Racist Churches, Dinosaur Ancestors, And More Flood Problems

AiG posted their latest News to Note article today, and I intend to deal with one of the news pieces covered, and what it says about evolution.  You see, a church in Kentucky recently banned interracial couples from taking part in services.  Now, I don’t know about you, but that sounds pretty racist to me.  I mean, just because a couple is of two different races does not violate their freedom to practice religion.  There’s nothing wrong with an interracial couple being good Christians.  But that’s not my point.  My point is about a quote from the article:

“On the other hand, some evolutionists, including Darwin, believing human beings evolved from apelike ancestors, have thought some ‘racial’ groups are more highly evolved than others.”

How does this A) have any relevance to the issue at hand and B) make any sense?  I can see where AiG gets their “racist Darwin” concept from: the full title of Darwin’s On The Origin Of Species.  The full title is On The Origin Of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (Thank you, Wikipedia!).  Whew!  Kent Hovind pointed out his theory that favored races equals racism, but that’s not true.  The races Darwin refers to are just different kinds of animals.  In fact, if evolution is true, there’s no need for racism, because all humans are one species and there’s no superior race!

Next up, we have a piece on the ancestors of sauropods and ceratopsians.  That may sound like gibberish, but they’re very real families of very popular dinosaurs.  Sauropods are the long-necked herbivores that lived during the Jurassic and Cretaceous, and include such famous creatures as Apatosaurus and Brachiosaurus.  Ceratopsians are the frilled creatures from the Cretaceous, and include the hugely popular Triceratops, as well as big-skulled Torosaurus.  But, if evolution is true, where did all of these guys come from?  The answer is staring you right in the face.

The origins of the sauropods are perhaps best represented by the Triassic prosauropod Plateosaurus, whose image can be found below.  This and the next photo were obtained via Wikipedia, which is a lot more accurate than you’d think.

Plateosaurus

As you can see, Plateosaurus has a fairly long neck, which we would expect to see in an ancestor of a sauropod.  The similarities between the arms and the legs indicates that it may have been able to walk on all fours, like its Jurassic descendants.  While the size is drastically different from the Jurassic Park behemoths we know and love, it’s a large step forward for this kind of creature.  One species of prosauropod, Mussaurus, had babies no bigger than mice!  It’s fairly easy to see how, as plants became bigger to cope with more carbon dioxide in the Mesozoic atmosphere, the animals that ate them had to grow, too.  This next photo shows a dinosaur you’ve probably heard of.

Protoceratops

Ah, yes.  Protoceratops.  These ancestors of the giant Triceratops are well-known finds from Mongolia.  While they’re no bigger than a sheep, the ceratopsian characteristics in this fossil are easy to see.  First, we have the prominent frill, which, as everybody knows, is a key component in the mental image of a Triceratops.  Then we have the horn/beak formation at the mouth, which in more recent ceratopsian skeletons serves as the third horn.  We’ve found multiple other specimens of “protoceratopsids”, which serve as saurian transitional forms in the ongoing search for knowledge about dinosaur evolution.

For our final article, I’d like to point out two more issues with the Flood.  I already addressed three major problems with the Flood in one of my earliest articles, but I’d missed a few, so let’s have a look at them:

  1. Everest-sized erosion.  Let’s face facts: Mount Everest is pretty dang high.  It’s the tallest mountain in the world, for gosh sakes!  So here’s my question: since all water on earth disperses evenly (as in, you can’t lower the level of one part of a bathtub without lowering the level of the rest), how high were the floodwaters, and if so, how thick did the rain need to be?  I mean, you wouldn’t be able to breathe if sheets of water were always falling on your head?  Some creationists propose that the earth was smooth, and that the Flood changed its geology.  But then, that would mean the Flood would need to carve around something, right?  Or else it would just cover the earth.  Which brings me to point two…
  2. Where’d all the water go?  According to the creationists, here’s the answer:

By the way, that’s one of AiG’s After Eden comics, by Dan Lietha.  So, let me get this straight: God just blew the water away?  The only way that would make any sense at all is if earth was as flat as the Discworld, and that isn’t likely.  If the water evaporated, it would have taken a really long time for the Ark to land.  This is just mounting evidence against the Flood.  Keep watching Confronting Creation for a new Chick dissection!

Advertisements

, , , , ,

  1. Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: