DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Renewable Revolution
HTML https://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Sound Christian Doctrine
*****************************************************
#Post#: 95--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: October 17, 2013, 8:51 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nVvGDu9mDuQ#t=424
I jumped you to the meat of the matter. As a Christian I can
handle the prior stuff but you might not. ;D
Also, if you get bored, jump to the 40 minute mark for Carbon 14
science facts.
The bottom line with Carbon 14 is that it is a short term dating
method. According to modern science only living things ingest
Carbon 14 as a percentage of the Carbon they ingest. When they
die, they start losing Carbon 14 at an allegedly fixed rate. Why
"allegedly"? Because an assumption is made that the percentage
of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has always been exactly the same.
Scientists admit that if it wasn't, the dating would be somewhat
off. But even more importantly, ANY TIME you find ANYTHING that
has carbon 14 in it, whatever that life form the matter came
from, said life form CANNOT be more than about 30,000 years old.
Why? Because, according to modern science, anything that dies
TODAY will, if the matter is preserved in stone or sediment free
from contamination, lose ALL the Carbon 14 in about 30,000
years. Said sample will contain only Carbon 12 (the common form
of Carbon).
But it gets even better! They have found coal and ancient wood
(both of these types of matter are from former living plants)
inside a strata dated, by other methods, as being over 3.5
million years old that CONTAINED CARBON 14! :o
Now, unless the Carbon 14 dating is really wacky (and I think it
may be hundreds but certainly NOT millions of years off), the
strata IS NOT 3.5 million years old but MUST BE less than 30,000
years old.
This drives evolutionists up a tree because they HAVE TO HAVE
those millions of years to justify the so-called positive
mutations involved in natural selection. But really, it is
TOTALLY unscientific to reject a carbon 14 dated sample (which
dates in a much narrower and more precise range than the multi
million year methods). It represents scientific proof that coal
can form in 30,000 years or less. But yet they refuse to accept
it with NO RATIONAL EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER!
At present, science knows of no way for life forms to ingest
Carbon 14 unless they are alive.
That said, towards the end of the above video they discuss a
sample of dead plant tissue that dates 3,000 years INTO THE
FUTURE! WTF? ??? It seems that scientists need to go back to
the drawing board with the radio-carbon clocks. This sample
somehow accumulated too much carbon 14 while alive. Imagine what
that means for so many hundreds of thousands of human, animal
and plant remains that have been radio carbon 14 dated in the
last 100 years or so? ;D
For what it is worth I don't believe the earth is only 6,000
years old but I DO believe Homo sapiens hasn't existed on earth
for more than 40 or 50 thousand years.
I admit I have no proof. But the new Carbon 14 data supports my
hypothesis, even if it is Faith based. There has NEVER, EVER
been found ANY former living matter without some Carbon 14 in
it. How does that grab you? Do you realize that is scientific,
empirical, radio-carbon 14 test evidence that the biosphere is
about 30,000 years old? You don't? Why not?
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/snapoutofit.gif
The dinosaur bones are mostly totally petrified (no carbon 14 or
carbon 12 to set up a date from the ratio). But I will bet you
there IS a dinosaur bone out there with carbon 14 and SOMEBODY
has made real sure that scientifically embarrassing fact doesn't
get out because it will destroy the Darwinian edifice of natural
history Atheists 'R' US bedtime stories.
Are you a scientist or are you a true blue believer of Darwinian
mud puddle life evolution? You say it's not about faith? Where's
your evidence? Why don't you admit we have been brain washed
from the time we were knee high to a grasshopper? Can't you
handle it if you have to face the fact that we were created as a
package deal around 30,000 years ago as the radio Carbon 14 test
data seems to PROVE scientifically?
Will you now go back to the church of evolutionary zealots and
have all the credentialed worthies come up with an even more
implausible 'short time frame rapid' co-evolution fairy tale?
Probably.
People can be quite stubborn when faced with facts that don't
fit their world view. The irony of all this is that the
evolutionist true believers accuse those of us with REAL
EVIDENCE against the Theory of Evolution as being stubborn,
irrational and fairy tale believers. Pot, meet the kettle!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/www_MyEmoticons_com__burp.gif
That honest admission of lack of proof is LACKING from
evolutionists even though they have none.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/301.gif
As a Christian, I CAN operate on faith. but professionals with
the respect of the population BECAUSE they are scientists are
not allowed to operate on faith. They are NOT allowed to reach
any conclusion without empirical evidence gained by the use of
the scientific method.
BUT, when you study the Theory of Evolution and its tenets, you
find that it is an evidence free narrative purporting to explain
how life originated and became complex on this planet. If they
will admit they are practicing a form of religion, I'll accept
their decision to operate on faith in Darwin's theory. Of course
they refuse to do that because they would lose the aura of
scientific credibility.
There is no way, despite their incessant claims to the contrary,
that they can claim they have reached their conclusions through
the scientific method. I don't care if the just HAVE to have
some pet theory to build an institution and a stack of libraries
filled with books about this, that and the other with.
They are OBLIGATED as scientists to throw the Theory of
Evolution out if because after 140 years of looking high and low
for proof of it, they have NO empirical evidence to back the
theory up! Their behavior is irrationally religious. They won't
admit that what they are REALLY doing is defending the "GOD DID
NOT DO IT" atheist turf, not the scientific method, period.
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-028.gif
HTML http://creation.com/creation-magazine-live-episode-14
#Post#: 97--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: Surly1 Date: October 18, 2013, 3:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am all about going wherever the evidence takes you. And I am
willing to believe that our measurement tools are as flawed as
were celestial maps based on the Ptolemaic world view.
But created 50,000 years ago? No fucking way. Too much evidence
is in place for an earlier start, including written and fossil
records. The mDNA work is pretty compelling too, up to a point.
No matter how we got here, I don't believe homo could have
dispersed and left the variability in the fossil record, all
aroun d the globe, in such a short time frame.
HTML http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo2/mod_homo_4.htm
#Post#: 100--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: Surly1 Date: October 18, 2013, 4:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Let's muddle the matter further--
Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into
disarray
A haul of fossils found in Georgia suggests that half a dozen
species of early human ancestor were actually all Homo erectus
HTML http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/17/skull-homo-erectus-human-evolution
Ian Sample, science correspondent
theguardian.com, Thursday 17 October 2013 14.00 EDT
[embed=425,349]
HTML http://www.theguardian.com/science/video/2013/oct/17/fossil-skull-human-evolution-homo-erectus-video[/embed]
The spectacular fossilised skull of an ancient human ancestor
that died nearly two million years ago in central Asia has
forced scientists to rethink the story of early human evolution.
Anthropologists unearthed the skull at a site in Dmanisi, a
small town in southern Georgia, where other remains of human
ancestors, simple stone tools and long-extinct animals have been
dated to 1.8m years old.
Experts believe the skull is one of the most important fossil
finds to date, but it has proved as controversial as it is
stunning. Analysis of the skull and other remains at Dmanisi
suggests that scientists have been too ready to name separate
species of human ancestors in Africa. Many of those species may
now have to be wiped from the textbooks.
The latest fossil is the only intact skull ever found of a human
ancestor that lived in the early Pleistocene, when our
predecessors first walked out of Africa. The skull adds to a
haul of bones recovered from Dmanisi that belong to five
individuals, most likely an elderly male, two other adult males,
a young female and a juvenile of unknown sex.
HTML http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/17/1382024055212/Five-Homo-erectus-skulls--009.jpg
The five H erectus skulls found in Dmanisi, Georgia. Photograph:
Ponce de León, Zollikofe/University of Zurich
The site was a busy watering hole that human ancestors shared
with giant extinct cheetahs, sabre-toothed cats and other
beasts. The remains of the individuals were found in collapsed
dens where carnivores had apparently dragged the carcasses to
eat. They are thought to have died within a few hundred years of
one another.
"Nobody has ever seen such a well-preserved skull from this
period," said Christoph Zollikofer, a professor at Zurich
University's Anthropological Institute, who worked on the
remains. "This is the first complete skull of an adult early
Homo. They simply did not exist before," he said. Homo is the
genus of great apes that emerged around 2.4m years ago and
includes modern humans.
Other researchers said the fossil was an extraordinary
discovery. "The significance is difficult to overstate. It is
stunning in its completeness. This is going to be one of the
real classics in paleoanthropology," said Tim White, an expert
on human evolution at the University of California, Berkeley.
But while the skull itself is spectacular, it is the
implications of the discovery that have caused scientists in the
field to draw breath. Over decades excavating sites in Africa,
researchers have named half a dozen different species of early
human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground.
HTML http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/17/1382023451653/Homo-erectus-skull-found--003.jpg
The most recently unearthed individual had a long face and big
teeth, but the smallest braincase of all five H erectus skulls
found at the site. Photograph: Georgian National Museum
The remains at Dmanisi are thought to be early forms of Homo
erectus, the first of our relatives to have body proportions
like a modern human. The species arose in Africa around 1.8m
years ago and may have been the first to harness fire and cook
food. The Dmanisi fossils show that H erectus migrated as far as
Asia soon after arising in Africa.
The latest skull discovered in Dmanisi belonged to an adult male
and was the largest of the haul. It had a long face and big,
chunky teeth. But at just under 550 cubic centimetres, it also
had the smallest braincase of all the individuals found at the
site. The dimensions were so strange that one scientist at the
site joked that they should leave it in the ground.
The odd dimensions of the fossil prompted the team to look at
normal skull variation, both in modern humans and chimps, to see
how they compared. They found that while the Dmanisi skulls
looked different to one another, the variations were no greater
than those seen among modern people and among chimps.
The scientists went on to compare the Dmanisi remains with those
of supposedly different species of human ancestor that lived in
Africa at the time. They concluded that the variation among them
was no greater than that seen at Dmanisi. Rather than being
separate species, the human ancestors found in Africa from the
same period may simply be normal variants of H erectus.
"Everything that lived at the time of the Dmanisi was probably
just Homo erectus," said Prof Zollikofer. "We are not saying
that palaeoanthropologists did things wrong in Africa, but they
didn't have the reference we have. Part of the community will
like it, but for another part it will be shocking news."
HTML http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/10/17/1382025135818/Reconstruction-of-Homo-er-009.jpg
Reconstruction of the early human ancestor Homo erectus from the
latest skull found at Dmanisi in Georgia. Illustration: J H
Matternes
David Lordkipanidze at the Georgian National Museum, who leads
the Dmanisi excavations, said: "If you found the Dmanisi skulls
at isolated sites in Africa, some people would give them
different species names. But one population can have all this
variation. We are using five or six names, but they could all be
from one lineage."
If the scientists are right, it would trim the base of the human
evolutionary tree and spell the end for names such as H
rudolfensis, H gautengensis, H ergaster and possibly H habilis.
The fossil is described in the latest issue of Science.
"Some palaeontologists see minor differences in fossils and give
them labels, and that has resulted in the family tree
accumulating a lot of branches," said White. "The Dmanisi
fossils give us a new yardstick, and when you apply that
yardstick to the African fossils, a lot of that extra wood in
the tree is dead wood. It's arm-waving."
"I think they will be proved right that some of those early
African fossils can reasonably join a variable Homo erectus
species," said Chris Stringer, head of human origins at the
Natural History Museum in London. "But Africa is a huge
continent with a deep record of the earliest stages of human
evolution, and there certainly seems to have been species-level
diversity there prior to two million years ago. So I still doubt
that all of the 'early Homo' fossils can reasonably be lumped
into an evolving Homo erectus lineage. We need similarly
complete African fossils from two to 2.5m years ago to test that
idea properly."
The analysis by Lordkipanidze also casts doubt on claims that a
creature called Australopithecus sediba that lived in what is
now South Africa around 1.9m years ago was a direct ancestor of
modern humans. The species was discovered by Lee Berger at the
University of Witwatersrand. He argued that it was premature to
dismiss his finding and criticised the authors for failing to
compare their fossils with the remains of A sediba.
"This is a fantastic and important discovery, but I don't think
the evidence they have lives up to this broad claim they are
making. They say this falsifies that Australopithecus sediba is
the ancestor of Homo. The very simple response is, no it
doesn't."
"What all this screams out for is more and better specimens. We
need skeletons, more complete material, so we can look at them
from head to toe," he added. "Any time a scientist says 'we've
got this figured out' they are probably wrong. It's not the end
of the story."
#Post#: 110--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: October 18, 2013, 10:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Surly,
I hear you. I have felt exactly the same for most of my life.
Only in the last year have I started to dig hard using the
scientific method to test the theory of Evolution and I have
come up with a fairy tale of great imagination but no proof.
I remember the arguments I had with my biology profs (none of
them were atheists, by the way) where I agreed that evolution
had taken place but the alleged proofs they were presenting on
multi-celled algae and plants, cell formation and mitochondria
migration were theories without proof.
I argued that 98% of mutations are harmful and that the DNA code
forcefully rejects change, rather than easily accepts even a
positive mutation.
I argued that the so-called "junk" DNA that comprises more than
70% of human DNA (practically ALL life forms have "junk" DNA) is
THERE to be triggered by an adaptation. No new data is necessary
(that was in 1989 - science has scince discovered that the
"junk" DNA is not junk at all but a series of codes for genes to
be turned on under certain conditions. I was right about that
one!).
Each life form is distinct. Claiming we came from this or that
just because you can make a bacterium produce insulin by
inserting a DNA plasmid into it so it codes for insulin points
at a creator, not random chance because WE are INTELLIGENTLY
DESIGNING a bacterium that has NEVER produced insulin by chance.
And Bacteria have had a LOT of TIME, according to evolutionists,
to produce everything from antibiotics to sunscreen. ;D Yet
[I]E. Coli[/I] bacteria, in all those millions and millions and
maybe billions of years hadn't evolved insulin manufacturing
ability (an EXTREMLY useful substance in a wide variety of life
forms that would have given said bacterium and evolutionary
advantage) until we engineered them to!
Many of my profs agreed that God started the ball rolling but he
did it through evolution. I said, fine, but what you are showing
me is ADAPTATION from a DNA package not evolution through
random mutation. When you can show me some random positive
mutation that "evolved" one type of life form to another, then
I'll agree we have proof.
Even those finches with all the different beak lengths and
shapes that Darwin claimed were examples of evolution were NOT.
It has since been proven that ALL the finch "different species"
he drew were IN FACT, all of a single species. Their DNA PACKAGE
enabled them to ADAPT to different conditions through different
beak lengths.
They DID NOT MUTATE. They DID NOT EVOLVE. They could, and still
can, procreate one with another, despite the different beak
lengths.
So, all that said, let's go to the article you posted.
First, the reconstruction is an artists conception and a cruel
joke. They don't have a clue whether this skull had that hair
pattern or looked (as is the obvious intent here) as a missing
link of some kind. It is NOT POSSIBLE to tell from a skull what
a NOSE looks like. Now tell me, does that nose not look like a
something between and ape and a negro? Can you say, agenda?
Second, if that skull is in a "2 million year old strata", they
are NOT using carbon 14 dating. They are using the old, "it's in
this type of rock strata so it MUST be X million years old
because ALL of this type of strata has been DETERMINED
(INTERPRETATION through the I.E. Rock strata column age
hypothesis, not a fixed radio isotope dating method. WHY?
Because they get embarrassingly widely varying data by 10s to
100s of millions of years of the SAME strata in different parts
of the world) to be to be 2 million years old". IOW it's 2
million years old because THEY SAID SO (see the mungo man
article above with a similar dating difficulty controversy).
Now suppose they find some Carbon 14 in that skull? What does
that do to their "2 million year old rock strata" assumption.
The entire story is just that. When we can PROVE something is 2
million years old or more, then we can start talking about
evolution. They have volcanic rock formed less than 50 years ago
that DATES to over 3 million years old! So whether they are
making geographic column strata assumptions or doing some type
of radioisotope dating, they are guessing at the dates, not
providing scientific proof of them.
Here's a great example. NOBODY had checked diamonds ( the
hardest form of carbon and the hardest substance known) for
Carbon 14 because they were ASSUMED to be milliions to billions
of years old. Well, they have found Carbon 14 in diamonds. That
means that unbelievable pressures somehow made these diamonds
within the last 30,000 years. Crazy, right?
But let's drop the strata and fossils for a second and discuss
living evolutionary mechanisms like our human biochemistry. We
are supposed to be complex, VERY evolved critters, right? We are
supposed to be higher life forms far more evolved than plants,
right?
Well, they have now found that a few very primitive creatures
like sea squirts and certain plants share with humans the
production of biochemicals that have just recently been
discovered (over the last 2 decades) to be vital to our immune
system, neurotransmittion and pain signaling. These chemicals
are called cannabinoids.
What's the big deal? They seem to have "defied" evolution! It
doesn't make modern scientific sense for us to produce the same
stuff that cannabis and sea squirts do if "evolution"
constantly, over millions of years acts on all subsystems of
life forms. I mean, evolutionists claim we went from single
celled life forms to multicellular myriad life forms that
populate the rocks, the land, the sea, the air and even sulphur
vents on the bottom of the ocean. We late comers are EVOLVED,
right? Are you going to tell me that our immune systems and pain
signaling and inflammatory response was FIXED from the start and
HASEN'T "evolved"? That's heresy!
But here it is. and they don't know quite what to make of it.
HTML http://www.createaforum.com/gallery/renewablerevolution/3-181013223407.jpeg
Dr Roger Pertwee: Department of Biomedical Sciences, Institute
of Medical Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill,
Aberdeen AB25 2ZD, Scotland, UK
"I am excited about cannabinoids because they reveal that we
have these marvelous systems in our bodies," he said "Where do
they come from? Why are they there? The endogenous cannabinoid
system, with its vast network of receptors and chemical
messengers, deals with pain, muscle, motor function, thought,
and mood. It's been detected in very primitive organisms, and
yet it has survived evolution from very early on and therefore
it must be quite an important system for us to have. It's a
wonderful system to study."
The International Cannabinoid Research Society (ICRS), a group
founded in 1991. The ICRS has hundreds of member-researchers
studying "cannabinoids," which are marijuana's most interesting
ingredients.
HTML http://www.cannabisculture.com/articles/1530.html
It simply has not occurred (because it is UNTHINKABLE) that, if
we did not evolve but were created and plugged in to the package
deal biosphere, his question answers itself.
#Post#: 127--------------------------------------------------
A "46 million year" unpleasant Bag Of Worms for the Ev
olutionists
By: AGelbert Date: October 20, 2013, 9:03 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
A "46 million year" unpleasant Bag Of Worms for the
Evolutionists
HTML http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-scared003.gif
Why? Because they have found a non-fossilized blood meal in a
mosquito gut that is in strata allegedly 46 million years old.
So what? This is Jurassic Park like exciting stuff, right?
NOPE! The scientists KNOW that IF that mosquito, which clearly
has organic compounds (i.e. carbon 12 to carbon 14 ratio in its
tissues) has ANY carbon 14 in it, it HAS TO BE LESS THAN 30,000
years old! :o
And that is why the article says absolutely NOTHING about Carbon
dating and throws out that huge 46 million year old age with no
explanation of the dating methodology. They are setting the
stage for IGNORING Carbon tests because "obviously" LOL! if the
mosquito is in 46 million year old strata, it MUST have lost all
its Carbon 14. Nothing to see here. Move along.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/2rzukw3.gif
I'll be watching what develops on this and report back here.
Here's the "scientific" article asking the wrong questions as to
how something could be preserved for such a long time. The
question about the possibility of the 46 million year dating of
the strata being WAY OFF is NOT ASKED. They are SCIENTISTS,
after all, not a bunch of superstitious, rigid fools that refuse
to question the data if new evidence demands it... ;D
Here's my FAVORITE bit OF pseudo Scientific clever half truth
pushing BS in the article,
[quote]The paper is “powerful” evidence that certain molecules
in blood persist longer than scientists might expect...
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
[/quote]
Fossilized Mosquito Blood Meal
Researchers have discovered a 46-million-year-old female
mosquito containing the remnants of the insect’s final blood
meal.
By Abby Olena | October 14, 2013
Researchers from the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH)
in Washington, DC, have discovered the first ever fossilized
blood meal, according to a paper published today (October 14) in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Large and
labile molecules like DNA cannot be detected in fossils this old
with current technology, but the 46-million-year-old mosquito
holds clues about when blood-feeding behavior originated in
insects and about the survival of other biomolecules like heme,
which the researchers identified in the fossil.
“[The paper] shows that details of a blood sucking mosquito can
be nicely preserved in a medium other than amber,” ;D
paleontologist George Poinar of Oregon State University, who was
not involved in this research, wrote in an e-mail to The
Scientist. “The paper also establishes that blood-filled
mosquitoes were already active at that time, suggesting that
they were around much earlier” than previously realized, he
added.
The paper is “powerful” :P evidence that certain
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/funny.gif
molecules in blood
persist longer than scientists might expect, said Mary
Schweitzer, a paleontologist at North Carolina State University
who was also not involved in the work.
The chances of finding a fossilized mosquito with evidence of a
recent blood meal are
infinitesimal.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/245.gif
Paleobiologist Dale Greenwalt and his wife vacation in Glacier
National Park each summer. When Greenwalt began volunteering for
the NMNH’s paleobiology department several years ago, he learned
about a site in Montana called the Kishenehn Formation, near the
Flathead River on the western border of the park, that he said
“may be one of the best sites for fossilized insects in the
world.” For reasons that are still unclear ;D, this site
contains fossils of unrivaled quality, revealing ancient insects
in great detail, including well-preserved scales, hairs, and
structure-based color. Greenwalt collects roughly a thousand
pieces of shale there every summer and adds them to the fossil
collection at the NMNH. He then spends his winters in the NMNH’s
lab cataloging and analyzing the fossils.
“When I’m going through all these fossils, there are some of
them that are obviously of scientific value,” Greenwalt said.
The mosquito’s darkened and enlarged abdomen and the morphology
of the mosquito’s mouthparts immediately stood out to Greenwalt.
“No one has ever found the fossil of a blood engorged mosquito,”
he said.
The NMNH researchers measured the elemental content of the
mosquito and found that its abdomen contained much more iron
than its thorax and than the thorax and abdomen of a fossilized
male mosquito from the same site—indicating it contained blood.
The researchers also analyzed the fossil using mass spectrometry
to show that the female mosquito abdomen, and not any of their
controls, contained heme. “Everyone was jumping up and down,
and we were all very excited,” said Greenwalt.
Schweitzer said the evidence of heme in the fossil was
convincing, but added that looking for specific magnetic
properties of heme-derived iron could further confirm the
findings, as could the use of heme specific antibodies to verify
heme’s presence in the abdomen. “I think this is a great first
step,” she said, “but more can always be done.”
Going forward, Greenwalt hopes to investigate how this mosquito,
other insects in the Kishenehn Formation, and the heme are so
well preserved. The scientists are also intrigued by what the
mosquito fed on. “We have no idea who the host was for the
mosquito,” said Greenwalt. He added that living members of the
same genus as the fossilized mosquito feed on birds and said
that “we can conjecture that this was bird blood, but we have no
way of proving it.”
D. Greenwalt et al., “Hemoglobin-derived porphyrins preserved in
a Middle Eocene blood-engorged mosquito,” PNAS,
doi:10.1073/pnas.1310885110, 2013.
Agelbert NOTE: IF a FOSSIL has heme blood group blood, it is NOT
a FOSSIL. In a FOSSIL, all the organic matter has been replaced
by petrified rock of some type. That means this mosquito (it's
amazing how those dad burned mosquitoes just refuse to evolve,
isn't it?) has organic matter in it.
Here is a Heme group. The iron (Fe) is surrounded by a lot of
CARBON ATOMS (C). There is also hydrogen, nitrogen and oxygen
present. This mosquito has CARBON. There WILL be Carbon 12 and
there had BETTER NOT BE any Carbon 14 or the bug is less than
30,000 years old. Then what are they going to do? Like I said,
stay tuned for a giant bag of worms with this.
HTML http://www.bio.miami.edu/tom/courses/protected/ECK/CH13/figure-13-02b.jpg
HTML http://www.the-scientist.com//?articles.view/articleNo/37874/title/Fossilized-Mosquito-Blood-Meal/
#Post#: 207--------------------------------------------------
Scientists Respond to Agelbert's Query about the "46 millio
n year" Mosquito!
By: AGelbert Date: October 30, 2013, 1:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
We have often published on the finding of intact organic matter,
especially in dinosaur fossils.
Creationists would not normally have access to the original
samples in order to send them off for C14 dating, but like you
we would be confident that it would still have C14 in it, and so
would be much less than 100,000 years old (FYI, the upper limit
of getting a datable specimen is not quite as low as 30,000
years).
Whenever we do have organic specimens that are supposed to be
millions of years old, like fossil wood in Triassic sandstone,
they should be 'undatable' (infinite radiocarbon age, since no
detectable C14) but invariably they return an 'age'.
The age itself will always be in the tens of thousands of years
(25kya to 55kya) not the actual age of c. 4.5kya but this is
because of the way in which the Flood affected the C14/C12
balance by burying most of the biosphere in a relatively short
timeframe.
Agelbert NOTE: :-[ I was wrong about the max C14 date. I stand
corrected to 100,000 years. ;D
But that's still quite a difference from millions of years! I
will report here when my Creation Scientist brothers and sisters
get to test some of that blood in the mosquito's gut.
Surly, meanwhile here's an article from a Creationist
scientist's POV about those Skulls in Georgia you posted an
article on that discusses possible false assumptions about
hominid skulls.
New Dmanisi skull threatens to bring the house down :o
by Peter Line
Photo from Georgian National Museum.
8301-fig1
Figure 1. Cranium D4500 unearthed in Dmanisi, Georgia. Cranial
capacity estimated at ~546 cc. Along with its mandible (D2600)
they together are known as Skull 5.
Published: 29 October 2013 (GMT+10)
Details of a remarkable fifth Dmanisi cranium (D4500), recovered
from a site in Dmanisi, Georgia containing the ruins of a
medieval fortress, were published in the journal Science on 18
October 2013.1 The cranium was recovered in 2005 and, together
with a mandible (D2600) found five years earlier, constitutes a
complete adult skull (together referred to as simply Skull 5).
All five Dmanisi skulls are dated by evolutionists to around 1.8
million years ago (Ma), and it is said that “the five skulls
were found close together physically, and they were all
deposited within a few hundred years of each other in what had
been a cave, now collapsed.”2
According to geo-archaeologist Reid Ferring, who dated the site,
all “five individuals were found in underground dens where
carnivores had probably dragged their carcasses”, with the dens
later collapsing.3 The cranial capacity of 546 cubic centimeters
(cc) for Dmanisi Skull 5 is the smallest of the Dmanisi sample,
with cranial capacities of skulls 1 to 4 reported to be between
601 to 730 cc.4
In 2003 it was reported that the D2600 “mandible is far too
large to fit comfortably with any of the crania yet
discovered.”5 Hence, expecting to unearth a huge cranium to go
with the massive D2600 mandible (lower jaw), one of the
surprises was the fit of the enormous D2600 mandible with the
smallest-brained Dmanisi crania (D4500). The researchers, led by
David Lordkipanidze, stated that:
“D4500/D2600 combines a small braincase (546 cubic centimeters)
with a large prognathic face and exhibits close morphological
affinities with the earliest known Homo fossils from Africa. The
Dmanisi sample, which now comprises five crania, provides direct
evidence for wide morphological variation within and among early
Homo paleodemes. This implies the existence of a single evolving
lineage of early Homo, with phylogeographic continuity across
continents.”6
The analysis of the Dmanisi skulls showed that:
“The skulls were as variable as African fossils traditionally
classified in three different species—H. erectus, H. habilis,
and H. rudolfensis. If the Dmanisi fossils had been found in
separate places in Africa, they could have been called separate
species, Ponce de León says. Lumping them all into H. erectus
suggests that the early Homo fossils in Africa may also belong
to that same, single lineage.”7
A single lineage model would certainly require a major overhaul
of all textbooks, museum displays, etc.
What appears to be essentially suggested by the authors of the
new study is that Homo erectus (including versions such as Homo
ergaster), Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis were all members of
the same species, and that this single species evolved for a
while as a single lineage, later giving rise to subsequent
members of the genus Homo.
Whilst the new skull (Skull 5) got much of the usual publicity
and accolades associated with any alleged ‘hominid’ fossil find
that can be construed as providing support for the idea of human
evolution, the ‘single evolving lineage’ interpretation of the
findings by Lordkipanidze et al. did not endear them to
everyone, particularly to splitters.
The latter being paleoanthropologists who believe that several
distinct co-existing species of hominids gave rise to multiple
evolving lineages. In fact, this single lineage idea has been
described as “setting off a small ‘bomb’ in the field,”
according to co-author Philip Rightmire.
Perhaps worried about the disarray the single lineage idea will
bring to the field of human evolution, one of the doyens of
paleoanthropology, Bernard Wood, is quoted by Brian Switek as
arguing “that it’s unreasonable to ‘bring the whole bloody house
down’ by lumping all early human fossils into a single
lineage.”8 A single lineage model would certainly require a
major overhaul of all textbooks, museum displays, etc.
Photo taken at the Spitzer Hall of Human Origins, American
Museum of Natural History.
8301-fig2
Figure 2. Cast of the large and robust mandible D2600 that fits
the newly announced Dmanisi cranium D4500. Together they are
known as Skull 5.
Rather than lumping Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis with Homo
erectus, I have previously argued that they should instead be
lumped in with the australopithecines, possibly as the same
species as Australopithecus sediba, and I see no reason to
change this assessment because of Skull 5.9
One reason is that one also has to consider the rest of the
skeleton (the postcranial remains). Whilst there are no
postcranial remains reliably linked to Homo rudolfensis,10 the
only set of postcranial remains linked with Homo habilis sensu
stricto that are associated with “taxonomically diagnostic
cranial elements” is OH 62, and its estimated limb-length
proportions are as ape-like as Australopithecus afarensis.11
In fact, one evolutionist has argued that although “living
nearly a million and a half years after Lucy, the OH62 animal
was more ape-like in form than she.”12
As for the Dmanisi specimens, an earlier study by Lordkipanidze
et al. described the Dmanisi postcranial remains as having
“derived features” that “include modern-human-like body
proportions and lower limb morphology indicative of the
capability for long-distance travel.”13 That the “Dmanisi
individuals appear to have long legs and short arms based on the
fossils that have been found,”14 is very different from the
“relatively long arms still adapted for climbing in Homo
habilis.”
Also, despite Skull 5 being described as having “had a number of
primitive features: a long apelike face, large teeth and a tiny
braincase,”15 the “skull’s vertically orientated upper face and
the shape of the braincase distinguish it from
Australopithecus.” The skull’s braincase has been described as
“shaped like a typical H. erectus despite its small size.”16
Paleoanthropologist Fred Spoor argues the methods of analysis
used by the team in the new study were not sufficient to infer
that fossils from Homo erectus, Homo habilis and Homo
rudolfensis were of the same species, as they did “a very
general shape analysis of the cranium which describes the shape
of the face and braincase in broad sweeping terms,” and
according to Spoor the “problem is that those Homo species are
not defined using such a broad overview of what their general
cranial shape is.”17
It would not be that surprising if some of the alleged hominids
were instead robust humans that had suffered from cretinism,
given that many features of cretinism mimic so-called
‘primitive’ features of evolution.
According to Melissa Hogenboom, Spoor adds “that the very
specific characteristics that had been used to define H.erectus,
H.habilis and H.rudolfensis ‘were not captured by the landmarks
that they use’.” Spoor is further quoted as saying that the team
“did not consider that the thick and protruding brow ridges, the
angular back of the braincase and some details of the base of
the cranium are derived features for H.erectus, and not present
in H.habilis and H.rudolfensis.” Also, in another news article,
Spoor “points out that Lodkipanidze’s analysis suggests even the
much more ape-like hominins in the genus Australopithecus belong
to the H. erectus group. It is not surprising then, that the new
analysis misses the more subtle shape differences between Homo
species.” Hence, it may well be that the similarities between
the new Dmanisi Homo erectus skull and Homo habilis and Homo
rudolfensis are not as close as is perhaps suggested.
So, how to explain the Dmanisi fossils? As discussed in an
upcoming paper dealing with robust humans (Neandertals, Homo
heidelbergensis and Homo erectus),18 written before the
announcement of this latest find, if the LB1 Homo floresiensis
cranium, most recently estimated to be 426 cc,19 belonged to a
pathological robust human with cretinism, it raises interesting
questions about similar pathology in other small-brained robust
humans, such as the Dmanisi Homo erectus specimens. In this
context it should be noted that a recent study using geometric
morphometric comparative analysis reported that the sole LB1
Homo floresiensis cranium “shows particular affinities in
neurocranial shape with the Dmanisi hominins”.20 It would not be
that surprising if some of the alleged hominids were instead
robust humans that had suffered from cretinism, given that many
features of cretinism mimic so-called ‘primitive’ features of
evolution. According to evolutionary paleoanthropologist and
anatomist Charles Oxnard:
Photo taken at the Spitzer Hall of Human Origins, American
Museum of Natural History.
8301-fig3
Figure 3. Cast of the adult cranium of Homo erectus specimen
D2282 from Dmanisi, Georgia. Cranial capacity estimated at ~650
cc.
“It is remarkable that so many features similar to those
normally present in great apes, in Australopithecus and
Paranthropus, and in early Homo (e.g., H. erectus and even to
some degree, H. neanderthalensis) but not in modern H. sapiens
are generated in humans by growth deficits due to the absence of
thyroid hormone. In other words, many of the pathological
features of cretinism mimic the primitive characters of
evolution making it easy to mistake pathological features for
primitive characters. The differences can be disentangled by
understanding the underlying biology of characters.”21
If a ‘modern’ human with cretinism can have many pathological
features that mimic the so-called ‘primitive’ features of
evolution, it is highly likely that a ‘robust’ human with
cretinism will have as many, if not even more such features.
Cretinism may also explain the large morphological variability
in the Dmanisi sample. That is because the bones of cretins are
enormously variable, “as would be expected in a pathology with
different degrees of affect, and conflation with associated
conditions”.22
It is interesting that a lack of chin and a “large jaw compared
with the rest of the skull” has been documented in one cretin
skull (Dolega),23 as a large jaw (compared with the cranium) is
a feature of Dmanisi Skull 5. That the Dmanisi specimens are
found in the same locality may not be that unusual. For example,
and from an evolutionary perspective, Oxnard suggests that in
“seasonally mobile hunter-gatherer groups,” in prior times,
cretin children would:
“… be ostracised as adults by the wider community due to their
abnormal features and behaviours. Unable to travel easily with a
mobile community, especially unable to help build normal
temporary dwellings in such a community, adult cretins might
well separate and shelter in caves. If there were a reasonable
number of them (say, conservatively) 5% of all births, they
might indeed shelter together.”24
Photo taken at the Spitzer Hall of Human Origins, American
Museum of Natural History.
8301-fig4
Figure 4. Cast of the adult cranium of Homo erectus specimen
D2280 from Dmanisi, Georgia. Cranial capacity estimated at ~775
cc, but latest study appears to indicate cranial capacity has
been revised down to 730 cc.
Alternatives to the above scenario are certainly possible,
particularly as there is evidence that early people at least on
occasion cared for the infirm. Maybe the cretins were cared for
as a group by healthier members of the small, isolated group. As
the Dmanisi specimens were located close together physically,
and appear to have lived at the same time, it is possible that,
as cretins sheltered as a group in a cave, they may have met
some unsavory fate together, such as being caught in a cave
collapse, or some other event. The above scenario is very
speculative, and it may well be that the considerable
morphological variation, as well as the extremely small brain
sizes, evident in the Dmanisi Homo erectus population, were
within normal limits of variation for robust humans, although I
consider this option less likely.
If iodine deficiency disorders like cretinism are still a
problem in some parts of the world today, despite modern
medicine and information about iodine deficiency at our
disposal, how much more of a problem could it potentially have
been for early post-Flood/post-Babel human populations migrating
to uncharted regions of the earth, most likely unaware of the
problem (or cause of the problem)—and probably having their
hands full just surviving day-to-day? Hence, robust human
populations settling in any iodine-deficient regions of Africa,
Georgia, China, Indonesia, etc. may well have had a high
incidence of cretinism. The Dmanisi population were most likely
derived from early post-Babel migrations, and given the
difficult situations faced by such early settlers, it is not
surprising that only simple stone tools are associated with the
finds, said by evolutionists to be “manufactured according to
much the same primitive Oldowan tradition that hominids in
Africa were practicing nearly a million years earlier.”25
However, it may instead indicate that when these early settlers
moved on they took their more sophisticated tools and items with
them, and/or that they did not stay in the local area for any
length of time, or some other explanation. We just do not know
enough about these people to fill in all the blanks.
HTML http://creation.com/dmanisi
#Post#: 210--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: Surly1 Date: October 30, 2013, 6:54 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Really interesting aricle, AG. And I am no expert, but I have a
brown belt in using Occam's razor.
Thus,
[quote]It would not be that surprising if some of the alleged
hominids were instead robust humans that had suffered from
cretinism, given that many features of cretinism mimic so-called
‘primitive’ features of evolution.
[/quote]
Seems like one hell of a reach.
Arguments about C14 deposits and dating of samples, the effect
of the flood and earth changes, etc. seem to be to certainly be
arguable. to me it's odds-on that should science surviuve the
zero point, we'll learn just how wrong some of our assumptions
are. given the history of science, it seems inevitable.
But cretinism? I dunno, friend. Gettign a whiff of a theory
shaped to fit an agenda. Not unlike much conventional science...
#Post#: 242--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: AGelbert Date: November 1, 2013, 10:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote]But cretinism? I dunno, friend. Gettign a whiff of a
theory shaped to fit an agenda. Not unlike much conventional
science...[/quote]
I must admit I had a similar mental discomfort on the alleged
cretinism. The young earth creationists are apparently trying a
bit too hard to "fix the facts" around the biblical narrative.
That said, the disdain and dismissal expressed by evolutionary
true believer scientists about creation makes me even more
uncomfortable simply because they've got zero proof that we came
from a mud puddle of amino acids.
I knew a priest that once told me God could do it any way He
wanted to. I agree but that is dodging the main issue of the
FACT that the Theory of Evolution has NEVER provided proof that
species (as in Darwin's book title) Originated from natural
selection; it is, instead, a still to be proven theory that a
single celled creature of some sort, AFTER it popped into
existence, "evolved" by random mutations to produce
multicellular creatures of incredible complexity that OTHER
totally different multicellular life forms (plants, fungi,
bacteria, etc.) interact with at precisely the same time to
provide a natural a set of symbiotic relationships biosphere
give and take (e.g. bees could not exist without flowering
plants that produce pollen. Said plants could not perpetuate the
species without pollinators like the bees).
It is really a hell of a stretch for me to attribute that
biochemical dance to random mutations. In fact, it's ludicrous.
To add insult to irrational pseudo science, the claim that,
YEAH, that first single celled creature had nonliving amino
acids randomly assemble themselves to produce several thousand
lipids, proteins and energy processing functions in a
reproducible mitotic fashion with EXACT duplicative DNA
generation after generation, including various DNA self healing
biochemistry that FIGHTS mutation to preserve the species
without harm.
Think about that.
HOW, exactly, is something that was assembled by RANDOM amino
acid, lipid and carbohydrate chemicals (the first single celled
organism) going to pattern said life form to RESIST mutations
(change in DNA sequence)?
If the process of "evolution" is basically a reversal of entropy
where things get MORE complex, not less, WHY does every single
living thing have, intrinsic to its cellular reproduction
mechanism, all kinds of biochemical fail safes to AVOID change?
It's not logical that RANDOMNESS produces a biological machine
that FIGHTS randomness. It's one hell of a flight of fancy
devoid of even a shred of logic.
Take the amoeba, for example. How come they are still around
after "billions" of years? Some "evolved" and some didn't? ???
Or do they just pop out of mud puddles every 15.8 million years
to take up the slack from the ones that "evolved". ::)
What about Escherichia Coli[/I], affectionately know as a fecal
coliform ;D. We intelligently REDESIGNED IT to make insulin but
for billions of years it never randomly came up with that skill
on its own. And while we are at it, [i]E. coli, although IT can
(and does - that's one test they perform on water to see if it
is potable - fecal coliform count) live outside our gut, WE
CANNOT live without a large number of several species of gut
bacteria. We simply cannot get our vitamins, minerals and energy
without them and we die of malabsorption.
Evolutionists claim that, OF COURSE, the bacteria came first and
we came much later. That runs straight into my earlier question
(How come some of them "evolved" and some didn't?). We just made
use of the dumb ones to get our metabolism going, right? ::)
First causes and the basic allegedly irrefutable premises that
form the foundation of Evolutionary Theory DO NOT EXIST in
nature.
And I haven't even touched on the fact that the amoeba has a
symphony of organelles that must all be present (and work
together in a certain, very precise way) or it does not
function. That's the elephant in the "random mutations" room.
Evolutionists claim that, given enough time, anything can
happen. That's where the statistical myth that a hundred monkeys
on typewriters could write Shakespeare by chance came from.
It's not true. Here's why.
EVERY TIME the monkeys hit a key, the EXACT SAME PROBABILITY of
hitting that key exists. So, let's say that, after a million
years and some very durable monkeys tapping away, a sequence of
letters and spaces (100 of them - one for each monkey) produces
a line in a Shakespearean play. According to evolutionists, a
million years or so later you will get the second line and so
on.
That is TOTALLY UNSCIENTIFIC malarkey. >:(
Between the first line and the second line, all the intervening
events MUST be considered valid sequential events. So what we
actually got was one line, followed by endless goobly gock,
followed by another line. That is called FACTORIAL in
probability and statistics,
Factorial math destroys the random positive mutation hypothesis
of natural selection. WHY? Because for every potential
"evolutionary advantage" (random positive mutation) that pops
up, 98 times as many negative destructive mutations attempt to
fight their way in to destroy the DNA. So, getting back to the
monkeys, if it took one million years to type the first line of
Shakespeare, in order to type the SECOND line RIGHT AFTER the
FIRST line (we are going AGAINST ENTROPY HERE), you need 98
times as many more years (first period factorial of the second
period). So now we are at 99 million years for two lines. To get
the first three lines in consecutive fashion, you need 98 times
the 99 million years. That comes to nine billion, 700 million
years!
ONLY if positive mutations were the 98 to 2 rule (or better) in
nature would Evolutionary Theory be plausible. But what we
observe (see gamma radiation experiments on life forms) is
destructive mutations out the wazoo until the DNA self repair
mechanisms are overcome.
Negative mutations being 98 to 2 in a universe where entropy
(disorder) is always tearing away at ORDER is logical and
expected. That's our universe. Things are always unraveling, not
self assembling.
What looks like a reversal of entropy, the ORDERED growth from
plant seed to mature plant, is not a defeat or reversal of
entropy. WHY? Because of the intricate set of instructions in
the seed's DNA that directs the growth in a deliberate, complex
and repetitious manner generation after generation. Plant DNA is
lengthy and complex.
It can, however, be argued that a plant's DNA is less complex
than an amoeba's (amoeba's have more DNA than WE DO!) but
scientists believe it just has a lot of repetitive sequences as
backup systems. By the way, all that DNA in such a "primitive"
life form is another huge "evolutionary" question mark (God has
a great sense of humor!
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/8.gif<br
/>).
At any rate, plants, because of their many different vascular
systems, functions and sizes, are certainly more complex than an
amoeba.
[center][img]
HTML http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9c/Amoeba_(PSF).svg[/img]
Amoeba simplified anatomy[/center]
The odds of a hundred thousand or so monkeys on typewriters
coding up the DNA sequence of an amoeba ALL AT ONCE (because ALL
the cell systems organelles have to work TOGETHER right from the
start) involve more time than we have, even if this universe is
14.5 billion years old.
I don't know HOW God did it, but there is NO scientific basis
for the fairy tale of wishful thinking called the Theory of
Evolution.
If you want some great laughs about the pretzel logic that
evolutionary "scientists" use to explain a particularly
difficult issue (for evolutionists) about cell anatomy and
physiology, Google "origin of mitochondria".
There is NO WAY a cell can function without it. Yet, the
ridiculous claim is made that cells DID exist without it and,
one fine evolutionary day, this BACTERIUM EVOLVED into a cell
organelle called a mitochondria by sneaking into a cell! When it
got there, it started doing what a mitochondria does (provide
energy for absolutely every one of the thousands to millions of
biochemical reactions in the cell in order to oxygenate, ingest
nutrients, manufacture proteins, enable cell division, fight off
invaders and get rid of waste. What does the mitochondria get in
return? A code change in the DNA so that a new Mitochondria is
produced with a new cell.
So how did the cell function without the mitochondria? It
didn't. They know it but they don't want to talk about it.
WHY? Because mitochondrial ATP (the energy molecule) synthesis
for all cell activities has NOW (this year, as a matter of fact
;D) been proven to be far more complex and pervasive in the cell
than previously known. The mitochondria was thought to occupy a
fixed location but it turns out it is very active moving around
the cell in a very factory like and efficient manner. This gives
more ammunition to the creationist argument that cells are
irreducibly complex with too many exquisitely precise functions
working in a complex dance of organelles to have been "pieced
together" gradually by invading RNA or DNA plasmids (short
sequences like the one we put into E. Coli[/I] to force it to
make insulin) that broke through the cell wall.
The mitochondrial example itself is game, set, match for
Evolutionary Theory simply because it proves the even a single
cell could not have been formed randomly.
But evolutionists will continue to lie in their Procrustean bed
because, as they love to say, "The alternative (God did it!) is
unthinkable."
[img width=80
height=80]
HTML http://www.imgion.com/images/01/Angry-animated-smiley.jpg[/img]<br
/>
Mitochondria and mosquito gut blood are at the top of my list of
bags of worms for evolutionist true believers. I also want to go
into some details on skull bone structure and facial
reconstruction to show how the "missing link" GAME is played.
;) I will report on any new findings.
[i]I just scanned an article that seems to be another bag of
worms in the making;
they found modern bird fossils with dinosaur fossils. :o
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/ugly004.gif
It will be entertaining, to say the least, to see how they try
to dance around that one...
HTML http://www.u.arizona.edu/~patricia/cute-collection/smileys/lying-smiley.gif
#Post#: 243--------------------------------------------------
Modern Birds found with Dinosaurs
By: AGelbert Date: November 2, 2013, 12:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Modern birds found with dinosaurs
Are museums misleading the public? ???
by Don Batten
HTML http://dl0.creation.com/articles/p073/c07358/Modern-birds-dinosaurs.jpg
Do you think the above represents some laughable and silly
creationist lie? If you DO, the JOKE IS ON YOU! :o
The theory of evolution states that all living creatures arose
from a single cell by natural processes over eons of time, and
God had nothing to do with this process. According to the theory
each animal arose from a different kind of animal over ‘millions
of years’. E.g. most evolutionists assert that modern birds
evolved from dinosaurs. Finding fossils of modern birds with
those of dinosaurs, not just above them, contradicts this idea.
Dr Carl Werner’s book and DVD, Living Fossils, reveals that
fossil researchers have found many modern bird remains with
dinosaurs, yet museums do not display these fossils, thus
keeping this information from the public. By keeping this
information hidden, children and adults are indoctrinated with
the false idea that animals changed over time (since the time of
the dinosaurs), and that evolution is true.
[size=14pt]Every time you see a T. rex or a Triceratops in a
museum display, you should also see ducks, loons, flamingos or
some of these other modern birds that have been found in the
same rock layers as these dinosaurs.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/290.gifhttp://www.freesmileys.org/emoticons/tuzki-bunnys/tuzki-bunny-emoticon-005.gif
In order to test evolution, Dr Werner visited 60 natural history
museums and ten dinosaur dig sites in seven different countries.
When he asked paleontologists if they had any personal knowledge
of modern birds found with dinosaurs, he was in for quite a
surprise.
“I interviewed a scientist at the Museum of Paleontology at
Berkeley who discussed a parrot fossil they had found in
Cretaceous layers (‘dinosaur rock’). But the parrot fossil was
not on display in the museum.”
With each interview, more modern birds that had been found with
dinosaurs were added to his list, including: parrots, penguins,
owls, sandpipers, albatross, flamingos, loons, ducks, cormorants
and avocets. Carl assembled this list from interviews he did
with various paleontologists, as well as from articles by
evolutionist scientists and a textbook (the details of the
sources can be found in Living Fossils).
It was not long before Dr. Werner noted an important
discrepancy: museums were not displaying what the scientists
were revealing in their one-on-one interviews. In fact, the
natural history museums contradicted reality and were suggesting
the opposite. Of the 60 museums he visited, he did not see one
single fossil of a modern bird that had been found in a dinosaur
rock layer and only one museum out of 60 displayed a modern bird
model with a dinosaur: the Milwaukee Museum. In an
out-of-the-way corner, the museum had a reconstructed avocet
that had been found at Hell Creek (Montana) dinosaur dig site
(see photo of avocet reconstruction below)—this is clearly an
avocet.
HTML http://dl0.creation.com/articles/p073/c07358/Avocet-Milwaukee.jpg
An avocet in the dinosaur exhibit at Milwaukee Museum (top) - a
rare example of a modern bird (bottom) in such displays.
HTML http://dl0.creation.com/articles/p073/c07358/Bird-sign.jpg
Sign at the American Museum of Natural History, 2011.
Contrary to the sign, Dr Werner discovered that many types of
birds have been found with dinosaurs including ducks, loons,
flamingos, albatross, owls, penguins, sandpipers, parrots,
cormorants, avocets, as well as extinct birds such as Mononykus,
Archaeopteryx and Hesperornis. While these extinct birds did
have teeth, many other modern types of birds without teeth have
been found. By leaving this fact out, the museum display
misleads the public.
Dr Werner: “Museums do not show you these modern bird fossils
nor do they put modern birds fleshed out with feathers in their
dinosaur dioramas. This is wrong. Essentially, every time you
see a T. rex or a Triceratops in a museum display, you should
also see ducks, loons, flamingos or some of these other modern
birds that have been found in the same rock layers as these
dinosaurs, :o but this is not the case. I have never seen a
duck with a dinosaur at a natural history museum, have you? An
owl? A parrot?”
“Not only do they not display birds, but the prestigious
American Museum of Natural History suggests the opposite in
their dinosaur-to-bird placard. This display is extremely
misleading and again does not mention modern birds with
dinosaurs.” (See sign above) >:(
Are the museum displays just out of date, or are they purposely
withholding information? “Two years after the release of Dr
Werner’s book, the Carnegie Museum, the Smithsonian Museum and
the American Museum of Natural History have still not corrected
these discrepancies. >:(
From Dr Werner’s global investigations, this is a worldwide
phenomenon with the museums; only one museum gave any hint that
modern birds have been found with dinosaurs.
It should be noted that modern birds were not found in all
dinosaur layers, only Cretaceous layers (not in Jurassic or
Triassic rocks). Evolutionist paleontologist Dr Bill Clemens
told Carl that the Cretaceous bird fossils were found when they
went looking for modern animals in the Cretaceous layers to
provide evidence that the asteroid impact hypothesis was wrong1
(this is the idea that an asteroid impact wiped out the
dinosaurs ‘at the end of the Cretaceous’). The researchers were
trying to establish continuity between the fossils in the rocks
above the Cretaceous with those in the Cretaceous; so they were
looking for modern creatures. Who knows what they would find if
they looked hard in the other layers?
On CMI’s documentary, Darwin—the Voyage that Shook the World,
Professor Phil Currie, palaeontologist at the University of
Alberta, Canada, spoke about how a researcher’s ‘search image’
can affect what is discovered. “In spite of the fact that you
think you have an open mind, very often your perceptions of what
things should be, or your search image, or your cultural beliefs
in some cases, will actually be working on your mind so that
your eyes are open but they are not really open; they are
missing something that could take you in an entirely new
direction.”
More and more modern animals and plants are being found in rocks
where they should not be, according to the evolutionary view.
When researchers are looking for dinosaurs they tend to not even
notice the remains of other creatures and plants. And when they
are found, they tend to be put aside as uninteresting.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/bc3.gifFinding
a new ‘exotic’
dinosaur is much more exciting and publicity-worthy than finding
a bird or a mammal that everyone is familiar with. And of course
funding agencies are after exciting finds of a lost world, not
‘boring’ fossils of modern creatures that also subtly suggest
that animals did not
evolve.
HTML http://www.pic4ever.com/images/237.gif
In spite of all these factors, more and more modern animals and
plants are being found in rocks where they should not be,
according to the evolutionary view. There are so many examples
(such as those discussed in Living Fossils), that it amounts to
a strong confirmation that animals did not change significantly
over time, that God made things to reproduce ‘after their kind’;
providing a powerful challenge to the evolutionary story.
Related Articles
Living fossils: a powerful argument for creation
References and notes
There is ample evidence against the impact theory of
extinction—see for example creation.com/iridium. Return to text.
HTML http://creation.com/modern-birds-with-dinosaurs
#Post#: 339--------------------------------------------------
Re: Darwin
By: guest10 Date: November 15, 2013, 8:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am pretty skeptical of the criticism of dating methods as
well, which is typically used by YECs. Regardless of the
validity of such dating methods, we still have independent
evidence that the Universe, Earth and life are billions of years
old, and that modern humans are at least tens of thousands of
years old.
That being said, the Darwinian evolutionary paradigm is a total
mess, as evidenced well by AG's posts.
I'd also like to add that this goes beyond a simple scientific
discussion of origins, and rather has vast social, political,
economic and ethical implications. AG started this thread with a
quote from Darwin, so I'd like provide another one (from Descent
of Man):
“At some future period, not very distant as measured by
centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly
exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world.
At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor
Schaaffhausen has remarked will no doubt be exterminated. The
break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for
it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we
may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a
baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and
the gorilla.”
Carl Sagan, perhaps the most popular champion of Darwinian
evolution, more recently promoted the "recapitulation theory" of
embryonic development which most scientists agree is totally
false. Not only is this theory inherently racist, it also serves
as a major catalyst of justifying early-term abortions.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page