Quantcast
This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.
Print Friendly and PDF
Artwork by Joe Tucciarone.

Were Prehistoric Animals Real?

Posted on

Artwork by Joe Tucciarone.

Artwork by Joe Tucciarone.

NO!

Does my answer shock you?

No, I’m not one of those Christians that claim that all of the fossil record was put there by Satan to confuse us.

I believe in the fossil record as being a record of plants and animals that lived in the past and died.  But none of them are ‘prehistoric.’

Think about it.  What does the word ‘prehistoric’ mean?  It refers to anything that existed prior to history or more accurately, recorded history.  Prehistoric is an evolutionary term used to help convince people that there were billions of years of unrecorded history prior to mankind coming on the scene.

By referring to dinosaurs, pterosaurs and cavemen as being prehistoric, they are brainwashing you to believe that they all existed before modern man evolved the ability to write and record history.

But let’s look at it from a biblical perspective.  The first Hebrew word in the Bible is ‘barashith’ which means ‘beginning’ or ‘[in the] beginning.’ That’s very important to understand.  Before time, space and matter, there was only God.  He is eternal and before everything we can comprehend.  ‘In the beginning’ signifies that everything started with God.  At that moment, He created time, space and matter.  I know it’s difficult to understand, but God is outside of time, space and matter.  He is not bound by it like we are.

The second Hebrew word in the Bible is ‘bara’ which means ‘create’ or ‘created.’  The third Hebrew word is ‘Elohim’ which is one of the Hebrew names for God.  Although it looks like we would read the three Hebrew words in that order, we don’t.  Just like many languages when you translate them, the word order shifts.  When we read the opening of Genesis 1:1, we read it, ‘In the beginning, God created…’

The important thing to remember is that the Bible is the Word of God, given to man so that we can know Him better and have a record of our history.  Remember what 2 Timothy 3:14-17 says:

“But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.  All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”

God’s written record starts from the very moment God created time, space and matter.

Therefore, there is no such thing as ‘prehistoric animals’, is there?

Sacred and Profane History of the World Connected Volume 1 + FREE CD-ROM

The truth about ancient history has been suppressed for more than 150 years. In the nineteenth century, higher critics added thousands of years to the history books to discredit the Bible and its authority. This book, back in print after 200 years, will be the frontal assault that could overturn the whole of secular humanism. It connects biblical and secular history in way that proves the Bible’s chronology is correct. That’s why we’ve reprinted it and it made it available for the modern world to rediscover. The craftsmanship of this reprint is second to none.

“Years ago I purchased this rare book from a widow in a small West Virginia town. Her late husband was a collector of old history books. Once I opened the book I couldn’t put it down. Intricate maps of the ancient world unfolded before my eyes. Fascinating illustrations with the translation of ancient languages and charts with the ages of the Antediluvian Patriarchs were interspersed throughout the text. I’ve never seen Biblical and Secular history woven together in this way. I’ve always known that the Bible’s history was true–but my faith in God’s Word was strengthened like never before.” Ray Vallorani, Co-Founder of Tolle Lege Press

Rescued from the dustbin of history and back in print after 200 Years…

This special edition of The Sacred and Profane History of the World Connected Volume 1: From The Creation of the World to the Dissolution of the Assyrian Empire by Samuel Shuckford, D.D. was originally published in 1808.

The author dramatically weaves the historical accounts of the Bible and secular history together into one powerful narrative. Dr. Shuckford’s research confirms the accuracy of the Biblefrom the Creation and Fall of Man to the Dissolution of the Assyrian Empire at the death of Sardanapalus, and to the declension of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel, under the reigns of Ahaz and Pekah.

This beautifully crafted edition features a leather binding with gold foil stamping and gold-gilded edges. Inside you will find intricate fold-out maps of the ancient world such as the location of the Garden of Eden and the settlements of Noah’s descendants. You’ll also find charts and graphs on the ages of the patriarchs, ancient languages, and more. This book reveals lost history and confirms the truthfulness of God’s Word!

INCLUDES FREE CD-ROM of searchable / printable text!

Hardback with Leather Binding, 500 pages, Gold Foil Stamping, and Gold-gilded pages.

Print Friendly and PDF
 

This entry was posted in Age of the Earth, Age of the Universe, Anthropology, Apologetics, Christian Values, Cosmology, Creation Worldviews, Dating Methods, Design, Evolution, History, Language, Origins, Scripture, Theology and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

  • daves

    So you just don’t believe in the ability of humans to accurately date fossils. That’s about the same as saying Satan put them there to confuse us.

    • me u

      So, you basically don’t believe in the possibility of creation, right? I actually believe that we were created by God and I’d rather die to find out that I was wrong than believe that we evolved and die to see my Creator.

      • blackhawk

        Does it really matter if pre-historic animals are true ? God thru the Bible gave humanity a set of rules to make man survive as decent human beings. His law shows us the way to live our lives to claim a human spirit. Athiests however believing as they do believe in nothing. Why do they fight so to convince others to believe as they do ? There are no rewards to believe as they do .Why do they fight so ? Is it just to prove they are right ?They Gain Nothing.Let them believe as they wish . When we all die ;We will KNOW nothing is there is no God BUT neither will they.As far as our spirit going to God immediately after death ;I ponder over the words. What does it matter if the last raise 1st ? If that’s true ;We will not remember how long we wait for the raising as time will remain still with no rememberence and we will not know that the last of the dead and we raise togeather .Time will have no memory. All will think they just died .You cannot just believe IN God. You must BELIEVE Him.

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          Of course it matters. It shows that the fables in the bible are nonsense.

        • philote

          Physical things like that probably don’t matter to you, as you have already been persuaded that He is God, and able to “do far more abundantly than all that we ask or think, according to the power at work within us”. But for those who will not believe until they see it and touch it for themselves, God has provided much evidence, so they wouldn’t be able to say ‘we didn’t know’. Even so, they will not believe – Jesus said “If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how can you believe if I tell you heavenly things?”

          I know why I work hard at expounding God and his wonders, especially the wonder of the sacrifice His Son made to set us free from our sin. It’s because I have come to desire the same thing that God desires – “not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance”

          As for why an atheist would fight so to convince others – it is simply because they wish to persuade us to be of their faith as much as we desire them to be of faith in the risen Lord.

    • John Munro

      have you not read about errors in carbon dating?

      • John Munro

        I remember I was small when they began teaching the to far off stories about being goo then fish then evolutionists. The man Dawkins told people to believe if they doubted everything just happened to disrespect them and believe theuy are insane. I wonder if he understand Chistianity is they reason is not a communist
        with out the right to own anything? Communists do not own anything but christians do. The communist wanna be’s should give their possesions to Christians. They also should be greatful because if we were as they are
        … we would be murdered for our belief though we also believe in mercy ….

        • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

          Evolutionary thought, the conception that species change over time, has roots in antiquity, in the ideas of the ancient Greeks,Romans, and Chinese as well as in medieval Islamic science. You must be ancient if it started being taught when you were small.

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        Not from actual scientists.

        • Esther
          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I said actual scientists

          • Esther

            They have a perspective from their point of view. So how is that different from your perspective of the universe? Without a theory of everything, the final theory, the collating of the four forces, the point of view you espouse is based summarily on the claims of quantum mechanics that Einstein thought is “silly” for good reason. Googling ‘theory of everything’ here is one result of many: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/theory-of-everything.html I believe we will have a theory of everything when our Holy Father wants us to, and it will come from a true scientist who is not an atheist. Our Father is the ultimate logician. Things have changed a lot over millions of years which we cannot explain. Why not could there be change in events that change the half-life of an atomic radioisotope? Where is your law against that possibility?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Because there is no evidence that there have been changes. If and when they produce evidence of that occurring, people will listen. Until then, they are simply spouting nonsense.

          • Esther

            No that is what you say, that is not what real scientists say. When there is conflicting evidence real scientists say we do not know.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            There is not conflicting evidence. Which if you spent any time researching the issue, you would see. But you are not interested in evidence. You are interested in acting like a hurt schoolgirl. You have one agenda, which is simply to act like a gadfly.

          • Esther

            Of course there is conflicting evidence. Unfortunately for you I am going swimming and do not care what you think. Btw, you are ignoring a lot by standing so staunchly by your god Dawkins as John calls him. And yes you hurt me but that is receding fast as I see how you handle others through the lens of the knowledge I now have about you. You can try but you are hurting me less and less. Eventually you will be hurting me no more.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Good. Soaking your head can’t do anything but help at this point.

          • Esther

            I meamt it as a good example to those like yourself whose blood is obviously not circulatong the brain.

          • Esther

            Real scientists say they do not know. But that is not Hollywood enough for those who have Dawkins as a God. it needs to be Hollyweird that is!

        • John Munro

          oh so they can only be evolutionists to be scientists? like using a deck full of your card or they do not work?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            If they want to practice real science, yes, that is true.

    • Tim

      The bible also speaks of an animal so big that it takes down trees when it swings it;s tail.

      • arich

        God and Jesus in the Bible condone slavery. Nice God you have there…

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        It also speaks of a flood that killed most humans. It mentions many absurd ideas.

    • ddoozzle

      Daves, You make a good point that Satan put them there to confuse us. But doesn’t God say that “Satan is the author of confusion and the Father of all lies”? Science is finding that carbon dating is not accurate or dependable. (1 Corinthians 1:25) “Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.” (verses 27-28) “But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things (insignificant or lowly) of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are.” This should explain the whole thing.

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        No, he was joking.

    • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

      There is no “accurate” way to date fossils. All of the dating methods are based on assumptions, and when tested on samples of known age, those assumptions have proven unreliable. Also consider that fossils themselves are not usually dated directly. Their age is inferred from the supposed ‘age’ of the rock in which they are found.

      http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm

      http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        Of course there are accurate ways of dating fossils. Citing Creationist nonsense is just adding more absurd noise to the din.

        • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

          Please list these “accurate” methods, and explain how their accuracy has been verified.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Why? So you can claim they are false, even though they have been shown to be accurate by all scientific methods?

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            If they have been “shown to be accurate by all scientific methods” then certainly you should have some scientifically sound, observable evidence to back that claim.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            There is much evidence. However, presenting you evidence accomplishes nothing. All you do is wave your hands and claim it is wrong. However, given that the scientific community disagrees with you and that different methods arrive at similar dates shows your opinions are wrong.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            You can’t see my hands, so how do you know I’m waving them :)

            No, but seriously, your definition of “the scientific community” apparently includes only those with an evolutionary bias. All scientists do not buy into the evolutionary worldview, and even if they did, it would be utterly meaningless unless they had substantial, valid evidence that their ideas are true. Likewise, if I am to claim it is wrong, then I too better have a valid, factual reason for doing so.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1232840499 Eddie Reynolds

    This post didn’t amaze me about dinosaurs at all. There were dinosaurs….so what ! There was a statement in the post that floored me. I’ll cut and paste it….”Before time, space and matter, there was only God. He is eternal and before everything we can comprehend.” Dinosaurs in the grand scheme of things mean nothing. Man is for the most part always looking for, to or at the created for their answers. Speaking for me I’m more interested in the Creator than the created. If you can understand the Creator then the created is easy. Just look around your world at God’s created. His mind is beyond amazing. Who taught animals how to take care of themselves and their young…trial and error ? Who created the animals for Adam to name ? Were the dinosaurs before or after Adam. Who cares ? I suppose it best I leave the question of were there dinosaurs to the educated derelicts of the world. For me, It’s vastly more important that I know the Creator. One other matter that dawned on me. When Noah followed God’s orders and put all the animals on the Ark by 2′s, that was self explanatory. But something is missing in the story…..what about the fish ? For all of you who focus on the created. Maybe this is why they find sea creatures on top of mountains around the world. And once again the Creator should be center stage, but unfortunately He’s not. The dinosaurs take precedence even over the Creator.

    • arich

      Were the dinosaurs before or after Adam. Who cares ?

      >>> I care. One is myth aka Adam. The other is reality, past history. Your “God” has never existed. It’s a byproduct of our evolution over thousands of generations. Since most of us can’t accept the terms of life are relegated on such a brief scale in time and then we cease to exist; die. We have formulated and created a series of gods and a “God” over tens of thousands of years because, truthfully, we couldn’t accept, heck, we hate the thought of death and dying. But that’s it. No light at the end of the tunnel. No Valhalla or heaven nor Gehenna or Hades.

  • Robert A. Saunders

    This is unabashedly silly. We may agree that “prehistoric” refers to phenomena that occurred before there were people around to observe them — and, since this covers more than 99% of the 4.4 billion year history of this planet, there were certainly a plethora of such phenomena — including, of course, fossilization of plants and animals, going back hundreds of millions of years.

    • Harold

      Who was around millions of years ago to prove what you say>

      • Seymour Kleerly

        Science can prove it easily. It’s only for those that were not indoctrinated into a religion as a child.

        • Mike

          Or indoctrinated into secularism!

        • http://www.facebook.com/people/Shelley-Radmacher-Sherman/1499035679 Shelley Radmacher Sherman

          I’m afraid science actually prooves very little and carbon dating has been found to be highly faulty. Best to go with the Truth, which is God’s Word. This link may help to give some insight. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v5/n2/dinosaurs-ark

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            AIG is a great site if you are interested in nonsense.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            And comments like that are great if you do not want to actually read and analyze what they say, and attempt to factually refute it. Simply condemning the messenger is much easier.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            The views on AIG have been shown to be nonsense for years.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            And your proof of that is….?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Does Dr Jonathan Sarfati Have Any Integrity?
            John Stear
            Revised September 2006

            Dr Jonathan Sarfati is a Young Earth Creationist (YEC). He is employed by the Australian headquarters of Answers in Genesis (AiG) at Acacia Ridge in Queensland, Australia.

            According to his c.v. Dr Sarfati “obtained honors level in physical and inorganic chemistry, as well as in condensed matter physics and nuclear physics.” He also studied mathematics, geology and physics at Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand.

            Dr Sarfati writes extensively for AiG. His writing covers most aspects of science as it relates to evolution. However, like many creationists, he attempts to refute many aspects of evolution by writing beyond his field of expertise.

            In one of his recent books, Refuting Evolution, he, typically, revisits areas which have been refuted by scientists many times. This is a well used creationist tactic; tell a lie often enough and it becomes truth. Unfortunately this is often a successful ploy as most grassroots creationists parrot these lies as if they were really scientifically sound.

            It comes as no surprise then that Dr Sarfati also employes that well known creationist tactic of quoting out of context.

            At the end of chapter eight of Refuting Evolution Dr Sarfati quotes from Dr William B. Provine’s review of Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science, a guide book issued by The National Academy of Sciences:

            … evolutionists have had to abandon many “proofs” for evolution as well. For example, the atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine admits: “Most of what I learned of the field in graduate (1964-68) school is either wrong or significantly changed.” Creationists understand the limitations of these dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use certain present process to “prove” that the earth is billions of years old.

            Dr Provine writes that most of what he learned of the field of high school biology when in graduate school is either wrong or has changed. Nowhere does he equate his remarks to dating methods as Dr Sarfati dishonestly claims.

            Here is Dr Provine’s quote in context:

            Greater understanding of evolution is a laudable goal. High school biology textbooks are woefully out of date. I use a rough measure for how rapidly evolutionary biology changes. Most of what I learned of the field in graduate school (1964-68) is either wrong or significantly changed. Yet many high school textbooks could have been written in the mid-1950s. A boost from the National Academy of Sciences might really help.

            Dr Provine’s words can be found in the first para under the heading Evolution and Science [now deleted from the Darwin web site but available on the Web Archive] and strangely, Dr Sarfati supplies this link in his book. Does it ever dawn on creationists that some of their (few) erudite readers might want to verify a quote?

            I wrote to Answers in Genesis’ Web Feedback pointing out Dr Sarfati’s dishonest use of Dr Provine’s statement and received a reply from Dr Sarfati (although my criticism is yet to be published on AiG’s “Web Feedback” page). Below is the relevent part of the exchange: [NOTE: Follow this link to read the full text of Dr Sarfati's e-mail reply]

            Stear: Dr Provine admits that most of what he learned of high school biology when in graduate school is either wrong or has changed, but nowhere does he equate his remarks to dating methods as Sarfati dishonestly claims.

            Sarfati: That’s not at all what I claimed. The previous sentence–which you even quoted–makes it clear that I was citing Provine in relation to “‘proofs’ of evolution” NOT dating methods, and this whole piece was basically a parenthetical insertion illustrating the tentative nature of all claims about the past.

            Not good enough Dr Sarfati! Almost all of chapter eight of your book is devoted to radiometric dating. Your first sentence following Dr Provine’s words begins “Creationists understand the limitations of these dating methods better than evolutionists … “.

            Your explanation absolutely reeks of dishonesty, a deliberate juxtapositioning of text in order to deliver a very specific (and totally deceptive) impression. You, Dr Sarfati, are the consumate propagandist and would have done Joseph Goebbels proud!

            http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/does_dr_jonathan_sarfati_have_any_integrity.htm

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            The scientific community considers ‘creation science’ to be pseudoscience which “does not use any scientific reasoning.”
            Consequently, scientific and scholarly organizations, including United States National Academy of Sciences, the Paleontological Society, Geological Society of America, Australian Academy of Science, and the Royal Society of Canada have issued statements against the teaching of creationism. As a result, the National Center for Science Education, a science advocacy group, criticize AiG’s promotion of non-science. In direct response to AiG, No Answers in Genesis is a website maintained by members of the Australian Skeptics and retired civil servant John Stear for the purpose of rebutting claims made by AiG. In June 2005, AiG-Australia staff accepted an invitation for an online debate with representatives from the Australian Skeptics in Margo Kingston’s section of the Sydney Morning Herald. Also the website talk.origins includes scientific responses to claims made by AiG’s authors.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Short-circuiting science, short-changing our kids
            Ken Miller, Professor of Biology, Brown University, Providence, R.I.

            This week’s flurry of excitement with the near-completion of the human genome project shows how quickly science embraces change. The flood of data from the project has already generated a stream of scientific papers and meetings, and many of our ideas about human genetics have already begun to change.

            As molecular biologists produce and check their data, a new science of “genomics,” the study of whole genomes, is already beginning to show up in the curriculum, and biology education will never be the same. At the same time, however, an impostor is knocking at the schoolhouse door. Unlike the genome project, this one has no data behind it, has produced no scientific papers, can claim neither innovation nor breakthrough. The impostor, masquerading as a scientific theory, is called “Intelligent Design” (ID).

            ID is nothing more than the argument that evolution is not sufficient to explain the events of natural history, and therefore an outside intelligent agent (like God) can be shown to have involved itself in the history of life.

            A conference held June 22-24 on the campus of Concordia College in Wisconsin showed just how far removed ID theorists are from genuine science. A biochemist argued that evolution cannot explain the complexity of the cell, and offered as proof the contention that no scientific journal had ever published a detailed, step-by-step account of the evolution of a complex biochemical system. That argument sounded compelling, until the conference was presented with a list of published papers that had done exactly that.

            A mathematician claimed that ID was required to explain the appearance of new species over the course of earth history, which sounded interesting until he was asked to look at part of the fossil record and explain when “design” events might have taken place. He couldn’t, and he flatly refused to make any specific statements as to when or where these events might have taken place. Intelligent design, he made it clear, has as little to add to natural history as it does to biochemistry. As one watched the arguments for ID collapsing under the weight of scientific scrutiny, it became clear that the entire ID movement amounts to just one argument: that it is possible to see God’s plan in the workings of natural history. Ironically, that’s one assertion in which I and many other religious scientists would concur. But that doesn’t make it science.

            The weaknesses of the ID movement explain why its advocates wish to short circuit the process of scientific review: they know just how quickly their “theories” would disintegrate if held to scientific standards.

            Therefore, they’ve tried to do an “end run” around the scientific community, pleading with school boards and state governments to inject their ideas into the scientific curricula of public schools. Parents and teachers who are interested in quality education have every right to demand that our schools present the latest scientific developments to our students; but they also have every reason to tell the impostor of “Intelligent Design” that if it cannot stand the heat of scientific scrutiny, it doesn’t belong in the classroom.

            http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/id_ken_miller.htm

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            Pure fluff and no substance.

            “A biochemist argued that evolution cannot explain the complexity of the cell, and offered as proof the contention that no scientific journal had ever published a detailed, step-by-step account of the evolution of a complex biochemical system.”

            Total straw man argument. The proof that that evolution cannot explain the complexity of the cell has nothing to do with whether certain ‘papers’ were published or not. Rather, the proof is that evolution violates basic Laws of science and elementary principles of logic. Information, especially complex genetic information, cannot arise spontaneously or by chance because this would be a violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics (Entropy). Order decreases over time. There are no observable instances of information arising by chance, or complexity arising spontaneously from disorder.

            “A mathematician claimed that ID was required to explain the appearance of new species over the course of earth history, which sounded interesting until he was asked to look at part of the fossil record and explain when “design” events might have taken place. He couldn’t, and he flatly refused to make any specific statements as to when or where these events might have taken place.”

            He couldn’t? Well, then allow me. The design is obvious when looking at any fossil, as we observe the order and arrangement of the fossilized remains. As to “when” the design took place, that would not be readily observable from the fossil itself since there is no direct method of dating a fossil, and even if there was it would only tell us when the creature died, not when it or its ancestors were created.

            Not to mention, there is also a problem with the statement that “new species” have appeared over the course of history. New “species” are not the result of evolution, but rather Natural Selection, a re-shuffling of existing genetic information that results in slight variations within a kind (such as poodles, German Shepherds, and Collies all being different species, but yet all are dogs). No entirely new forms have ever appeared throughout the course of history. All creatures appear suddenly and fully formed in the fossil record.

            “The weaknesses of the ID movement explain why its advocates wish to short circuit the process of scientific review: they know just how quickly their “theories” would disintegrate if held to scientific
            standards.”

            Problem is, evolution is neither observable nor testable, while claiming to be an entirely natural phenomena, so it cannot be considered scientific either. The Scientific method requires that phenomena be observable and testable in the present, and evolution is something that supposedly happened in the past.

            Now, you could also say that ID (creationism) is neither observable nor testable, which is true, since we cannot go back in time and observe a one-time Creative Event, but the difference is that ID does not claim to be a natural phenomena like evolution, and so does not need naturalistic evidence to support its claims. In other words, events that claim to have occurred entirely within the framework of naturally occurring phenomena need proof that is based on adherence to natural Laws of science, while supernatural events, which by definition are not naturally occurring, need no such ‘proof’.

            It is evolutionists who are doing the end run, by substituting unobservable, untestable evolution which supposedly occurred in the past, for genuine observable, operational science in the present. They make claims to the effect that if one does not believe in evolution, it is equivalent to a disbelief in the advances of modern science, such as refrigeration, computers, or sending a man to the moon. Pure hogwash.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            “Issuing statements” proves nothing. I can issue statements all day, but if I do not provide factual, scientifically sound arguments to back up the claims contained in my statements, they are meaningless. This is simply a tactic known as appealing to authority to ‘win’ the argument, rather than addressing the facts and evidence, along with the usual dose of attacking the messenger rather than the message. Typical evolutionist tactics to divert attention from the glaring factual and scientific problems with evolutionary theory.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            They are referring to actual scientific groups.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            You mean like chemists, entomologists, geneticists, and Ichthyologists, all who study observable, testable phenomena in the present, rather than postulating theories and making speculations about the unobservable, untestable past, and whose discipline were founded by Bible-believing scientists?

            http://www.creationstudies.org/Education/scientist_believers.html

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            He “revisits areas which have been refuted by scientists many times”?. Um, like what, for instance?

            As for the supposed out-of-context claim, Sarfati’s reply to Stear’s inquiry seems to clearly explain what the context was:

            “Stear: Dr Provine admits that most of what he learned of high school biology when in graduate school is either wrong or has changed, but nowhere does he equate his remarks to dating methods as Sarfati dishonestly claims.

            Sarfati: That’s not at all what I claimed. The previous sentence–which you even quoted–makes it clear that I was citing Provine in relation to “‘proofs’ of evolution” NOT dating methods, and this whole piece was basically a parenthetical insertion illustrating the tentative nature of all claims about the past.”

            Just because Chapter 8 was supposedly devoted to radiometric dating (I cannot verify this as my copy of “Refuting Evolution” is out on loan to my brother-in-law) doesn’t mean that every paragraph or sentence within that chapter must focus exclusively on radiometric dating. That is utter nonsense. Sarfati clearly indicates that the comment was a parenthetical insertion. Just because the author of this article does not understand what a parenthetical insertion is or how it is used in the English language does not give him license to accuse Sarfati of deliberately taking a quote out of context.

            “In our speech there are a great number of phenomena, which interrupt it making it “non-smooth”. They can be united under the name of “parenthetical insertions’. The Oxford Advanced Learner s Dictionary gives the following definition of parenthesis: “Parenthesis – is a word, phrase or sentence inserted as an extra explanation or idea into a passage which would be complete without it. In writing it is usually separated from the rest by brackets, dashes or commas.”

            This describes rather generally the process of the incorporation into the sentence of elements, which are grammatically not connected, with the main sentence. In sentences with parenthetical insertions the unity of expression and content is sustained, and it is very important to understand why the speaker interrupts his speech by a fragment of an “alien” speech material. The answer may be – the speaker wants to attract the listener’s attention satiating his utterance with emotional overtones.

            This could be done on purpose or quite incidentally. Talking about the informative function and the function of an impact realized in fiction, we usually disregard the complicated interaction between the speaker and the hearer, the writer and the reader. It is not always necessary to turn to various expressive-evaluative means of the language. The process itself matters much. That’s why it is sometimes enough to introduce parenthetical insertions into the speech in an attempt to develop the message hidden between lines, to involve the readers into the process of the swiftly moving theme (action). All these questions demand further explanations.

            Practically all the insertions may be divided into three main categories:

            Deliberation: indeed, moreover, perhaps, of course, in a sense, it seems, no doubt, no wonder, at any rate, at least, etc.;

            Reference: hence, too, then, thenceforward, to my mind, exhypotherses, etc.;

            Exemplification: say, for instance, suppose we take, thereby, for example, etc.”

            http://www.beta-iatefl.org/832/blog-publications/cognitive-approach-to-the-study-of-parenthetical-elements/

          • Esther

            We rather not hear from those writing beyond their field of expertise… that would be you, Jeff Dixon. It is you who tells a lie often enough and it becomes truth, just as you said. It is your Alinsky radical method.

          • arich

            I got a good chuckle from it.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            And I get a good chuckle from your replies, because you do not offer a single shred of evidence or facts to support your ‘belief’.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You don’t care about evidence or facts, Key.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            And what exactly leads you to that conclusion?

          • Esther

            Neither do you.

          • arich

            Yeah I agree. Fairy tales are MUCH more reliable. So is believing in a cult that sprung from the minds of an egocentric tribe of sand dwellers over 2,000 years ago. Yep it walks all over science, lol.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            Your attacks on the messenger (the Bible, and by extension, God) show that you lack any evidence to support your beliefs. Mockery and name-calling do not win arguments, facts do, and you have provided zero.

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        Not who but what. We can determine the ages of old rocks by radiometric dating.

        • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

          Radiometric dating is based on decay assumptions that have proven unreliable when tested with specimens of know age, such as the igneous rock formed from the Mt. St. Helen volcano in 1980.

          http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            No, that is nonsense.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            And where is your proof that it is “nonsense”? Saying it proves nothing.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Besides the fact that almost every scientist accepts them?

            Isochron methods do not assume that the initial parent or daughter concentrations are known. In basic radiometric dating, a parent isotope (call it P) decays to a daughter isotope (D) at a predictable rate. The age can be calculated from the ratio daughter isotope to parent isotope in a sample. However, this assumes that we know how much of the daughter isotope was in the sample initially. (It also assumes that neither isotope entered or left the sample.)

            With isochron dating, we also measure a different isotope of the same element as the daughter (call it D2), and we take measurements of several different minerals that formed at the same time from the same pool of materials. Instead of assuming a known amount of daughter isotope, we only assume that D/D2 is initially the same in all of the samples. Plotting P/D2 on the xaxis and D/D2 on the y axis for several different samples gives a line that is initially horizontal. Over time, as P decays to D, the line remains straight, but its slope increases. The age of the sample can be calculated from the slope, and the initial concentration of the daughter element D is given by where the line meets the y axis. If D/D2 is not initially the same in all samples, the data points tend to scatter on the isochron diagram, rather than falling on a straight line.

            For some radiometric dating techniques, the assumed initial conditions are reasonable. For example:

            K-Ar (potassium-argon) dating assumes that minerals form with no argon in them. Since argon is an inert gas, it will usually be excluded from forming crystals. This assumption can be tested by looking for argon in low-potassium minerals (such as quartz), which would not contain substantial argon daughter products. 40Ar/39Ar dating and K-Ar isochron dating can also identify the presence of initial excess argon.

            The concordia method is used on minerals, mostly zircon, that reject lead as they crystalize.

            Radiocarbon dating is based on the relative abundance of carbon-14 in the atmosphere when a plant or animal lived. This varies somewhat, but calibration with other techniques (such as dendrochronology) allows the variations to be corrected.

            Fission-track dating assumes that newly solidified minerals will not have fission tracks in them.

            http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD002.html

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            But it is still based on assumptions. In short, it is comparing one set of assumptions with another set of assumptions, and plotting the relationship on a graph. The underlying assumption is that the ratio is initially the same. “Instead of assuming a known amount of daughter isotope, we only assume that D/D2 is initially the same in all of the samples.” So it is still based on unknown assumptions about the past.

            Other problems with the assumptions:

            “Specific Problems with K-Ar and Ar-Ar Dating

            In the first place, I am not primarily concerned with dating meteorites, or Precambrian rocks. What I am more interested in is the fossil-bearing geologic column of Cambrian and later “ages”. Since 40K/40Ar and 40Ar/39Ar dating are most commonly used to “prove” the ancient age of many life forms, I will discuss these dating methods specifically in more detail and show that they, along with the other common methods of isotope dating, are to be highly questioned. I will begin this section with a short discussion from Andrew Snelling, an associate professor of geology in El Cajon,
            California.

            According to the assumptions foundational to potassium-argon (K-Ar) and argon-argon (Ar-Ar) dating of rocks, there should not be any daughter radiogenic argon (40Ar*) in rocks when they form. When measured, all 40Ar* in a rock is assumed to have been produced by in situ radioactive decay of 40K within the rock since it formed. However, it is well established that volcanic rocks (e.g. basalt) contain excess 40Ar*, that is, 40Ar which cannot be attributed to either atmospheric contamination or in situ radioactive decay of 40K. This excess 40Ar* represents primordial Ar carried from source areas in the earth’s mantle by the parent magmas, is inherited by the resultant volcanic rocks, and thus has no age significance.

            However, are all other rocks in the earth’s crust also susceptible to “contamination” by excess 40Ar*
            emanating from the mantle? If so, then the K-Ar and Ar-Ar “dating” of crustal rocks would be similarly questionable.

            When muscovite (a common mineral in crustal rocks) is heated to 740°-860°C under high Ar pressures for periods of 3 to 10.5 hours it absorbs significant quantities of Ar, producing K-Ar “ages” of up to 5 billion years, and the absorbed Ar is indistinguishable from radiogenic argon (40Ar*). In other experiments muscovite was synthesized from a colloidal gel under similar temperatures and Ar pressures, the resultant muscovite retaining up to 0.5 wt% Ar at 640°C and a vapor pressure of 4,000 atmospheres. This is approximately 2,500 times as much Ar as is found in natural muscovite. Thus under certain conditions Ar can be incorporated into minerals which are supposed to exclude Ar when they crystallize.

            Because it is known that excess 40Ar* is carried from the mantle by plumes of mafic magmas up into the earth’s crust, it is equally likely that much of the excess 40Ar* in crustal rocks could be primordial 40Ar. Thus, we have no way of knowing if any of the 40Ar* measured in crustal rocks has
            any age significance. Additional to the primordial 40Ar from the mantle is 40Ar* released from minerals and rocks during diagenesis and metamorphism, so that there is continual migration and
            circulation of both primordial 40Ar and 40Ar* in the crust which is reflected in their presence in CO2-rich natural gases. Therefore, when samples of crustal rocks are analyzed for K-Ar and Ar-Ar
            “dating,” one can never be sure that whatever 40Ar* is in the rocks is from in situ radioactive decay of 40K since their formation, or if some or all of it came from the mantle or from other crustal rocks and minerals. Thus all K-Ar and Ar-Ar “dates” of crustal rocks are questionable, as well as fossil “dates” calibrated by them.19

            In summary, many scientists assume that since argon is a gas, all of it should have escaped from the lava before it cooled. Therefore, all the 40Ar in the rock should be the result of decay from potassium. Based on the measured potassium, argon, and the decay rate, they calculate an age. That is why it does not matter how long the magma was in the volcano before it erupted. They believe that when the volcano erupts, all the 40Ar escapes, and the atomic clock gets reset to zero.

            If all the argon escaped from hot lava of volcanoes that erupted long ago, then all the argon should escape from the hot lava of volcanoes that erupt in modern times too. But modern lava does have 40Ar in it. This is known as the “excess argon problem”. Scientists are well aware of this problem and use various calibration methods to “correct” for this problem. However, how are these calibration methods established? Upon what basis are they validated?”

            http://www.detectingdesign.com/radiometricdating.html

            Radiocarbon dating is also based on assumptions.

          • Esther

            No, atheist scientists accept them. Real scientists say they do not know. There are rarely scientists who look at conflicting evidence like your false god Dawkins and say they know absolute truth. THAT is absurd.

          • arich

            Jeff did you the source of its arguments? LOL… creationism.org as reliable as starwars.com.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            Attacking the source rather than dealing with the uncomfortable facts they present is the tactic used by those whose beliefs are not supported by the evidence.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            No, stating that nonsense is idiotic is simply speaking the truth.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            I’m not exactly sure what you just wrote, but I think I might, uh, agree.

          • Esther

            I agree, also.

          • Esther

            a double negative…

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I know they base their views on nonsense.

  • Bighoss

    There is a graphic record (see links below) created by prehistoric (yes-prehistoric!) man, depicting certain prehistoric animals, such as bison and deer and woolly mammoths, but these are all animals of very recent history, geologically speaking. I would like for some creationist to explain to me why, if man and disosaurs existed contemporaneously, there are no cave drawings or cave paintings of those more ancient (yes-more ancient) forms on cave walls. Since most creationists believe that dinosaurs were created at the same time as mammoths, giant sloths,wolves, bison, etc.,then we would expect that all such reptiles and mammals would have been bustling about the planet at the same time and that all of them also would be living contemporaneously with man. But the very talented humans who painted and drew upon the walls of European caves as far back as 40,000 years or so, must never have seen Tyrannosaurus.Rex, or Brontosaurus, or Velociraptor,or any other similar primitive reptilian fauna, since they never saw fit to memorialize these forms in any of their cave drawings. How come?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cave_painting
    http://www.jimhopper.com/paleo.html
    http://www.bradshawfoundation.com/chauvet/

    • Miko

      If one were to believe in the flood as depicted, then it is quite possible to understand that any drawings would have been “washed” away. The drawings we see of early man and the bison as you describe were made post flood. Huge dinosaurs could not get onto the arc.It would seem silly to bring a T. Rex onto the arc.

      • Bighoss

        Your answer explains nothing. Yes, it would have been silly to bring T.Rex into the ark. T. Rex and all the other outsized dinosaurs p[lus every other kind of land creature could not have been contained in the ark as described in the Bible. That is why I suport the idea of a local flood sufficient to accomplish its purpose, the eradication of evil mankind on that relatively small area of the earth that would have been inhabited at the time of Noah. The local animal population of the ark under such circumstances could have been accommodated in a vessel of the size described in the Bible.
        In any case, the standard flood story embraced by ultraliteralists would involve an ark that preserved all the dinosaurs along with all the other fauna on earth (including those that Noah somehow rounded up from the Americas). Assuming this to be the case (for the sake of argument), both dinosaurs and the mammals of the kinds depicted on cave walls would have been present after the flood along with Noah and his family and his later descendents. That brings us back to the present, and still relevant, question: Why no dinosaurs in those cave drawings and painting?

        • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

          T. Rex dinosaurs could have easily fit on the ark if they used common sense and took a very young pair aboard instead of full-grown specimens. A local flood would make no sense at all, since the Bible says it covered the tops of the highest mountains of that day. The ark was not “small”–it was as long as 3 football fields and taller than a 3-story building.

          http://www.creationtips.com/arksize.html

          Implying that the lack of cave paintings of dinosaurs ‘proves’ that there were no dinosaurs is simply an argument from silence that ‘proves’ nothing.

          • Bighoss

            What is YOUR argument about baby dinosaurs if it is not an “argument from silence”?

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            Do you even know what an argument from silence is? Offering a reasonable explanation for a so-called ‘problem’ does not fit the definition. You were doing exactly the same thing–offering YOUR explanation as to why dinosaurs would not fit on the ark.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            There is nothing reasonable about the flood myth as an explanation. There are too many reasons why it it impossible to have occurred.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            No, you mean there are too many speculations you and other skeptics have developed in your mind to justify your disbelief of a global Flood, despite all the evidence that exists, such as vast subterranean sedimentary deposits with millions of fossils in layers, including polystrate fossils extending thru multiple layers, that are found worldwide.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            no, I mean the flood myth is nonsense.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            Except that the evidence says it’s real, not a myth. If it were a myth, there would be a total absence of evidence, and the account would not be so universally found among people groups worldwide. There are no universal ‘myths’ of a worldwide destruction caused by meteors that I know of, for example.

          • arich

            creationips.com now there’s a reliable unbiased source of truthful information. LOL… Not. So how did Noah fashion the steel supports that a wooden ship that size would need? Here’s one for you all: IF God did cause a flood to happen then he’s a cold hearted bastard who couldn’t get it right the first time which makes him imperfect and not all seeing. What kind of a sick parent would kill ALL his own creation (children) like that? I can tell you; it’s a Hebrew myth stolen from another myth. A scary night time story for the kids.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            If you won’t believe any facts that come from a creationist web site, why should I believe any fables that come from an evolutionist web site?

            How did Noah fashion steel supports? Who said he used steel supports? I don’t find that in the biblical account. And the ark was not a “ship”, it was a floating rectangular box. It was not going anywhere. It was simple designed to float, not ply through the waters. Your babbling about it all being a myth is not supported by the evidence. We see the evidence of the worldwide flood by the vast layers of fossils we find, you guessed it, worldwide.

            God did not make any mistakes nor is He a cold-hearted b______ as you maliciously claim. It was man’s sin that brought the destruction. Quit blaming God for man’s doings. Man chose to deliberately disobey his Creator, and he is paying the price now, just as he did then, but in a less dramatic fashion than during the Flood. It is that very God whom you blaspheme that you will face at the end of your earthly existence, and you will be facing Him in judgement UNLESS He chooses to save you. There is still hope for you in spite of your militant, defiant disbelief.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            The flood myth is one of the more absurd stories in the bible. There is no possible way for it to have occurred the way it is described.
            http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
            Atheists do not blame god because we do not believe he exists. That does not prevent us from pointing out the silliness of his supposed actions in the bible myths.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            “Genesis 6-8 can be interpreted as a homiletic story such that the “world” that was flooded was just the area that Noah knew.”

            Really? Show me the exact verses that would allow this kind of interpretation.

            “Creationists argue against the local flood model because it doesn’t fit their own literalist preconceptions, but I know of no physical evidence contrary to such a model.”

            No evidence? What about the world-wide deposits of sedimentary rock, world-wide layers of subterranean fossils, including polystrate fossils that extend vertically through multiple layers?

            “However, one must wonder about a God who reportedly does one thing and then arranges every bit of evidence to make it look like something else happened.”

            The evidence supports a worldwide flood. See previous answer.

            “Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding.” Maybe not, but the ark, which was not a ship, only had to remain afloat for 150 days, less than a half year. Plus we do not know what kind of wood “gopher wood” is, so it is possible that it was from a tree that produces sturdier wood than the wood that was used in shipbuilding in the 1700′s, 1800′s and 1900′s.

            “Wood is simply not strong enough to prevent separation between the joints, especially in the
            heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered.”

            The Bible says that the ark was sealed with pitch inside and out, so any separation would not have resulted in leaks

            Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shalt thou make in the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch.

            Genesis 6:14

            “The longest wooden ships in modern seas are about 300 feet, and these require reinforcing with iron straps and leak so badly they must be constantly pumped. The ark was 450 feet long
            [Gen. 6:15].
            Could an ark that size be made seaworthy?”

            Answer: Yes, because of the aforementioned pitch, plus the fact that the ark was basically a floating rectangular box, not a ship with the contours needed to ply through the water. It simply had to float until the Flood was finished. We do not know whether any reinforcing was used, or what kind if it was, because those details are not included in the text.

            “Could animals have traveled from elsewhere? If the animals traveled from other parts of the world, many of them would have faced extreme difficulties.”

            This section, which I will not address point-by-point, simply offers a collection of speculations as to why it would be difficult, such as special diets, location, unique environment, etc. Of course there would have been special measures taken, but all these ‘problems’ can be overcome with a little commonsense thinking and preparation, along with God’s divine instructions.

            “How was the Ark loaded? Getting all the animals aboard the Ark presents logistical problems which, while not impossible, are highly impractical. Noah had only seven days to load the Ark (Gen. 7:4-10). If only 15764 animals were aboard the Ark (see section 3), one animal must have
            been loaded every 38 seconds, without letup.”

            The answer is right there: It was “not impossible”. I don’t see a problem with the 38 second loading time. If all the animals were gathered outside the ark, it could easily take less time than 38 seconds per. They could have put food just inside the ark to entice them. Ever see a group of eager dogs go through a door to get some food? I’d guess you could get a couple hundred dogs through a door with food on the other side in 38 seconds.

            I simply do not have the time to address all the other issues individually, but suffice to say that it is all based on speculation, not first-hand, eyewitness observation or experimentation. They presume that present-day conditions and difficulties would have been the same, without any evidence to back up the claim. To say that the Flood or the Ark was ‘impossible’ is simply speculation about the past. I find it odd that no one I know of questions how the Egyptian pyramids, a fantastic engineering feat, could have been built, but yet questions are raised by skeptics about the building of the ark.

            If you want to address any of the individual points presented, I will try to comment on those, but there is simply too much to cover in a reasonable amount of time or space.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Do you understand the meaning of the word interpret?

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            I know the biblical definition of “interpret” and it does not include private speculation as to the meaning of a passage or prophecy.

            “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

            II Peter 5:20

            “And they said unto him, We have dreamed a dream, and there is no interpreter of it. And Joseph said unto them, Do not interpretations belong to God? tell me them, I pray you.”

            Genesis 40:8

            “Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.”

            I Corinthians 2:13

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            So? The bible says all sorts of absurd things. It says not to stone non-virgins. It says god will smear dung on the faces of people. It says that people can cause bears to kill kids.

            People do not use biblical definitions of words. They use definitions that real people use, not mythical people.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            So what you are trying to say is that we can “interpret” the Bible to mean whatever we want, regardless of what the words themselves say or the sentences say, and without regard to the rules of language and logic? If it says “dog” I can simply interpret it as “cat” –would be an example of that kind of thinking.

          • Miko

            What I said to Bighoss. I don’t think there was a real reason to take all the largest of what we call dinosaurs. It is generally believed that all the continents were somehow connected. and also only a sampling of all animals were needed. Post flood started another era. An era without T Rex. If pre flood man drew pictures on the insides of caves with chalk and berry juice, it is very probable that it was “washed” off the walls of those caves with the flood. That would explain why there are no paintings of man and T Rex together depicted on any cave walls, only bison and deer and the such. Those paintings were made post flood. I think it is interesting that almost all cultures have some sort of “dragon” myth. It is my belief they were dinosaurs of some sort. They were actual memories of dinosaurs seen or stories told by Noah’s sons after the flood. I believe there were dinos. The bible states some form of large animals. I just don’t think there was a need to have T rex on the ark.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            I can’t really argue with that. The paintings would have almost had to have been made post-flood, as there was a great destruction and upheaval of geographical features as a result of the vast quantities of water. As to why there are not pictures of T. Rex we can speculate several reasons, some of which I included in another reply to Bighoss.

            In all likelihood, Noah would not have had to specifically take a T. Rex or any other specialized sub-species aboard the ark, he would have just taken a dinosaur ‘kind’, perhaps some type of lizard, and then after the flood, the different ‘species’ of dinosaurs and lizard developed through natural selection. It is possible that a specific form of T. Rex did not survive the Flood, but we would be speculating. I do agree that man was contemporary with at least some of the dinosaurs as evidenced by the “dragon” stories to which you allude and Biblical evidence as well. This passage in Job describes a very large creature:

            “15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

            16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

            17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

            18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

            19 He is the chief of the ways of God: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him.

            20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.

            21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens.

            22 The shady trees cover him with their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about.

            23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, and hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth.

            24 He taketh it with his eyes: his nose pierceth through snares.”

            Job 40

            And then the fire-breathing Leviathan, which was apparently very difficult to kill, in the next chapter:

            “1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?

            2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?

            3 Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?

            4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?

            5 Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?

            6 Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?

            7 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?

            8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.

            9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?

            10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?

            11 Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.

            12 I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.

            13 Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?

            14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.

            15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.

            16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.

            17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.

            18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.

            19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

            20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

            21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

            22 In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.

            23 The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.

            24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.

            25 When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.

            26 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.

            27 He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.

            28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.

            29 Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.

            30 Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.

            31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.

            32 He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.

            33 Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.

            34 He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            No, if he was going to obey god then he was required to bring every living creature, not just a “kind”.

            19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you. 20 Two of every kind of bird, of every kind of animal and of every kind of creature that moves along the ground will come to you to be kept alive.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            But you are assuming that the variety of animals that exists today was roughly the same as at the time of the Flood, which is unlikely. The Bible definitely speaks about “kinds” as in the verses you quote, but not species. Most of the species or sub-species we see today probably occurred through natural selection as different variations of the “kinds” arose through interbreeding after the Flood. Many of the modern breeds of dogs, for example, did not exist in ancient times, but were produced either through natural or artificial selection. Noah would not have had to take two poodles, two schnauzers, two German Shepherds, etc. but would have just taken two of the ‘dog kind’.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            So, you are now going to argue that there are more variety of animals today than when god created them? Even though 99% of all animals have gone extinct? Key, you should try stand up comedy.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            99% of all animals have gone extinct? Where do you get that figure?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            The continents were connected. 200 million years ago. By the time the flood supposedly occurred, the continents had moved far away from each other.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea

        • Miko

          I get what you’re saying Bighoss. I don’t think there was a real reason to take all the largest of what we call dinosaurs. It is generally believed that all the continents were somehow connected. and also only a sampling of all animals were needed. Post flood started another era. An era without T Rex. If pre flood man drew pictures on the insides of caves with chalk and berry juice, it is very probable that it was “washed” off the walls of those caves with the flood. That would explain why there are no paintings of man and T Rex together depicted on any cave walls, only bison and deer and the such. Those paintings were made post flood. I think it is interesting that almost all cultures have some sort of “dragon” myth. It is my belief they were dinosaurs of some sort. They were actual memories of dinosaurs seen or stories told by Noah’s sons after the flood.

      • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

        Where in the bible does god say to bring ALL the animals except the really big ones?

        • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

          It doesn’t. Nor does it say that they had to bring full-grown specimens aboard. A baby dinosaur makes much more sense, as does a very young specimen of any large animal. Space was no problem whatsoever on the ark, since it was as long as 3 football fields and higher than a 3-story building.

          http://www.creationtips.com/arksize.html

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Except that it takes years for those baby dinosaurs to be sexually capable of breeding new dinosaurs.

            No, sorry, the space on the ark could not hold all the animals on the earth. Besides, the animals could not disperse around the world afterwards. It is fascinating that the majority of marsupials ended up in Australia after the flood, for example or that any animal besides birds made it to Australia for that matter.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            So what? Where did it say they had to procreate while on the ark? They could simply do it once they were mature and back on land. No problem at all.

            You claim in your infinite wisdom that “the space on the ark could not hold all the animals on the earth” and “the animals could not disperse around the world afterwards”. Why? Simply saying that you believe it was not possible, without any evidence, much less any eyewitness observations, is meaningless. You do not know how many different ‘kinds’ of animals there were at the time, nor their size. But we do know the ark was extremely large.

            Australia was part of a large, contiguous land mass after the flood, and when the continental separation occurred, the marsupials and other animals who had congregated there were stranded and thrived.

            “And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother’s name was Joktan.”

            1 Chronicles 1:19

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Right, it just so happened that the majority of marsupials were congregating in the area that
            broke off and became Australia. And there were no horses at all. Or frogs or
            rabbits.
            Just as luckily, the animals that thrived in the Arctic were all congregating in the same area as well.

          • philote

            Well, we can’t say with certainty there were “no horses at all. Or frogs or rabbits”, simply because there’s so much time between when animals would have been migrating to those locations and today. There has been a lot of extinction between then and now; Death, the sad reminder of the consequences of sin. There might have been any number various animals which died out, or were destroyed by other types of animals or changing local climes.

            Why certain animals went certain ways, and others didn’t, we could hazard all sorts of guesses and speculations about. But with the information currently available – Biblical, historical, archaeological, we just don’t know. But not knowing one thing for which there’s little/no information (animal migration) doesn’t mean we have a problem understanding what happened just prior to that (global flood) for which there is much evidence, or why the global flood occurred (a judgement of the sin that corrupted and filled the world at the time with violence).

            Thanks for listening.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Since Fossils of Equus are found on every continent except Australia and Antarctica, we can say it pretty confidently.

            http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/horseevolution.htm

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            And so your explanation is….?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Evolution is the only theory which explains every pattern of migration and the development of certain animals in the various locales of the world.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            That’s too vague. How does it explain it?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Key, there are entire books written on one topic of evolution. To try and explain it in a few sentences would be impossible.

            There are websites devoted to offering this type of information, but we already know your view of them.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            And we already know your view of creationist web sites as well. But that is not the point. The point is, which worldview is the correct one?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            The reason that Creationist websites are idiotic is that they are not offering opinions based on scientific inquiry. They are offering opinions based on personal viewpoints.

            The sites I quote base their information on actual scientific studies. You show sites that offer statements not based on scientific studies, but simply what the authors want the answer to be.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            Please demonstrate some of these “opinions” on creationist web sites which you believe are based on personal viewpoints rather than ‘scientific inquiry’. And then show me the evolutionary counterpart to the argument and explain why it is more ‘scientific’.

          • arich

            Simply saying that you believe it was not possible, without any evidence, much less any eyewitness observations, is meaningless.

            >>> And the flip side to your lame argument is that we are supposed to believe it’s possible without ANY factual evidence OTHER than tales from an old collection of Hebrew and other myths called the Bible? Where is this mention of continental separation mentioned in the Bible? Chapter and verse, God, please?

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            “And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg; because in his days the earth was divided: and his brother’s name was Joktan.”

            I Chronicles 1:19

          • Esther

            I think atheists like you and Jeff Dixon who wanted to deceive good people made up the stories that have contradictions in them in order to confuse and control the people who hated them and would only listen to them if they told them over and over outrageous stories to scare them. Blessings on you and yours, אֶסְתֵּר

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            It is the religious who have been deceiving people for thousands of years. I am simply attempting to add a voice of sanity to the mix.

          • Esther

            I know you think that. I have a right to voice my opinion. I believe it has been the closet atheists, the people who feign religion but in fact are areligious are the culprits over the years as in Hitler. How you think Hitler was a follower of the good man Jesus Christ, is beyond me. That is a clear divergence from Christianity if ever there is one. The word Christianity means follower of Christ. Hitler disregarded Christ’s statement at His crucifixion to “Forgive them, for they know not what they do;” That makes Hilter a non-follower of Christ, a non-believer, an atheist. You have to admit at some point that being an atheist carries a connotation and responsibility other than simply being a humanist. They are two different things.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Nothing says they had to procreate while on the ark. Although I suspect if Noah attempted to prevent the lions, tigers and bears, oh my, from trying to procreate, he would have been part of the feces accumulation very quickly.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            Heh heh, you’ve got a point there. I wouldn’t want to try to prevent a lion, tiger or bear from doing anything!

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You do not think that this issue would not have been a problem for the entire voyage for Noah and his family?

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            Ever hear of cages?

          • arich

            And what about waste disposal? Dung collecting would have been a 24/7 job for thousands of people working 12 hour shifts. Non stop. And what about fresh water? What about the stress these huge animals would have on a wooden ship? What about food supplies for ALL these animals? Did Noah make sure to bring enough eucalyptus for the Australian Marsupial to eat? Did Noah know about Australia? Did the Hebrews? LOL…

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Fresh water after the flood would be an even bigger problem because there would not be any fresh water supplies anywhere on the planet. When it rained, it would be raining into salt water bodies of water. it would be impossible to grow new crops because of all the salt that would be in the soil at this time as well.
            The story is absurd on a number of different levels.

          • Esther

            You evidently do not realize the power of your Holy Father. Blessings on you and yours, אֶסְתֵּר

          • philote

            Sorry, Jeff, the fact that it takes years for the baby dinosaurs (or baby “anythings”) to be sexually mature and capable of breeding is not a problem. In fact it would be a benefit. Being in the ark for a year, small, non-procreative animals would have been a blessing. They eat small, they poop small, and there’s no new babies to contend with in terms of space, food, and pooh.

            Indeed, the space on the ark was not enough to hold every animal, or even two of every animal variant. But it was more than enough to hold all the KINDS of animals on the earth: the kinds that had the genetic information in them to produce the variety we see today as well as the variety of those that are already extinct.

            As for animal dispersion, it certainly would have been difficult looking at the world as it is today. But remember that following the flood, there would have been an excess of (a) water vapor in the air from evaporation because “God caused a wind to pass over the earth and the waters subsided”; (b) warm oceans from the “fountains of the deep” (water super heated by magma; underwater volcanos) that caused a higher evaporation rate from these large water bodies; (c) the great upheavals of the earth would have also resulted in much volcanic activity and the then wet and plastic crust would be easily breached with volcanic eruptions putting large amounts of dust and ash into the air. This combination of warm oceans, high atmospheric moisture, and large amounts of minute sun-reflecting particles (ash) in the upper atmosphere would have created a rapidly cooling climate and a resultant ice age within several hundred years after the flood. Migration of animals (they’ve had hundreds of years to breed now, so there are quite a lot of them) across ice and land bridges easily accounts for how many animals dispersed across the globe.

            Thanks for listening.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            No, it compounds the problem of being able to generate sufficient animals to insure the survival of the group.

          • arich

            Wow really? A baby dinosaur. Well imagine that. Imagine Noah and company walking right up to millions of mother dinosaurs and take their eggs. I would have LOVED to have seen that.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            What are you babbling about? Millions of mother dinosaurs? To take eggs? It does not say anything in the Bible about Noah taking eggs. All that was needed were two specimens, one female and one male, of each animal, not millions. Just because you do not like the fact that the flood occurred doesn’t give you the right to dream up a bunch of nonsense.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            No, you just want Noah to be stealing baby dinosaurs so that they can be relaxing on the ark.

          • Esther

            If Key wants the stolen, then you want them aborted. Blessings on you and yours, אֶסְתֵּר
            p.s. your poor mom.

          • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

            Stealing? How about preserving their lives? Remember, a Flood was coming that would destroy all living animals not on the ark.

          • Esther

            What does your mother think of you arich? I am sure she would like to see some sense knocked into that brain of yours. Blessings on you and yours, אֶסְתֵּר

          • Esther

            If one was built, think giants built the ark. There is evidence they built giant things in Egypt and in South America. There is also evidence in drawings on walls of people who were vastly bigger than the regular inhabitants.

        • philote

          Have ye not read?

          What the Bible says is this:

          “Of fowls after their kind, and of cattle after their kind, of every creeping thing of the earth after his kind, two of every sort shall come unto thee, to keep them alive.”

          See those two words: kind and sort? Well before exhausting taxonomies in latin were invented, and modified, and re-worked to try to understand how the different animals were (or weren’t) related, no one had a problem understanding that this meant a pair of the same type of things – a pair of “dogs”, a pair of “cats”, a pair of “horses”, a pair of “cows”, etc. etc.

          This means that a pair of Canidae would be all that is necessary for all the genetic variation of Canidae (Canidae Canis Lupus (wolf), Canidae Canis Lupus familiaris (dogs), Canidae Canis Latrans (coyote), and so forth, and so on. The same can be said, and seen, even in modern taxonomies, for Felidae (cat kinds) and the various families under the Ave (birds) class.

          So ALL the animals wouldn’t have had to be saved, only a pair of the same KINDs that could reproduce and create the variety within the kind through successive generations.

          Fortunately for Noah and his sons, they didn’t have to worry about deciding which ones were appropriate to bring on and which were unnecessary; or where they would have to go in order to get them – because “two of every sort shall come unto thee”… God took care of the tough decisions. Noah’s family just had to build the boat big enough (God specified the size) and laid out in the proper manner (God specified the structure needed) and get the necessary supplies in place. God did the rest.

          Thanks for listening.

          • arich

            A child’s fairy tale still believed by and rationalized by an adult child. How did Noah to get the poles to get polar bears and penguins?

          • Esther

            If all this is nonsense then it is men who made things up to confuse people. That is what I believe as a Mormon, but I know that Jesus is the Christ. That part of the story is true, so is our Holy Father.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            It is nonsense because the people who wrote the bible had no idea about science.

          • Esther

            How does not having an idea about science stop people from making up stories to scare people?

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Right, animals from every continent just happened to get to the Middle East to go on a big boat ride. Then all these animals trekked back to their homes. Not one died getting there, surviving on the boat ride or walking back home even though there were thousands of predator animals looking for a meal.

        • Esther

          I don’t know. I just know that giants built giant things, like maybe giant boats.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Jesus did not say anything in the OT. But facts have never been a concern of yours.

          • Esther

            Well since Jesus did not say it, then I do not expect we know anything about this case and the argument doesn’t matter one whit.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Yet, you keep harping on the topic.

          • Esther

            Harps. I do love harps.

            The basis of my studies is resonance which is the study of color in turn of course related to frequencies or wavelengths of light in atomic systems. The concept of resonance can be applied in both cases since a nontrivial interrelation is described by early giants in the field of chemistry and physics notably Max Planck, Albert Einstein, Niels Bohr and many others. The characteristics of waves, in the sense of music, for example, can be resonant with us. (but that is a different topic) What is actually detected in material systems is light in terms of its resonance of vibronic frequencies which then can be converted to its vibronic wavelengths. What is vibronic? Vibrations in materials do exert non-trivial influences on electronic transitions, detected as vibrational-electronic transitions, or “vibronic” transitions. Electrons in atoms are subject to excitation for example by the absorption of energy of a photon of light from an external source. Distinctive waves, vibronic transitions are detected by electrons’ absorption or emission of particular wavelengths, or conversely by performing a mathematical conversion, we find the frequencies of that light. Every system (that is, every different set of atoms) has their own individual characteristic wavelenghts or frequencies of light. We can never see these events in a way we see events around us. So we use highly sensitive instruments to detect these tiny vibrational electronic transitions. And quantum mechanics, qm, is devised to investigate/calculate their exact meaning in terms of those exact parameters. The mathematical problem solved was that of the very basic exact wave overlap to find the distance between any two of the atoms involved in the transitions on the order described by Franck and Condon in 1929.. The actual spectra of the systems confirmed results as never before seen. I can do the future work but it is out there in the literature for some one else to take up. It is very hard work and very expensive to do. In the future I prefer to enjoy the results of resonance in music and leave the harder stuff as it was left for me, for someone else who needs a Ph.D. in a new branch of science.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Yes, thank you for that pointless comment.

          • Esther

            :P you wish it is pointless.

          • Esther

            Ha. You have said “facts” about the old testament. For someone so unbelieving in his Holy Father, you are certainly the advocate. Good boy, Jeff.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            Just when I think it is not possible for you to post something even more stupid than what you have posted before, you rise to occasion and achieve it.

            That Jesus does not talk in the OT says nothing about whether the stories were written by a god or not. Therefore, yes, I can say something factual about the bible without accepting that Jesus is god.

            I truly enjoy seeing your “scientific” mind at work.

          • Esther

            My point is, Jeff, it is not entirely without the spark of faith. It is very encouraging. Watching you is more fun than science.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            I have no doubt you find science to not be fun at all. It requires thinking.

          • Esther

            You wouldn’t know, Jeff Dixon. It is not in your line of work.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            It is not yours either.

          • Esther

            Yes Jeff it is.

          • http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

            You have shown us how you work on solving difficult problems. You cry and lie.

          • Esther

            You are really full of bull. In fact I don’t see of anyone on this or any forum actually solving difficult problems. So when are you going to show us you know how? I think you must be crying and lying, I am not. Speak for yourself.

      • philote

        Drawings made before the flood would doubtless have been buried or “washed away”. But we don’t have to bemoan that fact, there is more than enough archaeological evidence for the generations following the flood, even up to recent history. Check out the pictures and histories of many of these finds at http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/

    • http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark

      Arguments from silence prove nothing. You yourself noted that the other animals depicted are all mammals or birds, all warm-blooded creature, but dinosaurs are reptiles. So right there is one possible reason for the exclusion of dinosaurs–they were only painting mammals or birds. And there are several other possibilities, such as that dinos were drawn on caves that collapsed, or that dinosaurs were so terrifying that they had no desire to depict them, or that the animals they painted were only the ones they ate for food (dinosaur burger? Yuck!), etc etc. And who says the cave paintings were intended as a complete repertoire or catalog of all the animals in existence at the time? In other words, absence of paintings cannot be used as proof that dinosaurs were not contemporary with man.

    • philote

      Actually there are more than just “cave paintings” depicting what we would call dinosaurs. Archaeological digs from all around the world have unearthed pottery, statuary, architectural reliefs and other artifacts from periods ranging from what is believed to be 2000BC to the late 15th century that clearly show creatures whose shapes closely match what we have unearthed in the fossil record and call “dinosaurs”.

      These items are in various museums around the world. Below is a site that has many pictures of these artifacts and the history of when and where they were found.
      http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/

      Before you pooh-pooh the site itself (they are a Genesis/creation ministry) at least give the page indicated a thorough look. The photography there should at least let you see that many generations of people did “memorialize these forms” as you put it.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chad.c.fernald Chad C. Fernald

    It all depends on what you mean by ‘prehistoric’. I take it to mean the time before written records were codified and passed down to the next generation. Adam, Seth, Enosh and so on did not leave written records (that we know of). To me this is ‘pre-history’ or perhaps a better expression might be ‘pre-historigraphical’ (history writing).

  • Seymour Kleerly

    Check your brain at the door please. Can I get an Amen!!!

  • arich

    I know it’s difficult to understand, but God is outside of time, space and matter. He is not bound by it like we are.

    >>> LOL If he is not bound to it like we are then how do you know he exists at all? Sadly you don’t. You are a victim of your parents superstition and just can’t let go. Why is “God” called a “he”? If “he” is not bound to time, space, and matter then he wouldn’t exist hence he isn’t a he. Maybe more like an “it”. But an “it” falls with in the realms of reality of space, time, and matter. This childish obsession with Hebrew myths is getting old. I can’t WAIT for the three major religions to finally roll over and die the death they should have 500 years ago.

  • Miko

    Is this board for unbelievers or believers in God? I suggest all stop replying to these argumentative types. Someone once said don’t cast your pearls to swine.

  • Miko

    It would be best for all believers to stop talking and replying to these guys. They are argumentative . Leave them alone. You will never convince them about the love of Jesus. They are blind. Save your energy.

ABOUT US | MEDIA KIT | CONTACT US | PRIVACY POLICY COPYRIGHT © 2014. CREATIONREVOLUTION.COM IS A MEMBER OF Liberty Alliance. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Proudly built by WPDevelopers