Archive for June, 2006

Discovery Could “Rock” Archeaology

Science, Sophistication of Ancestors, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Jun 29 2006

The Tampa Tribune

NEW PORT RICHEY – A tireless prophet with a salt-and-pepper beard and an inviting grin, John Saxer knows that mainstream archaeologists, journalists and folks in Tarpon Springs think he’s nuts. They reject his Greek mythology- and archaeology-based theories that Tarpon Springs is the center of the biblical Garden of Eden and the Tampa Bay area coastline was the seaport of Atlantis.

It’s been a tough sell, acknowledges Saxer, a 55-year-old bicycle mechanic and bartender who was homeless for much of 2004.

Saxer has been ignored by archaeologists nationwide for the past 18 months, despite offering evidence of what he claims are 6,500-year-old stone ark anchors abundant on land near shorelines in New Port Richey, Holiday and Tarpon Springs. “It gets scary when you’re in front of the field,” said Saxer, an amateur archaeologist since his college days at the University of Wisconsin. “You don’t want to be out there alone. You start to question yourself.”

Last week, Saxer had a breakthrough. He found a believer, the type he had sought for years, an archaeologist with credentials and financial backing. Bill Donato, 55, a California archaeologist known for his underwater work near the Bahamas with the Association of Research and Enlightenment, came here to study Saxer’s finds. The maverick archaeologist was lured by pictures of stones Saxer sent him and Saxer’s telephone descriptions.

“I don’t believe any of the Garden of Eden theories, or most of John’s views of Atlantis, which I did my master’s thesis on,” Donato said before his trip here. “I’m interested because the pictures are similar to anchors found at Bimini last year and to [5,000-year-old] finds in the Middle East.” Finally, Saxer had found an expert willing to study the stones, which range in size from fragments light enough to be held, to rocks with multiple holes weighing more than a ton. “He’s the best I could have found. I commend him for thinking outside the box,” Saxer said. “I’ve wanted a team of archaeologists, people a lot more knowledgeable than me, to study the undeniable evidence and make their own conclusions.”

Rock Hunting

Fresh off a red-eye flight to Tampa, Donato, armed with cameras, GPS equipment and sampling tools, had Saxer give him a tour of the alleged anchors. Under sunny skies in Tarpon Springs, they looked at stones in wooded areas, on the sides of roads and on church property. At first, Donato was not impressed. “This is a natural formation,” Donato said beside a large rock, as Saxer quietly disagreed.

But Donato perked up outside Mark Szerlag’s small house on Firecreek Court in Holiday. On the front lawn, near the sidewalk, sits a roughly 4-foot-by-5-foot rock, about 18 inches thick, with a symmetrical hole near the top.

“It’s possibly a modified rock, an anchor with multiple rope grooves,” Donato said.

The stone is similar in design to a sandstone anchor recovered in India by the Centre for Underwater Archaeology of Tamil University in India, as shown in a 2004 university report published in Current Science. That anchor, the report says, is from the 13th century. Donato and Saxer proceeded to the intersection of Grand Boulevard and Dailey Lane in New Port Richey. There, wedged deep in the grass of the median on Dailey Lane, about 150 yards from the Pithlachascotee River, sits a massive stone with two holes, both 17 1/2 inches in diameter.

Donato said it clearly was an artificial formation with distinct rope grooves running through both holes and other properties that show it may have been used as an anchor or mooring stone. “The size is astounding,” Donato said, “far bigger than anything I’ve seen. It may have been a mooring stone. The Romans used circles set this way. It’s a similar shape to Carthaginian findings. “The size, and the fact that it’s found away from water, might make it ancient,” he said. “You can’t rule it out.”

Thomas O’Neill, New Port Richey’s director of public works, said the stone has been in the median since the road was constructed in the mid-1970s. “I’m assuming it’s a lime rock boulder that was excavated when the area was developed and placed or left there for decoration,” O’Neill said.

Saxer spotted the stone while driving a limousine about 10 years ago. “I didn’t realize what I was looking at,” said Saxer, who began honing his Garden of Eden theory 12 years ago. “It hit me about a year and a half ago after I had done years of Internet research on anchors.” Saxer says there are at least 50 “first-class” stone anchors with holes from St. Petersburg to Hudson. He found most near water, but some miles inland. There are more than 200 anchor pieces, Saxer said.

Roger Smith, Florida’s state underwater archaeologist, said, “Stone anchors have not been discovered in Florida.” “I’m not surprised at all what might turn up, though,” he added.

Myriad Theories

The state routinely gets all kinds of queries from people with archaeological claims, said state archaeologist Ryan Wheeler, but few are investigated. “We hear from a lot of interesting people. Mr. Saxer had some real far-out stuff,” Wheeler said. “Most archaeologists are interested in working to preserve sites. Modern archaeology has sort of swung away from these kinds of wild things. “We don’t have a fleet of trucks and staff who go out and look.”

People who think they made an archaeological find should document it and try to have an article published, Wheeler said. “That’s essentially where things are introduced, debated and determined,” he said. Michael Faught, a former Florida State University archaeology professor who worked alongside Donato at Bimini, said mainstream archaeologists rarely get involved with those yearning to find evidence of higher early societies or prove biblical history.

“It gets uncomfortable getting stuck between nut balls and academics,” Faught said. “I believe it’s important to stay open-minded to new ideas, but there’s a limit.” Limits are not part of Saxer’s approach to archaeology, which melds Bible, mythology and science. “The anchors are a link to how we got here on Earth,” said Saxer, who once designed a line of pyramid energy beds sold in stores.

For now, Saxer is enjoying the vindication he feels from Donato’s visit. But that’s only the first step toward proving his theories. Donato plans to obtain laboratory analysis of stone samples, and he is eager to return with colleagues for further study and underwater dives near Anclote Key. A team of archaeologists investigating, Saxer said, will propel his find to an international spectacle, one that could spark a tourist boom and a book deal for him.

“I want to wake the world up and let the world know this place was Eden,” Saxer said. “And I’d like to see the anchors in museums, where people can touch them and take themselves beyond religion.”


Are Creationists “Anti-Science”? No says Evolutionist

Church of Darwin, Science, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
Jun 29 2006


Photo: Ronald Numbers

“Some anticreationists may be having second thoughts about the Darwin-in-your-face strategy.

Portraying evolution doubters as backwoods flat-earthers and fundamentalists who want to destroy science isn’t accurate, said pro-evolution science historian Ronald Numbers in a recent PBS interview.

When asked by the PBS interviewer if the evolution war represents another science vs. religion split, he said:

To me, the struggle in the late 20th Century between creationists and evolutionists does not represent another battle between science and religion because rarely do creationists display hostility towards science.

If you read their literature, you’ll rarely come across an anti-scientific notion. They love science. They love what science can do.

They hate the fact that science has been hijacked by agnostics and atheists to offer such speculative theories as organic evolution.

So, they don’t see themselves as being antagonistic to science any more than many of the advocates of evolution – those who see evolution as God’s method of creation – view themselves as hostile to Christianity.”

“That’s a remarkable admission for someone who had recently signed on with Elliot Sober and other staunch anticreationists in a “call to action” against intelligent design.”..

Immediate Source of Quotation & Comment:  CreationEvolution Headlines




The Truth Hammer 3.0 is Here

Amusing?,, Science, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
Jun 29 2006

My friend. Behold the Truth Hammer 3.0! It’s my latest invention and its going to revolutionize communications!

Just let me show you. Say anything!

Click Here to View Comic.

Click Here for Low Res Version

Earliest Hominid: Not a hominid at all? Scientists Say : Don’t Monkey with the Theory”

Science, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
Jun 22 2006


ANN ARBOR, Mich.—The earliest known hominid fossil, which dates to about 7 million years ago, is actually some kind of ape, according to an international team of researchers led by the University of Michigan. The finding, they say, suggests scientists should rethink whether we actually descended from apes resembling chimpanzees, which are considered our closest relatives.

U-M anthropologist Milford Wolpoff and colleagues examined images and the original paper published on the discovery of the Toumaï cranium (TM 266) or Sahelanthropus tchadensis, as well as a computer reconstruction of the skull. Two other colleagues were actually able to examine the skull, Wolpoff said, in addition to the images and the computer reconstruction.

The research team concluded that the cranium did not sit atop the spine but in front of it, indicating the creature walked on all fours like an ape. Hominids, he said, are distinguished from all other primates by walking upright. Hominids are everything on the line leading to humans after divergence with chimpanzees. Upright bipedalism is the single best way of identifying which fossils are hominids.

Researchers also examined the canine teeth and found that they were not clearly human or ape-like, but rather like most other canine fossils from the Miocene era.

“Whether or not it’s a human ancestor is probably unimportant as far as the skull is concerned,” Wolpoff said. “But it’s very important in trying to understand where humans come from. It’s the first relative we’ve had of the earliest hominid, or something related to it, but it’s not a hominid at all.”

Nor does the skull resemble a living chimpanzee—no fossil records of chimpanzees exist so it’s impossible to compare to earlier descendents, Wolpff said. Genetic data puts the divergence of chimpanzees and humans at anywhere from 4 to 6 million years ago. Even though it’s not a definite date, it makes it difficult to show a 7-million-year-old fossil is a hominid without overwhelming evidence, he said.

“The big message it sends us is our ancestors never looked like a chimpanzee,” Wolpoff said. “This thing is clearly saying that chimpanzees are just as different from this ancestor as we are. They are just different in a different way.”

Wolpoff said the skull could be a common ancestor of humans and living chimps.

“Now we have insight into what an early ape looked like, but we have no fossils of apes after it, so you can’t tell clearly,” he said.

Colleagues include John Hawks, Department of Anthropology of the University of Wisconsin, Madison; Brigitte Senut, Department Histoire de la Terre, Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, Paleontology; Martin Pickford, chair of Paleoanthropologie et de Prehistoire, College de France; and James Ahern, Department of Anthropology, University of Wyoming, Laramie.

“Two people have seen it. We all have seen pictures and read publications,”Wolpoff said. “It took us a long time to put this together because we wanted to make sure we were absolutely accurate.”

Wolpoff expects that the paper, entitled “Ape or the Ape: Is the Toumai Cranium TM 266 a Hominid?” will be controversial. It was published Friday in a new online journal by the Paleoanthropology Society,

“I think some people are going to like it, and some people are going to hate it, but it will stimulate more discussion, which is important,” Wolpoff said.

For information on Wolpoff, visit:


Respected Cornell Geneticist, John Sanford, Rejects Darwinism in His Recent Book: Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome

Church of Darwin, Fin De Siecle, Science, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
Jun 21 2006


Review & Comment By Bill Dembski on Uncommon Descent, Weblog of Bill Dembski & Friends, June 1, 2006

John Sanford writes: “In retrospect, I realize that I have wasted so much of my life arguing about things that don’t really matter. It is my sincere hope that this book can actually address something that really does matter.

The issue of who we are, where we came from, and where we are going seem to me to be of enormous importance. This is the real subject of this book…

Modern Darwinism is built on what I will be calling “The Primary Axiom”. The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection. Within our society’s academia, the Primary Axiom is universally taught, and almost universally accepted. It is the constantly mouthed mantra, repeated endlessly on every college campus. It is very difficult to find any professor on any college campus who would even consider (or should I say – dare) to question the Primary Axiom.

…. Late in my career, I did something which for a Cornell professor would seem unthinkable. I began to question the Primary Axiom. I did this with great fear and trepidation. By doing this, I knew I would be at odds with the most “sacred cow” of modern academia. Among other things, it might even result in my expulsion from the academic world.

…….To my own amazement, I gradually realized that the seemingly “great and unassailable fortress” which has been built up around the primary axiom is really a house of cards. The Primary Axiom is actually an extremely vulnerable theory – in fact it is essentially indefensible. Its apparent invincibility derives mostly from bluster, smoke, and mirrors.

A large part of what keeps the Axiom standing is an almost mystical faith, which the true-believers have in the omnipotence of natural selection.

Furthermore, I began to see that this deep-seated faith in natural selection was typically coupled with a degree of ideological commitment – which can only be described as religious.

Click Here to Read Article Re: Book

Bob Cornuke’s Base Institute Noah’s Ark Located in Iran Online Video

Religious, Science, The Flood of Noah, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Jun 19 2006


Video: Dialup Connection Video: Broadband Connection

Link to Base Institute Article on the “Find”

Truth in Love Streaming Audio Sermons

Religious, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
Jun 16 2006


Truth in Love Streaming Audio Sermons, covering such topics as Salvation, the Ten Commandments, The Last Days, Miracles etc.

Click Here to Go to Page

A Tomb Containing a 10 Foot Giant Found, In Afghanistan?

Giants in Those Days, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Jun 15 2006


According to an e-mail sent in by a U.S. Air Force officer, this is a photo of a staff sergeant carrying the turban of a giant. 

The officer claims that this is a photo inside the tomb of a dead giant he observed in Afghanistan eight months ago who was flown to a secret military base in Europe. 

Click Here to Read Article 

Noah’s Ark, Pieces Intact, Found in Iran by Bible Explorers – .

Religious,, Science, The Flood of Noah, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Jun 15 2006


Photo: Sabalan Peak Lake from previous Iran expedition.

Wash—June 14—KIN—On June 5th, Bible Historian and explorer Bob Cornuke led an expedition of 15 geologists, historians, archeologists, scientists and attorneys on an exhausting mission 13,300 feet above sea level to locate and document the tremendous sections of what is thought to be Noah’s Ark located in the Ararat mountain range six hours North of Tehran, Iran.

It had been essentially buried beneath the preservation of glaciers until last year when Iran recorded the hottest year on record which melted some of the snowcap revealing 450 by 75-foot footprint of the “object.”

Click Here to Read Article

Evolutionary Foolishness

Church of Darwin,, Science, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
Jun 12 2006


Photo: Geneticist David Reich waits.

Proverbs 1
22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

A farmer left his son in the truck with the following instructions.

“Son, I’ll be back in a few minutes. If anyone comes by, don’t say a word to them or else they’ll find out that you’re a fool. A few minutes later, a man was walking by and saw the young man in the truck. “Hello”!, he said to the young man. The young man said nothing but smiled wanly.

“I said, hello!, repeated the man, but the young man merely looked at him and smiled, saying nothing. Can you hear? Fairly shouted the man.

The young man nodded, yes he could. Then you must be a fool! The man said, stalking off.

When his father returned a few minutes later the young man said, I didn’t say a word but they found out that I was a fool anyway”.


Of the two methods of demonstrating “foolishness”, suggested by this joke, David Reich, a population geneticist at the Broad Institute and Harvard University choose to do so by not keeping his mouth shut.  An evolutionist, he published a widely quoted article suggesting that humans continued to breed with their “chimp cousins”, long after they “split”.     

This suggestion is foolish in too many ways to even enumerate, but Reich himself admits “this is only a plausible hypothesis, not a proven fact”.

Translation? This notion is total trash.

The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence for macro-evolution. The fact is, today humans and chimps cannot mate and certainly can’t produce offspring. They couldn’t in the past either.

Even in evolutionary terms, anything a chimp could produce offspring with is/was of the same species (this is one of the definitions of species). Once humans allegedly “split they would have been a new species incapable of interbreeding outside their own species with chimps or anything else . Before that, they would have been of the same species—so no story.

Evolutionists still picture that mythical time in evolutionary history where dog parents give birth to a cat or where chimpanzee parents give birth to a human. This is of course a very foolish notion”.

What really caught our attention in all this was the fact that evolutionists and their fellow travelers will instantly believe that humans and chimps interbred with each other, while silmultaneously believing that though they lived at the same time, even side by side, that humans and Neanderthals failed to interbreed!

So, chimps, yes, Neanderthals, no?

True, they say foolishly.

Why? Because it would be really inconvenient for the theory of evolution if humans and Neanderthals were from the same lineage. Do While Jones, in his article: The Neanderthal Problem explains:

 “The more scientists learned about Neanderthal man, the more they realized he did not fit in with their theory very well. Apes supposedly got smarter as their brains gradually evolved in size from about 400 cc to modern man’s 1350 cc brain. It was difficult to explain how a Neanderthal man, with his 1740 cc brain6, fit into this process.

The Neanderthal skeletons were found in graves with hands neatly folded, surrounded by fossilized pollen. This is a pretty clear indication that they were buried with flowers in some sort of funeral ceremony. Only humans do that. Furthermore, they found tools (and possibly a musical instrument) associated with some of the Neanderthal remains. Every indication was that he was as fully human as Homo sapiens (modern man).

But worst of all was the time problem. According to the evolutionists’ dating, Homo sapiens supposedly evolved 100,000 years ago. Some people even claim there is evidence of Homo sapiens in Australia 116,000 to 176,000 years ago. Neanderthal man supposedly lived from 36,000 to 75,000 years ago, or maybe as long as 82,000 years ago. Homo sapiens could not have evolved from Neanderthals if Homo sapiens were here first. Even if you assume that Neanderthals existed more than 176,000 years ago, but their fossils just haven’t been discovered yet, that’s still a problem because the theory requires the inferior species to die out for the superior species to evolve. “

All this being said, the evolutionary believing masses are drinking the Kool-aid. They accept everything that comes down from on high (Nature, Scientific American etc.) as “gospel”. Some of them noted that they could not wait to ask “creationists” whether this supposedly interbred “hybrid creature” had a soul.

Answer, please just get back in the truck and if and when anybody comes by,  don’t say a word to them.