Creation

Want to discuss something else? Anything goes here!

Moderator: Bmat

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Apes Evolved into Humans by using Tools? 02/23/2007
The BBC News reported on an article in Current Biology on the discovery of chimpanzees in Senegal (Pan troglodytes verus) using spears to hunt prey. Spear-making is a multistep process that had not been previously observed in animals. Many species use simple tools such as sticks, twigs, and rocks to get food, but a spear requires up to five steps, including cutting a branch to length, stripping it clean, and gnawing the end to make it sharp. The report quickly made a connection from chimps using tools to intelligence in early man: “The multiple steps taken by Fongoli chimpanzees in making tools to dispatch mammalian prey involve the kind of foresight and intellectual complexity that most likely typified early human relatives.”
Reuters and National Geographic News also reported the story.

Since evolution requires that we come from something simpler, and chimpanzees are handy, we are subject to a constant stream of propaganda each time research comes across some similarity between humans and chimps. If toolmaking resulted in a gradual evolutionary increase in intelligence, then crows should soon be writing poetry, because they are way ahead of chimpanzees. The Behavioral Ecology Research Group website discusses an animal that makes some of the more sophisticated tools found in nature:

New Caledonian crows use tools to forage for invertebrates in dead wood. They use at least four different tool types including tools cut from the thorny edges of leaves of Pandanus trees. These tools are produced in a series of manufacturing steps and have complex shapes – they are the most sophisticated animal tools yet discovered. The shape of Pandanus tools varies regionally, and it has been suggested that this may be the result of cultural transmission of tool designs, with crows learning from relatives and other members of social groups how to manufacture and use particular designs. In other words, it is conceivable that these crows possess a culture of tool technology – akin to that found in our own species.

Our 08/09/2002 entry said the tool-making ability of these crows exceeds that of chimpanzees. Yet crows remain crows. Beavers are among the most skilled architects in the animal kingdom, but beavers remain beavers. Egyptian vultures use rocks to open ostrich eggs, and yet they remain vultures (see Tufts U). Nowhere do these articles discuss where this intelligence comes from in the first place. It is just assumed that since it is there, and there is no other way it could have got there except to evolve, that it therefore somehow evolved
Evolutionists criticize creationists for invoking miracles any time they come across something they cannot explain, yet they have no problem invoking the magical, unseen power of Evolution to explain anything and everything in the biological world. The difference between Pan and man is not a matter of gradual acquisition of intelligence, but of our being made in the image of God.
From http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200703.htm

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Evolutionary Theory Not Even Skin Deep 03/02/2007
A book on skin just was published – no, not one of those books, but a book on the physiology of human skin. Nina Jablonski wrote Skin: A Natural History (UC Berkeley, 2006) and Qais Al-Awqati (Columbia U) reviewed it in Science.1 The reviewer noticed that “In its discussion of the human skin, the book’s principal theme is evolution, and almost every page contains that word.” So, how did Jablonski do? Did she satisfy the reviewer’s hopes that Darwin can explain the naked ape?

Although the author wants to provide an evolutionary perspective on all attributes of skin biology, the accounts she provides seldom rise above the provision of plausible hypotheses. Is it really true that we were selected to be hairless sweaty creatures? That sounds possible, but what is the actual evidence for such an assertion? Is it also true that vitamin D synthesis, a major locus of interaction between sunlight and diet, is the dominant factor in the natural selection of skin color? This idea is simply presented without any of the documentation that would make a convincing story. One would like to see the evidence of how rickets (vitamin D deficiency) might act as an agent of evolutionary selection.

Even in the areas of sociology, “The thorny issue of the social construction of the roles of skin color is reduced again to a brief survey of skin color biology and its evolutionary implications.” At the end of the review, Al-Awqati tried to find a few things to praise, but the shallowness of Jablonski’s evolutionary theorizing extended to her own research. “Although only a few of Jablonski’s research papers address skin evolution,” he said, “the lack of deep expertise need not prevent a nonspecialist from pulling together findings from different fields to generate an exciting, even fresh view of nature.” Apparently this book “fell short” of this mark also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Qais Al-Awqati, “Anthropology: Showing Some Skin,” Science, 2 March 2007: Vol. 315. no. 5816, p. 1223, DOI: 10.1126/science.1138921.

If even a fellow evolutionist comes looking for evidence for evolutionary myths and can’t find it, why should anyone else pay attention? It’s not just the sociology of skin that is Darwin’s thorn in the flesh. Heat regulation in furry apes is much different than the sweating response in human skin. Sweat glands are complex structures under the control of the nervous system. The skin is not just a surface; it has multiple layers with veins, arteries, glands, nerves, hair muscles, sebaceous glands, pores and specialized receptors for touch, heat and pain.
Werner Gitt in The Wonder of Man says that one square centimeter of skin contains 6 million cells, 100 sweat glands, 15 sebaceous glands, 5,000 sensory corpuscles, 200 pain points, 25 pressure points, 12 cold-sensitive points and 2 heat-sensitive points. Skin sloughs off dead cells while regenerating new ones in a precise balance. It is an important barrier to disease germs, and a protection from injury and dehydration. It performs a respiratory function, absorbing some of the oxygen we use, while letting some carbon dioxide in and out.
Human skin is an incomparable substance. Burn victims are not given artificial plastics; they are given skin transplants from live humans. How does evolution explain the fact that a newborn infant arrives into the world with a vernix coating to protect its skin? What evolutionary process led to the precise timing of a multitude of changes that occur in the right sequence when a baby is born? These are all matters of life and death; without them, there would be no human race.
These observational facts demand causes equal to them. Creationists have no problem with the question. Jablonski wrote a whole book on the theme of skin evolution, mentioning the E word on practically every page. The reviewer was itching for evidence, but only received rash excuses. Scratch that.
from http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200703.htm

She does not know, but she writes a whole book about it...

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Evolutionary Predictions Fail Observational Tests 03/08/2007
Lately, some expectations by evolutionists have not been fulfilled. Here are several recent examples of evolutionary upsets:

1Dinobird genes cook up scrambled eggs: Scientists expected that the dinosaurs presumed ancestral to birds would show a decreasing genome size. The thinking was that the cost of maintaining a large genome takes its toll on flight. In Nature,1 however, a team found that smaller genomes evolved 230 million years ago, long before the early bird caught a worm. Not only that, the non-avian dinosaur line (saurischia) had sleeker genomes than the avian dinosaur line (ornithischia). Genome size was not measured directly, but inferred from a relationship between cell size and genome size. This means that evolutionists cannot presume that genome size has anything to do with phylogeny. See also the write-up in Live Science which repeats the assumption that dinosaurs had feathers (but see counterarguments from CMI).
2 Dog beats ape: Chimpanzees have a hard time drawing inferences about one another’s mental states by their motions. One can point to hidden food, for instance, and the other will not get the message. Dogs actually are much better at this, according to an article on EurekAlert. Since dogs are supposedly farther down the evolutionary tree from humans, though, evolutionists attribute the dog’s better score to domestication: “What accounts for this piece of convergent evolution between humans and domestic dogs is nothing other than the process of domestication – the breeding of dogs to tolerate, rather than fear, human company.” But would this mean that breeding chimps to tolerate, rather than fear, human company would produce a similar ability? They didn’t say.
3 Parroting humans: Ryan Jaroncyk on Creation Ministries Intl reported about N’kisi, the wonder bird. This parrot can speak meaningful English sentences and has a vocabulary of 950 words. His report, based on an article in the latest BBC Wildlife Magazine, implies that “birds possess a far greater linguistic capacity than chimpanzees.” This “defies evolutionary predictions,” he said. He devises a thought experiment: “What if chimpanzees possessed a vocabulary of 950 words, used words in context, and formulated simple sentences like N’kisi the parrot?” The result would be predictable: “The scientific community and popular media would be in an evolutionary frenzy.”
4: Waspish behavior: Time to rewrite the evolutionary history of wasps, reported a press release from Univ. of Illinois. It’s all wrong. “Scientists at the University of Illinois have conducted a genetic analysis of vespid wasps that revises the vespid family tree and challenges long-held views about how the wasps’ social behaviors evolved,” it states. “In the study, published in the Feb. 21 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the researchers found genetic evidence that eusociality (the reproductive specialization seen in some insects and other animals) evolved independently in two groups of vespid wasps.” The article did not speculate on how difficult it was for this ability to arise by evolution, except to say that “ The evolution of eusociality in wasps has long been a source of debate.” The take-home lesson is that assuming simple evolutionary lineages can get you stung: “These findings contradict an earlier model of vespid wasp evolution, which placed the groups together in a single lineage with a common ancestor.”
So does this cast doubt on the validity of evolutionary speculation? Not in the slightest. Evolutionism is actually strengthened by the finding that data contradict the prediction:

“The fact that eusociality evolved independently in two groups of vespid wasps also sheds light on the complexity of evolutionary processes, [Sydney] Cameron said.
“Scientists attempt to make generalizations and simplify the world. But the world isn’t always simple and evolution isn’t simple. This finding points to the complexity of life.”


5 Winged migration: Is there a simple evolutionary tree for bird migration? Not here, either. A press release in EurekAlert from studies at the University of Arizona said, “A universal assumption about bird migration has been that short-distance migration is an evolutionary stepping stone to long-distance migration. The team’s work contradicts that idea by showing that short-distance migrants are inherently different from their globe-trotting cousins.” Seasonal food availability, not evolution, is apparently the determining factor. “One textbook explanation suggests either eating fruit or living in non-forested environments were the precursors needed to evolve migratory behavior.” True or false? “Not so,” is the new correct answer. The work is published in the March 2007 issue of American Naturalist.
6 Scrub that: Some birds plan ahead. The scrub jay makes a list of things to do today, apparently. This behavior was described in Nature,2 where the authors began, “Knowledge of and planning for the future is a complex skill that is considered by many to be uniquely human.... We show that the jays make provision for a future need, both by preferentially caching food in a place in which they have learned that they will be hungry the following morning and by differentially storing a particular food in a place in which that type of food will not be available the next morning.” This is a longer time period than similar behavior observed over “very short time scales” in rats and pigeons. Even crows and apes don’t show this kind of foresight. “The results described here suggest that the jays can spontaneously plan for tomorrow without reference to their current motivational state, thereby challenging the idea that this is a uniquely human ability.” Sara Shettleworth, in the same issue of Nature, called this “food for thought.” Although we cannot mind-meld with a bird brain, it almost seems that these raucous garden birds are able to imagine time-travel into the future to foresee what they will need.
7 Millipedes and biologists in the dark: Northern Arizona University reported two identical-looking cave millipedes that cannot be related. “We knew the millipedes likely represented two distinct species because the two populations were separated by the Grand Canyon,” said co-discoverer J. Judson Wynne. “The fact these two species belong to an entirely new genus was a great surprise to us.” He called them “living fossils.”
8 Neanderthal verdict: The idea of a simple replacement of Neanderthals by modern humans, a “a topic of lively debate in human evolution,” will have to be abandoned, apparently. PNAS3 provided confirmation that the cave layers where bones of both groups have been found do overlap and interstratify with one another. They based this on radiocarbon, artifacts and stratigraphy. Unless “native Neanderthal populations effectively self-destructed the moment the first modern populations set foot in their territories,” a completely implausible scenario, they say, it is now “totally inescapable” Neanderthals and modern humans knew each other and coexisted for a long time.

The authors in this last item attribute criticisms of the interstratification theory to “a long-standing agenda to deny the possibility of significant chronological overlap and coexistence between late Neanderthal and early anatomically modern populations in western Europe, and therefore to deny any suggestion of potential mutual interaction or ‘acculturation’ between the two populations,” they asserted. With so many cases like these above, one can begin to meditate on what other agendas operate to deny the possibility of keeping observations synchronized with theory.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Organ, Shedlock, Meade, Pagel and Edwards, “Origin of avian genome size and structure in non-avian dinosaurs,” Nature 446, 180-184 (8 March 2007) | doi:10.1038/nature05621.
2Raby, Alexis, Dixon and Clayton, “Planning for the future by western scrub-jays,” Nature 445, 919-921 (22 February 2007) | doi:10.1038/nature05575.
3Mellars, Gravina and Ramsey, “Confirmation of Neanderthal/modern human interstratification at the Chatelperronian type-site,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 10.1073/pnas.0608053104, published online before print February 21, 2007.


The evolutionists can’t seem to get anything right. No matter where they look, organisms aren’t cooperating with Charlie’s expectations. What’s really naked here, the jay bird or Darwin’s little storytelling parade? Is evolutionary theory really good for anything? Did not Darwin foist a fruitless path of inquiry on science? Aren’t his disciples clueless? Don’t they deserve to be called on the carpet and reprimanded for pretending to have scientific knowledge when the evidence is against them? We retort; you deride.
from http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200703.htm

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

“Stone Faced Man”

Is this a human head fossilized in flint and is it between 65 to 140 million years old>>>

http://s8int.com/WordPress/?p=487

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

An Extinction’s Long Fuse 03/15/2007

Some scientists are claiming that when the Isthmus of Panama was formed, an extinction event occurred two million years later. The story is reported on EurekAlert:

“We may be way off-track when we search for the causes of extinctions by looking only at the time the extinctions occur in the fossil record, which is what paleontologists normally do,” said Aaron O’Dea, postdoctoral fellow at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute and Scripps Institution of Oceanography. “In our case, we see that most coral and snail species died off a good 2 million years after the environmental change that caused their demise.”

Yet the next sentence says they don’t know why the extinction was delayed for such a long time. Another finds this puzzling:

”We don’t start seeing extinction rates really increasing for another 1 million years,” [Ken] Jackson [London Natural History Museum] said. “What is most remarkable is that most of the organisms that went extinct were those that liked high productivity environments, which had already disappeared for some time. Why did it take so long for them to perish? What tipped the scales?”

The lesson preached from this press release is that our actions today may have consequences millions of years into the future. But then, how would we ever know, and who would care?

You mean, they actually believe this? They separate a cause from an effect by two million years? Yes, they do believe it. The dating method is never to be questioned, even when it leads to absurdities. The reason is that it provides an opportunity for them to get on their environmental soap box and make humans feel guilty for something. Then, why not be thankful for the Panama Canal, which re-joined the oceans? Won’t that help undo the damage two million years from now?
It’s amazing what you can claim given unlimited time. I’m going to clap my hands, and predict that two million years from now, there will be a tsunami. Prove me wrong.
from http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200703.htm

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Leakey Manipulated His Apelike “Skull 1470” to Look Human 03/27/2007
The skull of an alleged human ancestor Richard Leakey made famous in 1972 was poorly reconstructed, claims a paleoanthropologist who specializes in craniofacial biology. According to Dr. Timothy Bromage of New York University, Leakey employed nonstandard principles while assembling the bones of his “Skull 1470”, giving the face a flatter, more human-like profile. Many at the time of the discovery were stunned to find such a human-like face dated to 3 million years ago. (This date was later revised downward to 1.9 million years. The skull was later dubbed Homo rudolfensis and considered an ancestor in the direct line leading to modern man, Homo sapiens.)
Employing rules that the eyes, ears and mouth of mammals must bear a precise relationship to one another, Dr. Bromage did his own reconstruction and found the skull “looked more apelike than previously believed.” The computer-aided reconstruction reduced the brain size to less than half that of a modern human. He said that the corrected skull has a “surprisingly small brain and distinctly protruding jaw, features commonly associated with more apelike members of the hominid family living as much as three million years ago.” Dr. Bromage criticized the famous paleoanthropologist, judging that “Dr. Leakey produced a biased reconstruction based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development.... Dr. Leakey produced a reconstruction that could not have existed in real life.” The erroneous interpretation, the article states, has been “widely accepted until now.”
Source: EurekAlert.

OK, let’s see if Leakey will recant. Let’s see if the textbook publishers will fix the mistake. His Skull 1470 raised quite a stir at the time and gained Leakey international fame. Now, it comes out that Leakey’s personal bias dictated how he put the puzzle pieces of bone together. How much does this go on in the dubious practice of paleoanthropology? What other instances are out there right now with built-in bias? Here it is 25 years after the discovery before the truth comes out. Remember this next time this crowd trumpets some new missing link. Today’s kids may not know it’s phony baloney till 2032.
Bromage, for all his efforts in exposing Leakey’s bias, is still biased himself. He still thinks man evolved from apes – just 300,000 years later than the current consensus timeline. He still tosses around the millions of years and pictures Homo ergaster and Homo erectus belonging to some mythical pathway to man. He still calls the apes Australopithecus and Paranthropus “hominids” and accepts the Darwin Party premise that we are evolved apes. Let’s encourage him to keep exposing the bias in Leakey’s skulls. This should get Leakey mad enough to counterattack by finding the bias in Bromage’s work. The public will get the message: the tale of human evolution is all bias, all the time.
from http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200703.htm

The Truth is out there...... :wink:

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Did dinosaurs have to die off before mammals flourished? No, reported Live Science and Science Daily. Mammals were doing well in the age of dinosaurs, and the rapid rate of diversification began a long time after dinosaurs went extinct. This contradicts the usual picture on TV documentaries like the BBC’s Walking with Dinosaurs that mammals were all little shrew-like midgets dodging the big feet of monsters till a meteor blasted them to oblivion. Incidentally, the BBC News also reported this finding, and called the old idea a “straw man” argument.
from http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200704.htm

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Earliest Comb Jelly Fossil Looks Modern 04/03/2007

One would think that a paper listed in the category “Evolution” would include supporting evidence that evolution had occurred, but a new Evolution paper in PNAS provides more arguments against it than for it.1 An international team studying early Cambrian fossil beds in China found a comb jelly embryo essentially identical to those alive today. Using Raman spectroscopy, they identified the comb rows (used for locomotion), an oral cavity and other diagnostic features of ctenophores, and said it looks remarkably similar to those inhabiting China seas in modern times. This is the earliest known fossil of a comb jelly. They dated it to 540 million years – the base of the Cambrian period. The prior record holder was dated at 530 million years.
The authors of the paper included the renowned Cambrian fossil scientist J. Y. Chen, the avid hunter of Precambrian fossils Bill Schopf, and USC paleontologist David Bottjer. They considered whether this fossil might fit into an evolutionary sequence. They briefly dismissed the idea that comb jellies were intermediate between the enigmatic Ediacaran biota (08/19/2004), sponges and cnidarians (jellyfish). Nope, can’t be, they decided; too many missing transitional forms and other problems. Here’s what they said about that hypothesis after concluding the organism shared the pelagic (free-swimming) lifestyle of living comb jellies:

In contrast with this pelagic interpretation, Shu et al. recently hypothesized an evolutionary link between the benthic, frondose Chengjiang fossil Stromaveris psygmoglena and modern ctenophores as well as some Ediacaran vendobionts. To link these groups, they proposed that the early evolution of ctenophores was marked by a shift from a benthic, sessile existence to a pelagic habit coupled with a change in the function of their cilia from feeding to locomotion. Such a shift would involve major changes in basic morphology and ecology and would require many (undocumented) intermediate stages. Furthermore, their interpretation of S. psygmoglena as a stem-group ctenophore is based heavily on the presence of closely spaced branches that because they are “probably ciliated” were inferred to represent precursors of the diagnostic comb rows of ctenophores. Given that cilia are of widespread occurrence, not only in metazoans but in protists as well, and that they have diverse functions, not only for locomotion or feeding, use of the presence of probable cilia as a prime character by which to infer a ctenophore affinity for S. psygmoglena is problematic. Similarly, the suggestion by Shu et al. that the Ctenophora occupies an intermediate evolutionary position between sponges and cnidarians is inconsistent with numerous lines of evidence, both anatomical and molecular.

They left off the evolution discussion there, concluding only that this is an “important find” and that Raman spectroscopy “can yield important data to the understanding of life’s early history.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1Chen, Schopf, Bottjer et al, “Raman spectra of a Lower Cambrian ctenophore embryo from southwestern Shaanxi, China,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 0.1073/pnas.0701246104, published online before print April 2, 2007.

Notice they said that Raman spectroscopy can yield understanding about life’s early history, not that it does. Actually, it does – it helps scientists falsify Darwinism. The earliest comb jelly bursts onto the scene at the lowest fossil layer, fully formed and essentially modern.
Several things in this paper show the squeeze Darwin is in with the Cambrian explosion. The authors actually use the term Cambrian explosion in the first paragraph, indicating that it is still a problem 148 years after Darwin hoped that new fossils would explain it away. They call it a “rapid rise in the diversity of skeletonized metazoans,” a euphemism for “Darwin’s gradualism is in heap big trouble.” Using words like “radiation” masks the problem this is for Darwinism. It merely attempts damage control through jargon (see 04/23/2006), also known as “perception management.” It’s not a bug; it’s a feature.
Other problems for Darwin include their frank admission that the only competing evolutionary hypothesis linking comb jellies with putative ancestors contradicts evidence from fossils, anatomy, and molecular phylogeny. They also dispute the idea that cilia could be co-opted for the locomotive comb rows of the ctenophores. Then they leave their paper without any better evolutionary story, merely hoping that the new technique they used will some day help evolutionists understand life’s early history. All tired of waiting for them to understand, say aye-yi-yi-yi-yi.
Comb jellies are remarkable marine animals. They have a complex digestive system, with mouth and “pharynx, where ingested material passes into a complex system of radiating vascular structures that include eight meridional canals, one beneath each comb row,” the authors state. The combs are used for locomotion, another complex system. And they give the most remarkable light shows in nature: colorful streams of blinking lights that cascade down their sides (see 12/19/2005). Each of these are irreducibly complex systems without fossil precursors. The fact that delicate fossil embryos of these modern-looking animals could be discerned in rocks today gives the lie to Darwin’s myth of slow, gradual evolution over millions of years. Why don’t we be done with it and give Charlie a quiet burial at sea?
from http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200704.htm

DK: No evolution here......maybe there is some other there :arrow:

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

King David’s Walled City Surfaces 04/07/2007
A wall 21 feet thick from the First Temple period has been excavated in Jerusalem’s old City of David. The Jerusalem Post reported on Eilat Mazar’s latest discovery: “A wall from the First Temple was recently uncovered in Jerusalem’s City of David, strengthening the claim that it is the site of the palace of King David, an Israeli archeologist said Thursday.” The First Temple was built in the time of Solomon, David’s son and successor, in the 10th century BC. Mazar estimates that the 20-meter-long section represents one fourth of the wall.
Some modern “minimalist” archaeologists deny that David was more than a local chieftain; others relegate the stories about him to myth. This new find, however – the largest structure yet found in the old city – “indicates that the City of David once served as a major government center, Mazar said.” In 2005 she had found a large building that she has claimed was David’s palace (02/09/2007, 08/09/2005).
This story was found from a link on the website of the Biblical Archaeology Society.

Keep digging and you will find the evidence corroborating the Bible’s accuracy. For a good example of this, see the film “The Second Battle of Jericho” from Associates for Biblical Research, where further digging “re-corroborated” the Biblical account of Jericho after results by an earlier dig cast doubt on the story. Not long ago, skeptics were pointing to the lack of evidence for King David in support of their minimalist views. Then the Tel Dan inscription was found, mentioning the “house of David” in plain text for all to see (see Bible Places). Other pieces of the puzzle continue to surface (examples, 04/12/2003 04/17/2005). Mazar’s excavations are the most spectacular in a long trend of findings that show the Bible to be a reliable historical record.
Why are mentions of David so rare in extrabiblical sources? It’s easy to understand for anyone who has visited Jerusalem. Almost every square yard is occupied by buildings. Real estate in this center of three world religions is hotly contested. It is very difficult or impossible to get access to the most interesting sites (like the Temple Mount; see 10/31/2006). Considering how many times in history Jerusalem has been leveled, pillaged and burned, the remarkable thing is that any trace of David’s glory would remain. Mazar’s dig concerns a small section of a hill otherwise covered by modern-day Palestinian dwellings. To their credit, the Israeli government has made this a national historic park which tourists can visit. Now past its second year of excavation, Mazar’s site is certainly one to watch.
from http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200704.htm

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Dinosaurs In Literature, History and Art:
Medieval Thunderbird/Pterosaur Pendants

"In the end of November and beginning of December last, many of the country people observed dragons (probably Pterosaurs) appearing in the north and flying rapidly towards the east; from which they concluded, and their conjectures were right, that...boisterous weather would follow" ....1793 European Newspaper comment on the Weather"..

From http://s8int.com/phile/dinolit62.html

Go there for pics of artifacts that may repesent pterosaurs

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Jurassic Park Gets Overhaul 04/17/2007
How much do we understand the dinosaurs? ABC News reported on some big-time updates and revisions being made to the Carnegie Museum of Natural History dinosaur exhibits. The title of the article is, “Getting Their Dinosaur Facts Right, at Least for Now.”

The problem is that even though the newest of the dinosaurs are 65 million years old, scientists’ understanding of them has been racing along, changing with each new find. So the Carnegie staff has decided to dismantle – and rethink – its entire collection.
Our image of dinosaurs comes mostly from what one finds in old sci-fi films – big, lumbering creatures, dragging their tails on the ground. In recent years, scientists have decided they were probably much more energetic and agile – and the way most fossils were displayed was wrong.
“Unfortunately, they don’t come with instruction manuals,” Matt Lamanna, a paleontologist at the museum, said with a smile.


The project requires “a small army of painters, sculptors, welders and former museum staffers” to fix the newly-found errors and set the dinosaurs to rights.

The scientists back then certainly had the best of intentions but not the best information. Very few of the fossil skeletons they dug up were complete, so they made educated guesses, sometimes based on their knowledge of other species.

This may satisfy the purists for now. But the article speculated that “years from now, as the scientists learn more, they say they’ll probably have to change the exhibits all over again.”

Evolutionists insist that some of their theory’s greatest strengths are the very driving forces of the theory itself; change and adaptation. However, when an idea that you defend constantly changes, very few would consider that a strength. Indeed, Charles Darwin himself would scarcely recognize his own theory today.
This is illustrated in scientific interpretations of dinosaurs. When putting the bones together, they had to place the backs out of joint merely to fit with their beliefs of dinosaur skeletal structures – literally, forcing the evidence to match their theories.
Notably, the Carnegie collection itself has not changed. Those old bones remain the same, and it is only evolutionists’ understanding that has changed. And as ABC aptly pointed out, it will probably all need to be changed again mere generations from now – which means that even this updated display is probably wrong in ways we cannot recognize. So what is racing along? Understanding? Scientific progress? Human imagination? The bones aren’t saying. —DM
from http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200704.htm

65 million yrs? did they use a time machine and have a look?

User avatar
Dark Knight
Artisan Wordsmith
Artisan Wordsmith
Posts: 3220
Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 8:49 pm
Location: My Tower
Contact:

Post by Dark Knight »

Fossil Forest Found in Coal 04/23/2007
A Carboniferous forest extending some 40 square miles has been found in the ceiling of a coal mine, reported Science Daily, Live Science and News@Nature. About 50 species have been identified, including ferns and horsetails over 10 times taller than those alive today. News@Nature remarked that the forest contained some mangrove-like plants. The article quoted a surprised researcher who said, “It was always assumed that mangrove plants had evolved fairly recently.”
The fossil forest was found in 2005 but was announced today in the online journal Geology. The area is now 100 meters underground. The research team believes an ancient earthquake some 300 million years ago caused a sudden lowering of the area, resulting in the inundation and fossilization of the forest. Another surprise was that the ancient forest was so diverse for such an early period. “This discovery also shows that the fundamental processes that guide the complexity and evolution of forests has been around for hundreds of millions of years,” News@Nature said.

Is this a “mangrove-like” plant or a true mangrove? If the latter, it sounds like a big out-of-order problem for evolution, because mangroves were not supposed to appear till the late Cretaceous (source) and these forests are Carboniferous, over 200 million years earlier. That would be a bigger problem than finding a living dinosaur. A quick check of the original paper in Geology (May 2007) does not reveal any mention of family Rhizophoraceae or any of the other mangroves, but that doesn’t mean they were not found. We’ll have to see if more of the details come to light. In any case, gymnosperms were not thought to live in “mangrove-like” habitats.
This story also illustrates, as seen so often before, that wherever evolutionists look, they find more complexity farther back in time than they expect.
from http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev200704.htm

The research team believes? it is a religion? I knew it! :wink:

How about a world-wide flood?

Bigger Trees, bigger animals?

Post Reply