The Smithsonian Institution is Using a Creation Museum Dinosaur In Its Advertising

worthy of an online petition. Disgusting that they give legitimacy to a cause that is scientifically illegitimate!

Of course dinosaurs did not live with people, but they do now. Creationists are dinosaurs in the sense of the second meaning of the word defined at http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/dinosaur?q=dinosaurs: “a person or thing that is outdated or has become obsolete because of failure to adapt to changing circumstances.”

The quote from Ham says it’s a copyright violation because the museum has copyrighted the statue. They make no mention of owning the copyright to the original photograph. Wouldn’t the photographer have the copyright for the image which is a two dimensional representation of the three dimensional object?

Not that removes the taint of their corruption from the pamphlet. Trash them and make the photo source cover the costs. 

It remains to be seen if there actually is a copyright violation. I hope we hear from the Smithsonian where they got the image. I sincerely doubt they went to the Creation Museum to get it! Most likely it came from some stock photo collection. Organizations like museums are generally pretty careful to use images that are either in the public domain, or which they’ve obtained rights to. If they purchased it from a stock photo service they’re probably off the hook (the service might have to justify its source, however).

In addition, it depends on the photography rules that visitors to the Creation Museum agree to. Owning the design of a particular dinosaur model doesn’t automatically mean that every image made of it violates some sort of copyright. If this image was actually produced and distributed by the Dinosaur Museum, they can certainly make a copyright claim. But if it’s an image made by a third party of something that is on public or semi-public display, the legality is likely to be cloudier.

The offending party is istockphoto.com . This picture comes up first when searching for “Dinosaur head”: 
http://www.istockphoto.com/search/text/dinosaur%20head/source/basic#a4898c8

I doubt the thumbnail will be there for long since the actual page has been removed and returns a 404.
I am not a copyright expert, but istockphoto (which I use for work frequently) has pretty bulletproof agreements for the use of their pictures. 

I just posted the result of my research on this picture and it disappeared. I apologize if it reappears again. Here it is as best as I can remember:

First, I was curious as to how someone, obviously a pro, was able to go to the creation museum and take a studio quality photo without getting caught. To take the photo, I suppose one needed at least a tripod and maybe a ladder. All things that would have risen suspicion. My guess is that the photo was taken indeed with permission.

So I traced the photo on istockphoto.com and even though the photo’s page has been taken down, I was able with google to find a reference to the author by using the ID number and I found this:

—
Jan 9, 2012 – Download a royalty-free stock photo of Dinosaur Closeup by Glenda Powers(copyright) from iStockphoto.com. 
—

Then I found other photos by Glenda Powers and I finally was able to find her istockphoto portfolio: http://www.istockphoto.com/search/portfolio/1065814/?facets=%7B%2225%22%3A%226%22%7D#c04c480
(Note that she goes by the name McInich, but if you open any photo, you’ll see her name in the copyright).

Additionally, I found her portfolio at Fotolia as well http://us.fotolia.com/p/200542159 but here it is under the name of Glenda Powers
Same pictures, but at fotolia the dino head is still available: http://us.fotolia.com/id/38106358

In looking at both portfolios I realized that there are a good number of religiously themed pictures, as well as many patriotic ones (flags, bibles, preachers and Religious Wooden cubes “Praise God”  http://us.fotolia.com/id/35185625 )

This tells me that this Glenda Powers may very well have gotten permission from the museum to take the picture and place it on not just one, but at least two stock photo websites.

Since Glenda is a pro, I find it unlikely that she (or whomever works for her) would go to a museum and take a picture to sell online without securing permission.
If that’s the case, there is no copyright infringement, which explain the magnanimous attitude of Ken ham.

In any event, this is the person that would be at fault for selling a copyrighted image should it be indeed illegal.

Hey, thank you for letting us know that you weren’t able to find the evidence. Stupidly we were placing our trust in the thousands of scientists and researchers that instead claim to have warehouses full of transitional fossils, not to mention reams of research that proves evolution without the shade of a doubt.

As far as the feathered dinosaur, let me help you out since apparently you count sloth as one of your sins:
http://boingboing.net/2012/07/05/stunning-feathered-dinosaur-fo.html 

this is the second link I found by searching google. It’s a nice one and even a blind idiot can see the feathers near the neck, so I am sure that someone of your intellectual stature will have no problem at all.

By the way, we don’t “believe in evolution” the way the faithful believe in god. We look at the evidence. We trust the opinions of those that have studied it all their lives and we take the occasional trip to th natural history museum.
There is no faith required, just an open mind.

“I really would like to believe in evolution but the evidence doesn’t support it.”

Why in the fuck would you “like” to believe in evolution? What an idiotic way to attempt to add creditability to your moronic claim that the evidence doesn’t support evolution.
Put your head back up into your ass and go away.

 Here:  http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_facts_support_evolution.
Now shut up and go away.

If everything is changing, then it could be said that everything is transitional.

I love how creationists demand evidence, and then say, “Well that doesn’t prove anything!” when it is provided.

Excerpts from your link:

“humans naturally fit into the ape group”

Sure, all ape species build languages, cultures and civilisations similar to ours.

“Vestigial organs… A good example’s
the human tailbone or coccyx, which serves no function in humans”

Right, so go land on yours and then go jogging straight after.  No function lost, eh?

With bloopers like that, which I spotted in seconds, little point in wasting time going through the lot.
 

Sure, all ape species build languages, cultures and civilisations similar to ours.

Who said that as a subspecies of apes, apes have to have the same exact qualities as we do? A tree fits into the plant group, but not all plants produce nuts like many trees do. Learn science.

Right, so go land on yours and then go jogging straight after. No function lost, eh?

You do know the difference between “this part serves no inherent
function” and “if you break it, it won’t harm you at all”, right? And
you do know which one the article says is the case, right? Having no function itself is not the same thing as not
inhibiting function when damaged.

Got any more, or was that all? Please, please learn more about evolution before presuming you know enough to dismiss out of hand.

All of these supposed fossils of human ancestors have been proven false or a hoax, like Lucy, Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, ect.  There actually is no transitional fossil record to speak of , only speculations of a few bogus fossils. If evolution was true we would have  millions of transitional fossils and there would be no debate . Real science, observational science supports the biblical account of creation, that all things reproduce ”after their kind”, always have, always will. For an ape to evolve into a human would require a ”gain of information”in the DNA, but this has never ever been observed by science, ever, just ask Richard Dawkins. I challenge all evolutionists to search the truth yourself, your faith in evolution is actually blind faith, and not the least bit scientific.

To Marco.
Look,  if you want to talk science , lets do it.  Science has never observed DNA gaining new information, ever, which is what molecules to man evolution requires. Just ask Richard Dawkins. For an ape to evolve into a human would require new information to be ”added” to the DNA.  Apes have always been apes and humans have always been human as far as we know since man has been on earth .  The fossil record DOES NOT support evolution either. There actually is not a wharehouse full of transitional fossils, only a few speculations and false interpretations of existing fossils.  If evolution was true we would have literally millions of transitional fossils , there would be no debate.  Actually real science supports the biblical account of all creatures reproducing ”after thier kind”, always have, always will. You have been brainwashed to believe in so called scientific evidence that just isnt there.  Both evolution and creation are really ”faith based” in nature, both must be accepted by faith since no one was there to actually see it.  Creationists just happen to believe that there actually was someone there in the beginning, and it was the God of the Bible, so we really do have an eyewitness. And its only logical to think that since we have a universe and earth of precise order and design then it must have a designer. Plus we have a mind capable of understanding this world because of God.  If our minds were just the result of random chemicals evolving by chance over millions of years, then how could we trust that they evolved in the right order to even function correctly? That my friend is truly ”blind faith”.  We Creatonsists just happen to believe that real observational science actually supports the Bible, not  evolution. Creationists and evolutionists all have the same evidence, the same facts, the same rock layers, same fossils, ect. It is the interpretation of those facts and evidences where we differ. The evolutionist starts with the assumption evolution is true, immediatley ruling out any other option, and that is not the correct way to do science.

Actually Answers in Genesis has several Scientists on staff with secular university educations. You should go to thier website and check out their credentials and at least hear their side of the creation/evolution argument. You may be suprised just how scientific their organization is.

 This is a  typical creationism answer that sounds informed but is blatantly ignoring a key definition.

No part of theory says that vestigial organs require to serve no function. Most vestigial organs actually do have some sort of use. But that’s not what being a vestigial organ means:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB360.html

Charles Darwin first suggested that the appendix was an evolutionary dead-end part of the body that hung around, unused, in humans. These supposedly unused organs have been called “vestigial organs.” That means that evolutionists believe the appendix evolved for some reason but over time was no longer necessary, so it became a “leftover”—not needed.
Other body parts that have been, or are still considered, “vestigial organs” are: tonsils, the tailbone, wisdom teeth and even goosebumps! Tonsils had been considered useless until science more recently proved that they are an important part of the immune system. Years ago doctors would routinely remove tonsils any time they were inflamed. Eventually, it was discovered that this could actually cause many problems.
Recent discoveries have also proved that the appendix plays an important part in the body’s health. It aids in digestion and produces antibodies that defend your body against bacteria. Some studies have shown that the appendix has an important role even before a person is born.
Sadly, many science textbooks still talk about “vestigial organs.” They are very outdated. Even evolutionists now agree that the appendix has a purpose. Charles Darwin was apparently wrong. We should not be surprised that the appendix is important, as it was designed by our wonderful Creator!

Look, you can talk about how you read all the links you want. The fact is that without a direct rebuttal to the link I would assume that you are just dismissing it without reading it.

—
When you say something like “”The bottom line is never has anything been observed turning into
another kind, gaining information, and the fossil record does not
support that either.”” You sound so demanding of evidence. Yet at the same time, you expect us to believe that since we never observed an organ turning into another, then a more plausible explanation is that animals and humans were just generated magically by some sentient being. Even though we never witnessed creation either.

Maybe I am ‘indoctrinated’, but somehow evolution sounds a lot more plausible than creation to me. Mostly because the amount of evidence for evolution is greater than zero. While the amount of evidence for creation is… zero.

Why don’t you apply the same level of skepticism that you apply to evolution on creationism?

We have not witnessed the way an organ converts into another through millions and millions of years of natural selection. But we have no reason to believe it is not possible. Yet we have many reasons to believe it is. As we have observed reproduction and selection of mutations that become a better fit to the environment in the micro level already. We have even observed speciation in action in species as complex as insects. The thing is that there is nothing in evolution that makes organ evolution different than the sort of evolution we have already observed in the microscopic level besides time scale. And we have enough evidence to know that life has really lasted a loong time in earth so that it would be quite plausible.

Well I appreciate your honesty. And I gave my rebuttal to your vestigal organ link in my other reply. But you admitted that we have never seen any one kind turn into another kind, and that is rare for an evolutionists to admit that, so at least your honest.

 But you have either intentially or unknowingly used the terms ”natural selection” and ”evolution” interchangibly. These terms are often used by evolutionists to muddy the water. Evolution in the sense ”molecules to man”,  and ”natural selection” are far from the same thing.

 Creationists do not debate natural selection,  we believe in natural selection. Real science supports NS.  Animals adapt to their environment , no question about that, but what they DONT do is then continue on and turn into another ”kind”, that , like i have said before, would require a gain of information, and that has never happened.  Natural Selection works with existing information, reshuffling,and losing information in some cases, but never is there any new information added that ”evolution” requires. Dogs change, cats change, horses change, monkeys change, but one thing never changes, they NEVER turn into another kind of animal, ever.

You said the evidence for evolution is not zero but creation is zero, I disagree but still how is believing your worldview  that ” somthing came from nothing” any more plausable then mine of ”In the beginning God”?  Both are faith based beleif systems about the past as you admmitted earlier since evolution has never been observed.