Comments on: Dinosaurs in Eden

By: jeremyshere

jeremyshere — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:19:05 +0000

Hi Everyone,

I have to apologize for not approving all the comments sooner. There’s been something slightly off with the blog site. Normally I’m notified by email when there are comments to approve, but for some reason that didn’t happen for the past several weeks. I’ve now approved all the comments and you can see that we’ve got another lively discussion on an important and interesting topic.

So, again, I apologize for the delay. Please check back and keep the comments coming.

By: Bruce Otte

Bruce Otte — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:53:52 +0000

Why is my earlier comment still “awaiting moderation”?

By: Keith Allen

Keith Allen — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 04:04:21 +0000

Hi Zeph
So, we meet again! From my understanding, the Creation Museum is a venture of Answers in Genesis - this is a group of evangelical Christians whose views I do not whole-heartedly share, but which has quite a number of PhD scientists on its contribution team. I often visit their site, however, to find out what these scientists have to offer - and their writings are generally very good (they try their best to be ‘mocking-free’ when referring to their critics - an attribute their critics make absolutely no effort to achieve). They claim that ALL science is based on pre-suppositions, and that they simply use the Bible-as-history as theirs. If that is what they truly believe then, as with your own beliefs, so be it. From the articles I have read, this group seems, in fact, to be VERY pro-science (but VERY anti-Darwinism, which may upset those of the Darwinism ‘faith’). The TRUTH is that so many accept the totally impossible scenarios of a mythical Big Bang, followed by spontaneous life, followed by logical thought (eventually - but so many seem incapable of it today). It’s sad really…

By: Stephen

Stephen — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 02:52:47 +0000

People in other countries already joke about how dumb Americans are. It’s a stereotype that seems to have taken over from the loud and arrogant stereotype of the past. Of course, we all know these stereotypes are inaccurate. However, they had to start somewhere, and if a stereotype persists, it is because certain groups uphold it with their behavior.

When people around the world see what the Christian morons are up to in America, it only adds to the perception that Americans are insular, ignorant and not very smart. These Christian idiots with their childish ideas and crackpot reasoning bring shame upon the country.

By: Marc S

Marc S — Thu, 27 Mar 2008 18:54:44 +0000

Let’s ignore the evidence of fossils! Folks like the Creation Museum folks are trying to refit the world into their mold; and that’s pretty moldy!

By: Zeph

Zeph — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:30:54 +0000

Thank you for the article, it was to the point and well-reasoned. I’m glad to see more and more people start pointing out this trend of blurring science and history with religion.

But alas, at the end of the day you’ll still be called ignorant and accused of trying to smother the truth. It’s sad really…

By: The Creation Museum and the Dumbing Down of America · Notes From Off-Center

The Creation Museum and the Dumbing Down of America · Notes From Off-Center — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 02:56:57 +0000

[...] Jeremy Shere writes: The Creation Museum drew more than 300,000 visitors in its first year. It’s a state of the art facility with the latest technology. And it feeds a growing anti-intellectual, anti-scientific sentiment in the US. As a science writer, this alarms me. And it should alarm anyone who cares about science and ideas. [...]

By: Warren Krug

Warren Krug — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:39:13 +0000

ust as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is what constitutes pseudo-science, mythology, and propaganda. My dictionary defines propaganda as the “methodical propagation of a particular doctrine or of allegations reflecting its views and interests.”
Under this definition, the point of view of the Creation Museum would certainly qualify as propaganda as does the views I am hereby expressing and so does the commentary by Jeremy Shere.
The fact of the matter is that there is considerable evidence for the view that the dinosaurs existed in relatively recent, historical times. In truth, some scientists believe birds are modern-day dinosaurs and to me some lizards such as Komodo dragons and Gila monsters look a lot like scaled-down versions of dinosaurs.
As for the larger beasts, consider the following:
1. The various tales of dinosaur-like creatures called dragons that come to us from all over the world.
2. The existence of dinosaur-like petrogylphs in Hava Supai,Canyon, Arizona; Natural Bridges, National Monument Utah; and other places.
3. The discovery of many artifacts from ancient cultures such as China that depict dinosaur-like creatures. See the Web site http://s8int.com/dino1.html
4. The descriptions in the Bible of huge creatures called a behemoth (Job 40) and leviathan (Job 41) which don’t seem to describe modern animals.
And what should be the final crushing blow to the notion that dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago…
5. The discovery of red blood cells and SOFT tissue in T-rex dinosaurs (See http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp and http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html.
I believe the pressure is now on the Old-Earthers to prove that dinosaurs did not live in recent times even though the larger ones may now be extinct.

By: Warren Krug

Warren Krug — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 01:27:18 +0000

Just as beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so is what constitutes pseudo-science, mythology, and propaganda. My dictionatry defines propaganda as the “methodical propagation of a particular doctrine or of allegations reflecting its views and interests.”
Under this definition, the point of view of the Creation Museum would certainly qualify as propaganda as does the views I am hereby expressing and so does the commentary by Jeremy Shere.
The fact of the matter is that there is considerable evidence for the view that the dinosaurs existed in relatively recent, historical times. In truth, some scientists believe birds are modern-day dinosaurs and to me some lizards such as Komodo dragons and Gila monsters look a lot like scaled-down versions of dinosaurs.
As for the larger beasts, consider the following:
1. The various tales of dinosaur-like creatures called dragons that come to us from all over the world.
2. The existence of dinosaur-like petrogylphs in Hava Supai,Canyon, Arizona; Natural Bridges, National Monument Utah; and other places.
3. The discovery of many artifacts from ancient cultures such as China that depict dinosaur-like creatures. See the Web site http://s8int.com/dino1.html
4. The descriptions in the Bible of huge creatures called a behemoth (Job 40) and leviathan (Job 41) which don’t seem to describe modern animals.
And what should be the final crushing blow to the notion that dinosaurs went extinct millions of years ago…
5. The discovery of red blood cells and SOFT tissue in T-rex dinosaurs (See http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0325Dino_tissue.asp and http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070412-dino-tissues.html.
I believe the pressure is now on the Old-Earthers to prove that dinosaurs did not live in recent times even though the larger ones may now be extinct.

By: Bruce Otte

Bruce Otte — Tue, 25 Mar 2008 21:55:47 +0000

Hi Jeremy,

You make an underlying assumption that theology and science are mutually exclusive and should not be mixed. If Creationists ARE actually right, then a Creator would also have created the “laws of science”, which means His theology could be “scientific” in parts, if He wanted. I’m just pointing out that their logic is valid, even if we cant agree on our premises.

Science should not be held on such a high pedestal. Mankind has been using science for its benefit since the very first invention. It is nothing more than finding patterns in our observations. Technology is nothing more than making clever use of the predictability of those patterns.

My point is, science is only as powerful as the prevalence and simplicity of evidences we can observe. Gravity is an easy one to demonstrate and believe in, atomic theory is not.

Thus when the evidence available is scarce and difficult to interpret (i.e. has multiple valid interpretations), as it is with fossil evidence, for example, then we cant be so sure we’ve got it right. On either side of the interpretation - in this case Creation vs Evolution. If you look into this topic further you will find that, sadly (for both sides), there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove either argument. Educated evolutionists accept that there is mounting evidence that doesn’t fit the theory, even if they don’t accept the alternative interpretations.

So, at this point in time at least, we are stuck in the position where neither side can actually claim the other is anti-intellectual or anti-scientific. To the contrary, both sides appear to be striving to use science to prove something that I doubt will ever be provable. In the meantime the blanks are being filled in with creative (even if logical) interpretation.

My assertion here is that neither side has enough evidence to ridicule the other. Don’t take my word for it, look into for yourself, like a true scientist. But the most important virtue scientists should strive for is that of neutrality and objectivity. Approach every claim, no matter how outlandish it may appear at first glance, with an open mind. Consider as long as it deserves, but no longer. Just don’t close your mind to alternatives, for that IS a form of elitism or arrogance.

Regards,
Bruce.