorded in bible as well. Some people think that's all the flood
waters was though. No, this is a year-long event.
The 'fountains of the great deep' burst open. A lot of things there. Let's look at scenario here. Let's say you've got some dinosaurs running along and of course you get a big wave - bang - it gets hit.
It's also going to get covered with
sentiment. It dies. We've got the one track way there that
they were all on, but all the sudden there's new sentiments rapidly deposited. The fact that you can actually find
dinosaur tracks means that that was that sentiment solidified very quickly.
You've got another a deposit, maybe that water retreats for a while, that animal still there. Fast moving water if it
went out and then it comes back in it might start re-gouging out the areas,
things like that, because one of the arguments is how can you find a dinosaur scavenged and then sediment on top of that and
then another layer and then you've got like dinosaur eggs for example? Well, when the carcass gets
exposed he gets scavenged, etc. You
can see it's just not as simplistic if there are all these multiple
catastrophes going on in this one catastrophe. You can kind of see that.
So we can imagine scenarios, and it's not too difficult to do that, and fairly realistic scenarios, that would account for multiple dinosaur
nesting horizons. These multiple eggs, for example, at different levels, one of the interesting things about them is pathological eggs. Some creatures, when they feel unsafe they don't lay their eggs. They'll retain them and they'll start
getting multiple layers around them so they'll have multiple layers shells.
Or, if they eject them too quickly because
they feel unsafe they're very thin eggs. And what they found with a lot of the
dinosaur eggs that they have found is that many of them are pathological. A much higher percentage a pathological eggs and you would
normally expect to find from a regular creature. So we would say that
that's an indication that the dinosaurs were under some type of stress when those eggs were laid.
Running back and forth and all of a sudden maybe drop their eggs and run away. Interesting. Also you don't find vegetation with the dinosaurs often. You find their bonds but there's no
vegetation in the layer.
What we're they eating? What you're finding is buried eggs,
buried tracks, buried dinosaurs and other creatures. But you're not finding buried ecosystems. Okay. So that's the suggestion that maybe that layer has not been exposed for a long period of time.
Before another later got in. Some of these dinosaurs freeways they call them. They are track ways. One of the extends from northeast New Mexico to north-central Colorado! It's huge, again suggesting this isn't
just some river or lakeside or whatever like that but this was evidence of the global flood.
The vigorous promotion of evolution as established fact is causing many Christians to question the Biblical creation account. And some non-Christians won't consider
Christianity because they believe the Bible has been disproved by science. That's where Creation magazine comes in. Creation magazine is a family-friendly
publication.
Packed with cutting-edge science that supports the Bible. Presented in an easy-to-understand format by some of the leading experts in their fields of study. Visit CREATION.Com to subscribe today. For our feedback section what we're looking
at is an e-mail.
Often in these sections were looking at feedback that
comes through the website. People look at the articles or they have a question
that isn't answered in the more than 8000 articles
on CREATION.Com. So here's someone who wrote in about vestigial organs. These are apparently useless evolutionary leftovers from
our evolutionary past, organs that we still have in our bodies.
Now creationists have refuted this many many times, there's a lot of
details on CREATION.Com This person writes, "Greetings, I was
wondering if you could write an article that refuted this article here." And he references an updated, basically what it is is an
updated version of the vestigial organs argument. Modern vestigial organs arguments. Yes, that apparently haven't
been refuted yet. So off we go.
Let's have a look at how our staff responded to this. So extrinsic ear muscles. The
evolutionist said, well look, some people's ears, you can wiggle them. One of my brothers can do that actually wiggle his ears which is pretty amusing.
I can do it but I won't do it now. So some people can do it, some
people can't. They're saying maybe that's maybe we used to fold our ears over when we were you know more animalistic or whatever like that. Because some of the larger muscles,
we can see obvious uses for them.
So what could these be for? Muscles, when you don't use the muscles a lot they atrophy. Like an astronaut in outer space or whatever like that. So the fact that some people have it and some
people don't, maybe if we all practice wiggling our ears Maybe we could all do it. Exercise those muscles.
But it's in principle impossible proved that, you know a muscles or an organ doesn't have a function. Because you might find a function for it later on. One of our own scientists suggested that perhaps the movement of the ear muscles can help remove wax from your ears. Because your ears are constantly expelling that.
So when you're smiling
or chewing or whatever, or that your muscles move perhaps it's moving moving it out. Okay, so there
may be a use for that. Wisdom teeth is another one that's commonly
thought of. Well we're losing our wisdom teeth, or we don't need them
anymore, it's useless tooth left over from evolution and so on.
But wisdom teeth seem to only be a
problem in countries, most countries nowadays, where the food is soft. In other countries where in some countries where you need to chew more for your food, wisdom
teeth are not a problem. There not a leftover they don't cause problems.
So this indicates it's more of a dietary thing than and evolutionary leftover. The third eyelid.
This evolutionist is actually suggesting that
this is a leftover evolutionary something... But it has a critical function. It actually secretes a sticky substance. You know when you get that crust in your eyes in the morning? Well this organ actually is secreting this stuff.
So anything that gets in your eye it wraps it with a protective coating
that comes down and then gets expelled from the eye. It's a very functional piece of equipment. Still very valuable. It's not vestigial at all or useless In many of these cases there's a lot more details on CREATION.Com We know that we're rushing
through his things here.
We're just trying to give an overview of some of
these things. For example, why do males have nipples? This person asked the question we're just answering the question. That's part of design economy. A good designer, if he designs two similar things is going to try to keep good engineering
from one to the other and there's a question as to whether or
not they're useless anyways there's nerves that go there blood vessels
and so on.
They seem to be a regular part of a man's chest. And they seem that that here's a
possible function there involved in sexual stimulation. And no evolutionist is suggesting that
in the past males suckled their young or anything like that.
It's kind of silly. Arrector pili these are muscles, when your hair stands on end you know when you're cold or you're scared and they say why do we have these animalistic, you
know, our hair stands on end and stuff like that? Well actually when you raise your hairs it actually, there is airflow it flows differently.
It actually makes you
warmer. It traps some air. Makes you warmer. So there's actually...
And even muscle contraction itself helps you retain body heat. We could go through a whole bunch of these and you could go to the article online. Just look up 'vestigial organs' See, the thing that the evolutionists aren't understanding is creationist allow for deterioration of a perfect
creation. Absolutely.
This argument actually falls apart
because even if you had and organ in the
past that was good and now it's worse or it's degenerate that's not
evidence for evolution, that's evidence for devolution. It's going the wrong way..
No comments:
Post a Comment