One of the Creation Museum’s New Billboards Features a Human and a Dinosaur…

This is one of the Creation Museum’s 20 new billboards (click to enlarge):

Even enlarged, it’s pretty clear that’s a human being in the same image with the dinosaur… (Because, you know, Creationists believe The Flintstones was a documentary.)

But I can’t make out what that person is saying! Maybe you can decipher it…?

I like @303dk‘s suggestion:


Also, who knew fire-breathing dragons existed?

(Just something to note: Of the six billboards Ken Ham posted, the Brachiosaurus is the only one that features a person along with a dinosaur. What’s up with that?)

About Hemant Mehta

Hemant Mehta is the chair of Foundation Beyond Belief and a high school math teacher in the suburbs of Chicago. He began writing the Friendly Atheist blog in 2006. His latest book is called The Young Atheist's Survival Guide.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_JBAMPHNDKNSKDNVTY3VRYGWMYQ Jack

    They look better than most of our billboards u_u

    • Gus Snarp

      Yeah, that’s the problem. Heck, I’d like to just see billboards that exciting to children for the Cincinnati Zoo or Museum Center, let alone a decent atheist billboard (actually, the one they had here wasn’t bad, but was taken down when the property owner was threatened with violence).

  • Matto the Hun

    I’m with Jack… we need Dinosaurs, Dragons… and Unicorns.

    and maybe a pegakitten 

  • http://www.facebook.com/jadelackey Jade Lackey

    That raptor wouldn’t be so BA if it had feathers like the real one. >.< I guess when you live in fantasy all the time you can make how ever you want.

    • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/FDGYHBEWVNGUG763L5X4TON3JQ Nazani14

      The presence of feather would get people thinking about transitional species – can’t have that.

  • http://profiles.google.com/schwabby Aaron Schwab

    The human’s clearly singing this at the top of his lungs: http://youtu.be/il85E-ms-44

  • Heather

    I live in Orlando and they just added one on I-4 East near Universal. It’s pretty ridiculous. It says something like “Just 902 miles away in the greater Cincinnati area!” 

    • https://twitter.com/#!/OffensivAtheist bismarket

       I think large numbers get them confused, if the age of the Earth is only 6000yrs then 902miles is at the end of a (Very Short) street!

  • Jesse L Sinclair

    My freaking god… they can’t even DRAW dinosaurs correctly.

    The Triceratops has a Chasmosaur frill (Tric’s frill was round and had evenly spaced and evenly sized spikes around it), and thats not even a Brachiosaur, it looks like some form on Diplodocid…

    Not even touching the lack of feathers on the Raptor, because that was probably intentional, but jeebus… can’t they even look at a reference book without feeling their beliefs are threatened?

    • amycas

       I thought their Brachiosaur one looked off, but I couldn’t quite pinpoint it. I saw your post and googled Diplodocid and I think you’re right.

    • David McNerney

      Is it my imagination (or theirs) or does the brachiosaur have a very T-Rexy head?

    • mattand

      I’m not a paleontologist by any stretch, but I’ve been reading books about dinosaurs since I was 5. That ain’t no Brachiosaurus.

      Then again, this is an organization dedicated to promoting creationism. I guess we should thankful that the friggin’ thing has four legs.

      BTW, Jesse, has anyone pointed out the irony of a person named Sinclair talking about dinosaurs? LOL

  • Sinfanti

    According to Ham, “We have never seen billboards like this before.  They were designed using a comic book style…” 

    Fitting, oh so fitting.

    • http://profiles.google.com/davydd.norris David Philip Norris

      Because Creationism is about as realistic as what happens in comic books.

      • compl3x

         Glad you pointed that out. I don’t think any of the rest of us put that together :p

  • http://profiles.google.com/davydd.norris David Philip Norris

    Sigh. This gives me the intellectual equivalent of an ice cream headache, but without the enjoyment of a tasty ice cream treat. Creationism, I feel cheated out of my dessert, as well as my just deserts for being taught that nonsense as a child.

  • Neil

    I’m confused. Genesis 7:2 says,  “Take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, a male and its mate,
    and two of every kind of unclean animal, a male and its mate,”

    Which category do the dinosaurs fall into? You’d hope for reasons of space on the ark they’re of the latter.

    • Peter White

       According to evolution and bible expert Kent Hovind, Noah took baby dinosaurs on the Ark to save space. I haven’t been able to find where it says that in the bible but I’m sure no man in the Hovind family would ever tell a lie.

    • http://bareatheism.blogspot.com/ Deven Kale

       Clean animals are those which are okay to use as a sacrifice, if I remember correctly. That’s why they’re supposed to bring more of them, so they don’t wipe them out once they start up again. Since dinosaurs (or dragons) are never mentioned as sacrificial, I think it’s safe to assume they were unclean. ;)

      • amycas

         But the sacrificial laws weren’t codified until Moses! no no no, this biblical chronology is all wrong…

        • http://yetanotheratheist.com/ TerranRich

          Surely you’re not saying that the bible is… *gasp* untrustworthy? *faints*

  • Kirby Clendenon

    I am not a Biblical creationist, but one trip when I went out to Fort Worth from the west coast, I drove down to see the human/dinosaur excavations at Glen Rose, TX.  To satisfy all the scoffers, they invited the news media from Fort Worth and Dallas down to record them excavating the next 10 feet.  The media came down, and with their cameras recording, they excavated the next 10 feet next to the small creek, and there were the human footprints right on top of the dinosaur prints.  Maybe the Creationist and the Evolutionist models are bothwrong.  Don’t scoff, until you look at their evidence.  Some of it was hard to document, but this part looked pretty strong.  I really dislike how atheists’ and evolutionists’ gut reaction is so often to call others stupid.  I’d rather be stupid than arrogant and close minded.

    • Jesse L Sinclair

       The Glen Rose footprints (mostly) aren’t a hoax, just a case of confirmation bias.

      A small number of the ones sold are carved, but most of them are just mistaken identity.

      They do look, vaguely, like human footprints but the actual morphology is wrong. They are actually just other dinosaur footprints that have been deformed, where mud his infilled the outer toes and left the deep middle part.

      You can look it up here if you`d like:

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

      I, personally, don`t think the people expounding these tracks are stupid, just letting their hopes and dreams get in the way. We all do this. To this day I find myself still believing in the Loch Ness Monster, despite all the evidence against,  simply because I want it to be true so badly…

    • TiltedHorizon

       I am not dismissing this because it is stupid, I’m dismissing this because all it proves is that a human, at one point in history, stepped in the same plot of dirt a dinosaur once stood on. If there was any truth to the assertion of coexistence  then it would be common place to find footprints, tools, human remains or any evidence at all of human habituation in the same layers of strata as fossilized dinosaur bones.  Not only are human remains not found in the same layers, modern day forms of wildlife and domesticated animals are also absent.

      How is it  a creature that coexisted with humans and all other manner of beast is isolated in sediment; all by it self? It’s almost as if they don’t exist in the same place and time.

      This ‘discovery’ will go the way of the ‘Dinosaur saddle’ they discovered back in 2009, Noah’s Ark which they found about 6 times in a 50 year span in several different locations, the Ark of the Covenant in 1978, the actual location of Sodom and Gomorrah in 1989, and the wealth of evidence proving the red sea crossing.

      • JJ

        Interesting that you explained it away before investigating the evidence. How very scientific of you…

        • TiltedHorizon

          Interesting that you are dismissing me without investigating the evidence. How very bias of you.

    • Anheimer Souza

      And you know they were “human footprints” how exactly?  You are aware, I assume, that dinosaur tracks are often incomplete, deformed, damaged, weathered, etc., and that competent paleontologists have investigated these tracks and determined they were not human?    The refusal to consider more prosaic hypotheses is what distinguishes scientists from creationist crackpots and their believers.

    • http://yetanotheratheist.com/ TerranRich

      Orrr… maybe you are unaware of the overwhelming mountains of evidence in support of evolution, and need to take a good, long look at yourself and ask yourself why you suddenly doubt decades upon decades of science all because there was a footprint somewhere that vaguely resembled a human’s occupying the same general space as that of a dinosaur.

      • Jon

        Orrr…because dozens of years of evolutionary thinking is wrong. Just from memory…(1.) Newton’s model of an infinite and eternal universe..wrong.  (2.) Birds to Dinosaurs or Dinosaurs to birds? (both wrong,actually) (3.) “Lucy” …wrong would be nice. Contrived is more fitting. The knee joint “proving” her bi-pedal, was not with the skeleton…it was found several miles away. (4.) Nebraska man…um yeah, we have a wonderful story and history of this “early man” all from one tooth…and that is from a PIG! Yet, you godless little fools like to imagine that it’s possible AND keep indoctrinating children with your religion. Yeah, I said it…you have a horrible religion all based on the crap that Eramus taught little Charlie.

        Science is ( or should be) both observable and repeatable…you have neither with your religion of evolution.

        From swirling clouds of dust and rock and gas ( all inanimate elements) we have an explosion that left us with finches and German Shepards and wombats…and they’re all from inanimate objects…therby breaking the Law of Biogenesis.

        This is pointless. Not one of you pinheads can articulate a scientific point or show any proof. None. Nada. Zip.

        Snide little comments only.
         

        • Glasofruix

          Hello there mister O’Reilly, do you have some evidence to support your claims?

          “This is pointless. Not one of you pinheads can articulate a scientific point or show any proof. None. Nada. Zip. ”

          And you as a great expert you have all of forementionned proof? Or ist it the good ol’ “I don’t get it, skydaddy must’ve made it”?

        • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

          You not only conflate evolution with the origin of the universe and the origin of life, but you misrepresent current widely accepted understanding.  E.g. the clouds of dust came after the big bang, not before.

          Science never claims to have everything right.  That assurance belongs to religion.  Until it finally admits, 400 or so years later, that yes, the earth actually does revolve around the sun.

          Molecular genetics gives us the ability to do a detailed comparison between any two living things, and these comparisons all map to a ‘tree’ diverging from a common ancestor.  Chimps are more closely related to us than to gorillas.

          That is an observation that is repeatable.

          (Edit: perhaps by ‘explosion’ you mean Cambrian, not big bang. I take that one back then)

        • http://bareatheism.blogspot.com/ Deven Kale

          ” (1.) Newton’s model of an infinite and eternal universe..wrong.”

          It was Einsteins favorite as well. They were both wrong, according to the evidence we’ve gained since then. The fact that he was able to posit the idea and compare it to others to find the proper one is one of the greatest strengths of science. I would say the fact that he was wrong is a good thing.

          “(2.) Birds to Dinosaurs or Dinosaurs to birds? (both wrong,actually)”

          All the evidence points to “Dinosaurs to birds.” What’s your evidence which so easily disproves this?

          “(3.) “Lucy” …wrong would be nice. Contrived is more fitting.”

          All the parts that formed Lucy were found within a 100 yard radius. Since then, more skeletons have been found of the same species which exactly match Lucy’s physiology, within normal species variation (male to female, young to old, family traits, etc.). Lucy is valid.

          “(4.) Nebraska man…”

          Yes, that was a fraud. Websites which still mention Nebraska man acknowledge it as such, except for creationist websites for which it’s convenient to pretend the scientific community still accepts it.

          Have you studied evolution at all? It is possible to directly observe speciation in organisms with extremely short life spans, and these kinds of experiments have been repeated. It’s possible to use evolutionary theory to predict when a certain type of creature likely existed based on it’s predecessors and ancestors, which will tell us where in the geological column to look for it. This has been done numerous times, Lucy is just one example.

          I see you’re a purveyor of the inimitable “CreationWiki,” with your comment on the “Law of Biogenesis.” There is no such law, simply due to the fact that it is so obviously contradicted by the evidence. This evidence being that, even in the creationist worldview, abiogenesis must have occurred at some point (In your case, “God did it”).

          Snide little comments is right, but they’re not coming from us.

          • Jon

            Deven, thank you for your somewhat kind and thoughtful response. If you read the first 30 or so comments on this article, they are from “your” side.
            I will be happy to continue this, but I am about twelve hours away at the moment, working 6 14-15 hour days. Gotta catch my ride in 2 moments and get my armor on…later
             

            • Glasofruix

               “If you read the first 30 or so comments on this article, they are from “your” side.”

              As opposed to aggressive and baseless comments from “your side” that call people pinheads? Oh wait, that was you…

        • http://yetanotheratheist.com/ TerranRich

          Way to cherry-pick certain mistakes science has made, and put all the focus there.

          Also, I’ll just leave this here: http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html (Any and all arguments against evolution, thoroughly refuted with evidence and citations.)

          You’re welcome.

        • mercer

          Need I remind you of the long history of creationists attacking evolutionists simply for having a difference of opinion? Think about that before you say we force our views on others.

          • Bob

            I don’t mean to sound mean in any sort of way, but from the comments I have been reading, there isn’t just a difference in opinion here.  It seems like most people here are attacking Creationists and people that do not believe in evolution.  And, I believe that just reading over the comments posted above shows that Creationists are being attacked a lot by Athiests, too.

    • Glasofruix

      It’s not like carbon dating places humans and dinosaurs a few millions of years apart, oh wait it does !

      • TiltedHorizon

        Any ‘knowledgeable’ creationist will tell you that carbon dating is woefully inaccurate, often returning ages tens of thousands of years apart for the same sample. Clearly this is why dinosaurs appear to be millions of years old.

        Just don’t ask them to explain why carbon dating is so darn consistent in this inconsistency.  Don’t expect them to answer why the oldest human remains we have don’t also erroneously date to the same age as dinosaurs.

        • Glasofruix

          Carbon dating is one of the techniques and there’s other more precise means, but yeah a creationnist will never really get that…

      • Jon

        Oh wait, would this be the same radioisotope or Carbon-14 dating that shows living creatures ( clams) to be several thousands of years old? It sure would!
         And how ’bout that “independent” method they use? You find a fossil in a rock layer…you look in a book that says said rock layer is 400 million years old…therfore, fossil is 400 million years old. ( And how do you know the rock layer is 400M old? Cuz, you look in a book for a 400M year old fossil that resembles it.  Goofy, but true

        • Glasofruix

          So the science of geology is false because there are books about geology, and creationnism is true because there’s a book about religion?
          Just because you’re a retard it does not make everything you don’t understand false.

          Oh and, sources?

    • Annie

      When I was about 8 years old, my friend and I “discovered” that there were footprints on the 2x4s that framed the walls and ceiling of her family’s newly constructed garage.  We came up with many reasons for this oddity that ranged from ghosts to ninja-like robbers.  It never occurred to us that the builders simply walked on the boards before they were put into place. 

    • https://twitter.com/#!/OffensivAtheist bismarket

      Even if it wasn’t FAKED, i have seen documentaries where someone tried standing in the “Footprints” & they were literally Twisted up. He said at the time ,WHY would early man have stood like this? It’s not natural,lol;-[)

    • Mark W.

       Sorry Kirby, but you have seen the erode down remains of dinosaur tracks which gives them a footprint like appearance.  Many have been  been subjected to the same assumptions, as well as outright hoaxes at Glen Rosa.  You can read the explanation at the link below.

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

    • mattand

      Hey, Kirby:

      There’s a phrase that pops up every so often in internet debates called the Magical Balance Fairy. It’s a snarky way of pointing out that not all view points are equal.

      This is a prime example. There is decades of evidence, from carbon dating to where fossils are found in earth, to demonstrate that humans and dinosaurs didn’t co-exist. There’s zero evidence to indicate to prove they did.

      It may sound harsh, but the people claiming this is proves that man and dino lived at the same time are wrong. That’s not arrogant and close minded; it’s the truth.

  • Shwnsmth21

    Lol, apparently they even have “contemporary” angels that descend to help a girl understand the meaning of life… Men in White it’s called, because angels are still too good for other colors.

  • Ncczobie

    We have one of these that just went up by our store in Oklahoma :(  I cringe every time I leave work.

  • http://bareatheism.blogspot.com/ Deven Kale

    That silhouette  looks an awful lot like Eric Hovind. I can’t imagine a better spokesperson.

  • mikespeir

    I think this is great!  Ham & Co. are looking more and more ridiculous, and they’re doing it to themselves.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/FDGYHBEWVNGUG763L5X4TON3JQ Nazani14

    The dragon looks a lot like the (blazing?) brachiosaur with lipstick.

  • http://criticallyskeptic-dckitty.blogspot.com Katherine Lorraine

    Here’s the Ken Ham explanation for fire-breathing dragons, you ready for this? It’s really stupid, I warn you, it could cause brain damage if you read it.

    Ahem, after the flood, since dinosaurs had such a large lung capacity, they were forced to breath more rapidly. The rapid breathing caused their breath to ignite the air, and therefore fire-breathing dragons were really just dinosaurs.

    • ch81602

       My head already hurts reading such things like that! Such stupidity!

    • Glasofruix

      Thanks to you i lost at least 10 IQ points…

    • http://squeakysoapbox.com/ Rich Wilson

      I don’t think that’s from Ham.  
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=sK6tkcxAHIw Ham talks about belching methane.  It is freakin’ funny though.

    • Alankisabeast

       No way in hell he said that.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=514439277 Trevor Lambert

        I think it was Kent Hovind, but I definitely remember that explanation being put forth.

    • https://twitter.com/#!/OffensivAtheist bismarket

       Seems Legit;-O

    • http://bareatheism.blogspot.com/ Deven Kale

       I don’t remember for sure who it was who said it, but it’s a part of the “Hovind Ice Shield theory*.” Once the shield melted (which caused the flood) the air became thinner, since the shield was no longer compressing it. The dinosaurs then had to breathe faster in order to get the proper amounts of oxygen. Their lungs were so large, and their breathing so fast, that the friction of the oxygen passing through their nostrils caused it to catch fire.

      *By theory I actually mean hypothesis, and even that’s a stretch.

  • Alan Christensen

    I think the human is saying, “WTF am I doing here? This is all wrong.”

  • Gus Snarp

    I hate the Creation Museum billboards because they’re so damn good. Look at that billboard and imagine you’re a little kid just getting excited about the concept of dinosaurs. I live near enough to pass their billboards often and I dread the day my kids says: “Can we go there and see the dinosaurs?”

    Fortunately I already have my answer: “No, but we can go to the zoo and see the Komodo Dragon, or we can go to the Museum Center and see the mammoth skeleton, or we can even go to King’s Island and see their dinosaurs, which are a lot bigger and better and have rides nearby.”

    But really, I can see a lot of kids and their parents taken in by this billboard with no idea of the kind of horror show indoctrination center they’ll be walking into.

  • http://www.facebook.com/chrisalgoo Chris Algoo

    I might go Fundie for fire-breathing dragons.

  • Gus Snarp

    What’s strange from a pure design standpoint is the effort they went to to make the brachiosaurus sign alliterative (really, “blazing”? What could be less blazing than a brachiosaurus), when they didn’t make the other signs alliterative. The Mighty T-Rex? Not terrifying, not terrible, terrific, titanic, tenacious, toothy, tall, whatever? The brave Triceratops? Dinosaurs are brave now? What about tough, or any of those earlier t words? Obviously they’re all scientifically illiterate, but it seems that an otherwise decent design group couldn’t come up with consistently decent copy. What idiot decides that they should have the least apt adjective possible just because it’s alliterative, but not be alliterative elsewhere?

  • Gus Snarp

    And on a side note, I wonder how many of the hits on the AIG website come from atheist blogs?

    • https://twitter.com/#!/OffensivAtheist bismarket

       I would visit but i’d be worried i’d catch something – gizmodo.com.au/2012/05/religious-websites-are-worse-for-your-computer-than-porn-sites/

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000769854466 Dinas Žulpys

    its ok when u on drugs

  • http://www.facebook.com/coldcrankcase Jeremy Nickols

    well, let’s break this down a bit…

    speciation over time = the illogical work of the devil
    fire breathing dragons = seems legit

    and my grandmother can’t understand why i laugh at creationists…
    thankfully, thunderfoot can.

  • Gunstargreen

    We called it America.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X