Dinosaurs by Design/Dinosaurs Those Terrible Lizards Part 3
From EvoWiki
Contents |
Gish's Hypocrisy on Evolution
The next chapter in DBD, on page 62-63, is entitled "Evolutionary Fairy Tales." Note the title being hypocritical because Gish and others like him is known to promote fairy tales of their own. The Bullfrog Myth is one of Gish's best examples. This is where Gish claim that the bullfrog's proteins in its blood is exactly the same as human blood proteins. Which means, if this is the case, then Bullfrog does equal a handsome prince! Now that's YEC claim worthy to be branded as a fairy tale.
References,
http://www.holysmoke.org/gishlies.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html
Denial of Transitional Forms
In this chapter, Gish gives out all sorts of strawman claims of evolution being false and claimed that scientists have no idea what did dinosaurs evolve from, which is false too. Scientists knew that dinosaurs evolve from Archosaurian ancestors like Lagosuchus or Euparkeria, for example, but does Gish care? No he doesn’t. He just ignores them and makes up a false notions about mutations being “genetic accidents” which they are not and gives some strawman examples on how Pterosaurs could never have survived with only “half a wing” (Sharovipteryx ring a bell?) and blatantly declares, without shame, that evolution is a fairy tale, while the contrary is true and flat–out denies the existence of transitional forms, especially in the marine reptiles such as Mixosaurus, which was an ancestral ichthyosaur that lived during the early Triassic period. He ignorantly declares that, instead of finding transitional forms, we find animals that are all fully formed and are all products of God’s creativity. And there you have it. Gish’s blatant denial of how did God created all life forms that lived in the past and the present. He just said that God created them all, being deliberately clueless to how He did it based on both fossilized and scientific evidence. Check out these links to websites that refutes all of those strawman claims.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921_2.html
http://www.atheists.org/evolution/halfawing.html
Denial of Bird Ancestry
In DTTL on pages 48-49 and in DBD on pages 64-65, both entitled "Ancestor of Birds?” Gish states that dinosaurs, especially saurischian dinosaurs did not evolve into birds because of their "lizard" hip structure being totally different from birds. But he forgets that there are saurischian dinosaurs with hips in which the pubis is tilted backwards and leans on the ischium part making the hip look more ornithschian than saurischian. Gish even claims that ornithschian dinosaurs could possibly be are the ancestors of birds too and tries to refute them. No doubt this is strawman, for no competent scientist will ever believe that birds are descendants of ornithschians. Saurischians? Yes, but never from Ornithschians. Gish even denies the existence of feathered dinosaurs stating that all dinosaurs had ordinary reptile skin. A blatant lie. The Yixian Formation in China since 1996 have yielded a large, massive treasure trove of dinosaur fossils with feathered imprints on them which included Sinosauropteryx, Beipiaosaurus, Cauldipteryx, and Sinornithosaurus to name a few.
Here's a website that lists the dinosaurs discovered at this special site and the descriptions of them. http://www.dinodata.net/Dd/Namelist/Form/Yixian.htm
Gish Archie Lie
The next chapter is entitled "Archaeopteryx" In it, Gish claims that this Jurassic dinosaur is just a bird, not a dinosaur, not even a transitional form just because he has feathers on his body and looks very much like a bird. This is false. I know this because I've been studying dinosaurs for years to know well enough that Archaeopteryx is really a theropod closely related to Compsognathus. Many fossil specimens of Archaeopteryx have been known to be misidentified as Compsognathus because scientists have overlooked the faint feather imprints that are embedded in the fossils when first unearthed and studied. Archaeopteryx has feathers indeed, but he also has teeth in his jaws, a no-beaked mouth, and 3 digit clawed fingers on each wing. He had a reptilian tail, saurischian hip, theropod type feet, and a very primitive wishbone as well. Even the skeleton will show you that this is a theropod dinosaur that lived 150 million years ago during the Jurassic Period in what is now Germany in Europe. Gish then gives out all sorts of descriptions on how feathers and a few other parts of a bird functions and how they were all a product of God’s design and not by random happenings and chance, which evolution actually speaks nothing of, while flat out denying the existence of dino-bird transitions such as Eoalulavis for instance and how did God design birds through scientific evidence. Denying evidence for bird evolution and pretending to not exist is not going to make it all go away. But Gish doesn’t know better. Instead he just lives on and on in denial and ignorance; living in his own fantasy world; denying everything; never to bother to ask God to show him how He did it through scientific evidence just like the verses 12:7-12 in the Bible Book of Job clearly tells us to here and that’s a shame.
References,
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html
http://www.pbs.org/lifeofbirds/
Pseudo-History of Dinosaurs
Unlike DTTL, DBD has four chapters on the pseudo-history of dinosaurs.
One is called "Affects of Sin" on page 68. This is where Gish states falsely that all animals were at peace with each other, eating plants until the Fall of Man, when some animals afterwards became predators and started preying on each other. But what makes Gish and others think that Predatory animals is part of the Fallen World, while in fact it is really man's sinful rebellious nature and his affects on the world that really is what the Fallen world is all about? See Young Earther's Lie About The Dinosaur's Diet.
Ignorance of The Lack Of Animal Morality
Gish then stated that sin entered into the world through Adam and Eve’s disobedience and both man and beast rebelled against God. How can the animals be disobedient when they have don’t have even the slightest idea of what sin, evil, and rebellion is? Does this imply that the animals all need a savior too the same way mankind needs a Savior to save their souls from damnation, even though they lack the ability to reason and have morality?
The claim about God putting armor on dinosaurs like Stegosaurus and Ankylosaurus because He knew that they will have to use them in the "Post-Fall" era implies that this "God" the YECs worshiped is nothing more than a mean cruel god who set all animals and people up for the fall. Obviously the god they worshiped is the god who uses trickery and deception to create all things.
Here are 2 rebuttal pages to Gish's animal fallacy.
http://www.answersincreation.org/death.htm
http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/death.html
The real purpose of God flooding the earth is to punish mankind for their sins. It is really mankind, not animal kind that needs punishing. The animal kingdom, morally innocent they are, had nothing to do with it. Still, it must have broke His heart when he had to sacrificed the animal kingdom in order to do it like He said he will in Genesis 6:7. Possibly that verse means He will have to wipe out the animals that man has got a hold of and trained them to be violent and fight, kill, and destroy in an effort please man's wicked desires as well as wipe out the evil men in an effort to punish them for their sins. To preserve the animal kingdom, God told Noah, a righteous man before Him, to build the ark that will save him, his family, and the animal kingdom from the flood. Noah obeys and builds the ark just as God has commanded him to. Then God told Noah to put into the ark 2 of every kind of ritually unclean animal; both male and female, and 7 of every kind of animal that's ritually clean that is made up of a male and 6 females. Both clean and unclean animals is mentioned on the list animals in the dietary laws within the Law of Moses. However there is a verse before Genesis 7:2 that contradicts the verse and that is Genesis 6:19-20 where God told Noah to take up only two of every kind of animal on earth into the ark. You can see what I mean right here.
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/6.html
The So-Called Great Flood
On the next chapter on pages 70-73 in DBD called "The Great Flood," Gish tells of his own fairy tale version of Noah's ark where he says that Noah took up dinosaurs, other than birds, into the ark which of coarse I have already refuted in my 1st essay by listing all of the known links that take you to the websites that does a detail rebuttal of this pseudo version of the famous bible story. Nevertheless, I'll do it again. Here they are.
http://www.skepticreport.com/creationism/sillyflood.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/noahs_ark.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/flood.htm
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/common_sense/bible_science.html
I would rather like the traditional story of Noah's ark better where Noah only took up modern animals into the ark that is in the shape of a boat with a house on top of it than that fairy tale pseudo version that YECs demands people to believe in and accept it to be an actual historical event that features the ark they themselves persistently insist that its a box like vessel that has one big door and 2 long rows of windows at the very middle top of it (which the Bible really says nothing about) and have dinosaurs and all other prehistoric animals and modern animals going up into the ark and be crowded in it to the point it will be too much for Noah and his family can handle.
On page 72, Gish gets preachy and starts preaching a faulty (Yes Faulty!) gospel message. Why is it faulty? Look here.
Flood myths
Then comes the chapter on pages 74-75 called "Flood Myths" where Gish states that the stories shown here have all have something to do with Noah's Flood. But look in here on this web page and you will see that it is not so. There are a few countries in the world, Egypt for instance, that does not have a flood myth at all.
References:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG201.html
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/aig_mt_everest_and_cricket.htm
There's another website that refutes the flood myth you can visit here.
Gish's Extinction "Theories"
Next came the chapter on page 76-77 called, "What happened to the dinosaurs?" where Gish gives out some outdated extinction theories which includes the theory about mammals bringing about the dinosaurs' demise, which there is no evidence for. He doesn't believe the meteorite that created the Chicxulub crater and the other meteorite or a large chunk of the first meteorite that created the Shiva crater was the one that killed the dinosaurs. Instead he just falsely states that most dinosaurs were all wiped out by Noah's Flood and all the rest that were in the ark, except for the alleged ones that lived recently in certain remote areas of the world, were all killed off by man and other "post-flood" extremes, while the fossil evidence clearly shows that it is not the case.
He also states that there was a mythical vapor canopy that unified the climate all over the world with no rain and no rainbows occurring during the "pre-flood" era. Instead there was only mist that rose from the ground to water the land like in Genesis 2:6. But does he and other YECs know that mist is really a form of rain? Does he even know that you don't necessary need rain to create a rainbow? Just look at a large waterfall at a certain time of day when the sun is shining through it from behind you and you'll see what I'm talking about. I used to have 2 Goldfish tanks that have a lot of goldfish in that I sometimes put in front of the window in my bedroom and when the sun from it shines through the tanks that full of water and fish, I've got a rainbow forming on my floor. Neat! It's a lot like a prism where you shine a light through it and a rainbow is created as a result. Here is a wikipage that tells all about rainbows. It has spectacular photos showing waterfalls with rainbows appearing when the sun reflects on the misty particles coming from the waterfall. These photos are all taken on a clear sunny day. Thus, refuting the claim about the no rain, no rainbows myth ocurring before the Flood. If there was no rain back then, certain kinds of plants that need lots of rain and lots of water to live will never survive. Was there even waterfalls back then as shown on the wikipage if there was no rain occurring back then? Was the world a dry place like the desert if no rain occurred back then? If there was no rain back then, then the whole earth will be completely a dry desert wasteland with hardly anything in it to grow on. Plus, the whole wide world would have been inhospitable because the vapor canopy would have made the earth to be the third sun from the sun, literally. Everyone will be burned to death and the all of the world’s water will be all totally evaporated to nothing and the whole world will be lifeless desolate world with no signs of life on it whatsoever.
Knowing this could pose major problems with the vapor canopy myth, YECs will often invoke useless, old, illogical, empty, groundless, "goddidit" excuses to try to explain how certain kinds of plants survive where there was no rain on earth back then and how coral, plants, and fresh and saltwater fish survive the flood, and how soil is kept from being washed away for Noah and his family to farm on when in fact, plants would all die if given too much water and the soil will be all washed away and freshwater fish will all die in salt water and vice versa and coral, so delicately fragile, will be annihilated off the face of the earth if there ever was a global flood. Mist is really a minor form of rain that won't bring any kind of help to the plants of certain species that need tons and tons of water to survive. Where do they get this kind of an idea is found in Hebrews 11:7 where Noah by faith builds the ark because he was warned of an event that was not seen before, which is the Great Flood that actually occurred locally in an area where the Black Sea is located at about 7,000 years ago. But what does that have to do with rain? Probably nothing. The world would be a total dry uninhabited place if there were indeed no rain on earth back then.
And for once AIG and CMI, the most active and ludicrous of the YEC group (Once together as one, now they are seperate and are rivals to each other. This is possibly due to a big deal that involves Kent Hovind. More on this here.), is somewhat abandoning the No rain or rainbows myth and has included it in the list of arguments we think creationist should not use (AIG page here; CMI page here.). Now if they will only put in all those dinosaur myths in the lists; Dinosaurs Lived Alongside of Man Myth, the Behemoth and Leviathan being Dinosaurs Myth, and the Dragons are Dinosaurs Myth and the Vegetarian T.rex myth and all others....
Ice Age Fallacy
The Next Chapter on page 78-79 is called "Ice Age" where Gish claims the Ice Age occurred after the Great Flood. But these links below clearly refutes the Ice Age claim.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH590.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/henke_oard1.htm
http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/ice_ages/
Besides that, there were multiple ice ages that occurred thought earth's history and this link will take you to a web page that debunks the YEC one Ice Age myth.
http://www.answersincreation.org/iceage.htm
DTTL doesn't have all that in the book. All it has is the chapter on pages 56-61 called “Whatever became of the Dinosaurs?” and that's it. But just like DBD, DTTL falsely states that dinosaurs were all killed in the Flood except for those in the ark that were all killed off afterwards by the cold and other "post-flood" extremes which of course never happened at all.
