Archive for November, 2009

Climategate: Global Warming Might Not be Man Made-But the Data May Be

Church of Darwin, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Nov 30 2009

from The Sunday Times November 29, 2009

Story 1
The great climate change science scandal
Leaked emails have revealed the unwillingness of climate change scientists to engage in a proper debate with the sceptics who doubt global warming

Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

The storm began with just four cryptic words. “A miracle has happened,” announced a contributor to Climate Audit, a website devoted to criticising the science of climate change.

“RC” said nothing more — but included a web link that took anyone who clicked on it to another site, Real Climate.

There, on the morning of November 17, they found a treasure trove: a thousand or so emails sent or received by Professor Phil Jones, director of the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich.

Jones is a key player in the science of climate change. His department’s databases on global temperature changes and its measurements have been crucial in building the case for global warming.

What those emails suggested, however, was that Jones and some colleagues may have become so convinced of their case that they crossed the line from objective research into active campaigning.

In one, Jones boasted of using statistical “tricks” to obliterate apparent declines in global temperature. In another he advocated deleting data rather than handing them to climate sceptics. And in a third he proposed organised boycotts of journals that had the temerity to publish papers that undermined the message.

It was a powerful and controversial mix — far too powerful for some. Real Climate is a website designed for scientists who share Jones’s belief in man-made climate change. Within hours the file had been stripped from the site.

Several hours later, however, it reappeared — this time on an obscure Russian server. Soon it had been copied to a host of other servers, first in Saudi Arabia and Turkey and then Europe and America.

What’s more, the anonymous poster was determined not to be stymied again. He or she posted comments on climate-sceptic blogs, detailing a dozen of the best emails and offering web links to the rest. Jones’s statistical tricks were now public property.

Steve McIntyre, a prominent climate sceptic, was amazed. “Words failed me,” he said. Another, Patrick Michaels, declared: “This is not a smoking gun; this is a mushroom cloud.”

Inevitably, the affair became nicknamed Climategate. For the scientists, campaigners and politicians trying to rouse the world to action on climate change the revelations could hardly have come at a worse time. Next month global leaders will assemble in Copenhagen to seek limits on carbon emissions. The last thing they need is renewed doubts about the validity of the science.

The scandal has also had a huge personal and professional impact on the scientists. “These have been the worst few days of my professional life,” said Jones. He had to call on the police for protection after receiving anonymous phone calls and personal threats.

Why should a few emails sent to and from a single research scientist at a middle-ranking university have so much impact? And most importantly, what does it tell us about the quality of the research underlying the science of climate change?

THE hacking scandal is not an isolated event. Instead it is the latest round of a long-running battle over climate science that goes back to 1990.

That was when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — the group of scientists that advises governments worldwide — published its first set of reports warning that the Earth faced deadly danger from climate change. A centrepiece of that report was a set of data showing how the temperature of the northern hemisphere was rising rapidly.

The problem was that the same figures showed that it had all happened before. The so-called medieval warm period of about 1,000 years ago saw Britain covered in vineyards and Viking farmers tending cows in Greenland. For any good scientist this raised a big question: was the recent warming linked to humans burning fossil fuels or was it part of a natural cycle?

The researchers set to work and in 1999 a group led by Professor Michael Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, came up with new numbers showing that the medieval warm period was not so important after all.

Some bits of the Atlantic may have been warm for a while, but the records suggested that the Pacific had been rather chilly over the same period — so on average there was little change.

Plotted out, Mann’s data turned into the famous “hockey stick” graph. It showed northern hemisphere temperatures as staying flat for hundreds of years and then rising steeply from 1900 until now. The implication was that this rise would continue, with potentially deadly consequences for humanity.

That vision of continents being hit by droughts and floods while the Arctic melts away has turned a scientific debate into a highly emotional and political one. The language used by “warmists” and sceptics alike has become increasingly polarised.

George Monbiot, widely respected as a writer on green issues, has branded doubters “climate deniers”, a phrase uncomfortably close to holocaust denial. Sceptics, particularly in America, have suggested that scientists who believe in climate change are part of a global left-wing conspiracy to divert billions of dollars into green technology.

A more cogent criticism is that there has been a reluctance to acknowledge dissent on the question of climate science. Al Gore, the former US vice-president turned green campaigner, has described the climate debate as “settled”. Yet the science, say critics, has not been tested to the limit. This is why the climatic research unit at the University of East Anglia is so significant.

Its researchers have built up records of how temperatures have changed over thousands of years. Perhaps the most important is the land and sea temperature record for the world since the mid-19th century. This is the database that shows the “unequivocal” rise of 0.8C over the last 157 years on which Mann’s hockey stick and much else in climate science depend.

Some critics believe that the unit’s findings need to be treated with more caution, because all the published data have been “corrected” — meaning they have been altered to compensate for possible anomalies in the way they were taken. Such changes are normal; what’s controversial is how they are done. This is compounded by the unwillingness of the unit to release the original raw data.

David Holland, an engineer from Northampton, is one of a number of sceptics who believe the unit has got this process wrong. When he submitted a request for the figures under freedom of information laws he was refused because it was “not in the public interest”.

Others who made similar requests were turned down because they were not academics, among them McIntyre, a Canadian who runs the Climate Audit website.

A genuine academic, Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada, also tried. He said: “I was rejected for an entirely different reason. The [unit] told me they had obtained the data under confidentiality agreements and so could not supply them. This was odd because they had already supplied some of them to other academics, but only those who support the idea of climate change.”

IT was against this background that the emails were leaked last week, reinforcing suspicions that scientific objectivity has been sacrificed. There is unease even among researchers who strongly support the idea that humans are changing the climate. Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder, said: “Over the last decade there has been a very political battle between the climate sceptics and activist scientists.

“It seems to me that the scientists have lost touch with what they were up to. They saw themselves as in a battle with the sceptics rather than advancing scientific knowledge.”

Professor Mike Hulme, a fellow researcher of Jones at the University of East Anglia and author of Why We Disagree About Climate Change, said: “The attitudes revealed in the emails do not look good. The tribalism that some of the leaked emails display is something more usually associated with social organisation within primitive cultures; it is not attractive when we find it at work inside science.”

There could, however, be another reason why the unit rejected requests to see its data.

This weekend it emerged that the unit has thrown away much of the data. Tucked away on its website is this statement: “Data storage availability in the 1980s meant that we were not able to keep the multiple sources for some sites … We, therefore, do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (ie, quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

If true, it is extraordinary. It means that the data on which a large part of the world’s understanding of climate change is based can never be revisited or checked. Pielke said: “Can this be serious? It is now impossible to create a new temperature index from scratch. [The unit] is basically saying, ‘Trust us’.”

WHERE does this leave the climate debate? While the overwhelming belief of scientists is that the world is getting warmer and that humanity is responsible, sceptical voices are increasing.

Lord Lawson, the Tory former chancellor, announced last week the creation of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think tank, to “bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant”.

Lawson said: “Climate change is not being properly debated because all the political parties are on the same side, and there is an intolerance towards anybody who wants to debate it. It has turned climate change from being a political issue into a secular religion.”

The public are understandably confused. A recent poll showed that 41% accept as scientific fact that global warming is taking place and is largely man-made, while 32% believe the link is unproven and 15% said the world is not warming.

This weekend many of Jones’s colleagues were standing by him. Tim Lenton, professor of earth system science at UEA, said: “We wouldn’t have anything like the understanding of climate change that we do were it not for the work of Phil Jones and his colleagues. They have spent decades putting together the historical temperature record and it is good work.”

The problem is that, after the past week, both sceptics and the public will require even more convincing of that.

Reposted from Investigate magazine’s breaking news forum:

New Zealand’s NIWA accused of CRU-style temperature faking

The New Zealand Government’s chief climate advisory unit NIWA is under fire for allegedly massaging raw climate data to show a global warming trend that wasn’t there.

The scandal breaks as fears grow worldwide that corruption of climate science is not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre.

In New Zealand’s case, the figures published on NIWA’s [the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric research] website suggest a strong warming trend in New Zealand over the past century:

The caption to the photo on the NiWA site reads:

From NIWA’s web site — Figure 7: Mean annual temperature over New Zealand, from 1853 to 2008 inclusive, based on between 2 (from 1853) and 7 (from 1908) long-term station records. The blue and red bars show annual differences from the 1971 – 2000 average, the solid black line is a smoothed time series, and the dotted [straight] line is the linear trend over 1909 to 2008 (0.92°C/100 years).

But analysis of the raw climate data from the same temperature stations has just turned up a very different result:

Gone is the relentless rising temperature trend, and instead there appears to have been a much smaller growth in warming, consistent with the warming up of the planet after the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850

Read the Rest of this Story Here

Who Gave Us This Day Our Daily Bread?; And–Smart Chickens or Dumb Clucks?

Church of Darwin,, Science, Sophistication of Ancestors, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Nov 25 2009

by Chris Parker, Copyright 2009

Painting, left: Grace, by Rhoda Nyberg, 1918. Click for larger version.

Dateline: Brenthurst, South Africa, Sept 5, 2009

“Chickens refusing to eat the maize they had been fed has led to the discovery that their feed had been genetically modified to include a well-known weed and insect killer.

Strilli Oppenheimer’s indigenous African chickens were refusing to eat the mealies in the chicken feed bought from a large supplier. Concerned that the birds may be ingesting genetically modified maize, she had the maize tested.

The results confirmed Oppenheimer’s initial suspicion — the maize had been genetically engineered to produce proteins that are toxic to certain insects and weeds.

About her chickens’ refusal to eat their maize, Oppenheimer said: “They’re smart””……By Dr. Mercola ,,

An expert on genetically modified foods said that this was the first instance of which he was aware that chickens had refused to eat such food. The corn contained Bt1, which made it insect resistant as well as Roundup, which made it weed resistant.

Dateline: Cornell University, Nov. 19, 2009

The complex corn genome—coming in at a hearty two billion base pairs (compared with the human genome’s 2.9 billion base pairs)—has been mapped by more than 150 researchers, who worked for years to decipher the grain’s genetic code.

Photo:Varieties of Maize (corn). Click for larger view

….”Deep into the maize- Getting to the bottom of this staple’s DNA, however, was no small task. The corn genome actually has 12,000 more genes than humans do and manages to stuff them onto 10 chromosomes (as opposed to humans’ 23).

All of this data, and the repetitiveness of corn’s code, made the task a daunting one. The team used a combination of physical and optical mapping to arrive at the findings”…..Katherine Harmon, Scientific American

The article also noted; 1) over 200 genes were involved in simply increasing the size of maize and 2) that the wheat genome is even more complicated than that of maize (corn).

Smart Chickens and Dumb Clucks

Smart chickens and informed humans seem to be in agreement when it comes to genetically modified foods—they are potentially dangerous. There is a huge problem with this conclusion, however.
Science tells us that all the major cereals; corn, sorghum, oats, rice and wheat for example, were genetically engineered by prehistoric humans over a few thousand years, thousands of years ago.

They were somehow engineered by these ancient farmers from several inedible grasses into the life sustaining cereal grains that we eat today.

The point is, if what science says about the origins of these important cereal grains is true then the food that provides the basis of most diets around the world—are genetically modified foods and on an order undreamed about by the current crop of genetic modifiers.

“On the other hand, those Stone Age farmers who were fresh out of their caves and only just beginning to turn soil for the first time (as the “official” scenario goes), somehow managed to transform the wild grasses, grains, and cereals growing around them into their domesticated “cousins.” Is that possible? Only through a course in miracles.

Actually, it requires countless miracles within two large categories of miracles. The first was that the wild grasses and grains and cereals were useless to humans. The seeds and grains were maddeningly small, like pepper flakes or salt crystals, which put them beyond the grasping and handling capacity of human fingers.

They were also hard, like tiny nutshells, making it impossible to convert them to anything edible. Lastly, their chemistry was suited to nourishing animals, not humans.

So wild varieties were entirely too small, entirely too tough, and nutritionally inappropriate for humans. They needed to be greatly expanded in size, greatly softened in texture, and overhauled at the molecular level, which would be an imposing challenge for modern botanists, much less Neolithic farmers. “…Lloyd Pye,.. THE LITERAL CREATION OF MANKIND AT THE HANDS OF YOU-KNOW-WHAT”

So, what is it that smart chickens know that science doesn’t? If what science says is true, then smart chickens and smart humans complaining about the recent modifications to food crops would be akin to refusing to drive cars that had been mechanically modified by humans. Since cars were invented and modified over time by humans, why should one suddenly get worried and upset by the equivalent of a rear window washer blade?

Is it because smart chickens and aware humans; including scientists and the enviromentally aware seem to know intrinsically that there is something wrong with the official story?

How could “primitive” man set out to create nutritious, edible, efficient food that would continue to be inedible for hundreds or even thousands of years? How and why would they do it?

What did they eat in the mean time? Such a project would have been the biggest and most ambitious project in human history, dwarfing the Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb, the construction of the pyramids of Egypt and the Apollo program to place a man on the moon—and there would have had to have been separate projects each for wheat, corn, rice and barley!

Note that for corn, according to the latest research, they would have needed to manipulate 200 genes just to increase the size of the maize-never mind softening it and making it digestible for humans.

In an attempt to cement scientific opinion, “science” has been rather insistent that the parent source for maize is teosinte, an inedible grass that does not resemble maize. Not all scientists working in this area agree with that conclusion however and there are competing theories. Some scientists believe that they have evidence of corn appearing before teosinte.

Pennsylvania geneticist Nina V. Federoff states that “to get corn out of teosinte is so – you couldn’t get a grant to do that now, because it would sound so crazy. Somebody who did that today would get a Nobel Prize! If their lab didn’t get shut down by Greenpeace.”

Indeed, maize is, in origin, genetically modified food, which is at the centre of much controversy today. Still, our ancestors seem to not only have had no such social opposition, but more importantly, were able to pull this stunt off…Maize; from the Gods? ……

Photo, right:”Wine, Worship, and Sacrifice: The Golden Graves of Ancient Vani was the inaugural exhibition at the Institute for the Study of the Ancient World at New York University. It features spectacular finds from four graves excavated at Vani, a major administrative and religious center of ancient Colchis (present-day Republic of Georgia) and the setting for the myth of Jason and the Golden Fleece. More than 100 objects from these graves, which date from the fifth and fourth centuries B.C., are on display.” NYU–

If this golden necklace is sporting corn stalks, it shows that this cereal crop was in Europe way ahead of the current scientific opinion. Click for larger view

“If you believe that our ancestors domesticated crop plants, you have to start by assuming that people without any agricultural experience were brilliant enough to select and breed the best wild seed candidates to turn into major cereal crops.

It is a historical fact that in spite of 5,000 years of continuous agricultural development we have not genetically bred a new major crop from a wild species. Just how ingenious were out Stone Age predecessors who performed this agronomic feat without any agricultural or genetic knowledge?”…. from: Mysterious Origins of Crop Plants, by Will Hart; Dateline: Genesis: In the Beginning

The Bible Tells Me Sow; Then Reap!

As a result of Adam and Eve’s sin, God told them that they would have to sustain themselves from the sweat of their brows:

To Adam he said, “Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat of it,’ “Cursed is the ground because of you; through painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.

It will produce thorns and thistles for you, and you will eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return.” …Genesis 3

Genesis 4 tells us that Cain worked the soil. Cain therefore was a farmer and presented “fruits of the soil” to God. It’s clear from Genesis that from the very beginning man planted domesticated crops and tilled the soil too obtain them. Wild grain was inedible.

It is clear from Genesis that the creator of domesticated crops was the Creator Himself; the only one with the ability to ‘modify” food crops which are nearly as genetically complex as human beings.

Hewing to the Biblical narrative; all cultures appeared suddenly, fully developed and without precursors. Along with that, domesticated grains were found associated with all early civilizations.

Man Could Not Have Survived without Maize, Rice, Wheat and Barley from the Beginning

Chart: A-maizing-chart. This chart shows the amazing amount of energy and protein available from the consumption of these cereal crops. Click for higher resolution table.

“Maize, wheat and rice, between them, accounted for 87% of all grain production, worldwide, and 43% of all food calories in 2003”…. Wikipedia

“Cereals are grains produced by plants belonging to the grass family. They account for over fifty per cent of human energy and protein needs, and cereal plants occupy two-thirds of all cultivated land. Cereals were the earliest cultivated plants and for over ten thousand years have been the staple food for many human societies.

Their importance is related to a number of features. They are relatively easy to grow, store and transport and they have a high nutritive value. The table below shows the food values of some important cereals compared with those for some other plant foods. The figures show the amount of energy that can be obtained from and the total amount of protein and lipid present in 100 g.”…..AQA, Longbenton Community College.

The point of the chart is to indicate how well these important food crops were designed. They are highly nutritious and produce tremendous energy by weight compared to other foods. They make up a huge percentage of the human diet.

Can you imagine the human race surviving several thousand years without them? And if it could have done so, what would have been the impetus to “create” these cereals when for generation after generation they would have continued to be inedible?

These grains, supposedly developed by our distant ancestors, are still the primary food sources which support modern day civilization. In poorer areas of the world they are the primary subsistence food-and they have been basically unimproved in over 5,000 years. One would think that if they, the uneducated, uncivilized, primitive, knuckle dragging unsophisticates could create (genetically engineer) rice, wheat corn and barley, that in the last 5,000 years we could have come up with at least one additional domesticated grain?

Smart chickens say no!

Science Too Chicken to Examine Alternatives; Cluck and Peck Those Who Object

Photo:From Gunnar Thompson Phd’s Press Release Re: Ancient Egyptian corn. Click to view larger version.

When Darwin formulated his evolution theory, he assumed that the single cell was very simple—something that one could imagine could possibly arise by chance. It turned out, that the single cell is more complex than any artifact of man.

When science formulated its theories concerning the origins of the major cereals, it was likewise assumed that the projects to turn an inedible grass into a major food crops were fairly straightforward and conceivable. In June of 2009, in an article by Thomas H. Maugh II, the Los Angeles times reported that sophisticated granaries were found near the Dead Sea which were 11,300 years old as science recons time.

This might have pushed the origin of domesticated crops back 1,300 years more and upset their carefully plotted just-so cereal history-so they claimed that the sophisticated storage facilities were built to store inedible, wild, barley 1,000 years before actual cereal domestication! Science will stretch and pull and ignore facts to fit its theories.

Recent scientific discoveries concerning the dna of plants like corn make the ‘created by ancestors” theory even more unpalatable—but no matter how unlikely science’s version of cereal origin is—they have no choice but to cling to it—or admit that they were created by God.

The Bible establishes the creation of domesticated plants in the beginning by God. Consequently, from the beginning all cultures would have had access to the various cereals. Science on the other hand says that the various cereal grains were domesticated by man in various parts of the world at various times over the last 5,000 to 10,000 years. In accordance with that, they have timelines and locations for the various grains.

Corn for example is supposed to have been first domesticated in South America and then spread to other parts of the world after being brought back to Europe by Columbus. Other scientists and researchers however have shown that corn existed in ancient Egypt, China, India and even old Europe way before Columbus landed on American shores.

Which is more diificult to believe; the random undirected evolution of living, breathing creatures or the directed creation of the most imortant food crops known to man by “primitive” ancestors over hundreds and thousands of years? Cluck, cluck, cluck….

Draft 2;Citations and links

Genetic Manipulation (Domestication) of Plants and Animals.

Corn Predates Teosinte?

Cracked Corn: Scientists Solve Maize’s Genetic Maze

Corn: Egyptian Queen beat Columbus—by 3000 Years!

Rice in China 4,000 Years Ago

Maize: food from the Gods?

Maize in Pre-Columbian China

Maize in Pre-Columbian India

Pre Columbian Maize North of the Old World Equator

Plant domestication: early and often

Death Certificate is Imprinted on the Shroud of Turin, Says Vatican Scholar

Religious, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Nov 22 2009

November 21, 2009
Richard Owen in Rome
Times Online Source

Photo: Artist impression of “face” on Shroud of Turin
The Shroud of Turin on Wikipedia

A Vatican scholar claims to have deciphered the “death certificate” imprinted on the Shroud of Turin, or Holy Shroud, a linen cloth revered by Christians and held by many to bear the image of the crucified Jesus.

Dr Barbara Frale, a researcher in the Vatican secret archives, said “I think I have managed to read the burial certificate of Jesus the Nazarene, or Jesus of Nazareth.” She said that she had reconstructed it from fragments of Greek, Hebrew and Latin writing imprinted on the cloth together with the image of the crucified man.

The shroud, which is kept in the royal chapel of Turin Cathedral and is to be put in display next spring, is regarded by many scholars as a medieval forgery. A 1988 carbon dating of a fragment of the cloth dated it to the Middle Ages.

However Dr Frale, who is to publish her findings in a new book, La Sindone di Gesu Nazareno (The Shroud of Jesus of Nazareth) said that the inscription provided “historical date consistent with the Gospels account”. The letters, barely visible to the naked eye, were first spotted during an examination of the shroud in 1978, and others have since come to light.

Some scholars have suggested that the writing is from a reliquary attached to the cloth in medieval times. But Dr Frale said that the text could not have been written by a medieval Christian because it did not refer to Jesus as Christ but as “the Nazarene”. This would have been “heretical” in the Middle Ages since it defined Jesus as “only a man” rather than the Son of God.

Like the image of the man himself the letters are in reverse and only make sense in negative photographs. Dr Frale told La Repubblica that under Jewish burial practices current at the time of Christ in a Roman colony such as Palestine, a body buried after a death sentence could only be returned to the family after a year in a common grave.

A death certificate was therefore glued to the burial shroud to identify it for later retrieval, and was usually stuck to the cloth around the face. This had apparently been done in the case of Jesus even though he was buried not in a common grave but in the tomb offered by Joseph of Arimathea.

Dr Frale said that many of the letters were missing, with Jesus for example referred to as “(I)esou(s) Nnazarennos” and only the “iber” of “Tiberiou” surviving. Her reconstruction, however, suggested that the certificate read:

“In the year 16 of the reign of the Emperor Tiberius Jesus the Nazarene, taken down in the early evening after having been condemned to death by a Roman judge because he was found guilty by a Hebrew authority, is hereby sent for burial with the obligation of being consigned to his family only after one full year”. It ends “signed by” but the signature has not survived.

Dr Frale said that the use of three languages was consistent with the polyglot nature of a community of Greek-speaking Jews in a Roman colony.

Best known for her studies of the Knights Templar, who she claims at one stage preserved the shroud, she said what she had deciphered was “the death sentence on a man called Jesus the Nazarene. If that man was also Christ the Son of God it is beyond my job to establish. I did not set out to demonstrate the truth of faith. I am a Catholic, but all my teachers have been atheists or agnostics, and the only believer among them was a Jew. I forced myself to work on this as I would have done on any other archaeological find.”

The Catholic Church has never either endorsed the Turin Shroud or rejected it as inauthentic. Pope John Paul II arranged for public showings in 1998 and 2000, saying: “The Shroud is an image of God’s love as well as of human sin.

The imprint left by the tortured body of the Crucified One, which attests to the tremendous human capacity for causing pain and death to one’s fellow man, stands as an icon of the suffering of the innocent in every age.” Pope Benedict XVI is to pray before the Shroud when it is put on show again next Spring in Turin.

I Knew a Duck Sir, That Duck Was a Friend of Mine, You Sir are No Duck! Neolithic Dinosaur Headed Ceramic from Romania?

Crypto, Dinosaurs in Literature,, Sophistication of Ancestors, The Flood of Noah, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Nov 09 2009

Photo: Left and bottom, left left; Romanian, Neolithic zoomorphic head compared with artist representations of lambeosaurine dinosaurs (hadrosaurids). Click to enlarge.

Science tells us that dinosaurs became extinct 65 million years ago and that they reigned on earth for a period beginning 230 million year ago. Science believes that dinosaurs eventually evolved into birds.

The Word of God on the other hand claims that God created the universe including earth, its flora and fauna and man- in six days. Using the Bible’s history as a guide it has been calculated that the earth is less than 10,000 years old?

Which dinosaur view is correct? Dinosaur bones and fossils have been found together with other terrestrial vertebrates and invertebrates and vast fossil bone yards around the globe. A number of dinosaurs have been found with recoverable red blood cells, protein and or blood vessels which only the foolish would believe could have survived more than 65 million years.

Photo: Neolithic, “zoomorphic” ceramic vase from Romania. 5,000 B.C. Uploaded by Londonconstant-Flickr. Click to Enlarge.

Many dinosaur fossils have been found with their heads thrown, their mouths wide open and their tails curled toward their heads as if in agony and as if –they had drowned (Noah’s flood come to mind?).

Here at, we thought that if the Biblical view was correct, that we should be able to find examples of these creatures that we now call dinosaurs in the art of ancient peoples. This is in fact what we have found. In the section of the site entitled Dinosaurs in Literature, History and Art, we catalog hundreds of examples.

The photo at the top of this post is of a “zoomorphic” ceramic from the Neolithic period, from Romania, Gumelni-Karanovo culture. It is estimated to have been fired in the 5th millennium B.C. or 5,000 years before Christ. ”

“The Gumelni–Karanovo culture is a chalcholithic (5th millennium) culture, extending along the Black Sea coast to central Bulgaria and into Thrace. The aggregate “Gumelnita-Karanovo VI-Kodjadermen” evolves out of the earlier Boian, Marita and Karanovo V cultures. It is supplanted by Cernavod? I in the early 4th millennium.” Wikipedia

These types of representations most likely would be identified by archeologists as a bird, a duck or as a “zoomorphic” (animal like) or perhaps as a mythical creature.

We note however that it bears a striking resemblance to the duck-billed dinosaurs which were among the creatures that science claims died out 65 million years ago. A number of dinosaurs have been found in Europe and in Romania including hadrosaurs or duck-billed dinosaurs. Here we compare the ancient ceramic depiction with a number of duck-billed dinosaurs.

“Hadrosaurids or duck-billed dinosaurs are members of the family Hadrosauridae, and include ornithopods such as Edmontosaurus and Parasaurolophus. They were common herbivores in the Upper Cretaceous Period of what are now Asia, Europe and North America. They are descendants of the Upper Jurassic/Lower Cretaceous iguanodontian dinosaurs and had similar body layout. They were ornithischians.

Hadrosaurids are divided into two subfamilies. The lambeosaurines (Lambeosaurinae) had hollow cranial crests or tubes, and were generally less bulky. The hadrosaurines (Hadrosaurinae) lacked hollow cranial crests (solid crests were present in some forms) and were generally larger.

The hadrosaurs are known as the duck-billed dinosaurs due to the similarity of their head to that of modern ducks. In some genera, most notably Anatotitan, the whole front of the skull was flat and broadened out to form a beak, ideal for clipping leaves and twigs from the forests of Asia, Europe and North America”. ..Wikepedia

See Also Authenticated Poinsett County Arkansas Corythosaurus/Hypacrosaurus from 400 to 700 Years Ago?

The Pharaoh’s Prime Minister; Is There Physical Evidence for the Exodus?

Religious, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Nov 05 2009

Photo: Imhotep; Another Joseph son of Jacob candidate?

By Dr. Zahi Hawass
Asharq Alawsat

Cairo, Asharq Al-Awsat- Many archaeologists and researchers have spoken about Aper-al’s tomb that was discovered in the Saqqara area. Aper-al held the title of “Prime Minister of Egypt” and they [archaeologists and researchers] say that the name Aper-al indicates that he was one of the Egyptianized Hebrews.

One adventure that I will never forget is when I entered that tomb that was sculpted into a rock of the plateau upon which ancient Egyptians built their pyramids and tombs over 5000 years ago. I descended more than 30 meters underground and saw the antiquities found in the tomb including jewels, cosmetic equipment, beautiful funerary masks and coffins embellished with inscriptions.

The question I had in mind at that moment was: could a Hebrew assume the highest position in a state after the position of Pharaoh? And would he have been permitted to build his tomb on a sacred ancient Egyptian site like Saqqara, the name of which is derived from the ancient Egyptian god “Sokar,” the god of death in ancient Egypt?

Behind closed doors, some quietly claim that this tomb belongs to Prophet Joseph, son of Prophet Jacob, especially as we came across texts inside the tomb that referred to the significant role played by Aper-al side-by-side with the Pharaoh despite being of Hebrew origin.

According to some people, those texts carry indirect references to Prophet Joseph’s biography as mentioned in the holy books including his astonishing rise above social classes to reach the position of “Al-Aziz Misr” which is equivalent to the post of prime minister.

But what contradicts this theory is the fact that Prophet Joseph, peace be upon him, lived before the Amarna era, that is, before 1353 BC, and that his remains had been moved from Egypt by his grandsons according to what was stated in the Book of Exodus (13, 19).

French archaeologist Alain Zivie believes that Aper-al’s upbringing in a royal court is quite reminiscent of the life of Prophet Moses, peace be upon him. Since we are discussing the Amarna era, we’re not that far from Akhenaten (for whom Aper-al worked) or from the very special monotheistic creed that he created. Accordingly, anything became possible including imaginary conceptions and far-fetched interpretations of the inscriptions found on the antiquities.

The monotheistic creed advocated by the Prophets of the Israelites, including Moses, peace be upon him, is completely different to Akhenaten’s concept of monotheism. Though they both agreed that the universe had one God, Akhenaten failed to completely rid himself of inherited, idolatry aspects when he embodied the power of the one and only God in a sundial and portrayed its rays as the hands of god reaching out to humans with light and illumination.

The people of Prophet Moses did the same when they were overcome by idolatry tendencies. They embodied their god in the form of a sacred calf and incurred the anger of Moses and the wrath of God. So they were doomed to wander in the wilderness of Sinai’s plains, deserts and mountains for continuous 40 years.

As for the Vizier Ramose, he has one of the most beautiful tombs of the Nobles in the West Bank of Thebes or Luxor. It is tomb number 55 and some prefer to pronounce his name as “Ra’amusa”. He was a vizier during the period in which Akhenaten joined his father Amenhotep III in ruling Egypt from the 18th dynasty in the New Kingdom, around 3500 years ago.

Researcher Ibrahim Mohammed Kamel argues that the name Moses spread widely in Egypt in the early 18th dynasty and during the 19th dynasty and it means “boy” or “newborn.” Egyptians were sometimes given the name “Moses” on its own or as part of compounds containing the names of their gods for example, Raa’-Moses, Amoun-Moses or Eyah-Moses, which respectively mean the newborn of Raa’, the newborn of Betah and the newborn of the moon. So did Prophet Moses bear the name of an ancient Egyptian deity?

As for Aper-al, there is one possibility that I am strongly in favour of; he is most probably an Egyptian and not a Hebrew, even though his name is non-Egyptian. Until now, there are Egyptians who have names that might refer to nationalities and ethnicities that are non-Egyptian, even though they are Egyptian to the core.

Amazing Discovery – A Fossilised Tree Trunk in a Burial Chamber on Angelesy

Church of Darwin,, Science, Sophistication of Ancestors, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Nov 03 2009

Presenter Rupert Soskin has been steeped in science since he was a child no doubt and has/had swallowed it completely no doubt in all its evolutionary influenced forms. He believed, as materialist science teaches that petrification and fossilization take place over millions of years.

Thus science uses petrified and objects as proofs against a young earth.

This video is from the two hour documentary entitled: “Standing with Stones”.

Mr. Soskin whilst exploring a burial chamber and standing stones on Angelesy in the British Isles makes for him a startling and mind-bending discovery. What geologists and archaeologists had described as a “carved stone monolith”, was actually a petrified tree trunk.

He begs the listener not to shut off the tele when he makes this claim and the further, extraordinary claim that some of the carving on the tree trunk was done prior to fossilization!

Watch his mind boggle! But–I’ve been taught he says that petrified wood comes at the very least from the Miocene period—5.5 million years to slightly over 20 million years ago–and modern man according to most evolutionists has only been around for quite less than 1 million years.

Now, even if someone wants to come and admit that under “special circumstances” that a tree trunk could petrify fairly quickly–say in less than 6,000 years, it still eliminates the proposition that a particular fossil discovery is automatically “million of years old”, doesn’t it?

Clearly, if the explanation for carved petrified wood was easy to come by for evolutionists, they wouldn’t have needed to try to pass off petrified wood –as rock.

Relax, Mr. Soskin, you’ve just been *Punc EQ’d”….…

If the Video does not play in your window, Try Here

*Punctuated equilibria (“punc eq” or PE) was originally proposed as an attempt to offer an alternative evolutionary view to the classical Darwinian theory of speciation as a slow, gradual process.….Kurt Wise