chap 11a
RECONCILING SCIENCE WITH CREATION
Probably the most often cited evidence Old Age Earth/Evolution is the Carbon 14 dating of archaeological finds. Some isotopes of certain elements are stable and some are unstable. The radioactive unstable ones, like carbon-14, over time they change into another kind of atom, in a process called “radioactive decay.” The decay rate of radioactive elements is described in terms of half-life. The half-life of an atom is the amount of time it takes for half of the atoms in a sample to decay. The half-life of C-14 is 5730 years.
After 8 or 9 half-lives or 50,000 years there is so only about 1% of it left, which is too little to be accurately measured, so claims of older dates are false !
Furthermore dates within this 50,000-year window are based on several scientific assumptions.
This is due to the following list of assumptions Radiometric dating relies on ;
That the atmosphere has had the same (all instead of Carbon 14) concentration in the past as now. Who knows? This is a false assumption.
That the production of parent isotopes has been constant. Again, who knows? This is a false assumption.
That the original ratio and amounts of the isotope in the fossil or rock is known. This is based on current processes and assumes the rate of absorption was the same in the past. This is a false assumption.
That the decay rate is constant. Many things are known to affect decay rates. This is a false assumption.
That no contamination has occurred. This is a false assumption.
That no daughter (stable) element was originally in the fossil. This is a false assumption.
That the decay rate was determined accurately. Decay rates are constantly being modified and criticized. This is a false assumption.
That the only loss of the isotope is due to the decay process. This is a false assumption.
Wow, that’s a lot of assumptions…
Since the Radio-active Decay process presently happens at a known measured rate, scientists attempt to use it like a “clock” to tell how long ago a fossil formed.
One would think if carbon-14 is constantly decaying, would the earth eventually run out ?
The answer is no, carbon-14 is constantly being added to the atmosphere through cosmic rays from outer space and radiation energy from the Sun colliding with atmospheric nitrogen which produces radioactive carbon-14.
Both C12 and C14 combine with oxygen in the atmosphere to form carbon dioxide which gets incorporated into plants, and the food living organisms eat.
This system creates a stable consistent ratio of C14 and C12 in the air and the organisms that breathe it.
Since no one was there to measure the original amount of C14 present in the creature when it died, scientist need to find a method to determine how much C14 has decayed. To do this scientists use the main stable non-radioactive isotope of carbon, carbon 12, which does not decay over time. Scientists know there is a constant ratio of one trillion C-12 atoms to 1 C-14 atom in all living things.
So when the organism dies the ratio starts at 1 Trillion to 1, C12 remaining constant and C14 becoming less and less over time. The smaller the ratio, the longer the organism has been dead. So the production rate of C14 has to remain equal to the rate of removal, mostly through decay.
This is called equilibrium.
One big problem with Carbon 14 dating is the huge assumption that this ratio has remained stable throughout the Earth’s history .
Dr. Willard Libby the founder of the Carbon 14 dating method assumed this ratio to be constant.
His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution which assumes the Earth must be billions of years old.
Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all calculations based on that assumption could still possibly be correct but still give a wrong conclusion. In Dr. Libby’s original work he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be an equilibrium.
This was an extremely troubling idea for Dr. Libby, since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium.
Doctor Libby’s calculations show that if the earth started with no C14 in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up a steady state of equilibrium.
Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy and he attributed it to experimental error.
However this discrepancy has turned out to be very real ! The ratio of C14 to C12 is not constant !
What does this mean ?
If it takes approximately 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and it still has not been achieved, then it appears the Earth is not very old !
Other major factors affecting the ratio of C12 to C14 are the fluctuation of the Suns radiation output, and Mankind’s nuclear activity, further demonstrating, making an assumption, based on C12/C14 ratio consistencies, extremely flawed.
Another piece of scientific evidence, unrelated to Carbon Dating, yet supporting a Young Earth is, since 1845, when German mathematician and scientists Carl Friedrich Gauss, started keeping tabs on the Earth’s magnetic field, it has decreased by 10 % .
That’s only a 170 years. Most scientists agree since this is the case there would be no magnetic field left, if the world were more than 10,000 years old !
The Earth’s magnetic field helps protect us from harmful radiation from outer space.
This means the stronger magnetic field in the earth’s past resulted in less cosmic radiation reacting with nitrogen molecules to form C14.
These factors decreasing the amount of C14 in the environment decreases the original baseline of C14 the scientists are using to calculate how much has decayed, to arrive at their dating . Simply put if there wasn’t as much C-14 to start out with, the amount scientists find now in radiometric dating of archaeological finds is less, not due to decay over time, but because there wasn’t as much there in the first
place !
So the science behind radiometric dating is severely flawed as even admitted by its founder and recent findings are even more troubling to Evolutionists.
Volcanic rocks that form from lava cooling where we know the date of the eruption are dated at billions of years old.
A rock found in Redding California that was dated at billions of years old and the Marine fossils in it were only dated hundreds of thousands of years old.
This makes you wonder are any of these dates viable at all ?
Most people think that a fossil has to be millions of years old. This is false .
But this common picture is misleading. A recent book, co-authored by a world expert on dinosaurs, points out some things about dinosaur bones that are of great interest to creationists.1 For one thing, it says: ‘Bones do not have to be “turned into stone” to be fossils, and usually most of the original bone is still present in a dinosaur fossil.’2 Ok, but even if the actual bone is not replaced by rock minerals, some fossil dinosaur bones are rock-hard, and show under the microscope when cut that they have been thoroughly ‘permineralized.’ This means that rock minerals have been deposited into all the spaces within the original bone.
Doesn’t this show that the formation of these fossils, at least, must represent a long time? Think again. The same authoritative work also tells us: ‘The amount of time that it takes for a bone to become completely permineralized is highly variable. If the groundwater is heavily laden with minerals in solution, the process can happen rapidly. Modern bones that fall into mineral springs can become permineralized within a matter of weeks.’ So even a rock-solid, hard shiny fossil dinosaur bone, showing under the microscope that all available spaces have been totally filled with rock minerals, does not indicate that it necessarily took millions of years to form at all.
Now of course if a dinosaur bone is indeed permineralized, it would give it great protection from the normal processes which cause things such as bone to just naturally ‘fall apart.’ So a permineralized bone might indeed be anything from a few weeks to millions of years old. However, in a situation where the dinosaur bone has been prevented from being invaded by mineral-rich water, one would expect that over millions of years, even locked away from all bacterial agents, dinosaur bone would, in obeying the laws of thermodynamics.
3 just disintegrate from the random motions of the molecules therein. There are actually instances, mentioned in the same book, in which dinosaur bones in Alberta, Canada, were encased in ironstone nodules shortly after being buried. We are told: ‘The nodules prevented water from invading the bones, which for all intents and purposes cannot be distinguished from modern bone.’
This is a stunning revelation. Evolutionists are convinced that all dinosaur bones must be at least 65 million years old. Those who take Genesis as real history would predict that no dinosaur bone is more than a few thousand years old, so the existence of such totally unmineralized dinosaur bones that have not disintegrated is perfectly consistent with our expectations. We have previously told you about the unfossilized dinosaur bone which still contained red blood cells and hemoglobin.5 Also, we wrote about ‘fresh dinosaur bones’ in Alaska.Let the evolutionist experts writing this book confirm this:
An even more spectacular example was found on the North Shore of Alaska, where many thousands of bones lack any significant degree of permineralization. The bones look and feel like old cow bones, and the discoverers of the site did not report it for twenty years because they assumed they were bison, not dinosaur, bones.’ In summary, therefore:
1. Most fossil dinosaur bones still contain the original bone.
2. Even when heavily permineralized (‘fossilized’), this does not need to require more than a few weeks. The Creation/Flood scenario for fossilization would allow many centuries for such permineralization to occur, even under less than ideal conditions.
3. Where bones have not been protected by permineralization, they are sometimes found in a condition which to all intents and purpose looks as if they are at most centuries, not millions of years old.
The Bible’s account of the true history of the world makes it clear that no fossil can be more than a few thousand years old. Dinosaur bones give evidence strongly consistent with this.
References and notes
1. Currie, P.J., and Koppelhus, E.B., 101 Questions about Dinosaurs, Dover Publications, 1996. Currie is a well-known dinosaur authority. He is Curator of Dinosaurs at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology, Drumheller, Alberta, Canada. Koppelhus is a visiting researcher at the same institution. Return to text.
2. Ref. 1, p. 11. Return to text.
3. The Second Law of Thermodynamics formalizes the relentless tendency of all systems to strive toward the most probable arrangement which, in the absence of some specific ordering agent, is the one in which the molecules exhibit the maximum disorder. For more information, see The Second Law of Thermodynamics. Return to text.
4. Ref. 1, p. 12. Return to text.
5. Wieland, C., Sensational dinosaur blood report!, Creation 19(4):42–43, 1997. Return to text.
6. Helder, M., Fresh dinosaur bones found, Buddy Davis: The creation music man who makes dinosaurs, Creation 19(3):49–51, 1997. Return to text.
A team of researchers gave a presentation at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13–17, at which they gave 14C dating results from many bone samples from eight dinosaur specimens.
All gave dates ranging from 22,000 to 39,000 years, right in the ‘ballpark’ predicted by creationists.1 But if dinosaurs really were millions of years old, there should not be one atom of 14C left in them. The researchers seem to be associated with Catholic creationist groups, which have reported the conference earlier and more vocally than evangelical creationists. One of these reports states that afterward, “the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings.
Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors or even to the AOGS officers, until after an investigation. It won’t be restored.”2
Indeed, one can go online to see a screenshot of the original program. But going to the official conference site, the talk has clearly been removed. (Go to Wednesday, room Leo 2, double-click on BGO2, which is the session that had the presentation. The numbers go from 4 to 6, omitting 5, which was the one on 14C in dino bones.) So much for science’s alleged openness to the data.
The ‘power of the paradigm’ can be clearly seen.
Two of the report’s physicist co-authors, Professor Dr Robert Bennett and Dr Jean de Pontcharra, till recently with the French Atomic Energy Commission’s Grenoble Research Centre, are urging colleagues to do their own carbon dating of dinosaur bones. They say that the media should be encouraging scientists to do this also, presenting the findings openly and honestly at similar conferences. This would certainly be in the interests of scientific truth—especially following the repeated findings of soft tissue in dinosaur bones, and now even seemingly irrefutable DNA in dinosaur specimens.
3 Members of the Paleochronology group presented their findings at the 2012 Western Pacific Geophysics Meeting in Singapore, August 13-17, a conference of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the Asia Oceania Geosciences Society (AOGS).
Since dinosaurs are thought to be over 65 million years old, the news is stunning – and more than some can tolerate. After the AOGS-AGU conference in Singapore, the abstract was removed from the conference website by two chairmen because they could not accept the findings. Unwilling to challenge the data openly, they erased the report from public view without a word to the authors.
When the authors inquired, they received this letter:
They did not look at the data and they never spoke with the researchers. .
They did not like the test results, so they censored them !
Here are some more findings;
Researchers
have found a reason for the puzzling survival of soft tissue and
collagen in dinosaur bones – the bones are younger than anyone ever
guessed. Carbon-14 (C-14) dating of multiple samples of bone from 8
dinosaurs found in Texas, Alaska, Colorado, and Montana revealed that
they are only 22,000 to 39,000 years old.
Dinosaurs previously
claimed to be 65 MILLION years old are now suddenly claimed to be 20
THOUSAND TO 40 THOUSAND YEARS OLD, A DISCREPANCY OF 64 PLUS MILLION
YEARS ! This makes it align millions of years closer to Biblical
Creation, than Evolutions long held 65 million years !
Isn’t it
perfectly reasonable to assume that they could still be off , ONLY 14
THOUSAND to 39 THOUSAND YEARS, since they were off 64 million, to start
?
So now we see those recent 20,000 – 40,000 Carbon-14 dating of
dinosaur bones could easily only be 6000 years, as Biblical Creation has
it !
This would bring it in line with Creations account of 6
THOUSAND YEARS ! As stated carbon-14 is a radioisotope of carbon with a
half-life of 5730 years.
The short half-life of carbon-14 means it
cannot be used to date fossils that are allegedly extremely old like
dinosaur bones. Levels of carbon-14 become extremely difficult to
measure and compare after about 50,000 years or between 8 and 9
Half-Lives, where only 1% of the original carbon-14 would remain
undecayed.
Above and beyond this, the real question is can Carbon 14 dating be used to date any artifacts at all ?
Carbon-14
cannot be used to date biological artifacts of organisms that did not
get their carbon dioxide from the air ruling out most aquatic organisms
because they obtain at least some of their carbon from dissolved
carbonate rock content in the water.
The
age of the carbon in the rock is different from that of the carbon in
the air. This restriction extends to animals that consume seafood in
their diet !
Bones are porous and readily absorb things from their
environment. Carbon dating cannot be used on most fossils because in
order to be a fossil that means the original bone material has been
replaced by minerals from the surrounding rock and the carbon which is
in it. Also contamination comes from the collection and our preservation
procedures.
Also carbon-14 has not remained constant over the years but has changed due to changes in climate and fluctuations in radiation from the Sun, nuclear tests nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors. Human nuclear activity provides gross contamination of the normal radioisotope composition of the Earth and its atmosphere.
There
are other radiometric dating methods with elements that have longer
half-lives such as potassium-40 uranium-235 thorium 232 and rubidium 87.
But
here’s the real Clincher all of these methods are accurate only back to
the last Global catastrophe IE the global flood AS Global catastrophe
reset all the radiometric/ atomic clocks.
Prior to radiometric dating, evolution scientists used index fossils a.k.a. relative dating to ascertain the age of their discoveries. A paleontologist would take the discovered fossil to a geologist who would ask the paleontologist what other fossils (searching for an index fossil) were found near their discovery. Once our geologist had the “index fossil” that was found approximately in the same layer as the newly discovered fossil, he would then see where in the geologic column it came from and presto, he now had a date for his newly discovered fossil.
He would simply go to a chart that listed the geologic column by ‘ages’ and find the place where the index fossil appears, and thereby the geologists could tell the paleontologist how old his fossil was.
If it sounds like circular reasoning, it is because this process in reality is based upon circular reasoning. If we reverse the process to find the age of an alleged rock, the geologist takes his rock to the paleontologist, and the paleontologist goes to the same exact chart and looks for the “index fossil(s)” that normally are found in those rock layers. That’s right, you guessed it, the paleontologist tells the geologist how old the rock is based upon its connection to those very same “index fossils.”
The process of using index fossils is describes by the late Creationist author and Ph.D. in Geology and Mathematics Dr. Henry Morris as follows:
“Index fossils” are types of fossil (such as ammonites and coelacanths) that 19th-century European evolutionists of the Victorian era claimed lived and died out many millions of years ago. The supposed age of “index fossils” is based on how long these 19th-century evolutionists believed one kind of animal would take (somehow) to “evolve” into a different kind of animal.
For example, if they believed it would take 200 million years for an ammonite (somehow) to turn gradually into say a dog, then all rocks containing fossil ammonites (the “index fossil”) would be given an “age” 200 million years older than rocks containing fossils of dogs: “… the geological column and approximate ages of all the fossil-bearing strata were all worked out long before anyone ever heard or thought about radioactive dating …
There are so many sources of possible error or misinterpretation in radiometric dating that most such dates are discarded and never used at all, notably whenever they disagree with the previously agreed-on [index fossil] dates.” (Dr Henry Morris, creationist scientist and hydraulics, PhD in hydrology, geology and mathematics, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Society of Civil Engineers, former Professor of Hydraulic Engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1974)
Michael Oard, Ph.D. is a meteorologist and creationist scientist who writes, And when it comes to dating any individual rock today, the resulting “date” is forced to conform to predetermined evolutionist “dates” based on these imaginary 19th-century index-fossil “dates”. Any radiometric dates that show a supposedly “old” rock to be young are rejected for no other reason: “Few people realize that the index fossil dating system, despite its poor assumptions and many problems, is actually the primary dating tool for geologic time. …
In other words, radiometric dating methods are actually fit into the geological column, which was set up by [index] fossil dating over 100 years ago.”(Michael Oard, meteorologist and creationist scientist, 1984) All radiometric dating methods use this .
The RATE Group Findings
In 1997 an eight-year research project was started to investigate the age of the earth. The group was called the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth). The team of scientists included:
- Larry Vardiman, PhD Atmospheric Science
- Russell Humphreys, PhD Physics
- Eugene Chaffin, PhD Physics
- John Baumgardner, PhD Geophysics
- Donald DeYoung, PhD Physics
- Steven Austin, PhD Geology
- Andrew Snelling, PhD Geology
- Steven Boyd, PhD Hebraic and Cognate Studies
The objective was to gather data commonly ignored or censored by evolutionary standards of dating. The scientists reviewed the assumptions and procedures used in estimating the ages of rocks and fossils. The results of the carbon-14 dating demonstrated serious problems for long geologic ages. For example, a series of fossilized wood samples that conventionally have been dated according to their host strata to be from Tertiary to Permian (40-250 million years old) all yielded significant, detectable levels of carbon-14 that would conventionally equate to only 30,000-45,000 years “ages” for the original trees.
Similarly, a survey of the conventional radiocarbon journals resulted in more than forty examples of supposedly ancient organic materials, including limestones, that contained carbon-14, as reported by leading laboratories.
Samples were then taken from ten different coal layers that, according to evolutionists, represent different time periods in the geologic column (Cenozoic, Mesozoic, and Paleozoic). The RATE group obtained these ten coal samples from the U.S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank, from samples collected from major coalfields across the United States.
The chosen coal samples, which dated millions to hundreds of millions of years old based on standard evolution time estimates, all contained measurable amounts of 14C. In all cases, careful precautions were taken to eliminate any possibility of contamination from other sources. Samples, in all three “time periods”, displayed significant amounts of 14C.
This is a significant discovery. Since the half-life of 14C is relatively short (5,730 years), there should be no detectable 14C left after about 100,000 years. The average 14C estimated age for all the layers from these three time periods was approximately 50,000 years. However, using a more realistic pre-Flood 14C /12C ratio reduces that age to about 5,000 years.
The RATE scientists are convinced that the popular idea attributed to geologist Charles Lyell from nearly two centuries ago, “The present is the key to the past,” is simply not valid for an earth history of millions or billions of years. An alternative interpretation of the carbon-14 data is that the earth experienced a global flood catastrophe which laid down most of the rock strata and fossils. . . .
Whatever the source of the carbon-14, its presence in nearly every sample tested worldwide is a strong challenge to an ancient age. Carbon-14 data is now firmly on the side of the young-earth view of history.
These results indicate that the entire geologic column is less than 100,000 years old—and could be much younger. This confirms the Bible and challenges the evolutionary idea of long geologic ages.
Because the lifetime of C-14 is so brief, these AMS [Accelerator Mass Spectrometer] measurements pose an obvious challenge to the standard geological timescale that assigns millions to hundreds of millions of years to this part of the rock layer.
Another noteworthy observation from the RATE group was the amount of 14C found in diamonds. Secular scientists have estimated the ages of diamonds to be millions to billions of years old using other radiometric dating methods. These methods are also based on questionable assumptions. Because of their hardness, diamonds (the hardest known substance) are extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange.
Since diamonds are considered to be so old by evolutionary standards, finding any 14C in them would be strong support for a recent creation.
The RATE group analyzed twelve diamond samples for possible carbon-14 content. Similar to the coal results, all twelve diamond samples contained detectable, but lower levels of 14C. These findings are powerful evidence that coal and diamonds cannot be the millions or billions of years old that evolutionists claim. Indeed, these RATE findings of detectable 14C in diamonds have been confirmed independently. Carbon-14 found in fossils at all layers of the geologic column, in coal and in diamonds, is evidence which confirms the biblical timescale of thousands of years and not billions.
Because of C-14’s short half-life, such a finding would argue that carbon and probably the entire physical earth as well must have a recent origin.
The RATE scientists are convinced that the popular idea attributed to geologist Charles Lyell from nearly two centuries ago, “The present is the key to the past,” is simply not valid for an earth history of millions or billions of years. An alternative interpretation of the carbon-14 data is that the earth experienced a global flood catastrophe which laid down most of the rock strata and fossils. . . . Whatever the source of the carbon-14, its presence in nearly every sample tested worldwide is a strong challenge to an ancient age. Carbon-14 data is now firmly on the side of the young-earth view of history.
Conclusion
All radiometric dating methods are based on assumptions about events that happened in the past. These assumptions have been proven false, from the founder of radio-metric dating himself, Dr. Libby, down thru the scientific knowledge of the Earths magnetic field, Solar radiation, Mans nuclear activity, recent dating of archeological finds, and even geologic evidence of a Worldwide Flood, that reset all radiometric/ atomic clocks.
In the reported ages given in textbooks and other journals, evolutionary assumptions have not been questioned, while results inconsistent with long ages have been censored. When the assumptions were evaluated and shown faulty, the results supported the biblical account of a global Flood and young earth. Christians should not be afraid of radiometric dating methods. Carbon-14 dating is really the friend of Christians, and it supports a young earth.
Since Satan is the God of this world it is no surprise that the various establishments of this world whether it be the scientific community, educational system, or the media would all chip in to do their part to support and propagate this worldly theory of evolution that denies The Creator.
That is why you do not hear too much about any of these evidences of dinosaurs in more modern times for evolution requires dinosaurs to be 60 million years or older.
Remains of dinosaurs bone structure, skin impressions, nests and even eggs show that dinosaurs were very much like the reptiles of today, they were cold-blooded, only larger and more armored . However recent formulas on bone thickness determining body weight have them downsized by about half.
There is much historical proof of dinosaurs existing only thousands of years ago and not millions in the form of archaeological artifacts found throughout the world. Here are some examples ;
The Ishtar Gate dinosaurs:
At the Pergamon Museum in Berlin Germany, the eighth entry gate to the city of Babylon, the Ishtar Gate, has been reconstructed using the original pieces discovered in 1899. In 600 B.C., King Nebuchadnezzar commissioned a Babylonian artist to shape reliefs of animals on the structures of this gate. The animals appear in alternating rows with lions, bulls and curious long neck dragon looking animals.
The archaeologist who discovered it, Robert Koldewey, in 1918 proposed that these animals, named Sirrush, in the language of Babylon, Chaldean, was a close match to the dinosaur Iguanodon. The same word, Sirrush is mentioned in the book of Bel and the Dragon from the Apocrypha. Both the description and the images are on display in Berlin and appear as follows. Notice the distinct scale appearance the flesh.
In the Bernifal Cave in France, renowned for Neanderthal artifacts, is a picture of a dinosaur fighting a mammoth. Soon after the cave was subsequently closed to the public.
Science News was given the opportunity to publish this remarkable photo but declined.
As is common it seems that evidence against the prevailing teaching of long age evolution, is selected against and is buried alive by the scientific establishment. In his book, Buried Alive Dr. Jack Cuozzo comments on the vain scientific establishments selective silencing of information, by saying “ this is natural selection in the most literal sense ! “. (note see images 6e, 6e1)
Up to the 1800’s the Dayak peoples of Borneo and Sumatra, produce
multiple pieces of art depicting long-tailed, long-necked creatures with
a head crest, some of these animals resemble hadrosaurs. This
particular work is a ethnographic in the Museum of Budapest depicts a
creature that bears a striking resemblance to corythosaurus, apparently
being hunted by these ancient Indonesian people.
Chinese depictions of Dragon depictions are fairly common, this unusual
beaked dragon statue in bronze from the Han Dynasty 206 B.C. – A.D.220,
is not, because it displays numerous characteristics of the beaked
dinosaurs, Oviraptor. It has tridactyl feet configuration, metatarsal
stance, scale-like representation all over the body, except for the horn
which has a striated pattern, a long slender tail, elaborate head crest
and long neck.
Another fascinating Chinese artifact is the late Eastern Zhou
sauropod ornamental box, housed at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It
displays tridactyl foot and long neck and a head that resembles a
Brachiosaurus
Next we have an even older Dragon artifact from the Shang Dynasty, 1766-1122 B.C., that was advertised on the Chinese Antiquities Market, not as a dragon depiction, but a “ dinosaur depiction “ ! It
displays relief lines in a scale like pattern, a broad beak, a dermal
frill and a head crest that is strikingly like the dinosaur Saurolphus.
About 4000 years ago the Hongshan culture in China produced many
wonderful Jade Dragon carvings along with other clear animal
representations. In this next image notice the resemblance the Jade
Dragon has to a small protoceratops dinosaur.
From the same collection is a carving that resembles a baby Pterosaur,
with its wings folded back and its body curled, as if fresh out of the
egg.
The next image is from the February 26th 2000 issue of Science News containing an article that commented on a Hesione vase from 550 B.C. that is housed at the Boston Museum of Fine Art. On this ancient Greek vase are a series of somewhat unusual paintings including one that shows a monster with the head of a dinosaur being attacked by warriors with bows and arrows.
Forced to concede that this is an amazingly realistic dinosaur depictions Science News concluded that the paintings on this unusual vase simply prove that ancient people dug up and assembled fossils, however there are is no evidence for sophisticated ancient paleontologists !
The next images are of artifacts that were revealed from a 1971 landslide in the Girifalco region of Southern Italy that accurately depict a Stegosaurus dinosaur.
Notice the legs are large and awkward as to carry great weight not at all like those of a lizard.
The next images are of the Mesopotamian cylinder seal of Uruk, housed at the Louvre. The similarities are striking to a Apatosaurus in that the legs and feet fit the sauropods better than any other type of animal, the long neck connecting to the condensed stocky body, even the musculature of the ancient artist is realistic.
The only 2 differences are the head cartilage forming the shape of a frill or ears which could be stylized or accurate since we have no way of knowing from the skeletons we have today and like several artifact dinosaur representations, the supposed body size and weight was thought to be bigger.
Before the latest scientific formula to calculate body size and weight according to bone thickness that now tells us they were smaller than previously thought. Bottom line one has to ask where the artist got the model to draw such a really convincing depiction (note see images 6m above)
The next images are of the Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, housed in Palestrina, just south of Rome. Scholars believe this is the work of Demetrius the topographer, an
artist from Alexandria who came to work in Rome.
Scholars say it depicts scenes from the Nile to Ethiopia of black-skinned warriors pursuing some type of dinosaur. The Greek letters above the reptilian animal in question are, KROKODILOPARDALIS, which is literally translated crocodile- leopard, accurately describing this agile reptilian creature.
The next image was drawn by North American Anasazi Indians that lived in the area that has now become Utah between 150 B.C. and 1200 A.D. Even noted anti-creationists agree that it resembles a dinosaur and that the brownish film which has hardened over the picture, along with the pitting and weathering, attests to its age.
One evolutionist wrote, “There is a petroglyph in Natural Bridges National Monument that bears a startling resemblance to a dinosaur, specifically a Brontosaurus, with a long tail and neck, small head and all.” (Barnes, Fred A., and Pendleton, Michaelene, Prehistoric Indians: Their Cultures, Ruins,
Artifacts and Rock Art, 1979, p.201.) This once again shows Evolution is a religion relying on faith beyond fact ! (note see images 6o, 6o1, 6o2) above
On two occasions in the late 1800s, Samuel Hubbard, Curator of Archaeology of the Oakland Museum, visited an area of the Grand Canyon known as the Havasupai Canyon. As an evolutionist, he was amazed to find a petroglyph (carved rock drawing) of an elephant made by Native Americans. But another depiction was “cut into the sandstone much more deeply than the elephant.” Its height was 11.2 inches, with a neck approximately 5.1 inches in length and a tail of 9.1 inches. Hubbard photographed the petroglyph and eventually placed it in his scientific monograph Discoveries Relating to Prehistoric Man (1925, p. 10).
What kind of animal is it ? Dr. Hubbard believed that he had found an ancient drawing of a dinosaur. He wrote, “ The fact that some prehistoric man made a pictograph of a dinosaur on the walls of this canyon upsets completely all of our theories regarding the antiquity of man. Facts are stubborn and immutable things. If theories do not square with the facts then the theories must change, the facts remain.”
(Doheny, E. L., Discoveries Relating to Prehistoric Man by the Doheny Scientific Expedition in the Hava Supai Canyon Northern Arizona, 1924, p. 5.) (note see images 6p) above
The next images are of Ica stones from the Ica province of Peru, depicting several types of dinosaurs. These are so perfect in their depiction they have attracted unscrupulous forgeries to sell to tourists but the ones shown have been found by experienced reputable archaeologists, in tomb excavations, verified by microscopic analysis of the patina, where copper traces and oxidation in the etching grooves authenticates them.
(note see images 6q, 6q1) below
The next pictures concern the ancient Maya culture, which flourished around the 6th century, is famous for their excellent artwork. Bonampak is a Maya archaeological site in Mexico where there are a number of wonderful murals, including the remarkable one to the left. It shows the presence of various war captives to the ruler, Chaan Muan, along with some trophy heads (perhaps brought for sacrificing).
In addition to the human heads, the men are carrying an animal head and what looks a lot like a dinosaur head (enlarged in the picture to the right). Both the teeth and the large size make it doubtful that the Maya artist was depicting a lizard or snake. (Note see images 6q2, 6q3)
The next images are from deep in the jungles of Cambodia of ornate temples and palaces from the Khmer civilization. One such temple, Ta Prohm, abounds with stone statues and reliefs. Almost every square inch of the gray sandstone is covered with ornate, detailed carvings. These depict familiar animals like monkeys, deer, water buffalo, parrots, and lizards.
However, one column contains an intricate carving of a stegosaur-like creature. But how could artisans decorating an 800-year-old Buddhist temple know what a dinosaur looked like? Western science only began assembling dinosaurs skeletons in the past two centuries. (Pictures are courtesy of Don Patton.) (note see images 6r, 6r1,)
The next images depict the famous slaying of the ferocious dragon by
Saint George popular in medieval art. This depiction is at St. George’s
Chapel in Palau de La Generalitat, Barcelona Spain.
St. George’s slaying of this so-called Dragon was so popular in Europe that here is another rendering found in the Latin Book of Hours.
(note see images 6t, 6t1)
The next image is from the Holy Trinity Church, High atop Mount Gergeti
in the country of Georgia at the edge of Eastern Europe and Western
Asia, during medieval time.
It depicts two dinosaurs engage in
head-butting combat. The weathering and patina of these images certainly
seem to match the rest of the construction suggesting it is an original
carving.
The next images are from beautiful French chateaus built at the close of the Middle Ages and early 1500’s; the Chateau de Chambord, Chateau de Blois, Chateau Azay le Rideau, featuring salamanders that could survive fire. notice unlike salamanders notice unlike salamanders legs which are splayed out parallel to the ground these legs come straight down evidence supporting of much greater weight.
They were often depicted actually breathing fire like the biblical Leviathan.
A related image here is what was the National Church of France in Rome
from 1580 on, St Lois Church. see below below
The next images concern, In the 1920s thirty-one Roman-style lead artifacts were excavated near Tucson, AZ (see right). These are described on p. 331 of David Hatcher’s book The Lost Cities of North & Central America and were featured on the History Channel’s 2013 show America Unearthed. These lead objects appear to be religious in nature with Hebrew and Latin inscribed upon the swords, spears and crosses. They were buried about five feet below the desert surface in a layer of caliche (a cement-like mixture of desert soil and minerals)
Microscopic analysis of the mineralization build up on the implements seems to argue for them being genuine. A 1972 attempt to dig on location to search for additional objects was curtailed due to legal challenges. But one of the biggest objections to the authenticity of the Tucson Silverbell artifacts is the precise carvings of an apparent Diplodocus dinosaur on the sword (click right to see it highlighted). The artifacts have been stored at the Arizona Historical Society. (note see images 6q4) above
The next images are from when the Japanese company, Nissi, sponsored a television crew to go to the Mexican city of Acambaro, Guanajuato and produce a program for Japanese T.V. regarding the Acambaro figurines, found by Waldemar Julsrud in 1944 . The program entitled “ Did the Ancients See Dinosaurs ? “ was aired on February 2, 1997 in Japan. There is a stunning moment in the program as the Japanese narrator is looking over an animal figurine, and he holds it up next to his Japanese book on dinosaurs. Amazingly, the Julsrud dinosaur figurine matches the color drawing of an Amargasaurus cazaai in the Japanese dinosaur book.
The narrator quickly picks up another dinosaur figure and thumbs through the dinosaur book. This figure is very similar to the Sauraloplus Osborni as drawn in the Japanese dinosaur book. The narrator ponders the perplexing problem that ancient people about 4,500 years ago must have seen dinosaurs because they could not have known what they looked like by merely seeing their skeletons in the ground.
The narrator points out that when modern man, such as Sir Richard Owen, found dinosaur skeletons, the first life-size models of Megalosaurus, Iguanodon and Hylaeosaurus made from them were ridiculously inaccurate. The dinosaurs are modeled in very agile, active poses, fitting well with the latest scientific evidence and lending credence to the artists having actually observed these creatures. Here are some pictures of the Julsrud dinosaurs.
Here is validation of these finds. The unfossilized skeleton of a woolly mammoth, and a number of ancient human skulls were found at the same location as the ceramic artifacts, validating the antiquity of the site (Hapgood, Charles, Mystery in Acambaro, 2000, p.82.).
Dr. Ivan T. Sanderson was amazed in 1955 to find that there was an accurate representation of a Brachiosaurus, almost totally unknown to the general public at that time.
Sanderson wrote, “ This figurine is a very fine, jet-black, polished-looking ware. It is about a foot tall. The point is it is an absolutely perfect representation of Brachiosaurus, (previously) known only from East Africa and North America. There are a number of outlines of the skeletons in the standard literature but only one fleshed out reconstruction that I have ever seen. This is exactly like it.” (Hapgood, p. 85.) (note see images 6×4)
All of this is completely unacceptable to ‘old-Earth’ believers, of course, who insist that the last dinosaur died out 65 million years ago, way before people arrived. But there is other evidence, too, that literally shouts that the dinosaur fossils cannot be millions of years old—
The discovery of soft tissue, including not just stretchy ligaments with identifiable proteins, but flexible transparent branching blood vessels, containing an ooze that could be squeezed out like toothpaste ! And inside these vessels were the easily identifiable remains of red blood cells, even showing the nuclei, typical of reptiles.
Note see article by Smithsonian magazine @smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur-shocker-115306469/
SUMMARY CONCLUSION
It is easy to see that all this evidence of “young age“ dinosaurs has got evolutionists pretty SAUR ! LOL !
Even evolutionists admit these archeological finds represent depictions of dinosaurs ! When you combine this with so much evidence of a worldwide catastrophic flood that only contribute to the already huge flaws in radiometric dating, that is based on assumptions, in the first place, that even its founder admits, that are now proven by the latest radiometric dates differing from previous ones, it becomes undeniably obvious that Evolution is wrong .
Dinosaurs previously claimed to be 65 MILLION years old are now suddenly claimed to be 20 THOUSAND TO 40 THOUSAND YEARS OLD, A DISCREPANCY OF 64 PLUS MILLION YEARS ! This makes it align millions of years closer to Biblical Creation, than Evolutions long held 65 million years !
Isn’t it perfectly reasonable to assume that they could still be off ONLY 14 THOUSAND to 39 THOUSAND YEARS, since they were off 64 million years to start ?
So now we see those recent 20,000 – 40,000 Carbon-14 dating of dinosaur bones could easily actually be only 6000 years, as Biblical Creation has it !
This would bring it in line with Creations account of 6 THOUSAND YEARS !
ITS HIGH TIME EVOLUTIONISTS LET GO OF THEIR SATAN CREATED PRIDE THAT HAS CAUSED THEM TO BE IN DENIAL OF THE FACTS, EVEN ONES YOU CAN SEE AND TOUCH, AND COME OUT OF THE RESULTING DELUSION OF BELIEVING THESE LIES AND LET GO OF THEIR SATAN CREATED THEORY DESIGNED TO STEAL THE GLORY OF ITS CREATOR !
Don’t let Darwin make a monkey out of you and make you an Atheist !
I need to make a disclaimer and or clarification.
Carbon dating is clearly flawed, but some or even much is correct insofar as the Earth is indeed billions of years old.
I know, you are saying, he is contradicting himself. Chapter 12a will clear up and clarify. I must truthfully admit, nowhere in this site am I uncertain as to the veracity and truthful accurate understanding of the facts, I have presented, except as to exactly how carbon dating relates to the Biblical account.
Most facts from both sides do agree, however a select few, I am not crystal clear on. However the preceding chapter combined with chapter 12 and especially 12a, solidly upholds the accuracy of the Bible, to the fullest.