Dinosaurs by Design/Dinosaurs Those Terrible Lizards
Dinosaurs By Design and Dinosaurs Those terrible Lizards are 2 creationists publications on dinosaurs written by young earth creationist Duane Gish.
Rebuttal to the books
What do those books Dinosaurs, Those Terrible Lizards and Dinosaurs by Design have in common? They are both written by Duane Gish a young earth creation (YEC) advocate who wrote and published, Dinosaurs by Design (DBD) published in 1992 by Master Books, which is really somewhat of a rehash of Dinosaurs, Those Terrible Lizards (DTTL) published in 1977 by Creation-Life Publishers, which is about 15 years apart from each other. But in both of them, the theme is still the same; all young earth tripe and loads of it. All of the ignorance, lies, distortions, exploitations, and falsehoods. It's all in there between the pages of each of those 2 books.
However, the first book DTTL is out of print. The other, DBD is still in print. However, the covers of DBD have changed in recent years. The original cover have a red shading all over it with 2 framed backgrounds, one on each side, and 4 dinosaurs seeming frolicking towards the right side of the book. There is a Tyrannosaur and a Triceratops found on the front cover of the book. On the back cover, there is a naked scaly skinned Deinonychus with a wrongful toe arrangement and the Apatosaurus with his long neck and head sticking out on the front cover. On the top of the front cover, there are words "Dinosaurs by Design" and the names of people who made the book in aachen-bold type font all located on the side and front of book.
On the other hand, the newer cover has scenes you will see in the book. The Front cover shows a Tyrannosaur being clubbed by a Euoplocephalus with the word "dinosaurs" in the reptilian decorated normal font version at the very top and "by design" with a small pterosaur flying upwards to it shown in a normal plain type font at the bottom of the â€œDinosaursâ€ word. On the back, there is an Apatosaurus is shown browsing alongside of an elephant. Both shown on the back cover of the 2 different cover version of DBD, is a paragraph that goes like this, with emphases in parentheses...
"Everyone wants to know about dinosaurs! Dinosaurs By Design takes you into the exciting world (That never was.) of dinosaurs to find out what they were really like. Discover how fossils are formed(the young earth way that's not how fossils are formed.), dug up, and assembled for museums. Travel with the dinosaurs as they board Noah's Ark(they never did, other than birds.) and then enter the strange new world after the Flood (and get died off afterwards. Leaving one to wonder what's the point of ever rescuing them from the Flood if their fate afterwards points to death. ). Find out what happened to the dinosaurs (A meteorite killed them.) and are there any alive today (Other than birds, no.). Join us on an exciting adventure to learn more about these magnificent creatures that God designed and created (and changed with modification)."
The paragraph is very misleading. What the paragraph didn't tell you is that no one knows what dinosaurs really look like because no one, not even caveman has ever saw them alive enough to know what do they really look like inside and out. This book denies there was never a global flood to begin with and the world is indeed much older than 10,000 years and evolution did occurred as well as birds being the only dinosaur group that is alive today, while all the rest died out 65 million years ago along with denying how God made the dinosaurs and everything else through real, valid scientific evidence. What Gish states in this book is not what scientists had in mind when they talked about uniformitarianism and mutations to name a few.
He makes up strawman of what evolution, mutations, and uniformitarianism is all about and proceeds to attack it. And still he repeats the same mistake and lies about the bombardier beetle and endorses the fire-breathing dinosaur myth to help justify his beetle myth and much, much more! Plus, Answers in Genesis, the worst of the YE crackpots made a boast about this book falsely claiming that this book is.....
"The Christian answer to Jurassic Park! Not! Not just a children's book to brainwashed children with; this is unimportant garbage for the entire family. As you journey into the exciting world (that never was) of dinosaurs, this book will provide you with inaccurate information to help combat and lose to the evolutionary theories and facts surrounding these incredible creatures. A great resource for neither Christian and Home Schools!" Emphases in bold.
The book is really anything BUT accurate! Using it to vainly combat evolutionary facts and theories made to explain things based on evidence will be a highly lost cause. It's nothing but a wasteful pseudo-Christian literature falsely called a science book, filled with distortions, lies, half-truths, strawman arguments, and hypocrisy.
The Cover To DTTL
So, to start the rebuttal off, years ago Gish published DTTL, which is the very first YEC dinosaur book that has ever made, that tells about dinosaurs through a YEC perspective in 1977. On the front cover, there is a large orange mountain wall with the title embedded on it nestled next to a small lake surrounded by foliage with words that tells who wrote and illustrated the book written in the water. There are 2 Tyrannosaurs shown on the left, facing the objects in the right direction. Coming down onto the scene on the upper right hand corner is a Pteranodon swooping down from a yellow sky. On the back cover, there is a Dimetrodon, a pelycosaur from the Permian Period facing away into the blank part of the back cover. On the bottom there is this brief inscription of what's in the book:
"No one living in the world today has ever seen a real live dinosaur - but did people in earlier times live with dinosaurs? Were dragons of ancient legends really dinosaurs? Does the Bible speak about dinosaurs? The answers are in this book!"
Here are the true answers to these question right here: 1. No, 2. No, and 3. No, other than birds. But the book claims yes to all three.
Now on the first intro page we see this inscription:
"No one living in the world today has ever seen a dinosaur-a live one, that is. A few folks even doubt that anything like a dinosaur really every lived at all; but they did-long, long ago."
Dinosaurs did lived long, long ago. No one in the world today as well as yesterday ever saw a living dinosaur other than birds. Finally dinosaurs did exist long ago. We have unearthed their remains that clearly confirmed their existence. But the book though it tells the truth that dinosaurs did exist, it also lie about when did they lived, where did they come from and how did they die. This book totally denies evidence for evolution and transitional forms and the planet being billions of years old. So does DBD. In fact both books, DTTL and DBD are in a way much exactly the same yet there are many differences between the 2.
Here are the similarities.
The Similarities Between DTTL and DBD.
One similar example is that of a battle between Allosaurus and Apatosaurus on pages 46-47 on DBD and pages 33-35 in DTTL. It's exactly the same, but the sauropod's name is different from the other. In DTTL, he is called Brontosaurus, but in DBD he is called Apatosaurus. Both text claimed the Apatosaurus had no claws to fight back against Allosaurus and Allosaurus to be afraid of deep water. None of it is true. Apatosaurus did have claws, one on each front leg and three on each back leg and Allosaurus did swim even in deep water like what it is illustrated in one of Gregory Paul's illustrations in his book Predatory Dinosaurs of the World (1988). Scientists have found evidence those Theropods like Allosaurus sometimes do swim in deeper water in Rocky Hill, Connecticut at the Dinosaur State Park.
Reference: COOMBS JR. W.P. (1980): Swimming Ability of Carnivorous Dinosaurs. Science 207: 1198-1200)
Other similar reference is right here. http://www.jhu.edu/~jhumag/696web/dinosaur.html
Finding evidence like these in Connecticut clearly disproves the myth about dinosaur carnivores being afraid of water. And no doubt Apatosaurus do have claws. Look closely at any skeleton of an Apatosaurus and you'll see what I mean.
Gish's Imaginary Dinosaur
Another example is the fire breathing dinosaur myth where Gish states in DTTL's chapter on pages 51-55 entitled "Dragons and Bombardier Beetles" where Gish invokes the Bombardier Beetle myth to help justify his imaginary concept of a fire-breathing dinosaur. Gish says that the crests of Lambeosaurines, like Parasaurolophus, functions the same way as the special glands inside the posterior of the Bombardier beetle; to help them breathe out hot gases and fire. In other words: The Bombardier Beetle has hot liquid glands thus, Lambeosaurines must have had hot liquid glands too. Here, Gish claims that there were once special liquid fiery glands found inside the crests that helps the dinosaurs to do just that.
What Gish claims is entirely imaginary. There is in fact no such thing as liquid fiery glands inside of crested dinosaurs, including Parasaurolophus, not even at one time.
As for Gish's beetle fallacy, the 2 certain chemicals, hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones found inside of the beetle when mixed together without an chemical inhibitor will only turned brown. No explosion.
Gish's imaginary fire-breathing dinosaur is his and others' own concept of interpreting the Leviathan passage of Job 41, where he and others like him thinks that the passage totally refers to a dinosaur while, in reality, there is not a single dinosaur out there, not even Parasaurolophus, nor any Mesozoic marine reptile ever matching the description of Leviathan in Job 41. The animal closely describes Leviathan could possibly be the crocodile and the fire breathing passage could describe the croc's halitosis metaphorically. So many times people have pointed out the beetle mistake to Gish, yet he's doesn't have the brains enough to abandon it. Just like in DTTL, DBD still has the Bombardier Beetle and the imaginary fire breathing dinosaur fallacies, in his chapter "Dinosaurs, Dragons, and Beetles" of his DBD book on pages 82-83 and still continues to repeat his claims about the beetle and fire breathing dinosaur fallacy over and over again in his seminars as well as in his books to this very day. (He's now retired however. See Keynote at the end of this essay for details.) To help refute the beetle myth and learn the real functions of the Lambeosaurine's crests, see these references.
These are the 2 major similarities between the 2 books I can think of. Other similarities include certain dinosaur descriptions that are in many cases outdated by 5,10, 20, 30, even 50 years or more such as the descriptions of the Duck-billed dinosaurs and Iguanodon with only a few changes made within the text, paintings of dinosaurs that are anatomically incorrect, denials of transitional forms, straw man attacks on evolution, and the myth about Behemoth and Leviathan of Job 40:15 and Job 41 being dinosaurs. But here's where the similarities ends.
The Difference Between DTTL and DBD
DBD has no intro, unlike DTTL somewhat, which starts like: â€œThe name dinosaur means terrible lizard (Dino = terrible, Saur = lizard).â€
DBD has very high quality, made by Earl and Bonnie Snellenberger that are all plagiarized versions of the illustrations made by Giuliano Fornari Sergio for these 2 dinosaur books, The Great Dinosaur Atlas: The Pictorial Guide to the Prehistoric World (1991) and Dinosaurs and How They Lived (1991).
DTTL, however, has only much low quality artwork that were drawn and painted only by Marvin Ross.
The first chapter of DBD is entitled "The World of the Dinosaurs." Actually it's more of an Atlas to where the fossils of dinosaurs have been found. DBD has more of a nicer neater drawing than in DTTL. But in DTTL, in the first chapter entitled â€œThose Terrible Lizardsâ€ on pages 10-11, a text is shown that tells the reader about where the dinosaur fossils have been found. DBD doesn't.
Gish'd Fossil Fallacy
The first chapter of DBD on page 8 is "How Fossils are Formed" See, what I tell you. It has no intro. Instead it proceeds to slanderously attack the notion of fossils being the remains of plants and animals being buried in the ground for millions of years and boldly claim that the fossils were all the result of the Great Flood of Noah, which there's no evidence for. Gish makes a wrongful, distorted explanation on how a fossil is formed and states that it does not necessary take millions of years for fossils to form, which is a lie and to tries to prove it by showing a so-called â€œfossilized" hat that isn't really a fossil at all. Fabric doesn't fossilize. In order for an object to be a fossil it must have the entire original materials 100% be replaced by minerals that came from the ground. If it doesn't, then it is not a fossil. It is a concretion that was carved into a hat by a YEC hoaxer. I got this idea from Michael Suttkus when he did a critique on one of Ken Ham's claims about the miners hat. You can read his hat critique right here.
Gish says that there are mammoth fossils that have been frozen quickly and stays frozen for thousands of years with their flesh still good enough to eat. This page below, however, nixes the claim. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361_2.html
There's no evidence of Noah's Flood being responsible for the fossils being made in the La Brea Tar pits in California either. The animals that died in the La Brea tar pits where the result of this: A mastodon ventures into the lake to drink only to find that it walked right into a tar trap and it began to sink. As it struggles, its trumpeting cries was picked up by a smilodon that followed the sounds to the tap pits and jumped right in to attack the mastodon. However, it too was doomed and both of these animals sank down into the tar and perished. Here's 3 web pages that tell about how the tar pits came about and how did the Cenozoic animals like the Smilodon and the Mastodon really died in the tar pits in full detail.
Gish claims the bones came from areas where there was a drastic change of climate that have occurred when the animals died and claims that Noah's Flood changes the climate, which is unlikely so. Nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about climatic changes or environmental changes of any kind occurring as a result of Noah's Flood. No evidence was ever found that says it is the case. But Gish doesn't care. He just makes it all up and tell it like it is.
He even claims of mass graveyards of bones being found with bones all jumbled up within being the result of the flood, but that's refuted too. He's ignorant of the fact that there are lots fossils of dinosaurs found completely intact, like the Iguanodon fossils found in a Belgium coal mine in 1877 for instance, indicating that the dinosaurs died in much calmer conditions instead of a violent flood.
Just like I said before, if those so-called fossils have the original materials inside of them, then they are not fossils. But REAL fossils, with the original materials all 100% replaced with minerals from the ground, does take millions of years to form like coal and oil for instance. Page 8 shows Gish's own diagram version of how the fossils are formed. Note how the sedimentary layers are all in slanted rows and not in horizontal rows like we normally see in real life. A wrongful way to describe how the fossil is form don't you think?
To know really how a fossil is formed click on these references,
To view rebuttals of out of place artifacts and pseudo-fossils click on this link.
The next chapter, "Digging up dinosaur Fossils" on page 10, shows an illustration on how dinosaur fossils were dug up. On page 11, there is a woman wearing a casual dress while taking notes in the field. This kind of clothing is very much inappropriate to wear at a digging site, (And why is she not wearing a hard hat at the site?) especially, with all that dirt and bugs flying about. Wear old jeans, pants, and other hand-me-downs when go out digging for fossils instead.
Here's some websites on how to really prepare for a fossil dig including what clothing to wear.
On the next chapter "Restoring Dinosaur Fossils" on pages 12-13, much is told about how very little Gish knows about the history of dinosaur reconstruction and restoration, how they are put together to form a skeleton, and how the skeletal structure has change over the years due to new discoveries being made â€“ not at all. This scene shown on the 2 pages portrays a degenerating image of a team of scientists reconstructing a wrongfully built dinosaur skeleton. Hence, creating a false impression of scientists being nothing but a bunch of know nothing simpletons, who never got their skeletons right no matter what. That skeleton in the picture shown on page 13 (below) is actually the very first mounted dinosaur skeleton ever to be mount up by man.
This, in the picture, is a Hadrosaurus skeleton. It was first mounted up in and put on display in 1868 by a Paleontologist named Joseph Leidy who examined the fossils of the dinosaur that was dug up from a construction site 10 years earlier. Today we now know that the skeleton was highly inaccurate and never really look like what's portrayed in the picture. The actual mount as we know of today in fact looks like this:
To really learn the true history of this first dinosaur mount, visit these sites.
Grand Canyon Fallacy
In the next chapter "How Long Ago Did Dinosaurs Live?â€ we see 2 men observing the photo of the Grand Canyon on page 14. Gish implies that these 2 men, who are scientists, see the Grand Canyon differently than the other. One sees the Canyon forming millions of years ago. The other sees the canyon forming thousands of years ago as the result of Noah's Flood. However, the scientific evidence clearly states that the Grand Canyon formed a few million years ago by the Colorado River. The Colorado River eroded the sides of river thus forming The Grand Canyon, one of the most spectacular places to see in the United States. It still continues to erode the sides of the canyon up to this very day. However, Gish and others like him, (Especially that guy who made The Grand Canyon, A Different View, The guy who says he'll give one million dollars to anyone who can prove to him that there's no God. An offer strikingly similar to Kent Hovend fradulant $250,000 offer.) however continuously claim that the Canyon was formed when natural dams that hold huge lakes of water have been broken just after the waters of Noah's flood resides cutting down the sedimentary rocks, thus forming the Canyon. There is no such thing as giant lakes in Colorado existing at one time. Nor is it the global flood of Noah to be responsible for the formation of the Grand Canyon either. Here is a link to a page in John Stear's No Answers in Genesis website that has a list of links to websites and pages that refutes the Grand Canyon nonsense still being harped around by the YECs, especially by that self-proclaimed geologist Steve Austin.
Despite what has been depicted here on page 14, there really is no such scientist out there who has different views of the Grand Canyon than the other. The only ones who do have a different, yet faulty view of the Grand Canyon is the YECs and no one else.
In the DTTL chapter entitled "Where do Dinosaurs come from?" on pages 14-15 there is a claim that is today abandoned by most YECs. But back then, it was fiercely defended every YEC advocate that's ever known. Is it a claim that says that there are footprints of humans found alongside of dinosaur prints found somewhere in the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas. Careful investigation, however, shows that the so-called human prints is really poorly preserve dinosaur prints that have only the heels of dinosaurs preserve on them and in some cases they were chiseled into human footprints by practical jokers who did it to attract gullible tourists to that area. However, Carl E. Baugh and a few other YECs, to this day, still defends this myth about human prints. Answers in Genesis, however, have wisely, for once, chose to abandon the claim and have it on their list of arguments they think creationist should not use. Still AIG are just as bad as Carl Baugh is when it comes to making one stupid claim after another. The latest and one of the most stupidest, laughable claims they churned out is The Evolution = Sun Worship claim. The claim that says evolutionists worships the sun, which they DON'T really do at all. Instead, they observe the sun through special devices and equipments that prevent them from getting blinded by the sun and learn what they can about the sun and its affects that it has on earth. They think Carl Baugh's claims are all wacko. And yet, AIG are pretty wacko themselves. What a bunch of hypocrites!!!!
Back in DBD, in the How Long Ago Did Dinosaurs Live? chapter, we see that the book doesn't have the Paluxy claim. Instead, other than the Grand Canyon myth, on page 15, there is a wrongful claim about the radioactive dating methods scientists use to date fossils are highly inaccurate. The truth is entirely the opposite.
Here's links to webpages that refutes the dating claim.
False Explaination of Uniformitarianism
Then Gish goes on to explain a bit about Uniformitarianism, an idea that says the key to the past is really the present. That idea only says that the earth changes over a long gradual period of time which contradicts catastrophism, which is idea that says the earth change drastically in a short period of time due to earthquakes, floods, and volcanic eruptions to name a few. He states that scientists today are still believing in the idea of uniformitarianism first proposed by James Hutton (1726-1797), who is known as the father of geology, in a 1785-1795 publishing in his book Theory of the Earth and was popularized by Sir Charles Lydell in the 19th century. But today, no scientist believes in this outdated idea anymore. In fact scientists today is embracing the modern version of Uniformitarianism called Actualism where both drastic and gradual events, that have happened in the past, is still happening today.
References to all of this is right here..
Next, we see Austin making a very false statement by saying â€œIt is reasonable to think that fossils and rocks could have formed rapidly only thousands of years ago." What Austin thinks and what the evidence clearly tells us is 2 different things. It's NO WAY reasonable to think what Austin claims is true. He's totally wrong! Evidence clearly reveals to us that rocks and fossils could NEVER formed rapidly only thousands of years ago. Here's links to web pages that tells us how fossils and rocks are really formed and how it takes millions of years for all of them to form.
An Egyptian Belief
Also, on page 15, there is an old fashioned scale that weighs 2 blocks. One, a Creation block, the other an Evolution block. The evolution block seems to be crumbling, while the creation block is strong and solid, implying a false view of evolution being unstable and crumbling, while creation is standing solid and firm against all odds, while the opposite is true. I agree with Michael Suttkus when he says that this reminds him of an Egyptian belief that says the heavier the man's soul, the more wicked and evil it was in life. And it looks like the creation block is that kind of a soul. Note: You can find Michael's remark about the scales in his rebuttal of Ken Ham's Dinosaurs and the Bible booklet right here.