Evidences Supporting the Biblical Timescale of Dinosaurs and Man


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 234). 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 234), 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)

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

Population Studies ~ Biblical vs Evolutionary Data

A partial excerpt from Creation.com:

….Population growth is increasing currently at a rate of approximately 1.8% per annum (World Book Encyclopaedia), or doubling every 39 years.

Even if the average time that the population doubled in the past was as slow as once every thousand years (that is one twenty-fifth of the present growth rate), this would put the first pair of humans on Earth only 31,500 years ago.

Some people, not willing to believe that mankind was created only a few thousand years ago, claim that the world’s population has been almost wiped out many times. Clearly it has never been wiped out entirely. While some people will assert that the human population has been almost wiped out a number of times, without their providing any evidence to back it up, these same people get very agitated if we suggest that the population was nearly wiped out once by a great Flood in the time of Noah.

The world’s population was approximately 600 million in the year 1650 and increased to about 2,400 million by 1950. This means that it would have doubled twice in 300 years, at an average rate of once every 150 years.

Thanks to the Bible, we can trace the lineages of Jews and Arabs right back to the same patriarch, Abraham, who was born about 2167 BC and had six sons. His first son, Ishmael, was the father of the Arabs, and his second son, Isaac, was the father of Jacob, later called Israel, from whose twelve sons came the 12 tribes of Israel, better known as the Jews.

The World Book of Knowledge says that there are approximately 200 million Arabs in the world and about 18 million Jews.

This means that since Abraham’s time, his descendants through only two sons have doubled roughly 28 times at an average rate of about once every 150 years.

Now the Jewish people have undergone a tremendous amount of persecution and slaughter over the centuries. Hitler murdered over six million in concentration camps alone during the Second World War.

They must have lost many members through disease, infant mortality and starvation over the centuries just as other people groups have. Their history is replete with stories of battles and loss of life because of wars. Yet we find that their numbers have doubled a minimum of 23 times, at an average rate of once every 182 years.

We can calculate the rate of population growth starting from about 4,500 years ago, when, from the historical details found in the Bible, Noah and his family—eight in total—survived the deluge. That population has to double 29½ times to get the current world’s population of six and a half billion, at an average doubling rate of once every 152 years. Interesting, isn’t it? The Bible’s timeframe of history fits the data.

…read it all…

An Ironman Supplement ~ Thin Nothing (UPDATED)

I thought I would post a few items for the average man to engage someone lightly about Genesis. Here I want to focus on larger, easier to defend positions and will also throw in some minutia for the person who is curious about the issue as well. I will give a short reply and then get into details on a few of them as well. In conversations there should be an easy – minimalist – exchange that is easy to communicate.

Firstly, the most basic thing one can say about Genesis is that its authors intended it to come across as literal. James Barr, Oriel Professor of the interpretation of the Holy Scripture, Oxford University, England, in a letter to David C.C. Watson (23 April 1984), stated the following:

The following is an extract from a letter written in 1984 by Professor James Barr, who was at the time Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford. Professor Barr said,

“Probably, so far as l know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the ‘days’ of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.”

Thus, according to the Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford, Tim is completely deceived in his wish to read Genesis figuratively. Let it be emphasized that according to professor Barr, virtually every professor at a world-class universities believes Gen. 1-11 are intended to convey the six 24 hour day creation and universality of Noah’s flood. (Planet Preterist)

Barr, despite not believing Genesis’ literal sense, does however, understand what the Hebrew so clearly taught. It was only the perceived need to harmonize the Bible with the alleged [evolutionary] age of the earth which led people to think anything different of the easy reading of Genesis—it was nothing to do with the text itself.

So the memory points can look like this:

• One of the leading Hebrew professors of our day;
• From Oxford University;
• Who did not believe in the literalness of Genesis;
• Teaches that the language and cultural times;
• Demand a literal reading of the text;
• Whether you agree with the outcome of that reading or not.

Simple enough. If one kinda’ remembers these points they can communicate the text’s meaning in a way that shows that insertion of long ages is a newer phenomena, not something warranted by the text itself. Here is an opening of a debate between a theistic evolutionist and a young earth creationist that makes clear the theological implications of anything but the Biblical position (the entire debate can be found here):

While theistic evolution is almost at complete odds with the Gospel message, we should understand that the union between man-and-God is the acceptance of Jesus, not these particulars.

There have been great men of God who have been theistic evolutionists… this does not mean we have to be. (See video to the right, and I wish to thank Darren for keeping the tendency to judge unrighteously in check).

Another important aspect of this whole thing is the idea that there are different genres in Scripture such as narratives, letters or epistles, parables, book of wisdom, hyperbole, poetry, and the like. In the technical book, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol. 2, a professor of language from our Masters College here in our valley, points out that the structure of Genesis demands a reading that is in the historical narrative genre. Here is the graph from that chapter:

Ver Use 2 Ver Use 3 Ver Use

(One may wish to read my “Hermeneutics” presentation I gave at church.) A great layman introduction to the technical information in the above mentioned book which is mostly science driven, except for the chapter written by professor Steven W. Boyd, is the book, Thousands not Billions: Challenging the Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth. Of course, if you engage on this level at Starbucks, you may get the next response of whether you agree with God choosing genocide in the Old Testament since you choose the literal nature of the Bible. While one should have responses to this in their quiver… this is not the topic at hand. I will give some resources at the end to help answer all this. However, one needn’t go too much beyond this dealing with the text. Faith is involved, and this faith gives us an objective knowledge of reality:

…fundamentally, the way we know Christianity to be true is by the self-authenticating witness of God’s Holy Spirit. Now what do I mean by that? I mean that the experience of the Holy Spirit is veridical and unmistakable (though not necessarily irresistible or indubitable) for him who has it; that such a person does not need supplementary arguments or evidence in order to know and to know with confidence that he is in fact experiencing the Spirit of God; that such experience does not function in this case as a premise in any argument from religious experience to God, but rather is the immediate experiencing of God himself; that in certain contexts the experience of the Holy Spirit will imply the apprehension of certain truths of the Christian religion, such as “God exists,” “I am condemned by God,” “I am reconciled to God,” “Christ lives in me,” and so forth; that such an experience Provides one not only with a subjective assurance of Christianity’s truth, but with objective knowledge of that truth; and that arguments and evidence incompatible with that truth are overwhelmed by the experience of the Holy Spirit for him who attends fully to it.

William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. [Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008], 43

It is this assurance [the witness of the Holy Spirit] we have that validates the Scriptures and what they mean to teach. (See also p. 178.)


Now, on to TIME — old versus young universe positions. I know people can get frustrated in conversation in regards to these ideas. My tactic I use is merely to try and get the skeptic to admit a principle in regards to the universe. That is, time dialation. Here are some great examples.

Nuclear clocks at sea level are the most accurate time to set time to. Why? Here is a great example to explain why.

During the 1970s it was realized that gravitational time dilation caused the second produced by each atomic clock to differ depending on its altitude. A uniform second was produced by correcting the output of each atomic clock to mean sea level (the rotating geoid), lengthening the second by about 1×10−10. This correction was applied at the beginning of 1977 and formalized in 1980. In relativistic terms, the SI second is defined as the proper time on the rotating geoid.

See page 515 in RA Nelsonet al.; McCarthy, D D; Malys, S; Levine, J; Guinot, B; Fliegel, H F; Beard, R L; Bartholomew, T R (2000). “The leap second: its history and possible future“. Metrologia 38: 509–529. Bibcode 2001Metro..38..509N. doi:10.1088/0026-1394/38/6/6. (Wiki)

This leads to an interesting “Twin Paradox“:

Consider a pair of brothers, identical twins. One gets a job as an astronaut and rockets into deep space. The other stays on Earth. When the traveling twin returns home, he discovers he’s younger than his brother. This is Einstein’s Twin Paradox, and although it sounds strange, it is absolutely true. ~ NASA

So time is relative just from earth to our orbit. Similarly, what about theoretical forces such as black-holes?

…Although your watch as seen by you would not change its ticking rate, just as in special relativity (if you know anything about that), someone else would see a different ticking rate on your watch than the usual, and you would see their watch to be ticking at a different than normal rate. For example, if you were to station yourself just outside a black hole, while you would find your own watch ticking at the normal rate, you would see the watch of a friend at great distance from the hole to be ticking at a much faster rate than yours. That friend would see his own watch ticking at a normal rate, but see your watch to be ticking at a much slower rate. Thus if you stayed just outside the black hole for a while, then went back to join your friend, you would find that the friend had aged more than you had during your separation. (Time Dilation; also, Virginia Tech Q&A)

You can see that gravitational forces (and velocity) affect age… not just our age but how our perception of age and an actual age throughout the universe may be a bit different than we suppose. The point is to get the objector to admit to this principle and then merely say, “listen, I am no physicist, but from these simple examples I can see that age in the universe may be more relative than either you or I can imagine. However, I would much rather talk about how the Judeo-Christian Scriptures is getting right in regards to a beginning of time.” That’s it. Some quick examples to get your objector to see that science is proving that the appearance of age may be drastically different than what you and he may know.

• Nuclear clocks at sea level are most accurate;
• Age differences between twins on earth and in orbit;
• Between friends, one on earth and one falling into a black hole;
• Point out that there may be more to age than what we know.

Also, while much of science is based on the absoluteness of the speed of light, scientists have long speculated that there are things in the universe that move faster than the prescribed light. There is finally a laboratory experiment proving such a feat and it has been published so other scientists can go over it with a fine-tooth comb to see if there are any mistakes in the study.

The team has published its work so other scientists can determine if the approach contains any mistakes.

If it does not, one of the pillars of modern science will come tumbling down.

Antonio Ereditato added “words of caution” to his Cern presentation because of the “potentially great impact on physics” of the result.

The speed of light is widely held to be the Universe’s ultimate speed limit, and much of modern physics – as laid out in part by Albert Einstein in his theory of special relativity – depends on the idea that nothing can exceed it.

Thousands of experiments have been undertaken to measure it ever more precisely, and no result has ever spotted a particle breaking the limit.

“We tried to find all possible explanations for this,” the report’s author Antonio Ereditato of the Opera collaboration told BBC News on Thursday evening.

“We wanted to find a mistake – trivial mistakes, more complicated mistakes, or nasty effects – and we didn’t. ….(BBC NEWS)

So even the “light years” you hear spoken of may also be relative – only time will tell.

Virgo Cluster and Time

“The Plum Line is Relative”

Here is an age of the Virgo cluster from a few years back:

But some stars have been observed in the M100 galaxy of the Virgo Cluster, about 100 million light years from the Earth.

Villard, Ray; Freedman, Wendy L. (1994-10-26). “Hubble Space Telescope Measures Precise Distance to the Most Remote Galaxy Yet”. Hubble Site. Retrieved 2007-08-05; see also: http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/virgo.html

Reasons why speed of light may not be the fastest game in town or was constant:

A 2008 quantum physics experiment also performed by Nicolas Gisin and his colleagues in Geneva, Switzerland has determined that in any hypothetical nonlocal hidden-variables theory the speed of the quantum non-local connection (what Einstein called spooky action at a distance) is at least 10,000 times the speed of light.

Salart; Baas; Branciard; Gisin; Zbinden (2008). “Testing spooky action at a distance”. Nature 454 (7206): 861–864.

[…..]

This turns ALL physics on its head, by the way!


Virgo images suggest smaller universe – observations of a galaxy in the Virgo cluster indicate that objects in the universe may be half as far away as previously thought.

For the first time, astronomers have distinguished individual stars in a galaxy in the Virgo cluster and measured their distance from Earth. Observations of the galaxy NGC 4571, made with a new high-resolution camera, support the notion that objects in the universe may lie about half as far away as previously thought. If so, the cosmos as a whole may be smaller than believed.

Robert D. McClure of the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory in Victoria, British Columbia, and his colleagues conducted their study at the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope on Hawaii’s Mauna Kea. They photographed NGC 4571, obtaining sharp enough resolution to distinguish bright individual stars from groups of fainter stars. By comparing the brightness of the luminous stars with that of Milky Way stars in the same class and at a known distance from Earth, they deduced that NGC 4571 lies 50 million light-years from Earth.

Because astronomers often use the distance to Virgo as a yardstick for assessing the distance of objects farther out in the universe, the new finding indicates that such objects may lie much closer to Earth, McClure says. Since an object’s distance serves as an indicator of its age, a smaller cosmos would seem to suggest that the universe is younger than the estimated 10 to 20 billion years. On the other hand, scientists have clearly established an age of 15 billion years for some ancient star groups in the Milky Way.

The high-resolution camera attached to the Mauna Kea telescope uses adaptive optics to correct for the image-distorting effects of Earth’s atmosphere (SN: 6/8/91, p.358), yielding an image about five times as sharp as those produced by most other ground-based telescopes, McClure says.


  • …A simple interpretation of the large value of the Hubble Constant, as calculated from HST observations, implies an age of about 12 billion years for a low-density universe, and 8 billion years for a high-density universe. However, either value highlights a long-standing dilemma…. ~ HubbleSite (NASA)

A recommended Resource: Distant Starlight – A Forum

But this brings a verse to mind, “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” (2 Peter 3:8). I think the Apostle was passing on something he may have encountered at the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1-9). But to say the early thinkers (like the Apostles) did not know about God being outside of the time-space continuum is clearly shown to be false by the verse in 2 Peter. While the earth was once thought to be the center of the universe, and many skeptics deride the significant nature Christianity gives the earth and emphasize the insignificant place of the earth in our vast universe — recalling Carl Sagan’s “pale blue dot” quote. However, because of the building blocks of science and the best known shape of the universe, has caused a 4th dimension to be postulated. While we of course operate in three-dimensions, the fourth dimension is postulated as this (a great layman definition is to follow):

….The common view among cosmologists is that the universe is a four dimensional Riemannian manifold whose spatial part of the metric is increasing over time. This is interpreted as an expansion of the universe.

Imagine you are at a random spot on a spotted balloon, when someone inflates the balloon you’ll see the spots moving away from you, so it would seem you are at the center of the expansion. Furthermore, the further away the spots are the faster they move away from you. This is also true for the universe: the more distant a galaxy is, the faster it moves away from us.

Further imagine that you are a creature that only exists in two dimensions. That is, you have width and depth, but no height. So living on the surface of the balloon, you cannot see the shape of the balloon itself. If you went for a walk in a straight line, you would actually go around the balloon and end up where you started, despite not being aware that you were traveling in a circle.

The theory goes that the three dimensions of our universe that we can see are like the two dimensions of the surface of the balloon, which wraps around on itself in another dimension, so that if we traveled through space in a straight line, we would eventually return to our starting point. The fourth dimension is time and String theory holds the universe exists right up to ten dimensions.

One consequence of this idea is that the universe therefore has no edge (just like there is no edge to the surface of a balloon) and therefore no center. Thus for any location in space, it would appear that that location is at the center of the expansion of the universe….

If we were really at the center of the universe, this would support the idea that the Earth occupies a “special place” in the universe, which would support the biblical idea of creation, even though the Bible does not claim that the Earth is physically in the center of the universe. So many scientists find the idea that it only looks like we are at the center of the universe an attractive one.

(Conservapedia)

As you read this, you should keep in mind the previous discussion of gravity and velocity affecting time, especially the watch analogy. (A more technical explanation can be found here: “Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ redshifts show.”)

Here is Dr. Russell Humphrey’s talking about the public’s misconception of the Big-Bang:

In the big bang’s mathematical model of the beginning, space itself would expand outward with the ball of hot matter, and the matter would completely fill space at all times. There would never be a large empty part. In the most favored version of the big bang, if you traveled very fast in any given direction, you would arrive back at your starting point without ever encountering a large region of empty space. That makes it impossible to define a boundary around the matter, so the matter could have no center of mass. With no unique center for gravity to point to, there would be no black hole at the beginning.

Knowing their theory is very difficult to visualize, big bang experts don’t try hard to correct the public’s “island universe” misconception. But occasionally they do make brief comments, such as, “This [picture of the big bang] is wrong . . . there is no center and edge.” (ICR)

This creates the perfect setting for what scientists say is a truthism. Wherever you are you are at the center of the universe. Not only earth… but you. So if you were to travel 5-billion light years away from earth, you are still at the center of the universe. Why? Because of the shape the universe is in and the folding of the space-time-continuum in on itself. Here is a great layman picture of what we are talking about and how the universe most probably looks/acts:

This is significant, because you, me, and others are at the center of God’s plan and focus. We are of most importance to God’s love and passion and He is a jealous God. He wishes none to be lost, loving us more so than even His concern shown for the sparrow falling from a nest.

Three presentations by Dr. Humphreys can be found here, in them he talks about: helium diffusion, starlight & time, quantized red shift, center of the universe, and gravitational wells.

This expansion of the cosmos, which young-agers say happened MORE quickly than old-earth creationist (OEC), has a lot to do with measured time and why a physicist can say that the universe is 14-billion years old. Dr. Russell Humphrey’s explains this a bit more here (above). IN the above linked presentation Dr. Humphrey’s deals with some of the bad presumptions made by the Big-Bang theory, for instance, matter always existing. But if you take his theories and combine them with current knowledge, we come pretty close to some solid facts supporting the Biblical aspect to the Big-Bang. So not only are we at the center of the universe… but very possibly at the real center of the universe – or close to. Or, the initial creative moment of the universe, as Humphrey’s points out in the above [#2] presentation.

So you could bullet point this for memory purposes thus:

• The universe has no center as you would understand a “point” being;
• It is analogous to a balloon expanding as one fills it with air;
• It would be possible to leave earth traveling in a straight you could return to earth;
• This wrapping around of space is called “the fourth dimension;”
• It causes the center to be from the perspective of the person it involves.

Another neat aspect of where science has led us is to the understanding that the Hebraic Scriptures, unlike every other religious text/holy book out there, is that the Bible alone seems to predict what only now the evidence of what science is showing us. Lee Strobel does a great job in relaying the evidence that we live in a finite cosmos and not an infinite one in his discussion with Dr. William Lane Craig (updated with J. Warner Wallace):

When Albert Einstein developed his general theory of relativity in 1915 and started applying it to the universe as a whole, he was shocked to discover it didn’t allow for a static universe. According to his equations, the universe should either be exploding or imploding. In order to make the universe static, he had to fudge his equations by putting in a facto that would hold the universe steady.

In the 1920’s, the Russian mathematician Alexander Friedman and the Belgium astronomer George Lemaitre were able to develop models based on Einstein’s theory. They predicted the universe was expanding. Of course, this meant that if you went backward in time, the universe would go back to a single origin before which it didn’t exist. Astronomer Fred Hoyle derisively called this the Big Bang — and the name stuck! [Later in his career, Fred Hoyle confirmed the expansion through work on the second most plentiful element in the universe, helium.]

Starting in the 1920’s, scientists began to find empirical evidence that supported these purely mathematical models.

LET US TAKE A QUICK BREAK from this excerpt to fill in some information from another excerpt, and then we will continue:

As mathematicians explored the theoretical evidence, astronomers began to make observations confirming the expansion of the universe. Vesto Slipher, an American astronomer working at the Lowell Observatory. in Flagstaff, Arizona, spent nearly ten years perfecting his understanding of spectrograph readings. His observations revealed something remarkable. If a distant object was moving toward Earth, its observable spectrograph colors shifted toward the blue end of the spectrum. If a distant object was moving away from Earth, its colors shifted toward the red end of the spectrum.

J. Warner Wallace -- Red Light Shift Big-Bang

Slipher identified several nebulae and observed a redshift in their spectrographic colors. If these nebulae were moving away from our galaxy (and one another), as Slipher observed, they must have once been tightly clustered together. In 1914, he offered these findings at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society, proposing them as evidence the universe was expanding.

A graduate student named Edwin Hubble seas in attendance and realized the implica­tions of Slipher’s work. Hubble later began working at the Mount Wilson Observatory in Los Angeles. Using the Hooker telescope, he eventually proved Slipher’s nebulae were actually galaxies beyond the Milky Way composed of billions of stars. By 1929, Hubble published find­ings of his own, verifying Slipher’s observations and demonstrating the speed at which a star or galaxy moves away from us increases with its distance from Earth. This once again confirmed the expansion of the universe.

…CONTINUING…

For instance, in 1929, the American astronomer Edwin Hubble discovered that the light coming to us from distant galaxies appears redder than it should be, and this is a universal feature of galaxies in all parts of the sky. Hubble explained this red shift as being due to the fact that the galaxies are moving away from us. He concluded that the universe is literally flying apart at enormous velocities. Hubble’s astronomical observations were the first empirical confirmation of the predictions by Friedman and Lemaitre.

Then in the 1940’s, George Gamow predicted that if the Big Bang really happened, then the background temperature of the universe should be just a few degrees above absolute zero. He said this would be a relic from a very early stage of the universe. Sure enough, in 1965, two scientists accidentally discovered the universe’s background radiation — and it was only about 3.7 degrees above absolute zero. There’s no explanation for this apart from the fact that it is a vestige of a very early and a very dense state of the universe, which was predicted by the Big Bang model.

The third main piece of the evidence for the Big Bang is the origin of light elements. Heavy elements, like carbon and iron, are synthesized in the interior of stars and then exploded through supernova into space. But the very, very light elements, like deuterium and helium, cannot have been synthesized in the interior of the stars, because you would need an even more powerful furnace to create them. These elements must have been forged in the furnace of the Big Bang itself at temperatures that were billions of degrees. There’s no other explanation.

So predictions about the Big Bang have been consistently verified by the scientific data. Moreover, they have been corroborated by the failure of every attempt to falsify them by alternative models. Unquestionably, the Big Bang model has impressive scientific credentials… Up to this time, it was taken for granted that the universe as a whole was a static, eternally existing object…. At the time an agnostic, American astronomer Robert Jastrow was forced to concede that although details may differ, “the essential element in the astronomical and Biblical accounts of Genesis is the same; the chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy”…. Einstein admitted the idea of the expanding universe “irritates me” (presumably, said one prominent scientist, “because of its theological implications”)

  • Lee Strobel, The Case for a Creator: A Journalist Investigates Scientific Evidence that Points Towards God (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2004), 105-106, 112;
  • J. Warner Wallace, God’s Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for a Divinely Created Universe (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2015), 32-33.

This should be put in bullet points for easy memorization:

  • Albert Einstein developed his general theory of relativity in 1915;
  • Around the same time evidence of an expanding universe was being presented to the American Astronomical Society by Vesto Slipher;
  • In the 1920s using Einstein’s theory, a Russian mathematician (Alexander Friedman) and the Belgium astronomer (George Lemaitre)  predicted the universe was expanding;
  • In 1929, Hubble discovered evidence confirming earlier work on the Red-Light shift showing that galaxies are moving away from us;
  • In the 1940’s, George Gamow predicted a particular temperature to the universe if the Big Bang happened;
  • In 1965, two scientists (Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson) discovered the universe’s background radiation — and it was only about 3.7 degrees above absolute zero.

God is truly amazing! Now, the above explained “Big-Bang” as accepted by most evolutionary scientists assumes the eternal state of matter. The theists in the above example reject this, just an aside.

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:


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

Biography of Benjamin Carson

The following is an extract from a letter written in 1984 by Professor James Barr, who was at the time Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford. Professor Barr said,

“Probably, so far as l know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Gen. 1-11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the ‘days’ of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.”

Thus, according to the Regius Professor of Hebrew at Oxford, Tim is completely deceived in his wish to read Genesis figuratively. Let it be emphasized that according to professor Barr, virtually every professor at a world-class universities believes Gen. 1-11 are intended to convey the six 24 hour day creation and universality of Noah’s flood. (Planet Preterist)

Just a few updated notes on this — mainly an — import of an older post from my old blog. Firstly, the above is Dr. Carson at the prayer breakfast which Obama and his lovely wife had to sit through. Dr. Carson lays into their policies forcefully ans well as politely. It has caused the Wall Street Journal to call for his Presidency, pointing out that, “The Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon may not be politically correct, but he’s closer to correct than we’ve heard in years.” I will also post at the end of this Bio by another young-earth scientist a quote from an atheist on intelligent design that has ruffled a few skeptics feathers, so-to-speak. I will include Dr. Carson’s appearance on Hannity as well as my call and great commentary from Dennis Prager when I told him and his listening audience about Dr. Carson’s creationist views.

  • Dr. Robert Hartzler writes to add: “Ben Carson’s book Gifted Hands is worth noting… I read it when I was about 10 years old and it inspired me to become a surgeon. He has a great life.” The film version starring Cuba Gooding is also available on DVD. (Via Powerline)

Dr. Carson spoke of taking risks while trusting in, one example is below of this risk taking that makes a difference in peoples lives:

Of course the movie, Gifted Hands, is Dr. Carson’s biography of triumph over life, here is a bio of him by Dr. Bergman:


Benjamin Carson: The Pediatric Neurosurgeon with Gifted Hands
by Jerry Bergman, Ph.D. [Bio of Dr. Bergman]

Introduction

Benjamin S. Carson, M.D., one of the world’s foremost pediatric neurosurgeons, is professor and chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University Medical School.[1] Born on September 18, 1951, in Detroit to a single mother in a working class neighborhood, Ben showed promise from a young age.[2] A graduate of Yale and the University of Michigan Medical School, he was rated by a Time issue titled “America’s Best” as a “super surgeon.”[3] Dr. Carson was also selected by CNN and Time as one of the nation’s top 20 physicians and scientists, and by the Library of Congress as one of 89 “living-legends.”[4]

Dr. Carson is a leading research scientist. A “voracious reader of the medical and scientific literature” from his graduate school days, he has long been very interested in scientific research and has been very active in this area for his entire career,[5]-[6] with over 120 major scientific publications in peer reviewed journals, 38 books and book chapters, and grant awards of almost a million dollars. His achievements have so far earned him 51 honorary doctorates, including from Yale and Columbia Universities.

A Master Surgeon and Scholar

Ben Carson revolutionized his field in several areas, including hemispherectomies (removal of half of the brain to prevent untreatable severe seizures, such as those caused by Rasmussen’s encephalitis). He dramatically increased the safety of the procedure by developing several major surgical innovations, which include better ways of controlling bleeding and infection, as well as an innovative system of incrementally removing specific brain parts as units rather than in whole sections.[3]

Dr. Carson has also contributed to new techniques used for conjoined twin separation[7] and accomplished one of the most complex surgical feats in history as the lead surgeon of a team that separated twins joined at the back of the head in a 22-hour-long operation. Known as the doctor who takes cases that no other doctor will risk, Dr. Carson has had outstanding success in spite of this challenge. For example, he has achieved an amazing 80 to 90 percent success rate for difficult-to-treat trigeminal neuralgia.[8]

A Creationist

After Dr. Carson reviewed in detail the evidence for design in nature, he concluded, “I just don’t have enough faith to believe” that the living world happened by evolutionary processes.[9] He added that 150 years after Darwin, there is still no evidence for evolution.

It’s just not there. But when you bring that up to the proponents of Darwinism, the best explanation they can come up with is “Well…uh…it’s lost!”…I find it requires too much faith for me to believe that explanation given all the fossils we have found without any fossilized evidence of the direct, step-by-step evolutionary progression from simple to complex organisms or from one species to another species. Shrugging and saying, “Well, it was mysteriously lost, and we’ll probably never find it,” doesn’t seem like a particularly satisfying, objective, or scientific response.[10]

Carson concluded that the “plausibility of evolution is further strained by Darwin’s assertion that within fifty to one hundred years of his time, scientists would become geologically sophisticated enough to find the fossil remains of the entire evolutionary tree in an unequivocal step-by-step progression of life from amoeba to man.”[11]

As a neurosurgeon, he stresses the “factors that contribute to the failure to utilize fully the most amazing God-given resource, our brain, such as peer pressure and political correctness, which often limits our willingness, even as objective scientists, to have thoughtful, rational discussions about evolution versus creationism.”[9] It is even harder for him to accept how so many people who can’t explain how evolution can account for all life claim that it is a fact, while at the same time “insisting anyone who wants to consider or discuss creationism as a possibility cannot be a real scientist.”[10]

Taking the Risk

In Dr Carson’s latest best-selling book, Take the Risk, he discusses the need to balance the risks and benefits of any activity that one considers undertaking. For example, although Dr. Carson has addressed students and general audiences hundreds of times, he took a big risk to explain his creation views as the keynote speaker at the National Science Teachers convention in Philadelphia. He told the science teachers that “evolution and creationism both require faith. It’s just a matter of where you choose to place that faith.”

I find it as hard to accept the claims of evolution as it is to think that a hurricane blowing through a junkyard could somehow assemble a fully equipped and flight-ready 747.…Which is why not one of us has ever doubted that a 747, by its very existence, gives convincing evidence of someone’s intelligent design.[12]

He then stressed the fact that the human body and brain are “immeasurably more complex, more versatile, more amazing in a gazillion ways than any airplane man has ever created.” In short, only an intelligent creator explains “how such a complex, intelligently designed universe could come into existence.”[13]

Talking to 15,000 science teachers about evolution and creation was a challenge, yet the most formidable audience Dr. Carson has ever faced was the ultra-prestigious Academy of Achievement, which invited him to be part of a panel discussion on “Faith and Science” during its annual International Summit. Dr. Carson writes that the membership was so imposing he had to ask himself whether he really wanted to discuss his spiritual beliefs in front of an organization that included every living former president of the United States, “along with numerous other heads of states and Nobel Peace Prize recipients.”

My years of membership in the Academy had provided some wonderful experiences, and I had made a lot of friends whose opinions, goodwill, and respect still matter to me. But did I want to risk all that to share honestly with them my views on faith and science?[14]

He felt that the stakes were higher this time than in all of his previous lectures because of the possibility of embarrassing himself in front of numerous Nobel scientists.

Still, the same positive potential–the chance that this opportunity could open objective discussion and might help others find the courage to talk about what they truly believe–also seemed like a better best. That wasn’t…because I thought anything I said would change the thinking of the Academy’s distinguished members, but because we invite as guests to our summit each year three hundred or so of the next generation’s best and brightest (Rhodes Scholars, Fullbright Scholars, White House Fellows, and the like).[14]

The experience proved to be both very challenging and rewarding. One reason was that the noted paleoanthropologist Dr. Donald Johanson was one of the other panelists.

[Johanson] is famous for his claims that the fossilized specimen he discovered in Africa named “Lucy” represented an extinct species from which the human race descended. In the course of our discussion, he made…a condescending remark when he asserted that “true scientists” base everything they do and decide upon facts, unlike those people who choose to depend on God. So when it was my turn to speak, I made the point that “true scientists” often overlook many, many gaps in what they purport to be fact…when in reality some of their own theories require a great deal of faith to accept.[15]

The paleoanthropologist responded by jumping out of his chair and rudely interrupting Dr. Carson, who calmly responded by noting that he was

“only making a general observation based on my experience. But if the shoe fits ….” Laughter rolled through the audience before I went on to say that religion and science both require faith, that the two disciplines don’t always have to be mutually exclusive, that people have to choose where to put their faith, and that choice doesn’t make you superior to those who believe differently.[15]

Dr. Johanson’s arrogance was apparent in view of the fact that we know “next to nothing about” how the living brain actually works, not to mention that of our putative evolutionary ancestors.[8] Dr. Carson concluded that the most affirming responses came from the graduate students who thanked him for his presentation. One scholar from Oxford even told him that, although an atheist, after hearing Dr. Carson’s talk he is now seriously rethinking his atheism. Carson concluded, “That seemed reason enough to risk talking about faith.”[16]

Conclusion

Ben Carson, one of the most respected and successful neurosurgeons in the world today, is a creationist who is not afraid of openly voicing his conclusions to august audiences the world over. Called the man with gifted hands for his surgical skill, his example of overcoming poverty to become a leading scholar and scientist has inspired millions.[6] His openness about creation may inspire millions as well.

Note: I wish to thank Dr. Ben Carson for reviewing and correcting an earlier draft of this paper.

References

[1] Bishop, R. 1999. Beyond Brain Power. Christian Reader. July-August, 19-28.

[2] McMurray, E. 1995. Benjamin S. Carson. Notable Twentieth-Century Scientists. New York: Gale Research, 320-321.

[3] Gorman, C. 2001. Super Surgeon. Time. 158 (7): 34-35.

[4] Asimakoupoulos, G. 2003. Ben Carson: A Doctor in Patients Clothing. Focus on the Family Physician. 15 (4): 4-6.

[5] Green-Bishop, J. February 2004. The Healing of a Healer. Dallas Weekly.

[6] Carson, B. S. 1990. Gifted Hands. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.

[7] Ryan, M. If You Can’t Teach Me, Don’t Criticize Me. Parade, May 11, 1997, 6-7.

[8] Dreifus, C. 2001. Scientific Conversations. New York: W. H. Freeman Book, 200-201.

[9] Carson, B. S. 2008. Take the Risk. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 126.

[10] Ibid, 130.

[11] Ibid, 129.

[12] Ibid, 128.

[13] Ibid, 128-129.

[14] Ibid, 137-138.

[15] Ibid, 138-139.

[16] Ibid, 140.

Of course there are many scientists who were or are leaders in technology/science, literature and the like that are believers in some form of Intelligent Design.

◆ 1) The guy most credited in getting us to the moon, Wernher von Braun: von Braun began work at the US Army Ordinance Corps testing grounds at White Sands, New Mexico. In 1952 he became technical director of the army’s ballistic-missile program. It was in the 1950’s that he produced rockets for US satellites (the first, Explorer 1, was launched early 1958) and early space flights by astronauts. He held an administrative post at NASA from 1970-1972 as well. We would have never made it to the moon if it were not for von Braun.

◆ 2) Dr Raymond V. Damadian is one that’s invention was key in diagnosing me with Multiple Sclerosis. He invented the MRI and his first working model is forever in the Smithsonian Institution‘s Hall of Medical Sciences

◆ 3) Benjamin S. Carson, M.D., one of the world’s foremost pediatric neurosurgeons, is professor and chief of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins University Medical School. Born on September 18, 1951, in Detroit to a single mother in a working class neighborhood, Ben showed promise from a young age. A graduate of Yale and the University of Michigan Medical School, he was rated by a Time issue titled “America’s Best” as a “super surgeon.” Dr. Carson was also selected by CNN and Time as one of the nation’s top 20 physicians and scientists, and by the Library of Congress as one of 89 “living-legends.”

These three men are young earth creationists (YEC) and support their claims by evidence and faith. One last point here are lists found on my blog

Creation Scientists [AiG List]:

a) http://creationwiki.org/Template:Creation_Scientists

b) http://creationwiki.org/Template:Historical_Creation_Scientists

c) http://creationwiki.org/History_of_science

Read more: http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/are-michele-bachmann-gaffes-really-gaffes/#ixzz2KKcYKcx4

Fuller Interview on Hannity

Human Genome in Meltdown ~ Is the Genome Project Proving a Genesis Date?

Here is some awesome info via Creation/Evolution Headlines:

According to a study published Jan. 10 in Nature by geneticists from 4 universities including Harvard, “Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants.”  By recent they mean really recent on evolutionary timescales:

We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs [single-nucleotide variants] and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000–10,000 years. The average age of deleterious SNVs varied significantly across molecular pathways, and disease genes contained a significantly higher proportion of recently arisen deleterious SNVs than other genes.

The authors explained this in evolutionary terms as the result of “explosive population growth” and that “selection has not had sufficient time to purge them from the population.”  They claimed Europeans had more variants “consistent with weaker purifying selection due to the Out-of-Africa dispersal.”  The last paragraph assesses the impact of their findings:

More generally, the recent dramatic increase in human population size, resulting in a deluge of rare functionally important variation, has important implications for understanding and predicting current and future patterns of human disease and evolution. For example, the increased mutational capacity of recent human populations has led to a larger burden of Mendelian disorders, increased the allelic and genetic heterogeneity of traits, and may have created a new repository of recently arisen advantageous alleles that adaptive evolution will act upon in subsequent generations.

As for advantageous mutations, they provided NO examples.

Dr. John Sanford Interviewed About His Book, “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome

Continuing with Creation/Evolution Headlines post:

The findings depend on models and assumptions, but appear to support the thesis of John Sanford’s book Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, which argues that the genetic load increases so rapidly that mankind could not have survived for tens of thousands of years, to say nothing of millions (see recent YouTube interview part 1 and part 2 [combined into one, above]).  How can such rapid rate of degradation be sustained over evolutionary time?

The authors seemed a bit baffled by their findings.  The following paragraph gives a hint of that (compare “expected” vs observed):

The site frequency spectrum (SFS) of protein-coding SNVs revealed an enormous excess of rare variants (Fig. 1a). Indeed, we observed an SNV approximately once every 52 base pairs (bp) and 57 bp in European Americans and African Americans, respectively, whereas in a population without recent explosive growth we would expect the SNVs to occur once every 257 bp and 152 bp in European Americans and African Americans, respectively (Supplementary Information). Thus, the European American and African American samples contain approximately fivefold and threefold increases in SNVs, respectively, attributable to explosive population growth, resulting in a large burden of rare SNVs predicted to have arisen very recently (Fig. 1b). For example, the expected age of derived singletons, which comprise 55.1% of all SNVs, is 1,244 and 2,107 years for the European American and African American samples, respectively. Overall, 73.2% of SNVs (81.4% and 58.7% in European Americans and African Americans, respectively) are predicted to have arisen in the past 5,000 years. SNVs that arose more than 50,000 years ago were observed more frequently in the African American samples (Fig. 1b), which probably reflects stronger genetic drift in European Americans associated with the Out-of-Africa dispersal.

…read more..

GQ Asks Rubio About the `Age of the Earth` (The Project to Destroy Marco Rubio Has Begun)

HotAir talks about the recent question GQ Magazine asks Marco Rubio a question I have never heard asked of a Democrat:

GQ: How old do you think the Earth is?

Marco Rubio: I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States. I think the age of the universe has zero to do with how our economy is going to grow. I’m not a scientist. I don’t think I’m qualified to answer a question like that. At the end of the day, I think there are multiple theories out there on how the universe was created and I think this is a country where people should have the opportunity to teach them all. I think parents should be able to teach their kids what their faith says, what science says. Whether the Earth was created in 7 days, or 7 actual eras, I’m not sure we’ll ever be able to answer that. It’s one of the great mysteries.

The Telegraph has this great insight!

Marco Rubio, GQ and the age of the Earth: the mainstream media “anti-science” smear returns

What would you do if in the middle of a job interview someone asked you, “How old do you think the Earth is?” Not wanting to look a fool, chances are that you’d give an answer as banal and evasive as this, “I’m not a scientist, man. I can tell you what recorded history says, I can tell you what the Bible says, but I think that’s a dispute amongst theologians and I think it has nothing to do with the gross domestic product or economic growth of the United States.” That’s what Marco Rubio offered when asked the age of the Earth in a recent GQ interview – and it’s a clever person’s way of saying, “I don’t have a clue, dude. Can we move on?”

But you can bet your last Obamadollar that the dreaded rationalists in the liberal press won’t move on. They’ll interpret Rubio’s innocuous answer to translate as “I think the Earth probably began in 1922 – but Jesus put fossils in the ground to keep us guessing.” They’ll take this as further evidence that all conservative Christians are Creationists and Young Earthers – and they’ll try to embarrass ordinary Americans out of voting for them by playing an intellectual snobbery card that is as cruel as it is inaccurate. The inference is this: every time you vote for a religious conservative, a witch gets burned.

A few questions. First, why did GQ ask this question, and would they ask a Democrat the same thing? It always seems to be Republicans that the mainstream media fires these curious, pointless salvos at. Sarah Palin calls them “gotcha” questions – and she’s more than familiar with ’em.

Second, does not knowing an answer to a science question bar someone from running for office? If that’s the case, pick up the phone to your local Democratic Senator and ask them the chemical symbol for sulphuric acid. If they get it wrong, demand a recall.

More importantly, if it’s okay for Barack Obama to say that abortion is “above my paygrade” and refuse to offer a guess as to when life begins, why is it not okay for Rubio to dodge a bullet when asked a question about the origins of the Earth? Considering that the question posed to Obama back in the 2008 election had serious moral consequences and Rubio’s does not, I can’t understand why Obama’s evasion is heralded as a victory for common sense but Rubio’s is treated like a declaration of war on science. The hysteria and hypocrisy are tiring at best….

…read more…

Again, this question is never asked of Democrats even though a large percentage believes in creation ex nihilo:

Highly religious Americans are more likely to be Republican than those who are less religious, which helps explain the relationship between partisanship and beliefs about human origins. The major distinction is between Republicans and everyone else. While 58% of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years, 39% of independents and 41% of Democrats agree.

Age of the Universe Changing ~ the Plum Line is Relative

Here is an age of the Virgo cluster from a few years back:

  • But some stars have been observed in the M100 galaxy of the Virgo Cluster, about 100 million light years from the Earth.

Villard, Ray; Freedman, Wendy L. (1994-10-26). “Hubble Space Telescope Measures Precise Distance to the Most Remote Galaxy Yet”. Hubble Site. Retrieved 2007-08-05; see also: http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/virgo.html

Reasons why speed of light may not be the fastest game in town or was constant:

  • A 2008 quantum physics experiment also performed by Nicolas Gisin and his colleagues in Geneva, Switzerland has determined that in any hypothetical nonlocal hidden-variables theory the speed of the quantum non-local connection (what Einstein called spooky action at a distance) is at least 10,000 times the speed of light.

Salart; Baas; Branciard; Gisin; Zbinden (2008). “Testing spooky action at a distance”. Nature 454 (7206): 861–864.

[….]

Virgo images suggest smaller universe – observations of a galaxy in the Virgo cluster indicate that objects in the universe may be half as far away as previously thought.

For the first time, astronomers have distinguished individual stars in a galaxy in the Virgo cluster and measured their distance from Earth. Observations of the galaxy NGC 4571, made with a new high-resolution camera, support the notion that objects in the universe may lie about half as far away as previously thought. If so, the cosmos as a whole may be smaller than believed.

Robert D. McClure of the Dominion Astrophysical Observatory in Victoria, British Columbia, and his colleagues conducted their study at the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope on Hawaii’s Mauna Kea. They photographed NGC 4571, obtaining sharp enough resolution to distinguish bright individual stars from groups of fainter stars. By comparing the brightness of the luminous stars with that of Milky Way stars in the same class and at a known distance from Earth, they deduced that NGC 4571 lies 50 million light-years from Earth.

Because astronomers often use the distance to Virgo as a yardstick for assessing the distance of objects farther out in the universe, the new finding indicates that such objects may lie much closer to Earth, McClure says. Since an object’s distance serves as an indicator of its age, a smaller cosmos would seem to suggest that the universe is younger than the estimated 10 to 20 billion years. On the other hand, scientists have clearly established an age of 15 billion years for some ancient star groups in the Milky Way.

The high-resolution camera attached to the Mauna Kea telescope uses adaptive optics to correct for the image-distorting effects of Earth’s atmosphere (SN: 6/8/91, p.358), yielding an image about five times as sharp as those produced by most other ground-based telescopes, McClure says.

A recommended Resource: Distant Starlight – A Forum

Rapid Petrification of Wood-Peer Reviewed Article Sites and Supports Creationist Article

It is extremely unusual for creationist research to be favorably reported and referenced in a technical scientific paper by academic geologists published in a major, secular, geological journal. However, not only has this just happened, but the same paper reported experimental research that confirms the conclusions of the creationist research published in a young-earth creationist journal! Here are the two articles, the first a young-earth creationist. The second, an evolutionist:

  • Rapid Petrification of Wood: An Unexpected Confirmation of Creationist Research, by Andrew A. Snelling, Ph.D.
  • Akahane, H., T. Furuno, H. Miyajima, T. Yoshikawa, and S. Yamamoto, 2004, “Rapid Wood Silicification In Hot Spring Water: An Explanation Of Silicification Of Wood During The Earth’S History,” Sedimentary Geology, vol. 169, pp. 219-228

John 17:17 “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”

Evolutionary scientists have long maintained that it takes several million years for wood to become petrified or turned to stone as in the famous “Petrified forest.” In 1995 the creationist magazine Creation published research to show that wood can petrify in a relatively short time. Now a scientific journal, Sedimentary Geology, has published a new study that agrees.

Japanese scientists immersed specimens of wood in hot spring water. The mineral-filled, hot water stayed at about 122o F. They noted that some pieces of wood already in the hot spring water looked very much like ancient petrified wood. They compared it to petrified wood found in Miocene era volcanic ash. Such petrifaction had always been said to take millions of years. After one year, they removed some of the wood for study. They did the same every year for seven years, finding that little petrifaction had taken place the first year. But after seven years, over 38 percent of the wood was petrified. Detailed study of the wood showed that it was petrified in the same way that the Miocene wood was. In their published paper, they even cited their agreement with the 1995 Creation article!

True science will never challenge anything the Bible says, even when it comes to historical details like the age of the Earth. The Bible is indeed God’s truth.

Prayer:

I thank You, Lord, that I can trust Your Word, even when it comes to historical details. Your Word is truth. Amen.

Impact (ICR), 1/05, Andrew A. Snelling, “Rapid Petrifaction of Wood: An Unexpected Confirmation of Creationist Research.”

Here is an old video that incorporates this phenomenon that evolutionists rejected for some time: