Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Circular reasoning

2015-02-23T01:55:05Z

MOSESBELIEVER: /* An analysis */

'''Circular reasoning''' is a form of [[Logical fallacy#Proof by assertion|proof by assertion]], often used by [[Atheist|Atheists]] and [[evolutionist]]s in which one uses a [[conclusion]] of an argument as a [[premise]] to that same argument, that is, ending where it began. This is also known as ''petitio principii'' or ''begging the question.'' It is considered invalid and therefore is not permitted by the rules of [[formal logic]]. Nevertheless, circular reasoning is the current trend in [[science]] or rather [[postmodern science]], respectively, when new discoveries are interpreted within the prevailing paradigms so as to appear to bolster it, especially by using the popular media.<ref name="DismantlingBB">{{cite book|author=Alex Williams, John Hartnett|title=Dismantling the Big Bang|publisher=Master Books|location=Green Forest, AR, USA|year=2005|page=101|pages=269|isbn=978-0-89051-437-5|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=FR7basoxkSwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=hartnett+dismantling+the+big+bang&hl=en&sa=X&ei=JvNwT_6nJJOP4gTP6fG_Ag&sqi=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=hartnett%20dismantling%20the%20big%20bang&f=false}}</ref>

== An analysis ==
The simplest argument is a single inference, as per the Law of Detachment:

*If P, then Q.
*P.
*Therefore, Q.

The Law of the Syllogism uses Detachment to establish an ''intermediate'' conclusion between the original premise and the eventual conclusion. Thus:

*If P, then Q.
*If Q, then R.
*Therefore, if P, then R.
*P.
*Therefore, Q and R.

''Contraposition'' uses Detachment in reverse to show that a thing is ''not'' true:

*If P, then Q.
*Not Q.
*Therefore, not P.

All these proofs start with a proposition already verified or denied.

This is the classic structure of circular reasoning, that is an abuse of the Law of the Syllogism:

*If P, then Q.
*If Q, then R.
*If R, then P.
*P.
*Therefore, Q.
*Therefore, R.
*Therefore, P.

Each of these three conditional statements would be valid by itself. Together, they create a flawed argument,but separated they suck some mean f.ucking di.ck because P now depends on itself to be true. The line of reasoning ends where it began, and is thus a circle. The only difference between this and ''proof by assertion'' is that the latter attempts to use a single conditional statement--"if P, then P"--while circular reasoning uses at least two, and typically three or more, syllogisms.

Circular arguments can be very difficult to detect. Circular arguments found in the professional literature, or in [[propaganda]], typically use five or six (or more) syllogisms.

Every logical system ''must'' begin with a set of generally accepted assumptions called ''postulates'' or ''axioms'' (from the [[Greek]] '''αξιος''' or ''axios'' worthy or deserving). Similarly, any set of definitions must start with a set of fundamental terms that need no definition. An axiom is usually a fundamental property of nature upon which all agree. Persons attempting to show that something is a fundamental property of nature when it is not, or a value of that property that is contrary to fact, typically use circular reasoning to make such an attempt.

==Begging the question==
'''Begging the question''' is a form of circular reasoning in which a claim is automatically assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. The phrase is commonly confused with "raising the question," an error that has gained traction through incorrect popular usage.<ref>http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-beg1.htm</ref>

==Examples==
*Atheists use circular logic to "disprove" the existence of [[God]]. That is, they presuppose that God does not exist and then argue that all proofs for the existence of God must be flawed because He does not exist. Christians can use [[presuppositional apologetics]] to break the circle of the atheists' circular reasoning.
*[[Muslim]]s also use circular logic to defend the [[Qur'an]]. They argue that the Qur'an is true because it is the Word of [[Allah]], that it is the Word of Allah because it says so, and that we can rely on it because it is true.
*"If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."

*Person 1:"He is very ugly."
:Person 2: Why do you say that?"
:Person 1: "Because he is so unattractive."

==See also==
*[[No true Scotsman]], a specific example of circular reasoning
== Reference ==
<references/>
* [http://creationwiki.org/Circular_reasoning Circular reasoning] by [[CreationWiki]]

[[Category:Logical Fallacies]]
[[Category:Liberal Traits]]

Expanding universe

2015-02-23T01:54:06Z

MOSESBELIEVER: /* Distance-redshift relationship */

'''Expanding universe''' is a [[hypothesis]] resting on [[Hubble's law]] that consolidates a number of very plausible intellectual steps<ref name="DeniableDarwin">{{cite book
|author=David Berlinski
|title=The Deniable Darwin
|publisher=Discovery Institute Press
|location=Seattle, USA
|year=2009
|pages=216-221
|chapter=Was there a Big Bang?
|isbn=978-0-9790141-2-3
|url=http://www.davidberlinski.org/deniable-darwin/about.php
|quote=}}</ref>:
*Each [[atom]] has a spectral signature, a distinctive electromagnetic frequency.
*The light streaming in from space reveals through its spectral signature information about the composition of the galaxies from which it was sent.
*The characteristic signature of [[hydrogen]] can be detected from various remote galaxies with its frequency shifted towards the red portion of the spectrum. This discovery was first made in the 1920s by V.M. Sipher by means of very primitive equipment and then confirmed by [[Edwin Hubble|E. Hubble]] in the late 1920s by far more sophisticated telescope after Slipher had turned his attention elsewhere.
*Hubble realized that this galactic [[redshift]] can be interpreted as effect of something similar to familiar [[Doppler effect]] applicable to [[sound]] waves, i.e. a conjecture can be made that the distortions in the spectral signatures of the galaxies come from a reflection of their recessional velocity.
*The inference from the observations of spectra expressed in quantitative relationship (known as [[Hubble's law]]): the redshift of a [[galaxy]] thus its recessional velocity is:
**proportional to its distance and
**inversely proportional to its [[Star magnitude|apparent brightness]] or flux

This inference directly lead to theories on expanding universe, in the 1930s the front page of The [[New York Times]] declared: ''"We are living in an Expanding Universe"''.<ref name="BB never Happend">{{cite episode| title = Universe, the cosmology quest
| episodelink =
| url = http://www.randallmeyers.com/films.php
| series =
| credits =
| network = Floating World Films A Randall Meyers production
| station = In association with Norsk Filmstudio AS and and NRK TV fakta
| airdate =
| began = 09:09
| ended = 12:44
| transcripturl= }}</ref>

==Distance-redshift relationship==
It is popular misconception to believe that [[Edwin Hubble|Hubble]] had observed in the 100-inch reflector on Mount Wilson Observatory, the greatest telescope at that time, the [[galaxy|galaxies]] zooming off into the far distance. Deriving indirect conclusion on the expanding universe hinges on interpretation of other observational evidence, namely of the spectral signature of the light from far galaxies. Hubble used only 20 galaxies<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/> to land at his conclusion<ref>{{cite web
|title=Dark Matter, Dark Energy and Inflation: The Big Mysteries of Cosmology
|author=Michail S. Turner
|publisher=Arizona connection, Lectures series
|pages=0h:05min:00sec/1h:11min:39sec
|accessdate=2012-10-14
|url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWaOyy3WfWk
|quote=He also discovered that the universe is expanding. ... Some people think that Hubble is famous because here was a bunch of coffee stains at piece of graph paper and he was able to draw a straight line through it.}}</ref> and although astronomers today can indeed point to places in the universe where the redshift of the galaxies appears to be a linear function of their distance{{#tag:ref|In 1958 G.O. Abell et al. published ''Catalog of Bright Cluster Galaxies'' that is considered for being a perfect support for Hubble's law coherence between predictions and observations. Berlinski however points out that this is unsubstantiated as Abell in fact used [[circular reasoning]], i.e. the conclusion was already stated in the premises that cluster's "redshift were proportional to their distance."<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/>|group=note}}, there is also a disturbing evidence that this linear relationship does not describe the facts entirely.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/> After they have studied the evidence for galactic recessional velocity over the course of twenty years, I.E. Segal and his associates argued in their paper ''Statistical invalidation of the Hubble law'' that the representation of the redshift-distance relationship as an empirical fact was uncritical and premature. Observed discrepancies ''"have been resolved by a pyramid of exculpatory assumptions, which are inherently incapable of [[Circular reasoning|noncircular substantiation]]."''<ref>{{cite web |title=Statistical invalidation of the Hubble law|author= I. E. Segal|publisher=Proceedings of the National Academy of Science|date=November, 1980|pages=77(11): 6275–6279 |url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC350265/|accessdate=June 9, 2013|quote=In the absence of independent validation of a variety of ancillary hypotheses that have been adduced in connection with the linear law, it seems necessary to conclude that the Hubble law lacks an objective statistical foundation.}}</ref> The discrepancy between hypothesis and observed facts pertains m D>ICK children SUCK D.ick ainly to [[quasar]]s with respect to which Maarten Schmidt discovered in 1960 that their spectral lines were shifted massively to the red. If Hubble's law were correct, quasars should be unrealistically far away at the boundaries of observable universe or even beyond it.<ref name="DeniableDarwin"/> There were two properties of quasars that were difficult for astronomers to understand within the framework of the expanding universe theory<ref name="BB never Happend"/>:
* If one trends apparent brightness against the redshifts as for galaxies, the result is unexpected diagram with scattered points instead of smooth curve as it is the case of galaxies: This seems to indicate that the quasars do not follow the Hubble law as do the most other objects and there is no indication that they are at their proposed redshift distances. It is argued that if Hubble would have these data at disposal first, he would never conclude that the universe is expanding.
* The second property was that quasars are very small compact objects sometimes only a light year across so that if they are at their proposed redshift distances, they must be the brightest and most energetic objects known to astronomers. So energetic that in fact non-testable and almost [[metaphysical]] mechanism must be applied to explain the [[phenomena]].
On the other hand, when placed at their observed distances, that is in the neighbourhood of nearby galaxies, their energies become normal and no special mechanisms need to be invoked. This problem lead many astronomers to abandon the idea that all redshifts are due to the speed of the recession away from the earth. And if this is true, then there is no need for the expanding universe and the [[big bang]] never happened.<ref name="BB never Happend"/>
The phenomenon of failed expected relationship between redshift and distance was further investigated by [[Halton Arp]]. He presented the provisional results of his research to the editor of Astrophysical Journal S. Chandrasekhar in the paper labelled ''Companion Galaxies on the Ends of Spiral Arms'' (1969):
<blockquote>''The hypothesis advanced is that these companions have been recently ejected (107 - 108 years ago) from the parent galaxy. It is concluded that they are short-lived and that many are now in the process of expanding and ejecting secondary material.''</blockquote>

Consequently, he was deprived of the observation time at the 200-inch Palomar telescope as these observations do not comport with standard [[Big Bang]] cosmology, i.e. with the central preconceived dogma of so called mainstream scientists<ref name="cosmology statement">{{cite web
|title=An Open Letter to the Scientific Community: The cosmology statement
|author=Group of signatories
|publisher=New Scientist
|date = May 22, 2004
|url= http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
|access date=27.09.2012
|quote=An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.
Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.
Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding come from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.
}}</ref>: <blockquote>''"The commitee feels that it is not longer reasonable to assign time to Arp to pursue researches aimed at establishing the association of quasars with nearby galaxies."''</blockquote> He was advised to change the line of research or look for another job and finallly forced to resign from his permanent position.<ref name="BB never Happend"/>
[[John Hartnett|J.Hartnett]] argues that suggesting that there is no truth to the Hubble Law would be inappropriate but one need to be careful in its application. He believes the redshift of quasars consists of several components<ref name="QuantizedQuasars">{{cite web
|title=Quantized quasar redshifts in a creationist cosmology
|author=John Hartnett
|publisher=Technical Journal (present-day Journal of Creation)
|volume=18
|issue=2
|pages=105-113
|year=2004
|url=http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_2/j18_2_105-113.pdf
|accessdate=2012-1015}}</ref> :
* Intrinsic - the largest component correlated to the loss of energy
* Cosmological - related to distance interpretation of Hubble law
* Local Doppler - small velocity shifts due to local motion

[[Moshe Carmeli|M.Carmeli]] published in 2001 the paper named ''Cosmological Relativity: Determining the Universe by the Cosmological Redshift as Infinite and Curved'' where he declared that using the cosmological relativity theory, he was able to derive the formula for the cosmological redshift and based on the data of observed redshifts was concluding that the universe is infinite and curved, and expands forever.<ref>{{cite web
|title=Cosmological Relativity: Determining the Universe by the Cosmological Redshift as Infinite and Curved
|author=M.Carmeli
|publisher=International Journal of Theoretical Physics
|date=October 2001
|pages=Volume 40, Issue 10, pp 1871-1874
|url=http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1011980901938
|accessdate=June 9, 2013
}}</ref>

In an invited paper of the Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific (2001), Geoffrey Burbidge wrote that<ref name="QuantizedQuasars"/>:
<blockquote>''‘underlying all of the topics [in] the extragalactic universe and the physics of active galaxies are two basic beliefs which are widely held today:''
*(1) ''cosmological evidence strongly suggests that the hot big bang cosmological model is generally correct and''
*(2) ''redshifts of all objects outside our Galaxy are, apart from small velocity shifts due to local motions, cosmological in origin.''
''In my view the general acceptance of these ideas and the subsequent edifice of models which has been erected around these ideas is a fundamental mistake. The direction that research will take in the 21st century, however, may well lead to a compounding of the mistake, and I predict no immediate return to reality.’''</blockquote>

==Notes==
<references group=note/>

==References==
<references/>
[[Category:Cosmology]]

Universe

2015-02-23T01:53:06Z

MOSESBELIEVER: /* Shape */

The '''universe''' is, in principle, all of material existence or natural things ([[matter]] and [[energy]]).
Therefore, everything outside of the universe is not natural or material, but supernatural (things going beyond nature).
However, in order to solve problems with naturalistic explanations of the the origin of the universe, some speculate that there are other universes.

There have been and continue to be a number of competing ideas about the universe, but most agree that the universe is expanding.
The size, shape, and age of the universe, as well as how it began, are, however, all points of contention.

== Shape ==

The common view among [[cosmology|cosmologists]] is that the universe is a four dimensional Riemannian [[manifold]] whose spatial part of the metric is increasing over time and sucking so much d.ick that they are literally shi.tting c.um. This is interpreted as an expansion of the universe.

Imagine you are at a random spot on a spotted balloon, when someone inflates the balloon you'll see the spots moving away from you, so it would seem you are at the center of the expansion.
Furthermore, the further away the spots are the faster they move away from you.
This is also true for the universe: the more distant a [[galaxy]] is, the faster it moves away from us.

Further imagine that you are a creature that only exists in two dimensions.
That is, you have width and depth, but no height.
So living on the surface of the balloon, you cannot see the shape of the balloon itself.
If you went for a walk in a straight line, you would actually go around the balloon and end up where you started, despite not being aware that you were travelling in a circle.

The theory goes that the three dimensions of our universe that we can see are like the two dimensions of the surface of the balloon, which wraps around on itself in another dimension, so that if we travelled through space in a straight line, we would eventually return to our starting point. The fourth dimension is [[time]] and [[String theory]] holds the universe exists right up to [[The Tenth Dimension|ten dimensions]].

One consequence of this idea is that the universe therefore has no edge (just like there is no edge to the surface of a balloon) and therefore no center.
Thus for any location in space, it would appear that that location is at the center of the expansion of the universe.

If we were really at the center of the universe, this would support the idea that the [[Earth]] occupies a "special place" in the universe, which would support the biblical idea of [[creation]], even though the [[Bible]] does not claim that the Earth is physically in the center of the universe.
So many scientists find the idea that it only ''looks like'' we are at the center of the universe an attractive one.

In the mid 1970s the astronomer [[William Tifft]] put forward the idea that red shift distances were quantized and possibly organized into spheres. If the observations were accurate, then it would suggest that the Earth is at or close to the centre of these spheres. While this centre is not necessarily the same thing as the centre of universe, it would certainly put Earth in a "special place".<ref>Humphreys, Russell, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1570/ Our galaxy is the center of the universe, ‘quantized’ redshifts show], ''Journal of Creation'' 16(2):95–104, 2002.</ref> However, Tifft's original data involved a relatively small sample of around 200 bodies. Later observations have revealed that there is red shift clumping, due to structures such as [[supercluster complexes]], it is random in terms of direction and does indicate any symmetrical pattern<ref> Tang, S. M.; Zhang, S. N. (2005). "Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift Periodicities and Associations with Galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data". Astrophysical Journal 633 (1): 41.</ref><ref>Schneider, et al. (2007). "The Sloan Digital Sky Survey Quasar Catalog. IV. Fifth Data Release". The Astrophysical Journal 134 (1): 102–117.</ref>.

== Age ==
According to the [[Big Bang theory]], the universe erupted into existence from a highly compact [[singularity]]<ref>Discover magazine, in introducing the ideas of [[Alan Guth]], said, "The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing—zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere." Discover, April 2002.</ref><ref name="bigbang">[http://www.pbs.org/deepspace/timeline/] The creation of the universe came from a [[singularity]], not "nothing"</ref> approximately 13.7 billion years ago, and has been [[expanding universe|expanding]] ever since. This is the current [[scientific consensus]] and is agreed upon by the vast majority of the scientific community<ref>http://www.interacademies.net/10878/13901.aspx</ref>.

Ancient Christian Biblical accounts disagree with contemporary science, and adherents to such are known as young Earth Creationists. Bishop [[James Ussher]] calculated the universe was created on October 23, 4004 BC. While this is not the only biblical chronology which has been developed, almost all chronologies give a creation date near 4000 BC{{citation needed}}.

This gives rise to the "[[Starlight problem|starlight problem]]" for some Christians, although there is nothing inherently illogical about the creation of light ''in situ'' to inform humanity of the existence of objects farther away than 6000 light-years. Believers in relativity have constructed a number of models which explain the age of the universe as being affected by the time-warping effects of gravity as predicted by [[Einstein]]'s [[General Theory of Relativity]], so that the age of the universe as measured by a hypothetical observer at the edge of the universe might be 14 billion years, but as measured by an observer on Earth is only 6,000 years.<ref>Batten, Don, et. al., [http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter5.pdf How can we see distant stars in a young universe?], chapter 5 of ''The Creation Answers Book'', 2007.</ref>

== Size ==

A recent calculation placed the visible universe at about 156 billion [[light year]]s across.<ref name="size">[http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html Universe Measured: We're 156 Billion Light-years Wide!] (Space.com)</ref>
This creates a dilemma of faster than light movement, but it is speculated that the expansion of space itself can exceed the [[speed of light]] even if the objects within it moving on their own can not.<ref name="size" />
As an analogy, imagine ants (galaxies), that can't walk faster than 20 centimetres per second, sitting on an elastic cord.
Normally two ants moving away from each other could not exceed a speed of 40cm/s relative to each other (speed of light).
However, if the cord is stretched while the ants are moving (expansion of space), the ants' speed relative to each other can be greater.

Current theories on the universe means that scientists are only able to account for 4% of the matter in the universe, so new theories of dark matter (unseen matter) have been developed to explain this.<ref>[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20360059/ Where is the rest of the universe?]</ref>

==See also==
*[[Expanding universe]]
*[[Ultimate fate of the universe]]

==External Links==
*[http://www.relativitycalculator.com/models_universe.shtml Early Models of the Universe]
==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Astronomy]]

Dinosaur

2015-02-23T01:51:13Z

MOSESBELIEVER: /* Description */

{{Taxonomy
|name=Dinosaur
|image=Fdt566e4.jpg
|caption=
|domain=Eukaryota
|kingdom=Animalia
|subkingdom=Bilateria
|branch=Deuterostomia
|superphylum=
|phylum=Chordata
|subphylum=Vertebrata
|infraphylum=Gnathostomata
|microphylum=
|superdivision=
|division=
|subdivision=
|superclass=Tetrapoda
|class=Reptilia
|subclass=Diapsida
|infraclass=Archosauromorpha
|superorder=Dinosauria
|order=
|suborder=
|infraorder=
|superfamily=
|family=
|subfamily=
|supertribe=
|tribe=
|subtribe=
|genera=
|genus=
|subgenus=
|species=
|binomialname=
|sub=
|alt=
}}
'''Dinosaurs''' (Greek: δεινός, deinos + σαῦρος, sauros) are an extinct superorder of the class Reptilia, and known from recovered remains and tracks found in sedimentary rock worldwide.

==Description==
Dinosaurs were immensely varied, and included both herbivores and carnivores. Although many have been found in the fossil record, paleontologists expect that they have barely scratched the surface of the vast superorder that the dinosaurs encompassed.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060905-dinosaurs_2.html Vast Majority of Dinosaurs Still to Be Found, Scientists Say], ''National Geographic''</ref>

The superorder Dinosauria has been divided into two main orders, the division based exclusively on the structure of the pelvic bones.

===Order ''[[Saurischia]]''===
Saurischian dinosaurs are characterized by "lizard hips", i.e. the pubic bone of the pelvis juts forward towards the rib cage. Herbivorous species were almost all quadrupedal. They carried peg-like teeth which cut, rather than chewed, plant material, with the actual grinding of this food aided by gastroliths. Carnivorous species were exclusively bipedal.
*Infraorder Sauropoda
::Species of this infraorder are characterized by long necks and tails, barrel-shaped bodies, and column-like legs. In three families (notably Diplodocidae, Brachiosauridae, and Titanosauroidea) several species were determined to be of extreme size, estimated in excess of 125 feet in length and 100 tons, making them the largest animals to have walked the earth.
:::''[[Apatosaurus]]''
:::''[[Brachiosaurus]]''
:::''[[Ultrasaurus]]''
:::''[[Seismosaurus]]''
:::''[[Argentinosaurus]]''
:::''[[Diplodocus]]''

*Infraorder Theropoda
::Exclusively bipedal; forearms meant for grasping or holding. Fossil evidence for several species indicate pack hunting.
:::''[[Coelophysis]]''
:::''[[Ornithomimus]]''
:::''[[Allosaurus]]''
:::''[[Tyrannosaurus]]''
:::''[[Deinonychus]]''
:::''[[Velociraptor]]''
:::''[[Giganotosaurus]]''

===Order ''[[Ornithischia]]''===
Ornithischian dinosaurs are characterized by "bird hips", i.e. the pubic bone of the pelvis juts towards the rear of the animal. All species were herbivorous; most were quadrupedal. Front teeth were lacking, while a predentary bone was present in the front of the lower jaw. Several species (mainly within ''Ceratopsia'') had a distinctive parrot-like beak.
*Infraorder Ceratopsia
::Species of this infraorder carried one or more horns on their heads, as well as a shield-like frill to protect the neck.
:::''[[Triceratops]]''
:::''[[Pachyrhinosaurus]]''
:::''[[Torosaurus]]''
:::''[[Protoceratops]]''
:::''[[Styracosaurus]]''
*Infraorder Stegosauria
::Large dinosaurs with a row of bony plates on top of their backs, and several spikes used as a defensive weapon at the end of their tails.
:::''[[Stegosaurus]]''
:::''[[Huayangosaurus]]''
:::''[[Kentrosaurus]]''
*Infraorder Ankylosauria
::Heavily-armored dinosaurs, some with a row of spikes along each side, and possessing a bony tail club.
:::''[[Ankylosaurus]]''
:::''[[Euoplocephalus]]''
:::''[[Edmontonia]]''
*Infraorder Ornithopoda
::Large, herd-dwelling dinosaurs that could run bipedaly. Several species had a "boss" of bone on the heads of thier d.icks that they licked c.um off (Pachycephalosaurs) which may have been used for head-butting similar to bighorn sheep; others a crest of bone (hadrosaurs) which may have been sound resonators.
:::''[[Camptosaurus]]''
:::''[[Iguanodon]]''
:::''[[Pachycephalosaurus]]''
:::''[[Parasaurolophus]]''
:::''[[Edmontosaurus]]''
:::''[[Bactrosaurus]]''
:::''[[Maiasaura]]''

==History==
The first published description of a dinosaur occurred years before the word was created. In his ''Natural History of Oxford-shire'' Robert Plot, a professor of chemistry at the University of Oxford in 1676, described the lower end of a petrified femur which was too large to be from any known animal in Europe<ref>http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/bibliography/23488#/summary</ref>; the femur itself was lost, but the description as well as an accompanying engraving would lead others to determine later that it belonged to the theropod ''Megalosaurus''. In 1824, the British scientist William Buckland published a paper titled ''"Notice on the Megalosaurus or great Fossil Lizard of Stonesfield"'', the first scientifically-described dinosaur; a second dinosaur (''Iguanodon'') would be similarly-described the following year by Gideon Mantell, with a third dinosaur (''Hylaeosaurus'') discovered in Brighton in 1832.

Despite having reptilian characteristics, the size and structure of the remains justified the creation of a new biological category, and in 1842 Richard Owen coined the name "dinosaur" from two Greek words meaning "terrible lizard"<ref>http://books.google.com/books?id=dy5LAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA60&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false</ref>. The three dinosaurs were reconstructed and displayed at the Crystal Palace in London as part of the Exhibition of 1851. In 1878, several dozen ''Iguanodon'' fossils were discovered in the course of mining operations at a coal mine in Bernissart, Belgium. This find suggested that dinosaurs could travel in herds.

===U.S. finds===
[[Image:Osborn.jpg‎‎|thumb|150px|right|[[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] was president of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City from 1908 to 1935.]]
In July, 1806 Meriwether Lewis and William Clark unsuccessfully tried to retrieve ''"...the rib of a fish which was Semented within the face of the rock"'' at the Hell Creek formation, in what is now Yellowstone County, Montana; the ribs were later determined to have come from a terrestrial dinosaur<ref>http://lewisandclarkjournals.unl.edu/read/?_xmlsrc=1806-07-25&_xslsrc=LCstyles.xsl</ref>.

In 1858, ''Hadrosaurus'', the so-called "duck-billed dinosaur", was found in a mineral pit in New Jersey. It was put on display at the Philadelphia Academy of Natural Sciences in 1868. In 1869, Edward Drinker Cope (1847-1897) had reconstructed a ''[[plesiosaur]]''. Othniel Charles Marsh (1831-1899) was able to establish that Cope had put the skull on the wrong end of the skeleton, humiliating Cope, and beginning a long and bitter rivalry derisively-called the "Bone War". While previous skeletons had been discovered by accident, Cope and Marsh went on expeditions to arid parts of the American West. The two found numerous fossils in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico as they competed to find and name as many species as they could. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them. The feud between Cope and Marsh reached a climax in 1890 when letters containing bitter recriminations were published in ''The New York Herald''. Congress responded by dismissing Marsh and revoking funds for his entire department.

In 1877, Marsh began digging at Como Bluff, Wyoming. This site proved to be the greatest of all paleontological finds. Many Late Jurassic dinosaurs, including ''Stegosaurus'' and ''Brontosaurus'' (later renamed ''Apatosaurus'') were discovered here. J.B. Hatcher collected dozens of Late Cretaceous horned dinosaurs at Lance Creek in northeastern Wyoming in 1889–1894, including ''Triceratops.''

In 1905, [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] applied the name ''Tyrannosaurus rex'', meaning "“king of the tyrant lizards" to a fossil recently discovered at Hell Creek. This fearsome predator, perhaps 21 feet tall, would capture public imagination. In 1909–1923, 350 tons of dinosaur bones were removed from what is now Dinosaur National Monument in Colorado under the direction of paleontologist Earl Douglass of the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

===History of dinosaurs===
[[Creation science]] asserts that the biblical account, that dinosaurs were created on day six of [[creation]]<ref>{{bibleverse||Genesis|1:25|ESV}}</ref> approximately 6,000 years ago, along with other land animals, and therefore co-existed with humans, thus [[Counterexamples to Evolution|debunking the Theory of Evolution]] and the beliefs of evolutionary scientists about the age and creation of the earth.

Creation science posits that dinosaurs lived in harmony with other animals, (probably including in the [[Garden of Eden]]) eating only plants<ref>{{bibleverse|Genesis|1:29-30|ESV}}</ref>; that pairs of each dinosaur [[kind]] were taken onto [[Noah's Ark]] during the [[Great Flood]] and were preserved from drowning<ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3967/ Were dinosaurs on Noah’s Ark?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>; that many of the fossilized dinosaur bones originated during the mass killing of the Flood<ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/219/ Dinosaur bones—just how old are they really?], ''Creation'', vol. 21 No. 1 p. 54</ref>; and that possibly some descendants of those dinosaurs taken aboard the Ark are still around today.<ref Name="Today">Robert Doolan, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/833/ Are dinosaurs alive today?], ''Creation'', vol. 15 No. 4 p. 12.</ref> At least 300 distinct [[genera]] of dinosaur have been identified.<ref>USGS [http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dinosaurs/types.html]</ref>

[[Archaeological]], [[fossil]], and documentary evidence supports the [[faith and science|logical]] conclusion that dinosaurs co-existed with mankind until at least relatively recent times.

Because the term only came into use in the 19th century, the [[Bible]] does not use the word "dinosaur." However, there are numerous references throughout the biblical account. For example, the [[behemoth]] in [[Job]] and the [[leviathan]] in [[Isaiah]] are clearly references to dinosaurs,<ref>Allan K. Steel, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1799 Could Behemoth have been a dinosaur?], ''Journal of Creation'' vol. 15 No. 2 p. 42.</ref> <ref>[http://www.answersincreation.org/job4041a.htm], ''Answers in Creation''</ref> although others have claimed that Behemoth and Leviathan are references to a hippopotamus or elephant and a crocodile respectively. However, the Biblical descriptions do not fit those creatures, note that hippopotamuses and elephants do not have a "tail like a cedar". Furthermore, even if the terms did refer to other animals, this does not necessarily invalidate the existence of dinosaurs. The Creation account was not intended as a comprehensive list of all animals God created - it does not for instance state explicitly that He created the [[ferret]]. However, Genesis does state that God created all animals, which would include any not mentioned by name.

==== Extinction ====

Creation science rejects the great impact theory, and find a number of faults in that theory.<ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2426 Did a meteor wipe out the dinosaurs?].</ref> Despite these critiques, the great impact theory is widely considered by the scientific community to be fact. However, those scientists cannot prove the great impact theory definitively.

Creation scientists point out that evolutionists are frequently coming out with new theories to explain the supposed extinction of the dinosaurs, and that those theories are laden with false assumptions. <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1115dinosaur.asp Dinosaur demise theory, version #451], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>.

====Dinosaur-like creatures in history and modern sightings====

Creation science cites a number of reasons to believe that dinosaurs have existed until relatively recent times, and perhaps still survive.
[[Image:AZ_RockArtDino1a.jpg‎|right|thumb|right|Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting]]
* There have been a number of sightings of dinosaur-like creatures reported by the [[best of the public]].
** A thousand people reported seeing a dinosaur-like monster in two sightings around Sayram Lake in Xinjiang according to the Chinese publication, China Today.<ref name="Today" />
** Locals in the Congo have reported a creature they name ''Mokele-mbembe''<ref name="Today" /><ref>[http://www.mokelembembe.com/ Mokele-mbembe The Living Dinosaur!]</ref>, and from its description it appears to be a small plant-eating dinosaur. The reports have been taken seriously enough that a biologist from the [[University of Chicago]] has made several expeditions to find the creature. Another biologist has reported seeing the creature.<ref name="Today" />
** Dinosaur-like creatures have been seen by several people in two different parts of [[Papua New Guinea]] since 1990.<ref>Anon., [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/381 A living dinosaur?], ''Creation'' 23(1):56, December 2000. Irwin, Brian, [http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/5847 Theropod and sauropod dinosaurs sighted in PNG?] 1st July, 2008 (Creation Ministries International).</ref>
* There are drawings of creatures resembling dinosaurs.
** An expedition which included Charles W. Gilmore, Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology with the United States National Museum, examined an ancient pictograph which he claimed portrays dinosaurs and man coexisting.<ref>[http://www.creationism.org/swift/DohenyExpedition/Doheny01Main.htm Doheny Scientific Expedition, Hava Supai Canyon, Arizona], ''Creationism.org''</ref><ref>[http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/read/the_hava_supai_dinosaur_carving The Hava Supai Dinosaur Carving], ''ChristianCourier.com''</ref>.
** The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina, a second century BC piece of art, contains a portion which depicts a group of Ethiopians hunting what some claim appears to be a dinosaur; there is much debate on this, however, and most modern art historians consider the mysterious animal to be a lion or a crocodile (the latter theory is supported by the presence of the Greek word for "crocodile" written near the image of the mysterious animal). <ref>[http://www.s8int.com/dinolit2.html Dinosaurs in Literature, Art & History-- Page 2], ''s8int.com''</ref>
[[Image:Palestrina1.jpg|right|thumb|A portion of the [[Nile Mosaic of Palestrina]], depicting the hunting of an animal which is often said to resemble a dinosaur (but which appears to be labelled "crocodile" in Greek).]]
* Engravings in the floor of Carlisle Cathedral appear to be of dinosaurs. They are on the tomb of bishop Richard Bell, who died in 1496.<ref>See picture on page 241 of Batten, Don, et. al., 2007, ''The Creation Answers Book''.</ref>
* Creatures matching dinosaurs and similar creatures have been described by various people groups.
* Descriptions of [[dragon]]s are widespread and match descriptions of dinosaurs, showing that dragons were real creatures and were actually very likely dinosaurs.
** The World Book Encyclopedia states that: "The [[dragon]]s of legend are strangely like actual creatures that have lived in the past. They are much like the great reptiles [dinosaurs] which inhabited the earth long before man is supposed to have appeared on earth." <ref>Quoted in [http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ25.html What about the Dinosaurs?], ''CreationScience.com''</ref> Dragons exist in the folklore of many European and Asian cultures.<ref name="WB2000">''Dragon'' entry in World Book Millennium 2000 CD ROM</ref> World Book Encyclopedia says, "In Europe, dragons are traditionally portrayed as ferocious beasts that represent the evils fought by human beings. But in Asia, especially in China and Japan, the animals are generally considered friendly creatures that ensure good luck and wealth."<ref Name="WB2000" />
** Dragons appear in the flag of [[Wales]], in traditional [[China|Chinese]] New Years' Day celebrations, and in the Chinese [[calendar]]. Every other creature on the calendar is a real creature.
* That dinosaurs are not known from the fossil record above the [[Cretaceous]] strata is not reason to believe that they have not survived until more recent times.
** Living specimens of orders of animals that were believed to have been extinct for millions of years have been found before, such as the Diatomyidae Squirrel <ref>[[Diatomyidae]] Squirrel [http://news.softpedia.com/news/They-Thought-It-Went-Extinct-11-Million-Years-Ago-19557.shtml]</ref>, the Wollemi Pine <ref>Wollemi Pine ''Biotechnology Australia'' [http://www.biotechnologyonline.gov.au/enviro/wollemi.cfm]</ref> and the [[Coelacanth]] <ref>Sulawesi Coelacanth. ''University Of California, Berkeley''[http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vertebrates/coelacanth/coelacanths.html]</ref> <ref>More on the Coelacanth ''marinebio.org''[http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=54]</ref>.
* The recent dinosaur tissue find is a strong rebuttal of the claim that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago. <ref>Carl Wieland, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3042 Still soft and stretchy], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>



==== Dinosaurs and birds ====
[[Creation science]] shows that the idea that birds are descendants of dinosaurs is not demonstrated by the evidence <ref>[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3833/106/ Bird evolution?], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref> <ref>Andy McIntosh, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/540/ 100 years of airplanes—but these weren’t the first flying machines!], ''Creation'' vol. 26 No. 1 p. 44</ref>, and that the dinosaur-bird connection is even disputed by some evolutionists.

In his article, "Fifteen ways to refute materialistic bigotry", Dr. [[Jonathan Sarfati]] wrote regarding dinosaurs being descendants of birds:
{{cquote|“The same logic applies to the dinosaur-[[bird]] debate. It is perfectly in order for creationists to cite [[Alan Feduccia|Feduccia]]’s devastating criticism against the idea that birds evolved ‘ground up’ from running dinosaurs (the cursorial theory). But the dino-to-bird advocates counter with equally powerful arguments against Feduccia’s ‘trees-down’ (arboreal) theory. The evidence indicates that the critics are ''both'' right — birds did not evolve either from running dinos or from tree-living mini-crocodiles. In fact, birds did not evolve from non-birds at all!<ref>Jonathan Sarfati, [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2610 15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry], ''Creation Ministries International''</ref>}}

Creation science also cites the evolutionist and [[atheism|atheist]] [[Ernst Mayr]]<ref>Matthews, Michael, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1208mayr.asp 99 and still fighting God], 8th December, 2003 (Answers in Genesis).</ref> who stated the following:
{{cquote|“It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one’s credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird’s feather) could be improved by random mutations." <ref>[http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes10.html In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood], ''Center for Scientific Creation''</ref> <ref> Find the full quote on [http://books.google.com/books?id=mAIjnLp6r_MC&pg=PA296&lpg=PA296&dq=Ernst+Mayr+1942+%22It+must+be+admitted,+however,+that+it+is+a+considerable+strain+on+one%27s+credulity+to+assume%22&source=bl&ots=TRDzBtumPF&sig=XwvnT327A9sn3Uvs0RLOaQNo5Zo&hl=en&ei=P6H6Te37LMSwhAf03fimAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false], starting from line 6. </ref> }}

The March 2003 issue of ''Scientific American'' is also cited by creation scientists:
{{cquote|Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious...The origin of feathers is a specific instance of the much more general question of the origin of evolutionary novelties--structures that have no clear antecedents in ancestral animals and no clear related structures (homologues) in contemporary relatives. Although evolutionary theory provides a robust explanation for the appearance of minor variations in the size and shape of creatures and their component parts, it does not yet give as much guidance for understanding the emergence of entirely new structures, including digits, limbs, eyes and feathers...." <ref>Michael Matthews, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0313sciam.asp Scientific American admits creationists hit a sore spot], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref> <ref>[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000CD7F6-B16F-1E41-89E0809EC588EEDF Which Came First, the Feather or the Bird?], ''Scientific American''</ref>}}

Creation science also shows that the comparative anatomy analysis done by evolutionists comparing bird bones and dinosaur bones is flawed. <ref>Dr. David N. Menton, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0328discovery.asp "Ostrich-osaurus" Discovery?], ''Answers in Genesis''</ref>

===Evolutionary/Old Earth Perspective===
The view of [[atheism|atheists]], evolutionists, and others who accept the uniformitarian timescale is that dinosaurs existed on earth from 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. In this view, the entire population of dinosaurs were wiped out by a mass extinction event (usually thought to be a meteorite) about 65 million years ago.
This precludes humans and dinosaurs co-existing.

====Extinction====

According to evolutionists, close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the [[Cretaceous]] period, and the beginning of what is called the [[Tertiary]] period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the [[K-T Event]]. This event would have obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive. Although these scientists dispute the nature of the K-T Event (selecting among any number of catastrophes that could have caused the significant global cooling that resulted), most believe that the claimed K-T Event was caused by the collision of a massive asteroid with the Earth, the dust and debris from which would have shrouded the sky for thousands of years, cooling Earth considerably.<ref>Kevin O Pope, "Meteorite impact and the mass extinction of species at the Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary," Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, available at [http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/19/11028]</ref> According to this view, the dinosaurs did not survive this cataclysm.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0823_020823_asteroid.html Prehistoric Asteroid "Killed Everything"], ''National Geographic''</ref> A layer of rock containing high concentrations of [[Iridium]], a metal that is extremely rare on earth but common in asteroids, is said to be due to the vaporization and then fall of dust from the meteorite's impact, and its compression within the subsequent geological record.<ref>''Ibid''</ref>The evidence of a large impact crater can be found in rocks of the [[Yucatán]] Peninsula of the supposed age of this layer.<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0307_030307_impactcrater.html "Dinosaur-Killer" Asteroid Crater Imaged for First Time], ''National Geographic''</ref> <ref>http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/education/events/cowen1b.html</ref>
Creationists assert that the assumptions underpinning the methods used by modern geologists are incorrect, and even though the validity of a large impact is accepted, this does not constitute proof that the impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.{{fact}}

====An explosion of new species ====

Evolutionists speculate that a mass extinction of the dinosaurs removed a major food competitor, and predator, of smaller animals. As a result of a new "vacancy" in the food chain, following the [[K-T Event]], it is theorized that vast speciation occurred, as the evolutionary pressure of a new cold age propelled animal species to adapt or die out. According to this view, [[mammals]] were some of the main beneficiaries of this explosion: their fur allowed them to adapt to the cold, and their small size allowed them to conserve energy relative to the huge dinosaurs of the previous age.<ref>Bennet, Shostak, Jakotsky, "Life in the Universe," viewable at [http://www.amazon.com/Life-Universe-Jeffrey-Bennett/dp/0805385770]</ref>

====Dinosaurs and birds====

As a number of feathered fossils (claimed to be dinosaurs) have been discovered, and evolutionary scientists claim the similarity in the bone structure between birds and dinosaurs show that modern birds are a descendants of dinosaurs. This is often cited as an example of [[macroevolution]].<ref>[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html New Dinosaur Discovered: T. Rex Cousin Had Feathers], ''National Geographic''</ref>

==Dinosaur fossils, human fossils and geological strata ==
Some evolutionary scientists assert that if human bones aren’t found with dinosaur bones, then dinosaurs and man didn’t live together.<ref name="HaD">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n1/humans-and-dinosaurs If humans and dinosaurs lived together, why don’t we find human fossils with dinosaur fossils?] ''Answers'' 1(1):52, May 2006.</ref><ref>[http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710.html Claim CH710] (The TalkOrigins Archive)</ref>
Creation scientists point out that this is a false assumption; if human bones aren’t found buried with dinosaur bones, it simply means they weren't buried together.<ref name="HaD" />

Evolutionists speculate that [[radiometric dating]] of rocks containing dinosaur bones indicates them to have formed between 65 million years ago and 250 million years ago, whereas rocks with human bones in them are dated as being much newer (less than 5 million years old). Creation science shows that those methods of dating rocks provide false results, and therefore reject this argument.<ref>http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-questions-and-answers</ref>

Creation science points out that the fossil record contains mainly marine organisms and that a small sliver of the fossil record contains vertebrates and thus shows that we shouldn't expect to find many human fossils at all.<ref name="HaD" />
Moreover, as the biblical [[Great Flood|Flood]] would be a marine catastrophe, it would be expected that marine fossils would dominate the fossil record. This is in fact what we find.<ref name="NAB">Hodge, Bodie, [http://www.answersingenesis.org/PublicStore/pdfs/SampleChapter/10-2-267.pdf Why Don’t We Find Human & Dinosaur Fossils Together?] (chapter 13 of the New Answers Book), 2006.</ref>

Approximately 70% of the Earth is covered in salt water which would also explain the dominance of marine fossils. In addition, creation scientists show there may have been a small pre-flood human population and that massive amounts of flood sediment are why we haven’t found human fossils in pre-biblical flood sediments.<ref name="NAB" />
Also, creation scientists point out that we don't find human bones buried with [[coelacanth]]s yet humans and coelacanths coexist today.<ref name="HaD" />

== In Popular Culture ==
Dinosaurs have been a fixture of popular culture since their discovery. It is theorized that some of the myths of fantastical creatures stem from the accidental discovery of dinosaur fossils. More recently, dinosaurs have featured in popular stories including books, movies, television, video games, even music.

In the 1912 novel "The Lost World" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (of Sherlock Holmes fame), was published describing an expedition into an Amazon basin where animals thought to be extinct (including dinosaurs) had survived.

Dinosaurs were introduced to a wide modern audience when movies like the Jurassic Park series were released.

== See also ==
*[[Evolution]]
*[[Theory of Evolution and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation]]
*[[Irreligion and superstition]]
*[[Young earth creationism]]

==References==
{{reflist|2}}

[[Category:Dinosaurs]]