Archive for May, 2007

The Surprising “Truth” Behind the Construction of the Great Pyramids, Science, Sophistication of Ancestors, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
May 29 2007

Question. What is “high technology”? Take the “London hammer” for instance. It’s justテつa hammer, so can a hammer represent high technology? This particular hammer is encased in solid rock which according to science makes it over 140 million years old. Its handle is partially coalified and partially petrified, processes that would also make it over 100 million years old,–according to geologists.

The metal does not rust and it made up of almost pure iron (97%) with traces of chorine. Our modern means of making “iron” leaves impurities not found in this hammer andテつwe also cannot make a useful hammer with that high a precentage of iron. No one knows who made the hammer nor the technology used to make it. But can a simple hammer be “high tech”?

The reason we ask is that the article following poses yet another theory concerning the construction of the great pyramids. The authors purport to solve the mystery of how primitive men built a concise 40 story building of more than 2,000,000 separate blocks weighing a minimum of two tons each. Assuming weテつcould duplicate the pyramid construction today, could anything be considered low tech if it took men 4,500 years or more to be able to duplicate it?

Here, they theorize that the large blocks were cast out of a limestone concrete so sublime that it was virtually impossible for sceince to distinguish it from natural limestone over all these years of study. This concrete apparently utilized nanotechnology in a process that manufacturers today would like to utilize.

So, the question is, did they actually solveテつa mystery–or heighten it? How did ancient men discover how to make this type of cement? How did they learnテつ how to incorporate nanotechnology?…

“Nanotechnology is a field of applied science and technology covering a broad range of topics. The main unifying theme is the control of matter on a scale smaller than 1 micrometre, normally between 1-100 nanometers, as well as the fabrication of devices on this same length scale.” Wiipedia


The Surprising Truth Behind the Construction of the Great Pyramids

By Sheila Berninger, and Dorilona Rose, National Science Foundation

“This is not my day job.” So begins Michel Barsoum as he recounts his foray into the mysteries of the Great Pyramids of Egypt. As a well respected researcher in the field of ceramics, Barsoum never expected his career to take him down a path of history, archaeology, and “political” science, with materials research mixed in.

As a distinguished professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Drexel University, his daily routine consists mainly of teaching students about ceramics, or performing research on a new class of materials, the so-called MAX Phases, that he and his colleagues discovered in the 1990s. These modern ceramics are machinable, thermal-shock resistant, and are better conductors of heat and electricity than many metals-making them potential candidates for use in nuclear power plants, the automotive industry, jet engines, and a range of other high-demand systems.

Then Barsoum received an unexpected phone call from Michael Carrell, a friend of a retired colleague of Barsoum, who called to chat with the Egyptian-born Barsoum about how much he knew of the mysteries surrounding the building of the Great Pyramids of Giza, the only remaining of the seven wonders of the ancient world.

The widely accepted theory-that the pyramids were crafted of carved-out giant limestone blocks that workers carried up ramps-had not only not been embraced by everyone, but as important had quite a number of holes.

Burst out laughing

According to the caller, the mysteries had actually been solved by Joseph Davidovits, Director of the Geopolymer Institute in St. Quentin, France, more than two decades ago. Davidovits claimed that the stones of the pyramids were actually made of a very early form of concrete created using a mixture of limestone, clay, lime, and water.

“It was at this point in the conversation that I burst out laughing,” says Barsoum. If the pyramids were indeed cast, he says, someone should have proven it beyond a doubt by now, in this day and age, with just a few hours of electron microscopy.

It turned out that nobody had completely proven the theory…yet.

“What started as a two-hour project turned into a five-year odyssey that I undertook with one of my graduate students, Adrish Ganguly, and a colleague in France, Gilles Hug,” Barsoum says.

A year and a half later, after extensive scanning electron microscope (SEM) observations and other testing, Barsoum and his research group finally began to draw some conclusions about the pyramids. They found that the tiniest structures within the inner and outer casing stones were indeed consistent with a reconstituted limestone. The cement binding the limestone aggregate was either silicon dioxide (the building block of quartz) or a calcium and magnesium-rich silicate mineral.

The stones also had a high water content-unusual for the normally dry, natural limestone found on the Giza plateau-and the cementing phases, in both the inner and outer casing stones, were amorphous, in other words, their atoms were not arranged in a regular and periodic array. Sedimentary rocks such as limestone are seldom, if ever, amorphous.

The sample chemistries the researchers found do not exist anywhere in nature. “Therefore,” says Barsoum, “it’s very improbable that the outer and inner casing stones that we examined were chiseled from a natural limestone block.”

More startlingly, Barsoum and another of his graduate students, Aaron Sakulich, recently discovered the presence of silicon dioxide nanoscale spheres (with diameters only billionths of a meter across) in one of the samples. This discovery further confirms that these blocks are not natural limestone.

Generations misled

At the end of their most recent paper reporting these findings, the researchers reflect that it is “ironic, sublime and truly humbling” that this 4,500-year-old limestone is so true to the original that it has misled generations of Egyptologists and geologists and, “because the ancient Egyptians were the original-albeit unknowing-nanotechnologists.”

As if the scientific evidence isn’t enough, Barsoum has pointed out a number of common sense reasons why the pyramids were not likely constructed entirely of chiseled limestone blocks.

Egyptologists are consistently confronted by unanswered questions: How is it possible that some of the blocks are so perfectly matched that not even a human hair can be inserted between them? Why, despite the existence of millions of tons of stone, carved presumably with copper chisels, has not one copper chisel ever been found on the Giza Plateau?

Although Barsoum’s research has not answered all of these questions, his work provides insight into some of the key questions. For example, it is now more likely than not that the tops of the pyramids are cast, as it would have been increasingly difficult to drag the stones to the summit.

Also, casting would explain why some of the stones fit so closely together. Still, as with all great mysteries, not every aspect of the pyramids can be explained. How the Egyptians hoisted 70-ton granite slabs halfway up the great pyramid remains as mysterious as ever.

Why do the results of Barsoum’s research matter most today? Two words: earth cements.

“How energy intensive and/or complicated can a 4,500 year old technology really be? The answer to both questions is not very,” Barsoum explains. “The basic raw materials used for this early form of concrete-limestone, lime, and diatomaceous earth-can be found virtually anywhere in the world,” he adds. “Replicating this method of construction would be cost effective, long lasting, and much more environmentally friendly than the current building material of choice: Portland cement that alone pumps roughly 6 billion tons of CO2 annually into the atmosphere when it’s manufactured.”

“Ironically,” says Barsoum, “this study of 4,500 year old rocks is not about the past, but about the future.”



Genetics: Alternate Reading Frames May Be Common, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
May 27 2007

In “The Inspiration of the Scriptures Scientifically Demonstrated, Ivan Panin, writes about a numeric phenomenon in the Bible that would be virtually impossible to recreate even with modern computers and which he believed テ「竄ャナ都cientificallyテ「竄ャツ demonstrated that the scriptures were テ「竄ャナ妬nspiredテ「竄ャツ.テつ

Dr. Jeffrey B. Satinover, in テ「竄ャナ撤roof of the Divine Authorship of the Bibleテ「竄ャツ, found numerical patterns in the Bible using a computer which puzzled referees for テ「竄ャナ鉄tatistical Journalテ「竄ャツ, which published the article.

Could the same thing be true for our genetic code and DNA? In the case of the Bible, letters are also numbers in the original Greek and Hebrew. In the case of DNA, it is a made up of four letters.

What if within the coding a pattern was found that was so complex it would be virtually impossible for it to have arisen by chance? Proof of divine authorship of life?…

Commentary by“Imagine a book written in a language where there were no spaces, and every word was three letters long. Now imagine that you could get one story by starting at the first letter, and a different story by starting at the second letter, and another by starting at the third letter.

Thatテ「竄ャ邃「s the situation with some genes in the genetic code. DNA can code for one protein in the first reading frame, but a different protein in an alternate reading frame. Since the DNA language has three nucleotide テ「竄ャナ斗ettersテ「竄ャツ per codon テ「竄ャナ努ord,テ「竄ャツ and since the opposite strand has three more reading frames, there are potentially six reading frames per gene. How commonly are alternate reading frames used by an organism?

A paper in PLoS Computational Biology hints that there may be widespread examples of alternate reading frames (ARFs) in mammalian genomes. ARFs were thought to be rare in eukaryotes. An international team, using new statistical techniques, found 40 cases in the human genome, but says that this may be a significant underestimate, since their analysis was very conservative. Their authorテ「竄ャ邃「s summary asks and answers why these alternate reading frames were not found before:

A textbook human gene encodes a protein using a single reading frame. Alternative splicing brings some variation to that picture, but the notion of a single reading frame remains. Although this is true for most of our genes, there are exceptions. Like viral counterparts, some eukaryotic genes produce structurally unrelated proteins from overlapping reading frames.テつThe examples are spectacular (G-protein alpha subunit [Gnas1] or INK4a tumor suppressor), but scarce. テつ

The scarcity is anthropogenic in origin: we simply do not believe that dual-coding genes can occur in eukaryotes. To challenge this assumption, we performed the first genome-wide scan for mammalian genes containing alternative reading frames located out of frame relative to the annotated protein-coding region.

Using a newly developed statistical framework, we identified 40 such genes. Because our approach is very conservative, this number is likely a significant underestimate, and future studies will identify more alternative reading frame-containing genes with fascinating biology.

“They said there was an almost zero probability these ARFs were due to chance: in fact, one section of the paper is subtitled, テ「竄ャナ泥ual Coding Is Virtually Impossible by Chance.テ「竄ャツテつ

テつFinding so many ARFs was surprising, they said, because maintaining ARFs by natural selection is テ「竄ャナ田ostlyテ「竄ャツ テ「竄ャ窶 i.e., mutations in one reading frame could disable the information in the alternate frame.Often, the proteins that result from alternate reading frames are related to the same function or process in the cell. The researchers compared the well-known ARFs between humans, mice and some other mammals and found them to be highly conserved (i.e., unevolved).

1Chung, Wadhawan, Szklarczyk, Pond, and Nekrutenko, テ「竄ャナ鄭 First Look at ARFome: Dual-Coding Genes in Mammalian Genomes,テ「竄ャツ Public Library of Science: Computational Biology May 18, 2007.

Try writing a message that could be read three different ways depending on which letter was the starting point. It is extremely difficult. If this turns out to be a common mechanism in genetics, it reveals an astonishing level of intelligent design. How, and why, would a blind process do such a thing? Notice how geneticists were not even looking for this amount of complexity because they did not believe it was possible.

This technique of テ「竄ャナ電ata compressionテ「竄ャツ could expand the functional information of the genome significantly. ARF! The hunt is on. Sic the design community on this fascinating puzzle. They wonテ「竄ャ邃「t be tied up and muzzled from announcing the return of the Master to biology.



‘Junk’ DNA Now Looks Like Powerful Regulator, Researcher Finds

Church of Darwin,, Science, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
May 27 2007

Famous Atheist Dawkins Snidely Chides Creationists About Imperfect “Junk DNA”.“…And thereテ「竄ャ邃「s lots more DNA that doesnテ「竄ャ邃「t even deserve the name pseudogene. It, too, is derived by duplication, but not duplication of functional genes. It consists of multiple copies of junk, テ「竄ャナ鍍andem repeatsテ「竄ャツ, and other nonsense which may be useful for forensic detectives but which doesnテ「竄ャ邃「t seem to be used in the body itself.

Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA. …

Can we measure the information capacity of that portion of the genome which is actually used? We can at least estimate it. In the case of the human genome it is about 2% – considerably less than the proportion of my hard disc that I have ever used since I bought it.” – Richard Dawkins, “The Information Challenge.” the skeptic. 18,4. Autumn 1998

William A. Dembski predicted in 1998 that Doubters Like Dawkins Would Prove to be As Wrong About “Non_Coding DNA As They Were About Everything Else

But design is not a science stopper. Indeed, design can foster inquiry where traditional evolutionary approaches obstruct it. Consider the term “junk DNA.”

Implicit in this term is the view that because the genome of an organism has been cobbled together through along, undirected evolutionary process, the genome is a patchwork of which only limited portions are essential to the organism. Thus on an evolutionary view we expect a lot of useless DNA.

If, on the other hand, organisms are designed, we expect DNA, as much as possible, to exhibit function. And indeed, the most recent findings suggest that designating DNA as “junk” merely cloaks our current lack of knowledge about function.

For instance, in a recent issue of the Journal of Theoretical Biology, John Bodnar describes how “non-coding DNA in eukaryotic genomes encodes a language which programs organismal growth and development.”

Design encourages scientists to look for function where evolution discourages it. Subsequent ID theorists repeated this ID prediction that functionality would be found in agenic or “Junk” DNA.


“…a certain amount of hubris* was required for anyone to call any part of the genome ‘junk’” Francis Collins (2006)

Click Here to Read:’Junk’ DNA now looks like powerful regulator

The Blind Atheist

Church of Darwin, Science, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
May 26 2007

Book Descriptionテつ

The Blind Atheist is a book for the open minded skeptic. If you are an atheist or agnostic that prefers proof to faith then you may want to explore the scientific evidence contained in the book. Exposing ideas that chaos theory and self organization are viable alternatives to intelligent design as mere wishful thinking, the facts presented within the pages of The Blind Atheist make clear that theism is the default position and not atheism.

DNA, the RNA world, the genetic code, and so called junk DNA is explored in the book along with the assertions of Richard Dawkins and other notable atheists. The information based machinery of life cannot come into existence without intelligent input at some point.

The Blind Atheist shows why the intelligent input is necessary for even the most primitive nasent life form that may be postulated to come into existence, and why alternative scenarios that exclude intelligent intervention are absurd. The main assertions made in the book can be either confirmed or disproved by scientific means without appeal to a supernatural source. The reader will find that modern atheism is based on a speculative myth.

The process of evolution is discussed in the book but only as it pertains to the origin of life and the gathering of information. The book is a must read response to Richard Dawkinsテ「竄ャ邃「 book; The Blind Watchmaker. His famous biomorphs become fallen branches and his widely hailed テ「竄ャナ杜e thinks it is like a weaselテ「竄ャツ experiment becomes an exercise in intelligent design as the flaws are exposed in The Blind Atheist.

A short book that deals with the root, The Blind Atheist nevertheless provides the material that can be used to upset several present day scientific assumptions. Once the foundation is destroyed then the entire building collapses. The Blind Atheist does however leave the reader with some hope. The hope is that educators who read this book will return to a fact based scientific foundation without the need to interject the myths of atheism into scientific curriculum.

The Following Excerpted from The Blind Atheist: The Unscientific Root of Atheism by Raymond F. Hendrix. Copyright テつゥ 2003. Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved. From the chapter, Intelligent Intervention:

…In his later programs he, the creator [Richard Dawkins], added more lines of symmetry and thereby was able to テ「竄ャナ田reateテ「竄ャツ various things that looked like snowflakes. Of course we already know how snowflakes and naturally forming crystals come about in nature so we should not be surprised that Richard Dawkins was able to simulate those laws of nature. Take away the artificially created symmetry and we are left with an interesting simulation of exactly what he programmed into the machine. He, the creator, also programmed into the experiment the ability to branch off from a single line. This is necessary because he, the creator, knew that trees branch off that way. Should it really come as any surprise then that some of his biomorphs looked like trees?

They would of course look nothing like trees even with the branching mechanism if he did not program in the symmetry function. His trees would look more like fallen branches but I donテ「竄ャ邃「t think that would be as impressive to the unwary reader. He also programmed in segmentation because he, the creator, knew that segmentation was a part of nature. How the blind watchmaker knew that is unknown, but the seeing watchmaker, Richard Dawkins, did know, so he programmed that into the natural selection experiment himself.

Now, letテ「竄ャ邃「s ignore all of the above and pretend that everything was done the way it should have been and these creatures magically appeared on the computer screen. What has he proved? Is this even remotely similar to the intricate and complicated mechanism contained in a living organism? Richard Dawkins created a program that draws abstract pictures much as a cloud will form itself into a familiar looking object from time to time. He proved absolutely nothing in regard to natural selection and how it operates in natureテ「竄ャツヲ

…We are talking here about the laws of thermodynamics controlling the socalled テ「竄ャナ途eplicationテ「竄ャツ of still lifeless macromolecules. How do those laws cause one molecule to be selected over another based upon the specific information content of one over the other (especially when we consider that the theorized nascent life must select this information with foreknowledge of the code and yet to be determined translation mechanism)? Mindless molecules are attracted and formed according to the laws of physics with regard to atomic structure. There is no consideration of specified, coded information content at all, is there? And there is no information in them to begin with, is there?

Again we are left with the necessity of value judgments. So the program itself is flawed if it assumes natural selection to be in effect when there is no existing advantage to work from. The entire experiment is directed from beginning to end by the intelligent input of Richard Dawkins. It neither confirms abiogenesis or natural selection and it certainly does not eliminate the need for intelligent intervention. It is useless without the assumption of foreknowledge. Everything was perfectly prepared to prove that nobody needed to prepare anything in order for life to form and evolve from lifeless matterテ「竄ャツヲ

Source:And Information about the book at

Why Do “Smart” Evolutionists Believe Dumb Things?
Dinosaur ‘Feathers’ Are No Such Thing!

Church of Darwin,, Science, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
May 24 2007

1 Corinthians 1:20
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?

テ「竄ャナ典he idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our ageテ「竄ャ窶-the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloanテ「竄ャ邃「s article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken.テつ1 November 1999, Storrs L. Olson, Smithsonian, Curator of Birds
National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, DC 20560

Feathers Are No Such Thing, ABC Science Online テつ

The theory that dinosaurs gave rise to birds has been dealt a blow by palaeontologists who have examined critical evidence from a Chinese fossil.テつThe theory that dinosaurs gave rise to birds has been dealt a blow by palaeontologists who have examined critical evidence from a Chinese fossil.テつThe discoverers of the turkey-sized dinosaur Sinosauropteryx say it would have had primitive feathers, supporting the bird-from-dinosaurs theory. But the latest research says these テ「竄ャヒ徘roto-feathersテ「竄ャ邃「 are really frilly structures on the creatureテ「竄ャ邃「s back.テつ

Researchers led by South African academic Professor Theagarten Lingham-Soliar at the University of KwaZulu-Natal publish their study in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B. The debate focuses on Sinosauropteryx, a fossil found in 1994 by a farmer in Liaoning province, northeastern China. This region is a treasure trove of the Early Cretaceous period some 130 million years ago.The long-tailed, meat-eating dinosaur was covered with a down of fibres that its Chinese researchers said were primitive feathers. Although the テ「竄ャヒ彷eathersテ「竄ャ邃「 were clearly not capable of flight, their existence dramatically supported a theory first aired in the 1970s that birds evolved from dinosaurs. As a result, a once-outlandish notion has become the mainstream concept for the ascent of Aves, as birds are classified.

But when researchers examined a recently discovered specimen of Sinoauropteryx, also from Liaoning, they came to very different conclusions.

When they examined the fossil under a high-powered microscope, the researchers said the two-branched structures, called rachis with barbs, are really the remains of a frill of collagen fibres that ran down the dinosaurテ「竄ャ邃「s back from head to tail.

テ「竄ャナ典he fibres show a striking similarity to the structure and levels of organisation of dermal collagen,テ「竄ャツ the kind of tough elastic strands found on the skin of sharks and reptiles today, the investigators say.

The fibres have an unusual beaded structure, but this most likely was caused by a natural twisting of these strands, and a clumping together caused by dehydration, when the dinosaur died and its tissues started to dry. The tough fibres could have been either a form of armour to protect the small dinosaur from predators, or perhaps had a structural use, by stiffening its tail.

From the first known bird

The first known bird is Archaeopteryx, which lived around 150 million years ago. What is missing are the links between Archaeopteryx and other species that would show how it evolved. But the fossil record is frustratingly small and incomplete and this is why debate has been so fierce.

The birds-from-dinosaur theory is based on the idea that small, specialised theropod dinosaurs gained an advantage by developing plant-eating habits, growing feathers to keep warm and taking to the trees for safety. From there, it was a relatively small step for these carnivorous, bipedal dinosaurs with three-toed feet to developing gliding skills and then the ability to fly.

Lingham-Soliarテ「竄ャ邃「s team does not take issue with the theory itself. But they are dismayed by what they see as a reckless leap to the conclusion that Sinoauropeteryx had the all-important proto-feathers, even though this dinosaur was phylogenetically far removed from Archaeopteryx.

The evidence in support of the primitive feathers lacked serious investigation, Lingham-Soliar says. テ「竄ャナ典here is not a single close-up representation of the integumental structure alleged to be a proto-feather,テ「竄ャツ Lingham-Soliar says.

Given that the evolution of the feather is a pivotal moment in the history of life, he says テ「竄ャナ都cientific rigour is called forテ「竄ャツ.


Egyptians, not Greeks were True Fathers of Medicine

Science, Sophistication of Ancestors, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
May 20 2007

Source: University of Manchester May 9, 2007テつ

Scientists examining documents dating back 3,500 years say they have found proof that the origins of modern medicine lie in ancient Egypt and not with Hippocrates and the Greeks.

The research team from the KNH Centre for Biomedical Egyptology at The University of Manchester discovered the evidence in medical papyri written in 1,500BC テ「竄ャ窶 1,000 years before Hippocrates was born.

“Classical scholars have always considered the ancient Greeks, particularly Hippocrates, as being the fathers of medicine but our findings suggest that the ancient Egyptians were practising a credible form of pharmacy and medicine much earlier,” said Dr Jackie Campbell.

“When we compared the ancient remedies against modern pharmaceutical protocols and standards, we found the prescriptions in the ancient documents not only compared with pharmaceutical preparations of today but that many of the remedies had therapeutic merit.”

The medical documents, which were first discovered in the mid-19th century, showed that ancient Egyptian physicians treated wounds with honey, resins and metals known to be antimicrobial.

The team also discovered prescriptions for laxatives of castor oil and colocynth and bulk laxatives of figs and bran. Other references show that colic was treated with hyoscyamus, which is still used today, and that cumin and coriander were used as intestinal carminatives.

Further evidence showed that musculo-skeletal disorders were treated with rubefacients to stimulate blood flow and poultices to warm and soothe. They used celery and saffron for rheumatism, which are currently topics of pharmaceutical research, and pomegranate was used to eradicate tapeworms, a remedy that remained in clinical use until 50 years ago.

“Many of the ancient remedies we discovered survived into the 20th century and, indeed, some remain in use today, albeit that the active component is now produced synthetically,” said Dr Campbell.

“Other ingredients endure and acacia is still used in cough remedies while aloes forms a basis to soothe and heal skin conditions.”

Fellow researcher Dr Ryan Metcalfe is now developing genetic techniques to investigate the medicinal plants of ancient Egypt. He has designed his research to determine which modern species the ancient botanical samples are most related to.

“This may allow us to determine a likely point of origin for the plant while providing additional evidence for the trade routes, purposeful cultivation, trade centres or places of treatment,” said Dr Metcalfe.

“The work is inextricably linked to state-of-the-art chemical analyses used by my colleague Judith Seath, who specialises in the essential oils and resins used by the ancient Egyptians.”

Professor Rosalie David, Director of the KNH Centre, said: “These results are very significant and show that the ancient Egyptians were practising a credible form of pharmacy long before the Greeks.

“Our research is continuing on a genetic, chemical and comparative basis to compare the medicinal plants of ancient Egypt with modern species and to investigate similarities between the traditional remedies of North Africa with the remedies used by their ancestors of 1,500 BC.”

Mystery of the African (Dogon) Ornithopod Dinosaur?

Crypto, Dinosaurs in Literature,, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
May 18 2007

Around the time Sir Richard Owen had coined the term “dinosaur” to describe the giant “terrible lizards” whose bones were then being discovered in the mid-1800′s the Dogon tribe was creating art which appears to represent one of them riding one of those creatures.

Features of the “dinosaur” are accurate enough for a species identification to be made. An Ornithopod dinosaur, in our humble opinion.

The birdlike head with “duck bill”; and the knees appearing to bend in the “wrong” direction (opposite ours) separate this dinosaur from the sauropods.

In actuality the front legs do bend in the opposite direction, but it the high ankles of these creatures which make it appear that the rear legs also bend in the forward direction.

Examples of the Ornithopod dinosaur depicted include; iguanadon and hadrosaurus as shown below. Note also the accuracy of this African depiction compared to early “scientific” depictions.

It’s interesting to note that the gallery showing this piece claims that this is dinosaur, from the mid-1800′s and that they can authenticate its age and origin. If you’ve got a spare $1,200, pick it up and send us a photo of the other side of the piece.


Click Here to Read Article

Orkin (Man) Comes out for Evolution!

Church of Darwin,, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
May 10 2007

Photo: Orkin man does not use pesticides around children and instead apparently kills roaches one by one with his clipboard.

Back when I was growing up we didn’t get to gather around the Orkin man and ask him a bunch of questions like the kids do in a recent Orkin commercial we screened. Kids love a man in uniform I guess but in the old days, we were more partial to fireman, police, or military uniforms (and obviously, ice cream truck driver uniforms).テつ

Anyway, theテつOrkin man has plenty of time to stop and dispense information. These kids apparently do not bug him at all. One interesting bit of knowledge that he drops on the kids is that ants have their skeletons on the outside. “Ewwww”, they respond. Ewwww, indeed!

Then he’s asked if its true that roaches can live with their heads cut off and he informs that indeed roaches can live up to two weeks without their heads! Ewwww! But then he of Orkin went on to say that roaches have been around for more than 280 million years!

That’s quite an indictment on the effectiveness of Orkin, but I’ll let them defend themselves on that one. Clearly though, by giving a figure of 280 million years, Orkin is endorsing the theory of evolution. Here is where the kids should have said, Ewwww!

Do you know why evolutionists (and the scientific elite Orkin man represents) say that roaches have been around for 280 million years? Because as far back as science can see, roaches have always been roaches! If you believe the Bible, that wouldn’t surprise you. If you are an evolutionist, it should surprise you. Why haven’t roaches evolved in the supposed 280 million years that they’ve been around?

Why hasn’t natural selection, a supposedly inexorable テつprocess worked to evolve roaches? Have roaches reached the top of the “evolutionary tree”? What should be recognized as a weakness or anomaly in evolutionary theory is trotted out by evolutionists as just another interesting “fact”テつ scientists have discovered which somehow, generally supports the theory.テつ

We call for a boycott, if not of Orkin, then certainly of roaches.

Geologists Discover World’s Largest Fossil Forest in the Ceiling of an Illinois Coal Mine

Science, The Flood of Noah, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
May 04 2007


Photo: Recreation of a Fossil Forestテつfrom Field Museum, Chicagoテつ

テつ” 04/23/2007– A Carboniferous forest extending some 40 square miles has been found in the ceiling of a coal mine, reported Science Daily, Live Science and News@Nature.

About 50 species have been identified, including ferns and horsetails over 10 times taller than those alive today. News@Nature remarked that the forest contained some mangrove-like plants.

The article quoted a surprised researcher who said, テ「竄ャナ的t was always assumed that mangrove plants had evolved fairly recently.テ「竄ャツ

The fossil forest was found in 2005 but was announced today in the online journal Geology. The area is now 100 meters underground. The research team believes an ancient earthquake some 300 million years ago caused a sudden lowering of the area, resulting in the inundation and fossilization of the forest.

Another surprise was that the ancient forest was so diverse for such an early period. テ「竄ャナ典his discovery also shows that the fundamental processes that guide the complexity and evolution of forests has been around for hundreds of millions of years,テ「竄ャツ News@Nature said.

Is this a テ「竄ャナ杜angrove-likeテ「竄ャツ plant or a true mangrove? If the latter, it sounds like a big out-of-order problem for evolution, because mangroves were not supposed to appear till the late Cretaceous and these forests are Carboniferous, over 200 million years earlier.

That would be a bigger problem than finding a living dinosaur. A quick check of the original paper in Geology (May 2007) does not reveal any mention of family Rhizophoraceae or any of the other mangroves, but that doesnテ「竄ャ邃「t mean they were not found. Weテ「竄ャ邃「ll have to see if more of the details come to light. In any case, gymnosperms were not thought to live in テ「竄ャナ杜angrove-likeテ「竄ャツ habitats.

This story also illustrates, as seen so often before, that wherever evolutionists look, they find more complexity farther back in time than they expect”.Creation/Evolution Headlines

Click Here to Read Article

Scientists Baffled As Florida Diver Captures Sea Serpent On Video; ‘Undescribed’

Crypto,, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
May 04 2007


Underwater Times News Service




West Palm Beach, Florida (May 2, 2007 15:55 EST)

It’s not the Loch Ness Monster or the Creature from the Black Lagoon, but a creature recently caught on tape by a Florida diver does have scientists scratching their heads.

Underwater videographer Jay Garbose has worked for National Geographic and The Discovery Channel in the past.

He made his amazing discovery while on a dive on Juno Ledge, near Juno Beach, Florida.

Jay says when he first saw the giant worm like creature he thought it was a sea cucumber…then he realized how big it was.

Click Here to Read Article