|Posted on April 27, 2016 at 8:40 AM||comments (0)|
Another Nail in the Coffin of Evolution?
Posted by Dr. Derek P. Blake on April 27, 2016 at 7:08am
The supporters of evolution have for one-hundred and fifty years, been searching for transitional life-forms, those animals that show a transition from one specie to another. The holy grail of transitional evolution has long stood on the fossils of what is called Mammal-like Reptiles. ICR describe them thus:
The "mammal-like" reptiles were a highly varied, widely distributed group of reptiles that had a number of characteristics that are found in mammals. Assuming evolution to be a fact and that mammals must have arisen from reptiles, evolutionists thus quite logically assume that the presence of these mammal-like characteristics provide support for the theory that mammals arose from one or more groups of creatures within these mammal-like reptiles.
Now it seems that an article in Science Daily details a discovery that has pulled the proverbial table-cloth from under the tea-set of evolution. This discovery reports fossil evidence that mammal-like reptiles lived "30 million years later" than originally thought, and existed alongside true mammals. I'm sorry my evolutionary friends but you cannot have your cake and eat it, these animals were obviously a kind that became extinct and did not evolve into the mammals that they lived alongside.
|Posted on July 25, 2015 at 8:35 AM||comments (0)|
In a report in The Times Newspaper (UK), a reporter comments on the discovery of a burrowing reptile than "appears to have been an ancestor of modern snakes". They conclude that the snakes did indeed lose their legs. The reporter quotes from Genesis 3 and says that "Now it seems that the creationists were right"! The fossil is named Trapodophis amplectus.
How the serpent lost his legs: fossil from Brazil offers clues
Oliver Moody Science Correspondent
Published at 12:01AM, July 25 2015
“On your belly shall you crawl,” God thundered to the serpent in the Garden of Eden, (Oliver Moody writes). With those words, many believe, the snake was condemned to slither for eternity.
Now it seems that the creationists were right — after a fashion. British palaeontologists have identified the fossil of a four-legged burrowing reptile that appears to have been an ancestor of modern snakes.
|Posted on April 26, 2014 at 7:35 AM||comments (0)|
News Item from the above site tells us that the stem-cells in our blood limit our life-span, yet another example of the Bible getting it right first some four thousand years ago.
|Posted on April 3, 2014 at 10:15 AM||comments (0)|
The UK newspaper 'The Telegraph' has a great article about the Ark that again supports the Biblical account, by the design & size of the ancient boat.
A group of master’s students from the Department of Physics and Astronomy at Leicester
University studied the exact dimensions of the Ark, set out in Genesis 6:13-22.
According to The Bible, God instructed Noah to build a boat which was 300 cubits long 50
cubits wide and 30 cubits high – recommending gopher wood for the enormous lifeboat.
The students averaged out the Egyptian and Hebrew cubit measurement to come up with
48.2cm, making the Ark around 144 metres long – about 100 metres shorter than Ark Royal.
Using the dimensions, the Archimedes principal of buoyancy and approximate animal
wrights they were astonished to find out that the Ark would have floated.
Student Benjamin Jordan, 21, from Bury St Edmonds, said: “Using the dimensions of the
Ark and the density of the water, we were able to calculate its buoyancy force, which,
according to Archimedes’ principle, is equal to the weight of the volume of fluid the object
“This meant we were then able to estimate the total mass the Ark could support before the
gravitational weight would overcome the buoyancy force, causing the Ark to sink.”
Previous research has suggested that there were approximately 35,000 species of animals
which would have needed to be saved by Noah
|Posted on October 30, 2013 at 11:05 AM||comments (0)|
‘Lost world’ animals
—found! Cave drawings brought to life by exciting new discoveries
The famous explorer Colonel John Blashford-Snell seems to have discovered an animal in Nepal that bears a strong resemblance to a Mammoth, two specims have been recorded so far.
"His discovery of two of these elephants has confirmed the rumours and sent a buzz through the scientific community. The two bulls, named Raja Gaj and Kanji, are huge—Raja Gaj stands 3.7 metres (12 feet) tall, taller than the biggest Asian elephant on record, and weighs around seven tonnes."
Read the article here: http://creation.com/lost-world-animals-found
The article points out that these may just be 'throw-backs' rather that the surviving herd of the ancient Mammoth herds that used to roam the northern climes before the ice-age. However if they are throw-backs, it does prove that the DNA of each 'kind' still contains the information to produce feachers long since thought dead, and proof that the Bible's 'kinds' is genetic fact.
|Posted on August 28, 2013 at 6:35 AM||comments (0)|
On Monday 26th August at 21.00 BBC2’s Horizonprogramme broadcast a documentary called ‘Dinosaurs:The Hunt for Life’ featuring palaeontologist Dr Mary Schweitzer. Her discoveryof traces of soft tissue and red blood cells in the fossilised bones of a ’68 million year old’ T Rex hasfascinated creationists since the first reports in 2005 but have, as far as Iknow, been studiously ignored by the establishment. So, was this documentaryabout setting the record straight or an exercise designed to nullify and explain away inconvenient evidence?
The discoveries themselves are fascinating, and can bestudied in more depth by Googling on (Mary Schweitzer dinosaur soft tissue) orsimilar terms. There isa useful write up on Answers in Genesis here. The initial discovery was madewhen a large T Rex thigh bone had to be sawn in half as it was too big to load on toa helicopter to get it out of the desert where it had been dug up. A smell wasnoticed. Further analysis showed soft tissue with blood vessels that stillretained some elasticity and contained blood cells. It was hard to suppose thatthis organic tissue had remained intact for 68 million years, but the idea thatthe bones might have only been perhaps a few thousand years old was truly unacceptable.Was this the ‘Mount St Helens’ (*) ofpalaeontology? As Dr David Menton (a cell biology PhD working with Answers inGenesis) said, “Itcertainly taxes one’s imagination to believe that soft tissue and cells couldremain so relatively fresh in appearance for the tens of millions of years ofsupposed evolutionary history.”
When, inevitably, the findings were challenged, Dr Schweitzer’steam published more analysis which proved by multiple independent analysis of another dinosaur fossil thatvertebrate specific proteins (collagen, elastin and haemoglobin) were present. 68 million year old organic tissue?
The documentary did not mention the age/dating problem DrMenton and other creationists raised, that since organic tissue could hardly beexpected to survive 68 million years, perhaps the dates were wrong by orders ofmagnitude. As Dr Schweitzer quoted a sceptical colleague saying to her, ‘I don’t care what the data says, this isimpossible.’ That response would be understandable from someone who holdsto millions of years as a non negotiable axiom. What do we do when faced withfacts that challenge the world view we have built our lives upon? Rejection anddenial are likely.
That was about all the time given to the sceptics, no timeat all was given to creationist response and analysis. Of course, it is not possibleto conduct an experiment to see whether soft tissue can survive for millions ofyears, so we are down to assumptions and world views. What it boils down to is that if these bonesare only a few thousand years old, as the soft tissue suggests, the wholeDarwinian project of explaining the world without a creator fails utterly. Andsecularism and materialism fall with it. The materialists are hardly likely toconcede this. Dinosaur DNA?
The rest of the programme wandered off into varioustangents, including a walk in the Gobi desert with discussion about fossilhunters who were only after profit from selling dinosaur bones. These peoplewere destroying valuable scientific evidence, we were told, for personal gain,the market having gone ballistic after a T Rex fossil was bought for $7.3 milliondollars by a Chicago Museum. There was also the usual speculation aboutdinosaurs evolving into birds. An interesting line of enquiry has opened as to whetherenough intact dinosaur DNA can be recovered to tell us more about what theseanimals really looked like. The famous dinosaur hunter Dr Jack Horner, Dr Schweitzer’smentor and allegedly the model for the Sam Neill character in ‘Jurassic Park’, expressed hope thatdinosaur DNA would teach us more about what living dinosaurs were like.
Ironically, the illustration of a horse (The winsome Dr Schweitzerwas filmed riding and grooming her horse) was used to suggest that our recreationsof extinct animals based on their bones was most likely inaccurate. Er,yes-creationists have been saying this for decades! Nebraska man being perhapsthe most notorious example, although manyother reconstructions of supposed human ancestors have been dreamed up andcalled evidence on the most scanty fossil fragments. Will dinosaur DNA helpus, as Dr Jack Horner suggested, help us find the ‘real evolutionary information’, or even as was hinted enable thegenetic engineering of live dinosaurs, as perhaps hinted at in the programme’stitle ‘Dinosaurs: the Hunt for Life’? Of course the fact that theseconversations are even taking place is indicative that the reality of undecayedsoft tissue in supposedly millions of year old bones is now being grudginglyaccepted as fact. Untestable hypotheses and wrong questions
Dr Schweitzer did seem to have a more open mind than some,mentioning that ‘a lot of dinosaur work is based on untestable hypotheses’ andthat ‘The world of dinosaur science is asking the wrong questions’ butshe apparently remains committed to millions of years. Creationists however suggestthat it seriously stretches credulity to believe that proteins could survivethat long. Taken together with the many global dragon/dinosaur legends and depictionsof dinosaurs in primitive art like the Cambodian stegosaurus carving (anotherpiece of evidence that tends to be ignored by mainstream media) this remarkablefinding points to a much younger age of the earth and far more recent age ofdinosaurs than can be accounted for by a materialist world view.
Finally, the documentary discussed the means hereby largeanimal carcasses became fossils. The animals were rapidly and completelyenclosed in fast moving sand or mud. How this happened was not mentioned, butwe do know it must have happened rapidly because animals that die and fall tothe ground in normal conditions are eaten and scattered by scavengers withindays if not hours. This is a matter of direct observation, not speculation. Aglobal flood remains the best theoretical model to explain the large scalefossilisation of dinosaurs. Really finally, a few representative dinosaurscould have fitted on Noah’s Ark. According to the Bible, God sent the animalstwo by two, He would quite obviously have chosen young specimens as these wouldhave had greater breeding potential and taken up less room and eaten less. Obviousenough when you allow yourself to think about it.
In summary, ‘Dinosaurs:The Hunt for Life’ was interesting as much for what it left out and forvarious distractions as for its analysis of the fascinating discovery of softtissue, protein and red blood cells in dinosaur bones. This unexpected discoveryhas the potential to force a re-evaluation of the dogma of long ages andmillions of years, a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for evolution tohave taken place. It seems that the establishment is not about to let thathappen even if they are finding it increasingly difficult to explain Dr Schweitzer’sfindings away.
I loved the quote from a nameless scientist ‘I don’t care what the data says, this isimpossible.’
As Dr Schweitzer remarked, ‘How is this science?’
(*) The mount St Helens explosion and subsequent eventsdemonstrated that changes such as laying down strata and burial of trees couldhappen over days in the right catastrophic conditions, providing directevidence that millions of years were not necessary to lay down rock layers.
|Posted on April 30, 2013 at 1:00 PM||comments (0)|
Well here is possibly another step forward for science that will at least undermine the evolutionist view of anything based upon the speed oflight. Two recent papers suggest that the speed of light is variable, depending upon the space that it is travelling through, something I have been advocating for years.
|Posted on February 23, 2013 at 8:30 AM||comments (0)|
A partial tablet has been found that pre-dates the so called Epic of Gilgamesh account, said by many to be the inspiration for the Genesis flood account. The tablet, although in the possession of a museum since the mid-nineteenth century, its significance has only recently been acknowledged. More accurate dating has placed the tablet from around 2200 B.C., or soon after the Flood.
"Unknown to most archaeologists, however, is an even earlier Flood tablet. It was discovered in the ancient Babylonian city of Nippur in the 1890s. The tablet was so encrusted that its value was not immediately recognized, but by 1909 Dr. Hermann Hilprecht had discerned the figures and translated the text. Given the catalogue designation CBM 13532, it dates from about 2200 B.C., or soon after the Flood itself. More importantly, while the differences between Genesis and Gilgamesh are striking, the similarities between Genesis and this tablet are obvious. There is no detail that differs from Genesis, and nothing extra is added."
|Posted on February 22, 2013 at 12:15 AM||comments (0)|
According to Bible History Daily, the sight of the infamous city of Sodom has almost definitely been found, exactly where the Bibledescribed it as being. BHD tells us:
Seeking to answer the question “Where is Sodom?” and using the Biblical geography of Genesis 13 as a guide, Collins decided to excavate Tall el-Hammam, an extensive and heavily fortified site located in modern Jordan at the eastern edge of the kikkar. First inhabited during the Chalcolithic period (4600–3600 B.C.E.), the site attained its maximum size during the Middle Bronze Age (c.2000–1600 B.C.E.) and became one of the largest cities in Canaan.But unlike other Canaanite cities that continued to flourish in theLate Bronze Age (1550-1200 B.C.E.), Tall el-Hammam was destroyed by fire at the end of the Middle Bronze Age and remained uninhabited for centuries.Across Tall el-Hammam, archaeologists found widespread evidence of an intense conflagration that left the Middle Bronze Agecity in ruins. They found scorched foundations and floors buried under nearly 3 feet of dark grey ash, as well as dozens of pottery sherds covered with a frothy, “melted” surface; the glassy appearance indicates that they were briefly exposed to temperatures well in excess of 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit, the approximate heat of volcanic magma. Such evidence suggests the city and its environs were catastrophically destroyed in a sudden and extreme conflagration.
Was it this event—which destroyed Hammam and the other cities of the kikkar—that was remembered by the Biblical writers in their telling of the story of Sodom?
Bible History Daily 21/0/13
This is one more archaeological discovery that seems to confirm that the history of the Bible is correct, including those'fantastical' events like the cities being destroyed by God in intense fire. If the Bible says it is true, then why do so many people doubt the existence of God, none so blind as those who willnot see.
|Posted on December 5, 2012 at 12:35 AM||comments (0)|
New Scientist this week (4th December 2012) is running a cover story entitled ‘Before the Bib Bang’ which is maintaining that it has now been proved that the universe is finite, that it had a beginning and possibly an end, the article commences:
“AS BIG questions go, it's hard to beat. Has the universe existed forever? Over the years, some of the greatest minds in physics have argued that no matter how far back in time you go, the universe has always been here. Others have argued that the opposite must be true - something must have happened to bring the cosmos into existence. With both sides claiming that observations support their view, until recently an answer seemed as distant as ever.
However, earlier this year, cosmologists Alex Vilenkin and Audrey Mithani claimed to have settled the debate. They have uncovered reasons why the universe cannot have existed forever. Yet what nature grudgingly gives with one hand, it takes back with the other - even though the universe has a beginning, its origins may be lost in the mists of time.”
So it’s back to the problem of how to explain the start of the universe without involving God, Good luck with that one.
Main article via 'Time Before Time - the Big Bang' link at the bottom of the Homepage