Menu
header photo

Creation Science Fiction

Exposing The Lies One Layer At A Time

Did Dinosaurs Coexist With Man? The Evidence Says No - My Discussion With Paul Humber Of CR Ministries

Paul Humber's False Claim About Unfossilized Hadrosaur Vertebre

Will Paul Humber Retract His Claim?

In doing some research for a discussion I had with Paul Humber of CR Ministries on the subject of man living with dinosaurs I ran across a creationist claim that unfossilized hadrosaur remains have been found. I became interested in this when I saw Paul also makes this claim on his CR Ministries website and he claims to own an "un-fossilized" and "unmineralized" vertebra.

 

I found this article at the Creation Ministries International website and this is their claim:

 

"Here is an excerpt from the CMI Article:

 

When the scientists say that the bones are “typically ... unpermineralized,” what they mean is that we are not dealing with fossils, but comparatively ‘fresh’ dinosaur bones.

 

The hadrosaurid remains are almost entirely disarticulated, show little evidence of weathering, predation, or trampling, and are typically uncrushed and unpermineralized (Fiorillo et al. 2010; Gangloff and Fiorillo 2010)."

 

I was able to locate the paper they cited, and sure enough, the quote is accurate. Then I noticed this paper published in Acta Palaeontol. Pol. 61 (1): 158, 2016 The title is "Comment on “A new Arctic hadrosaurid from the Prince Creek Formation (lower Maastrichtian) of northern Alaska” by Hirotsugu Mori, Patrick S. Druckenmiller, and Gregory M. Erickson"

 

The author is Anthony R. Fiorillo, who did the original study.

 

"It is puzzling that Mori et al. (2016) state the bones are “typically uncrushed and unpermineralized” because these bones are indeed permineralized. As stated by Gangloff and Fiorillo (2010: 300) there is common to abundant occurrence of minerals such as pyrite, calcite, and chalcedony (microcrystalline quartz) within the dinosaur bones collected. All of these minerals are commonly introduced during the permineralization process. Further, Gangloff and Fiorillo (2010) discussed fractures of bones resulting from freezethaw dynamics present along boundaries of permafrost, and the paper included figures illustrating the degree of crushing in some of the bones (2010: fig. 5C, D). The bones from the Liscomb Bonebed are remarkable but they are indeed fossilized and they are indeed permineralized. Fiorillo et al. (2010), did not focus on any of the mineralogical aspects of bone preservation so the use of this paper in support of Mori et al.’s (2016) claim is baffling. As a co-author of the two papers that are being misused, several colleagues have now contacted me requesting clarification on the state of fossilization of dinosaur bones from northern Alaska. The Mori et al. (2016) paper serves as a reminder that scientists are not only obligated to provide the supporting data for their conclusions, they are also obligated to cite their sources accurately."

The reality is that no "unfossilized" dinosaur bone has ever been shown to exist. 

Paul Humber admitted during our conversation he really has no extent of the amount of permineralization present in the hadrosaur vertebra he claims to own.  His only criteria for claiming it is unfossilized is that he says it is light and may crumble easily.  Permineralized bone may also be light and crumble easily depending on the type of strata it is found in.  He really has no evidence it is not fossilized at all.  Will he continue to make this extraordinary claim, or will he remove it from his website as any honest person would do?  This remains to be seen. 

Paul Humber Demonstrates He Doesn't Understand Permineralization Again

Paul G Humber (who blocked me on facebook) is still trying to claim he owns unfossilized or partly fossilized hadrosaur bone, and he is posting in the Creationism group referencing our recent conversation via Skype. Once again, Paul is demonstrating he doesn't understand the fossilization process at all. If he would have just followed the link provided to the original source instead of quoting Wiki he may have actually understood.

"Organic tissues like wood, bone, and shell contain pores and spaces. The mineralized water fills the pores of the organic tissues and moves through the cellular spaces. During this process the saturated water evaporates, and the excess minerals are deposited on the cells and tissues. This process creates many layers of mineral deposits creating hard fossilized record." http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/paleo/fossils/permin.html

Fossilized bone often shows open pores since mineralized water was the only thing to occupy the empty space. Open pores do not need to be filled with sediment for fossilization to have occurred. Once again, what Paul has presented is not evidence he owns an "unfossilized" or "partly unfossilized" dinosaur bone. 

Other bizarre claims by Paul Humber - Was Noah A Neandertal?

One of Paul Humber's more bizarre recent claims is the fictional Noah was actually a Neandertal.  He posted this on his CR Ministries facebook page.  Paul suggests that Neandertal features such as enlarged brow ridges are the result of modern humans living to be many hundreds of years old. 

Do Billions Of Clams Buried Closed Suggest A Worldwide Flood?

Another terrible claim made by Paul Humber, as well as many other young earth creationists, is that fossilized clams in the closed position suggest they were buried rapidly during a flood.  This only demonstrates Paul's misunderstanding the evidence in front of him, or his willingness to repeat unsubstantiated claims.  The muscular structure of bi-valves like brachiopods is different than that of clams, and they do not open when the animal dies and the muscles relax.  Paul's terrible video on the Grand Canyon clearly shows a brachiopod fossil misidentified as a "clam." 

Daniel Malcolm Exposes Another Paul Humber Lie

Paul G. Humber Jim Stone asked me to provide a description of an aspect of evolution, or of a specific example. He wanted me to show that I “have some capacity to understand the subject matter.” Jim, I want you to respond. For ten of you to send me a barrage, that is unreasonable. Jim, you be the spokesman. Matter was either created or it has always been. Do we agree? Christians believe God created matter. Many humanists believe that matter, after evolving its own intelligence, “created” God. These views are dichotomies. Thus, any argument against one of these views is an argument for the other. Can you think of a third option? Also, creation itself is either the result of intelligence or it is not. The theory of evolution (as described in textbooks and the scientific literature) argues for a non-intelligent cause and process. Creation, in any form (there are non-Christian forms of creation beliefs), argues for an intelligent cause and process. Now, let’s look at the fossil record. It is a record of things that have died. Relationships between fossils are determined in one of two ways. Either they are based on the idea that the fossils are so close to being alike that we believe they are the same sort of plant or animal, or they are based on preexisting ideas about the relationships which, in turn, also pre-determines the conclusions. We often read about this or that “transitional” (in-between) form bridging the gap between one kind of organism and another. It is important to remember that the transitional forms that have been found are only transitional because they are declared to be so. We have no evidence that they are not simply another “kind” of plant or animal. For instance, if someone who had never seen a bat were to look at a fossilized bat, they might easily declare that this was a transitional form between birds and mammals! But we know that bats are contemporary and highly specialized creatures, and are not transitional forms of any kind. The same thing happens with fossils. We make numerous assumptions anytime we see a fossil and then declare it to be, for example, “transitional” between birds and dinosaurs, or between fish and reptiles. The reality is that a “transitional” form, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. People tend to see what they want to see, and the theory of evolution, after all, demands transitional forms. Thus, some discoveries are declared “transitional” and heralded loudly in the press. When a fossil’s “transitional” status is retracted, however, it is often done very quietly, with little or no press coverage. An excellent example of this is “Lucy,” which was heralded so loudly during the 1970’s and 1980’s as a key transition of human evolution and undeniable proof that humans had “evolved.” During the 1990’s, though, many evolutionists, including one of her discoverers, quietly began removing “Lucy” from the human evolutionary tree (See: Science, 1996, Vol. 272, p. 654 and National Geographic, 1996, March, p. 96). Thus, all the hyperbole gives the impression that a great many transitional forms have been found. The truth is far different. See:http://palaeo-electronica.org/2002_1/editor/icon.htm.

 

Daniel Malcolm Folks, I'm afraid our friend Paul G. Humber is either mistaken or lying through his teeth. I have the March 1996 NG issue right here in front of me:
 
Daniel Malcolm's photo.
Like · Reply · 2 · 23 hrs · Edited
Daniel Malcolm
Daniel Malcolm There is no mention of Lucy being removed from the human evolutionary tree on p. 96. On the contrary, Australopithecus is described as being the common ancestor of all later hominids, including humans.
 
Daniel Malcolm's photo.
Like · Reply · 3 · 23 hrs
Daniel Malcolm
Daniel Malcolm Nor does the rest of the article state what Paul G. Humberclaims it does.
 
Like · Reply · 2 · 23 hrs
Lisa Keith-Lucas
Lisa Keith-Lucas Color me surprised.
 
Like · Reply · 2 · 23 hrs
Adocus Torte
Adocus Torte Paul G. Humber has now blocked several members. He is a coward.
 
Like · Reply · 1 ·