Thursday, August 16, 2012

Evolutionary beliefs about dinosaurs are similar to believing in Santa Claus and the tooth fairy

When evolutionists discover there is compelling evidence that dinosaurs and man coexisted, they are often shocked. They realize that believing in evolutionary quackery about dinosaurs is similar to believing in Santa Clause and the tooth fairy.

Creation evangelists armed with information and extremely dangerous to evolutionary bunkum:


  1. Wow, what a compelling display of information. A bunch of people staffing a booth... let's see those slimy, dishonest evilutionists try to discredit THAT.

    1. Angelo,

      A few points:

      1. Are you illogically using the fallacy of exclusion? For example, is there any literature on the table in any of pictures given so far (5 pictures of this event were recently posted)?

      2. Do you have any compelling evidence that none of the people staffing the booth have long term memory capabilities. The reason I ask is that many people commonly give other people information stored in their brains.

      3. Did you address the information given in the post about dinosaurs and man coexisting? If not, why not. Please adequately address it. I am referring to this information:

      If you do not considerably step up your game, do not expect you next post to be published.

    2. geological evidence suggests that dinosaurs did not share a common era with humans nor does it suggest that all dinosaurs happened to disappear at the same time. Rock layers, sediment stratification, and geo distribution of fossils gives compelling evidence to suggest that these people are wack-jobs.

    3. Michael,

      I see that you crawled into your intellectual bunny hole and declined our debate offer to debate the 15 questions for evolutionists despite the fact that we are generously offering to present your evolutionary views to tens of thousands of creationists.

      Please do not be offended if we no longer deem you to be sincere and do not take your comments seriously.

  2. It really is a shame that there is not a single scientific evidence supporting coexistence of man and dinosaurs. Other than that, good post. Nice photos.

    1. P,

      A few points:

      1. An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, inspected an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting. See: and

      2. Is history a social science? If so, using commonly accepted historiography principles, please make a case that the most commonly cited history evidence for dinosaurs is not compelling. Since you are making the claim there is no scientific evidence, you need to defend your claim if it is to be taken seriously.

    2. Hum, 1924???? Are you for real??? (...) some prehistoric man drew an outline of a dinosaur, where another man left part of his moccasin embedded in Triassic Mud, and the molar tooth of a third man was found in the early Tertiary of the Eocene Period." And this, all collected in 1924, are the "scientific evidence" used to suport the claim?
      Again, reports from 1924??? Outlines of a dinosaur????
      With all that information in the booth, the only thing that you can recall are reports from 1924???
      And you dare to say that "you need to defend your claim if it is to be taken seriously"????

    3. Aqualung,

      Are you familiar with the appeal to novelty logical fallacy?

      Next time you post, you are definitely going to need to step up your game.

    4. “When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger.” Some obscure expedition, done with the Geology Knowledge of 1924, is the best argument that you have to show??
      You do known that the Geology that we have today is a litle more exact that what they had in 1924?
      Like other things like Medicine, Biology, Genetics...
      And you do know that we use all the fields of Knowledge when Science is done????
      Something is not wrong because its old, something is wrong when we use outdated Science that has now been disproven by several fields of Science.
      People once said that Cholera was transmitted by the foul stench of the sewers. Simple because the Germ theory of disease was not available at the time. And no one isolated the bacterium Vibrio cholerae.
      Again, 1924???
      I was on a Geology visit today, and all the Geologists there laughed at this absurd.
      So, do what Science does, use the Scientific Method and relate back the proof of your statements.
      Hum, but, you do know what is the Scientific Method?
      Dont you????
      Dont you????

    5. Aqualung,

      I would suggest taking a course in Logic 101.

      Here is why:

      1. Was the expedition obscure? If it was obscure, how does that make the evidence of the expedition any less valid? You are succumbing to the argumentum ad populum logical fallacy. If Galileo Galilei were alive, I am sure he would have something to say about your "logic".

      2. Your 1924 commentary is using the appeal to novelty logical fallacy. You certainly have not shown via empirical evidence argumentation that the 1924 find is not valid.

      If you do not considerably step up your game and stop using logical fallacies, I see no reason to approve your comments. Out of Christian charity, I will give you a list of logical fallacies. :) See:

    6. 15, do you suggest that the evidence found in one expidition that was not cross checked by peer reviewed sources stands to discredit all other evidence that has been cross checked and observed by 3rd party interests? If you do, I suggest thorazine.

      1924 claim, validity is not being questioned. It is certain the person who found this evidence surely existed and would have written their speculation as you explain. The SOUNDNESS of that evidence is being questioned by the lack of further evidence, 3rd party investigation, and cross checking of evidence.

      please suggest sources for this evidence that are outside internet manipulation (legal documents, written books, peer reviewed articles).

    7. Mr. McLaughlin,

      If you sincerely believe that having other parties examine evidence and make contra arguments is a valid endeavor and that macroevolution can withstand reasonable scrutiny, then you should have no problem engaging in a live debate on the 15 questions for evolutionists that is recorded and distributed to tens of thousands of people.

      Are you willing to do this? If not, I see no reason to further engage you as I would have grave doubts about your sincerity. It seems to me that evolutionists are fond of smaller audiences for debate but slink away when larger audience opportunities are given.

      The reason I say this is that I know that evolutionism is fluff and mere window dressing for atheism, agnosticism and deism (and excessive naturalism when it comes to historical investigations as well).

  3. There is no evidence that man and dinosaurs co-existed! The websites you quoted above are totally biased and not evidence at all. There are NO peer reviewed scientific papers that show man and dinosaurs lived at the same time in history.

  4. Sarah,

    Are you familiar with the genetic fallacy?

    If you could make your subsequent comments more logical, it would be appreciated.

    1. Yes I am familiar with genetic fallacy. There was nothing illogical about my previous comment. Please be more logical in your replies. All evidence shows that evolution occurred and that dinosaurs were around before man and not at the same time. There is absolutely no true evidence to the contrary. If you do have evidence please submit this to a peer reviewed scientific journal where it can be verified and tested. Then sit back and collect your Nobel prize. The onus is on you to come up with a single shred of evidence that man and dinosaurs coexisted.

    2. Are you familiar with genetic fallacy? If so, congratulations. Please, tell me about how smart you are because God gave you your big brain, and you did nothing because God gave it all to you. And please, explain more about how many, such as Stephen Hawking, (who, i have no doubt, is smarter than you and i) is atheist. He has to have an idea about what's going on. Unless, of course, you want to refute his various theories using well-researched, well-documented, and impartial evidence...

    3. She has a good point. There are no peer-reviewed scientific papers that show man and dinosaurs co-existed. Given that these papers are the basis for established knowledge in science, the inability for a Creationist to publish a paper on the subject calls your beliefs into question.

    4. How does the genetic fallacy weaken Sarah's points? It seems you are straining yourself to sound intelligent while not actually saying anything relevant or dealing with people's rational arguments. The simple fact is that creationists cling to these bits of "evidence", which are always proven to be not what creationists claim. i.e. Ica Stones, hava-supai carving, etc. What creationists conveniently ignore is the mountains of actual evidence disproving your illogical beliefs. Anyway, those are cool photos and I'm sure they are nice people who had a good time out there. I know you will never change your beliefs and I wouldn't want you to. Just know that clinging to absurd beliefs which have been disproven weakens your religion in the eyes of others, including the people you hope to attract.

    5. Ahh of course. Sites like this always need to censor comments so only certain information is getting out to their audience. For shame! Which is more trustworthy, an entity that censors information and declares that science and questioning are bad(Christianity), or an entity that says let's have conversations, think freely, toss out ideas, test them, and try to come to logical conclusions that will continue to be tested to ensure accuracy?

    6. Louisiannaguy,

      1. Are there multiple cases where the consensus of scientists was wrong and the Bible was right? See:

      2. What are some the downsides of consensus science?

      3. Did someone recently win a Nobel prize in chemistry after having difficulty getting his work published in peer reviewed science journals?

      4. Giving examples from the history of science, please give me notable examples where consensus of scientists was wrong. See also:

      5. Are there entire fields of academia where the consensus has been wrong for decades? Clue: Did the consensus of academics in university economics departments predict the 2008 financial crisis?

      6. I have had instances where I have done things novel in a field of human endeavor and had breakthroughs. Have you? If you have not, perhaps you should be less of a slavish conformist and be less ruled by consensus.

      Scientific breakthroughs and breakthroughs in other fields are often the result of being a creative contrarian and not being slavishly obedient to the consensus.

      7. Since this blog is primarily focused on the Question Evolution! Campaign and its
      15 questions for evolutionists, are you willing to debate the 15 questions and have that debate recorded and distributed to tens of thousands of people?

    7. LeSpy,

      Please keep your comments on topic and logical. For example, you employed the ad hominem and genetic fallacies.

    8. Jscott,

      I have published all or nearly all of the comments in this post and attempt to do the rest in the other blog posts as well - even the grossly illogical ones.

      I do require approval of blog comments to keep out profanity and to force evolutionists to actually respond to my replies to their comments. See:

      If I have a choice between honest and intelligent dialogues or illogical and profanity laced dishonest rantings, I am always going to unapologeticaly choose the former. If you don't like this, go to PZ Myers' blog whose participants have been labeled by a fellow evolutionists as "screechy monkeys". See:

    9. Jscott,

      Are you willing to respond to creationists arguments? Specifically, are you willing to debate the 15 questions for evolutionists in a recorded debate that will be distributed to tens of thousands of people? If not, perhaps you should consider the possibility that you are being an intellectually disingenuous blowhard.

    10. The beauty of science is that is constantly changing its mind and developing. Some theories get disproved and some (like evolution and gravity) become stronger as the evidence in favor of them is undeniable. I have not met a creationist with any reasonable evidence that proves their side of the argument. Hence why is it failed logic. There is no consensus side of science. As a scientist myself I am constantly challenged by peers to prove my point and there are always arguments against theories. This is where evidence comes into play. The more evidence there is the stronger the scientific theory becomes. All scientists set out to disprove/prove the status quo theories with rigorous testing and this is how scientific breakthroughs occur. For example the Higgs boson.

    11. Its not only the consensus of scientists that is used, we use all the Fields of Science.
      Doing Geology means that you must use Biology (yes!), Chemistry, Physics, Paleoclimatology, Hydrology, to name only a few!!!!
      And you say that all thoses fields are wrong???
      Because someone in 1924 said something, that no one, with all the Science at their disposal, as proven today...

    12. Aqualung,

      You seem to want to make science an errant and dogmatic religion.

      The reason I say that is because just because a particular branch of science makes mistakes or even big mistakes that doesn't mean we have to throw it all out. For example, I have no problems with chemistry. In the last chemistry course I took, I received the highest grade on the final exam in my class. But that doesn't mean that I am a science fetishist who maintains that every proclamation made by a chemist or a consensus of chemists is true.

      Lastly, since you are so enamored of the appeal to novelty fallacy and apparently believe that newer information is truer information, then you should have no qualms about engaging in a live debate on the 15 questions for evolutionists that is recorded and distributed to tens of thousands of people. If you are not, that certainly is an indication that you are merely bluster and have no compelling evidence/argumentation.

    13. Sarah Clack,

      You wrote:

      "The beauty of science is that is constantly changing its mind and developing."

      Most academic disciplines and fields of human endeavor change. For example, the fields of creation science, Bible archaeology and Christian apologetics change as new evidence and arguments come to light.

      A field changing is not a guarantee of validity and invalid paradigms can stunt a field. For example, the field of economics is always receiving new data. Yet, the consensus of economists in academia did not predict the 2008 economic crisis.

      Lastly, if you do find value in having your ideas challenged as you claim, then you should have no problem engaging in a live debate on the 15 questions for evolutionists with someone who has received post high school training in biology. Of course, if you make some excuse, then I regret to say that you are an insincere and hypocritical evolutionist.

    14. You unfortunately missed my point entirely! I was stating that science develops upon actual evidence and proof or disproof. The Bible never changes and as I said previously I am yet to see any actual evidence for creation. So I am not sure how you say the field is developing when there is no evidence for it in the first place. I am not claiming to be an expert in evolution just appreciate scientific reasoning. I am happy to debate on your blog as I am sure I will find it easy to disprove anything you say. I wonder if you are as willing to debate the many holes in creationism? You seem very keen to discredit evolution without expecting a counter argument about creationism. Everything must be tested not just evolution. Evolution is completely separate to religious belief as I am sure you are aware! In the UK for example all the high priests including the Archbishop of Canterbury (the head of the church) supports evolution. So saying that evolution is a fluff for people who question a God is ridiculous. Please educate yourself on your own church before making such claims.

    15. Sarah,

      I did not miss your point. I merely pointed out that many fields are changing and incorporate new information - not just science. For example, although the Bible has a very large amount of Hebrew/Greek manuscripts supporting it relative to other ancient documents, as new manuscripts are discovered of the Old and New Testaments they can further enhance our present English translations of the Bible.

      Furthermore, I pointed out that change and new information within a field is not a guarantee of accuracy and that economists in academia largely failed to predict the 2008 recession.

      The atheist scientists Lawrence Krauss bizarrely tried to maintain that 2 plus 2 is 5. See: Thank God that in the field of mathematics that 2 plus 2 equaling 4 does not change.

      The scientific community is not in a vacuum. Scientists are affected by the worldviews they hold. There is a reason why the scientific revolution occurred in the Christianized West for example (for example, unlike Buddhism, Christianity held the physical world was real and not an illusion). I would argue that atheism, agnosticism, deism and anti-supernaturalism affects evolutionists interpretations of scientific data.

      Next, Michael Ruse is an atheist, evolutionist and prominent philosopher of science. Michael Ruse admitted, “Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.”

      The Archbishop's of Canterbury's liberal form of Anglicanism is shrinking in the UK and is now being challenged by conservative biblical Christianity in the UK which holds to biblical creationism. See:

      Next, which worldview do you hold to? Atheism, agnosticism, liberal Chritianity, etc?

      Lastly, our Question evolution! group has access to very large Christian YouTube channels which reach over 20,000 subscribers. Are you willing to engage in oral debate with a gentleman within our group who has post high school biology training?

    16. Dear author, just like your 15 questions you seem to rely on leaps of logic and the building of straw men. Why do you rely on Economics and its failure to predict the recession as evidence that change and new information is not beneficial to advancing human knowledge or that scientific consensus is meaningless? Economics is a soft science that cannot effectively make predictions. Your argument fails. Physics on the other hand is a hard science that can predict. How do you suppose we just landed on Mars if science means nothing and can't be trusted to make certain predictions?

      Secondly, I am thoroughly prepared to debate the flawed distraction that you call 15 Questions. For example, the first question is entirely unrelated to the theory of evolution and is therefore irrelevant. Evolution is not concerned with the origin of life but rather descent with modification. It is possible to accept both evolution and God but fundamentalists have problems with this because it conflicts with their literal interpretation of the bible. I could go on for each of the questions.

      One last thing author, you make weak attempts to imply all scientists are biased and that their findings conform to their biases. This is clearly flawed and I shouldn't have to explain why. You do this because as a creationist you rely strictly on biased information. Everything you cite to comes from a creationist Christian website. The sole purpose of these sites is to affirm that God created everything and the bible is to be taken literally. Thus, only information that appears to confirm that notion is presented.

      So, since creationism is entirely biased and not science at all, it spends its time trying to poke holes and create doubt in evolution instead of laying out its own line of evidence. If creationism were more than just a small fringe belief, I would lay out 1000 Questions for Creationists.

    17. Jscott,

      Two things:

      1. You wrote:

      "Why do you rely on Economics and its failure to predict the recession as evidence that change and new information is not beneficial to advancing human knowledge or that scientific consensus is meaningless?"

      Are you exaggerating? Using direct quotations of me, please demonstrate I declared what you indicate I declared.

      2. I have seen atheists/evolutionists agree to debates and then back out of debates. I cannot say that I am excited about your declared willingness to accept the debate offer - especially in the light of you exaggerating what I recently wrote.

      With that in mind, feel free to contact VivaRamones or Shockofgod at this free chat room to set up a debate:,89538844

    18. It seems you are unwilling to answer our questions about creationism, which I find very revealing about the lack of confidence you must have in your own belief system. The Bible itself is not evidence and obviously needs to be verified like any other document and in many instances it has been found to be untrue to actual historical events.

      I ignored your reference to Economics as this has nothing to with the topic we are discussing so is completely irrelevant. This is a tactic I have seen used by many to distract from the actual questions asked and change the topic entirely because you cannot answer the questions in front of you. Please stay on topic.

      Again you are trying to change the topic with the Lawrence Krauss video. Luckily for you though I am very interested in mathematics and am very educated on the subject so I will try to explain his point. His t-shirt said 2+2=5 for extremely large values of 2. This is a mathematical joke. It is a pun on George Orwell and is referring to rounding errors. For example, if a number is 2.49 or below this can be rounded to 2, so you could have 2.4+2.4 then round these numbers to 2+2 which will equal 4. However, there is a rounding error in doing this, so in actual fact without rounding you would have 2.4+2.4=4.8 and the 4.8 can be rounded to 5. In essence Lawrence is not stating that 2+2=5 as he says clearly that this is wrong but he is explaining that inaccuracy in measurements can lead us to THINK 2+2=5 when the underlying principle is much more complex than it seems and this becomes even more apparent when dealing with larger numbers. When large numbers are involved the mathematics of how to deal with them changes from the classical view of arithmetic to the complex variable world which is different to what common sense may imply.

      Christianity is not held in the physical world. God and the Holy Spirit are not physical. It is in the imagination. There is also no hard evidence that Jesus ever existed. Christianity is built on faith alone, which by definition is believing in something without evidence. This is true for all religions. This is exactly why evolution is not a religion in itself because it is backed up by a huge amount of scientific evidence.

      I am curious, have you ever been the UK? I am actually British and the number of Christians is falling dramatically. There are always going to be the odd evangelical group but these will never take over the Church of England and it’s crazy to think that. Unlike the USA, the UK has no separation of Church and state. The head of the Church of England is the Queen and I very much doubt that will ever change. That being said in UK schools creationism is not taught as a science but in religious studies where it belongs. Evolution is not questioned as it is in the USA as the evidence for it is overwhelming. British people as a whole do not like narrow mindedness and are taught from a young age to question things and think for themselves and therefore I highly doubt evangelical movement will ever be a threat.

      Also as a side note to that point. Are you aware that the Vatican and Pope Benedict XVI are in favor of evolution not creationism?

      It seems like you are quite obsessed with putting people into belief boxes. I do not think that is a good way of judging a person. It shouldn’t matter if I am a Christian or atheist all my points are valid regardless of that fact. My beliefs are none of your business and should not have a bearing on the debate or on how you perceive me. You classify people by their beliefs, for example you said ‘the atheist scientist Lawrence Klauss”, this will clearly affect the way in which you perceive what he is talking about because you already think he is ‘against’ you and therefore will pick up on anything negative he says and try to use it against him rather than actually listening to what he is explaining. It is a shame and I would hate to be judged this way hence I am not willing to declare my religious beliefs.

    19. 1. Louisianaguy pointed out to you that there are zero peer-reviewed papers demonstrating the coexistence of humans and dinosaurs. You replied to that point poorly with this quote, "5. Are there entire fields of academia where the consensus has been wrong for decades? Clue: Did the consensus of academics in university economics departments predict the 2008 financial crisis?"

      Sarah Clack mentioned how science accepts new information in an attempt to perfect knowledge while creationism is stagnant. Your reply: "A field changing is not a guarantee of validity and invalid paradigms can stunt a field. For example, the field of economics is always receiving new data. Yet, the consensus of economists in academia did not predict the 2008 economic crisis."

      The bottom line is that the soft science of economics and its failure to predict has no relation to the hard science of physics, chemistry, etc. which effectively predict numerous outcomes, giving us all the medicine and technology we have today. Therefore, your argument fails.

      2. I went to that link and it required a login. Where can I get more info on the parameters of the debate? It seems odd that you are so willing to have random people from the internet serve as the voice of evolution in a debate you'll distribute to thousands. That confirms your audience has no concerns for actual fact or basic scientific standards.

      I assume the debate would only focus on those ridiculous 15 questions as getting into an in-depth discussion about what creationism actually is wouldn't benefit your cause. Fine. I have parsed through those questions and not one of them is valid. They all suffer from failed logic, incorrect science, gross exaggerations and other serious flaws. This is why no credible scientist will take the time to address them.

      Finally, evolution/creation debates are generally worthless because the two parties do not agree on a common set of operative fact. No matter how much observable fact an evolutionist irrefutably recites the creationist will just make weak attempts to point out things science hasn't found yet and then imply it must be a god, a Christian God.

    20. Jscott,

      Three things:

      1. Where did I say that "new information is not beneficial to advancing human knowledge"

      2. Where did I use the word "meaningless" or use some equivalent word?

      3. Based on your performance here, I have a feeling the VivaRamones and/or Shockofgod are going to easily and effortless trounce you in a debate.

    21. Sarah,

      1. I gave you a generous offer to air your evolutionists views to 20,000 people via an oral debate on the 15 questions for evolutionists. You did not accept my offer. I think it is you who is not confident.

      2. I had some ill health in recent days and I did not pay close enough attention to L. Krauss's words in the video. I mistakenly thought he said something that he didn't say. I decided to move on as I think it is more important to focus on ways to diminish the prevalence of the atheism and evolutionism religions. I do not regret my choice.

    22. Are you aware that all you're doing is engaging in the logical fallacy of shifting the goalposts? You are utterly ignoring the fact you likened the soft science of economics to hard science that can accurately make predictions. Your statement under #3 is absurd and based on nothing.

    23. I find it quite ridiculous how you only have two points in response to my message. Selectivity of answering is a clear indicator that you cannot successfully respond to my points. I asked you several questions that you ignored. This is very telling.

      I would pose the question to you if I set up a debate with a complete audience of atheists about creationism would you be willing to defend your position? Of course as you have done, I would not provide any information on the exact questions of the debate or nature of it. As I said previously I am happy to debate as long as it is a fair debate with each party getting the questions in advance and having equal time to talk. I fear this is not the case in the debate you want to set up. Please provide more details other than a login page. This is common practice in scientific debates.

      Why are you so threatened by atheists? If you have solid proof for your religion why should you feel the need to take down others. Why does it matter to you what others believe? If you are happy and they are happy why do you think it is your place to chance others? Sounds almost like a dictatorship.

    24. Sarah,

      I am giving you the opportunity to get your evolutionist message out to a Christian YouTube channels with a combined viewership of over 20,000 subscribers via an oral debate on the 15 questions for evolotionists. I certainly don't want to have to jump through a lot of hoops to give you that privilege. If your sincere and serious, you will contact VivaRamones or Shockofgod at,89538844 or

      Please don't make a lot of excuses or overcomplicate things. We both know if your legitimate and want to debate, it will happen.

    25. Jscott,

      I prefer debating with challenging people. Not amateurs who put words in other people's mouths.

      I suggest cutting your teeth in some creation vs. evolution forums to get some practice and then coming back to this blog.

    26. Excellent ignoring my questions once again! I just went on the link you keep sending and signed in and nothing happened! Just said this channel is closed. Also I went onto youtube and Shickofgod was blocked a few months ago for spamming people. Also VivaRomones has no videos to debate!

      Its been fun but I think I have proved that I am willing to debate and in fact you are the one who is not. Why don't you debate with me personally? I have clearly answered all your questions on every post, something you have not returned for my posts. Ignoring my questions quite rudely and accusing me of being scared to address issues. I think it is quite the opposite.

      If you are so against atheists I am not sure why you are using the internet which was created by a prominent atheist in the UK. Interesting that you can benefit from things created by atheists but yet hate them so much and want to get rid of them.....

    27. Sarah,

      Have you ever thought of reading some books on creative thinking? If you do, your God given brain may start thinking of powerful ways to solve your problem.

      For example, if you have any friends, you could ask them to send a message. You could go to a public library and be able to send a message there.

      You see Sarah, when the going gets tough, the tough get going!

      Here is the contact information a second time: or,89538844

      Best wishes on your newly empowered creative thinking life which will be full of possibilities.

  5. Lmao. Is this guy serious?
    Darn those liberal scientists all over the world for collectively deciding to carbon-date fossils and other worthless "science" things instead of looking at that super compelling drawing you posted of either a raccoon or a dinosaur. This is the worst liberal cover-up since that whole global warming thing.

    1. ArcadeFire and Sarah,

      Please see my comment to Louisianaguy above.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.