Dinosaurs

Archaeological Evidences for the Bible

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Originally Posted July of 2010)

CRI’s EQUIP post has a short list to make the point:

A Common Flood Story. Not just the Hebrews (Gen. 6–8), but Mesopotamians, Egyptians, and Greeks all report a flood in primordial times. A Sumerian king list from c. 2100 BC divides itself into two categories: those kings who ruled before a great flood and those who ruled after it. One of the earliest examples of Sumero-Akkadian-Babylonian literature, the Gilgamesh Epic, describes a great flood sent as punishment by the gods, with humanity saved only when the pious Utnapishtim (AKA, “the Mesopotamian Noah”) builds a ship and saves the animal world thereon. A later Greek counterpart, the story of Deucalion and Phyrra, tells of a couple who survived a great flood sent by an angry Zeus. Taking refuge atop Mount Parnassus (AKA, “the Greek Ararat”), they supposedly repopulated the earth by heaving stones behind them that sprang into human beings.

The Code of Hammurabi. This seven-foot black diorite stele, discovered at Susa and presently located in the Louvre museum, contains 282 engraved laws of Babylonian King Hammurabi (fl. 1750 BC). The common basis for this law code is the lex talionis (“the law of the tooth”), showing that there was a common Semitic law of retribution in the ancient Near East, which is clearly reflected in the Pentateuch. Exodus 21:23–25, for example, reads: “But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot…” (niv).

The Nuzi Tablets. The some 20,000 cuneiform clay tablets discovered at the ruins of Nuzi, east of the Tigris River and datable to c. 1500 BC, reveal institutions, practices, and customs remarkably congruent to those found in Genesis. These tablets include treaties, marriage arrangements, rules regarding inheritance, adoption, and the like.

The Existence of Hittites. Genesis 23 reports that Abraham buried Sarah in the Cave of Machpelah, which he purchased from Ephron the Hittite. Second Samuel 11 tells of David’s adultery with Bathsheba, the wife of Uriah the Hittite. A century ago the Hittites were unknown outside of the Old Testament, and critics claimed that they were a figment of biblical imagination. In 1906, however, archaeologists digging east of Ankara, Turkey, discovered the ruins of Hattusas, the ancient Hittite capital at what is today called Boghazkoy, as well as its vast collection of Hittite historical records, which showed an empire flourishing in the mid-second millennium BC. This critical challenge, among many others, was immediately proved worthless — a pattern that would often be repeated in the decades to come.

The Merneptah Stele. A seven-foot slab engraved with hieroglyphics, also called the Israel Stele, boasts of the Egyptian pharaoh’s conquest of Libyans and peoples in Palestine, including the Israelites: “Israel — his seed is not.” This is the earliest reference to Israel in nonbiblical sources and demonstrates that, as of c. 1230 BC, the Hebrews were already living in the Promised Land.

Biblical Cities Attested Archaeologically. In addition to Jericho, places such as Haran, Hazor, Dan, Megiddo, Shechem, Samaria, Shiloh, Gezer, Gibeah, Beth Shemesh, Beth Shean, Beersheba, Lachish, and many other urban sites have been excavated, quite apart from such larger and obvious locations as Jerusalem or Babylon. Such geographical markers are extremely significant in demonstrating that fact, not fantasy, is intended in the Old Testament historical narratives; otherwise, the specificity regarding these urban sites would have been replaced by “Once upon a time” narratives with only hazy geographical parameters, if any.

Israel’s enemies in the Hebrew Bible likewise are not contrived but solidly historical. Among the most dangerous of these were the Philistines, the people after whom Palestine itself would be named. Their earliest depiction is on the Temple of Rameses III at Thebes, c. 1150 BC, as “peoples of the sea” who invaded the Delta area and later the coastal plain of Canaan. The Pentapolis (five cities) they established — namely Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gaza, Gath, and Ekron — have all been excavated, at least in part, and some remain cities to this day. Such precise urban evidence measures favorably when compared with the geographical sites claimed in the holy books of other religious systems, which often have no basis whatever in reality.10

Shishak’s Invasion of Judah. First Kings 14 and 2 Chronicles 12 tell of Pharaoh Shishak’s conquest of Judah in the fifth year of the reign of King Rehoboam, the brainless son of Solomon, and how Solomon’s temple in Jerusalem was robbed of its treasures on that occasion. This victory is also commemorated in hieroglyphic wall carvings on the Temple of Amon at Thebes.

The Moabite Stone. Second Kings 3 reports that Mesha, the king of Moab, rebelled against the king of Israel following the death of Ahab. A three-foot stone slab, also called the Mesha Stele, confirms the revolt by claiming triumph over Ahab’s family, c. 850 BC, and that Israel had “perished forever.”

Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. In 2 Kings 9–10, Jehu is mentioned as King of Israel (841–814 BC). That the growing power of Assyria was already encroaching on the northern kings prior to their ultimate conquest in 722 BC is demonstrated by a six-and-a-half-foot black obelisk discovered in the ruins of the palace at Nimrud in 1846. On it, Jehu is shown kneeling before Shalmaneser III and offering tribute to the Assyrian king, the only relief we have to date of a Hebrew monarch.

Burial Plaque of King Uzziah. Down in Judah, King Uzziah ruled from 792 to 740 BC, a contemporary of Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah. Like Solomon, he began well and ended badly. In 2 Chronicles 26 his sin is recorded, which resulted in his being struck with leprosy later in life. When Uzziah died, he was interred in a “field of burial that belonged to the kings.” His stone burial plaque has been discovered on the Mount of Olives, and it reads: “Here, the bones of Uzziah, King of Judah, were brought. Do not open.”

Hezekiah’s Siloam Tunnel Inscription. King Hezekiah of Judah ruled from 721 to 686 BC. Fearing a siege by the Assyrian king, Sennacherib, Hezekiah preserved Jerusalem’s water supply by cutting a tunnel through 1,750 feet of solid rock from the Gihon Spring to the Pool of Siloam inside the city walls (2 Kings 20; 2 Chron. 32). At the Siloam end of the tunnel, an inscription, presently in the archaeological museum at Istanbul, Turkey, celebrates this remarkable accomplishment. The tunnel is probably the only biblical site that has not changed its appearance in 2,700 years.

The Sennacherib Prism. After having conquered the 10 northern tribes of Israel, the Assyrians moved southward to do the same to Judah (2 Kings 18–19). The prophet Isaiah, however, told Hezekiah that God would protect Judah and Jerusalem against Sennacherib (2 Chron. 32; Isa. 36–37). Assyrian records virtually confirm this. The cuneiform on a hexagonal, 15-inch baked clay prism found at the Assyrian capital of Nineveh describes Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah in 701 BC in which it claims that the Assyrian king shut Hezekiah inside Jerusalem “like a caged bird.” Like the biblical record, however, it does not state that he conquered Jerusalem, which the prism certainly would have done had this been the case. The Assyrians, in fact, bypassed Jerusalem on their way to Egypt, and the city would not fall until the time of Nebuchadnezzar and the Neo-Babylonians in 586 BC. Sennacherib himself returned to Nineveh where his own sons murdered him.

The Cylinder of Cyrus the Great. Second Chronicles 36:23 and Ezra 1 report that Cyrus the Great of Persia, after conquering Babylon, permitted Jews in the Babylonian Captivity to return to their homeland. Isaiah had even prophesied this (Isa. 44:28). This tolerant policy of the founder of the Persian Empire is borne out by the discovery of a nine-inch clay cylinder found at Babylon from the time of its conquest, 539 BC, which reports Cyrus’s victory and his subsequent policy of permitting Babylonian captives to return to their homes and even rebuild their temples.

So it goes. This list of correlations between Old Testament texts and the hard evidence of Near Eastern archaeology could easily be tripled in length….

Bible Reliability 3: Archeological Discoveries

Here are some older posts/conversations:

This story has an important facet for us apologists, but first, let us enjoy this finds belated attribution:

Jerusalem Post: Long time archaeological riddle solved

The riddle of the identity of a 3,200-year-old round bronze tablet with a carved face of a woman has apparently been solved, 13 years after it was discovered at the El-ahwat excavation site between Katzir-Harish and Nahal Iron (Wadi Ara) by scientist Oren Cohen of the University of Haifa.

The small, broken-off piece of metal is probably part of a linchpin that held the wheel to a war chariot sent to battle by the Canaanite general Sisera against the Israelites, says Prof. Adam Zertal, who for 33 years has led weekly walks with university colleagues and volunteers over “every square meter” of Samaria and the Jordan Rift to search for archeological evidence from biblical times.

The round, bronze tablet, about 2 centimeters in diameter and 5 millimeters thick, features a carved face of a woman wearing a cap and earrings shaped as chariot wheels. It was found in a structure identified as the “Governor’s House.”

Cohen was unable to find its parallel in any other archeological discoveries. When carrying out a study on the walls of the Temple of Rameses III in Egypt of ancient reliefs depicting chariot battles, Cohen identified a unique decoration – the bronze linchpins fastening the chariot wheels were decorated with the faces of captives, foreigners and enemies of Egypt. He also noticed that these decorations characterized those chariots that were used by royalty and other dignitaries. Cohen found that the linchpin with the woman’s face found near Katzir was almost identical to that found in the Egyptian temple.

The identification as a linchpin, Zertal said, reinforces the claim that a high-ranking Egyptian or local ruler was based at this location and is likely to support the theory that the site is Haroshet Hagoyim – the Canaanite base of Sisera, as mentioned in the fourth and fifth chapter of the Book of Judges, the 70-year archeologist told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday.

The Egyptians and Canaanites both created linchpins for chariots with the carved faces of their enemies; the place on the wheels were considered “very undignified,” said Zertal, like the Jews putting Haman’s name on the soles of their shoes for beating against the floor while the Book of Esther is read aloud…

…Sisera was the captain of the army of Yavin, king of Canaan. According to Judges 4:3, Sisera led an army of 900 iron chariots and oppressed the Israelites for two decades. Deborah the Prophetess, then leader of the Israelite tribes, persuaded Barak to face Sisera in battle. He led a force of 10,000 and destroyed the army of Sisera, whose origin was completely unknown. The battle, the Bible says, led to a 40-year peace…

…The Haifa archeologist was raised at a Hashomer Hatzair kibbutz and severely wounded in the Yom Kippur War. “I spent a year at Hadassah Hospital in Jerusalem, and I became interested in archeology. Although I had argued that the Bible was full of myths, I decided after my recovery to travel the land by foot to look for archeological evidence.”

Zertal, who took the walks often using crutches from his decades-old injury, added: “I am a man of science and have to investigate whether what is described in the Bible suits the geography. Nobody thought there was an altar on Mount Ebal, but the evidence was found. It is not a legend. When you do archeological research as you should, you see a lot [of the biblical stories] is reality.”

…(read more)…

This last part is key, let me explain. Archaeology has served as one of the great evidences for the skeptical person to have many of their doubts answered. I wish to display the above in some past debates I have had. Since many of these past debates are about a decade old or older, referencing isn’t up to my current par… but you will get the main point of the discussions at hand. Also keep in mind these are portions of larger responses… so you may feel like you just stepped into the middle of a conversation – you would be right.

The first presentation is a discussion between myself and Rocket Girl, the second between myself a Nightmyre.

Discussion with Rocket Girl

Rocket Girl made reference to where the evidence for Noah’s Flood is, Sodom and Gomorrah (here is an article, see video as well), and the like. I respond:

People use to say the same about David, Saul, Solomon.  The Bible makes mention of the Hittites 47 times… people use to say “where is the evidence for these peoples?  It must be a myth!” As with David, Saul, and the many others once thought to be mythical, all have been found.  In fact, Turkey has a museum dedicated solely to the Hittite peoples.

Rocket Girl mentioned wanting proof for Noah’s Ark.  This proof would also require evidence for a worldwide flood, and keeping this short and sweet, over 75% of the earth’s crust is sediment – that is, the matter that settles to the bottom of a liquid; lees; dregs (Webster).  That’s a lot of proof of water at some point in earth’s history.  Over 220 cultures (from the Australian Aboriginal to the South American Indian to the Russians and Chinese) separated by time and water all have stories of the first man being red (Hebrew for Adam means red clay), a worldwide flood, a bird being released after the craft landed, and an animal sacrifice, etc.

It seems funny that one would ask for evidence of Sodom and Gomorrah, as this town has been found.  There are writings from antiquity (other than Biblical) about it as well as the excavation of Bab edh-Dhra.  The writings of Nebuchadnezzar speak of the world having one language and all living around a great tower that he tried to rebuild (that Saddam Hussein is rebuilding as well).  Man-made items found in most geological layers (even the pre-Cambrian).  Dinosaur boned found by riverbeds so fresh at first they thought to be Bison bones.  T-Rex blood found in an un-mineralized bone. As well as dino bones found with blood cells and proteins.  Ancient stone work of Dinosaurs, Etc., Etc.

Sir Frederic Kenyon, former director and principle librarian of the British Museum, was possibly the most respected New Testament textual scholar in our century. Shortly before his death he commented on the significance of the fact that the evidence is overwhelming that the Gospels were composed shortly after the events of Christ’s life and that the early church widely distributed them within its congregations within a relatively short period of time is significant. Kenyon wrote:

“the interval, then, between the dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed. Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”

After a lifetime of in-depth review of the New Testament manuscripts, Kenyon concluded that the present text in our Bible is absolutely reliable. He wrote: “It is reassuring at the end to find that the general result of all these discoveries and all this study is to strengthen the proof of the authenticity of the Scriptures, and our conviction that we have in our hands, in substantial integrity, the veritable Word of God.”

Dr William F. Albright was unquestionably one of the world’s most brilliant Biblical archaeologists. In 1955 he wrote: “We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid bases for dating any book of the New Testament after circa A.D.80.” He was a skeptic! However, over the next several decades of discoveries were convincing enough to make him pen this on the New Testament being written: “probably sometime between circa A.D.50 and 75.”   Albright concluded, from the evidence, that the writing of the New Testament within a few years of the events of Christ’s life and the writing was “too slight to permit any appreciable corruption of the essential center and even of the specific wording of the sayings of Christ.” In other words, Professor Albright, one of the greatest minds in the field of archaeology and ancient texts, concluded (via evidence) that the New Testament records the truth about Jesus Christ and His statements.

Dr. John A.T. Robinson was a distinguished lecturer at Trinity College, Cambridge and developed a reputation as a great scholar. Naturally, he accepted the academic consensus universally held since 1900, that denied the disciples and Paul wrote the New Testament and concluded that it was written up to a hundred years after Christ. However, an article in Time magazine, March 21, 1977, reported that Robinson decided to personally investigate for himself the arguments behind this scholarly “consensus” against the New Testament’s reliability because he realized that very little original research had been completed in this field in this century. He was shocked to discover that much of past scholarship against the New Testament was untenable because it was based on a “tyranny of unexamined assumptions” and what he felt must have been an “almost willful blindness.”

To the amazement of his university colleagues, Robinson concluded that the apostles must have been the genuine writers of the New Testament books in the years prior to A.D.64. He also noted that if you were to reject the evidence of the before mentioned research and throw out the conclusions of original authorship of the New Testament. You would also have to throw out every ancient writing of antiquity as well as historical writings of recent and ancient origin.

Some More

Archaeological Discoveries have done nothing but fortify the Gospels and the events in them. The New Testament alone has over 25,000 archaeological sites alone, and every turn of the archaeologists spade reveals one more truth of the evidences of faith. Not one prophecy, historical fact, archaeological, or scientific find about (or in) the bible has been shown to be wrong.

Dr. Nelson Gleuck, president of Hebrew Union College and the leading Palestinian archaeologist of the twentieth century said: “it may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible.”

William Ramsay, the English scholar, traveled as a young man to Asia Minor over a century ago for the sole purpose of disproving the Bible’s history as described by Luke in his Gospel and in the book of Acts. Ramsey and his professors were convinced that the New Testament record must be terribly inaccurate. He believed that Luke could not be correct in his history of Christ or in his account about the growth of the Church during the first decades following Christ. Dr. Ramsay began digging in the ancient ruins of sites throughout Greece and Asia Minor, searching for ancient names, boundary markers, and other archaeological finds that would conclusively prove that Luke had invented his history Christ and His Church.  To his amazement and dismay, William Ramsay discovered that the statements of the New Testament Scriptures were accurate in the smallest detail. Finally, Dr. Ramsay was convinced by the overwhelming evidence proving the Bible’s accuracy. Consequently, he accepted Jesus Christ as his personal Savior (based on the evidence alone).

A.N. Sherwin-White, was a great (some say the greatest historian of Roman life, history, and culture) classical historical scholar at Oxford University who studied the extensive evidence for and against the historical accuracy of the Book of Acts. Sherwin-White wrote his conclusion after studying the evidence: “For Acts the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming… any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd.”

Discussion with Nightmyre

Nightmyre, you said:

“Christianity, and many other religions, put forth the concept of Heaven and Hell. Obviously, there is no basis in REALITY for these two locations. You cannot look on a map and pinpoint the physical location of heavan and hell. However the religion gives you the TOOLS NECESSARY to reach this goal. And using these tools requires a large amount of faith, because you are NEVER certain that you will reach your goal.”

You show a very tainted view of what Christianity actually teaches.  You seem to clump many beliefs (not just Christianity) into one set or way of thinking.  This is not only disrespectful to me (although it really doesn’t bother me), it is disrespectful to others of various faiths.  I make it a goal to, at the least, when I deal with other faiths, to really delve into what they actually teach and believe.  I will post some stuff here to assist in showing you where you are off the mark in just one area of the Christian faith.

Obviously, if the God of the universe has revealed Himself and is the only true God, and if Christ is the only true way of salvation, then we would expect convincing evidence to substantiate this. Not just some evidence, or inferior evidence-so that a person has a dozen equally valid options in the choice of their religion-but superior evidence. Dr. John Warwick Montgomery asks:

“What if a revelational truth-claim did not turn on questions of theology and religious philosophy-on any kind of esoteric, fideistic method available only to those who are already “true believers” – but on the very reasoning employed in the law to determine questions of fact?… Eastern faiths and Islam, to take familiar examples, ask the uncommitted seeker to discover their truth experientially: the faith-experience will be self-validating…. Christianity, on the other hand, declares that the truth of its absolute claims rests squarely on certain historical facts, open to ordinary investigation…. The advantage of a jurisprudential approach lies in the difficulty of jettisoning it: legal standards of evidence developed as essential means of resolving the most intractable disputes in society … Thus one cannot very well throw out legal reasoning merely because its application to Christianity results in a verdict for the Christian faith.”

Dr. John Warwick Montgomery makes the point again that “the historic Christian claim differs qualitatively from the claims of all other world religions at the epistemological point: on the issue of testability” (“The Jury Returns: A Juridical Defense of Christianity,” in Evidence for Faith: Deciding the God Question, p. 319).  A good example of someone taking the faith up on its claims were Viggo Olsen, M.D., author of Daktar: Diplomat in Bangladesh, and his wife, who were both skeptics who…

“decided to embark on a detailed study of Christianity with the intention of rejecting it on intellectual grounds.  Little by little, as they studied works that deal with data common to apologetics and evidences… they were led step by step to see the truthfulness of Christianity.  Their study was no minor investigation or causal perusal.  It was an exhaustive search…” (Frederick R. Howe, The Role of Apologetics and Evangelism).

And this claim to truth includes the possibility of self-defeating constructs within the framework of Christian philosophy, which I have shown to be in the atheists philosophy.  Mortimer J. Adler is one of the world’s leading philosophers, chairman of the board of editors for the Encyclopedia Britannica, architect of the Great Books of the Western World series and its remarkable Syntopicon, he is also the director of the prestigious Institute for Philosophical Research in Chicago.  Adler says, “I believe Christianity is the only logical, consistent faith in the world” (Christianity Today, Nov. 19, 1990).  Did you get that?  One of the greatest philosophers of our time said that unlike Christianity, every religion that claims to have an epistemology is self-defeating.

Dr. Drew Trotter, a Cambridge University graduate, argues convincingly that “logic and the evidence both point to the reality of absolute truth….”  George F. Gilder, one of our century’s “greatest minds,” and author of Wealth and Poverty and Telecosm, says “Christianity is true, and its truth will be discovered anywhere you look very far”] (David A. Noebel, Understanding the Times: The Religious Worldviews of Our Day and the Search for Truth, p. 13).  Principle at Wycliff Hall, Alister McGrath, author of Intellectual Don’t Need God and Other Myths, says the evidence for Christianity is akin to that found in doing good scientific research:

“When I was undertaking my doctoral research in molecular biology at Oxford University, I was frequently confronted with a number of theories offering to explain a given observation.  In the end, I had to make a judgment concerning which of them possessed the greatest internal consistency, the greatest degree of predictive ability.  Unless I was to abandon any possibility of advance in understanding, I was obliged to make such a judgment… I would claim the right to speak of the ‘superiority’ of Christianity in this explicative sense” (“Response to John Hick,” in More Than One Way? Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, p. 68).

Noted Christian scholar Dr. Carl F. H. Henry wrote a three thousand page, six volume work on the topic of God, Revelation, and Authority.  After his exhaustive [to say the least] analysis, Henry declared that “Truth is Christianity’s most enduring asset…” (Ajith Fernando, The Supremacy of Christ, p. 109).

Dr. Robert A. Morey writes,

“There is more than enough evidence on every hand from every department of human experience and knowledge to demonstrate that Christianity is true… [It is the faith of the non-Christian [that] is externally and internally groundless.  They are the ones who leap in the dark.  Some, like Kierkegaard, have admitted this” (Introduction to Defending the Faith, p. 38).

James Sire points out in his book, Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All?, that an argument for belief, religious or otherwise, must be secured on the best evidence, validly argued, and able to refute the strongest objections that can be mustered against it (p. 10).  Dr. Norman Geisler adds that “In the face of overwhelming apologetic evidence, unbelief becomes perverse” (Baker Encyclopedia of Apologetics, p. 529).

Young-Earth Creationist Wins Lawsuit Against CSUN

Published by Papa Giorgio

Previously I noted this in my Dinosaur post… this however is Dr. Armitage explaining in more depth the lawsuit and the topic that caused the ruckus.

(Video Description)

The attorney did not state the exact amount he received but according to THE COLLEGE FIX, he said that it was “a substantial settlement representing about 15 times his annual part-time salary.”

CSUN still maintained that Armitage had been fired due to a lack of funding and claimed that it only settled the case to avoid a costly legal battle. Reinach acknowledged that there was no admission of guilt in the settlement but he believed that the university would not pay a large amount if it did not think it would lose the case.

“The evidence was quite clear,” he added. “The stated reasons for saying they fired him were simply not true. There were lies and contradictions abounding from several of the key witnesse,” Reinach continued. He said evidence against the campus officials was seen in an email suggesting that Armitage could be eased out of the job by making his position full-time. “Not only did it not support the notion that there was budgetary concerns, but in fact suggested to the contrary,” said Reinach

Evidences Supporting the Biblical Timescale of Dinosaurs and Man

Published by Papa Giorgio

I have updated the “Triceratops Horn” section, as, the Los Angeles County Superior Court Ruled against California State University Northridge (CSUN) in favor of Dr. Mak Armitage.

This will be an update to previous posts on this .com and my previous blog (BlogSpot). It will serve as a part-two-of-a-two-part discussion to young earth views that deals with evidences of mankind throughout all geological ages. While this is far from an in-depth excoriation of the evidences, it is a good introduction to some of them. I do not start off or bring up young earth creationism typically. Typically I will lead off with talking about theistic evidences [MACRO evidences for God] that assume a mainstream assumption about the age of the cosmos/earth. But the below evidences can be incorporated into a response when challenged about the topic. (See also: “Two Ways to Look At Origins;” and, “Reason and Faith.”)

As usual, all graphics are linked for further resource hunting. One may wish to visit my post on Archaeology and the Bible, which includes some responses to skeptics from a decade[+] ago.

+900yr-old Carving In the Ta Prohm Temple of Angkor Wat

This was part of a larger post/blog I did entitled, “Dinosaurs, the Bible, and Creation Proofs.” After a discussion with a fellow believer I wanted to get this video isolated here and it is included in my “Must See Videos” section in the left-hand column. With that small intro, here it is:

The above videos are one OF MANY evidences that humankind at one point may have seen dinosaurs… more evidence exists that just what I am providing here, but the above is one of the clearest examples of not just ancients finding bones, but see skin, muscle, and eyes of a stegosaurus.

Tyrannosaurus (T-Rex) Blood Cells & Protein 

By using immunological tests, Gerard Muyzer of Leiden University in the Netherlands, isolated samples from some fresh T-Rex bone that had a specific bone protein (osteocalcin) in them. These proteins, reported in Geology magazine (Oct. 1992), are very unstable, and cannot last for very many years once the creature who carries them dies [perm-a-freeze cannot account for the longevity evolution gives to these proteins]. The photo [right] is a newer find where malleable flesh and intact blood cells are throughout. H/t to The Pearcey Report for this story from WND that keeps evolving:

Paleontologist Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University first claimed to have isolated soft tissues and collagen from a Tyrannosaurus rex leg bone several years ago.

But because the leg was broken during excavation, the evidence was damaged and could never be independently confirmed. (And evidence keeps amassing to support their claims as Nature discusses.)

Schweitzer then examined a more pristine leg of a plant-eating hadrosaur excavated from sandstone and found even better samples of soft tissue, according to the report.

“Our findings demonstrated that it did contain basement membrane matrix,” said Lewis Cantley, chief of the division of signal transduction at Beth Israel Deaconess, and a co-author on the Science study. Basement membranes, which degrade and regenerate during development and wound repair, comprise a continuous extracellular matrix that links endothelial, epithelial, muscle, or neuronal cells and their adjacent stroma.

In situ mass spectrometery independently verified amino acids in dinosaur tissues, including the collagen signature amino acid, hydroxylated proline.

While scientists previously questioned the possibility that soft tissue could survive tens of millions of years of fossilization, few seem to be questioning their assumptions that dinosaurs actually went extinct 65 million years ago.

Young earth proponents see something entirely different in the findings. As one creationist noted: “There’s no way this blood could be 80 million years old. The evolutionists are just saying so because they cannot bear the thought of recent dinosaurs causing their millions of years scenario to come crashing down. Without the millions of years, Darwinism is dead, dead, dead.”

The evidence that hemoglobin has indeed survived in this dinosaur bone (which casts immense doubt upon the ‘millions of years’ idea) is, to date, as follows:

  • The tissue was coloured reddish brown, the colour of hemoglobin, as was liquid extracted from the dinosaur tissue.
  • Hemoglobin contains heme units. Chemical signatures unique to heme were found in the specimens when certain wavelengths of laser light were applied.
  • Because it contains iron, heme reacts to magnetic fields differently from other proteins—extracts from this specimen reacted in the same way as modem heme compounds.
  • To ensure that the samples had not been contaminated with certain bacteria which have heme (but never the protein hemoglobin), extracts of the dinosaur fossil were injected over several weeks into rats. If there was even a minute amount of hemoglobin present in the T. Rex sample, the rats’ immune system should build up detectable antibodies against this compound. This is exactly what happened in carefully controlled experiments.

Nova Science Schweitzer

See:

  1. Dinosaur Soft Tissue: In seeming desperation, evolutionists turn to iron to preserve the idea of millions of years;
  2. and, DNA And Bone Cells Found In Dinosaur Bone.

(Above graphic) The numbers in the “( )” represent millions of years, so “(10)” would mean 10-million years old. And again, the labs that do this for the dinosaur bones cannot re-calibrate their machines off of a slug because all similar non-mineralized bones have C14 in them (take note I included the non-creationist reference at the bottom of the small quote to point out that the scientific community is finding this troubling):

The consistent failure of carbon dating facilities to find carbon-dead samples to serve as baselines highlights the regularity with which they have detected measurable amounts of radiocarbon in samples from Phanerozoic settings (Nadeau et al., 2001[1]). Simply put, carbonaceous materials from any portion of the geologic column deposited millions of years ago should, with the exception of rare instances of contami¬nation, contain zero “C atoms. This reasonable assumption follows from the half-life of “C, which places a time limit on its duration of about 100,000 years until the number of “C atoms become too few to detect with accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) (Hebert, 2013[2]).

[1] Nadeau, M.-J., P.M. Grootes, A. Voelker, F. Bruhn, A. Duhr, and A. Oriwall. 2001. Carbonate ‘4C background: does it have multiple personalities? Radiocarbon 43:2A, 169-176.

[2] Rethinking Carbon-14 Dating: What Does It Really Tell Us about the Age of the Earth? by Jake Hebert, Ph.D.

 Triceratops Horn Gets Dr. Mark Armitage fired from CSUN

Question:

What happens when you publish a peer-reviewed paper that states inconvenient facts against Darwinism? Better yet, photos (see near bottom, click to enlarge) that cast doubt on prevailing paradigms.

Answer:

You get fired.

…UPDATE (Oct 1st, 2016)

Just to recap this case before the good news:

…In February 2013, he published his findings in Acta Histochemica, a journal of cell and tissue research (M. H. Armitage and K. L. Anderson Acta Histochem. 115, 603–608; 2013). Two weeks later, he was fired from his job at California State University, Northridge (CSUN), where he managed the biology department’s electron and confocal microscopy suite.

Now he is embroiled in a long-shot legal fight to get his job back. In July, his lawyers filed a wrongful-termination suit claiming that religious intolerance motivated the dismissal: as a young-Earth creationist, Armitage says that finding soft tissue in the fossil supports his belief that such specimens date to the time of the biblical flood, which he puts at about 4,000 years ago.

The suit alleges that faculty members hostile to Armitage had him fired because they could not stand working with a creationist who had been published in a legitimate scientific journal. He and his attorneys at the Pacific Justice Institute, a conservative legal organization based in Sacramento, California, that focuses on religious and family issues, have repeatedly made that claim in the press. But specialists in US labour law suggest that his claim of religious intolerance might have difficulty standing up if the case goes to trial.

In recent years, a schoolteacher, academic and NASA employee who were creationists have claimed that they were fired unjustly for their religious beliefs. (None were reinstated.) But what makes this case different is that Armitage managed to survive for years in a mainstream academic institution and to publish research in a respected peer-reviewed journal….

(NATURE ~ See also: THE COLLEGE FIX)

Well, the court ruled in Dr. Armitage’s favor (Dr. Armitage posted this video Oct 1st, 2016):

  • The Los Angeles County Superior Court Ruled against California State University for wrongfully terminating microscopy laboratory director Mark Armitage in Spring of 2013. The judge found that they discriminated against Armitage’s religion after he published his findings of soft tissues he found in a Triceratops horn from Montana. The university chose to settle out of court rather than to appear in court for a jury trial.

BACK TO ORIGINAL POST…

Mark Hollis Armitage
Kevin Lee Anderson

Department of Biology, California State University, 18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, CA 91330-8303, USA

Abstract

Soft fibrillar bone tissues were obtained from a supraorbital horn of Triceratops horridus collected at the Hell Creek Formation in Montana, USA. Soft material was present in pre and post-decalcified bone. Horn material yielded numerous small sheets of lamellar bone matrix. This matrix possessed visible microstructures consistent with lamellar bone osteocytes. Some sheets of soft tissue had multiple layers of intact tissues with osteocyte-like structures featuring filipodial-like interconnections and secondary branching. Both oblate and stellate types of osteocyte-like cells were present in sheets of soft tissues and exhibited organelle-like microstructures. SEM analysis yielded osteocyte-like cells featuring filipodial extensions of 18–20 μm in length. Filipodial extensions were delicate and showed no evidence of any permineralization or crystallization artifact and therefore were interpreted to be soft. This is the first report of sheets of soft tissues from Triceratops horn bearing layers of osteocytes, and extends the range and type of dinosaur specimens known to contain non-fossilized material in bone matrix.

From Logos Research Associates

….In 2005, Dr. Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University published a ground breaking discovery (see article 1). She and her team of researchers dissected a fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex femur to find inexplicably preserved bone marrow. Two things made this unearthing astounding. First, if the fossils are really millions of years old, they should be completely fossilized by now. Fossilization is the process in which original boney material is replaced by hard minerals. However, in this case, the soft inner parts of the bone were found unfossilized with intact bone marrow. The marrow consisted of soft tissues and intact blood vessels that maintained their elasticity. This is incredible! How could soft, stretchy tissues be preserved in dinosaur remains that evolutionists claim are no younger than 65 million years old? Even in the best state of bone preservation, the soft inner parts should have completely rotted away long ago.

Dr. Schweitzer’s breakthrough publication almost a decade ago has set the stage for additional investigations by many other scientists (see article 2, 3, 4). Since then, the discovery of soft tissues in dinosaur bones has become fairly common (even among different dinosaur species) demonstrating these are not just rare exceptions or anomalies. The latest dinosaur soft tissue finding was a Triceratops specimen found at the Hell Creek formation of Montana by well-published microscopist and former instructor at California State University, Mark Armitage and his colleague Dr. Kevin Anderson of Arkansas State University (see article 5). Their analysis of a Triceratops’ horn showed that it contained original bone, soft tissue, and even complete and exquisitely preserved “bone-building” cells called osteocytes.

As in the case of Schweitzer’s T. rex fossil (see article 1) and other dinosaur soft tissue discoveries like it (see article 2, 3, 4), all the original tissue, both hard and soft, should have wholly disappeared, due either to decay, or to mineral replacement if these bones were millions of years old. The original bone has, however, been preserved down to the most minute detail, as has the soft tissue running through it, including intact blood vessels. As with Dr. Schweitzer’s findings, these tissues were elastic and flexible. Armitage’s research produced breath-taking high resolution micrographs of osteocytes—the tiny cells which, when living, repair and maintain the bone. These detailed micrographs are comparable to those taken of modern bones. (Permission to display published photographs is pending).

Regrettably, those whose worldview requires that dinosaurs lived millions of years are very eager to dismiss the evidence of soft dinosaur tissue (see article 6), but the evidence is now coming from many different scientists (see above links), who are studying a diversity of dinosaurs bones, and publishing in numerous, prestigious scientific journals. Even more disturbing than the attempts to dismiss or discredit the work of these researchers, some of these people are lashing out at the scientists who are making these discoveries. We are very saddened and disturbed to report that Mark Armitage was fired from his position at California State University just days after his paper was published on line. Please pray for Mr. Armitage….

See Also: Cocktails! C14, DNA, collagen in dinosaurs indicates geological timescales are false ~ Photos w/ descriptions below (click to enlarge):

Dinosaurs and the Bible

This article was thanks to the CARM forum/discussion board and can be found in an ENN – Article.

Most complete new giant dinosaur found in Patagonia

RIO DE JANEIRO (Reuters) – Brazilian and Argentine paleontologists have discovered the largely complete fossil of a new species of giant dinosaur that roamed what is now northern Patagonia about 80 million years ago.

The herbivorous Futalognkosaurus dukei measured an estimated 105 feet to 112 feet from head to tail and was as high as a four-storey building. It is one of the three biggest dinosaurs yet found in the world.

[….]

The find pointed to a new lineage of titanosaurs, with particularly bulky necks, he said.

“Its neck was very big in diameter, strong and huge.”

Fossilized remains of an ecosystem from the same Late Cretaceous age, including well-preserved leaves and fish, were also found. The description was published in the latest issue of the annals of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences.

[….]

“The accumulation of fish and leaf fossils, as well as other dinosaurs around the find, is just something fantastic. Leaves and dinosaurs together is a great rarity,” he told Reuters. “It’s like a whole lost world for us.”

He was referring to “The Lost World” by Arthur Conan Doyle, a classic tale set in a remote part of South America where a scientific expedition finds dinosaurs still roaming an isolated plateau.

Some of the leaves made part of the diet of the titanosaur and other specimens found there. The researchers said the fossilized ecosystem pointed to a warm and humid climate in Patagonia, which had forests during the Late Cretaceous period. The area is steppe-like now and almost bare of vegetation.

Researchers believe the carcass of the giant dinosaur, which died of unknown causes, its flesh devoured by predators, was washed into a nearby slow-flowing river, where it created a barrier, accumulating bones and leaves in its structure for many years until all became fossilized.

A fossil of a carnivorous theropod Megaraptor found at the site contained a complete and articulated arm with very large sickle-shaped claws. Previously, similar fragmented bones were interpreted as a foot, researchers said.

The joint Argentine-Brazilian project also works in the Brazilian state of Mato Grosso, where Kellner said an important find has been made but would be revealed at a later date.

Desert-like areas in Argentina are good for preserving fossils, while they are more difficult to find in the wetter soil in Brazil.

There are a few things I take issue with here, but they are minor. Every fossil find involves a river or a local FLOOD. I just love it as a Young Earth Creationist (YEC) to hear this because it confirms in a major way historical and Biblical accounts of a FLOOD. Again, ALL the fossils found are in flood deposits. Okay, let play a game. The game is “Pin the Tail on the Donkey.”

Except we don’t have a donkey, but I’m sure you can figure it out. We have three creatures needing a tail:

Of course, you are probably wondering why I am displaying these comical pictures, and what — if anything — these pictures have to do with dinosaurs and the Bible! Let me explain. The ancient record of a man named Job is found in the Bible. It goes back to a time over 2,000 years before Christ. The fascinating story of Job is one of the oldest pieces of literature on earth. It was written down just a few hundred years after the flood of Noah’s time. In the 40th chapter of Job’s account, we see the record of the Creator Himself speaking to job. He is drawing Job’s attention to one of the wonders of the creation. Let’s read it.

“Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you…” (verse 15)

Behemoth in the Hebrew simply means large beast. Most bibles have a marginal note by this verse explaining that this creature was most likely an elephant or hippopotamus (half of the above drawings explained!). God is saying to Job, “take a good look at this creature. I am going to demonstrate something to you.”

  • “He eats Grass like an ox.” (Verse 15) The animal must be a vegetarian, but it’s likely larger than an ox.
  • “See now, the strength is in his hips [or loins].” (Verse 16) This critter must have powerful legs. So it could be an elephant.
  • “His power is in his stomach muscles.” (Verse 16) He apparently has a massive mid-section. If that was all we had to go on we could rightly assume Job may very well be looking at a hippo. But let’s read on.
  • “He moves his tail like a cedar.” (Verse 17) ……

Now we have a problem (and the answer to the drawings above). Have you noticed something distinctive about cedar trees?lebanon1

They are big aren’t they? Now have you seen a tail of an elephant or a hippo? It doesn’t seem that a cedar tree is a very appropriate analogy does it. Let’s re-read – and finish – the verses of study.

Now, I know you are thinking to yourself, “Flood!? Noah!? Bible!? Dinosaurs and man co-existing is outrages by evolutionary terms, I mean, dinosaurs died out at least 64 million years ago! And man didn’t show up on the evolutionary scene till about 1 to 4 million years ago (depending on what evolutionary tree you accept).” Yes, I know this sounds incredible, but some amazing items from history and archaeology are mounting the evidence against this belief that man and dino are separated by massive amounts of time and geological layers. [As hinted at above and below.]

Job 40: 15-24 (KJV)

Genus Name: Seismosaurus (“earth shaker lizard”)
Type Species: * S. hallorum (Gillette, 1991)
Length: about 120 feet (37 meters)
Weight: 30-70 tons
Time: 155-145 million years ago (Late Jurassic) [Debatable]
Place: New Mexico
Diet: plant-eater (herbivore)

15 Behold now behemoth [large beast], which I made with thee [all animals and Adam and Eve were created on the sixth day]; he eateth grass as an ox [vegetarian].
16 Lo now, his strength [is] in his loins [large, powerful legs], and his force [is] in the navel of his belly [large mid-section.] 17 He moveth his tail like a cedar [huge tail]: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.
18 His bones [are as] strong pieces of brass [big bones]; his bones [are] like bars of iron [again, big bones].
19 He [is] the chief of the ways of God [largest or mightiest creation]: he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him [only God can kill him].
20 Surely the mountains bring him forth food, where all the beasts of the field play.
21 He lieth under the shady trees, in the covert of the reed, and fens [we have all seen drawings of these beasts halfway in the water with their head up eating the vegetation on the sides of the banks].
22 The shady trees cover him [with] their shadow; the willows of the brook compass him about [again, in a swamp, or the like].
23 Behold, he drinketh up a river, [and] hasteth not: he trusteth that he can draw up Jordan into his mouth [the NASB says in v. 23: “if a river rages, he is not alarmed. He is confidant, though the Jordan rushes to his mouth”].
24 He taketh it with his eyes: [his] nose pierceth through snares [you cannot catch him].

Here is a paraphrase/adaptation of the above verse:

Although the monstrous creature was obviously a vegetarian, its size was overwhelming. Its hips were built to withstand the enormous force of each pounding step and its midsection was a mass of muscle. Its gigantic tail extended far behind, not unlike a giant cedar tree swaying behind his body. Its bones were built like steel girders with ribs like iron bars to support his enormous weight. Surely this was the greatest among the creatures ever to roam the swamps and rivers of the earth. (Creation.com)

Fresh Duckbill Dinosaur Bones

Newest Discover of soft-dinosaur bones found (click to enlarge):

Actually, soft bones coming from these areas in Alaska are nothing new… but since the famous T-Rex find, it has become kosher to admit them.

Most people think that all known dinosaur bones are fossils, and that this proves dinosaurs died out millions of years ago. Yet “fresh”, unfossilized, dinosaur bones have been found, suggesting that dinosaurs might have lived recently.

In northwestern Alaska in 1961 a geologist found a bed of dinosaur bones in unpermineralized (“unfossilized”) condition. In another case, a young Inuit (Canadian Eskimo) who was working with scientists from Newfoundland’s Memorial University in 1987 on Bylot Island found part of a lower jaw of a duckbill dinosaur. It too was in fresh condition. Here is a portion of an article on this:

The lady was highly skeptical. This guide, who moments before had been discussing animal ecology and evolution, found when confronted with news of the new discovery—that she simply could not believe it. She could not accept that fresh (not permineralized, meaning unfossilized) dinosaur bones had been found in Alaska. Such bones could never have lasted 70 million years, she said.

Unlikely or not, it is a fact that such bones have been found. However, whether they could have lasted in that condition more than a few thousand years is a matter which demands attention.

In 1987, while working with scientists from Memorial University (Newfoundland, Canada) on Bylot Island, just east of the northern tip of Baffin Island, a young Inuit (Canadian Eskimo) picked up a bone fragment. It was identified within days as part of the lower jaw of a duckbill dinosaur and proclaimed to the world as such.1

The story was different however in north-western Alaska. In 1961 a petroleum geologist discovered a large, half-metre-thick bone bed. As the bones were fresh, not permineralized, he assumed that these were recent bison bones. It took 20 years for scientists to recognize duckbill dinosaur bones in this deposit as well as the bones of horned dinosaurs, and large and small carnivorous dinosaurs. Presently William A. Clemens and other scientists from the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Alaska are quarrying the bone bed.2 ….

1. Accounts of this appeared in the popular press, such as in the Edmonton Journal, October 26, 1987, a few months after the event, and in Saturday Night (a monthly magazine of analysis of current events) in August 1989, Vol.104 No.8, pp.16-19.

2. An initial announcement was printed in l985 in Geological Society of America abstract programs Vol.17, p.548. Already in press at that time was an article describing the site and the condition of the bones (Kyle L. Davies, ‘Duck-bill Dinosaurs (Hadrosauridae, Ornithischia) from the North Slope of Alaska’, Journal of Paleontology, Vol.61 No.1, pp.198-200.

The journal Science on December 24, 1993 (pages 2020–2023) reported on the amazing preservation of the bones of a young duckbill dinosaur found in Montana. Under a microscope, the fine structure of the bones was seen to have been preserved to such an extent that cell characteristics could be compared with cells of chicken bone. Claudia Barreto and others said, “In the dinosaur specimens, the same high degree of structural resolution can be seen as in modern specimens.” Even the calcium and phosphorus ratios were comparable. In other words, these appeared to be fresh bones, not fossilized — even though they are claimed to be more than 70 million years old.

Such findings cast serious doubt on the millions of years claimed for the dinosaurs.

Michael Cremo’s Take

A lot of UFO enthusiasts have latched onto Michael’s work. He is of Hindu influence and mentions that the Vedas mention that civilization has been on earth for millions of years. So, a young-earth creationists will look at the same evidence as Dr. Cremo and use IT to bolster the idea that all the animals of the earth were created by the sixth-day of Creation. Here is a short interview of Dr. Cremo on the matter. One should know he is the author of “Forbidden Archaeology“

So, we know — essentially — that Michael Cremo is a new ager… but, we can use the same evidence to show that: “yes, the young earth creationist viewpoint is concurrent with archaeological finds showing that the Hebrew Scripture is correct — man and dinosaur co-existed.” I combined two parts into one video showing an example of one of the oldest evidences of man living in the Cambrian age. As mentioned before, some take the same evidence as examples of the earth being visited by aliens. A great clip either way to show that current theories are off by millions of years:

The Bell Tomb

One of the best sites to follow up on the below are here. So what is the Bell Tomb? Apologetic Press explains a bit:

Yet, consider, for example, the evidence provided by the Bell tomb engravings. In far northern England, near the Scottish border, lies the village of Carlisle. A city with a turbulent history, the Romans built a wall through it, the Vikings invaded it, and the Scots and English fought over it for many years. Located in this English village is the medieval-period Carlisle Cathedral which was founded in A.D. 1122 by King Henry I (“Visit Cumbria…,” n.d.).

On February 11, 1478, Richard Bell was elected Bishop of the Carlisle Cathedral, and served some 17 years before resigning on September 4, 1495. He died in 1496 at the age of 86 and,in keeping with British custom, was buried beneath the floor in the cathedral’s choir (Priory and Raines, p. xxviii). The tomb is now covered by a carpet, to prevent any further effacing of the engravings caused by the human foot traffic of many centuries.

The monumental slab is beautifully inlaid with brass, including the facade of the cathedral in outline relief above and to each side of a solid image of the bishop himself, coupled with a solid strip of brass beneath the bishop. The following image is taken from Hutchinson’s 1794 volume The History of the County of Cumberland (p. 602b)…

[….]

A narrow strip of brass (9½ feet long) that runs around the outer edge of the tomb cover slab bears Latin words translated:

Here lies the Reverend Father Richard Bell sometime Bishop of Carlisle who departed from this life the twenty-forth [sic] day, in the year of the Lord. Among all the faithful departed through the mercy of God may he rest in perpetual peace. Amen (Weston, p. 62).

Interspersed among these Latin words are engravings of a human face, the trinity, and some 18 animals—a veritable “zoo.” Look carefully at these most intriguing engravings…

 

Here is the portion of interest to a-holes like myself:

Here is a digitizing of the lines to show them as they originally appeared, from Vance Nelson, Untold Secrets of Planet Earth: Dire Dragons (Red Deer, Alberta Canada: Untold Secrets Publisher, 2013), 62:

The Delk [& Other] Track

At a site that responds to critics about the Delk Track, we get a bit of a background of the print:

In July of 2000, Alvis Delk was wandering through the Paluxy river, in Glen Rose, Texas, when he flipped over a slab of rock which contained a pristine fossil dinosaur track.  These tracks are common in the area, and he took it home for a keepsake.

It sat in his living room for eight years.

Sadly, in 2007, he had a bad accident which left him hospitalized for quite some time.  When he got home, he needed money to pay off his medical bills, and began to clean off the dinosaur track in hopes that he could perhaps fetch a few hundred dollars for it.

This is when he discovered that was also a fossil human footprint in the rock, still covered under dried clay.

This find has profound ramifications for the Creation/Evolution debate.  Evolutionary scholars have admitted that if dinosaurs and humans lived together in the past, then this completely destroys the theory of evolution.

The slab was purchased by the Creation Evidence Museum of Glen Rose, Texas.  It was photographed and documented by David Lines, and molded by Dough Harris, Daniel Elif, and myself.

There has been fraud to come out of this area, but the track in question has been Cat-Scanned, unlike the other instances of fraud:

…In August 2008 the granddaughter of one of the townsfolk who first sold the footprints admitted that her grandfather had carved the human footprints as a means of making money during the depression.  No one was surprised. (Update: to be fair, Morris was aware in the 1970s that forgeries had been made by a local trickster. Surprisingly, that did not cause him to question the entire enterprise, or the veracity of eyewitness testimony.)

What is fascinating about this story is that he did not carve the tracks, only the prints that were sold.  Creationists were so biased by their perspective that the carved prints tricked them into believing that what they were seeing in the river bed, even though some of the prints were outlandishly large, had to be human….

So this is why the Delk Track stands out. Here is a short video explaining the track:

And the bias of these kind of prints is shown in the assumptions made by evolutionists themselves. One main one being with the Laetoli Footprints… which is: if you remove the evolutionary assumptions, there is very little reason to think that the footprints were made by any creature other than man. And this is the whole idea of this post. One site makes these points:

Even Mary Leakey and her team were amazed “at how very human they were” (Ancestral Passions, p. 486).

Tim White, who was involved in excavating the prints, said:

“They are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year-old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that someone had walked there. He wouldn’t be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you. The external morphology is the same. There is a well-shaped modern heel with a strong arch and a good ball of the foot in front of it. The big toe is straight in line. It doesn’t stick out to the side like an ape toe, or like the big toe in so many drawings you see of Australopithecines in books” (Johanson and Edey, Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, p. 250).

Melvin Lubenow says:

“Interpreting the Laetoli footprints is not a question of scholarship; it is a question of logic and the basic rules of evidence. We know what the human foot looks like. There is no evidence that any other creature, past or present, had a foot exactly like the human foot. We also know what human footprints look like. But we will never know for sure what australopithecine footprints look like, because there is no way of associating ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ those extinct creatures with any fossil we might discover” (Bones of Contention, p. 331).

Russell Tuttle of the University of Chicago did an extensive study of habitually unshod people in the mountains of Peru to use in comparison with the Laetoli footprints. He argued that they “resemble those of habitually unshod modern humans” (“The Pitted Pattern of Laetoli Feet,” Natural History, March 1990).

Dr. Duane Gish observes that since footprints of antelopes, pigs, giraffes, elephants, rhinos, hares, ostriches, and other non-extinct animals were also found at Laetoli, that there is no reason to think that the prints were that of anything other than modern man. “In artists’ conceptions of the scene, we see pictures of giraffes for the giraffe footprints, elephants for the elephant footprints, ostriches for the ostrich footprints, etc. And–humans for the human footprints? Oh, no! Occupying the human footprints we see a sub-human creature, half-ape and half-man. While evolutionists concede that a giraffe must have made the giraffe prints, an elephant must have made the elephant prints, etc., their preconceived ideas about evolution and the age of these formations do not allow them to concede that a human made the human prints. Creationists, accepting the plain facts as revealed by the empirical scientific evidence, believe that the prints were made by modern man–Homo sapiens” (The Fossils Still Say No, p. 276).

Two VERY quick bios of the prints are as follows. Keep in mind the only proof that this was not man making the print is an artistic drawing:

Video description:

In 1978, a team led by Mary Leakey discovered a series of footprints in Tanzania. These are known as the Laetoli footprints. According to many researchers, these footprints are identical to those made by humans. Paleoanthropologist, Donald Johanson stated, ‘Make no mistake about it, they are like modern human footprints’.

Why is it, then, that most scientists reject the idea that humans made these footprints? To understand this odd situation, it’s important to realize that evolutionists think that the footprints were made in mud 3.6 million years ago. Therefore, according to such evolutionary ideas, humans weren’t around then, so the footprints can’t be human! But if a human didn’t make the footprints, who or what did? A Scientific American article acknowledges that this is still an ‘unsolved mystery’ . However, I can’t help but feel it’s a mystery of their own making, caused by their evolutionary thinking, instead of taking the Bible’s history seriously.

Related Articles:

This second video is by Dr. Marc Surtees who has a degree in Applied Biology and a PhD in Zoology.

Radioactive Dating Introduction

And here are, for the curious, a great presentation (which I broke up into each assumption for ease of consumption) dealing with dating methods and there problems for dating the earth in long ages:

Intro: What Is Radioactive Dating & Its Assumptions?

Evidence 1: Challenging Assumptions In Radioactive Decay Rate

Evidence 2: Challenging Assumptions In Radioactive Decay Rate

Evidence 3: Challenging Assumptions In Radioactive Decay Rate

Evidence 4: Challenging Assumptions In Radioactive Decay Rate

Evidence 5: Challenging Assumptions In Radioactive Decay Rate

Just A Couple Documentaries

One of my favorite short documentaries about Geology (below). Guy Berthault discusses some evidences from deep sea drilling, deposits at the mouths of rivers, and work done in concert with hydrologists at the Colorado State University hydraulics laboratory at Fort Collins.

I highly recommend watching these two short videos:

★ Geo-Blunder: No “Millions of Years”! – 3minutes
★ Fossils in Layers Made By Mt. St. Helens – 4minutes

Below video:

“Guy Berthault uses laboratory and sediment flume experiments to test accepted principles for the formation of strata. He shows, using easy to follow computer animation, that in moving currents several of the basic principles of stratigraphy do not apply. These principles, including the principles of superposition and continuity, are applicable only in calm water. He applies flume experiments to the real world of strata, mainly the formation of the layers in the Grand Canyon. Long periods of time are not required to deposit a sequence of strata in a moving current, and multiple beds can be deposited simultaneously, especially as a result of changing current speeds. His results have profound implications for the geological column and the interpretation of fossil sequences.”

Dinosaur Soft Tissue Round-Up (Updated)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Newest discover of soft-dinosaur bones found (click to enlarge):

Via Creation.com:

The Liscomb bonebed is in the Prince Creek Formation in northern Alaska. A report by a team of scientists who’ve been excavating in this area detailed what they claim is a new type of hadrosaur (duck-billed dinosaur), which they named Ugrunaaluk kuukpikensis. It was called “saurolophine”, meaning a member of the Saurolophine subfamily that includes the genus Saurolophus. The Associated Press immediately published an online article about the paper.1 but curiously, a very important detail was omitted: the bones are not fossilized!

Here is an excerpt from the original paper:

  • When the scientists say that the bones are “typically … unpermineralized,” what they mean is that we are not dealing with fossils, but comparatively ‘fresh’ dinosaur bones. The hadrosaurid remains are almost entirely disarticulated, show little evidence of weathering, predation, or trampling, and are typically uncrushed and unpermineralized (Fiorillo et al. 2010; Gangloff and Fiorillo 2010).

Actually, soft bones coming from these areas in Alaska are nothing new… but since the famous T-Rex find, it has become kosher to admit them. See more in my main post on this topic, here.

This is an article from the most recent Creation Matters ([2015] Vol 20, Num 6)… I wanted to share it here as it is short and concise. I included videos where I could whereas the article [obviously] just has printed links:

…without excuse!

Soft tissue has been found in numerous dinosaur fossils. Realistically, this tissue should have decayed long before these fossils were discovered. More significant than this, many tissue specimens have been found to contain measurable radiocarbon (carbon-14), giving ages of tens of thousands of years. This is inconsistent with evolutionary theory, because the rocks in which these fossils have been found are typically said to be at least 65 million years in age. Given the half-life of radioactive carbon, fossils of such great age should be depleted of all traces of carbon-14.

Evolutionary theory thus faces a serious challenge. As might be expected, the responses by the evolutionists to these findings have been swift and heated.

The controversy

In 2006, Mary Schweitzer reported her discovery of still-flexible soft tissue from a reputedly 68-million-year-old T. rex (Sch­weitzer et al., 2006). Some of the major television networks reported on this discovery in depth, featuring spectacular video recordings, taken through microscopes, showing the structures in vivid color. A sampling of these dramatic video clips taken from a few of these shows is listed below. Space only permits us to briefly describe what the clips reveal.

(Above video) Produced by “60 Min­utes,” the TV news program: News correspondent Leslie Stahl interviews Jack Horner and Mary Sch­weitzer about their soft-tissue findings. This clip shows very impressive video microscopic views of the tissues.

(Above video) Produced by Nova, a television science program sponsored by PBS. the Public Broadcasting Service: News correspondent Peter Standring interviews a number of paleontologists about dinosaur soft tissue. and provides much insight into what has been found.

(Above video) Produced by cable TV network MSNBC: This is an interview with Schweitzer, a week after her 2006 announcement of finding the dinosaur soft tissue. When asked if it was amazing to find soft tissue in a fossil this old, she responded. “It is very amazing. It is utterly shocking, actually, because it flies in the face of everything we understand about how tissues and cells degrade…A lot of our science doesn’t allow for this.”

In recognition of the significance that fossil soft tissue has on the creation-evolu­tion controversy, the Creation Research Society devoted the entire contents of the Spring, 2015 issue of its peer-reviewed journal, CRS Quarterly, to the investigation of this topic. In addition to detailed reports about the CRS’s own WINO research with actual soft dinosaur tissue (Armitage. 2015: Anderson, 2015), this issue presents a thorough discussion of the current arguments for and against this being young, soft tissue.

The Quarterly also contains an excellent article reviewing the current state of radiocarbon dating of dinosaur bones and other materials that are alleged to be millions of years old (Thomas and Nelson, 2015). The specimens cited in this article, which included seven dinosaur samples, dated from about 18,000 to 50,000 radiocarbon years.

(Click to enlarge ~ see more HERE)

Censorship

At an international geophysics conference held in Singapore in 2012, the Paleochronol-ogy Group, an independent, creation-friend­ly organization, presented their results of carbon-14 dating for several dinosaur specimens. Estimated ages were 22,000 to 39,000 years. Following the conference, the program chairman, in a letter to the researchers, dismissed their results as “obviously an error,” and rescinded the abstract from the conference proceedings. A copy of the letter is reproduced by Fischer (2015).

An article published in Discovery Magazine in 2006 clearly illustrates the hostility shown by evolutionists in response to Schweitzer’s discovery (Yeoman, 2006):

‘The most likely source of these proteins is the once-living cells of the dinosaur,’ she [Schweitzer] wrote in a 1997 paper…That article, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [Sch­weitzer et al., 1997], sparked a small flurry of headlines… Opponents say, ‘I just don’t believe it.’ She was having a hard time publishing in journals.

Jeffrey Bada, an organic geochemistry at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, cannot imagine soft tissue surviving millions of years. He says the cellular material Schweitzer found must be contamination from outside sources … radiation would have degraded its body. Bada says: “Bones absorb uranium and thorium like crazy. You’ve got an internal dose that will wipe out biomolecules.

She [Schweitzer] acknowledged that one reviewer told her, ‘he didn’t care what the data said; he knew that what I was finding wasn’t possible.’ I wrote back and said, ‘Well, what data would convince you?’ And he said, ‘None.’

The last paragraph of the above quotations was actually removed from the online version of the Discover article. It should be noted that while Schweitzer believes that the soft tissue findings are real, she does not accept the young-age implications.

What it all means

The evidence we have examined points to one conclusion: these tissues are of very recent origin, not one of 65 or more million years. One advantage of all of the hostility by the evolutionists is that despite an intense effort to debunk the findings, they have not been successful at any point. As a result, it is clearer than ever that the tissues are truly of recent origin.

The main argument against these findings at one point was that the soft tissue was comprised of “bacterial slime (biofilm).” That has been shown not to be the case because, among other things, the tissues contain animal collagen, which differs from a collagen-like protein formed by bacteria (Anderson, 2015). More recent efforts to question the data have centered on mechanisms to preserve the tissue for millions of years, including smectite adhesion, apatite sequestration, and iron adhesion, all of which have been shown to be inadequate. The interested reader is referred to the CRS Quarterly special iDINO issue mentioned earlier (see especially Thomas, 2015). Likewise, efforts to debunk the carbon-14 dating results have been unsuccessful (Thomas and Nelson, 2015).

After a while, continuing to deny the obvious becomes futile. The Bible speaks in 2 Peter 3 of mockers who are willfully ignorant of the evidence God has provided concerning the testimony of the great flood in the days of Noah. In Romans 1:18-20, the Bible talks about those who are without excuse for suppressing the truth that the creation reveals a living, personal God. As one considers these Biblical passages, it is amazing how accurately they describe the response of today’s mockers concerning the testimony of dinosaur soft tissue.

References

CRSQ = Creation Research Society Quarterly

Note: All “You Tube” videos were tested and active on November 29, 2015.

Anderson, K 2015. Dinosaur tissue or bacterial bio-films. CRSQ 51(4):259-267.

Armitage, M. 2015. Soft bone material from a brow hom of a Triceratops horridus from Hell Creek Formation, Montana. CRSQ 51(4):248-258.

Fischer, J. 2015. Carbon-14-dated dinosaur bones are less than 40,000 years old. Published by author. Retrieved November 29, 2015, from http://newgeology.us/presentation48.html

Schweitzer, M.H., M. Marshall, K. Carron, et al.1997. Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecu-lar bone, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci USA 94:6291­6296. Retrieved November 29, 2015, from www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6291.full.pdf

Schweitzer, M.H., J.L. Wittmeyer, and J.R. Homer. 2007. Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Creta­ceous to the present. Proc. R. Soc. B 274:183­197. doi:10.1098/rspb.2006.3705. Published online 31 October 2006.

Smith, C. 2014. Dinosaur soft tissue. Creation.com. Retrieved December 3, 2015, from http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue (See C. Wieland’s response to the fifth of the readers’ comments.)

Thomas, B. 2015. Original biomaterials in fossils. CRSQ 51(4):234-247.

Thomas, B. and V. Nelson. 2015. Radiocarbon in dinosaur and other fossils. CRSQ 51(4):299­311.

Yeoman, B. 2006. Schweitzer’s dangerous discovery. Discover, April 27, 2006. Retrieved November 29, 2015, from http://discovermagazine.com/2006/apr/dinosaur-dna

Dr. Armitage Corrects Dr. Hugh Ross AND Jurassic World

Published by Papa Giorgio

Dr. Mark Armitage explains his work well by defending against misunderstandings (intentional or unintentional). More on his find that eventially got him fired from CSUN can be found here.

In this first video, Dr. Mark Armitage corrects Dr. Hugh Ross. You may notice his disdain for Hugh Ross, but he explains why at the end of the video. Here is Dr. Armitage’s description of the upload:

  • Dr. Hugh Ross is completely lame when it comes to my published findings of soft tissues in Triceratops horn. He can call my findings “tactics” and “claims” but he is IGNORANT when it comes to my peer-reviewed DISCOVERIES. Paleontologists are SHOCKED by dinosaur soft tissue but he tries to keep it hush-hush. Sorry Huge Wrong, stop embarrassing yourself.

In this second video, Dr. Armitage corrects some of the thinking found in the popular movie, Jurassic World’s promotional video. Here is Dr. Armitage’s description of his upload:

  • Jurassic World is following the lead of evolutionists who have gleefully promoted the FALSE idea that the preservation of Dino Soft Cells is EXPLAINED. It AIN’T explained folks – watch and see why.

Peer Reviewed Study of Non-Fossilized Triceratops Horn Gets Dr. Mark Armitage fired from CSUN

Published by Papa Giorgio

(h/t, ARN) Mark Armitage possibly the latest victim of the Darwinist inquisition

Question:

What happens when you publish a peer-reviewed paper that states inconvenient facts against Darwinism? Better yet, photos (see near bottom, click to enlarge) that cast doubt on prevailing paradigms.

Answer:

You get fired.

Here is the Abstract

Mark Hollis Armitage
Kevin Lee Anderson

Department of Biology, California State University, 18111 Nordhoff Street, Northridge, CA 91330-8303, USA

Abstract

Soft fibrillar bone tissues were obtained from a supraorbital horn of Triceratops horridus collected at the Hell Creek Formation in Montana, USA. Soft material was present in pre and post-decalcified bone. Horn material yielded numerous small sheets of lamellar bone matrix. This matrix possessed visible microstructures consistent with lamellar bone osteocytes. Some sheets of soft tissue had multiple layers of intact tissues with osteocyte-like structures featuring filipodial-like interconnections and secondary branching. Both oblate and stellate types of osteocyte-like cells were present in sheets of soft tissues and exhibited organelle-like microstructures. SEM analysis yielded osteocyte-like cells featuring filipodial extensions of 18–20 μm in length. Filipodial extensions were delicate and showed no evidence of any permineralization or crystallization artifact and therefore were interpreted to be soft. This is the first report of sheets of soft tissues from Triceratops horn bearing layers of osteocytes, and extends the range and type of dinosaur specimens known to contain non-fossilized material in bone matrix.

From Logos Research Associates

….In 2005, Dr. Mary Schweitzer of North Carolina State University published a ground breaking discovery (see article 1). She and her team of researchers dissected a fossilized Tyrannosaurus rex femur to find inexplicably preserved bone marrow. Two things made this unearthing astounding. First, if the fossils are really millions of years old, they should be completely fossilized by now. Fossilization is the process in which original boney material is replaced by hard minerals. However, in this case, the soft inner parts of the bone were found unfossilized with intact bone marrow. The marrow consisted of soft tissues and intact blood vessels that maintained their elasticity. This is incredible! How could soft, stretchy tissues be preserved in dinosaur remains that evolutionists claim are no younger than 65 million years old? Even in the best state of bone preservation, the soft inner parts should have completely rotted away long ago.

Dr. Schweitzer’s breakthrough publication almost a decade ago has set the stage for additional investigations by many other scientists (see article 2, 3, 4). Since then, the discovery of soft tissues in dinosaur bones has become fairly common (even among different dinosaur species) demonstrating these are not just rare exceptions or anomalies. The latest dinosaur soft tissue finding was a Triceratops specimen found at the Hell Creek formation of Montana by well-published microscopist and former instructor at California State University, Mark Armitage and his colleague Dr. Kevin Anderson of Arkansas State University (see article 5). Their analysis of a Triceratops’ horn showed that it contained original bone, soft tissue, and even complete and exquisitely preserved “bone-building” cells called osteocytes.

As in the case of Schweitzer’s T. rex fossil (see article 1) and other dinosaur soft tissue discoveries like it (see article 2, 3, 4), all the original tissue, both hard and soft, should have wholly disappeared, due either to decay, or to mineral replacement if these bones were millions of years old. The original bone has, however, been preserved down to the most minute detail, as has the soft tissue running through it, including intact blood vessels. As with Dr. Schweitzer’s findings, these tissues were elastic and flexible. Armitage’s research produced breath-taking high resolution micrographs of osteocytes—the tiny cells which, when living, repair and maintain the bone. These detailed micrographs are comparable to those taken of modern bones. (Permission to display published photographs is pending).

Regrettably, those whose worldview requires that dinosaurs lived millions of years are very eager to dismiss the evidence of soft dinosaur tissue (see article 6), but the evidence is now coming from many different scientists (see above links), who are studying a diversity of dinosaurs bones, and publishing in numerous, prestigious scientific journals. Even more disturbing than the attempts to dismiss or discredit the work of these researchers, some of these people are lashing out at the scientists who are making these discoveries. We are very saddened and disturbed to report that Mark Armitage was fired from his position at California State University just days after his paper was published on line. Please pray for Mr. Armitage….

Photos w/ descriptions (click to enlarge):

See Also Cocktails! C14, DNA, collagen in dinosaurs indicates geological timescales are false

Besides the above, a portion of a T-Rex fossil was found to be unmineralized as well:

Fossil Flatulence ~ Exciting the AGW Crowd with Scientism and Fuzzy Math

Published by Papa Giorgio

Another culprit in the many theories of how the dinosaurs died has entered the arena, flatulence. I have two technical books arguing that global warming was the cause, and another says global cooling was the cause. Here again, politics is playing a part in this idea of dinosaur extinction. In fact, What’s Up With That says that “something smells alright – the stench of extrapolation is overpowering.”  Some of these fuzzy ideas are pointed out by Creation Today:

Like huge cows, the mighty sauropods would have generated enormous quantities of methane (emphasis added to indicate fuzzy words).

A simple mathematical model suggests that the microbes living in sauropod dinosaurs may have produced enough methane to have an important effect on the Mesozoic climate.

A Mesozoic methane mixing ratio of six to eight ppm seems very plausible.

CT continues:

The overwhelming majority of the article contains such examples of fuzzy words. Two additional sentences in the article give assumptions which are unprovable.

Medium-sized sauropods weighed about 20 tonnes and lived in herds of up to a few tens of individuals per square kilometre.

This quote suggests a degree of knowledge about the behavior of sauropods. How can it possibly be known whether or not the sauropods lived in herds, or how big or dense those herds were?

Gateway Pundit includes the Telegraph’s inclusion of the math formula:

“A simple mathematical model suggests that the microbes living in sauropod dinosaurs may have produced enough methane to have an important effect on the Mesozoic climate,” said study leader Dr Dave Wilkinson, from Liverpool John Moores University. Indeed, our calculations suggest that these dinosaurs could have produced more methane than all modern sources – both natural and man-made – put together.”

This is why the Global Warming crowd loves this stuff — it includes scientism and fuzzy math, and historical revisionism created ad-hoc, all based on the theory — not the evidence.